you; it is a case of a different sort; and I am at a loss to guess how the word 'mercenary' can bear any application to the present charge. I have always in my own thoughts distinguished between those that prostitute their own peus, and become the stipendiary instruments of parties and ministers, and those pens which are called forth in the defence of particular opinions, and only offer the discussions of those opinions to the public. I have always thought it of the utmost importance, that the latter should be protected and encouraged. If in the paper here before you, you see no more than 1 profess I see, a writer called forth by ardent zeal, for the safety of that sovercigu which he thinks in danger, and for the safety of that country whose rights are involved in the same danger, called out to deliver his opinion of that in this publication; I am so far from thinking that paper obnoxious to any degree of censure and condemnation, that I think the author must have been said to have acted a justifiable part, to have obeyed the call on a good citizen, in conveying the alarm, and giving notice where he thought it necessary. My learned friend has the same idea of the matter now to be determined, upon the grounds on which you are to form your decision, that I entertain; it lies entirely in your own breasts to determine it; and I would not insinuate any thing that I think they ought to adhere to, as I know you to be a jury so well acquainted with your duty, that no instructions are necessary. For we all know, that in all times, the honest, intrepid, upright conduct of a jury must be the refuge of the people of this kingdom. That has been their security, when all other securities have been taken away, and their liberties likewise. They must and will, in the natural course and evolution of things, flee again to the same asylum; and upon that account, gentlemen that are called to exercise that important daty, do not want to be informed of that line of jurisdiction that falls to them; that jurisdiction that they are to keep inviolable, and that jurisdiction upon which depends the security of every subject of this kingdom: and that jurisdiction, if once broke in upon, makes juries useless; and the practice and insult upon that substantial benefit, the constitution boasts of in it, and the public have constantly reaped from it; that line of distinction the jury have to determine of the full matters before them, and I believe I shall be in no degree contradicted, when I shortly state the question you are to determine. Gentlemen, Mr. Miller is a citizen of London, and is charged with having seditiously published a paper reflecting upon the person of the king; vilifying his subjects, and wrote with a view of exciting a sedition; vili

admission of the least degree of guilt or criminality in a similar publication to this. I entered into a defence as seriously, and as ardently wished, that such weak arguments as my understanding might furuish me with, might be prevalent in that case, with that anxiety that always will attend questions of the most important nature, and expecting an instant decision. I appear now, as then, avowedly defending the publication of the paper. I approach with the same anxiety, and have some relief to that anxiety, finding the determination of this important question in the hands of a jury of the principal citizens of London. Gentlemen, I made no objection to that neglect and remissness, in convening a full jury here, persuaded as I am, that collect the jury where they will, among the inhabitants of this metropolis, it is impossible to find meu with hearts so foreign to the ideas they owe to liberty and public justice as to allow the conviction of the present defendant. Gentlemen, my learned friend has said, that upon the last trial, no particular passages were pointed out to which we thought proper to apply a particular vindication. The charge was general; the auswer, I allow, was as general; and I think it seems as proper and becoming to leave the construction of a paper to a jury of citizens, who are the most competent judges of what sense and construction belongs to a paper, unassisted by counsel. And if I did not enter into a defence of particular passages, it was because a general charge was exhibited, and no particular passages pointed out, as bearing an unjustifiable construction. My learned friend says, he knows no party so dangerous, as mercenary writers employing their pens in the aspersion of private characters, or the misrepresentation of public measures. I do most heartily agree with the gentleman, in a detestation of those men who can be procured by any emoluments coming from any quarter, to prostitute their pen to the calumniation, slander, and depreciating of the best characters in the kingdom. I do most heartily agree with him in despising and contemning the authors; but 1 do look further, and I bestow the higher measure of indignation and condemnation on that fountain from whence flows the encouragement to such pernicious prostitution. None of that sort has, however, been thought proper to be brought before you, with regard to the great and respectable characters that have been attacked, as they say they have acted with impropriety in leaving the publisher to the punishment that a just and indignant public jury will always inflict upon indignant writers; and if that is to be pursued, it should be of those writers there should be a reparation sought for, to the constitution; and those cha-fying the person of the king; wrote with a racters that you see every day in daily publications, publicly libelled and traduced, there might be reparation sought for to those great characters, though they cannot be protected from the scurrility of malignant peus. But gentlemen, none of them are brought before

view of exciting sedition, with intent to alienate the affections of the subjects from his majesty. That is the general description of the charge against him before you. It is alleged in the information, that it is a seditious libel, reflecting upon the king, his administration of

tions to the king himself, and denying those virtues which all the world know him to be possessed of? Through the whole of the paper, there is not an imputation of any bad quality in the king. On the contrary, those bad qualities are imputed to others. The learned gentleman, in his further prosecution of that design, to make you assent to his propositions, if

