The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-26 00:00:00

c

and memory.
Jelin Weaver's affidavit stated, that at the time of
the publication of the libel, be only acted as Reader.
Tie articles were given up by Henry Fox Cooper, the
Editor.—He was sorry the libel wai inserted.
Thr deponent further stated that he was not con-
cerned ie sending. on the 1-01; of January the said
John Dell pewspaper into the neighbourhood of Sir
Julia Wrottesley.
Thomas Arrowssnith deposed that he dill not see
the libel until after it was published. The deponent
never saw the manuscript of the libel, it being the
practice to have all MabllSCriptS sent to the parr burnt
and destroyed.
•W. Shackell deposed that he had no knowledge to
the insertion and publication of the paragraph.
Mr. Harman wade a second affidavit, stating that
he purchased the John Bell in Johnson's-room
The SebTrITORMENIRRAL expressed a desire to
make additional affid 'viol, in consequence of having
been taken by surprise by the affidavits in aggrava-
tion ; but finally consented to go on.
The Souctroa-licsmitat, then addressed the Conti
in mitigation of pnnishinent.—After the motion was
wade by Mr. Scarlet' for a criminal information, the
defend:tots consulted him on the best couists to lw
pursued. He recornasended them not to shew 'nose to
the tale.—They did so abstain ; and instructed him to
say when the hone of judgment cause, that they sleep:),
regretted they were the involuntary instruments of the
libel on the lady who had been alluded to. The Court
must be sensible of the difficulty of conducting a news-
paper. The person who had the management of a.
paper was subject to the greatest risk with respect to
the articles published. Ths lateness of the hour whew
a paper gees to press, and the want of time to examine
strictly would almost unavoidably lea I theus into dif—
ficulties. He did not wean to say they were not re-
spOusible, but-be should contend there were no malls
clans motives. The Court would find that in the se-
coud edition of the paper the article slid. not ap;:eas.l
and all the copies left of the first were closely locked
up. and never appeared before the public. With re-
spect to one of the defendants, the Printe:„ he was
only a servant, and spite incapable of knowing or feel7.'
lug the least malice upon such an occasion. •Ir
was
stated that the paper with the libel was circniated
id j
the residence of Sir John Wrottesley, If. his clients
had been capable of such an act, he atinsitted
tlslt
would have been deserving the' severest punishment;
but be was instructed* to disavoti palatially thit'iiisis. st;
distant •knoisledgt • or sect' tireolatiost.'
eluded ease with endeavouring. to naper se oits;
Court *as Ito malieity existed on thw wiasts of tlic
detradsati.
•

~. at. .~.

...

•

.~~ _

;

• •

r4t.

