No More Learning

libel, defendant was sentenced ; one for seditious conduct, defendant was not apprehended.
In 1813, two for seditious conduct; in one, de fendants were sentenced ; in one, issue joined.
In 1814, one for libel, defendant was sen tenced.
In 1815, two for seditious conduct; in one, de fendant was sentenced ; in one, issue joined.
In 1816, none.
In 1817, sixteen for libel; in one, defendant was sentenced ; in three, defendants were convicted, not sentenced ; in one, defendant was convicted, but new trial granted ; in two, defendants were acquitted ; in five, proceedings were stayed. Three of these were for the same libel, for the publication of which, another defendant had been acquitted. In two, proceedings stayed, defendants sentenced in another prosecution ; in one, issue joined ; in one, defendant not apprehended.
In 1818, none.
In 1819, thirty-three for libel ; in eight, defendants were sentenced ; in three, defendants convicted, and under recognizance to receive sentence; in twelve, pro ceedings stayed, defendants being sentenced in other prosecutions ; in seven, proceedings stayed, other de fendants being sentenced for publishing the same libels; in one, trial put off, on defendant's applica tion; in two, issue joined.
In 1820, eight for libel; in two, defendants were sentenced ; in one, defendant convicted 21st February, 1821 ; in two, proceedings stayed, defendant being
sentenced in another prosecution : in three, defendant absconded.
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 53
In 1821, two for libel; at issue when the return was made. *
It will be seen that in this response to a House of
Commons' question on the subject of political libel, as little information is given as possible. No names, no exact descriptions of persons, or offences, no ac count of terms of imprisonment appear. Another Parliamentary paper ordered to be printed is more explicit. It gives a return of the individuals prosecuted for political libel and seditious conduct, in England and Scotland, between 1808, and April, 1821; with the sentences passed on them. The return from the Court of King's Bench, so far as relates to libel, is as follows :—
In 1808, Francis Browne Wright, for libel, to be imprisoned in Lancaster Castle six calendar months ; George Beaumont, for libel, to pay a fine of fifty pounds, to be imprisoned in Newgate two years, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more.
In 1809, William Cobbett,t forlibel, to pay afine of one thousand pounds, to be imprisoned in Newgate two
* The return is dated " Crown Office, Temple, 17th March, 1821. "
t Frazer's Magazine revives a Newspaper report that gave a per sonal reason for Mr. Cohbett's change in politics. " His first desertion of the Tory party," says the Tory writer, "has been ascribed to a gratuitous insult offered to him by Mr. Pitt, who, with a supercilious ness that clouded his great qualities, affected so much of aristocratic morgue as to decline the introduction of Mr. Wyndham's protege ; Mr. Wyndham being a person of higher genealogical rank than Mr. Pitt, and the person proposed to be introduced, Mr. Cobbett, being the man who, after Mr. Burke, had done incomparably the most for pre serving the institutions and the honour of England—more, we do not scruple to say than had been done by Mr. Pitt himself, from his unaided
exertions. " —Fraser's Magazine, Vol. XII. , p. 210.
54 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
years, and to give security for good behaviour for seven years more; Thomas Curson Hansard, for libel, to be imprisoned in custody of the Marshal three calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for
three years more ; Richard Bagshaw and Henry Budd, for libel, to be imprisoned in custody of the Marshal
two calendar months.
In 1810, Thomas Harvey and John Fisher, for
libel, each to be imprisoned in Newgate twelve calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more ; Daniel Lovel, for libel, to be im prisoned in Newgate twelve calendar months ; Euge- nius Roche, for libel, to be imprisoned in custody of the Marshal twelve calendar months, and to give security for his good behaviour for three years more ; John Drakard, for libel, to pay a fine of two hundred pounds, to be imprisoned in Lincoln Gaol eighteen calendar months, and to give security for good beha viour for three years more.
In 1812, John Hunt and Leigh Hunt,* for libel, each to pay a fine of five hundred pounds, to be im
* "Dec. 9, 1812. —The Hunts are convicted; but not without the jury retiring for about ten minutes. Brougham made a powerful speech, unequal, and wanting that unity which is so effective with a jury ; some parts rather eloquent, particularly in the conclusion, when he had the address, without giving any advantage, to fasten the words effeminacy and cowardice where everybody could apply them. One very difficult point of his case, the conduct of the regent to the princess, he managed with skill and with great effect ; and his transition from that subject to the next part of his case was a moment of real eloquence. Lord Ellenborough was more than usually impatient, and indecently violent ; he said that Brougham was inoculated with all the poison of the libel, and told the jury the issue they had to try was, whether we were to live for ever under the dominion oflibellers. " —Morner' s Letter to J. A. Murray, Esq.
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 55
prisoned two years, and to give security for good be haviour for five years more.
In 1814, Charles Sutton, for libel, to be imprisoned one year, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more.
In 1817, James Williams, for libel, to pay a fine
of one thousand pounds, to be imprisoned eight calendar months, and to give security for good beha viour for five years more.
In 1819, Christopher Harris, for libel, to be im prisoned in the House of Correction for seven weeks, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more ; William Watling, for libel, to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for six weeks, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more; Thomas Whithorn, John Cahuac, and Philip Francis, for libel, each to be imprisoned in the House of Cor rection one month, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more ; Robert Shorter, for libel, (having been in custody ten weeks,) to be impri soned in the House of Correction three weeks ; Robert Shorter, for libel, to be further imprisoned in the House of Correction three weeks, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more ; Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. , for libel, to pay a fine of two thousand pounds, and to be imprisoned in custody of the Marshal three calendar months ; Joseph Russel, for libel, to be imprisoned eight calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more; John Osborne, for libel, to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for one year ; Joseph HaynesBrandis, for libel, (having been in custody six months,) to be imprisoned and to
56 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
give security for good behaviour for three years more ; George Eagg, for libel, to be imprisoned in the House of Correction twelve calendar months.
