tinction, which we could not reasonably have looked for, let us be thankful to that government to whose protection and favour we are, in a great measure, indebted for our success. And do not let us, by any rash attempt upon our constitution, put it out of the power of our children to rise to similar situations, or deprive them of those blessings which we have ourselves so signally experienced. Do not let us pull down a fabric which has been the admiration of ages, and which it may be impossible to erect anew. Let me again call your attention to the paper upon which this prosecution is founded. (Here Mr. Attorney General read several extracts from the Declaration.) After what you have heard, I think it is impossible to doubt of the libellous tendency of this publication. It states, as I have already said, the whole of our government as one mass of grievances and abuse; while it does not so much as enumerate a single blessing or advantage with which it is attended. It represents it as corrupt and oppressive in every branch, as polluted in its very source, its legislature, and its courts of justice. What, I ask, can be supposed to be the spirit by which such representations are dictated, and the consequences to which they are calculated to lead? Can you admit such representations to have been brought forward bona fide, and from no other motive, than the wish to procure a peaceable and legal redress of grievances? If you can admit this, you will of course find the Defendants not guilty. But if it shall appear otherwise, let me remind you of that duty which you owe to the public, with whose safety and protection you are intrusted, and whose interests you are to consult in the verdict which you shall give. Let me remind you of the necessity of checking, in proper time, the spirit of sedition, and frustrating the designs of the factious, before it be too late. Let me conclude with observing, that I have brought forward this prosecution as a servant of the public, influenced by my own judgment, and acting from what I conceived to be my duty. I had no other view than the public advantage; and should you be of opinion that the Defendants ought to be declared not guilty, I trust you will acquit me of any intention. of acting either impertinently with respect to you, or oppressively to the Defendants. I shall then retire, conscious of having done my duty in having stated my opinion, though inclined, in deference to your verdict, to suppose myself

Lord Kenyon then gave a Charge, in substance as follows:

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY,

THERE are no cases which call forth greater exertions of great abilities than those that relate to political libels. And as this cause, both on the part of the prosecution, and also on behalf of the Defendants, has been so amply discussed that the subject is exhausted, I should have satisfied myself with what has been already said, if there was not a duty lying on me, which by the law of the land it is incumbent on me to discharge.

The liberty of the press has always been and has justly been a favourite topic with Englishmen. They have looked at it with jealousy whenever it has been invaded; and though a licenser was put over the press, and was suffered to exist for some years after the coming of William, and after the Revolution, yet the reluctant spirit of English liberty called for a repeal of that law; and from that time to this it has not been shackled and limited more than it ought to be.

Gentlemen, it is placed as the sentinel to alarm us, when any attempt is made on our liberties; and we ought to be watchful, and to take care that the sentinel is not abused and converted into a traitor. It can only be protected by being kept within due limits, and by our doing those things which we ought, and watching over the liberties of the people; but the instant it degenerates into licentiousness, we ought not to suffer it to exist without punishment. It is therefore for the protection of liberty, that its licentiousness is brought to punishment.

A great deal has been said respecting a reform of Farliament, that is, an alteration of Parliament. If I were called upon to decide on that point, before I would pull down the fabric, or presume to disturb one stone in the structure, I would consider what those benefits are which it seeks, and whether they, to the extent to which they are asked, ought to be hazarded; whether any imaginary reform ought to be adopted, however virtuous the breast, or however able the head, that might attempt such a reform. I should be a little afraid, that when the water was let out, nobody could tell how to stop it; if the lion was once let into the house, who would be found to shut the door? I should first feel the greater benefits of a reform, and should not hazard our

present blessings out of a capricious humour to bring about such a measure.

The merits or demerits of the late law respecting libels I shall not enter into. It is enough for me that it is the law of the land, which by my oath I am bound to give effect to, and it commands me to state to Juries what my opinion is respecting this or any other paper brought into judgment before them. In forming my opinion on this paper, or on any other, before I arrive at a positive decision on that point, I would look about and see what the times were when the publication took place. I would look at all the attendant circumstances, and, with that assistance I would set about to expound the paper. The observations which this cause calls for, form a part of the notorious history of the country. How long this paper was penned before it appeared in this newsper, I know not; the 25th of December is the day when it was published, and it is dated the 16th of July 1792.

