Chapter III: Part 3

Mr. GURNEY.--May it please your lordship; gentlemen of the Jury; my friend, Mr. Tindall, has told you the nature of this action, and it is now my duty to lay this case before you. The indictment has been found by a grand jury, upon the prosecution of the Constitutional Association; and it charges the defendant, Mary Ann Carlile, with publishing a libel upon the government and the constitution of this country; and, gentlemen, after a not very limited experience in these cases, I will say, that a more criminal and atrocious libel never met my observation. It purports to be written by Richard Carlile; it is dated from Dorchester Gaol, and it has been published by the defendant, the sister of that man who is now suffering imprisonment for his own criminal conduct. It is entitled, "A New Year's Address to the Reformers of Great Britain;" and, among other objectionable passages not charged as libelous, it contains the following; "As far as the barrack system will admit"--

Mr. Justice BEST.--I do not think that you are entitled to read that passage, Mr. Gurney.

Mr. COOPER.--I think not, my lord; I was just rising to interrupt Mr. Gurney.

Mr. GURNEY.--I have no objection, my lord, to abstain from reading the passage to which I was about to call your attention. I shall read the passage which is charged as libelous, and if the learned counsel for the defendant can find throughout a single passage to qualify its malignity, do you, gentleman, give the defendant the benefit of it. The passage is this:--"To talk about the British Constitution, is, in my opinion, a sure proof of dishonesty; Britain has no constitution. If we speak of the Spanish constitution, we have something tangible; there is a substance and meaning as well as sound. In Britain there is nothing constituted but corruption in the system of government; our very laws are corrupt and partial, both in themselves and in their administration; in fact, corruption as notorious as the sun at noon-day, is an avowed part of our system, and is denominated the necessary oil for the wheels of the government; it is a most pernicious oil to the interests of the people." And in another passage the following words were contained:--"Reform will be obtained when the existing authorities have no longer the power to withhold it, and not before. We shall gain it as early without petitioning as with it, and I would again put forward my opinion, that something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary. At this moment I would not say a word about insurrection, but I would strongly recommend union, activity, and co-operation. Be ready and steady to meet any concurrent circumstances." Now, gentleman, these are the passages charged as libelous, and I defy even the ingenuity of my learned friend to show that they are not most odious libels. What! are the people of this free and independent country to be told that they have no constitution? It is an assertion, the malignity of which is only equalled by its falsehood. We have a free and glorious constitution. It has descended to us from our brave and free ancestors, and I trust that we, too, shall have virtue and magnanimity enough to transmit it unimpaired to our posterity. We have laws, too, equal in their administration. We have a constitution where no lowness of birth--no meanness of origin--operate as an obstacle to preferment; in which the chief situations are open to competition, and for which the only qualifications are integrity and information. Our laws are here stigmatized as partial and corrupt. If they were not impartial, this man would never have dared to vilify them. The very accusation proves that the charge is false; for if it were true, this libeler must have suddenly suffered for this assertion. It is because that they are administered in a spirit of mercy unknown to the laws of any other country--it is because they are administered in tenderness, that this man has had the power to promulgate his vile and odious falsehood. He thought it meet and right, and most becoming too, to tell the world that this was not the precise time for insurrection. He plainly indicates, that he has no objection to it; but he would not say a word about it at present, the time was not come; but he tells his fellow reformers to be "ready and steady to meet any concurrent circumstances." Gentlemen, it would be an idle and impertinent waste of time to make any further observations upon the pernicious tendency of this libel. But what is the defence which is to be set up by my learned friend? Are we to be told that the prosecution of this libel is an invasion of the liberty of the press? I will not yield to my learned friend, nor to any man in existence, in a just regard for the freedom of the press. But who, I would ask, is invading its liberty? He who brings to justice the offenders, or he who under the sacred form of liberty promulgates such language as I have just read to you? I do not think that on this subject you can entertain a doubt. I feel the most perfect confidence in committing this case to your good sense. If you believe that the defendant is guilty of publishing this libel with the intention charged, you will pronounce your verdict of guilty. If, on the other hand, you think that the passages which I have read to you contain nothing libelous, or that the defendant is not the publisher, I shall sincerely rejoice in your conscientious acquittal.

_James Rignall_ deposed, that he had purchased the pamphlet in question of the defendant, at her shop in Fleet Street, on Friday evening, the 9th of March. There were several other copies lying about on the counter.

