save Peltier from a verdict of guilty: but as hostilities with France were soon renewed, he was not called up for judgment. Meanwhile the First Consul had continued to express his irritation at the English newspapers, between which and the newspapers of France a warm controversy was raging; and finding that they could not be repressed by law, he desired that the government should at least restrain those newspapers which were supposed to be under its influence. But here again he was met by explanations concerning the independence of English editors, which he found it difficult to comprehend ;? and no sooner was war declared, than all the newspapers joined in a chorus of vituperation against Napoleon Bonaparte, without any fears of the attorney-general.

William

Cobbett's

In following the history of the press, we now approach names familiar in our own time. trials, 1804. William Cobbett having outraged the republican feelings of America by his loyalty, now provoked the loyal sentiments of England by his radicalism. His strong good sense, his vigorous English style, and the bold independence of his opinions, soon obtained for his 'Political Register' a wide popularity. But the unmeasured terms in which he assailed the conduct and measures of the government exposed him to frequent prosecutions. In 1804, he suffered for the publication of two letters from an Irish judge, ridiculing Lord Hardwicke, Lord

1 St. Tr., xxviii. 529.

2 Lord Whitworth to Lord Hawkesbury, Jan. 27th, and Feb. 21st,

1

Redesdale, and the Irish executive. Ridicule being held to be no less an offence than graver obloquy, Cobbett was fined; and Mr. Justice Johnson, the author of the libels, retired from the bench with a pension.2

on the

In 1809, another libel brought upon Cobbett a severer punishment. Some soldiers in a His libel regiment of militia having been flogged, German under a guard of the German legion, Cob- legion, 1809. bett seized the occasion for inveighing at once against foreign mercenaries and military flogging. He was indicted for a libel upon the German legion; and being found guilty, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a fine of 1,000l., and to give security for 3,000l., to keep the peace for seven years. The printer of the Register, and two persons who had sold it, were also punished for the publication of this libel. The extreme severity of Cobbett's sentence excited a general sympathy in his favour, and indignation at the administration of the libel laws.3

Messrs. John

Another similar case illustrates the grave perils of the law of libel. In 1811, Messrs. John and Leigh Hunt were prosecuted for the and Leigh re-publication of a spirited article against 24th, 1811.

Hunt, Feb.

There was far more of ridicule than invective. Lord Hardwicke was termed a very eminent sheep-feeder from Cambridgeshire' with a wooden head;' and Lord Redesdale a very able and strong-built chancery pleader from Lincoln's Inn.'

2 St. Tr., xxix. 1, 54, 422, 437; Hans. Deb., 1st ser., v. 119.

Sydney Smith, in a letter to Lady Holland, Feb. 11th, 1810, said: Who would have mutinied for Cobbett's libel? or who would have risen up against the German soldiers? and how easily might he have been answered? He deserved some punishment; but to shut a man up in gaol for two years for such an offence is most atrocious.'Sydney Smith's Mem., ii. 86.

military flogging from the 'Stamford News.' They were defended by the vigour and eloquence of Mr. Brougham, and were acquitted.'

Yet a few days afterwards, John Drakard, the The 'Stam- printer of the 'Stamford News,' though defended by the same able advocate, was con

ford News,'

March 13th, 1811.

2

victed at Lincoln for the publication of this very article. Lord Ellenborough had laid it down. that it is competent for all the subjects of his Majesty, freely but temperately to discuss, through the medium of the press, every question connected with public policy.' But on the trial of Drakard, Baron Wood expressed opinions fatal to the liberty of the press. 'It is said that we have a right to discuss the acts of our legislature. This would be a large permission indeed. Is there, gentlemen, to be a power in the people to counteract the acts of the Parliament; and is the libeller to come and make the people dissatisfied with the government under which he lives? This is not to be permitted to any man,-it is unconstitutional and seditious.'3 Such doctrines were already repugnant to the law: but a conviction obtained by their assertion from the bench, proves by how frail a thread the liberty of the press was then upheld.