~mot
'~

1., __,..,,„ • 4
eoe.o a 1.-Ezra 09 . tt iii.
'.1,41r4 ►Pa - tlle:lii9fel#,ol,,. :
, *4EOO C4‘141 4* agitilvAloei fle:imiltatik was...
at all than inpleasaitti.sometimmansilibaa, sit& pore
hereor no vertAistantArty# it w4i1141:11, a dangsiien
lety to press 14; Court forseverfty of ponitikaneatere.
that class sf *Fenders :now hreferw. the ther.• \e Fedi
•
my pair," -the.•Essorted Gentleman isimilennik :Mit'. In.:
{ eoo,i-iisisfy ors*: :the either -rat Ike peistaleriOnstbt %
ate rtS; or the milliot,of this hind colts-any .pothole. of -
that einstilticni eiriiresaed for Uteri by thitietlairsooleves
if Iliad tiny mantle think that. they halbriliote Lisp!
mmatatiOn for *A slander, or were Meth' dosirbui 'll' f
making an?. I *mild be but too peas*ap relissart;sh. ,
the ditty WI darieeptl upersioa; isakboaß • she ad4'....!
ties of another-Witt!. . But•istarf Aildlial g loci e$ '
coalition thaktesno the ontenesstakallal was •wrise,-
latitearatltlita 'geoid imatir: an . Out 1110. MN like kr: i .
the defend/sate; Watt (hen with a irialr4sseAsoSais .'
• lairs:front paatabssent, and , not illi imitilials, Ii the -
slightest degree thso-aroamied feelbtts of the. *me. .
carom. I shall now proceed to.what I considershe ee- .
cearavY discharge of my ditty. I know leery welithat .
on subjects connected with libels; it is very Micah fur.
Courts to draw a distiactiott between the _author met"-
the publisher. lam also aware of the mall topics
urged for defendants in such eases t•e,ttch as tbe•ne•
cectity of securing the freedom of the press, and even
of tolerating some little licentiousness„ as almost ne-
cessarily growing out or that freedom. I feel. in :
Lords, the full weight of these and similar consid ra•
loions; but i mnst say I can find. none of them in the I
present case. Ido not even tied here that sincerity of
intemperate seal, which some political papers bring to
the discussion of subjects, whichthey, Is theirdreares,
might consider useful for the purposes of knowledge,
or beneficial to the interests of vbeir-fellow creatures.
Nothing of all this is to be found here. If then, the.
defendants in this case are either not to receive penis!,.
meet, or only a mitigated punishment. in cotaseveorl
of any distinction between them sell the author, I
ask. under the circumstances here diseloaed, by what
possibility we should ever be able to reach the author?
I know not, if the usual machinery of news;lopers be •
'such
as has this day been disclosed to 13/1 in the de-
(:nu:l:ile
nt:s'
iliiin.ed m
affidavits; it is
; b
is
lasubajt i
f h. 5
subject ‘tvit.ll.,te:, h .
which: la;:: t
1 i
we have just been toid, your tat:(l,hips will see
how the no,st prodigal:• iaidivi.inal may pour forth hi,
spleen against the tn.ist virtuous in the land, anal that
throu,;:li the snecliii.aa of sii-ls respectable gentl.n) •n as
ae n ,ly titan ling owlish.. Corr. Oneip of the atbilavits
disclosed a singular ilni It .sf couiluctin,z a neirvappr,
namely, by urinating an tile usarmseripts, and slier. by
contributing to the concealment• of a guilty author,.
-,- lad o 4 this point. all .1 shall My is, that the.
sooner inch a system li- plat its elil to the better:
The Learned Solicitor-Geneval -.seems to think . that
Mr, Hartnet's last affidavit might have been met
with some Circumstances in mitigation, but I none
only call the attention of the Court to the terms in
which the rule was obtained, and to the affidavit of
my Lord Ossulston, which Says, that the first numb! r
of the paper. containing offensive remarks on his sister,
was left by the guard of a coach near the boos:. of
Sir J, Wrottesly. The defendants' A Invits alleged
that they bail no previous intention of in:jilting the
family of Lord Tankerville ; but what exciter is that
for the admission and publication df suc:a a libel as
that on which the Court is now to pronounce its 1.14::-
meat ? Mc. W raver says, be never would have put i; i a
if he thought it false, and has he sense enough t.a
know, that if it :mr slaniL•rous, it shooll not be ;ant
in ? It lie thought it false he w 'old have r.mou-
strated—then be could have done so, nay, lie would
have done so ; and as by thi', he sliews he has som i
sensibility between the na;ure of light and W (Wig, I
trust tine Court %All shew hit:: to day, how improperly
he has exercised it. Parties iu these cas-a usually
slate they have no malice in their publication of such
libels. They published this, however, and wi:h seiat
motive? Why are we left in eilence on this subject?
There was no previous inalice-s—no operating awoke, ;
and is it then to be endured, that, withal,' any Ina.
tire, such an abominable slander should be given to
the world ? M learned Priem! has attribute I SUMP
merit to his clients, as to the 111•Ille in whi •h they lit-:
the in:ono:401m and amwarance at the t:ial; and, I
cloth' sincersly nisi) hr were able to serest me, that hr:
any one pairagraph, since- the assertion of the lib. I,
they haalexpres•eil any one symptom of epee, t— Al
one paricle of contrition tar having so inserted .it
If the solisegnent numbers of the paper .c..nfaipyLl
any one retraction of scricandalous a charge, or ,py
one circumstance to ask for co:it:Oa:Lao or caln-
passion, I UM Gplitr stitixficii ~the afkid4ou
5u.541,1
.have contained them. But no such ;Ling sppeare.:"Ellyy
admit they were conscious of their. sprang, hat,,ibi y
did notarovv ir, whit.. While ,p4prra sere, or Inieht Itis
fund boil cnonzla to say. we, smiy. be pryseentell, 4et
your threats we altogetlier ti•spisew I cooly instate
every allowance fur party feelitegs, for otstgry
.rearr•
meats, which often make into Ours' iutOr , thpflr, . Ir.
son, and then commit themseiVegf i.ulrvib4yllortifee
can be -trade for the tneligottot slanderer, w o ipeite
facts to wound the feelitaglv.of others, or so states cir-
eninstaa,ces (rviii h iniglaf be eaaily, explained) as ,!,
pie (Act and wantonly ioattic. his fe!row-rea star/ ?
Whit will your Lordship ea)...to thr • iiPliviilu44l, (r."
are ever busy in .raking up 'lli Asbes
.of Awe dead, ,for
the purpose of venting. their 'ltalie, againet the iitgitv r
flere, unfortunattly. we hav'e nat. the. real anther.
These persipos. Ma ever. rrikVsruted him ; upon their
own coo(essiota they adroit Ishbttbeliniltl.. and. they
Malt heivoniSheal as such 'l' 4,."ltniiii errs yet been •
'aiii:esiveriofin their-hole blifiarg' 41'''llie iii;eohionstteas
-of the, prik''ir AA; ..itiie" d -pipit
.vetiUse ,steer
was iltat of attacking kill Orate ilnpitcters of wont it ?
in 'a nar expeite'Oke"lfts-mitlieenablelir,"tlo4 ' btu one
--...!liit /se iihreli ' t.aitr.' Colittalltliriaaly raettleva,tive. 'ln
'179.1 fr-1440/rof athafi""ernh.ontlktri ' tkivit fiat Ms TO
plOshsts i'Aiset s:n-xti,kii!i iteVivoiti'V'elsti!; tei.l.l
eit
~.ithitia gh seer' kaffit f reiliaii,' ;:4.' for
11i;nd be isiiVed i ?pi tirelf Ta 'This ley Coirt,
. ‘
.. ~..:s .. ... . zoey ,
.. 1 • 1

:
'WOO