sible that the Court should not feel that the situation of the proprietor of a newspaper was one of great anxiety. It very seldom happened that a person standing in the situation of proprietor was himself the conductor of a newspaper. He was compelled, therefore, to trust to the care, the vigilance, and the judgment of the individual whom he employed to conduct his paper for him. The individuals chosen for these offices were generally men of literary habits; and the name of the person engaged in the present instance had been disclosed in the affidavits. Their Lordships would not fail to recollect also, that there was something of indulgence due to the proprietor and publisher of a newspaper for an accidental slip, when the rapidity with which the matter for publication was collected and sent to press was taken into consideration; when they considered that a newspaper was composed of a great variety of articles, got together in haste, and often published at so late an hour as to prevent that cool and careful examination which, under other circumstances, would naturally be afforded. Such (the learned Solicitor-General said) were the general observations which he connected with the case; but it would be material to look at the situation of the particular defendants. Two of them were certainly proprietors of the John Bull; but so little did they know of its contents, or of its conduct, that although the libel was published on the 15th of January, yet neither of them saw it until several days after. The third defendant stood in a different situation. He was, in fact, but a servant, and had no authority or power either to admit or expunge an article which was given to him to be printed. His office was merely of a mechanical description, and it was clear, therefore, that he could not be influenced by personal malignity. The learned Solicitor-Ge

neral then proceeded to urge the other topics contained in the affidavits of the defendants in palliation of their offence, and concluded, (after denying every thing like malicious motive,) by submitting them, with humility, to the judgment of the Court.

Mr Puller, on the same side, adverted to the suppression, as far as was in their power, of the libel by the defendants.

Mr Scarlett rose on the part of the prosecution. It was at all times (the learned Counsel said) an unpleasant, sometimes an invidious, and perhaps it might in time become a dangerous duty, to press for punishment against offenders like the defendants. For his part, if he could believe that either the persons on the floor, or the author of the libel, felt any of that contrition expressed for them by their counsel—if he had any reason to think that they had offered reparation for their slander, or that they were even desirous of offering it, he should feel happy in relinquishing the duty imposed upon him, without adding one word in aggravation of punishment. But he had (the learned counsel continued) no such belief in the profession of the defendants; he did feel the most perfect conviction, that, from the hour when the libel had been written, up to the current moment, not one step had been taken by them, other than with a view to save themselves from punishment; and, under that conviction, he should proceed unhesitatingly to the discharge of his duty. He knew very well, that on all subjects connected with libels, it was difficult to distinguish between the author and publisher. He was aware of the usual topics urged on behalf of defendants in such cases; such as the necessity of securing the freedom of the press, and even of tolerating some little licentiousness, as almost necessarily growing out of that freedom. He (Mr Scarlett) felt the

full force of all such considerations; but he found none of them applicable to the case before the Court. In the deliberate malice of the present defendants, there was none of that sincere, though intemperate zeal, for which even the Solicitor-General himself, in Bere's case, had been disposed to make allowance; none of that well-meant, though indiscreet excess, through which a political writer-fancying his dream the salvation of mankind-forgot all consequence in the cause of his fellow-creatures; the libel was such as could not, even in ima. gination, benefit the public; and it directed its intent to the destruction of private happiness. If the defendants on the floor were to evade punishment, or to escape with, a mitigated punishment, from any distinction drawn between them and the author, by what possibility (Mr Scarlett would ask) was the author ever to be got at? He knew not whether the usual machinery of newspapers was such as had been disclosed by the affidavits of the defendants; it was a subject with which he had little acquaintance; but the Court would see, that, upon the system described, the most profligate individual might defame the most virtuous in the land, and screen himself by the medium of such respectable gentlemen as the defendants. After conducting their paper (by burning all manuscripts) in such a way as effectually to conceal the authors of slander from the Court, it was presumption in such persons to ask for pity, because they were mere publishers. The learned Solicitor-General had observed upon the last affidavit made by Mr Har mer, and had suggested the possibility of reply in mitigation of it. Why, there was nothing new in the matter of that affidavit; the attention of the defendants had been fully called to its contents; for it had been distinctly sworn upon the motion for the rule,