In 1820, Charles Whitworth, for libel, to be im prisoned six calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more ; William Great- head Lewis, for libel, fined fifty pounds, to be impri soned two years, and to give security for good behaviour for five years more ; Henry Hunt, for seditious conspi racy, to be imprisoned two years and six months, and to give security for good behaviour for five years more , Jane Carlile, for libel, to be imprisoned two years, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more.
By the returns received from the several other jurisdictions in England, besides the Court of King's Bench, it appears, that the total number of prosecutions between 1808 and 1821, had been one hundred and one ; and that the sentences were as follows : viz. , twelve, transported for seven years ; one, imprisoned for four years and a half ; one, four years ; one, three years, and fined five shillings ; eighteen, two years, with recognizances to keep the peace for two years more ; seven, two years ; two, twenty calendar months ; two, one year and a half; one, fifteen calendar months ; one, one year, with recognizances to keep the peace
for three years more ; one, one year, with recognizances to keep the peace for two years more ; one, one year, with recognizances to keep the peace for one year more; one, one year, and fined one shilling; four, one year ; one, six months, with recognizances to keep the peace for three years more ; four, six months,
with recognizances to keep the peace for two years
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 67
more ; one, six months, and fined one hundred pounds ; one, six months, and fined one shilling; ten, six months; one, four months, with recognizances to keep the peace for two years ; four, three months ; one, two months, with recognizances to keep the peace for two years more ; one, two months ; one, one month ; two, a fortnight, with recognizances to keep the peace for one year ; one, was required to give recognizances to keep the peace for one year ; nine, were discharged on recognizances to appear, when called for, to receive
judgment ; one, was fined five pounds ; one, one pound ; two, sixpence ; seven, were acquitted.
Thus it appears that the sum total of punishment
inflicted at the instigation of the ministers of England
upon persons charged with written and spoken political libels, between 1808 and 1821, was one hundred and
seventy-one years' imprisonment ! divided into various terms amongst eighty persons, many of whom were also required to give security for their conduct for further terms ; whilst others were fined in various sums ; only seven out of one hundred and one, ob taining acquittal.
Two years after these facts had been made public through the medium of a Parliamentary Paper, an other return was ordered by the House of Commons,* " of the individuals who have been prosecuted, either by indictment, information, or other process, for
public libel, blasphemy, and sedition, in England, Wales, and Scotland, from 3 1st December, 1812, to 31st December, 1822, distinguishing the following
particulars, viz. : —"Whether prosecution was com- • Ordered to be printed July 16, 1823. No. 562.
68 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
menced by the Attorney or Solicitor General, or by what other persons ; the name of each individual prosecuted, and his then place of residence; the character of the offence, whether libel, blasphemy, or sedition ; the county in which the prosecution was commenced, and the date when commenced ; whether tried, or not ; if tried, the county and court in which the case was tried, and date when tried; whether acquitted or convicted ; if convicted, the sentence passed, and the date thereof; when released from prison ; and if not released, why detained. "
From this document we glean the following more
exact particulars of further proceedings against persons charged with libel : —
Charles Sutton, prosecuted by Mr. Attorney Gene ral for seditious libel ; tried at Nottingham at Nisi Prius, at the summer assizes, 1815 ; convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned in Northampton county gaol one year, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more; released from gaol, 8th Feb ruary, 1817.
William Hone, of London, prosecutedby Mr. Attor ney General, for profane and seditious libels, in Easter term, 1817; tried at London, at Nisi Prius, in sittings after Michaelmas term, 1817; and acquitted on three indictments (to the great vexation, it may be added, of Lord Ellenborough and the ministers). *
• In Charles Knight's History of England there is a graphic sketch of Ilono's Trial, written by an eye-witness. Here are some passages of it:—
" On the morning of the 18th of December there is a crowd round the avenues of Guildhall. An obscure bookseller, a man of no sub stance or respectability in worldly eyes, is to be tried for libel. He
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS.
69
Benjamin Steill, of London, prosecuted by Mr. Attorney General for seditious libel. Not tried : de fendant having confessed himself guilty, and given a recognizance for his good behaviour.
vends his little wares in a little shop in the Old Bailey, where there are, strangely mingled, twopenny political pamphlets, and old harm less folios that the poor publisher keeps for his especial reading, as he sits in his dingy back parlour. The door-keepers and officers of the court scarcely know what is going to happen ; for the table within the bar has not the usual covering of crimson bags, but ever and anon a dingy boy arrives with an armful of books of all ages and sizes, and
the whole table is strewed with dusty and tattered volumes that the ushers are quite sure have no law within their mouldy covers. A middle-aged man — a bland and smiling man, with a half sad half merry twinkle in his eye —a seedy man, to use an expressive word, whose black coat is wondrous brown and threadbare — takes his place at the table, and begins to turn over the books which were his heralds. Sir Samuel Shepherd, the Attorney General, takes his seat, and looks compassionately, as was his nature to do, at the pale man in thread bare black. Mr. Justice Abbott arrives in due time ; a special jury is sworn ; the pleadings are opened; the Attorney General states the case against William Hone, for printing and publishing an impious and profane libel upon the Catechism, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, thereby bringing into contempt the Christian religion.
