Law Report.
The Times, 1824-06-21T00:00:00

* v.u. aae, appolntea specually br tile day, came on at die sitthig of the full Court. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked Mfr. Adolphus if be prayed for judgment ? Mlr. ADOLPHUS.-..yotiOr Lordship pleases. - The defendant appear-ed, and took his place on the floor ofte Court. The LonitDCHar' JUSTICE stated the substance of th~einaict.. wnent, which charged the defendant with publishing l.ibellous reflec,_ tions on the memory of the late King, with intent to WOund the feelings of his present Mlajesty, in a poera called Thr Visi0,n of Ju4pmeytt. He then read his notes of the trial, which took Place,6 the lath ofJanuary, at WVestminster. Mlr. SCARLETT rose and addressea the Court. Before yourlord.. ships p3roceed on thie consideration. of this case, 1lbeg to submit 30me grounds on which I think the defendant is entitled to a new trial. Although in civil cases such a imotioamust be madle within the tour first days of the succeeding term, yet, in crimninal cages-, Your Ion]. ships havebeen in the habit of allowiing it to lIe brought forward when the report is read on the prayer for iudgment. I will tell your Ljordships Tery frankly why this application was n3ot made at ant earlier period : my client was ignorant of the general rutle~;Lbe had no attorney ; andl I did not receive intstruetions from - him til the time was past, and had no- opportunity of communicating with hiim tifll saw him in this Court, wetting to receive its sentnene. hegons of my application do not appear oni the Rotes ; butithey- le ina ve'ry narrow compass, aad are entirely drawn from the manner in which the Iourd ChiefJustice left the case to thejury. The LoItD CHIEF JUSTICE.-I-- think I directed the jury to oi.. aider, not merely wheiher the publication was slanderous of the late King, but also whiether it wass calculated to disturb the Peace an'd wound the feelings of his p resent M'Vajesty and his famiily~. Mr. SCARLETT.-Yo1Ir Lordship did so ; but it is of some of tli expressions which accompanaied that direction that I venture to. coinpat~.YourLordhip ill ememer, thlat at thae tria I re. quesed tat he wole eemmigh beread ; not, certainly, becaus. I ha an plasue i heaingit,butbecuse1 thought that the air of eviy cst verthewhoe-alevty otmade the subject of chare-ad te gnerl tnou ofthepoe,would convince tne lr tha itwasnotwritenwit a ieweiter of defaming the aeRn or of ditressing the present, but for the purpose of castigrdcl on another work, which contained the most fulsome euoynth late Monarch and his reign. I wished that the juryshudse what had really provoked the satire; that they should knowL that the two poems were conducted by the same machin-ery, sand that the on P~ was an answer to the other. The LoRD CHIEF JU.STICE.-There was no Proof of the ex- istence of any such work; it was never Submitted to the conuiders..: tion of the jury. Mtr. SCARLETT.-.It Was not giveni'in evidence; btatI conceived that I might fairly presume that the jury were not ignorant of' the current literature of their timae. No -work can be prosecuited or successfully defended, unless ou the rupposition that the jur b '~ ordinary experience and knowledge to the coDnsideration ofLlf&Z ' sions. Besides, the poem itself contains palpable references to ttie work on which it is a parody. It supposed the author to be seized while writing his own poem, and nmalle a p arty in that sort of maock trial of which he had himself given the example, and makes him defend himself in his own hexameters. iNow I admitted at the trial, that if a man should write a work with the express desi,n of giving pain to the reigning mionarch ; if' the in- di ction of such pami was not merely incidental, but the very- object of bis book, he would be liable to prosecution, by what- ever mneans this object war, eff'ected. If he should even emiploy.