Cross-examined by Mr. COOPER.--Who are you?--I am an agent to the Society for the Suppression of Vice.

But you are also employed by these constitutional people, as they call themselves?--Only in this one instance.

Were you employed to purchase the pamphlet in question?--I purchased that and others.

You were employed by the Constitutional Society to purchase them?--Yes, I was.

Who sent you?--Mr. Murray.

The Attorney?--Yes.

And he directed you to purchase this pamphlet, eh?--He did not particularize any.

Did he state his object in the purchase?--No.

What wages are you to have?--I have no wages.

Then you perform this agreeable duty gratuitously?--No, I do not say that.

Then how are you paid?--I made a charge for my time.

Perhaps you belong to the society?--No, indeed I do not (with vehemence).

Well, I do not wonder that you should be anxious to separate yourself from the society (a laugh amongst the auditory).

Mr. GURNEY.--I desire that no such remarks may be made.

Mr. COOPER.--What have you had for this particular job?--I have made a charge for several other little things I did (a laugh).

Mr. GURNEY (to the spectators),--I shall certainly move his Lordship to take notice of some particular persons that I see misconducting themselves.

Cross-examination resumed.--What other jobs did you for the association?--I did several jobs; that I will not deny.

How much have you had for these little jobs?--I declare upon my oath, I cannot state particularly how much I had for these little jobs. I made a charge. I don't recollect exactly what my charge was.

Come, come, the round sum?--I can tell you pretty nearly the round sum, if that will satisfy you. I think it was above seven pounds and under seven guineas. I was sent on other business beside this.

I wish to know what that other business was?--Is it necessary to answer that question?

I think it necessary.--Then I will take the sense of the Court upon it. I have no objection to answer that or any other question, if my Lord thinks I ought.

Mr. Justice BEST (smiling).--It tends to nothing; but it is as well to answer it.

Then I purchased come other different things for the association, but it was not in consequence of any general or particular orders I received: I went to purchase these publications which I myself thought libels; I cannot state exactly now what they were.

Then you did that, I suppose, without any hope of reward?--I don't state without any hope of reward; I expected to be paid for my time.

Oh, then, it was not altogether out of virtue and patriotic feeling?--Those were two of my motives, most certainly, but not the only ones (general laughing).

Has this been the usual way of getting your living?--It has for a year and a half past; I have had no other feasible occupation during that time.

I suppose you received a considerable sum in the course of this honourable employment?--I have told you the sum total was about 7 pounds.

Mr. Justice BEST.--Do you think that material, Mr. Cooper?

Mr. COOPER.--I do think it material, to show the sort of agents that this honourable society employs. (To witness.) And what did you do before you suppressed vice and libels?--I got my living honourably as an officer in his Majesty's customs.

And are you still an honourable officer, &c.?--No; I have lost my situation.

Retired upon a pension?--No.

How old are you?--Fifty-four.

No pension, eh?--None.

Re-examined by Mr. GURNEY.--I have been in the employment of the Society for the Suppression of Vice for a year and a half; I have been paid by them for my services. In this instance, and in several others, I have made some purchases for the Constitutional Association.

_Horatio Orton_ was then called. A general murmur ran through the Court, which was crowded to excess; and all persons most deferentially gave the witness way.

Examined by Mr. GURNEY.--I was a witness before the Grand Jury. On the 10th of March I purchased another copy of the pamphlet in question from Mary Anne Carlile; I had it from her own hand.

Cross-examined by Mr. COOPER.--How came you to purchase this on the 10th of March?--I was directed by Mr. Murray, the solicitor, to purchase it.

This is the gentleman? (pointing to Mr. Murray, in court)--Yes.

He is the Honorary Secretary to the Association, and the disinterested attorney for this prosecution?--Yes, I was sent by him for the express purpose of purchasing this pamphlet; I should not have gone if I had not been directed by him.

What is your situation in the society?--My situation to the Association is as clerk.

Clerk to Mr. Murray?--No; I am not in Mr. Murray's office.

In the Society's office, separate from the attorney's office?--Yes.

In what situation were you before?--I used to assist my brother in his correspondence with country newspapers.

Not for the town papers?--No, for himself; he takes the reports of the House of Lords' proceedings, and transmits them to the editors of the country papers; I used to assist him in the copying, and he paid me for my trouble.

What is your salary in your present honourable situation?--It is not fixed.

It depends upon your exertions?--Yes.

