No More Learning

of expression. He thought that though the article in itself was extremely improper, yet, when compared with a variety of others which appeared, it might be said to be mere milk and water. If the House was about to adopt a new feeling, and take notice of all expressions of this sort, after having slumbered so long, and suffered them to pass unheeded, it should first give notice of and not let punishment fall on particular
individual, when so many were involved in the same sort of delinquency. The House had long connived at things of this sort had also connived at reporting its debates, and very properly for he should consider
mortal blow to the liberties of the country, the
people should be kept in ignorance of the proceedings of Parliament. The members of that House took greater freedoms with each other, than they wished others to do but as people published in the reports the severest things they said of one another in that House, was not natural that they should fall into an imitation of their style, and speak of them, in some measure as they did of themselves. He should be very sorry to find any prosecution in this instance — first, because he was warm friend to the liberty of the press, and, secondly, because he knew the result of such prosecutions. He remembered having seen
what they all conceived to be libel on that House
(he alluded to pamphlet published by Mr. Reeve,) sent before court of law, and there an honourable friend of his had the ingenuity to persuade the jury
that contained no reflection whatever on the House of Commons. Ifthe author of the attack now complained of, made an ample apology, (as no doubt he would,)
it
it a
a it a
it,
a
a
; it
;
if
;
a
FOX. 25
the matter had better drop, and it would be sufficient to have him reprimanded and discharged. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer agreed that these things should not be rashly taken up ; and, if they had been tolerated long, he certainly was of opinion that it would not be candid to select one individual for the purpose of punishment. As to sending this matter
before a jury, the proper time to consider that would be after they had heard what he had to say in his own defence. Fox next declared for lenity. He had ever been of opinion, and he believed his conduct had pretty well shown that the liberty of the press should not be rashly meddled with, but was not perhaps, altogether proper that every gross breach of privilege should escape with impunity. As to the question of prosecution, this case would resemble that of contempt of court, and should be punished by that House, and no other. He was certain that such an imputation as this had been thrown on the House of Commons when the majority was in favour of the minister, would not be tolerated. Upon the whole, however, on the general principle, that the free dom of discussion, either in or out of doors, ought not to be discouraged, he was of opinion that this punishment ought not to be severe. After some further discussion, Mr. Peter Stuart was called in, and in
answer to question from the Speaker, acknowledged that the Paper was printed and published by him. The Speaker said, that the Paper had been complained of to the House, as containing libellous reflections on its conduct and character and then put the question, What have you to say in answer to the charge To
3
?
it if
;
a
it
a
it,
26 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
this Mr. Stuart replied, "Permit me, Sir, to assure you, that I very much regret that any part of the contents of my Paper of yesterday should have incurred the displeasure of this honourable House. If, Sir, I have expressed myself too warmly in favour of Lord Mel ville, for whom I shall always entertain the highest respect and esteem, I beg this honourable House will view it as the unguarded language of the heart, and not a wilful intention to provoke the censure of a power on which our dearest rights and liberties depend. I entreat you, Sir, that some allowance may be made for that freedom of discussion of public affairs which, for a long series of years, has been sanctioned by com mon usage, and that the hasty composition of a Newspaper may not be considered as a deliberate design to offend this honourable House. " Mr. Stuart was then desired by the Speaker to withdraw, and Mr. Grey moved, that Peter Stuart, in publishing the said Paper, has been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of this House. The Attorney General said he would not oppose the motion, considering the
to be a libel, but those things wore different aspects, as they were for us or against us. He recol lected when the public prints made an honourable gentleman state, at clubs and meetings, that the House of Commons was lost to everything that was just and proper, and that it was no use attending it, and that it afforded no protection to the people, —and yet the House had never interfered. Mr. Fox observed, that he thought it incontrovertible that a man may say he should not attend the House, because he could do no service in without being guilty of libel he had
paragraph
it,
a ;
THE PETITION OF STUART. . 27
said so, and it was most certainlyhis opinion. As to any other observations, if the right honourable gentle man had shown him the prints he alluded to, he would have told him how far they were accurate. He did not think it very candid to pass it over at the time it happened, and now bring it forward, as an argu- mentum ad hominem, when such a libel as this was
before the House. He confessed that he thought this a more serious libel than many others, because it seemed to be agreeable to the executive power ; and in that case, there must be strong suspicions when it came from a person in the pay of the Government. The motion of Mr. Grey was then put and carried; after which Mr. Atkins Wright moved, that Mr. Peter
Stuart be called to the bar, reprimanded, and dis charged. Mr. Grey said, that after the paragraph in question had been voted a high breach of privilege, if the House chose to let it pass without no greater mark of its displeasure he had no objection. After hearing the apology that had been made, if it were an apology, he would leave them to their own discretion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that however he might be disposed to lenity, as far as the individual was concerned, yet, after having once resolved that a person had been guilty of a high breach of privilege, he could not, consistently with the dignity of the House, be instantly discharged, and therefore he moved, that the said Peter Stuart be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms : which was
agreed to.
