documents in order to institute a prosecution against the parties, by whose machinations he had so severely suffered. After some time he was referred to the Privy Council, but his application to their lordships was unsuccessful. The following year, 1796, your petitioner was surprised with the intelligence that a bill of indictment for high treason had been found against him at the Old Bailey. He immediately surrendered to the court, and was committed to Newgate. Some weeks after this he was arraigned at the bar, when, strange as it may appear for the first time in his life your petitioner met here, a man, Crosfield, and held up his hand with him, whom to the best of his knowledge he had never seen or heard of before, but with whom he was charged with conspiring the King's death. Some months after this, your petitioner was again put to the bar and acquitted; Mr. Attorney General declaring he had no evidence to produce against him. But, your Hon. House will observe that this summary discharge did not acquit your petitioner of any of the expences of a defence, the great amount of which to a private individual without fortune is exceedingly oppressive, nor was this the whole extent of the pecuniary loss incurred by your petitioner. His agreements with Messrs. Macaire, and Co. exacted of him for every day's absence from business 9 shillings, on which account be paid upwards of an hundred guineas.-In April, 1798, your petitioner was again seized, and again committed to Newgate, on charges of "treasonable practices," where after he had been confined about a year he was attacked violently with spasms in the stomach, and, once more in a prison, his life was despaired of. Your petitioner earnestly solicited of His Grace the Duke of Portland, that he might be brought to trial, but received no answer. From this prison on the 10th August, 1799, your petitioner was removed to Reading Jail, where his spasmodic complaint again returned, on which occasion he met with the reverse of the humane treatment he had before experienced in Newgate. Your petitioner remained here until the 2d of March, 1801, when he was ordered to town, and taken before Mr. Justice Ford, in Bow Street, who offered to liberate him on condition of giving his own recognizance to appear on the first day of the ensuing term in the Court of King's Bench. But, as the Privy Council had refused to tell him on his examination in 1798, on what specific charge, he had been arrested, your petition er refused to enter into the recognizance demanded of him, until he could learn the real grounds of accusation on which he had been three years detained in various prisons. On his refusal to accede to the terms proposed, your petitioner was taken from this office to the Parliament Street Hotel, whence he wrote to the Duke of Portland, desiring to be liberated without any condition or recognizance. Your petitioner received no answer, but was committed the same afternoon to Tothill Fields prison, in which new hardships awaited him, for either he must submit to be lodged in an apartment destitute of every accommo dation, wherein to exclude the inclemencies of the season he must shut out the light, the window not being glazed, he must associate with felons at the rate of 35 shillings per week, or pay two guineas and a half per week for his board and lodging. The state of your petitioner's health demanded that he should reject the first, his character and feelings would not allow him to submit to the second, and thus he was reduced to the necessity to preserve his health, and avoid the worst society, to incur an expence in this protracted season of suffering beyond his power to discharge, without a painful dependance on friends, whose resources he had already exhausted. In this situation your petitioner again appealed to the Duke of Portland, but his Grace directed that he should be allowed only 20 shillings per week, leaving £1. 12. 6. to be paid by himself. By stat. 7 of William 3 cap. it is enacted that no person shall be prosecuted for treason, unless it be against the king's person three years after the fact is committed. The Habeas Corpus Act was now in force. Your petitioner therefore, having since his last arrest been confined three years, thought the law would liberate him. Lord Kenyon was applied to for an Habeas, but he refused to grant one, and referred your petitioner to the Court of King's Bench in the ensuing term. But before the first day of term when. your petitioner was to have been brought up to the Court, the Habeas Corpus Act was again suspended. Under these circumstances your petitioner submitted to the terms of liberation again offered to him through the personal medium of Mr. Ford, and was liberated on the 25th of April last. On the 11th inst. your petitioner addressed