' It may be said,' argued the Attorney General, ' that the defendant's
I believe that he meant in one sense, as political squib but his responsibility not the less. ' As the Attorney General proceeded to read passages from the parody
object was not to produce this effect.
upon the Catechism, the crowd in court laughed the bench was in dignant and the Attorney General said the laugh was the fullest proof of the baneful effects of the defendant's publication. And so the trial went on in the smoothest way, and the case for the prosecu tion was closed. Then the pale man in black rose, and, with falter ing voice, set forth the difficulty he had in addressing the court, and how his poverty prevented him obtaining counsel. And now he began to warm in the recital of what he thought his wrongs —his commit ments — his hurried calls to plead — the expense of the copies of the informations against him —and as Mr. Justice Abbott, with perfect
gentleness, but with his cold formality, interrupted him — the timid
;
a
;
;
is
a
;
it,
60 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
T. J. Wooler, of London, prosecuted by Mr. Attor ney General for seditious libel ; tried at London, at Nisi Prius; sittings after Easter term, 1717; and acquitted on one indictment, and convicted on another, but not sentenced, new trial being granted.
man, whom all thought would have mumbled forth a hasty defence, grew bolder and bolder, and in a short time had possession of his audience as if he were 'some well-graced actor' who was there to receive the tribute of popular admiration. ' They were not to in quire whether he were a member of the Established Church or a Dis senter ; it was enough that he professed himself to be a Christian ; and he would be bold to say, that he made that profession with a reverence for the doctrines of Christianity which could not be ex ceeded by any person in that court. He had his books about him, and it was from them that he must draw his defence. They had been the solace of his life. He was too much attached to his books to part with them. As to parodies, they were as old, at least, as the inven tion of printing ; and he never heard of a prosecution for a parody, either religious or any other. There were two kinds of parodies ; one, in which a man might convey ludicrous or ridiculous ideas relative to some other subject; the other, where it was meant to ridicule the thing parodied. The latter was not the case here, and, therefore, he had not brought religion into contempt. ' This was the gist of William Hone's defence. It was in vain that the Attorney General replied. The judge charged the jury in vain. William Hone was acquitted after a quarter of an hour's deliberation.
" But Guildhall ' saw another sight. ' With the next morning's fog, the fiery Lord Chief Justice rose from his bed, and with lowering brow took his place in that judgment-seat which he deemed had been too mercifully filled on the previous day. Again Mr. Hone entered the court with his load of books, on Friday, the 19th of December. He was this day indicted for publishing an impious and profane libel, called ' The Litany or General Supplication. ' Again the Attorney General affirmed that whatever might be the object of the defendant, the publication had the effect of scoffing at the public service of the Church. Again the defendant essayed to read from his books, which course he contended was essentially necessary for his defence. Then began a contest which is perhaps unparalleled in an English court of
justice. Upon Mr. Fox's Libel Bill, upon ex officio informations, upon.
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 61
John Pares, of Leicester, prosecuted by Mr. Attor ney General for seditious libel; Easter term, 1817.
Not tried.
JamesWilliams, ofPortsea, prosecuted byMr. Attor-
his right to copies of the indictment without extravagant charges, the defendant battled his judge —imperfect in his law, no doubt, but with a firmness and moderation that rode over every attempt to put him down. Parody after parody was again produced, and especially those parodies of the Litany, which the Cavaliers employed so frequently as vehicles of satire upon the Roundheads and Puritans. The Lord Chief Justice at length gathered up his exhausted strength for his charge ; and concluded in a strain that left but little hope for the defendant. ' He would deliver the jury his solemn opinion, as he was required by Act of Parliament to do ; and under the authority of that act, and still more in obedience to his conscience and his God, he pro nounced this to be a most impious and profane libel. Believing and hoping that they, the jury, were Christian, he had not any doubt but that they would be of the same opinion. ' The jury, in an hour and a half, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
" It might have been expected that these prosecutions would have here ended. But the chance of a conviction from a third jury, upon a third indictment, was to be risked. On the 20th of December, Lord Ellenborough again took his seat on the bench, and the exhausted defendant came late into court, pale and agitated. The Attorney General remarked upon his appearance, and offered to postpone the proceedings. The courageous man made his election to go on. After the Attorney General had finished his address, Mr. Hone asked for five minutes' delay, to arrange the few thoughts he had been com mitting to paper. The Judge refused the small concession ; but said he would postpone the proceedings to another day, if the defendant would request the Court so to do. The scene which ensued was thoroughly dramatic. ' No !
am very glad to see your lordship here to-day, because
tained an injury from your lordship yesterday — an injury which I did not expect to sustain. * * * If his lordship should think proper, on this trial to-day, to deliver his opinion, I * * *
I make no such request. My Lord, I Ifeel Isus
My I cannot say what your lordship may consider to be necessary interruption, but your
coolly and dispassionately expressed by his lordship. Lord, I think it necessary to make a stand here.
hope that opinion will be
62 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
ney General for profane libel. Defendant suffered judg ment by default, and was sentenced to be imprisoned four calendar months in the county gaol at Winches ter; and on another indictment fined £100, to be imprisoned eight calendar months in county gaol at Winchester, and to give security for good be haviour for five years more. He was released from gaol, 18th April, 1818, having received a free pardon.