- as a mesans the most splendid panegyric on one of his MHajestv's, predecessors ; if he should make a stiidious selection of all the vir.._ tues attributed to olthers, and for which the reign-ing prince -should be supposed not so remarkable, he ought not to escape ou account ot the medium in which hLe chiose to convey his slander. But I also. contended, that if it was clear that he had another object, and ir, pursuance of' that object, introduced some censure on a formier mo- narchi mi-ned with an admission of hiis private virtues, it was neitlher fair nor decent to tsuppose that the feelings of the reigning prince were wounded. iNow the part of the charge to which I object was that in which your Lordship, after directing the jury to consitder the tendlency of the work, stated that a man must be held to intend the natural consequences of his own acts, and that if the natural. consequence of this publication was to give pain to a weli.1constitut.. ed mind, it mus.t be tak-en that the writer intended to give ~iain to. the mnonarch, who must be supposed to possess the feelings incident: to mn i evey satio oflife No Itake the liberty to deny the postto, ad t dey is apliatin t te particular case of a sove- rein. dey te osiiontha a anmust be presumed to intfnd thenatralconequnce ofhisownacs, unless it be attended by thequaifiatin tat he onsquecesare not only natural. but The LoaD CuiErF JUSTicE.-l have no doubt that I stated to the jury my opinion that a man must be taken to intend the natural and ordinary consequences of his own acts ; I have no note of my summini up, nor any distinct recollection of what 1 said ;. but 1 suppose? said so, because!I am in the habit of so directing. juries on questions of intention. Mir. SCARLETT.-bly Lord, I submit that the jury should have been told that, in absence of all proof' of design, they [could onlyr infer it where the consequences must have been foreseen by the agent. How often, in the concernis of life, do men intend the very- reverse of those conclusions which nevertheless arc the inevitable consequences of their measures? If they mustbhesupposed always to intend the consequences which naturally result frora thecir acts, thetn every petition, every remonstrance, every, memorial, however re.. spectfidily worded, must be deemed a libel on the party of whose conduct it complains and whose aensibilities; it may wound. But I contend, in the second place, that the reasoning is inapplicable to the case of a sovereign, by reason of the peculiar situation in ivhich he stands. Ifthe jury ame to preoumne that lie is endowed with tbeL ordiuary frecugs ot' man, as txndoubtedly they are, they ought also. to presume that he cherishes those sentiments which should belong to him as the montarch of a free people. If, therefore. they thought: that a privateiudividual would f'eel pain at the p:rusa of reflections. on the character of one of hiis ancestors, they ought to give credit to a king for learning to temper his f'eelings by a sense of liis public duties, and of the claimts of mankind to judge of the conduct of departed sovereigns. I have stated before, and I now puib- licly declare again, what I sincerely feel, that the placing of this indictment on the files of the Court is one of the grossest insults ever off'ered toamonarch. What isitbut astatementon the record, by an assciation of prosecutors, whio have taken on them.. selves the protection of the reigning family esfhese realmsj, that the King feels personally insulted, because an opinion has been expressed that there was bloodshed and calamity in his f4ther's reign, and that some particular failings were mingled with his father's virtues ? WVhat is it but a declaration that the King desires tQ isuppress all disquisition on the reign of bis predecessor by the strong arm of the law, and would sacrifice to his own individual regardis the interests of mankind, and the permnanent satirguat-ds of kingly virtue? I have felt, and I continue to feel, that this is a gross imputation, a practical libel on the Sovereign. I could lay down no rule as to the precise limits within which a writer may discusis the character of a deceased monarch ; but this I may safely affim, that if it is cri-. minal to censure the conduct of a deceased king, or the measures of his reigni, in any terms which may be unpleasant to surviving mnem- beta otf his family, there will be an end, not only of all poetry, bat of all history. 