Last three years before the regency.

The last three years before the regency were marked by unusual activity, as well as rigour, in the administration of the libel laws. Informations were multiplied; and the attorney-general was armed with a new power of holding the accused to bail.1

St. Tr., xxxi. 367. 2 Ibid., xxxi. 495. 8 Ibid., xxxi. 535. * From 1808 to 1811, forty-two informations were filed, of which

It is now time again to review the progress of the press, during this long period of trial and Progress of repression. Every excess and indiscretion the press. had been severely visited: controversial license had often been confounded with malignant libel: but the severities of the law had not subdued the influence of the press. Its freedom was often invaded: but its conductors were ever ready to vindicate their rights with a noble courage and persistence. Its character was constantly improving. The rapidity with which intelligence of all the incidents of the war was collected,-in anticipation of official sources, -increased the public appetite for news: its powerful criticisms upon military operations, and foreign and domestic policy, raised its reputation for judgment and capacity. Higher intellects, attracted to its service, were able to guide and instruct public opinion. Sunday newspapers were beginning to occupy a place in the periodical press,-destined to future eminence,-and attempts to repress them, on the grounds of religion and morality, had failed.' But in the press, as in society, there were many grades; and a considerable class of newspapers were still wanting in the sobriety, and honesty of purpose necessary to maintain the permanent influence of twenty-six were brought to trial. Lords' Deb. on Lord Holland's motion, March 4th, 1811; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xix. 140; Commons' Deb. on Lord Folkestone's motion, March 28th, 1811; Ibid., 548; Ann. Reg., 1811, p. 142; Romilly's Life, ii. 380; Horner's Life, ii. 139.

1 In 1799 Lord Belgrave, in concert with Mr. Wilberforce, brought in a bill for that purpose, which was lost on the second reading. Its loss was attributed by its promoters to the fact that three out of the four Sunday newspapers supported the government. Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 1006; Life of Wilberforce, ii. 424.

1

political literature. They were intemperate, and too often slanderous. A lower class of papers, clandestinely circulated in evasion of the stamp laws, went far to justify reproaches upon the religion and decency of the press. The ruling classes had long been at war with the press; and its vices kept alive their jealousies and prejudice. They looked upon it as a noxious weed, to be rooted out, rather than a plant of rare excellence, to be trained to a higher eultivation. Holding public writers in low esteem,

-as instruments of party rancour,-they failed to recognise their transcendent services to truth and knowledge.'

But all parties, whether regarding the press with jealousy or favour, were ready to acknowledge its extraordinary influence in affairs of state. Give me,'

'In his defence of John and Leigh Hunt, in 1811, Mr. Brougham gave a highly-coloured sketch of the licentiousness of the press: There is not only no personage so important or exalted,-for of that I do not complain,-but no person so humble, harmless, and retired, as to escape the defamation which is daily and hourly poured forth by the venal crew, to gratify the idle curiosity, or still less excusable malignity; to mark out, for the indulgence of that propensity, individuals retiring into the privacy of domestic life; to hunt them down and drag them forth as a laughing stock to the vulgar, has become, in our days, with some men, the road even to popularity; but with multitudes the means of earning a base subsistence.'-St. Tr., xxxi. 380.

2 In 1808, the benchers of Lincoln's Inn passed a bye-law, excluding all persons who had written for hire, in the daily papers, from being called to the bar. The other Inns of Court refused to accede to such a proposition. On the 23rd March 1809, Mr. Sheridan presented a petition complaining of this bye-law, which was generally condemned in debate, and it was soon afterwards rescinded by the benchers.-Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 240. In 1810, Mr. Windham spoke of the reporters as having amongst them bankrupts, lotteryoffice keepers, footmen, and decayed tradesmen.' And he understood the conductors of the press to be a set of men who would give in to the corrupt misrepresentation of opposite sides.'-Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xv. 330.