satisfied, that the British nation could never become a flourishing, or remain a great or respectable people, without an adequate reform in Parliament; and he should deem himself below contempt, if the fear of that punishment about to be inflicted, should ever deter him from raising his feeble voice in support of such a change in the constitution of Parliament, as would make it the constitutional organ of the people, instead of being a well-contrived instrument for the advancement of individual and selfish interests. He now fearlessly awaited the judgment of the Court.

The Solicitor-General shortly replied, by admitting the lawful exercise of the liberty of the press, and temper ately animadverting on the character and conduct of that branch of the legislature, but insisted on the necessity of abstaining from all irreverent and indecorous terms, disrespectful and in sulting to the House of Commons, and defamatory of its political character.

Mr Justice Bayley, after a short pause, delivered the judgment of the Court. The law, the learned Judge said, licenced fair argument and reasonable discussion; but the libel in question stated, in language of general declamation, not arguments, but conclusions. The respect professed by the defendant for the House of Commons was a contradiction in terms, for what respect could be felt for a House of Commons such as he had described? The sentence of the Court was, that the defendant should be imprisoned in the House of Correction, Coldbath-fields, for a term of one year; to give securities, at the end of that period, for his good behaviour du. ring three years himself in 500l., and two other persons in 2501, each.

DOLBY FOR Libel, at the insTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIA

TION.

Court of King's Bench, Dec. 14.

Before the case was entered upon, Mr Scarlett put in an objection to the Jury, that Alderman Garratt, the Sheriff by whom it had been struck, was a member of the Constitutional Association, and was therefore a prosecutor. After some discussion, William Fisher and Francis Tatton, Esqrs. were named to try this question.

Mr Scarlett addressed a few words to the Jury, merely to inform them of the question they had to decide. Mr Alderman Garratt, the present Sheriff, in the course of his duty, returned the Common Jury; and he (the Alderman) was member of a society calling itself "Constitutional," and prosecuting the present indictment. That Mr Garratt was a member of that society, would be distinctly proved. His name, in fact, appeared in a list of subscribers furnished by the solicitor for the prosecution, to the solicitor of the defendant; and that list had since been printed and made public. The Alderman was a subscriber at the commencement of the prosecution; but something would be set up about his having since withdrawn his name. That something so set up, he (Mr Scarlett) should at once put down. If Mr Garratt had withdrawn his name from the lists, he had not withdrawn his money from the funds of the society; and the money was the sinew which enabled the society to act. A partner could never cease to be a partner, so long as he left his money in the firm; and a partner was liable, even after he withdrew, throughout those transactions which had been undertaken in his time of office.

William Nettlefold being called and examined, said, I am attorney to the defendant in this case. I appeared at the Crown-office, to strike the Special Jury, and I then demanded from Mr Murray a list of the members and subscribers of the Constitutional Society. Mr Murray admitted that the society were the prosecutors, and sent me, on the 29th of May, the list I have in my hand. In that list I find the name of Garratt occurring twice. There is a Sir George Garratt, and a John Garratt, styled an Alderman. Opposite to Mr John Garratt's name, there ap. pears a subscription of 51. 5s. I have no doubt that the Mr John Garratt, there named, is the present Sheriff.

John Roberts knew the person of Alderman Garratt, and was at Guildhall at the time when the alderman was chosen Sheriff. At the conclusion of the first day's poll, Mr Garratt stated that he had been a member of the "Constitutional Association;" but that, since he had been chosen alderman, he had thought it incompatible with his duty to remain among them; and he had therefore ceased to be a member. Witness was at Guildhall on several following days during the poll for Sheriffs; and either on the first or second day after that to which he had already alluded, he heard Alderman Garratt retract his former declaration.

The witness was pressed upon his cross-examination, and upon his reexamination, and also by the Judge, to give the words which Mr Garratt had used; but he could only, he said, give the sum and substance. Being taxed, on a subsequent day, with his declaration, that he had abandoned the Bridge-street Society, Mr Alderman Garratt did retract that declaration.

Mr Gurney, considering that the Sheriff had really nothing to do with the choice of the jury, was a little sur prised at the course which Mr Scarlett had taken. The objection, if it could

be made out, was, notwithstanding, sufficient. The learned gentleman then commented upon the inconclusive nature of the evidence adduced, and proposed to set the matter completely at rest, by calling John Garratt, Esq. Alderman and Sheriff.

Mr Scarlett submitted, that Mr Garratt was not a competent witness. The objection being to the Sheriff's return, the Sheriff could not in person give support to his own act. Besides, by supporting Mr Gurney's case, and ob viating his (Mr Scarlett's) objection, Mr Garratt would further the indictment, of which he was a prosecutor.