that the first number of the John Bull, containing those infamous imputations upon the character of Lady Caroline, with which the Court had already been disgusted, had been left by the mailguard at the house of Sir J. Wrottesley. And what were the defences which these libellers set up? Mr Weaver said, "I would not have put in the libel if I had known it to be false." Had it ever occurred to Mr Weaver that it might, by possibility, be scandalous ? Because his reasoning powers might then have carried him to the consequence-that he ought not to put it in unless he knew it to be true. But Mr Weaver went farther:-if he had known it to be false, he would have remonstrated with the editor. Why, then he had, it appeared, the power of remonstrance. It was to be hoped that their Lordships would teach Mr Weaver, that, possessing so much power, his forbearance to exercise it had been most unwise. But, to come to the farther ingenious excuses propounded. The defendants had no intention, they said, to wound the feelings of the Tan kerville family. Then, why had the libel been published? To what end? For what purpose? If malice was not the motive, what, in Heaven's name, was the motive? That was a fact which the defendants had not been so obliging as to state. And was it to be endured, that, without motive assigned, such a libel should be published, and the publisher should say, "I had no malice against the parties?" He (Mr Scarlett) wished that the ingenuity of the Solicitor-General could point out a single demonstration of that repentance in the defendants, on the abundance of which he had so eloquently enlarged. Let it be shewn by one single paragraph published since the libel, that the defendants had expressed concern or contrition for their crime. Did the Court believe, that if any such paragraph had appeared, that paragraph

would not have been set out in the affidavits of the defendants? And how then did the case stand? The persons on the floor admitted their legal responsibility; they admitted that they were conscious of having acted improperly, but they had taken no steps to state that consciousness to the world. They had taken no steps; no, nor would they;-yet these persons claimed the consideration of the Court! There were some newspapers bold enough to say, "You threaten us with prosecution, but we despise your threats." Such persons must be taught that the threat could not with impunity be despised; and if ever a private libel could deserve punishment, that punishment was merited by the publication before the Court. Allowance might be claimed for party feeling, or for anger, which even a supposed sense of injury might create. In cases like those some motive was apparent; and a man might sometimes forget his prudence in that which he deemed just towards himself, or beneficial to his country. But what could be said for the cold-blooded slanderer who invented stories without foundation in fact, or who stated circumstances which might easily be explained in such a way as to wound and to injure honourable persons? What plea could be urged by that most malignant libeller, who would even rake up the ashes of the dead, if he could sting, by such baseness, the hearts of the living? Their Lordships were told that it was not the author who stood before them. He (Mr Scarlett) maintained, that the defendants stood exactly in the situation of the author. They wittingly and wilfully refused to give the author up, and the Court was bound to punish them in his stead.

Mr Justice Bayley, after deliberating with his learned brothers for a considerable time, pronounced the judgment of the Court." Robert

Thomas Weaver, William Shackell, and Thomas Arrowsmith-You are now called up to receive judgment, after being found guilty of a libel, and that on the character of a deceased lady. In any case, to make a newspaper the vehicle of private attack, is most reprehensible; but when it is so made on the character of one who is dead, and on a point so deeply affecting her honour, it is the bitterest pang that can be inflicted on her surviving friends. Two of you state your ignorance of the nature of the paragraph at the time of its insertion; and it would have been but prudent on the part of the other, if, when he did see it, he had remonstrated with the editor, or had held some communication respecting it with the proprietors. It would have been wise, too, if he had preserved the manuscript, so that, in case of necessity, the real author might have been discovered, and punished if he deserved it. It appears, that in a former number of your paper matter was published attacking the memory of this ill-treated lady. I call your attention to that fact, in order to observe, that, after such matter had once found its way into your columns, you ought to have been very careful indeed how you permitted a second paragraph to go forth. I find no statement in the affidavit of Weaver, that, against the admission of that first article, he rémonstrated with the editor, nor that he ever made any remonstrance, even after the publication of the libel in question. It does not appear that, when application was made by the prosecutors, Mr Cooper, (this editor,) was given up as the hand who had composed the paragraph, or that any search after the original manuscript was made. It is a most improper mode of conducting a journal, to receive articles from persons unknown, and then to destroy the manuscripts themselves, in order that no clue to the authors may

remain. To dwell upon the nature of your offence is unnecessary. It is contrary to every interest of society, that public newspapers should become the vehicles of private scandal; and the attack complained of here is peculiar ly unpardonable, for it is made upon one who has gone to her account, and you might have allowed the dead to sleep in peace. The Court, having taken into consideration all the circumstances of your case, doth order and adjudge, that you, R. T. Weaver, do

pay to the King a fine of 100%; that you, T. Arrowsmith and W. Shackell, pay each a fine of 500l.; that each and all of you be kept in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea for the space of nine months; that you then find two securities, each in the sum of 250l.; that you enter into your own personal recognizances in the sum of 500l. to keep the peace for five years; and that you be further imprisoned until the same fines be paid, and recognizances entered into."

