plaintiff's action, and the plea of the defendant were nearly the same as in the foregoing action. But instead of issue being joined and the parties put to their country (i. e. a jury), the plaintiff has demurred to the plea filed by the defendant, and the action must be decided by their lord ships upon the issue joined on this demurrer. As therefore the matter of law which is disputed should decide on the matter of fact, or in other words, whether it would not be better for all parties, as well as infinitely more commodious to the court and advantageous to the public, that the law of the case should be first ascertained, he humbly submitted that the motion which be had signified would eventually, if allow ed, be most consistent with public justice. The demurrer may be argued on Tuesday next, or on Friday week. He, the attorney-general, would be ready on either days, consequently the delay that might er roneously be imputed to him must recoil on the other side if they are not prepared. The learned gentle man then moved "for a rule to shew cause why the trial at bar between Sir Francis Burdett, plaintiff, and Edward G. Coleman Esq. serjeant at arms of the house of Commons, which stands for the 20th. of this month, should not be postponed until after the arguments are heard, and the court shall decide upon the demurrer in the action brought by the same plaintiff against the right hon. C. Abbot, speaker of the house of Commons." Mr. Justice Le Blanc and Lord Ellenborough enquired whether any notice of trial had been given in any of the actions? The Attorney-General answered in the negative. London; that the declaration against him was nearly the same in substance as that against the other parties, but that there was some difference in the language of the pleadings: that issue was joined, however, in this action, as in that against the serjeant at arms, and this also stood for trial at bar. That the same reasons prevailed why it should not be tried any more than that against the serjeant at arms, till the law was ascertained upon the demurrer; and upon that ground he should also move, that this action should not be tried till the court gave judgment on the aforesaid demurrer. There was also an additional reason; Mr. Coleman was a witness most material to his client; but Mr. Coleman was serving with the army in Portugal with considerable credit to himself, as was seen by his demeanour at the battle of Busaco. That application had been made at the war office to recal him, but that it would be quite impossi ble to expect his arrival here in time. On these grounds he trusted their lordships would grant him the rule in this cause.-The rules wereall granted. THE KING V. JOHN GALE JONES, The Attorney General moved for the judgment of the court on the defendant. Our readers will recollect that the defendant was convicted at the sittings after last Trinity term, of a libel on Viscount Castlereagh.-The libel was contained in the following placard from the British Forum. 66 Last Monday, after two evenings discussions, a crowded assembly unanimously decided that Lord Castlereagh's conduct toward Mr. Mr. Finnerty ought to be reprobated, AS A FLAGRANT INFRINGEMENT UPON THE LIBERTY OF A BRITISH SUBJECT, AND A COWARDLY ACT The Attorney-General then acquainted their lordships, that another action was pending at the suit of the same plaintiff against the Earl OF OPPRESSION AGAINST AN INNOof Moira, constable of the Tower of CENT INDIVIDUAL." The record of the indictment having been read, and the learned judge having made his report of the trial, Mr. Jones, after stating that he had no affidavits to file, and that he bad not instructed counsel, spoke to the following effect: "I will not avail myself of the privilege offered me for the purpose of saying any thing which will have a tendency to impress an idea that the verdict which convicted me was false, or of stating any thing which will give offence. 1 stand unprotected, not having the advantage of counsel to assist me, and I trust any expression I may use will not be interpreted to my prejudice or imputed to a design to give offence; but I trust the privilege granted to me is something more than vague and complimentary, and that it gives me the opportunity of speaking the free sentiments of an honest-hearted Englishman. I trust the Attorney General, when he comes to reply, will not use the privilege of his high office to bear down an unprotected individual, but will rather kindly step forward to introduce a shield between the individual and the prosecutor, if it can be done consistently with the claims of justice. There is a wide difference between an, individual standing as a delinquent in any case, where the offence originated per se, where he is the first calumniator, or the author of the scandal, and the case of a perSon, who has received it from another on whom he relies, and I certainly would not have introduced tais discussion, had I not believed, which I solemnly declare I did, that Mr. Finnerty's statement was well founded, but finding it in a public newspaper, of great respectability, the Editor of which I know to be conversant with the laws and constitution of his country, and who was known to be extremely cautious in admitting any thing which he did conceive to be either libellous or ma lignant. I found a public document, in a public newspaper, not referring to any act of private scandal, but to a public act, of a public minister, the statements of which were broad and unequivocal. They stated that Mr. Finnerty had been sent home from Walcheren; that he had undergone a sort of transporta tation in a King's vessel, it not being specified that he had done any thing' to occasion such an act. It cer tainly fell to my lot to read the statements from the Morning