No More Learning

The Stock Exchange was in a fever of expectation, and during the week that preceded the trial, money speculations were made upon the belief that Peltier's acquittal would be regarded in France as tantamount to a declaration of war against the First Consul, and wagers were laid that a verdict of not guilty would lower the funds five per cent. The jobbers had messengers at Westminster Hall, prepared to run with all possible speed from the court to the Stock Exchange, with the first news of verdict, if it should be pronounced before the House shut. " It was under these unpropitious omens," says Peltier, in describing his trial, " that I sat in the Court of Queen's Bench, and my anxiety was naturally increased when the first objects that I saw there, were the aide-de-camp, and the secretary of the ambassador of the First Consul, placed, in some sort, en faction, beneath the box of the jurymen. "
The case came on for trial on Monday, February 21, 1803, before Lord Ellenborough and a special
jury. The case for the Crown was conducted by the Attorney General, Spencer Percival, the future minister, and victim of the assassin Bellingham. Manners Sutton, Abbott, and Garrow, all afterwards judges, followed on the same side ; whilst Mackintosh, (the future Sir James Mackintosh, recorder of Bombay), with Mr. Fergusson, appeared for the defence.
" The information stated, that there subsisted friendship and peace between our sovereign lord the
6 THE FOUKTH ESTATE.
King, and the French Republic ;" that, " citizen Napoleon Bonaparte was First Consul of the said Re public, and as such, Chief Magistrate of the same ;" and further, that certain libels had been printed and published by Jean Peltier, of St. Anne, Westminster, traducing and vilifying the said Napoleon Bonaparte, and calculated to bring him into contempt ; and to excite the animosity, jealousy, and hatred of the First Consul and the French Republicans against the King and people of England. The libels when read now, nearly half a century after their publication, appear harmless enough; but, during the excitement of 1803, were doubtless thought to be of very serious character. The most pointed and severe of these attacks on the First Consul, and the one on which the law-officers of the crown much relied, may be quoted to illustrate this remarkable trial.
" Wish of a good patriot on the fourteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two.
" What fortune has the son of Laetitia arrived at ! A Corsican , he becomes a Frenchman, his new country adopts him, nourishes him in the rank of its children, and already promises him the greatest destinies. A storm arises. By the force of the tempests the state is overturned —the most noble persons fall—everything is broken. The unhappy Frenchman regrets with sighs his error and his wishes. Napoleon appears flying from victory to victory —he reaches the summit of glory—the east, the west witnesses of his exploits, are vanquished by him, and receive his laws. The Nile had shuddered ; but the lot that forces him on, recalls his vanquisher to the banks of the Seine. Five chiefs, or five tyrants, shared the power. He forces from their hands the sceptre and the censer. Behold him then seated where the throne was raised. What is wanting to its wishes ? —a sceptre ? —a crown ? Consul, he governs all—he makes
THE PELTIER LIBEL. 7
and unmakes kings. Little careful to be beloved, terror estab lishes his rights over a people degraded even to the rank of slaves —he reigns ! —he is despotic ! —they kiss their chains ! What has he to dread ? —he has dictated peace —kings are at his feet, begging his favours. He is desired to secure the supreme authority in his hands ! The French ; nay, kings themselves, hasten to congratulate him, and would take the oath to him like subjects. He is proclaimed Chief and Consul for life. As for me, far from envying his lot, let him name, I consent to it, his worthy successor. Carried on the shield let him be elected Emperor ! Finally, (and Romulus recalls the thing to mind), I wish that on the morrow, he may have his apotheosis. Amen ! "
These libels appeared in Numbers 1 and 3 of a Paper called " L'Ambigu, or Amusing and Atrocious Varieties, a Journal of the Egyptian kind. " It was in French, and was sold by a Frenchman in Gerrard Street, where the agents of the Government bought the copies used for the prosecution.