MESSRS CHRISTIE AND TRAIL, FOR THE DUEL WITH MR SCOTT.

Old Bailey, April 13.

The Lord Chief-Justice Abbot and Mr Justice Park having taken their seats on the bench, Messrs Christie and Trail, who appeared to be about twenty-five years of age, then surrendered in form to Mr Shelton, the clerk of arraigns. They were immediately placed at the bar."

The Lord Chief-Justice said, that, on referring to the indictment, he observed the name of a third person, Mr Patmore, included therein, and wished to know if that gentleman was also forthcoming to take his trial.

Mr Gurney said, he understood that gentleman was not now in Court.

Mr Justice Park desired that Mr Patmore should be called on his recognizances.

Mr Shelton replied, that no recognizances had been entered into by the parties.

The indictment, charging the pri

soners at the bar with the wilful murder of John Scott, Esq. on the 16th of February last, at Chalk Farm, was read to them, and they severally pleaded Not Guilty.

The Jury being sworn,

Mr Walford rose to state the case for the prosecution. He commenced by assuring the Jury, that it was difficult for him to find adequate language to convey any idea of the painful feelings with which he rose to state the evidence he had to adduce in support of this indictment against the gentlemen at the bar. It was impossible for him, when he recollected the rank in society in which these gentlemen moved, and when he reflected upon the fatal consequences which might ensue to them upon this trial-it was, he repeated, impossible for him to behold their situation without emotion. The man who, standing there, could do so, must have firmer nerves than he possessed. He should, however, endeavour to discharge the painful duty which devolved upon him, as clearly and as succinctly as he was enabled to

do by the instructions which he held in his hand. He must, however, premise his statement of the facts of the case, by entreating the Jury to dismiss altogether from their minds all previous statements which had reached them respecting this melancholy transaction. He trusted they were fully sensible that their verdict must alone be founded upon the evidence which would this day be legally submitted for their consideration. That could alone be the proper and legitimate source of the information upon which they would be warranted in acting. This prosecution was, he said, instituted by the relatives of the deceased. In bringing it forward, they were actuated alone by an anxiety to have the matter calmly and deliberately investigated. They disclaimed all vindictive feeling, and were only anxious that the facts should be examined before the proper authorities, and such conclusions drawn from them as the law authorised. It so happened, that of the nature or extent of the provocation which had led to this unhappy affair, the Jury must remain uninformed. Upon that part of the transaction he had no evidence to offer. The deceased Mr Scott was a gentle man well known in the literary world; and at the time when this unfortunate affair happened, was editor of a wellknown periodical work called "The London Magazine." Mr Christie, one of the gentlemen at the bar, was, he understood, a conveyancer. The other gentleman, Mr Trail, was also of the profession of the law, and a barrister. He had already informed them they must remain ignorant of what had passed between the principals in this unhappy affair; whatever it was, it probably occurred in secret, in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of its being made matter of evidence. From what would appear before them, they would find that a medical gentleman, of the name of Pettigrew, re

siding in Spring-Gardens, was requested by Mr Patmore to meet him and Mr Scott the same night at ChalkFarm, in his capacity as a surgeon. He went, according to the direction of Mr Patmore, to the Hampsteadroad in a post-chaise, with Mr Morris, his pupil. When they came to the avenue leading from the Hampstead-road to Chalk-Farm, they alighted from the chaise, and after passing through the avenue, ascended the hill behind the house. Mr Morris, who went first, would inform them that he thought he heard a shot fired as he ascended the hill. It did not appear that Mr Pettigrew heard this shot, but they both distinctly heard the knocking and priming of pistols, and they observed four or five gentlemen standing in the field beyond the hedge, two of them apart from the rest. At that moment they heard another shot, and saw one gentleman fall. They immediately proceeded over the hedge into the field, where the parties were, and saw Mr Scott on the ground, and a gentleman, whom they supposed to be Mr Christie, speaking to him, in extreme distress and agitation. They heard Mr Scott say that all was fair, and the other gentleman who was speaking to him remarked, with great emotion, that it was a pity he should have been permitted to fire a second time, having fired his first pistol down the field. The attention of the medical gentle. men was then directed to Mr Scott, and Mr Pettigrew thought that the best step he could take was to have him removed to town, and he set out himself to Mr Scott's lodgings to prepare for his reception. After waiting in town some time, he was surprised that Mr Scott had not arrived, and he concluded, what ultimately proved to be the fact, that he was found too weak for removal. He immediately returned to Chalk-Farm to see the deceased. In the course of that night,