lordship interrupted me a great many times yesterday, and then said you would interrupt me no more, and yet your lordship did interrupt me afterwards ten times as much. * * * Gentlemen, it is you who are trying me to-day. His lordship is no judge of me. You are my judges, and you only are my judges. His lordship sits there to receive your verdict. * * * I hope the jury will not be be- seeched into a verdict of guilty. ' The triumph of the weak over the powerful was complete. ' The frame of adamant and soul of fire,' as the biographer of Lord Sidmouth terms the Chief Justice, quailed before the indomitable courage of a man who was roused into energies which would seem only to belong to the master-spirits that have swayed the world. Yet this was a man who, in the ordinary business of life, was incapable of enterprise and persevering exertion ; who lived in the nooks and corners of his antiquarianism ; who was one that even his old political opponents came to regard as a gentle and innocuous hunter after ' all such reading as was never read ;' who in a few years gave up his politics altogether, and, devoting himself to his old poetry and his old divinity, passed a quarter of a century after this conflict in peace with all mankind, and died the sub-editor of a
It was towards the close of this remarkable trial, that the judge, who came eager to condemn, sued for pity to his in
tended victim. The defendant quoted Warburton and Tillotson, as doubters of the authenticity of the Athanasian Creed. 'Even his lordship's father, the Bishop of Carlisle, he believed, took a similar view of the Creed. ' And then the judge solemnly said, ' Whatever that opinion was, he has gone many years ago, where he has had to account for his belief and his opinions. * * * For common delicacy, forbear. ' —' Oh, my Lord, I shall certainly forbear. ' Grave and temperate was the charge to the jury this day ; and in twenty minutes they had returned a verdict of Not Guilty. "
religious journal.
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 63
Joseph Russell, of Birmingham, prosecuted at Warwick, for profane and seditious libel, March, 1818; tried at Warwick, at Nisi Prius; Summer assizes, 1819; convicted and sentenced to be im prisoned six calendar months in Warwick gaol, and security for good behaviour for three years more. Released 5th May, 1820.
Richard Carlile, of London, prosecuted by Mr. Attor ney General for blasphemous libel ; tried at London, at Nisi Prius, at the sittings after Trinity term, 1819 ; convicted and fined £1,000, and ordered to be im prisoned two years in Dorchester Gaol. He was detained in prison until he paid to the King a fine of £1,000. He was again tried for a similar offence, at the sittings of Nisi Prius, in London, on October 15, 1819 ; con victed and sentenced to a fine of £500, and imprison
ment in Dorchester Gaol for one year (after expiration of former sentence); and to give security for good be haviour for life, in £1,000, £100, and £100, Novem ber 16, 1819. On this second sentence he was de tained until he shall pay to the King a fine of £500, and give security for his good behaviour during his natural life in the sums ordered.
Sir F. Burdett, Bart. , prosecuted by Mr. Attorney General for seditious libel at Leicester, tried at Lei cester, at Nisi Prius, in the Spring Assizes of 1820 ; convicted and sentenced to be fined £2,000, to be im prisoned, in the custody of the Marshal, three calen dar months; released from gaol May 7, 1821.
Many other names appear in this list of sufferers, prosecuted in the King's Bench for opinion's sake, and amongst them W. G. Lewis, (for some time a
64 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
writer on the press in London), Charles Whitworth and J. H. Brandis, of Warwick ; J. Mann, of Leeds ; T. J. Evans, John Hunt, W. Franklin, T. Flindell, and G. Beve, all of whom were convicted, and suffered various punishments. Another long catalogue con tains an account of prosecutions on the different cir cuits ; but enough has surely been given to show the temper of the Government towards the press, during an eventful period of its history.
These ample lists, however, do not give a complete idea of the history of Governmental prosecutions of those who have printed distasteful statements. Docu ments subsequently moved for in the House of Com mons will assist us in making up the deficiency. In a return* " of all prosecutions during the reigns of George the Third, and George the Fourth, either by ex-officio information or indictment, under the direction of the Attorney or Solicitor General, for libels or other misdemeanours against individuals as members of His Majesty's Government, or against other persons acting in their official capacity, conducted in the department of the Solicitor for the affairs of His Majesty's Trea sury," we find the following statements of dates of proceedings taken : —
In 1761, Earl of Clanrickarde, prosecuted for a libel on the Duke of Bedford, late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in a letter to him.
In 1786, Henry Sampson Woodfall, for libel on Lord Loughborough, Chief Justice of Common Pleas,
intending to villify him, by causing him to be sus pected of being in bad circumstances, and not able to
* Ordered to be printed July 6, 1830. No. 608. )
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 65
pay his debts, or willing to pay them without an execution.
In 1788, Mary Say, for libel on Mr. Pitt and the House of Commons, relative to the impeachment of Sir Elijah Impey. William Perryman, for the like. The same defendant, in the following year, was pro secuted for a libel on the King, Mr. Pitt, and the Ministry, concerning His Majesty's health.
In 1790, Sampson Perry, for a libel on the King and Mr. Pitt, charging them with keeping back intel ligence respecting the Nookta Sound, for the purpose of Stock Jobbing, and with publishing a false Gazette.
In 1792, Joseph Johnson and John Martin, for libel on the President and members of the Court- Martial and witnesses on trial of Grant.
In 1793, Matthew Falkner and another, for libel on the King and Constitution ; Mr. Justice Ashurst and his charge to the Grand Jury ; Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas. Jonathan Thompson, for a libel on the Ministers and Mr. Justice Ashurst.
In 1801, Allen Macleod, for a libel on Lord Clare, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, censuring him for de scribing the Irish as vindictive and bloodthirsty, and comparing him to the Duke of Buckingham, who was assassinated by Felton. Joseph Dixon and another, for a libel on Mr. Pitt and the then times and con dition of the people.