1'IlUe a king lives, whatever may be his Ibiings,the- peace of society requires, that they should be touched with a gentle hanld; but whien lie is removed by death, it hag been the pructice not only of free nations,bhutof some under despotic rult,t uex,press fearless opiniions of his motives and Policy. If'this be not.lowd on the plea thatt it may distress the reigninig a llisI37toned imust be suspended; his-tory muist he confined tof.o=mepartegyric,~ and the rewards of ibme aliedistributed toalL. At what qerit. is, the licence of the historian to beginL? If the reigs. of thelatb4*'o the reigning nmonatch must be sacred from all aiscussion, are- not those of his grandfathiers and ancestors tobe protected bXthe same: plea? Those who fltlathehigh office of King must tako.tlpinconv6e,. niences with theprerogativeof that exalted station. Ifttey are raised far above the rest of mankind-if they are hEdged rotjp4.w itk immawd., ties and it'vested wit power, they ate called to., suAe somne sacro. fiice3 ofilidikjdual fTeelings, and cannot claimu to associate the en., jayntents of private life with the dignities of acrown. Ajid, surely, tor any of their subjects to take on thttialsvea to impute. to them, by-. criminal charges against others, ai sinwillingriess to bear the inci- dental evils ot their station, suitA to chlasten their own feelings with a regard to the welfare of thekx pewple, i to do them nocorninjomwrong. The pomi which this wozk ridicules is,an avowed ~ianegyric on the late King, which .I do not blame, though it scenis to me that the author, in hiszreal to exalt those who.tue mortal, has debaed those who are jiroiiotal. He represents the late King as accustd by Lac.. tioa, represented under the name of the " Prince of Air,"but poba- bly mecaning to embody tht Opposition under thattilue. This pe. sonage opposes, his admission to Heaven, and calls witnesses, Wilks.. Juanius, and Washrington, who -prove nothing,; and. Uc~ordia~lI, Geoege III. i,s rei~eiyed with great ceremony into Paradise. -, g poem indiceted 3doptshe samemaichinery. only that his poetx, Wqpa, 4ecorous, as lie introduces inIbtior ~beings; as agents,places t4Qenq.'9a. . the samc result; -theontiy duiffrenc4 beiing,that the oge WorS;iQm; po.se4 in A train-hfeulligv, andallows nothing bltpeace, cidr, andj hiArmony; iramheilate reign; while iheother ahAtgea ,l,-amf. which the author -feltnecesisary to thefidU~r of. the ictur&"F,t, thle censures are ~put into the mnouthl. u the 41 'P&~ne of A~irl`anid' the witnesses in thi3 poemo, .t,-:in.tnhe'-iehcr,prove nothing. if, then, the jury had been direiicedt o:OlXtijS.jie scope andtenottrofthe whiole poemi, how coqA14 tbey tsay th4t;i !, siiinfenidedt1o, present Soveresir.p . -,.'' The LQ~D U~iEs JUS5TICE.-. 4jrai rie-peer tl.~14 to r;=4 fte fi6Xe poem, or not to f6pri, thciir.wifi-otieluso 4.; $QARtLEwT-....No-my-Lord,-u ibuta i od. sholilt have beenqulfe rteoaevion attecoqtae,. lmust,be obviouis ;ta i4eo ewe oaeaid . private.irndividua hu&ivber?rd lto, and thatteiusoi left to the jury shoud have been broelytts-whete hie. .Mr.-nOL~H,is rPhIM-e had. iiota, hIt" s oblged to ltay~1.w tIle Court befdrezhe'concelusin.ofthe-triaL, - . attendant on dirftriug.the motion-,teth$e present time wasi, that his,: own-obsejvationa, escaped his meubory. hadntiC so distincdt *re-. he lefti ofe vhis sunmmngu p as lie could wiish; but, he bellave& that. heleEt the whole intention ebarget on the reord to thejusY. I u Mir. COLERIDGV, -who was withAir.-Adolphus, forthe.-proseco.. tion,-said that his friend M1r. Pnttesonhbeld his briefil'tetie WLaiiiL hadtak& h nhefhisLrdship'scbhae. - - The COu.T intimated Rwishbthat Air. Patteson woald reid hlu- note.,. Alt. PATTESON accordingly read the note from the brief to the' followingtft'ea:r.... This is an'Andictenent charging te. defendiit,~ with publishing calum"ous reflectionS on the NateKing with intentV to disquiez his present Majesty'; antl h ave no hesitation in-givinfgj von my opinion that whatf the indicetmteharges,'is a libel in poinil of law. In this case we are relieved from considering whether slani der on a deceased mon*rchs piublished soon after his death, withoit. any refti:euceto sbe-living, is or is not the subject,of crliffinal-prose..- cution, because the intent laid respecs'his present asjesty. indo. riding whether the pasaes set tbrnh in-the iiidictinent bear the cha_. racter imputed to them,, yield vour judgnient-to tlihe 'tdhace'.ttfino nitan. I'hias~been urged lonitfie part,ot'the'tefeiidiant that t1i~ plo.. secutionisiinstitiuted, not by the ofiiet of.tbtj rowiii hotit by -r vat idivduls;its t~.ighofii yiuaUss to rect,i& thatligt i a artfihlibrtisoftheueoplk biekase,'if it ex.. elusively belonged to the Crown,too large ia discretion would be vest-. cd in its ministers. The only way in which the circuntain of Alit leGl;tiGn being conducted by private individuals can be regarded t$'a2li the question before you is, that as the indictment alleges W,2 i V;as calcnited to wourd the feelings of thc King, it