to his Grace the Duke of Portland, a memorial giving a detail of the above particulars, and requesting to be reimbursed his immediate expences. To this application no answer has been made. By every consideration your petitioner is now invited to appeal to your Hon. House. Did your petitioner feel in the smallest degree culpable, he would court obscurity, and silently submit to the ruin that unavoidably follows such an age of suffering, having been confined a great part of the period between eighteen and twenty-five years of age. But your petitioner assures your Hon. House, that he has innocently incurred the injuries he has endured, and such your petitioner humbly submits is the presumption arising from the protraction of imprisonment, beyond the period limited by the statute already alluded to for the trial of persons accused of treason (except on the king's person, with which your petitioner was charged) inasmuch as were your petitioner guilty even in the judgment of his Majesty's then ministers, it would leave them without excuse, and guilty themselves of a high misdemeanour of neglect, and breach of public duty to his Majesty and their country, for suffering a traitor to escape for ever without bringing him to trial. Your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays your Hon. House to take his case into your consideration, and for such relief or the adoption of such measures as your Hon. House in your wisdom these circumstances may seem to require.--And your petitioner shall ever pray.--P. T. LEMAITRE. June 1, 1801. not Report of Proceedings, in the Trial of an Action, brought by Mr. P. T. LEMAITRE against JACKS, for defamation.-Tried, in the Court of King's Bench, Guildhall, on Wednesday, the 16th January, 1811. This was an action for words spoken in defamation of Plaintiff by defendant. Mr. TERRY opened the pleadings. Mr. GARKOW stated the Plaintiff's case. He said it became his duty to address his Lordship and the Jury upon a case of no ordinary importance, whether it was considered in reference to the rights of an individual or of the privileges of well regulated society in general-it was indeed a case of that weight, that though, since last he had addressed a jury, he doubted much if ever he or a jury should again hear his voice within a Court of Justice, yet he had not cared if his absence had been lengthened out another day, that his Client might have the advantage of having this cause opened to them by his Learned Friend upon his right hand (Mr. Topping). The Plaintiff in this case, Mr. Lemaitre, was well known to them; he had resided for ten years in the City of London, in the same house, surrounded by the same friends, in the same neighbourhood where he had for that time uniformly conducted himself as, and was known as a tender husband, and the decorous father of a family faithfully discharging all the duties of an honest industrious citizen. In this situation he discovers, from a communication made to his friends, that an attack, as unexpected as it was gross and unprovoked, has been made upon his character. He sees himself represented in the Newspapers as a convicted traitor, and held forth in that odious light to his fellow citizens. A charge of this nature must of course have had retrospective tendency, but it could be proved that no part of Mr. Lemaitre's antecedent life could warrant so severe an imputation; the circumstances, however, which had been made the pretence of that charge, he should explain to the Jury. Some years ago many well meaning men had been led into an association for the laudable purpose of furthering, by all Constitutional means, what appeared to them the great and desirable object of a Reform in Parliament; of these Mr. Lemaitre was one; to these other men contrived to add themselves, professing the same ostensible object, but who were far from being influenced by the same honest views. The designs of such evil men, together with the urgent dangers of the crisis, excited more than of the Government, and the great men who ordinary suspicion and alarm on the part then presided thought it necessary to suspend for a time that great bulwark of the rights of Englishmen, the Habeas Corpus Act. In the midst of the alarm, Mr. Lemaitre, at that time but eighteen years of age, had become an object of the suspicion of Government, owing, no doubt, to the youthful ardour and indiscretion of his zeal in a good cause, rather than from any actual concern in a bad one. Mr. Lemaitre was arrested upon suspicion of seditious practices; and upon being brought to his trial his Majesty's Attorney General acknowledged he had no evidence against him, and he was discharged. Now he would ask, were these circumstances to warrant any other man in branding him as a convicted traitor-if they