Gentlemen, you will recollect the appearance of public affairs, and the feelings of every mind in the country at the time that Parliament met, and for some time after, in December last. I do not know whether I colour the picture right, when I say very gloomy sensations had pervaded the whole country. It is for you to say whether at that time there were not emissaries from a neighbouring country making their way, as well as they could, in this country. It is for you to say, looking at the great anarchy and confusion of France, whether they did not wish to agitate the minds of all orders of men, in all countries, and to plant their tree of liberty in every kingdom in Europe. It is for you to say whether their intention was not to eradicate every kind of government that was not sympathetic with their own. I am bound, Gentlemen, to declare my opinion on this paper, and to do so I must take within my consideration all the circumstances of the time when it appeared. I have no hesitation in saying then, that they were most gloomy ;-The country was torn to its centre by emissaries from France. It was a notorious fact-every man knows it-I could neither open my eyes nor my ears without seeing and hearing them. Weighing thus all the circumstances, that, though dated in July, it was not published till December, when those emissaries were spreading their horrid doctrines; and believing there was a great gloominess in the country, and I must shut my eyes and ears if I did not believe that there was ;-believing also that there were emissaries from France, wishing to spread the maxims

prevalent in that country, in this;-believing that the minds of the people of this country were much agitated by these political topics, of which the mass of the population never can form a true judgment;-and reading this paper, which appears to be calculated to put the people in a state of discontent with every thing done in this country -I am bound on my oath to answer, that I think this paper was published with a wicked, malicious intent to vilify the government, and to make the people discontented with the constitution under which they live. That is the matter charged in the Information;-that it was done with a view to vilify the constitution, the laws, and the government of this country, and to infuse into the minds of his Majesty's subjects a belief that they were oppressed, and on this ground I consider it as a gross and seditious libel. This is the question put to you to decide.

It is admitted the Defendants are the proprietors of the paper in which this address was published.

There is one topic more. It is said they were not the authors of the address, and that it got inadvertently into their paper. It never was doubted, and I suppose it never will be doubted, that the publishers of a newspaper are answerable for the contents of it. Those who think most favourably for the Defendants, will go no farther than to say, that the parties publishing ought to give an account how they published it, and if there is any thing baneful in the contents, to show how it came to them, and whether it was inserted inadvertently or otherwise. If any thing of that sort had been offered, I certainly should have received it as evidence. But nothing of the kind has been offered, and the Defendants stand as the proprietors and publishers of the paper, without the slightest evidence in alleviation being offered in their favour.

It is not for human judgment to dive into the heart of man, to know whether his intentions are good or evil. We must draw our conclusions with regard to his intentions from overt acts; and if an evil tendency is apparent on the face of any particular paper, it can only be traced by human judgment prima facie to a bad intention, unless evidence is brought to prove its innocence. This cause is destitute of any proof of that kind.

It is said that this paper contains other advertisements and paragraphs; and therefore from the moral good tendency of the whole, for aught I know to the contrary, you are to extract an opinion that the meaning was not bad. I cannot say that

the travelling into advertisements, which have nothing to do with this business, is exactly the errand you are to go upon. From this paper itself, and all the contents of it, you will extract the meaning; and if upon the whole you should think the tendency of it is good, in my opinion, the parties ought to be acquitted. But it is not sufficient that there should be in this paper detached good morals in part of it, unless they gave an explanation of the rest. The charge will be done away, if those parts which the Attorney General has stated are so explained as to leave nothing excepted.

There may be morality and virtue in this paper; and yet, apparently, latet anguis in herba. There may be much that is good in it, and yet there may be much to censure. I have told you my opinion. Gentlemen, the constitution has intrusted it to you, and it is your duty to have only one point in view-Without fear, favour, or affection, without regard either to the Prosecutor or the Defendants, look at the question before you, and on that decide on the guilt or innocence of the Defendants.

The Jury then withdrew it was two o'clock in the afternoon. The Noble and Learned Judge, understanding that they were divided and likely to be some time in making up their minds, retired from the bench, and directed Mr. Lowten to take the verdict. At seven in the evening they gave notice that they had agreed on a special verdict, which Mr. Lowten could not receive; they went up in coaches, each attended by an officer, to Lord Kenyon's house; the special verdict

was

Guilty of publishing, but with no malicious intent.

Lord KENYON.-I cannot record this verdict; it is no retdict at all.

The Jury then withdrew-and, after sitting in discussion till within a few minutes of five in the morning, they found a general verdict of NOT GUILTY.