In 1804, William Cobbett and the Hon. Robert Johnson, for a libel on the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Under Secretary of
State.
In 1808, John M'Ardell and others, Charles Bell
vo\
F
66
THE FOURTH ESTATE.
and others, John Hunt and another, William Hors- man, Peter Finnerty, Richard Bagshaw, and Garret Gorman, for a libel on the Duke of York, as Com mander-in-Chief. John Harriot Hart and another, for libels on Lord Ellenborough, as Chief Justice of England, respecting the administration of justice ; and on Mr. Justice Le Blanc, and the Jury who ac quitted Chapman of murder. Peter Stuart, for a libel on Sir Arthur Paget and the Ministers, respecting his mission to the Sublime Porte.
In 1809, Garret Gorman, for a second libel on the Duke of York, as Commander-in-Chief.
In 1810, John Harriot Hart and another, for a libel on the Duke of York and the Government.
In 1817, Richard Gay thorn Butt, for a libel on Lord Ellenborough, as Chief Justice, respecting a sentence passed upon the defendant, stating that a fine had been imposed to make money of him ; and on Lord Ellenborough, as Chief Justice, and Lord Castlereagh, as Secretary of State.
In 1818, Arthur Thistlewood, for challenging Lord Sidmouth, Secretary of State.
In 1827, John T. Barber Beaumont, for a libel on Lord Wallace, as Chairman of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry.
In 1829, John Fisher and two others, for alibel on the Lord Chancellor, and the Solicitor General and his appointment; and for a libel on the King, the Government, and Ministers, and Duke of Wellington. George Marsden and two others, for a libel on the Duke of Wellington. Charles Baldwin, for a similar
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS.
67
libel. Ann Durham and another, for a libel on the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Hume procured in 1834 another return, which brings our information on this subject up to that date. It gives an account of all prosecutions for libel after the accession of William the Fourth, either by ex officio informations or indictment, conducted in the department of the Solicitor for the Treasury. The cases returned were six in number :—
In 1831 : Rex v. William Cobbett, indictment ; William Alcock Haley, ditto ; Richard Carlile, ditto.
In 1833 : Rex v. James Reeve, indictment ; John Ager, Patrick Grant, and John Bell, information; Henry Hetherington, and Thomas Stevens, indict ment.
One other document obtained also by that in defatigable reformer, Mr. Hume, must be noticed. It is a return* relating to "individuals prosecuted for seditious libel and political conduct since the 1 7th of March, 1821, with the sentences passed on them," and affords the following facts: —
In 1821, Robert Wardell, for libel ; to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for two years. David Ridgway, for libel ; to be imprisoned in Lan caster Castle for one year, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more. Susannah Wright, for libel ; to pay a fine of £100, and to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for Middlesex eighteen calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for five years more.
* Ordered to be printed, June, 25, 1834. No. 410. F2
68 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
In 1823, Daniel Whittle Harvey and John Chap man, for libel ; Harvey to pay a fine of £200, and to be imprisoned in the King's Bench prison three months, and to give security for five years more. Chapman to be imprisoned in the King's Bench prison two months. John Hunt, for libel ; to pay a fine of £100, and to give security for good behaviour for five
years.
In 1829, John Fisher, Robert Alexander, and John
Matthew Gutch, for libel ; Alexander to pay a fine of £101, and to be imprisoned in Newgate four calendar months ; Gutch and Fisher not sentenced. Same, for libel ; Alexander to pay a fine of £100, and to be imprisoned in Newgate four calendar months ; Gutch and Fisher not sentenced. George Marsden, R. Alex ander, and Stephen Isaacson, for libel ; Marsden to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour ; Alexander to pay a fine of £100, and to be imprisoned in Newgate four calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more. Isaacson to pay a fine of £100.
In 183 1, Richard Carlile, for seditious libel ; fined £200, imprisoned two years in Giltspur Street Prison, and sureties ten years more. Stephen Holman Crawle, for libel on the King, and also on the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of Leicester; imprisoned in gaol six weeks, and find sureties, himself £50, and two sureties in £25, to be of good behaviour one year more.
In 1833, James Reeve, for libel, to be imprisoned in Newgate twelve calendar months. Joseph Russell, for libel, to be imprisoned in Warwick county gaol
THE ' BRIDGE STREET GANG. 69
three calendar months, and to give security for good behaviour for three years more.
Thus closes this Parliamentary catalogue of persons proceeded against by the authorities for alleged libels. The list has carried us over a number of years, but we must return to the period from which these documents have led us.
Government prosecutions were not the only diffi culties the press had to encounter. In December, 1820, the opponents of the extension of popular liberty set up a society with the dignified title of The Constitutional Association, the object of which was to play the part of censor of the press. It is certain that the attempts of the despotic minister who framed the Six Acts, had not the effect he expected, and that the fetters he prepared for his opponents hung per haps more painfully upon the presses of his friends than on those of his enemies. Nearly every printer was compelled, more or less, to offend the stringency
of the law, and clandestine means were soon found to complete what could not with safety be done more openly. These secret offences against obnoxious and tyrannical decrees soon begot a lax morality which did not hesitate to produce whatever could find a sale, and the vicious portion of the public were regaled with libels very injurious to the general character of
the press. These productions were the excuse for proposing and establishing a self-elected body who put themselves forward as censors-general. They collected subscriptions, and commenced prosecutions, and would doubtless have continued their operations
70
THE FOURTH ESTATE.
to a still more dangerous extent, had not public opinion rebelled against the attempt to suppress what remained of the liberty of the press. The " Bridge- street gang" became the nickname of the self-styled "Constitutional Association," and, after a short pro sperity, the society dwindled and fell. In the list of its committee were the names of forty peers and church dignitaries; but neither rank, wealth, nor party zeal could maintain them against the outcry of the public. In July, 1821, an indictment was pre ferred against the committee for acts of extortion and
oppression, on which, however, they escaped convic tion. At the end of the same year they prosecuted several printers and venders of pamphlets, but failed to secure a verdict upon it being shown that the sheriff who returned the jury was himself a member of the Association ! A debate in the House of Commons had further assisted in exposing the unconstitutional and dangerous character of the society, and its extinc tion was regarded by all, except its promoters, as a source of congratulation.