On the 2nd of May, Sir H. Mildmay presented
the following petition from Stuart : —
28 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
To the Honourable the House of Commons, in Parliament assembled : The petition of Peter Stuart, printer and pub lisher of a Morning Newspaper, entitled The Daily Adver tiser, Oracle, and True Briton, most humbly showeth, that for the publication of that part of the Paper of Thursday last, deemed highly offensive to this honourable House, he feels the deepest regret ; and that, although certain expressions in that paragraph be indiscreet and unguarded, and such as have in curred the displeasure of this important branch of the British Constitution ; yet, that your petitioner humbly hopes, on this acknowledgment of his sincere sorrow, this honourable House, in the plentitude of its condescension and liberality, will be pleased to pardon him for a transgression solely attributable to the hasty composition of a Newspaper, and not to any deliberate design of offending this honourable House. That your petitioner is emboldened to solicit your indulgence and forgiveness, on his well founded assurance, that, during the several years in which he has conducted a Newspaper, it has uniformly been his principle and pride zealously to support the character and dignity of the House of Commons ; and that it has frequently fallen to his lot to have vindicated both from the charges of societies, expressly instituted to bring them into public disrepute and contempt. In any observations which your petitioner may have published on the conduct of Lord Melville, he could not but bear in mind that the views of those societies, abetting domestic treason, and assisted by the co operation of the revolutionary power of France, would, he verily believes, have effected the destruction of the British Constitution, had not the wise and efficient measures brought forward by that administration in which Lord Melville held so conspicuous a situation, been adopted, and this honourable House would not, in that case, perhaps, have been now in existence, either to censure Lord Melville, or to pardon your petitioner. That if anything could increase your petitioner's regret, it would be its being supposed that the objectionable paragraph was directed also against the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons ; that your petitioner has no hesitation to declare, that no idea was ever more remote
THE PETITION OF STUART. 29
from his mind; and that your petitioner would be the very last person to insinuate anything disrespectful of a character whom he, in conjunction with the whole nation, highly esteems as a private gentleman, and most profoundly venerates as the head and public organ of this honourable House. That your petitioner most humbly hopes this honourable House will con sent to his release ; and your petitioner will ever pray, &c.
P. Sttjabt.
After this petition had been read, its temper and
contents provoked a warm discussion. Sir H. Mild-
may, the Tory gentleman who had presented moved —
That the said Peter Stuart be brought to the bar, and be discharged. Mr. Wyndham called the attention of the House to this petition, and asked anything like had ever been known? He left to the discretion of the Honourable Baronet, whether, after hearing this extraordinary petition, he would persevere in his motion. Sir H. Mildmay said he really saw nothing improper in and as to the credit given to Lord Melville and those who acted with him, for those measures which enabled the House to preserve its place, he had no hesitation for himself to avow the same principle he should, therefore, persevere in his motion. Mr. Fox thought
unnecessary and improper to introduce, into a petition of this nature, any opinion respecting the former conduct of Lord Melville, unless were for the purpose of attacking those who brought him before the House. He could not conceive how such defence could be admitted unless ministers meant that those who were brought before them for libelling that House might plead, as justification, that they had uniformly supported Administration, and had only libelled those who composed the
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, that the petitioner stated generally that he had been in the habit of supporting Administration, would be no justification of him but being accused of libel on the House of Commons,
was material to him to show, that he was so far from being in the habit of libelling them, he had always before supported
minority.
it
it
;
a
a
it
it
if
if
it,
a
it
;
it,
:
it
:
30 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
their resolutions and decisions. The language of the petition was not that which appeared to him most proper, but it was almost the common fault of those connected with the press, that they assumed a loftier tone, and perhaps gave themselves more importance than naturally belonged to them. As to the danger of the times in which the petitioner said he had sup ported the House of Commons, and the Administration, of which Lord Melville was one, had been the salvation of the country, the opinion was not singular. It had been for years the prevailing opinion of both Houses of Parliament, and of a considerable portion of the people of the country. With the exception of his professions of respect for the Speaker, and esteem for the character of Lord Melville, the rest of the petition breathed nothing but sorrow and contrition. Mr. Wyndham requested the House to observe how small a part of the petition was taken up with the language of sorrow and contrition ; and, on account of the character and complexion of
