No More Learning

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. 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 !