Another prominent episode in the history of the press, during the present century, may be fairly called the battle of the unstamped —a contest in which certain printers, aided by public opinion, were enabled to maintain for some years a struggle with the Government and the Stamp Office officials, during which, about five hundred venders of cheap News
papers found place in the gaols. The growing poli tical excitement which at length carried the Eeform Bill, had drawn great attention to passing events, and created an increased demand for Newspapers. This
THE BATTLE OF THE UNSTAMPED. 71
had been partially supplied by the publication of weekly pamphlets, which, without assuming the cha racter of regular Journals, or giving digests of general News, afforded information of political movements at less than a third of the price of the Newspapers then selling at sevenpence. Carpenter's Political Letter, and Hetherington's Poor Man's Guardian, which appeared in 1830 and 1831, were amongst the first of these productions; and, gaining circulation, were declared by the Stamp Office to be liable to stamp duty. Now the contest began. Hether- ington was a quiet, determined man, not to be readily subdued, and he soon found supporters and emulators on all sides. Several prosecutions were commenced against the Poor Man's Guardian, and
whilst those were pending its sale increased tenfold.
But this was not all. If the small Paper, with little
News, was to be prosecuted, a large Paper, containing all the News of the week, could be in no worse condi tion, and soon a number of regular unstamped weekly Newspapers sprang into existence. Their price was
and their sale enormous. One of them alone, Hetherington's London Dispatch, is said to have sold 25,000 copies of each number, and many other such speculations became equally successful. The total weekly sale of those prints could not have been less than 150,000 copies. In politics they were ultra- democratic ; but one feature in their history is full of interest, as indicating the morality of the English
twopence,
Some of the first of these illegal prints followed the example of certain orthodox Sun
working people.
day Papers, and gave full details of trials, and other
72
THE FOURTH ESTATE.
cases not very delicate or very moral in their tendency. The cheap Paper buyer bought the sheets containing these reports ; but when unstamped Journals were set on foot, which assumed a higher tone, repudiating all
matter, these purer and better Papers soon surpassed in circulation their less moral rivals.
The cheap Papers made considerable inroads upon
the circulation of their high-priced legal predecessors, and moreover their conductors, like most persons who
act illegally, were very unscrupulous in the means adopted for obtaining News for their columns. The high-priced Papers obtained and prepared reports
which were reprinted without acknowledgment in the
objectionable
It was clear that the law was inefficient to prevent the continuance of the evil, and that something must be done. High-priced and
low-priced were equally interested in demanding a change, and who so fit a champion to demand a repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge as the poet and novelist M. P. , Edward Lytton Bulwer ? He undertook the task; and, on the 15th of June, 1832, opened a debate in the House of Commons on the subject —a
debate which ultimately led the way for the mitigation of the Newspaper stamp-duty from fourpence to one penny.
The Examiner, published two days after the debate, affords us a summary of its more interesting features : — " The abolition of all taxes impeding the diffusion of knowledge, was urged by Bulwer in a speech replete with luminous exposition, cogent argument, and the eloquence which is inspired by earnestness. He showed how these barbarous imposts perpetuate ignorance, or
twopenny Papers.
BULWER AND THE NEWSPAPER STAMP. 73
allow of what is yet worse, namely, the propagation of the most mischievous prejudices ; and he showed the connection of ignorance and crime. He argued that poverty and toil were impediments to knowledge, to which it was a cruel impolicy to add artificial checks ; and traced the debaucheries of a deleterious contraband spirit to the high duties, under which a smuggling trade had sprung up. He remarked on the appetite of the people for political information, and showed, that as the better sort is placed out of their reach, they fasten on the matter which is made level to their means, through the defiance of the law, and seasoned for their passions and prejudices. Here no corrector can follow them ; no advocate for truth, reason, and sobriety, can be heard ; and the poor man eats his own heart away
as he devours the anti-social doctrines. An intelli gent mechanic stated to him, ' We go to the public- house to read the sevenpenny Paper; but only for the News. It is the cheap penny Paper that the working man can take home and read at spare mo ments, which he has by him to take up, and read over and over again whenever he has leisure, that forms his opinions. ' By taking off the stamp duties and lower ing the advertisement duties, Bulwer contended that the best Papers would, through the increased profits of advertisement, be sold at the very low price of 2d. , and thus compete with the uninstructed fanatics, who were misguiding the working classes. In lieu of the loss of the stamp duties to the revenue, he proposed a low postage on Papers sent into the country, which
now"go free.