were, who could be safe-what was the use of trial or what the advantage of acquittal, if any miscreant could with impunity charge an cations in this Court did not allow me to attend the Cominon Council on those days, for the purpose of improving myself (a innocent man with accusations the most laugh); had I done so, you, Gentlemen, foul and injurious; but he would ask might have had a much better speech than what, in such circumstances, would have you can now reasonably expect from me been the conduct of any Christian man, (a laugh); but after Mr. Quin sat down, in adverting to any such topic-what up rose Mr. Jacks, and what think ye, might be expected from common charity Gentlemen, was Mr. Jacks' mode of reain judging or in speaking of circumstances soning; the object of it, I am first to tell which had involved an innocent man in you, was to establish the demerit of Sir sufferings, under the consequences of which Francis Burdett. And how does he enhe yet laboured; for the corporeal infirmi deavour to compass that object? If he had ties brought down on Mr. Lemaitre, by descanted on the general conduct, or the his imprisonment at that period, he would particular acts of that honourable Baronet's perhaps feel as long as he lived. Yet, public life, and had endeavoured to shew under all these afflicting circumstances, of that that course of conduct, or those facts, which Mr. Jacks, the Defendant, could did not deserve the public confidence, I not have been ignorant, Mr. Jacks comes could understand that whether he was ferth, in open day, in a full assembly of right or wrong in his opinion, he was fairthe Commion Council, and reports and ly trying to persuade others to think as he publishes Mr. Lemaitre as a convicted did; but no, this was not the course puriraitor the man who, after a long impri- sued by Mr. Jacks; after saying all he sonment upon suspicion, merely was ac- could against Sir Francis, upon his own quitted without any opening. Had Mr. grounds, he steps out upon other, and Lemaitre ever dreaded or shrunk from en- dragging in the character and feelings of quiry? No, he had all along courted it, an innocent man, asks his hearers, "What and had even subsequently petitioned ought they to think of Sir Francis Burdett, against a Bill before Parliament, for in- associating, as he did, with such convicted demnifying certain conduct at that time. traitors as Despard, O'Connor, and LeThe circumstances more immediately con- maitre ?" So that his argument was this: nected with the fact of defamation, he You cannot think too badly of Sir Francis should briefly state-a debate took place Burdett; and why, because he associates in the Court of Common Council, upon the with such a convicted traitor as Lemaitre: question of a Reform in Parliament; the thus does he top his climax of accusation conduct of Sir Francis Burdett came indi- against the character of Sir Francis Burrectly to be questioned or applauded ac- dett, by holding it forth as a stamp of the cording as the respective speakers thought vilest ignominy, he having associated with of his merits or demerits. Here, were he such a convicted traitor as my client; and, disposed to question the privileges of this Gentlemen, is this to be borne? What is City Parliament, he might say, that to become of the characters or feelings of such a debate might be carried on without men, if they are thus slanderously and necessarily involving slander against any ruinously to be violated and sported with? one; and that those privileges could -So much for the offence itself: and now, never have been meant to extend to Gentlemen, we shall see how far that ofthe justification of such slander. Let fence was aggravated by the subsequent no one, however, now go forth and conduct of Mr. Jacks. My client on say that he had been treating the Com- hearing of this wanton slander, instead of mon Council with disrespect. He was allowing it to provoke him into the comnot only incapable of treating that body mission of any corresponding outrage, with contempt, but he felt for that sends a friend to Mr. Jacks, and in temCourt the greatest possible respect. But, perate measured language applied for such to proceed, it seems, says Mr. Garrow, an explanation, or apology, as under such that there had been great speaking on this circumstances the injured party might exday; some very fine speeches; among pect, and no well regulated mind would others, Mr. Quin spoke, who I understand have refused; but instead of Mr. Jacks is a great orator (a laugh); I speak it se making any acknowledgment, either deriously; I have been so informed: I can-nying the offensive words or the intention not speak of my own knowledge, and in- of offending; instead of saying, "I do not deed I have often regretted that my avo- recollect