Percival in stating his case to the jury, declared
that he prosecuted this Publication because it had a
tendency " to endanger the security, the tranquillity, and the peace of the country. " He said, " I do not think I am at all called on to state any general princi ple of law which may apply, or at least strictly to define to what extent the Government of a country, at peace with our own, may lawfully be made the sub
ject of animadversion. I am not now called upon to lay down such a definition, but undoubtedly there are some broad distinctions on the subject. I have no difficulty in laying down this : for instance, I think no man can suppose that I mean to contend, that any Publication, professing to consider the conduct of a foreign Government at peace with us, would be a
8 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
libel ; which, if applied to the Government of our own country, would not be deemed to be such. Though the province of the historian be the detail of facts, yet, if he introduced the fair discussion of the politician, or of the philosopher, on the facts and events he de tailed, even this, unquestionably published fairly and bona fide, and not as a cover for slander and defama tion, such a Publication I should certainly never think of deeming the subject of presecution. But, if the case be this : if defamation be the sole object of the Pub lication, and if the Publication has the necessary and direct tendency of exciting that degree of jealousy and hatred in the country to which the Publication is directed, against the country from which it issues, and to alienate the dispositions of that country from our own, and consequently to interrupt the intercourse of peace which subsisted between them — I think it is not likely any lawyer will stand up and say such a Publication is not a libel, and that the author of it ought not to be punished. But even that is not this offence ; the offence here charged to have been com mitted by the defendant, is this—that his Publication is a direct incitement and exhortation to the people of the French Republic, to rise up in arms against their First Consul and Chief Magistrate, to wrest the power from the hands in which de facto it is placed, and to take away the life of the man who
presides over them. Is it possible we can have any difficulty
in supporting the proposition, that such a Publication is an offence against the law of this country ? "
Mackintosh's defence of Peltier, was regarded as one of the most brilliant speeches of the time. He
PELTIER.
9
declared the real prosecutor in the case to be " the master of the greatest empire the civilized world ever saw. " " The defendant," he said, " is a defence less proscribed exile. He is a French Royalist, who fled from his country in the Autumn of 1792, at the period of that memorable and awful emigration, when all the proprietors and magistrates of the greatest
civilized country of Europe were driven from their homes by the daggers of assassins ; when our shores were covered as with the wreck of a great tempest, with old men, and women, and children, and ministers of religion, who fled from the ferocity of their country men as before an army of invading barbarians. The greater part of these unfortunate exiles, of those, I mean, who have been spared by the sword, who have survived the effect of pestilential climates or broken hearts, have been since permitted to revisit their country. Though despoiled of their all, they have
embraced even the sad privilege of being suffered to die in their native land. Even this miser able indulgence was to be purchased by compliances, by declarations of allegiances to the new Government, which some of these suffering Royalists deemed in compatible with their conscience, with their dearest attachments, and their most sacred duties. Among these last is M. Peltier. I do not presume to blame those who submitted, and I trust you will not judge harshly of those who refused. You will not think unfavourably of a man who stands before you as the voluntary victim of his loyalty and honour. If a revolution (which God avert) were to drive us into
eagerly
10 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
exile, and to cast us on a foreign shore, we should expect, at least, to be pardoned by generous men, for stubborn loyalty, and unseasonable fidelity to the laws and government of our fathers. "
He called upon the jury to remember certain facts in English history. " If, during our usurpation, Lord Clarendon had published his History at Paris, or the Marquis of Montrose his verses on the murder of his sovereign, or Mr. Cowley his Discourse on Cromwell's government, and if the English ambassador had com plained, the President de Mole, or any other of the great magistrates who then adorned the Parliament of Paris, however reluctantly, painfully, and indignantly, might have been compelled to have condemned these illustrious men to the punishment of libellers. I say this only for the sake of bespeaking a favourable attention from your generosity and compassion to what will be feebly urged in behalf of my unfortunate client, who has sacrificed his fortune, his hopes, his connections, his country, to his conscience ; who seems marked out for destruction in this his last asylum. That he still enjoys the security of this asylum, that he has not been sacrificed to the resentment of his powerful enemies, is perhaps owing to the firmness of the King's Government. If that be the fact, gen tlemen ; if His Majesty's Ministers have resisted applications to expel this unfortunate gentleman from England, I should publicly thank them for their firmness, if it were not unseemly and improper to suppose that they could have acted otherwise—
to thank an English Government for not violating
THE SPEECH OF MACKINTOSH. 11
the most sacred duties of hospitality ; for not bring ing indelible disgrace on their country. *"
Turning from personal considerations for his client, to the consideration of the great principles in volved in his case, Mackintosh declared the trial they
were engaged in, to be the first of a series of conflicts between the greatest power in the world and the only free press remaining in Europe. " This distinction of the English press," he said, " is new — it is a proud and melancholy distinction. Before the great earth quake of the French Revolution had swallowed up all the asylums of free discussion on the Continent, we enjoyed that privilege, indeed, more fully than others, but we did not enjoy it exclusively. In great mo narchies, the press has always been considered as too formidable an engine to be entrusted to unlicensed individuals. But in other continental countries, either by the laws of the state, or by long habits of liberality and toleration in magistrates, a liberty of discussion has been enjoyed, perhaps sufficient for
most useful purposes. It existed, in fact, where it was not protected by law ; and the wise and generous connivance of governments was daily more and more secured by the growing civilization of their subjects.