Chronicle, but I did not, by any means, take upon myself to answer for their truth or falsehood, but left to Mr. Finnerty alone the responsibility of the statement. Having read the extract, I left the case to the discussion of the audience. In the course of that evening I did not avail myself of the privilege of reply; it be ing usual, in those institutions, for every gentleman who opens a question to have the privilege of reply; but that if I had wished by any means whatever to influence the audience who came to hear the discussion, I should have availed myself of the last word, and that I did not raise my hand in the vote which was given by the audience. I am now called upon to answer for the decisions of that audience, thus fairly assembled, who had delivered such sentiments as they pleased, and who had voted as they pleased. I have done only that which the customs of the society required, namely, that of recording the decisions, and I am stated to have been guilty of libel. If it were permitted to me, I might say there is in this honourable court in which I stand, and around me, gentlemen whom I have known to have frequented that society, and delivered their sentiments with credit to themselves and satisfaction to the society; and that there are gentlemen, at the very top of the profession, who have derived their celebrity from having practised in those tlereagh more, in his magnanimity, to have overlooked this offence, than to have prosecuted him for it, lest the public should suffer by the loss of his services, occasioned by his confinement. My Lords, I am unacquainted with any ground that the defendant can have for urging such an argument. What right is this which the defendant insists upon? That seeing in another publication, a gross and foul slander against Lord Castlereagh, but thinking well of the editor of that paper, he feels himself justified to call upon Lord Castlereagh upon a bill of indictment, as he would state it, found in the Morning Chronicle, to answer be Forum, and defend himself against those foul and calumnious charges which the grand jury, the Morning Chronicle, states him.-The Editor of the Morning Chronicle states,"You, Lord Castlereagh have abused your office to purposes of oppression; assemblies. As far as respects the noble prosecutor and Mr. Finnerty, they are equally strangers to me, and equally indifferent. I neither know nor care for aught respecting Lord Castlereagh. I can have no personal motive against him. I owe him neither favour nor enmity, and should not know him if present in court; but still I cannot help feeling a something that convinces me that I shall sleep more soundly in the cell to which possibly I may be sentenced, than Lord Castlereagh will sleep either upon his pillow of roses or his bed of down. The times are such, that even if it had been only from motives of policy, I think the noble lord ought rather to have let me escape, before a jury assembled at the British cause I think at this moment every hand and every heart ought to be engaged; and meanly as I think of my own abilities, I think they could have been of some service in my country's behalf; and it would have better become his lordship to have sacrificed his own private feelings upon the altar of justice. I trust their lordships will suffer no idea to come across their minds that shall induce them to suppose that the man who stands for judgment would, to save his life, be guilty of meanness or prevarication, but that while he stands before them for justice, he asks of their lordships that mercy which is becoming in them to grant." Attorney General.-" My Lords, as I am wholly unacquainted with the nature of these services which the defendant, if he were suffered to remain at large, would be able to render to the public in these popular discussions, I cannot well judge whether it were or were not prudent in my Lord Castlereagh to institute this prosecution against him, at the expence of that public loss. The defendant has stated to your lordships, that he is a man who, in times like these, must be of great use to the public, and that therefore it would have become my Lord Cas you have unjustly pronounced a scn"tence against Mr. Finnerty, and "have carried that sentence into exe"cution. You are found, moreover, by this indictment, found in the Morning Chronicle, that you, the "minister of Ireland, sent to execu• "tion a Mr. Orr, convicted by false 166 verdict of a jury, although he was "known to you to be innocent, and "notwithstanding that the judge whe " tried him represented to you that he "believed him to be innocent." These charges, says the defendant, are found against you in the bill of indictment preferred in the Morning Chronicle, and I call upon you before my tribunal, the British Forum, to answer these charges. I tell you, you will have a fair trial before the public, who feel horror and indig nation at the crimes which you have committed. I tell you, (the mockery of expression he uses is) if the gentle Lord Castlereagh can prevail upon himself to appear before this tribunal, he will be patiently heard! everlasting infamy and disgrace." My Lord, it is time that this gentleman and they who have not yet learnt it should learn their duty. It is time they should learn, that no man, consistently with his duty to the public and to the law, can thus, without authority, call another before this mock-this self-constituted tribunal, to answer to supposed charges exhibited against him, by men who have no authority whatever over his conduct, or 'power to inquire into it-and whose accusa tions can be referred to nothing but malignity and ill will; nor, notwithstanding all that the defendant has said of this society, can I attribute the conduct of those who have acted in it to any thing but malignity and ill-will against Lord Cas Patiently heard! By whom? By Now, what is the next? It says, "Lord Castlereagh or his adherents are peremptorily summoned to attend, and prevent, if possible, his character from being consigned to VOL. VIII. My Lords,-If your lordships can find any thing in any of the topics urged by the defendant, which will really go in extenuation of this of fence, I am the last person who would desire to take from their effect! With these observations I leave the case to your lordships, fully satisfied that the punishment will be commensurate to the extent of the guilt that it will not go beyond it. I am the first to desire that it may not not go beyond it--but that it may come up to the measure of it. Lord Ellenborough.