using the word traitor, or if it did escape me in the heat of debate, in the of taking reports, who not only heard the effervescence of my eloquence, I am sorry words as spoken, but who demurred as to for it, and from what I have since learned the safety of inserting them. He could I now acknowledge that the word does not produce one of those who had dissuaded apply to you;" but no, nothing of all this others from reporting the defamatory from Mr. Jacks, and here I would not trust words upon a well-grounded apprehension my memory, so astonished was I, and no of this sort. Those gentlemen evinced doubt must you, Gentlemen, be when you not abilities only, but discretion in the dishear his cool, well considered, deliberate charge of that duty, for as they might well reply to the man he had so cruelly in- say to one another, "Whether the Parliajured; so astonished was I when I first saw ment at Westminster, or the Parliament in it, that I should be afraid to trust my me- the City, or this Court, or that Court have, mory, and shall therefore read it to you or have not their peculiar privileges, this from the original, which I now hold in my we must know, that we have no such prihand, and which will be given in evidence vileges, and that if we publish the libel we to you by and by; it begins thus: "I hear, it will be poor consolation to us that have spoken to several of my friends who the libeller can stand on his privileges if were present that day at the Common we, however, are to stand in the pillory." Council, none of whom remember my hav- (A laugh!) But, Gentlemen, to go on ing used the expressions complained of, with this paper, Mr. Jacks having said and several of them have no recollection thus much, arrogantly adds-so arrogantof your name having been mentioned by ly that I was going to say what I am glad me; besides, in any of the newspapers I did not escape me. What Gentleman ever have seen, I have not observed in any of before heard it claimed as the right of a them such expressions attributed to me." British subject, as a part of his public duty, -Here, Gentlemen, allow me one word, to deal out against another the most op. Mr. Jacks says that several of the Mem- probrious and destructive slanders? If bers of the Common Council did not hear such has been Mr. Jacks's notion of his Mr. Lemaitre's name mentioned, and what public duty, I shall this day set him right, does all this prove? Why that Mr. Jacks, I shall tell him not with my feeble voice, eloquent a Gentleman as he is, was not but by your verdict, that he has no such heard, perhaps not attended to by every right, and that the use he has made of Member of the Common Council through the right he had was a gross abuse of it. out the whole of his speech! Are the What had my Client to do with the quesMembers of that Court so few in number? tion ?-Why was his feelings to be torn My Learned Friend, the Common Serjeant, anew by so sudden and gross an attack could assist us here; there are I believe upon his character?-If Sir Francis Burabout 200 Members, and the room is large dett, or any other person obnoxious to Mr. and commodious, for I have been there. I Jacks be introduced into debate, can Mr. remember I went as a beggar, and most Jacks find no other way of expressing his generously did the Common Council treat dislike of him than by starting up upon I made them a speech; that to be his legs to throw out calumnies against an sure would have been no recommendation innocent man, who had nothing to do with had it not been a short one. They gave the case in question; starting up upon me 2007. in aid of a most excellent cha-his-I was going to say upon his hinder rity, the Sea-bathing Infirmary, so Gentle-legs-(A laugh ;) and yet the words might men you will judge whether I have not good reason to feel all respect for that body, and not the less so as I am shortly again to pay my respects to them in a visit upon a similar occasion, when I have no doubt of experiencing the same liberal reception. (A laugh!) But, Gentlemen, Mr. Jacks further says in this paper, that the newspapers he had seen, made no mention of those slanderous expressions. I can tell him why they did not, because they did not think fit to subject themselves to a prosecution, and I could produce some of those Gentlemen who are in the habit me. not have been so extravagant, for (my Lord I dare say remembers it) when the new room was first fitted out for the Common Council, Mr. Bearcroft was heard to say, that the room was so fine a room, it might tempt a very dog to speak in it-(A laugh.) But seriously, thus injured, what is a man to do? I might feel provoked to pull the nose of the calumniator, or to kick him; but no, this I dare not do. I must not break the King's Peace-then where am I to go for redress