* In an " Address to the Public," annexed by Mr. Peltier to the original report of this trial, " he thus expresses himself on the subject mentioned in the text ;— Thanks, above all, to the Government of His Majesty, who, in the very moment when it was thought that my prosecution was necessary to the experiment they were then making of the practicability of a peace with the Republic, have protected me against the fury of the First Consul, who demanded my transportation out of this kingdom ; and who have felt that there did not exist a single spot in Europe out of His Majesty's dominions, where, I could set my foot without falling into the tiger's den. "
12 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
In Holland, in Switzerland, in the imperial towns of
Germany, the press was either legally or practically free. Holland and Switzerland are no more; and, since the commencement of this prosecution, fifty imperial towns have been erased from the list of independent states, by one dash of the pen. Three or four still preserve a precarious and trembling ex istence. I will not say by what compliances they must purchase its continuance. I will not insult the feebleness of states whose unmerited fall I do most bitterly deplore.
" These governments were in many respects one of the most interesting parts of the ancient system of Europe. Unfortunately, for the repose of mankind, great states are compelled, by regard to their own safety, to consider the military spirit and martial habits of their people as one of the main objects of their policy. Frequent hostilities seem almost the necessary condition of their greatness; and, without being great, they cannot long remain safe. Smaller states exempted from this cruel necessity — a hard condition of greatness, a bitter satire on human na ture — devoted themselves to the arts of peace, to the cultivation of literature, and the improvement of reason. They became places of refuge for free and fearless discussion ; they were the impartial spectators
and judges of the various contests of ambition, which, from time to time, disturbed the quiet of the world. They thus became peculiarly qualified to be the organs of that public opinion which converted Europe into a great republic, with laws which mitigated, though they could not extinguish, ambition, and with moral
THE SPEECH OF MACKINTOSH. 13
tribunals to which even the most despotic sovereigns were amenable. If wars of aggrandizement were un dertaken, their authors were arraigned in the face of Europe. If acts of internal tyranny were perpetrated, they resounded from a thousand presses throughout all civilized countries. Princes, on whose will there were no legal checks, thus found a moral restraint which the most powerful of them could not brave with absolute impunity. They acted before a vast audience, to whose applause or condemnation,
they could not be utterly indifferent. The very constitution
of human nature, the unalterable laws of the mind of man, against which all rebellion is fruitless, subjected the proudest tyrants to this control. No elevation of power, no depravity, however consummate, no inno cence, however spotless, can render man wholly inde- pendant of the praise or blame of his fellow men.
" These governments were in other respects one of the most beautiful and interesting parts of our ancient
The perfect security of such inconsiderable and feeble states, their undisturbed tranquillity, amidst the wars and conquests that surrounded them, attested beyond any other part of the European system, the moderation, the justice, the civilization, to which Christian Europe had reached in modern times. Their weakness was protected only by the habitual reverence for justice, which, during a long series of ages, had grown up in Christendom. This was the only fortification which defended them against those mighty monarch s to whom they offered so easy a prey. And, till the French Revolution, this was sufficient. Consider, for instance, the situation of the Republic
system.
