We did not mean to have s...
The Times, 1824-01-17T00:00:00

W1re did not mean to have said any thing more upon the late conviction for a libel on account of Lord BYRON'S " Vision of' Judgmcnt;" but we see that cotemporary prints are at work, applauding to the skies, or reprobating with equal warmth, the verdict of the Jury. The truth, as in most cases, will be found to lip in the middle. We suppose we must take that work for a libel which one jury has declared to be so; though we have known instances in which one jury has pronounced a work a libel, and another declared the same work no libel at all; a jury in the coun- try has found certain matter seditious and dangerous, which a jury in town has asserted to be constitutional and in- noxious. As to what is asserted, that it is a filthy, horrid, disgusting, &c. libel, it would be as well to rest content with the simple word libel, without any addition; for, we conceive that various points are to be taken into considera- tion before all these epithets can be reasonably bestowed upon the publication in question. The only point which we shall notice at present, is the character or si- tuation of the publisher. He stood in no near re- lation to the person libelled. We perceive in the French news of yesterday, an account that one Barbe Rose Chatelet, of the communie of Dugny, had shot her owII fa- ther, upon the road from Verdun to Bar, and killed the poor old man. Surely tbis is a much more atrocious crime than a simple murder. In like man::r, if the libeller should stand in any degiee of relationship to the person. libelled, the offence would then, indeed, be justly desig- nated filthy, horrid, disgusting, and aU the other epithets above recited. We were surprised to hear the LORD C1{1EE JUSTICE direct the Jury to inquire (in order to ascertain whether the publication in question were libellous or not), whether it were calculated to disturb and disquiet the mind of the present KING. This is a totally newv ingredient, we should think, in the character of a libel! And, at the begin- ning of his charge, his Lordship used these words: " He (the LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE) had nao hesitation in say- " ing, and the Counsel for the defendant he was sure would not question his assertion, that a publication tending to disturb the minds of living individuals, was an offence against the law." Now, if by the words " the law" be here ineant the law of libel, we apprehend that libels are only punishable because they tend to a breach of the- peace: and who are likely to break the peace but those whose minds are " distarbed and dis-. " quieted?" This new explanation of the law of libel, therefore, would seem to affix a punishment to the defend,- ant because he has excited the present KING to break the peace, by "disturbing and disquieting his mind!" An obvious absurdity. Setting aside our logic, however, which we think binding, we are, in good feeling, truly sorry to hear that his present MAJBSTY'S mind, is or may be .distLUr and disquieted by tlredoiots lhbels poured on his ]Ate father, either duuing his lifebthine, or since his decease. This publication lias, however, been prosecuted to acon- viction; a verdict of guilty has been recorded. Ancd is it, we ask, from thence to be inferred, or does it necessarily follow, that the prosecution was a prudent and discreet mea- sure ? No, we answer. The conduct of the ATTORNEY and SOLICITOR'GENEBAL, in letting the libel sink into ob. livion, was, in a public point of view, infinitely mnore wise than that of iMessrs. SHARP and MunRAY, whlo have, thus dragged it into notice.. But his MAJESTY'S ATfORNEY and SOLICITOR-GENERAL had no private ends to serve in the affair. -MIr- MURILAY and his friend Mr. SHARP were differently placed. The libel was read publicly in Court from one end to the other; it therefore formed a part of the proceedings,which it woald have been alike unjust to the Crown and to the defendant to omit in the report. Then, in- deed, we mighlt have been cbarged, withreason, of publishing garbled accounts ofjudlcial proceedings,if we had omitted so important an instrument, in the present case. The world will judge juries quite as impartially as they judge the ac- cused; and how could the world know whether the de- fendant Mr. HUNT were justly or unjustly convicted, if the work upop w4ich he was tried were to be fraudulently withdrawn a clncealed? Messrs. SfARP and MVRRAy, therefore, have again brought that work into notice they have more than rpeillished it. With what advantage to the memory of the deceased, or to the repose of the liv- ing, or to tbe happiness of the State, we know not. We confess we think, as we have said above, that it had been better to haye let it sink intQ oblivion.