government, and his principal officers of state, and the hon. House of Commons; and in the words and dashes contained in the specification of the letter itself; and if those words were admitted, it is incumbent upon you, and you must give satisfaction, and convict the defendant; and if that is not wanting, you are called upon by your duty, to convict the defendant. Gentlemen, I would not be under-subtilty can draw it from the line of truth, and stood here to be making a cavil of defence, give it that aspersion he says it contained; he as if I insisted literally upon a proof of every has told you his education is libelled; his part of it. This I insist upon, that in all cases condition, his situation, and the whole is a libel whatsoever, the principle of the crime is the upon him in the supposed difficulties in the malignant mind, the bad design and intention access of an honest man tn his closet, to tell in the writer; and you must be satisfied of the him he is surrounded by flatterers, and that proof and the nature of the subject before you, truth don't find easy access; and that is an that there was that malignant disposition in the aspersion upon the king. It has been the case writer. You must be convinced here, that of the best of kings; and no good qualities there was sedition in the intention; and if that in the mind of a sovereign can guard against proof is wanting, that charge is not made out; it. The most active and vigilant kings, have, it is like all the other cases of criminal prose in some part of their lives, suffered in the adcutious, whether for felony, perjury, or trea- ministration of government, from the diffison; you must find the intention; it must be culty there is to convey the truth to their ear. proved wilful and corrupt, in case of perjury; It is not the person of the king, it is the misand if they were to say they found the word fortune of a throne that it cannot be accessible false, without wilful and corrupt, they have in to people of all denominations. If their servants effect, acquitted the defendant. They would are corrupt, they are surrounded, and a barrier do better, if in explicit words, they would is formed against the approach of all others, speak in the language of the law, in saying, that would convey any useful caution to the ear the defendant is not guilty. There is danger of the king. If he is in the hands of bad serin not being explicit, where the facts justify an vants, the most wholesome steps are to be taken explicit explanation; and I do submit, gentle. to deliver himself from those servants. Has men, that in the present case, you must be con- that construction contended for by my learned vinced there is a seditious meaning and inten-friend, and ingeniously stated to you, has tion running though the whole of this publica- it been well warranted by the paper before tion, though I don't see it is necessary to give you? Let us consider the other ground upon proof of the whole, but you must be convinced which it has been contended. It has been said, of the seditious intention, so as to affect the the lord lieutenant of Ireland has been treated defendant with a proof of the seditious inten- wrongfully, and he don't deserve that title; tion at the time he published it. Gentlemen, and my learned friend said, he himself would my learned friend, knowing that to be the case, defend him, as he has known his conduct, and knowing the necessity of such proofs to sup- been acquainted with him. The lord lieutenantport the present charge, he has entered into au with regard to what it said of him, and to make examination of the paper, and he has laboured it apply, it has been said it infers an insult upon to convince you, that this is a direct personal the king, because he is told, after the disgraceful libel and invective against the king. Gentle-picture has been drawn of the viceroy and demen, if a subject of this kingdom so far forgets puty, that he is a fit or worthy representative of his duty, as to traduce and calumniate the per- the person that sent him. Read that passage, son of the king, in that case it would cut off a gentlemen; I desire that passage may be fairserious defence; but it is necessary to the pre-ly read. The import is, as I am warranted by sent prosecution, you should understand it so ; the learned gentleman has, for that reason, so Jaboured it, and you will judge of the success of his labours. You will judge how well warranted by the paper before you, are the constructions the learned gentleman has put upon it. In the first place, says the learned gentleman, every bad quality is imputed to the king; every good quality denied him. Gentlemen, 1 submit to your own consideration, upon reading the paper, whether the obvious meaning of the author is not quite contrary to the meaning put upon it by my learned friend; and whether he has not repeatedly borne testimony of the royal virtues of the king. Is that application just? Is it just to say, this is a paper containing the imputation of all bad qualifica. VOL. XX.