14 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
of Geneva : think of her defenceless position in the very jaws of France; but think also of her undisturbed security, of her profound quiet, of the brilliant success with which she applied to industry and literature, while Louis XIV. was pouring his myriads into Italy before her gates ; call to mind, if ages crowded into years have not effaced them from your memory, that happy period when we scarcely dreamt more of the subjugation of the feeblest republic of Europe, than of the conquest of her mightiest empire, and tell me if you can imagine a spectacle more beautiful to the moral eye, or a more striking proof of progress in the noblest principles of true civilization. These feeble states, these monuments of the justice of Europe, the asylum of peace, of industry, and of literature, the the organs of public reason, the refuge of oppressed innocence and persecuted truth, have perished with those ancient principles which were their sole guard ians and protectors. They have been swallowed up by that fearful convulsion, which has shaken the uttermost corners of the earth. They are destroyed and gone for ever. One asylum of free discussion is still inviolate. There is still one spot in Europe where man can freely exercise his reason on the most important concerns of society, where he can boldly publish his judgment on the acts of the proudest and most powerful tyrants : the press of England is still free. It is guarded by the free constitution of our forefathers. It is guarded by the hearts and arms of Englishmen, and I trust I may venture to say, that if it be to fall, it will fall only under the ruins of the British empire. "
Mackintosh went on to describe those general
THE SPEECH OF MACKINTOSH. 15
principles of law on the subject of political libel, and then again descending to the more immediate affairs of his client, he declared that the object of Peltier's Paper was to give a picture of the cabals and intrigues
of the French factions ; and then, turning skilfully upon the law officers of the crown, he inquired why other Papers, which went unchallenged in their abuse, not only of the French but of the English authorities, were not prosecuted. If the general lawfulness of republications from the French, (for Peltier's work professed to be partly a reprint from the French,) " if the general lawfulness," he said, " of such republica tions be denied, then I must ask Mr. Attorney General to account for the long impunity which English Newspapers have enjoyed. I must request him to tell you why they have been suffered to republish all the atrocious, official and unofficial libels which have
been published against His Majesty for the last ten years, by the Brissots, the Marats, the Dantons, the
the Barreres, the Talliens, the Reubels, the Merlins, the Barrases, and all that long line of
bloody tyrants who oppressed their own country, and insulted every other which they had not the power to rob. What must be the answer ? That the English publishers were either innocent, if their motive was to gratify curiosity, or praiseworthy, iftheir intention was to rouse indignation against the calumniators of their country. "
After a long argument intended to show the almost impossibility of libelling or overstating the blackness of character of some of the French revolu tionary heroes, Mackintosh gave some historical views
Robespierres,
16 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
relative to the liberty of the press — (he accepts as true, by the way, the false story of the English Mer- curie,) —"During this ignominious period of our
a war arose on the Continent, which cannot but present itself to the mind on such an occasion as this ; the only war that was ever made on the avowed ground of attacking a free press. I speak of the invasion of Holland by Louis XIV. The liberties which the Dutch Gazettes had taken in discussing his conduct were the sole cause of this very extra ordinary and memorable war, which was of short duration, unprecedented in its avowed principle, and most glorious in its event for the liberties of mankind, that republic, at all times so interesting to Englishmen, —in the worst times of both countries our brave ene mies, — in their best times our most faithful and valuable friends, —was then charged with the defence of a free press against the oppressor of Europe, as a sacred trust for the benefit of all generations. They felt the sacredness of the deposit, they felt the dignity of the station in which they were placed, and though deserted by the un-English Government of England they asserted their own ancient character, and drove
out the great armies and great captains of the oppressor with defeat and disgrace. Such was the result of the only war hitherto avowedly undertaken to oppress a free country because she allowed the free and public exercise of reason : and may the God of justice and liberty grant that such may ever be the result of wars made by tyrants against the rights of mankind, espe cially against that right which is the guardian of every other. "
history,
AN APPEAL TO A JURY.
In concluding his speech, Mackintosh
forcibly to former examples where juries had vindicated the freedom of the press. " In the court where we are now met, Cromwell twice sent a satirist on his tyranny
to be convicted and punished as a libeller, and in this court, almost in sight of the scaffold streaming with the blood of his sovereign, within hearing of the clash of his bayonets, which drove out Parliaments with contumely, two successive juries rescued the intrepid
satirist* from his fangs, and sent out with defeat and
disgrace the usurper's Attorney General from what he had the insolence to call his court ! Even then, when
this unhappy country, triumphant indeed abroad, but
enslaved at home, had no prospect but that of a long
succession of tyrants wading through slaughter to a throne — even then, I say, when all seemed lost, the unconquerable spirit of English liberty survived in the hearts of English jurors. That spirit is, I trust in God, not extinct : and if any modern tyrant were, in the drunkenness of his insolence, to hope to overawe an English jury, I trust and I believe that they would tell him —' Our ancestors braved the bayonets of Cromwell — we bid defiance to yours. Contempsi Ca-
tUince gladios—non pertimescam tuos ! '
" What could be such a tyrant's means of overawing
a jury ? As long as their country exists, they are girt round with impenetrable armour. Till the destruction of their country no danger can fall upon them for the performance of their duty, and I do trust that there is no Englishman so unworthy of life as to desire to outlive England. But if any of us are condemned
-
VOL. II.