The Lord Chief Justice said, that he would endeavour, if possible, to recollect some authority.

Mr Scarlett confessed that he could furnish none.

Mr Tindall, during a pause of some minutes which ensued, observed, that jurymen had been allowed to give evidence as to their own competency.

The Lord Chief Justice thought that the cases were dissimilar.

No authority whatever occurring upon the point, the learned counsel were driven back to argument.

Mr Gurney contended, that the question before the triers was merely a collateral issue, and an issue in which Mr Garratt could have no interest.

The Lord Chief Justice.—I think not.

Mr Scarlett begged to be understood, in what he was about to say, as casting no imputation upon Mr Alderman Garratt. To shew that he meant any thing rather than an offence, he would begin with citing a case, in which a namesake of his own, a man named Robert Scarlett, had been the subject of criminal prosecution in a court of justice. The case, which appeared in Coke's Reports, was this: Robert Scarlett became a member of the Grand Jury of the county of Essex; and he was indicted before the

Court of Star-Chamber, upon a charge of having so become a member of the Grand Jury, to aid in the finding of certain indictments, in which he (R. Scarlett) was personally interested. It appeared, therefore, that if a person, knowing himself to be interested, voluntarily, and by his own seeking, did that office which the law required should be performed by an impartial hand, he subjected himself, for such act, to public prosecution. Now, put the case that a man became Sheriff, in order, by returning particular jurors, to aid and support a particular indict ment, he would, for so becoming sheriff, be actually punishable; and such a sheriff (the case was merely a case supposed) would clearly have an interest in a collateral issue like the present. He would be called to give evidence in a collateral issue, when the effect of his own evidence might be to purge himself from misdemeanour.

The Lord Chief Justice.-Supposing such a case, Mr Scarlett, as you have imagined, could the verdict upon the collateral issue be admitted afterwards as evidence upon an indictment? Mr Scarlett clearly apprehended that it might. The issue would be tried before a court of competent jurisdiction; a verdict of acquittal would be an answer to the indictment; and therefore a verdict of guilty would be evidence. Such a verdict would not only be evidence, but conclusive evidence. A court of law must take it in the same way that the House of Lords took the verdicts of ecclesiastical courts, without reference to the proceedings upon which those verdicts had been obtained.

The Lord Chief Justice, in the absence of all authority, thought the safer course would be to treat the witness as incompetent. He by no means meant to pledge himself as to the law upon the point, and wished distinctly

to be understood that his decision could afford no precedent. The question deserved much serious consideration, and he was only desirous, at present, of taking the safer side.

Mr Scarlett merely understood that Mr Gurney withdrew his witness on account of the novelty and uncertainty of the case.

Mr Gurney.-Certainly. Call Mr Sharp.

Mr Sharp got into the box.

Mr Scarlett. I mean to object to you too. You are a prosecutor in this case?

Witness. I apprehend that there can be no doubt of that.

Mr Scarlett. I apprehend, my Lord, that it is the witness's interest to complete that which has been begun by the Sheriff.

Mr Gurney said, that the point was a good joke; but his learned friend could not be serious.

Mr Scarlett was quite serious.

Lord Chief Justice.-I think, Mr Scarlett, you are going too far. Such an objection would exclude every witness.

Mr Sharp was then examined by Mr Gurney.

Have you 'attended every meeting of the committee of the Constitutional Society since January last ?—I have.

In the months of May and June was Mr John Garratt a member of the society?—In May certainly, and, I think, in June.

Did he cease to be a member some time before he was elected Sheriff?Yes.

Had he ever attended any meeting of the society?—No.

Has he done any thing but give 51. 5s. ?-Nothing.

Cross-examined by Mr Scarlett.What are you?—I am the honorary assistant secretary to the Association.

You do not mean to say that that is

your business; I ask you what you are what is your business?—I mean to say that I hold that situation.

*

Yes; but what business do you follow ?—I am of no business.

You live on your fortune?—I live on means that I possess.

Were you ever in any business?—I was in the Manchester trade.

How long ago?-Two years. You say that Mr Garratt became a member of this Association, by subscribing his money?—Yes.

That was the case with a great many people, I believe?—Yes.

Have you returned the Alderman his money?—I am not aware that the money has been returned.

What has become of it?-It has gone into the general fund.

Are you treasurer?-No; Mr Alderman Atkins is.

And what do you mean by Mr Garratt's having ceased to be a member?I mean that Mr Garratt addressed a letter to the committee to that effect. I am not aware of any other circum

stance.

The Lord Chief Justice.-What act did he do?-He addressed a letter to me as secretary.

Have you the letter?-No, it is at home.