but to a Jury of my country? My Client comes before you; he submits to you his complaint, and asks you, is it met by the haughty privilege pleaded by the Defendant, a privilege that claims the right of saying all sorts of things, of all sorts of persons; either Mr. Jacks had information concerning my Client's history, or he had not; if he had, he must have known he had been acquitted without an opening, and therefore he must have known that what he was saying was calumny, or if he had not, then was he responsible for calumniating a man, of whose true history he was ignorant. But what gave the sting to this calumny is the fact, that Mr. Lemaitre had been suspected of seditious practices; we wish to conceal nothing, he was confined upon suspicion; but he was fully acquitted. The greatest injury you can do a man in this metropolis, and Istate it with a feeling of satisfaction, is to spread a suspicion of his loyalty, let him be generally believed to be a disloyal man, and he is ruined-did not then my Client owe it to his wife, his family, his friends, to bring this action? But Mr. Jacks would have a City Special Jury to try this cause, why out of the twentyfour they could strike out none; they might exempt for either want of loyalty or want of brains; they could strike out no loyal man from the list, they could find no fools there-—————————— Lord ELLENBOROUGH" Disloyal you mean, finding none there, they could strike out none." Mr. GARROW thanked his Lordship, and said, such was his precise meaning, that there was such untainted loyalty in the whole list none could be objected to on the ground of disloyalty. Mr. Garrow then adverted to what he thought an high practical compliment to the profession of which he was a member. He had been Counsel for the Crown against Mr. Lemaitre on the occasion he had before alluded to, but that circumstance did not excite a doubt of finding in him, if not an able, an honest Advocate on the present occasion. He ridiculed the idea of bringing down a troop of the members of the Common Council to prove a negative; he and his Learned Friend were too old birds to be caught with such chaff. He concluded by exhorting the Jury to lay down that rule by their verdict, which would do more to regulate the order of assemblies in debate than the Mace, the authority of the Chair, or calls to order, had yet been able to effect. Mr. Samuel Miller was then called and examined by Mr. Topping. Knows the plaintiff for the last ten years. Plaintiff lives in Castle-street, Holborn, and is by trade a watch-case maker. Recollects being at a meeting of the Common Council early in June last, upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. Mr. Quin spoke, as did Mr. Jacks. Recollected a passage in Mr. Jacks's speech injurious to the character of the plaintiff': has a perfect recollection of the passage, and states it to be as follows: "What opinion can be formed of Sir Francis Burdett, associating as he does with such convicted traitors as Despard, Lemaitre, and Q'Connor ?"— understood the defendant to mean the plaintiff, Lemaitre-had no doubt that he ineant him-believes the plaintiff to be acquainted with Sir Francis Burdett. Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. That meeting was not called by Mr. Quin-it was called in consequence of a requisition-Mr. Quin's name was among the signatures to that requisitionthe business was parliamentary reform not the only business of the meetingthe late alarming_assumption on the part of the House of Commons was one of the prominent features of the discussion, as also the character and conduct of Sir Francis Burdett-heard the conduct of the House of Commons in that instance re. probated-not severely reprobated-in his judgment not severely; the severity would be judged of according to the different opinions of the thing reprobatedcould not give three lines from Mr. Quin's speech, though he heard it all-not at that distance of time-remembered Mr. Jacks's words, because they contained so severe an attack upon his friend this is the reason why he remembered them so much more accurately than the other.. Attorney-General, " Did Mr. Quin or any other orator praise Sir Francis Burdett ?” Witness" I heard several of those who spoke approve of his conduct." Attorney General-Extol him as a patriot of the first water! In the same way as I might praise Sydney or Lord Russel? Mr. Jacks, however, entertained a different opinion? Witness-He did. Attorney-GeneralHe controverted that point? WitnessHe tried to controvert it. Attorney-General Oh! but he did controvert it? Witness That is matter of opinion. Attorney-General; It is matter of fact, and you have proved that fact; in short, you don't understand the meaning of the word contro vert. (A laugh.) Witness to one or two |