the performance altogether, he should feel it necessary to move an amendment. But, on the suggestion of Sir William Bur roughs, the Speaker acquainted the right honourable gentle man that it was incompetent for him to move any amendment, as he had spoken before on the debate. Mr. Grey considered the petition to have been written altogether in a state of defiance and accusation. It was an attack upon their character as judges, sitting in a court of justice, and calling them intem perate, partial, and presumptuous. He considered the petition as an aggravation of the original offence, and that the punish ment ought to be increased. Mr. Canning said, he saw no necessity for censuring the petitioner for merely answering a charge that had been brought against him. As the petitioner had defended, with mistaken zeal, the man who had been the victim of the anger of that House, was it unfair for him, in extenuation, to show the causes which had produced that zeal ? He wished, however, that the editors of Papers would take notice and receive warning, if this mode were persisted in, that a great change had taken place in the system of forbear ance hitherto adhered to, and regulate their conduct accordingly. Mr. Sheridan saw nothing inconsistent in the conduct of his
SHERIDAN, WHITBREAD, WILBERFORCE. 31
honourable friend (Mr. Grey). He had, on a former night, given way to a disposition of lenity, but now, when he found that disposition had been abused, there was no inconsistency in thinking that this lenity had been misplaced, and that some severer punishment should take place. He felt sorry that the petition had been so worded that he could not give it his sup port, and should therefore agree to the vote of his honourable friend. Mr. Whitbread asked, was it to be endured that the editor of a Newspaper should tell the House of Commons, that he had sat in judgment upon them and their proceedings, and pronounced his applause or his censure on the different parties in Parliament as he thought fit ? He did not, however, wish
any severity of punishment on the present occasion, but recom mended to the honourable baronet to withdraw this petition, for the purpose of preparing another, that might be less excep tionable. Mr. Wilberforce did not think that the dignity of the House should be engaged in discussing what sort of peti tion it would be right to receive ; but certainly this was not so. It was deficient in the temper and views of it—it was not in that style of expression which ought to be presented to the House of Commons in behalf of a person who had offended its dignity — it was a case in which the petitioner ought to make a gentlemanly apology to the whole House of Commons, and not one side of the House, which he could not help considering was the case in the present instance. The Solicitor General, at considerable length, defended the petition. He saw nothing in it of that offensive matter which had been alluded to by several gentlemen in the course of the debate. If any of the
expressions in the petition were (and he did not admit they were) offensive to the House, they could not aggravate his offence when they were dictated by a spirit which intended to lessen it. He concluded by declaring that he found himself called upon to support the motion of the honourable baronet, to call the petitioner to the bar, in order to his being discharged. After some further discussion on the subject, the House divided —for the motion, one hundred and forty-two ; against one hun dred and twenty-one majority, twenty-one. Mr. Peter
;
it,
32 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
Stuart was then brought to the bar, and having received a reprimand from the Speaker, was discharged. *
The Newspaper critique agreed with the political bias of the majority of the House, and the publisher of it was allowed to escape with a nominal punish ment.
From these discussions in the Legislature, we may turn to a humbler, but not less interesting, morsel of Newspaper history, which we find in Mr. Leigh Hunt's " Lord Byron and His Contemporaries. " It refers to the establishment of a Journal in the same
that Peter Stuart's affair attracted so much attention. Leigh Hunt had been the companion of Coleridge and Charles Lamb at the Blue Coat School, and had distinguished himself by an early talent for versification. He was now about to enter upon more serious literary labours ; and the spirit of indepen dence which he brought to the task, soon gained him more reputation and applause than would perhaps have been his lot, had he displayed far greater talent, combined with less honesty of purpose. It would be unjust, however, to ascribe to the liberality of his opinions the popularity which was, to a great extent, due to his talents. As a critic and a scholar, he had, at the time he began his career, few equals on the press, and very few superiors ; and bringing to his Newspaper duties a loftier idea of the vocation of the Journalist than was then generally entertained, he succeeded in giving to the Papers he conducted a tone, and gained for them a character, which honour ably distinguished them amongst their rivals. His
Ann. Register, 1805,
year
NEWSPAPER CRITICISM IN 1805. 33
independence of thought and expression, involved him in persecution, and subjected him to imprison ment —as similar qualities have involved others before and since — but of this hereafter. Our present pur pose is with a Journal which, after making a good figure in its generation, has become a portion of the past. And now let Leigh Hunt tell his own story in his own way: —
" My brother John, at the beginning of the year 1805, set up a Paper called The News, and I went to live with him in Brydges Street, and wrote the theatricals in it. It was he who invented the round window in the office of that Paper to attract attention. * I say the Paper was his own, but it is a singular in
stance of my incuriousness that I do not know to this day, and most likely never did, whether he had any share in it or not. Upon reflection, my impression
is that he had not. At all events he was the printer and publisher, and occupied the house. "
The tone of Newspaper criticism was then at a low ebb, not as regards talent, which was plentiful enough, but on account of the venality and unblushing parti ality of the reviewers. Mr. Hunt's is by no means an exaggerated account of the condition of the art. He says: — " It was the custom at that time for editors of Papers to be intimate with actors and dramatists. They were often proprietors as well as editors ; and,
in that case, it was not expected that they should escape the usual intercourse, or wish to do so. It was thought a feather in the cap of all parties, and
* The house is now a coffee-shop, and the round window is gone. It faced York Street, Covent Garden.
VOL H.