-Let the defendant be committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, and be brought up this day fortnight. Thursday, Nov. 22. LIBEL ON THE SOLDIERY. The King v. Thomas Harvey and John Sir Vicary Gibbs moved the judgment of the court against the defendants, proprietor and printer of the Day newspaper, who had suffered judgment to go by default. The libel appeared in the paper of the 9th of April, in the following words:"The appearance of the popu lace in Piccadilly, with their general demeanour and exasperated expressions, - now created the utmost alarm. Some 3 в stones were thrown, and the riot act was read. This however was a mere matter of form, as it was impossible to hear it amidst the general confusion. It acted however as a signal for military execution, and in a few moments the horse-guards charged with the most in human violence an unarmed and unresisting people, amongst whom were several females. Those who were able made their escape down the courts and adjoining streets here however they were not safe, as they were pursued by the soldiery, who seemed too anxious in the pursuit, and were apparently ac tuated by a wanton desire of shedding human blood and trampling on the innocent and unoffending spectators."-In another part was added:-"Opposite the house of Sir Francis the people assembled in vast numbers, but were interrupted by the guards, who paraded backwards and forwards, and whose jaded appearance too plainly told their unwarrantable activity in the preceding night, and the blades of whose swords were stained with the blood of injured and innocent Britons. They were regarded with horror and detestation, and their countenances bore ample testimony to the stings of conscience which gnawed their obdurate hearts, when in the light of day they faced those men, whom, but for the protection of Divine Providence, they had deprived of existence with unjustifiable cruelty." Affidavits were then put in on the part of the defendants. Mr. Harvey's stated, that he was the printer and one of the proprietors: that, on account of the hurry of business, he had not read the article till it was pub lished; that the reporter had abused the confidence reposed in him; that he was sincerely contrite for what had appeared; that he threw himself upon the mercy of the court; that he had a wife and eight small children, who depended on him for support; that he was a loyal and good subject; and that this was his first offence. Mr. Fisher the publisher, stated, that he did not read the libel before it was printed he was in bed at the time. When he saw the exceptionable passages, he had them erased, and the article so purged was inserted in the National' Register, of which paper he is a proprietor. He threw himself upon the mercy of the court. He had offered to give up the author of the libel. Sir Vicary Gibbs called upon their lordships to give judgment on a libel more wicked and more malicious than any which it had been his fortune to press for judgment. The offer to give up the author, was no extenuation of the offence! Mr. Harvey stated that he felt the deepest contrition; but there was no paragraph in a subsequent paper expressive of such contrition. The accounts, in fact, in the two following papers, were repetitions of the libel. The state of the metropolis during the transactions alluded to, was too well known to need description. The troops did not wish to be called out on such duty; their conduct had been most exemplary, and it must have been known to the writer with how much forbearance the military bad acted in the discharge of their duty. They had been insulted in the grossest manner; nay, had been fired upon, before they had shewn any resistance to the mob: yet they were charged with being actuated by a wan ton desire to shed innocent blood!Was this to be endured?-If such statements were to pass unpunished, the soldiery would not go to their duty, and outrageous mobs would have full oppor tunity to commit their depredations, Such was the libel; their lordships would protect the public and the soldiers, and. know what punishment was due to the defendants. Mr. Maryatt and Mr. Reader, for the defendants, spoke in mitigation : but they urged little more than what was contained in their affidavits. The defendants were ordered to be committed to Newgate, and to be brought up to receive sentence the last day of term. THE KING V. DANIEL LOVELL. The defendant was brought up for judgment, he having copied the above libel in his paper, the Statesman. Mr. Lovell stated, that he had no counsel, but wished to observe, that it was impossible for a proprietor to read every thing that appeared in his paper: the time would not admit it.-The ar ticle was extracted by his printer. Lord Ellenborough,—" But you should not publish in haste; and how can you make such an excuse, for you have the whole day to deliberate. You say it was extracted by your printer; but you should be at the expence of having people to look over your copy who can distinguish libels from proper matter. It |