* Lilburne.
C
appealed
17
18 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
to the cruel punishment of surviving our country — in the inscrutable counsels of Providence, this favoured seat of justice and liberty, this noblest work
of human wisdom and virtue, be destined to destruc
tion, which, shall not be charged with national
prejudice for saying, would be the most dangerous wound ever inflicted on civilization at least let us carry with us into our sad exile the consolation that we ourselves have not violated the rights of hospitality to exiles—that we have not torn from the altar the suppliant who claimed protection, as the voluntary victim of loyalty and conscience Gentlemen, now leave this unfortunate gentleman in your hands. His
character and his situation might interest your hu manity — but, on his behalf, only ask justice from you. only ask favourable construction of what cannot be said to be more than ambiguous language,
and this, you will soon be told from the highest autho rity, part of justice. "
This powerful appeal was in vain. The jury found Peltier guilty but war breaking out soon afterwards between England and France, he was never called up to receive sentence.
On the opening of the session of Parliament in 1805, the most prominent subject of debate arose out of aNews- paper paragraph. Lord Melville's delinquencies had compelled his dismissal from office but the disgraced minister found friend in Mr. Peter Stuart, the editor of Tory Journal then enjoyingsome influence, entitled The Oracle. Stuart was brother to Charles Lamb's
" Dan. Stuart of The Morning Post. " Who wrote the offending remarks does not now appear, but they are
a
a
;I a
;
is a
I
I
!
I
;
if,
LORD MELVILLE S DELINQUENCIES. 19
worth notice as a specimen of what was then thought
to be " vigorous Newspaper writing. " The champion of a minister dismissed for misappropriation of the
public monies, retorts upon his enemies by accusing them of similar delinquencies ; but the use of gross personality in partisan disputes was not then limited to the columns of the Newspapers. After stating that Sir Charles Middleton had been appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, the paragraph that caused this
parliamentary disturbance went on as follows : —
While we announce this arrangement as the proper re ward of public and private virtue, we cannot help sincerely regretting that party rancour and popular clamour have at this time deprived our King and country of the great and power ful abilities of Lord Melville. In no period of our political history can we find such an instance of the strong effects of prejudice. With all our profound respect for the motives which influenced the majority of the House of Commons; with all our admiration of that spirit which arouses and animates the people in their expressions of indignation at the supposed
malversations of an individual ; with all our regard for town and country meetings, when properly directed, in supporting the cause of independence, freedom, and public virtue, we cannot help again declaring, that Lord Melville has fallen a victim to
confidence misplaced, to prejudice misjudged, and to indignation misapplied : he has been condemned without trial ; when an appeal has been offered to his intemperate judges ; when a request has been made to put him on his defence ; when it has been earnestly solicited to give him a fair and candid hearing, and then come to a decision on the merits of the case, a strong and presumptuous negative have been given, directed and enforced by the violence of the times. If those who were so very impatient to deprive Mr. Pitt of so able a coadjutor, were equally zealous in their endeavours to restore to the public the unaccounted millions of which that public has been so dis
gracefully robbed, there would, perhaps, be some excuse for all C2
20 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
that affectation of public virtue which has lately distinguished certain brawling patriots of the day. Lord Melville has not deprived the public of a single farthing ; his most implacable enemies have not dared to charge him with such an act : can as much be said of the fathers of some men? If the public were paid its pecuniary claims—long since indisputably proved —certain furious patriots, instead of living in splendour, would be put on the parish. In the future resolutions of the House of Commons, in the future resolutions of all public meetings, we hope that an immediate attention to the enormous debts still due to the public, by certain noisy individuals, will be strongly recommended.
This was the article which called down upon its author the full indignation of the House of Commons, and the debate that ensued upon it is memorable, amongst other things, by the eminence of those who took part in it. On the 25th of April, 1805, Mr. Grey, the champion of the popular party be it re membered, rose to bring the matter before Parliament, and the discussion and other proceedings that followed, as we find them stated in the publications of the time,* afford an interesting view of the temper in which Newspaper critiques on public affairs were regarded, and show also how lenient a parliamentary majority can be when a delinquent has done what agrees with its political humour.