I)
34 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
with their feathers they tickled one another. The
Newspaper man had consequence in the green-room, and plenty of tickets for his friends ; and he dined at amusing tables. The dramatist secured a good-natured critique in his Journal, sometimes got it written himself, or, according to Mr. Reynolds, was himself the author of it. * * The best chance for an editor, who wished to have anything like an opinion of his own, was the appearance of a rival Newspaper with a strong theatrical connexion. Influence was here threatened with diminution. It was to be held up on other grounds ; and the critic was permitted to find out that a bad play was not good, or an actress's petti coat of the lawful dimensions. Puffing, and plenty of tickets, were, however, the system of the day. It was an interchange of amenities over the dinner-table ; a flattery of power on the one side, and puns on the other; and what the public took for the criticism upon a play, was a draft upon the box-office, or re miniscences of last Thursday's salmon and lobster sauce. We saw that independence in theatrical criticism would be a great novelty. We announced
and nobody believed us; we stuck to and the town believed everything we said. "
The spirit and independence which characterized Leigh Hunt's critiques on literature and the drama were extended to his political writings. He com mented on the events of the day, with freedom very distasteful to those who enjoyed share of the taxes, or who worshipped at the shrine of fashion and the Prince of Wales. He had the talent to detect, and the honesty and the courage to declare, the necessity
I
a
a
it,
it,
LEIGH HUNT. 35
for various changes which have since been made. He was, in fact, one of the pioneers of the changes which have been effected during the present century. When the nation was infected with the war fever, he advo cated peace ; when millions were being lavished upon armies sent against Napoleon, he argued for retrench ment; and when noblemen bought and sold pocket boroughs, he demanded Parliamentary reform. The Attorney General was soon on his track; and, as we shall see, this literary champion for extension of liberty to the people was quickly instructed in the forms of Westminster Hall, and ultimately shut up in gaol, whilst the property earned by his pen was being filched from him by fines and law costs. He was a man of no private fortune, and had to earn the guineas which the Government compelled him to expend in defending his writings in the courts. * Three years after the starting of The News, The Examiner was established. Leigh Hunt thus
* The following Newspaper notice of Leigh Hunf s younger days, may here form an interesting note : — " Leigh Hunt is the son of a clergyman of the Church of England, and was born at Southgate, in Middlesex, October 19, 1784. His father, the Rev. Isaac Hunt, was a West Indian, but being in Pennsylvania at the time of the war with America, he manifested his loyalty to the Crown so warmly, that he was forced to leave that country and come to England. Having taken orders, he was for some time tutor to Mr. Leigh, the nephew of Lord Chandos, near Southgate ; and his son, the subject of our present sketch, was named Leigh after his pupil. Like Coleridge and Lamb, Leigh Hunt received his early education at Christ's Hospital, where he continued till his fifteenth year. ' I was then,' he says, ' first deputy Grecian, and had the honour of going out of school in the same rank, at the same age, and for the same reason, as my friend Charles Lamb. The reason was, that I hesitated in my speech. It was understood that a Grecian was bound to deliver a public speech before he left
D2
THE FOURTH ESTATE.
speaks of it in the work which we have already
quoted: — "At the beginning of the year 1808, my brother John and myself set up the weekly Paper of
The Examiner in joint partnership. The spirit of the
theatrical criticism *****
continued the same as in The
News for many years.
ceased to have any hand in and latterly to have any property in it. shall, therefore, say nothing
more of the Paper, except that was very much in
earnest in all wrote that was in perpetual
fluctuation during the time of gay spirits and wretched
health, which conspired to make me asensitive observer,
and
precisely on all subjects as did when last wrote in
it, with this difference, that am inclined to object to
the circumstances that make the present state of
Ihave long
very bad man of business and that think
still more; and to individuals who are the creatures of those circumstances, not at all. " Some of the articles he wrote when he was " very much in earnest" were those which brought down upon him
school, and to go into the Church afterwards and as could do neither of these things, Grecian could not be. ' This impediment in his speech, however, he had the good fortune to overcome. At school, as he has been through life, Leigh Hunt was remarkable for great exu
berance of animal spirits, and passionate attachment to his friends but he evinced little desire for study, except when the exercises were m verse when he would 'give up' double the quantity demanded of him. He himself has said, that his prose themes were generally so bad, that the master used to crumple them in his hand, and throw them to the boys for their amusement. Even in his schoolboy days
he strove to be poet, and his father collected his verses into volume, and published them with large list of subscribers. He has himself described this volume as nothing better than imitations, some of them
clever enough for youth of sixteen, but worthless in every other respect. "
society what
|
a
I
a
a a it
is I
a
I a
I ;
I
a
;
II it, ;
II
a
I ;
TRIAL OF PERRY. 37
the attentions of the Attorney General. And here we cannot again avoid noticing upon what slight
grounds the law officers of the Crown ventured to attack a public writer, secure in the belief that juries would convict any man who dared to print troublesome statements. In 1810 there appeared in The Examiner the following paragraph : —
What a crowd of blessings rush upon one's mind that might be bestowed upon the country, in the event of a total change of system ! Of all monarchs, indeed, since the Revolution, the successor of George the Third will have the finest opportunity of becoming nobly popular.