the words and l'expect to find no credit with this, or any jury, if I wilfully misrepresent any thing-the import, as I take it, is, that a disgraceful viceroy has been sent to a neighbour ing kingdom; and the import of the paper is, it was that viceroy that has drawn discredit upon the person that sent him. Who sent him? that person is not named that sent him, nor is there a word said, nay, it is so far from being said, that representative is a worthy, becoming, or similar representative of his sovereign, the contrary is, in direct words, said-his sovereign is disgraced by him. This is the third ground by which it is represented, there must be a personal application of this to the king. Then my learned friend says, the next charge upon him is, that he takes a share in the narrow 3 L

|

views and fatal malignity of some individuals, and, it is not only justifiable to say, that war is to sacrifice a private object; and that he had not begun properly, but peace is not made prostretched every nerve of government, and vio- perly for, it has been frequently the case of lated the constitution, by an ill-advised per- this kingdom, to exercise the royal prerogative sonal resentment. Is it criminal to say, every of the seal to a peace, which has been deministerial power has been employed to crushclared to be ignominions and dishonourable at that man? if it is criminal, Mr. Miller makes the same time. At the same time we guard one amongst millions of guilty gentlemen. the person of the king; it is not his peace, but Does that, however, in the least degree, apply the ministers, and they should be punished for to the person of the king? Are you not it. The ministers have then made use of this then, by reading the paper itself, convinced, argument, it is the king's; unfaithful to their that this has no application, in any degree, sovereign, if they have drawn reproach upon of that kind, to the person of the king? themselves, they will shelter themselves beIt contains no insinuation to his disgrace, no hind the curtain, and will produce him. reflection, no personal resentment upon him; Whenever measures are freely wrote of, whoand, is it criminal in a man to say, if he thinks ever should introduce the name of the king as so, that discontents prevail in this kingdom? the author of it, he is the person who acts unis it criminal to state the grounds of it? is it worthy of that duty he owes to the king, and criminal, if he thinks it, to say there are dis- he bas libelled the king, and brought his perContents between one party and another? is son into danger: those that take from the offiit criminal for a man who thinks there are cers of the crown, and throw that upon the evil counsellors about the king, to express his king which belongs to them, treat the person of wishes, that they may be removed? In direct the king ill, and make a libel upon him: but terms, these are the words, that they may be the jury will put a right construction upon this removed, and the parliament dissolved, and paper. The jury will consider the necessity of every cause of complaint removed from his a free examination of measures, and they will government. And those who wish for the not suffer an expedient to take place, which prosperity of the king, and content and hap- would be at once unfaithful to the crown, and piness, may form such a wish; and, if justi- dangerous to the subject, to shut our mouths fiable in making it, certainly are justifiable in to all sorts of discontent, and to reduce this naexpressing it; and it can be no imputa- tion, like all others, where oppressions cannot tion upon the person of the king through- be expressed, where discontents are not known, out. But the measures of government have till they break out in events too dangerous, and been freely censured, from one end of this too melancholy to be mentioned. And, as paper to the other, as the cause of the discon- their discontents are known, they may be retents, and that has been lamented; and an in- moved; if well or ill-founded, they may be vidious interpretation has been given it, as auswered by argument; if they are ill-meaif it was a menace to the sovereign. Gentle-sures, it is the happiness of this kingdom, that men, you all know, that whoever gives a picture of a distracted and discontented people, if he means to convey honest advice, would name those consequences, which, in the course of things, are likely to follow; the more he dreads and apprehends, and wishes to avert them, the more freely will he name them, because that is the means often to prevent them; and the author may say, I fear, in course of time, they may happen, and he may point out the means by which they may be averted. The fears, and not the menace of the writer is conveyed to the crown. Then, gentlemen, I submit to you, upon a full consideration of the paper before you, there are no reflections upon the person of the king; but the measures of government are canvassed with that freedom, I hope I shall always see them treated with in this kingdom. I hope I shall never see them meet with any discouragement from juries, to say the person of the king is surrounded with evil counsellors; upon an examination of it, if that should be the case, and they should meet with discouragement, it is shutting their mouths to any enquiry at all, and they must rest contented at every act that is done by the king's servants, though that is virtually a distinction in law from the king. We do not consider that it is the king makes war or peace,

we owe to the freedom and liberty, which is a security to the throne and people.

Gentlemen, I have troubled you thus largely in this cause, in answer to my learned friend's arguments, and I hope my endeavours will not be needless; for, you are the constitutional judges of the question. You have the paper before you. If you see upon examination of this paper, that there are none of those seditious designs, nothing of that tendency, nothing that conveys a proof of such a malevolent disposition, either in the writer or the defendant, which is charged in the information, I am persuaded you will do your duty, and will, by an explicit verdict, not to be misuuderstood, declare the defendant not guilty. I trust you will, gentlemen, and, for that reason, I don't trouble you with comments upon the evidence produced before you. It is left to you, whether you will say, a citizen of London shall, for any paper published in such a way, be so far affected with the contents and knowledge of it, that he should be said to have formed horrible and seditious machinations against the king and the subjects of this country. Gentlemen, I shall not trouble you with any more questions of this sort, because I conceive the defendant to be safe in your hands. I have taken the liberty to submit that to you,

