The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-11-24 00:00:00

asion to correct the Hon. Gentleman on some points
n respect to which he had been misinformed. He,
ad spoken of the imprisohment of Mr. Lovell for
hies years end a half in such a manner, that those
who had not carefully attended to the whole of his
speech might so far misunderstand him, es to sup-
pose that this sentence had followed one conviction.
Mr. WHITBREAD complained elf this statethent,
as he had enumerated the several offences for which
Mr. Lovell had been punished.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL knew he bad
done tkia, and that those who had carefully attended
to the whole of his speech could not fall into the.
error ' • but still the manner in which he had treated
the subject was such that by some he might be mis-
understood on this point. Mr. Lovell nes convicted
of a libel in 1807, and sentenced to he imprisoned
in the King's Bench, yet after this he had been eon-
v cted a second, and a third, and a fourth lime of a..
simPar offence. [lt was here observed that Mr.
Lovell had been tried but three times.] The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman repeated that four convic-
tions had taken place. He hattbeeo convicted of a
libel is Trinity Term, 1807, and sentenced to pay
a fine of 501. and be committed to the custody of the
Marshal of the King's Bench for one calendar month,
and to give security for keeping the peace for the
next three years,himself in 5001. and two securities
in 1501. each. hile under thew recognizances is
Easter Term 1810, he had been convicted of a libel
on the Commissioners of the PrOperty Tax. The
Hon. Gentleman had said there was a strange par:
tiality displayed in respect to the original editor and
author, for which Mr. Lovell had been punished.—
He would explain the circumstances alluded to. It
was true that the Editor of the Manchester Paper bad
not been punished. On being sailed upon by the
Commissioners, he had given up the author of the
article, and made such an apology as was deemed
by them satisfactory. The Attorney-General of that
day (he himself had not the honour then to be in
office) had no object but to protect the Commis-
sioners, and so they were satisfied, did not consider
it his duty to proceed against aft who had been in any
way concerned in the publication of the libel ; but the
Hon. Gentleman was misinformed with respect to the
author. He was prosecuted, and had been punished.
In the case of Mr. Lovell, his apology (if he made
any) was net satisfactory to the Commissioners, and
they had called upon the Crown to proceed against
him. He was then sentenced to twelve months im-
prisoment, and ordered again to give security for
three years, himself in 5001. and two others in 2501.
each. The next libel for which he was punished was,
one reflecting on the conduct of the troops employed
in Piccadilly, at the time an Hon. Baronet was corn-
mitted
by that House to the Tower. Of the publi-
cation of this libel, it was said Mr. Lovell knew no-
thing till it had gone forth to the world. This it was
well known could not in law remove from trim that
responsibility which attached to him as Proprietor
and Publisher of a Newspaper, which, while he wan
in confinement, was thus made the vehicle of ca-
lumny from which he derived a profit. In .the
Michaelmas. Term, 1812, Mr. Lovell was pro-
ceeded against for a paper on the subject of the
treatment of prisoners of war in this country.—
A more mischievous and flagitious libel than this—
one, more likely to produce dangerous corise-,
quonces to our fellow countrymen, then prison-
ers of war in Frances could not be imagined.—
He was not there to justify the judgments passed on
Mr. Lovell. Those from whom they proceeded
needed not vindication from 'him, as it was univer-
sally known justice tempered with mercy uniformly
attend their decisions, but he would say such a libel
could not lightly be passed over. For that he had
been sentenced to be imprisoned one year and a
half, to pay a fine of 5001. to the King, and
to give security for his future good behaviour,
himself in 10001. and two others in 5001. each.
With respect to the circumstances of Mr. Lovell,
he on enquiry had found he still possessed the
property of the STATESMAN. This was a pro-
fitable concern (he spoke of Newspapers generally),
end not only was Mr. Lovell able to conduct this
paper while in prison, but he had set up a new week-
ly one, called The Guitrartrurtos. Yet possessing
these he stated himself unable to pay the fine. He
(the Attorney-General) submitted, that where a per-
son was unable to pay the fine imposed upon him,
and had remained in prison beyond the period named
in his sentence, it might become the duty of the ad-
visers of the Crown to say, 46 the time is now ar.
rived w hen the clemency of the Crown may be pro-
perly displayed." But in the case of this individual
it had been seen repeated sentences had had no effect
on his conduct. He had still the means of circa-
feting his libels in his hands, which he had retained
during the whole period of his confinement in New-
gate. He could not give securities for his future
good conduct. These were called for, not to punish
him, hut to protect the public peace, and they were
now told by Mr. Lovell himself that no two persons
would come forward to answer for him. Under
these circumstances, if he were called upon by the
Crown for his advice, he must of necessity state,
" that the experience of the Court in the case
of this individual had found a lenient punishment
had not the effect of imposing any salutary re-
straint on his conduct, and .severity had been
found necessary." Wishing, as he sincerely did,
that the punishment of every one should be as lenient
as possible, consistently with the public security,
there was a great difficulty in recommending it to the,
Crowli, to give up those securities which the Supreme
Court of Judicature had considered indispensably ne-
cessary, and necessary from the circumstance of for-
mer pubishments having failed to impose a proper re-
straint on this individual. These considerations
threw difficulties in the way of giving that advice to
the Crown which the Hon. Gentleman wished to be
given. He, for one, should be glad if they could
lie satisfactorily removed.
Mr. ANTONY BROWN rejoiced that this case

hod at last come before the House, as there was at
length, by its being so submitted, an apparent proba-
bility, that as unfortunate man would have some re-
lief afforded to him. It had given him great satis-
__
radii F

Action to see his able and Ifonourable Friend, the
Mower in this instance, exert bis characteristic elo-
quence and humanity in advocating the cease of the
Petitioner—a sufferer in what might be considered
the public cause, thong!! be had unconsciously offend-
ed against the law. He bad not, however, the same