Being printed whilst George the Third was on the
throne, this was declared to be a seditious libel ; and
Sir Vicary Gibbs took steps accordingly. Informa tions were filed against Leigh Hunt and his brother John, and also against Mr. Perry of The Morning Chronicle, who had reprinted the paragraph. Perry's
case came on first for trial, before Lord Ellenborough and a Middlesex special jury, February 24, 1810. Attorney General Gibbs, in opening the prosecution, declared, that " nobody who saw such language held could doubt that it must have a manifest tendency to alienate and destroy the affections of the people to wards their sovereign, and to break down that link of love which ought to connect the sovereign and his people in the tenderest ties. " Perry conducted his own case, and, after arguing the points at issue with great address, he thus concluded hisdefence :—" Gentle men of the jury, the cause of the liberty of the press in England, under the direction of the noble and learned judge, is in your hands this day. The Morning
38 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
Chronicle stands now, as it did in 1793, in the front of the battle, not only for itself, but for the liberty of the press of England. The point at issue is—whether it shall continue to assert the principles upon which the Whigs have ever acted, and by which their only object is to perpetuate to His Majesty and his heirs the throne to which they persuaded the people of England to call his ancestors, by securing it upon that basis which forms not only its strength but its lustre, and which I find truly described in a recent column of my own Paper : — ' Nothing on earth ever equalled the magnificent and richly ornamented
power and greatness of the kingly office in the Con stitution of England, when exerted in due harmony with the influence and authority of the two Houses of Parliament, in unison with the public voice. The boasted unity and vigour of despotism is impotence compared with the concentrated energy of such a Government. '—May it be perpetual. "
The jury gave a verdict of Not Guilty, upon which the ex-officio information against The Examiner, for the original publication of this so-called libel, was
withdrawn by the Attorney General. This officer evi dently feared another defeat, and postponed his wrath against the "Eadical print," until he could make what he thought a stronger case against its editor.
Such an opportunity soon arose. The Examiner was not now the only Paper that attacked the abuses of our political system. Cobbett had made his way into the political arena, and with unfailing vigour kept up a constant fire in defence of democracy. Amongst other things, he had drawn the attention of the whole
TRIAL OF LEIGH HUNT. 39
country to the question of military flogging. Cobbett, who had himself been a soldier, objected only to this cruel mode of punishment in certain cases ; Leigh Hunt, in The Examiner, denounced such degrading inflictions altogether. In 1811, Leigh Hunt repub lished from The Stamford News an article denun ciatory of flogging, in which the writer admits that punishments are requisite under military law for the preservation of discipline; but argues, that an army might be kept effective without the use of whip cord ; and, in proof of this position, refers to the French
of Bonaparte, where the lash was unknown. This article was prosecuted by the Crown officers, and the case against John Hunt and Leigh Hunt of the Examiner came on for trial before Lord Ellenborough on the 22nd of February, 1811. * Mr. Brougham, then a rising advocate in the English courts, was engaged for
* The concluding portion of this alleged seditious libel will give a fair idea of its character :—
" The Attorney General ought not to stroke his chin with such complacency, when he refers to the manner in which Bonaparte treats his soldiers. We despise and detest those who would tell us that there is as much liberty now enjoyed in France as there is left in this country. We give all credit to the wishes of some of our great men ; yet while anything remains to us in the shape of free discussion, it is impossible that we should sink into the abject slavery in which the French people are plunged. But although we do not envy the general condition of Bonaparte's subjects, we really (and we speak the honest conviction of our hearts) see nothing peculiarly pitiable in the lot of his soldiers, when compared with that of our own. Were we called upon to make our election between the services, the whipcord would at once decide us.
No advantage whatever can compensate for, or render tolerable to a mind but one degree removed from brutality, a liability to be lashed like a beast. It is idle to talk about rendering the situation of a British soldier pleasant to himself, or desirable, far less honourable,
army
40 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
the defence, and, in opening his address to the jury, he recalled the names of a number of distinguished military men —Abercromby, Lord Moira, General Simcoe, Sir Eobert Wilson —who condemned the
practice of corporal punishment, and argued that the discussion of such a subject was one which might be safely and properly allowed without danger to the state. He declared that the question the jury had to decide really was, whether, on the most important and interesting subjects, an Englishman had the privilege of expressing himself as his feelings and his opinions dictated ? — A question which the jury decided (much to the chagrin of Sir Vicary Gibbs) by a verdict of Not Guilty.