Mr. Grey began by remarking, that whatever reluctance he might feel to take any steps which should seem inconsistent with the most perfect liberty of the press, he could not forbear calling the attention of
the House to a most indecent libel on their proceed ings; it was of a nature so gross that, consistent with its own dignity, the House could not suffer it to pass
* Annual Register and Newspapers, April, 1805.
PARLIAMENT AND "THE ORACLE. 21
over, without expressing its indignation against it. He then read, from The Oracle of the former day, the paragraph we have just quoted, and concluded by moving that Mr. Peter Stuart of Fleet Street, the prin ter and publisher of the offending Paper, should be called to the bar of the House. One of the ministers rose to defend the literary champion of his late col league. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the passage just read was libellous and indecent, but hoped that if gentlemen now began to turn their attention to everything of a libellous and indecent tendency, they would at least observe the strictest impartiality. Observations of the same kind on the proceedings of the House had often before appeared, and were as often overlooked; but if it was now resolved that remarks derogatory to the dignity of the House should be marked with its indignation, he was satisfied. All he desired was, that they should not select one particular instance for punishment, and let others pass with impunity. He concluded by ob jecting to the motion. Mr. Grey rose to reply. If the right honourable gentleman, (he said) wished to make this a part of a general system, he could have no objection; but he had selected this case as one which it became the House to take under its special
The reason he brought it forward was, that he thought it one which was right and proper to select. Mr. Fox allowed that in affairs of this kind
the strictest impartiality ought always to prevail ; but, in judging of the propriety of such motions, regard should be had to particular times and circumstances. It was the duty of the House to take care that the late
cognizance.
22 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
decision (in reference to Melville) which diffused such
universal gratitude throughout the country, should not be wantonly attacked and insulted. The necessity was the greater, when men in high official situations were seen endeavouring to protect persons convicted of the grossest malversations, and when the present treasurer of the navy was continuing in office a man whom the commissioners of naval inquiry declared unworthy of acting in any pecuniary situation. This allusion to a ministerial employee, brought Mr. Can ning into the discussion, and he led the House into a debate having very little to do with the Newspaper topic with which it commenced, and, after Fox and Sheridan had spoken, the debate was ended by the
motion being adopted.
The following evening April 26, on the order of
the day being read for the attendance of Mr. Stuart of The Oracle at the bar, Mr. Atkins Wright said a good and wise word for the liberty of the press. He deprecated the adoption of any severe measures towards Mr. Stuart, however necessary it might be to support the resolutions. For his own part, he (Mr. Wright) did not feel his peace of mind broken in upon by any animadversions that might be made upon them. The people of this country had a right to discuss freely the conduct of their representatives. He professed to be of no party, but he highly felt the necessity of maintaining the liberty of the press
in all its purity. The honour and dignity of Parlia ment, in his opinion, would be best consulted in passing the article over in silence ; as that House ought to have a firm reliance on its own rectitude. Mr. Grey was
WINDHAM AND SHERIDAN.
23
inclined to overlook the offence. He said that if the article had appeared a trivial matter to him, or if it had been a fair comment on public affairs, he should not have complained of it ; but it appeared to him, on the contrary, to be mere invective and unqualified abuse, tending to villify the proceedings, and insult the authority of Parliament ; but if the House thought lightly of or the honourable member who had spoken last should think proper to move that the order be discharged, he should not feel necessary to press his motion. Mr. Atkins Wright again conjured the House not to make this matter of any conse quence, as bare reprimand would be sufficient for the purpose. Mr. Windham, however, would listen to no such compromise. He said, he supposed the honourable gentleman who spoke last, would take care to be more tender of his own character as an indivi dual, than he seemed to be of that of the House of
Commons; but he saw no reason
why gentlemen
should feel in that way as would be as much as
saying to the public, " you may say what you please,
we don't mind it. " If such was the rule, why not proclaim It would be false language to say, that, because many things of this kind were passed over, none should be noticed. The only question was, whe ther the present instance went to such excess as should lead them to interfere for the maintenance of their own dignity In his opinion, was gross, calumnious,
and licentious, and he should not think himself acting on vindictive principle he voted for punishing the offender, in certain degree, as warning to others Sheridan next rose to say his word in favour of freedom
a
?
it ?
a
it, if
a
a
if
it it a
;
it
24 THE FOURTH ESTATE.
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.