In conclusion, he said, he wished to demonstrate
74 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
that the stamp duty checked legitimate knowledge (which was morality — the morals of a nation), but
the diffusion of contraband ignorance ; that the advertisement duty assisted our finances only by striking at that very commerce from which our finances were drawn ; that it crippled at once literature and our trade ; that the time in which he called for a repeal of these taxes was not unseasonable ; that it would be no just answer that the revenue could not spare their loss, and yet he was provided with an equivalent which would at least replace any financial deficiency. * * We have heard enough, (he said,) in this house, of the necessity of legislating for pro perty and intelligence—let us now feel the necessity of legislating for poverty and ignorance ! At present we are acquainted with the poorer part of our fellow- countrymen only by their wrongs and murmurs—their
misfortunes and their crimes ; let us at last open hap pier and wiser channels of communication between them and us. We have made a long and fruitless experiment of the gibbet and the hulks ; in 1825, we transported 283 persons, b ut so vast, so rapid was our increase on this darling system of legislation, that three years afterwards (in 1828) we transported as many as 2,449. During the last three years our gaols have been sufficiently filled ; we have seen enough of the effects of human ignorance ; we have shed sufficient of human blood—is it not time to pause ? is it not time to consider whether as Christians, and as men. we have a right to correct before we attempt to instruct ?
—Lord Althorp, in reply to Mr. Bulwer's motion, employed the hacknied ministerial fallacy of unsea-
encouraged
THE POLICE AND THE UNSTAMPED. 76
sonableness. And this, after the motion had been
because ministers would not ' make a house' on the nights appointed for it. He professed to agree with much that the eloquent speaker had urged : but, ' under existing circumstances, and at the conclusion of a session, he was not justified in consenting to the investigation of a question which
was of the greatest possible importance, and the result of which would affect the whole population of the
In conclusion, Lord Althorp observed, ' That had Mr. Bulwer persisted in moving for a committee of the whole house, he should have had no difficulty in negativing it; but he had now dropped that, and moved his first proposition, that all taxes, which impeded the diffusion of knowledge, were ini mical to the best interests of the people. This was a proposition which he could not deny ; but as no prac tical good could result from its affirmation," he should meet it by moving the previous question. '
O'Connell seconded Bulwer's motion, but in vain ; and for the time the subject was shelved.
The indifference of the Legislature was not shared by the public. The market for a Newspaper at two pence, appeared to be insatiable, and this ready demand produced an ample supply. In vain the police appre hended hawker after hawker ; in vain the Stamp Office gave the informers and detectives additional premiums for vigilance, the trade went on with an exciting degree of activity. As the London gaols became crowded with " victims," the public sympathies were touched, and a fund was raised by subscription to support the families of the men and women (for women were
repeatedly postponed
country. '
76 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
seized and imprisoned) whilst under sentence. One or two extracts from the Newspapers of the period will illustrate the scenes then of daily occurrence, and best show the temper in which the struggle was carried on—a struggle described by those who opposed it as " the conspiracy of the great law officers of the Crown, the justices of the peace, and the Commissioners of Stamps" against the public desire for political inform ation :—
UNION HALL. —Partial Prosecution. —The Commis sioners of Stamps appear determined, if possible, to stop the cir culation of the Poor Man's Guardian, by employing a number of persons to apprehend every one they find selling the same ; and upon every conviction, before a magistrate, the informer is en titled to 20s. — On Monday, a young man, named John Williams, was brought before the sitting magistrate, charged with vend ing the above publication, it being unstamped. —Robert Currie stated that he was employed by the Solicitor of Stamps, and that in the course of that morning he saw the defendant in Union Street, near the office, selling the Poor Man's Guardian. —The magistrate said that the defendant must have been well aware he was committing an offence against the law, by selling a publication containing such matter as the Poor Man's Guar dian, without being stamped. " What have you to say in your defence to the charge? " inquired the magistrate. —De
I have been out of employ, and should have
had I not engaged in this business. " —The magistrate said that there were many publications now in circulation, by the sale of which, in the streets, he might make out a livelihood, without running the hazard of punishment. For instance, there were The Penny Magazine, The National Omnibus, and several other useful and cheap works, which contained none of the inflam matory trash by which the Poor Man's Guardian was chiefly distinguished. —-Currie stated that the defendant had suffered imprisonment before for a similar offence, and that, when taken into custody, he said that he did as well in as out of prison, for
fendant : "
starved,
THE POLICE AND THE NEWS-HAWKERS. 77
he considered himself a martyr to the cause. Currie added, that all men imprisoned for this offence received 5s. a-week each, while in gaol, from the subscribers ; but the defendant, he supposed, would have an increase, owing to his having suffered before. —The magistrate committed the defendant for one month, and regretted that hard labour was not annexed to the punish ment, as it would soon put a stop to the Poor Man's Guardian,
as it was erroneously called. —Defendant :
I don't care for what
I can only that when I come say,
period you send me to prison ;
out I shall sell the Poor Man's Guardian as usual; and you shall see me come to the very same spot where I was appre hended this day. — The defendant was ordered to be taken off to gaol. "
The Paper which gave this report appended a com
mentary upon it. The editor says :—
[" This is too bad," indeed ! All lovers of justice must agree
in reprobating the selection of a particular publication for pro secution, while others are allowed to transgress the same law with impunity. The punishment, in fact, is not for selling an unstamped paper, containing News, but for expressing opinions offensive to Government. The magistrate's recommendation of the Penny Magazine, which is not prosecuted, and which is started by Ministers, and protected by their interest in its success, is vastly significant. Justice requires that all publi cations contravening the law should be prosecuted, or none. The law, if good, should, in every instance, be rigorously en forced; and if not in every instance enforced, it should be repealed, or its operation is a scandalous injustice. Journalists who obey the law are injured by those who defy it ; but we see no reason —though the Solicitor of Stamps and Attorney
General, doubtless, do—why the Poor Man's Guardian should be suppressed, while the Penny Magazine is suffered to poach with impunity, and recommended by magistrates on the bench as a better smuggling speculation ! We can have no partiali ties in writing on this subject, and certainly cannot be suspected of any partizanship with the Poor Man's Guardian, who im putes to The Examiner an aristocratical character ! We are actuated by neither favour nor prejudice, but a love of the
78 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
tiling most precious on earth—justice. ] —Examiner, June 17, 1832.