But this was not to be the last of Leigh Hunt's
in the law courts. The Prince Regent took offence at some remarks in The Examiner, in which the writer declared The Morning Post had over stated the truth in declaring the then middle-aged Prince to be an Adonis. A more absurd ground for a
in the estimation of others, while the whip is held over his head—and over his head alone, for in no other country in Europe (with the ex ception, perhaps, of Russia, which is yet in a state of harbarity) is the military character so degraded. We once heard of an army of slaves, which had bravely withstood the swords of their masters, being de feated and dispersed by the bare shaking of the instrument offlagellation in their faces. This brought so forcibly to their minds their former
state of servitude and disgrace, that every honourable impulse at once forsook their bosoms, and they betook themselves to flight and to howling. We entertain no anxiety about the character of our countrymen in Portugal, when we contemplate their meeting the bayonets of Massena's troops, but we must own that we should tremble for the result, were the French general to dispatch against them a few hundred drummers, each brandishing a cat-o'-nine tails. "
appearances
j
THE DANDY OF FIFTY. 41
royal prosecution can scarcely be imagined ; but the fact of the Prince having commenced an action for libel in such a case proves, if such proof were necessary, that his vanity was much greater than his discretion. One result of the proceedings against The Examiner was, that this royal gentleman was for years afterwards continually spoken of, in the spirit of Hone's political squib, as—
The dandy of fifty,
'Who bows with a grace ;
Has a taste in wigs, collars, Cuirasses, and lace.
In reference to the article in The Examiner on the
Prince Regent, Leigh Hunt candidly says :—"
I was provoked to write the libel by the interest I took in the disappointments of the Irish nation, which had
very particular claims on the promises of His Royal Highness ; but what perhaps embittered it most in the palate of that illustrious personage was its contradic tion of an awkward panegyric which had just appeared from the pen of some foolish person in the Morning Post, calling him at his time of life a charmer of all hearts, and an Adonis of loveliness. At another time I should have laughed at this in a rhyme or two, and re
mained free—the courts oflaw havingajudiciousinstinct against the reading of merry rhymes; but the two things
coming together, and the Irish venting their spleen very stoutly over the wine at the dinner on St. Patrick's
day (indeed they could not well be more explicit, for
and hissed when his name was men tioned), I wrote an attack equally grave and vehement,
and such as everybody said would be prosecuted. "* * Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries.
they groaned
42 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
The expectation was realized ; proceedings were taken, and, in this instance, the jury found a verdict of guilty against Leigh Hunt and his brother John Hunt. The sentence against them was a fine of £500 (which, with the cost3, made the total penalty £2000), and two years' imprisonment (each) in Horsemonger Lane Gaol. The imprisonment he might have avoided had he chosen to have acceded to an offer made "through the medium of a third person, but in a manner empha tically serious and potential," binding him to abstain
in future from similar attacks; but which, although afterwards repeated as far as the payment of the fine was concerned, Mr. Hunt and his brother with the utmost constancy rejected.
The minds of these two Newspaper martyrs could
not be cramped by the aspects of a gaol. They went to work to make the best of their fate, and succeeded so well as to render the imprisonment very endurable. Politicians, poets, and other writers, paid them visits of compliment and condolence, and amongst the number were Byron and Moore. They found in Horsemonger Lane a realization of the truth of the old cavalier's rhyme : —
Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage ;
Minds innocent and quiet take These for a hermitage.
Leigh Hunt had metamorphosed his prison rooms. " I papered the walls," he says, " with a trellis of
I had the
coloured with clouds and
roses ;
tl,fsky ; the barred windows were screened with Venetian eaolinds ; and when my book- cases were set up, with
ceiling
LEIGH HUNT IN GAOL. 43
their busts and flowers, and a piano-forte made its appearance, perhaps there was not a handsomer room on that side the water. I took a pleasure, when a stranger knocked at the door, to see him come in and stare about him. The surprise on issuing from the Borough, and passing through the avenues of a gaol, was dramatic. Charles Lamb declared there was no other such room except in a fairy tale. But I had another surprise, which was a garden. There was a little yard outside, railed off from another belonging to the neighbouring ward. This yard I shut in with green palings, adorned it with a trellis, bordered it with a thick bed of earth from a nursery, and even contrived to have a grass plot. The earth I filled
with flowers and young trees. There was an apple- tree, from which we managed to get a pudding the second year. As to my flowers, they were allowed to be perfect. A poet from Derbyshire (Moore) told me he had seen no such heart' s-ease. Here I wrote and read in fine weather, sometimes under an awning. In autumn, my trellises were hung with scarlet runners, which added to the flowery investment. I used to shut my eyes in my arm-chair, and affect to think myself hundreds of miles off. But my triumph was
in issuing forth of a morning. A wicket out of the garden led into the large one belonging to the prison. The latter was only for vegetables, but it contained a cherry tree, which I twice saw in blossom. "
Men who could thus bend to circumstances, and make even a gaol agreeable, were not to be conquered by state prosecutions. They continued to write as before ; and when, in course of time, The Examiner
passed
44 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
from their hands, it found (fortunately for the pro gress of liberal opinions) new possessors, animated by an equal zeal for the elevation of literature and the progress of freedom.