Then you work at present by the piece?--No, I do not; the committee have not yet come to a determination about my salary; I have not made any demand for salary; I have not proposed any sum; I mean to swear that; not any sum has been proposed to me; I don't say that I would work for the Society gratuitously; if I want five or ten pounds I know where to go for it; not of the Association; I can have it of my brother; I expect to receive something of the Association.

In your modesty, what may be the extent of your expectations?

Mr. GURNEY submitted that this was not a proper mode of cross-examination.

Mr. COOPER.--I think it is, and I shall persist in it until I am told by my Lord that it is irregular.

Mr. Justice BEST.--I don't think any part of the cross-examination is approaching to anything like regularity.

Mr. COOPER.--If your Lordship says I am not to be allowed the same latitude which is allowed to counsel on other occasions, I shall not persevere.

Mr. Justice BEST.--I have no objection to your taking your own course, but I think this course of examination ought to have been stopped long ago. I think every fair and reasonable indulgence ought to be allowed to counsel in such a case, but if this was a mere civil case I should have stopped you long ago.

Mr. COOPER.--Then I shall proceed in my own way, with your Lordship's permission. (To witness.) Is this the first job you have been employed in?--I don't recollect any other of this kind.

Are you sure you have been employed upon no other job of this kind?--I cannot bring to my recollection whether I have not been employed on any other. I may have been, but I am not aware of any.

Do you know a man named King?--Yes, perfectly.

Do you recollect doing a job in which he was concerned?--I don't recollect doing a job of this kind against King. I might if I saw the paper before me with my mark upon it. There are so many of them that I cannot recollect any in particular.

Have you not made an affidavit in the job against King?--Yes; but that is since this. I cannot recollect whether I have done any other jobs. I have been in the employment of the Association about six months. I commenced on the 8th of January. Since the 10th of March, I don't recollect how many jobs I have been engaged in; they are so numerous I can't recollect. The orders which Mr. Murray gave me, were to go and purchase the Reformers' Address at the defendant's shop. I had not any general directions to buy at this or that shop--not from Mr. Murray. I had from other persons, general directions to make purchase of works; one of those persons was Mr. Sharpe.

He is the Honorary Assistant Secretary?--Yes.

(All the preceding questions excited considerable sensations amongst the audience, and produced a chorus of humourous tittering).

Mr. Justice BEST.--The effect of these questions, Mr. Cooper, you must feel. You cannot wish, I am sure, to excite the sort of response which comes from below the bar. You must see that it is done on purpose. You cannot wish, I am sure, to produce that effect.

Mr. COOPER.--My Lord, I am the last man in the world to do any thing inconsistent with the gravity and decorum of a Court of Justice. I disclaim any such intention; and I must disdain the insinuation of Mr. Gurney, that I have taken up this cause for the purpose of adding to the public odium in which the honourable Association is held.

Mr. GURNEY said his learned friend, Mr. Cooper, was mistaken; he had never insinuated anything of the kind.

Mr. Justice BEST.--I am sure no gentlemen at the bar would wish to produce the effect which all the questions put by you have had below the bar.

Mr. COOPER said he could not control the feelings of the auditory. He was only anxious to do his duty to the best of his humble ability, and nothing should deter him from discharging that duty freely and undauntedly.

Cross-examination resumed.--What is the office of the Honorary Assistant Secretary?--It is to do every thing at the office.

To superintend the business of the office?--I consider him as the acting manager.

Then the Honorary Secretary has a sinecure?--What does the word honorary mean but a sinecure?

Mr. COOPER.--"May it please your Lordship; gentlemen of the jury; I am exceedingly sorry that some more able counsel has not to address you on this most important and momentous occasion. I should have been unequal to the task, under any circumstances."

Mr. GURNEY.--"Stop a minute." (The learned counsel for the prosecution here intimated, that he had something to add to his case; but, after a pause, he intimated to Mr. Cooper, that he might proceed.)