Here is a second specimen of the police practice of that time :—
BOW STREET. — Unstamped Publications. — John Do novan was charged by George Colly with exposing unstamped penny publications for sale in the Strand. Colly proved that the defendant had the publications in his hand, he had no doubt, for sale, though he did not see him offer them for sale. He admitted that since August he had convicted, by his evidence, about seventy persons of the like offence, and had received one pound from the Stamp Office for each con viction. He had been in the police, but was not discharged for misconduct — he resigned. The defendant called a witness, who swore that the Papers were not exposed for sale; the defendant carried them under his arm, wrapped in paper. — Mr. Minshull said he disliked informers receiving penalties; but thought there could be no doubt the defendant intended to sell the Papers. He would sentence him to one month's
instead of three, which the law allowed. — Morning Chronicle, June 18, 1832.
Mr. Thomas Cooper, the author of The Purgatory of Suicides, afford us a few anecdotes of this struggle, and of the career of the man who commenced it :—
Three convictions (he says) having been obtained against Hetherington, for publishing The Poor Man's Guardian, he was ordered to be taken into custody ; but the Bow Street
could not enforce their order for some time. Hetherington, with provoking coolness, sent a note to the magistrates to tell them that " he was going out of town ! " Then he printed the note in his Guardian, and commenced a tour through the country. At Manchester, he narrowly escaped being taken by Stevens, the Bow Street " runner ;" but he might have continued at large for some time longer, had he not resolved to hasten up to London, in order to see his dying mother. He reached the door of his house on a night in September, knocked hard, but was not answered; the Bow
imprisonment,
magistrates
THE MODES OF DEFEATING THE LAW. 79
Street spies came upon him before his second knock had been heard ; he clung to the knocker, but was dragged away ; and none of his family knew anything of the affair till they heard that he had been lodged in Clerkenwell gaol. Here he re mained six months. The Guardian, however, was still carried on. At the end of 1832, when he had not been many months at liberty, he was again convicted, and again imprisoned for six months in the same gaol; and now it was that his friend Watson became his fellow-prisoner, also for the same " high crime and misdemeanour" of selling, in " Free" England, a penny paper without a taxed stamp ! Their treatment during these six months was most cruel. An opening, called " a window," but which was without a pane of glass, let in the snow upon their food as they ate it ; cold and damp filled their bodies with pain ; and the Government seemed intent on trying, by these means, whether they could not break their spirits. Cleave and his wife were seized as they were proceeding to Purkiss's, the News-agent in Compton Street, in a cab, with their Papers. Heywood, of Manchester ; Guest, of Birmingham ; Hobson and Mrs. Mann, of Leeds, with about five hundred others in town and country, were imprisoned as dealers in the " Unstamped. " The spirit displayed by the vendors is worthy of remembrance. They carried the " Unstamped" in their hats, in their pockets : they left them in sure places " to be called for ;" and when, for a few weeks, Government actually empowered officers to seize parcels, open them in the streets, and take out any unstamped publications, Hetherington (while at large) made up " dummy" parcels, directed them, sent off a lad with them one way, with instructions to make a noise, attract a crowd, and delay the officers, if they seized him ; meanwhile, the real parcel for the country agent was sent off another way ! In 1833, Hethering ton removed from 13, Kingsgate Street, to his well-known shop 126, Strand. The Destructive, which he issued here, ironically styled The Conservative, was also unstamped. The London Dispatch, which followed, reached at one time 25,000 weekly. In 1834, he defended himself on a trial for publishing The Guardian, and obtained an acquittal ; but was condemned for The Conservative. Not having grown fond of prison from his
80 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
experiences of it, he took a house at Pinner ; and, by going out
of his house in the Strand at the back, by an outlet into the
Savoy, and by entering it the same way, and in the disguise of a Quaker, he contrived to enact the character so well, that he evaded the keen eyes which were on the look-out for him. But the Government revenged themselves by making a seizure for £220 in the name of the Commissioners of Stamps, on the false pretext that he was not a registered printer. They swept his premises ; but, undaunted, he resumed his work, rising out of the midst of ruin. Julian Hibbert, from the moment that he learned Hetherington was in danger of another imprison ment, set him down in his will for 450 guineas ; nor did he cancel the gift when the proceedings were abandoned. Hether ington then purchased another printing machine—for no printer would undertake his work—and continued to publish The Un stamped, until the Government consented to reduce the News paper stamp to one penny, when he issued (stamped) The Twopenny Dispatch. "
Dr. Birkbeck, the founder of the Mechanic's Insti
tution, was one of the numerous
with the people who desired cheap Newspapers; and on the 11th February, 1836, he headed a deputa tion, composed of thirty members of Parliament and other liberals, who met Lord Melbourne, then prime minister, to request the total repeal of the stamp duty on Newspapers. * Dr. Birkbeck stated the object of
* The deputation included the following members of the House of Commons, — Henry Warburton, Joseph Hume, George Grote, James Oswald, John Bowring, John A. Roebuck, Col.