We have seen that one of the prosecutions against The Examiner was grounded on the opinions ex pressed in its columns on the subject of military flogging; and that this subject had been brought prominently forward by Cobbett —a political jour nalist of great mark in his generation. William Cob bett was born near Farnham, Surrey, on the 9th of March, 1792. His father was a small farmer; and the future public writer, who was to alarm ministers and be persecuted by Attorney Generals, found occu pation, when a boy, in the day labour of the fields. As he grew older, he made a plunge into the world of London in search of work, and found himself, first, the rejected candidate for employment behind a draper's counter ; next, the drudge of the copying desk in a lawyer's office ; and next, the bearer of a musket in a regiment of the line. He possessed qualities
eminently desirable in the ranks. He was tall, strong, active, cleanly, punctual, and exact, and this com bination of useful qualifications soon obtained all the promotion which the rules of the service permitted. Not content, however, with his humble distinctions, and having a great thirst for knowledge, he worked with an unconquerable perseverance in pursuit of political and other information ; and being, moreover, very prudent and economical in his habits, he saved money from his scanty pay to purchase his discharge, which he received, with an excellent character from
COBBETT. 45
the officers under whom he had served, — one of whom was the unhappy Lord Edward Fitzgerald. When free from the clutches of the Horse Guards, he brought some charges against certain military men, and a court-martial was ordered ; but, finding himself unable to substantiate his allegations, he fled to France, whence he subsequently sailed for America, where his career as an author commenced. His first productions were some political pamphlets, but the bookseller who published them having, as Cobbett thought, behaved unfairly towards him, he set up a shop for himself, in Second Street, Philadelphia, and
soon made himself a reputation by certain high Tory writings, which appeared with the signature of Peter Porcupine. His notoriety was increased also by the way in which he filled his shop windows. These he crowded with portraits of George the Third and his ministers, with likenesses of princes of the royal family, and with other regal and noble faces. Such an exhibi tion was regarded as an outrage upon popular feeling in the republican city, for no one had dared exhibit publicly a likeness of the King since the declaration of independence. Cobbett thus became at once notorious and unpopular.
The explanation of this early display of anti democratic feeling is to be found, probably, inCobbett's innate dislike to tyranny. In the United States he found, fifty years ago, an intolerance towards all and every other opinion except that which had then newly gained the ascendant by the establishment of the republic. The Americans were bigots in their repub licanism, and, like all bigots, were tyrannical in their
46 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
strength. This tyranny Cobbett felt and attacked, and the more his opponents threatened him, the more stub born and abusive he became. At length a libel, which he had written on Dr. Rush, was brought before the courts of law, and he was convicted (December, 1799), and fined 5,000 dollars, a sum which he had no means of paying, and, to avoid further consequences, he fled ingloriously to England. No sooner had he reached this country, than he (in 1800) re-commenced his work as a writer, still adhering to the Tory principles he had adopted ; and his Paper, The Porcupine, con tained many clever compositions, in which the energy and powers of abuse for which he was afterwards so
famous were fully displayed. Mr. Wyndham praised him in the House of Commons for his defence of aristocratic institutions ; and one of his compositions is declared to have been read from the pulpit in all parts of the country. But the service he had taken soon became irksome. He must have felt that nature never meant him for an obsequious supporter of the silver-fork school he so often ridiculed; and before long he recanted his errors; commenced his Political Register ; and went over to the democratic camp, by
which he stood faithfully to the end of his career. The exposure of Governmental abuses, and the ridi cule of Government men and their friends, afforded
him ample employment, and, before long, brought down upon him an equally ample share of prosecution. His first appearance in the courts of , law was for the publication of a libel on the chief members of the Government of Ireland —Lord Hardwicke, Lord Redesdale, and others. This libel he declared he had
cobbett's trials. ; 47
received at his shop in Pall Mall, from an anonymous
and that the letter containing it bore the Irish post mark. He was found guilty, but escaped judgment (if the State Trials are to be relied
on) by giving up the MS. of the objectionable letters, —the handwriting of which led afterwards to the
celebrated proceedings against Judge Johnson. An action was subsequently brought against Cobbett for the same libel, byPlunkett, the Irish Solicitor General, who gained a verdict, with £500 damages. These were heavy blows, but more severe inflictions were in store for him. In 1809 he was again put on his trial for an alleged seditious libel. Some English local militia men, the sons and servants of farmers, had
been flogged in Cambridgeshire. Such punishments were unhappily common enough, but in the case denounced by The Political Register, these English
correspondent,
Englishmen,"
had been so flogged whilst under a guard
conscripts
of some foreign mercenary troops then in this country. Cobbett declared this to be a national disgrace, which nothing could wipe out. The lash was scandalous enough under any circumstances, but that " free-born
enrolled to defend their country from threatened foreign invasion, should, for some paltry infraction of military rule, be tied up like dogs to be flogged under a guard of German bayonets, was a thing not to be suffered in a land that declared itself free. The comment upon what was regarded as a
very shameful act, created a great sensation. The Attorney General Gibbs was set to work — a verdict of guilty was obtained, and Cobbett was sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, to be imprisoned for two years
48 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
in Newgate, and to give bonds for £3,000 that he
would keep the peace for seven years. Hansard, the
printer of The Register, together with two of the ven ders of the Publication were also punished ; though they had sought mercy of the authorities by confess ing their share of the transaction, and by giving up the name of the writer of the article.