Mr. COOPER.--Gentlemen, under any circumstances, this would be a task, for which, I fear, I am very ill qualified; but under those, in which I stand to address you on this question, I feel my incapacity doubled and trebled. I appear before you without notice, and almost wholly without preparation. I was, indeed, applied to by the defendant, some months ago, and negotiated with (if I may use the phrase) to undertake her defence. But, after this, many days and even weeks passed, during which I heard nothing of the case; and I began to suppose that the defendant had determined to employ some other counsel, or trust herself to her own address to the jury against this charge. At the end of a month, however, I was again applied to; and, again, weeks having elapsed, without my hearing any more of this prosecution, I dismissed it entirely, not only from my mind, but from my memory; nor was it, till last night, that, that I was once more informed that I was to be employed as the defendant's counsel; and my brief at last put into my hands. I was then unfortunately engaged in other important business: and the time, I have taken to collect my own thoughts upon this question, and huddle together a few extract's from writers of authority, I have been obliged to borrow from sleep; and have, therefore, in a great measure counteracted myself; for I have lost in strength, what I have gained in information, and appear before you ill able, indeed, to do justice to this cause. But, whilst I make this statement to excuse my own deficiency, I am bound to acquit the defendant of any reproachable negligence of her own interests. I understand, that the cause of her late application to me, is, that having had, as a mere matter of grace, three weeks' notice of trial from another society, by which she has been prosecuted, she mistook it for her right; and expected the same notice from her present prosecutors. As she had not received any such notice (and indeed she was not in law entitled to it), she supposed, that either she was not to be brought to trial at these sittings, or that the charge was abandoned; as I wish it had been, and as it ought to have been; for I am convinced, that this prosecution cannot be sustained by either law or reason; and that it must be from the weakness of the counsel alone, that you, gentlemen, can be betrayed to pronounce a verdict of Guilty against the defendant.

Gentlemen, it is my duty to clear this case of every possible prejudice that may hang about it in your minds before I enter into the merits of my defence. I do not know how you are affected, but I well know, that with many persons, I should have a host of prejudices to contend against, in the very name alone of Carlile. Many either believe, or affect to believe, that the very sound is an omen and an execration, and that either he cannot be sincere and honest in the opinions which he professes, or if he be, that those opinions are incompatible with the existence or practice of any moral or social virtue. But, whatever his opinions may be, and whatever your sentiments upon them, I have at least a right to ask of you not to allow any prejudice against the relation, against the brother, to warp your judgment on the trial of the defendant: for, what can possibly be more remote from justice, than, instead of judging a person fairly for his own conduct, to condemn him by our opinion of the sentiments and character of another? I hope and trust that you have entertained no such prejudices: but if you have, I feel assured, that you brought them no further than the threshold of the court:--at that door they fell from you, like the burthen from the pilgrim (in the beautiful allegory) on his reaching the cross; and you stand there with your minds unbiassed, free and pure, to decide between the crown and the defendant in this cause. But it is not only my duty, gentlemen, to clear the defendant, but to extricate the counsel from every unfavourable suspicion, lest it should, possibly, by any confusion of the client with the advocate, operate to the disadvantage of the defendant.

Whatever, therefore, may be thought of the pamphlet which is before you, as a libel, or of the writer or publisher, I most solemnly affirm, that there is no one who more warmly admires the English constitution, as it stands in theory and ought to exist in practice, than myself, nor is there any one who would more willingly shed his blood if it were necessary, or even lose his life in its support. It is needless then to say, that a more irreconcileable enemy would not be found than myself to the man (if any such there be) who could attempt to overturn our mingled and limited forms of government: and substitute a wild democracy in their place. I think, indeed, that a democratic form of government, however specious in argument, is by no means so capable of raising a state to that eminence of civilization and prosperity, which this country has reached; a condition, for which it is indebted to better times, while the practice concurred with the theory of our government; but which, unless the practice is brought back to the theory, I venture to predict, has not much longer to continue. I, gentlemen, appear here only in the discharge of my duty; and to redeem that pledge to defend the accused, which every man, upon assuming this gown, gives to the public of England. I would, however, have it distinctly understood, that it is only to guard against prejudice to the defendant, and not from any apprehensions for myself, that I trouble you with this explanation. For myself, I am extremely careless, what may be thought of me for having come forward to defend this unfortunate woman. I do not expect to escape obloquy in the present overheated disposition of the country, How can I expect it? when even the present Lord Erskine, whose talents and independence should have rendered his character sacred, as soon as it was known that he was to be counsel for Paine was overwhelmed with abuse, and threatened with the loss of his situation, as attorney general to the Prince, if he did not decline the defence. But he knew his duty and discharged it. And for which will he be most honoured by posterity? By which most ennobled? for having in spite of threats, and all the seductions of self-interest, persevered in his duty? or for having been exalted to the peerage of England and adorned with the national order of Scotch knighthood? But, if even my humble situation, should not exempt me from the attacks of the malicious and furious, I can tell them that their malignity will be disappointed. Instead of regret and mortification it will be a source of pride and happiness to me. Small as my chance may be of credit for the assertion, I declare, that I propose to myself no reward so high for my exertions, as the consciousness of having, in spite of all hopes on one side, or fears on the other, honestly discharged my duty.