is ifhiaofficers had'so felt it they would have instituted :h2 ;21= I think I should: misbecome mv station, if, as the i poem has been read, I did not express mvr abhorrence at the Srrrreace of itc allusims: ;whether the same charge applies to the T : ,, chit is said to be a parody.l cannot tell; forif itanswers a r.he,dlscripton given of it tosday, I have been bred in too severe .h-" f ctavstSeto enioy it. You will consider,-first, whether set forth are calculated to injure the memory of the la5ng- and sezondly, whether they are calculated to distress Prsen,t Ring; if thev are, the charge is proved, because a man Fstbe taken to intend the natural and ordinary consequeaces of Oefl at1s. Tak-e the case into vour consideration. and let the 'react be t-he result of your own fearless and unbiassed judgment." 2 r JuStce BATI.Ey-1 think tllere is no ground for the motion. _< FtZv tome that the Lord Chief Justice's charge was most cor- re -1' POint of la-, and most tenperate as to the ques'ion submitttd '3 -jeve. That aman must be taken to intend the fair and naturao. Oeef his own acts, is a position not only true as appli- r1' -t0p'a:cationt, but to all ncts which can be made the subject S fcrimina prosection, even to the highest description of crimes. Th.e, did this work tend to irritate and discompose his IMajesty ? ti- 2-id thatwe must allow men to discuss the measures'of deceased i: vmeraust do so; but liberty to discuss does not set free everv D mrve impunity to every reitark. I consider discussion to be Statement of fac s ard the deduction of inferences from them; a Mre statement of conclusions without premises is not discus- I will advert to ORIy one passage, and ask whether anv son, feel- : bOce as a son and as a king, could read without pain such a C.c nhix father:- ' Re ever warred with freedom and the free. N Nations asmen, honmesubjects, foreign foes, So that ther utter'd the word I liberty,' . Foand George their first opponent." It t-I imPssible to surpose that any rightly constitiuted mindl could * O 1 det;n this a grievous imputation on the memory of the king of r-JusCtiCe 1*OLnltOY and M11r. Justice LITTLEDALE merely exrtvessed their satisfaction at the manner in which the case was sa znitted-ato the jury. -The LORD 0)ICEF JUSTYTLC. said,-1 am a little surprised, I Os5tOvrn, at this motion; for mv impression always has been that P lrcsented the case to the jurv in a manner the most favourable *ar the defendant. It has been sugrested that the reflections on the late King vvere put into the mouth of "the Prince of Air " but this is rot always trute; for I observe, in some of the most offensive Pra-_-s, the autbor speaks in his dwn nerson. Thus he says, " A bettcr farrner ne'er brush'd dew from lawn " worse Kinc never left a realm undone." Can -e doubt that tbis imputation. was calcnlated to affeet his pre. Sedt Mejestvr with pain, when we recollect the mnotto chosen for the *-edal, ctrack at his coronation ? That motto was " Proprio jam dure anim.ipater-o." An afHdavit of ?%lr. Hunt was then read. It stated that he i5~ceased to ublish the " Zf5iion of J.udgment," and the '5 ftr,"m in which itwasoriginallvprinted; butthatheintended, publishing a cotmplete edition of Lord Bvron's works, to intro. duce the poemn, omzitting the passages charged as libellous, for which hebalthe sanction of the nohle author. lI declared that he, in publishing the work, and he believed Ltord Byron in writing it, htail not the least intention of giving pain to his NMajestv or any of hi,s family that he could not conceive the feelings of a Mlonarch vf e .regulatdmiunird could be vounded by the free expression of pi20mns respectinz his predecessor; and that he believed the sole object of Lord Byron was to hold up to ridicule a work of Ml1r. Znt hev und&r the same title, written in English hexanmeters, and filled w''th the most fulsome p raise, Two affidavitr were handed in on the part of the prosecution, to a: ich copies of the Examiner appeared to be annexed, and the efficE began to read one made by,a clerk of Mr. Murray, the at- torney, but IIT. Adolphus with,lre;w ther. The LonD CHIEF JTICE then called on Mr. Scarlett. Mr. SCART.ETT.