Crown-office was restrained from preferring any information, without leave of the court, some

and you will seriously consider upon what you are to decide. You will consider whether he is guilty in the manner, form, and charge in this in-how or other, this power remained in the Atformation, and whether he is guilty in every part, which must be added to make up the whole of this charge. And, if you say he is guilty, you in your own consciences, pronounce him guilty of every particular, specified offence. If you, upon the other hand, should not suffer the defendant to be non-suited upon the paper before you, and that you will give an example which one day or another will do honour to the names of the jury, and the nation will derive that benefit which it has always derived from a jury, and I hope it ever will; I am persuaded you will not disapprove of that freedom which is made use of in that paper, when you see there is no intention of doing ill in it, which must be left to the wisdom and integrity of those gentlemen, who are now the great judges of that, and I trust I have nothing to fear in the behalf of my client.

torney General. Gentlemen, if this libel be
so clear and so notorious, why was it not left
in the ordinary mode of indictment, and why
not left to a grand jury, to pass their senti-
ments upon it? why was not the Court moved,
whether the matter might have been heard,
that it might be determined in some measure,
on its first appearance? The leave of the Court
would have been obtained, if they had seen
proper ground; an answer would have been
given by affidavit, and by that an opportunity
of exculpation; but it comes in that naked
state of it, in the information of that arbitrary
creature, the Attorney General, who has the
power to exhibit, in the way and manner that
the luxuriance of his fancy, and the intemper-
ance of his zeal may suggest. Gentlemen,
you will take it, divested of all that circle
of epithets with which it is surrounded, and
clear it from all that imputation of office.
will now, gentlemen, consider the nature of
this question that comes before you, and the
full and the absolute power which you have
over it; for no power in this kingdom has the
least control over you; nor have they the
least power entrusted to them of deciding upon
the subject, but what you refer to them: it is
in your hands, and it is solely there. Gentle-
men, the learned gentleman, taking, as I said
before, the broken parts of sentences, has,
in my mind, introduced more real reviling
against the sacred character of that person,
whom he supposes here to be introduced, than
from any part of the pamphlet it is possible to
collect. You will observe, that in the very first
opening of the writing, the writer states as

I

Mr. Davenport. Please your lordship, and you gentlemen of the jury, I am of counsel likewise for the defendant; and, after so very able a speech, by my learned leader, I should have sat down very contented indeed, if I had thought what the learned gentleman had said upon the other side, deserved to pass without notice. But it has alarmed me; and I will give you the reason, why I think it ought not to pass in silence. The gentleman, when he first opened it, took it for granted it was a libel, which he presumed, without asserting the guilt. It was a charge he would have thrown upon others, but it was a measure he himself adopted; and, I did expect from his ability, and from the situation he fills, that you would have had a clear line of precision drawn, without a possi-a maxim of this constitution, and it is the hapbility of error, where the libel began, and piness of it, that the king can do no wrong. where it stopped. He has not ventured into a He says, that he will separate the private particular explanation of the whole of what he virtues of the man, from the vices of his calls the libel: he has commented, indeed, and government; the amiable prince, from the in a way, of which I shall take notice bye- folly and treachery of his servants; that, inand-bye to you, upon broken, disjointed mem- stead of friends, persons in that situation, are bers of sentences, without reading the fair and too liable to meet with the imputation of faopen sentence to you. Is there any book, either vourites. It is in that manner he introduces in sacred or profane history, that would ad- that very abuse that is supposed to be thrown mit of such a tearing and dismembering as that upon his majesty. Gentlemen, you cannot be has been, without leaving the book absurd, and ignorant, how many controversial pamphlets possibly criminal. Gentlemen, I will now state and papers of every sort, of Juniuses and Antito you the manner in which this prosecution Juniuses, there have been published, by every comes before you; because I shall, by that, man who thought he had a right; and, I hope, wipe off from your minds any impression, if you will be of opinion, every man has a right possible any could have been made, of a sup-to submit his doubts to the public, provided he position that this information has gone through any consideration, much less received the sanction of any one person, or any court, but comes merely from the hand of him who has taken the liberty to bring it before you. Gentlemen, the power of exhibiting these informations has fatally enough been left in the Attorney General: it is a claim of office, and he uses it now. When the court of Star Chamber was abolished; when the licenser of the press was taken away; when the master of the

confines himself to a free, open, public, and
able discussion of those grievances, which, we
conceive, scarcely affects the mere imagina-
tion, without a ground; and this author must,
most sensibly have felt it, as, I think, is mani-
fest from the strength and energy with which
the paper itself is couched.
will find, through the whole of this pamphlet,
the maxims with which he sets out. I presume
you will see, that the minister has found himself,
with all his tribe of writers, unable to defend

Gentlemn, you