If ever in my course in the profession, I should find myself wounded either in fortune or reputation, instead of regretting and deploring it, I will rejoice and exult at it, and, at those hours, when in full confidence of his companions, it is neither indecent nor unsafe in a man to speak of his own actions, I will boast of it, I will shew it, as an honourable scar.

Gentlemen, with these preliminary observations, I will proceed to introduce my case to you. My learned friend, Mr. Gurney, has opened this prosecution with all that pomp of eloquence, and solemnity of declamation, which he possesses in so ample a manner, and which make him so accomplished an advocate. But what has he done? All, indeed, that he or any one else could have done: yet, nothing more than repeat those arguments, which are trite, and worn like a turnpike, and have been topics for counsel after counsel, through a thousand of these prosecutions; while he has left all the great subjects of consideration that present themselves to the mind on these questions, wholly untouched. He has declared, indeed, but without showing you why, that the words, charged in the indictment are an atrocious libel; in which, as it appears to me, he has been rather premature, for a libel they are not, and cannot be, unless your verdict should so declare them. I assert, gentlemen, I am sure his Lordship will nod assent to me while I assert it, that you are the only judges of the law of libel in this case; and this paper, for which the defendant stands before you, is either a libel or not a libel, as you may in your consciences think it, and on your oaths pronounce it.

The statute, indeed, which declares this the law, has given, or rather left with his Lordship, the right of stating his opinion on that question to you; but I am sure he will not think that I exceed my duty, as an advocate, when I say, that though it is your duty to receive his opinion with respect, and give it the most attentive consideration, yet it still leaves you free to your own judgments, and if after weighing his opinion, you find yours unaltered, you have not only a right, but it is your duty to reject his opinion and to act on your own.