Mr Scarlett thanked Mr Gurney's witnesses for the support they had given to the defendant's case.

The Lord Chief Justice summed up the evidence. The question was, whether, at the time of his returning the Jury, the Sheriff had, or had not, been a prosecutor of the indictment. The indictment was preferred on the 17th of May; and on the 29th of May, Mr Garratt's name appeared upon the list of the Association. The name stood Mr" Alderman Garratt." It was clear, therefore, that Mr Garratt was a member subsequent to the time at which he became an alderman. The evidence had clearly proved to the

Jury, that at the time of the finding of the indictment, and for some time after, the Sheriff was a member of the Prosecuting Association; and the only question was, whether, before his return of the present Jury, he had withdrawn himself from that situation. The fact of his having been a member being in proof on the one side, it was incumbent on the other side to shew the withdrawal, and to shew that withdrawal by very satisfactory evidence. If the triers were satisfied that Alderman Garratt had withdrawn himself before the return in question, they would find their verdict for the prosecutor; but if they were not fully satisfied upon that point, the safer course would be to find for the defendant.

The question was then formally put to the triers, whether Mr Garratt, at the given time, was or was not a prosecutor of the indictment; to which they replied without hesitation, that he was.

Mr Scarlett supposed that Mr Gurney would not call upon him in the other prosecutions.

The Lord Chief Justice said, that all had better stand over.

THE PROPRIETORS OF JOHN Bull, FOR LIBEL ON LADY CAROLINE WROTTESLEY.

Court of King's Bench, Feb. 4.

Mr Scarlett moved for a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Robert Thomas Weaver, the printer, and John Arrowsmith and Shackell, the proprietors of a new Sunday newspaper called the John Bull, for publishing, in No. V. of that paper, a wicked, scandalous, and defamatory libel on the memory of the late Lady Caroline Wrottesley. The libel was contained in a paragraph headed

"Queen's Visitors," and imputed to Lady Caroline Wrottesley, that, during her life, she had been detected in a criminal intrigue with a menial servant. It appeared from the affidavits of Sir John Wrottesley, that the late Lady Caroline Wrottesley died in the year 1818; that, at that period, she had been twenty-three years married to deponent; that she had been the mother of fourteen children; and that from her infancy to the hour of her death there had never been a shade of reproach upon her character. The affidavits of the Countess of Tankerville, Lady Caroline's mother, and of Lord Ossulston, and the Honourable H. Grey Bennet, two of her brothers, equally bore testimony to the infamous falsehood of the charge attempted to be cast upon her memory. It appeared, from further affidavits, that the libel in question had been circulated with the most unremitting assiduity, particularly in those places where it was likely to meet the eye of the relatives of the deceased. Mr Scarlett, after commenting, (in terms of wellmerited severity,) upon the conduct of the libeller, stated, that it would scarcely be necessary to cite cases to the Court, to show that libels upon parties deceased, as well as upon living individuals, were criminally punish

able.

The Court had no doubt whatever upon the point, and granted a rule to show cause.

July 27.

The Solicitor-General, for the defendants, feeling that this was a gross libel, and that no available defence could be made, allowed a verdict of Guilty to be taken.

November 24.

The defendants were brought up to receive judgment. Affidavits were

read from Sir John Wrottesley, the Countess of Tankerville, Lord Ossul. ston, and Mr H. Grey Bennet, stating the highly respectable character of the deceased, and the utter falsehood of the calumny.

The defendants then put in affidavits, expressing contrition for the insertion of the article; that they had been ignorant of its falsehood, and had not been personally concerned in its insertion.

The Solicitor-General (in mitigation) said, that he had very few observations to make in addition to the statement contained in the affidavits of the defendants. Certainly, as their counsel, he did not stand before the Court for the purpose of justifying, or in the slightest degree excusing, the libel which had been selected as the subject of the present charge. Such a course would be inconsistent with his own feelings, inconsistent with the ha bits of his life, as well as inconsistent with the instructions he had received, not now for the first time, but through the whole course of these proceedings, from the first moment the motion for the criminal information had been made. After that motion had been made, the defendants had done him the honour of consulting him as to the course it would be proper for them to pursue. He had stated to them the nature of the proceedings in such cases, and the different courses which might be adopted, when they, without hesitation, had desired him not to attempt to show cause against the rule. Afterwards, when the case came on to be tried, for the defendants had not suffered judgment to go by default, preferring to put a plea of not guilty on the record, in order to afford an opportunity of publicly confessing the error, he (the Solicitor-General) had, by their instructions, expressly stated their contrition and regret for a publication, in the falsehood of which they had every reason to concur. It was quite impos