The imprisonment, which would have crippled the energies of many less vigorous men, seemed to steel Cobbett to renewed exertions. Friends rose up to offer him sympathy and assistance ; his pen was plied incessantly ; and the Government, who thought they had shackled a troublesome enemy, found that though their gaoler had the body of the man, the press bore his thoughts over the length and breadth of the land. Cobbett adopted an ingenious mode of revenge. To give his persecuted Paper a wider and therefore more influential range, and so harass the authorities, he re duced its price to twopence, and soon the country
rang with mingled abuse of the minister, and applause of the Twopenny Trash, as it was christened. In the real abuses of the Government lay the real strength of their opponents, and that strength was used with terrible effect ; but when Castlereagh and his friends had gained full power —when the continental kings,
who had been toppled from their thrones by Napo leon, had been restored by English money and the Holy Alliance —the flood of democracy was met by the strong hand, and a despotic minister, to gain his point, did not hesitate, in 1817, to use his majo rity in the unreformed House of Commons to pass the notorious Six Acts. These laws were specially directed
COBBETTS REGISTER. 49
—not against the morning Newspapers, which had been cajoled or frightened into comparative silence, or shared in the then general feeling in favour of a " strong Government" — but against the Radical writers and speakers, " Cobbett, Wooler, Watson, Hunt," as Byron
reminds us, all of whom had contributed,
by cheap political publications and strong political harangues,
to raise a demand for reform, loud enough and daring
to be most troublesome to the authorities. The prisons were soon full of political prisoners, but Cobbett again sought refuge in America, where his opinions were now more acceptable. From thence he poured over a constant supply of Radical opinions, until the suspension of the terrible acts, in 1819, per mitted his return. During his sojourn in the States, he had stolen the bones of Thomas Paine from the grave, and when he reached London again, he pro claimed the fact, and boasted of their preservation as an act of glorious homage to the memory of that departed deist and democrat. This gained him more notoriety than praise ; but his re-appearance on the
English political stage was nevertheless signalized by
a succession of Radical dinners, public meetings, and
speeches. His Weekly Registers now appeared with punctuality worthy of the man who boasted of his early rising and exact mode of life; and each suc ceeding year, instead of displaying any flagging energy, found his pen apparently more fluent in its task, and his mind, if possible, more vigorously bent upon its duty. The tone of his writings deepened in their democracy as the voice of public opinion grew more
loud and general in its demands for representative VOL II. E
enough
50 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
changes ; and, when the agitation that finally carried the Reform Bill was approaching its crisis, the law was once more employed to stop the bitter denuncia tions of the hero of Bolt Court. In 1831, the Attor ney General proceeded against Cobbett for sedition. The trial was long and most interesting, and the verdict was anticipated with great anxiety as likely to influence the approaching decision on the vital ques tion, whether or not the rotten boroughs were to stand or fall. Again upon the shoulders of a jury rested the onus of influencing a political crisis. They consulted anxiously and long—their views differed — they could decide upon no verdict —and were dis charged. Cobbett walked free out of the court which was expected to witness his condemnation —the Reform Bill passed — and, instead of spending a few more years in gaol, he gained the long-coveted, and
honour of a seat in Parliament. This crowning fruition of his cherished hope, proved more fatal than persecution. The denunciations, the name-
before-sought,
callings, and other coarse " telling" features of his written Registers, could not be vented in a spoken address before Mr. Speaker, and the pure English style that clothed the early morning thoughts of the early-rising journalist, was less ready on the lip of the jaded M. P. , who stood up at midnight to address the House. As a political writer, considering the natural disadvantages he encountered and conquered, he had achieved a perfectly marvellous success; as a senator he failed. Late hours sapped his health ; and a cold, caught whilst attending his parliamentary duties, led to his death on the 18th of June, 1835.
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS. 51
This notice of the career of Cobbett has carried us over a number of years, and brought us to a comparatively recent date but we must not omit some mention of other victims to the spirit of persecution.
In a paper ordered to be printed by the House of Commons, we have a return of the ex-officio inform ations filed for political libel, and seditious conduct, in the Court of King's Bench in England, between 1808 and the beginning of 1821 ; distinguishing those which had been followed up by prosecution, and those which had not.
This document shows that, in 1808, four persons were prosecuted by Government for libel ; in two, de fendants were sentenced ; in one, defendant suffered
judgment by default, but was not sentenced ; in one,
defendants inserted an apology in their Newspaper,
and proceedings were stayed. The subsequent cases were :—
In 1809, three Government prosecutions for libel, four for seditious conduct ; in one, defendant was ac quitted ; in one (for the same libel), defendants not tried ; in two, defendants were sentenced ; in two, defendants were not apprehended ; in one, issue joined.
In 1810, twelve Government prosecutions for libel, four for seditious conduct ; in six, defendants were sen tenced ; in four, defendants were convicted, and gave security to appear for sentence when required ; in one, defendant was outlawed ; in one, defendant was not apprehended ; in two, defendants were acquitted ; in two, issue joined.
In 1811, one Government prosecution for seditious
conduct, defendant was sentenced. In 1812, one for E2
52 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
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.