Gentlemen, I submit that it is within your province to take into consideration the nature and operation of those writings, which are called in prosecutions of this kind libels. You are sitting there to try this charge as an offence by the common law of the land. The defendant is accused of having committed an act in the nature of a nuisance; and you are to judge whether that act could operate as a nuisance or not. You are not bound, because pamphlets have been prosecuted as libels time out of mind, or even because they have been declared libels by the verdicts of preceding juries to tread in no other path than their steps; and to find similar, or even the same matter, libels, if you should not think them criminal or dangerous. If you should be convinced by argument, not only that the pamphlet before you is not a libel, but that almost all those political writings, which it has been the habit of certain people, taking up the cry from their leaders, to call libels, are not merely not dangerous but beneficial to political society; is it possible to conceive, that you can be induced to pronounce a verdict of guilty against the defendant! How can you come to such a conclusion; as that there should be punishment where there has been no mischief, and where there could have been none, and if there not only has been no mischief, but could have been none,--nay, if even there must have been benefit, how can you lay your hands on your hearts, and say there has been crime? Suppose a man was indicted for a nuisance in doing that for which a number of persons had in succession been indicted and convicted, would that oblige a jury to find a verdict against a person at this day indicted for the same act, if he should prove to them by evidence, which their minds could not resist, that what had been complained of as hurtful to public health and morals was noxious to neither, but salutary to both? Would you, in such a case, though a thousand preceding juries had, in their ignorance, pronounced verdicts of guilty, follow their example, against your full knowledge and internal conscience? To illustrate by a familiar instance, when hops were first introduced into this country they were very generally believed to be pernicious. Several persons were I believe prosecuted and convicted for using them; yet now they are known not only to be not pernicious, but nutritious; they form a principal ingredient in the daily beverage of our tables, and are even employed largely in medicine. Let us now imagine a man prosecuted for the use of hops or any other drugs upon the ground that they injured health, and that upon his trial he should fill the box with men of science as witnesses, and shew you to moral demonstration, that so far from being injurious, they were highly salutary, would you, because other juries had convicted in a state of ignorance, imitate their blindness, and convict the defendant? Certainly not. Then to apply this to writings, prosecuted as libels, though there may have been hundreds, and thousands, nay tens of thousands of convictions upon them, yet, if you should be convinced, that what are usually called libels (and this among them) cannot be injurious, but so far from it, that they are innocent and even salutary to the state, in which they are published, would you hand over the publisher to punishment by a verdict of guilty? But I am anticipating, I fear, my defence, and introducing too early observations, which will better be urged in a subsequent part of my address to you. I will, therefore, pass at once to the paper charged as a libel in the indictment, and examine, under what circumstances it has come before you. And in the first place, as to the publication, without which (whatever the nature of the writing may be, there can be no crime) who are morally the publishers of this pamphlet? Have you any evidence, whatever, that any one of these pamphlets was in circulation, or ever would have been circulated, but for the impertinent, obtrusive, sordid, and base part of the ministers of the Constitutional Association? How otherwise is this pamphlet here? Let us turn back to the evidence of the first witness. He was the worthy servant of the Association in this and a few other recent instances, but for the most part, within a year and a half, the servant of the Society for the Suppression of Vice: a Society very different, indeed, from that with which we have had to deal to-day;--not that I have any affection even for that association: I would neither praise nor even be suspected of approving it, but I will not be so unjust and scandalous as to compare it with the Constitutional Association. Before this witness was employed by that society, he was a Custom-house officer. Are you, I asked him, now a Custom-house officer? No. How comes that? I lost my place. How old are you? Fifty-four. Have you any pension? No. Now, gentlemen, I beg to observe, that it is not the habit of the Custom- house to turn away officers, who have grown grey in their service, without a pension; unless they have richly deserved to be so discarded and abandoned. Such, gentlemen, are the instruments employed as spies by the acting members of this Association! This fellow is sent out with instructions from the honorary secretary, Mr. Murray, who is the attorney for the prosecution, to purchase, not this pamphlet alone, but any political pamphlet, which in his judgment might be libelous. Good God! to what a condition are we reduced, when, under the auspices of this blessed Association, discarded tide-waiters, and broken gaugers, are made judges of what is libelous, and leagued with an attorney, are to determine what may, and what may not, without the terror of a prosecution, issue from a free press. Such was the course pursued: and can you conscientiously say, that, but for this hiring of a spy to make a purchase of this pamphlet for the sole purpose of founding this prosecution upon that very instance of sale, the public would ever have heard of it? Gentlemen, it is a great happiness, and much security arises from it, that every person who stands forward as a prosecutor exposes his own conduct, as it is connected with the prosecution, to scrutiny and animadversion. I have a right to assume that freedom which is the privilege of the bar. I remember that in the case of the King and the Dean of St. Asaph, in which the present Marshal of the King's Bench Prison, without any apparent connection with the subject of the prosecution, was the prosecutor, the counsel for the defendant exercised this right, and the Marshal was successively the object of his ridicule and indignation.

Mr. Justice BEST.--Mr. Cooper do you think it acting fairly to make this sort of attack on a gentleman who is not present? Is this the practice of the bar?

Mr. COOPER.--My Lord, I make no attack on the Marshal. I only state that--

Mr. Justice BEST.--These observations being made on one who is not anywise connected with this case, who is not present to answer for himself, and who would not be permitted if he was, what are we to suppose? Can any gentleman at the bar consider this as fair?