-AIy Lord, I have nothing to say. Mlr. Asor.pstus said, after the forbearance of ;lr. Scarlett to ad- dr, the Court in miti ation, he should sav very little, notwith- standing the motion which had excited his surprise. It was far frOT? his wish to press for a severe punishment; hut he must beg to say, at in his jndgment, it was a great imistake to supnose that because any individual, livine or dead, was praised too highly by his friends or admirers, any man might take the occa-ion to cast neiomous remarks on his namne. and to hold him up to the execration of the wo.-rd. If the flattery of the tombstone was to excuse slander, it would be better that men shoild be foreouen as soon as they dropped into the grave. A greater lati- tude was undoubtedlv to be conceded in the case of kcings * their acts were public, and their characters were public ; hut at leastsome decency should be shown in discussing their tacrits, and their natu- ral infirnities should not be held up to ridicule and scorn. It was said that this work was a mere parodv on another; if it were so, and there were anything in that work which could excuce this, it was singular that the other poem was withheld at the trial: for it wax rather too much to presume that the jury were acqnainted with that whic?h he and many others had ne-er seen. On the poem now before the Court he would make no,observations, after the character giren to it by the jury. There were many reasons why he should forbear-ts author s no more; he had gonc to his own judg- nient; and his name now could awaken no feeling less mild than that of sorrow. He asked, therefore, for no severer punishment than that which the Court should deenis necessary to protect the feel- i of his Majesty from wanton attacks on the memooryof his father. IL r. CoLERIDGE said he was oii the same side, but should not }.a.-e added a word except for the allusions which had been made to a eentleman with whom he had the honour to be connected. He trusted, therefore he might be allowed to express a conviction that a rnan less di,spose to treat sacred topics with irreverence, or of more imdependent and upright mind, than Jr. Southey, did not live. Mr. SCA.PLET begged to say that be had not even mentioned Mr. Southey's name, nor had he the smallest intention of uttering a ditsspectfTT word respectinz him. He had merelvalluded toea work imFuted to him, but he did not even know that he was the author. The Judges consulted for a fewv minutes; after which Mir. Justice BArLEY addressed the defendant in the following terTms:-" John Hunt. you have been found guiltv of printing and publishinz the libel whicih is now before us. The Court see no rea- son to believe that you. are the author of the libel, which, on the contrar, appears to have been written by some other person, and probably your obhect in publishing-it was, in a great degree, profit. Looling at the title of the work, and at the particular passages se- lected for prosecution, they cannot too strongly express their disap- probation ofthe sentirnents which it contains, or their regret that you have been induced to publish it, In your affidavit, vou state that you are about to republish the poeni, with other productiona of the sameauthor, omitting the passages which have now been brought be- forethejury. I have not read the whoqe poem ; but it may happen that there are other passages not free froiT objection, and should these be maade the subject of a new indictmeit on their re-publication, and should the Court be required to pass judgment for them, you will bring the consequences on yourself.: Adverting to all the circum- stances of this case, the Court adiudge that vou, for your present offencc, pay to the King a fine of 1001., and that you -ive security for your good bebaviour for five years, yourself in 1,0001. and two sureties in .'i00I. each, and that you be imprisoned in the custody of the 3Iarshal of the illarshalsea until the fine be paid and the secu- -rity given. in the course of the day Mr. Hunt paid the fine, and with two of his friends entered into the recognizances required, and was dis- charge3 MIDDLEsEX AND LONDON. -lSITTENGS AFTER TERse. As the Guildhall, Middlesex, will be required by the magistrates to bold their quarter sessions on the 8th of Julv next and two fol- lowing days, the ChiefJustice will not hold his sitting after tenm in Mliddlesezx till Mllonday the 12th bf Julr. And the sitting day after term in London, theretbre, will be Thursday the 8th of July, on which and the two following days his Lordship will trv common Turv C5ases I - LAWV REPORZ COUW'D OF KING'S BENNCa. Wz5sTmnTxsz". Jrn. I ,a I KINGi ON O THE PROSECUTIOV OF "TNEE COXNSTITU, I_ TIONAL ASSOCIAT102N," V. 'JOHN HUNT.