Mr. COOPER.--My Lord, I have no design to attack the Marshal either in his absence or presence. I mentioned him but incidentally. What earthly purpose could it answer to this case to attack him? He _was_ the prosecutor in _that_ case, and I rather incautiously, perhaps, mentioned who the prosecutor was, by name; when I ought only to have said the prosecutor. If I have done him any injustice, I beg his pardon as publicly for it, and thus, I give a remedy as wide as the wound. I say then, gentlemen, that the prosecutor in that case, was alternately the object of the keenest indignation, and the most jeering ridicule, and I have a right to be equally as free, as the counsel in that case, with the prosecutors in this: but I shall by no means follow the example. On the contrary, I think, we are deeply indebted to the Constitutional Association. Consider how we were circumstanced when they first arose amongst us. There was the state, with a standing army of only a hundred thousand men, and nothing besides, except the whole civil force of the realm, a revenue of no more than seventy millions; and the feeble assistance of the established law officers of the crown to prosecute public offenders, when this Constitutional Association in the pure spirit of chivalry, steps forward to help the weakness of Government, and succour its distress. Now, whatever men may talk of justice, who can say that disinterestedness has altogether abandoned the earth? Who can say that generosity has forsaken us and flown to heaven? Let it be considered too, that but for their active vigilance Carlile's shop would not have been known. No productions from it had ever been the subject of prosecution, and but for the keen scent of the Association, the rank and huge sedition contained in the New Year's Address might have lain in its covert undetected and undisturbed. But to drop this irony and be serious, the law officers of the crown are fully adequate to their duties, and Carlile's shop was as well known to the Attorney General as St. Paul's to you. For years he has not had his eyes off it. I will engage that every publication, that has issued from it, and this very pamphlet among the rest, has passed through his hands, and under his review. Yet the law officers of the crown do not appear here to prosecute it as a libel against the state; and I entreat you to mark this, for I have a right to urge it, as a strong negative proof, that they do not so consider it; and how can that require your condemnation which they (with a judgment surely very much superior to that of the Committee of the Constitutional Association) have not thought worthy of prosecution or notice? Yes, you are actually called upon by this Association to deliver over to punishment the publisher of this paper, whilst the law officers of the crown (who neglect their duty, if they do not prosecute offences against the state) have thought it of a nature not at all requiring their interference What can be so preposterous? So monstrous? And in taking leave of this view of the case, let me once more ask you who have been actually the publishers of this paper? Have you a single iota of evidence, which ought to satisfy your minds, that, but for the insidious conduct of the Association, and its spies, this pamphlet would ever have been before you or the public? Is there a shadow of proof that one copy was ever sold, except those bought by the creatures employed by the honorary secretary (who is also the feed attorney in this prosecution) for the sole object of entangling the defendant in this indictment? None, whatever. None. They conspired you see to procure and seduce (the word is neither too broad nor too long for their conduct) the publication for the very purpose of this prosecution. How then having thus suborned the offence of which they complain, can they dare to stand forward as prosecutors, when they themselves are the criminals, and ought to be the defendants.

Mr. Justice BEST.--You mean. Mr. Cooper, to offer some evidence of that, I suppose.

Mr. COOPER.--None, my lord, but the evidence already before the court and the jury, and the strong and necessary inference from the facts proved by the witnesses for the prosecution themselves.

Mr. GURNEY.--There were many others lying on the counter.

Mr. COOPER.--What of that, does it follow that they must, therefore, have been sold? In the absence of all other proof of any publication, I have a right, I am forced to consider the Association as the only publishers.

Mr. Justice BEST.--In the evidence there is nothing like it.

Mr. COOPER.--What, gentlemen, is it a necessary conclusion, that because the pamphlets were lying in the shop, they must have been sold to other persons? The defendant but for their intrusion, for the sole design of prosecution, might have sold no others. She might have changed her intention to sell. The pamphlets might have lain like bad verses untouched on the shop counter, till they were turned over for waste paper, and not a soul have ever known of their contents. The Association, therefore, by their insidious and plotted purchase for the sole object of prosecution, have provoked the act of publication, and they, who provoke crimes are the criminals, and ought to be the culprits; and those, who would punish the crimes that they have provoked, are devils, and not men; "the tempters ere the accusers." When I contemplate such conduct--but I will not waste another word, or another moment of your time upon this miserable Association. If I had consulted my better judgment, I should have passed them in silence; thus much my indignation has wrung from my contempt.

I shall now, gentlemen, proceed to the examination of the libel, or rather that which is charged as a libel itself; and I shall begin with the last part so charged in the indictment, instead (as my learned friend has done) with the first; and let me beg your regard to one remarkable fact, that at the very point of the paper, at which the motives, and design of the writer present themselves to the reader; at that very point this indictment stops. It has not, as you will presently see, the candour to proceed a single syllable farther. I will now read the passage, "Reform," it says, "will be obtained when the existing authorities have no longer the power to withhold it, and not before, we shall gain it as early without petitioning as with it; and I would again put forward my opinion that something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary." This it has been urged to you, with great emphasis, is an excitement to insurrection; and you are called upon to draw that inference, though the author immediately afterwards disavows, expressly disavows any such intention. But even, if the words stood alone, I deny that you are compelled to such a construction. Gentlemen, will any one venture to say, that I, standing in this place, and in the very exercise of my profession, mean any thing, but what is strictly legal, when I say myself, that supposing reform in Parliament be necessary, something more than mere petitioning is requisite to obtain it? But in saying this, do I mean any thing violent or illegal? Heaven forbid; No: but I would have societies formed, and meetings held for the purpose of discussing that momentous subject. If reform be necessary, and the desire of a great majority of the country, I would have that desire shown unambiguously to the legislature, by resolutions and declarations at such meetings. Who will deny such societies and meetings to be legal? Yet, such meetings would be more than mere petitioning, much more: and the author means nothing beyond this; for I say, that in the absence of all other criteria, the only means of judging of a writer's intentions are his words. Look then at the words which immediately follow the assertion, that "something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary." If those words had been included in the indictment, this prosecution must have been at an end upon merely reading the charge, and those words, therefore, the Association avoided, as cautiously as they would the poison of a viper. They felt, that though the indicted words standing alone might perhaps admit of a doubt for a moment, yet the context completely explained them, and gave an air of perfect innocence to the whole passage. But you shall judge for yourselves: I will read the passage,--"Something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary. At this moment I would not say a word about insurrection; but I would strongly recommend union, activity, and co-operation. Be ready and steady to meet any concurrent circumstance." Now what kind of union, activity, and co-operation does he mean? Is it military association, marches, and attack? No. Hear the writer's own words again:--"The Union Rooms at Manchester and Stockport are admirable models of co-operation, and are more calculated than any thing else to strengthen the body of reformers." For what do the reformers assemble in these rooms? How do they co-operate there? Is it to consult how they shall arm and organize themselves, and seize with a violent hand the reform which they despair of gaining by petition? Nothing like it. The writer himself still tells you his meaning. "Here (that is at the Manchester and Stockport rooms) children are educated, and adults instruct each other. Here there is a continual and frequent communication between all the reformers in those towns." This, then, and no other, is the co-operation which the author intended, and proposes. If any man, taking the paper in his hand and reading the whole paragraph, can say that any thing more is meant, to his reason I should cease to appeal. I should sit down in silent despair of making any impression on such an understanding; but you, gentlemen, I ask you, adding the words which I have read to the broken passage, which is insidiously separated and included in the indictment, can there be a doubt remaining in any rational and unprejudiced mind, that the union and co-operation called for by this Address from those who desire reform in Parliament, is nothing more than the establishment at other places, of rooms, on the model of those at Stockport and Manchester; where children and adults are instructed, and information disseminated on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. And if this is all that is meant, there is an end of this part of the indictment; for it cannot be libelous to recommend in a writing the people to do that, which it is perfectly legal to do.

With regard to reform itself, I cannot know, whether any of you are advocates for it or opposed to it, nor is it requisite that I should; I do not ask you to think or say with me, and others, that reform in Parliament is necessary, and that nothing but reform can save the country from ruin; all that I ask of you is to allow me and others credit for the conscientiousness of our opinions, and charitably admit, if yours are opposite, that though we may be mistaken in our judgments, we must not of necessity be criminal in our intentions. I leave you and every man to the free exercise of your thoughts, and the free enjoyment of the conclusions to which they lead you. Let this liberality be reciprocal, and concede the same freedom to others which you demand for yourselves. I have always thought that a difference in religious and political matters need not and ought not to create hostility of feeling, and sever those, who would otherwise be friends. I myself enjoy the friendship of several, who entertain very different opinions from mine upon those subjects; and yet that difference has not, and never shall, on my part, at least, disturb our friendship. In all questions in which you cannot have mathematical demonstration, there may be fair, honest, conscientious difference of opinion; and you cannot have geometrical proof in questions of religion, politics, and morals. The very nature of the subjects altogether excludes it. To expect it, as Bishop Sanderson says, would be as absurd as to expect to see with the ear and to hear with the eye. So various are our opinions upon these subjects, that we not only differ from one another upon them, but at different times we find we differ from ourselves; and, as another learned churchman, in more recent times, has said, what could be more unjust than to quarrel with other men for differing in opinion from him, when no two men ever differed more from one another than he at different times differed on the very same subject from himself. Under this state of uncertainty in human judgment, I call upon you, and I am sure I shall not call in vain, to be slow to condemn the opinions of others, because they are different from your own; and, therefore, if any of you should think reform in Parliament needless, or even dangerous, I still call upon you (though the writer of this paper should be a reformer, and even though he is called in reproach a radical reformer) not to condemn the defendant in this case through prejudice against the author's opinions; but solely to enquire (be those opinions ever so just or ever so absurd) whether he is sincere in entertaining them; for, if he be (as I shall show you presently from the highest authority) the law does not consider him criminal. Try him by this test, and this test, and this alone; and then, whatever may be your verdict, you will be free from reproach, and secure to yourselves quiet by day, and sound slumbers by night; for you will have discharged your duty to yourselves, to the defendant, and to the country.