V. with the publication of libels' of this nature. Under CHAP. these circumstances Lord Sidmouth requested the Lieutenants of Counties to make known to the Chairman of 1817. each quarter sessions 'the substance of this communication, in order that he may recommend to the several magistrates to act thereupon in all cases where any person shall be found offending against the law.'1 Lord Sidmouth's circular letter attracted great attention in both Houses of Parliament. The law officers' law, on which it was founded, was questioned by high authorities; and the impropriety of a Secretary of State taking upon himself to interpret and enjoin the execution of the law was loudly questioned.2 The ministry's position, however, in both Houses of Parliament was so strong that large majorities supported Lord Sidmouth's policy; and the cabinet, probably encouraged by the support which they received, determined on proceeding against the authors of some of the most ribald publications. The ministry had not yet learned from a long and painful experience that the feelings of the ordinary British juryman were opposed to needless prosecutions of obscure persons. A long series of failures had not yet convinced them of their unpopularity or induced them to pause in their headlong career. In the eyes of Lord Liverpool and his colleagues the printing press was the galvanic battery which infused life into the proceedings of the disaffected; and the summary arrest of every rioter was nothing if a single newspaper were allowed to scatter broadcast the seeds of sedition. An obscure paper, the Black Dwarf,' was the first object of their attack. The Black Dwarf' had published on the 2nd of April a scurrilous article against the ministry. It had declared that ministers had 'talked of patriotism when they meant plunder,' and that they had embarked on a war with France, not to conquer that 1 Ann. Reg., 1817, Hist., p. 60. 6 2 Hansard, vol. xxxvi. pp. 445–516, 1158–1187. V. 1817. Wooler. CHAP. country, but ourselves.' Scurrilous nonsense of this description should have been passed over in silence and with contempt. The ministry had the folly to honour one Wooler, the printer and publisher of the paper, with a State prosecution. Nothing could have been more favourable for Wooler's interests. His miserable libel, solemnly read in court, was, of course, immediately published in every part of the country. A scurrilous article, which could never have otherwise obtained a thousand readers, was read by millions; and Wooler, who undertook his own defence, had the satisfaction of being loudly cheered, and of finding that the officers of the court were unable to suppress the applause. The 'Black Dwarf' had been made a hero. In the "Black Dwarf" we have got a giant in talent on our side,' wrote old Major Cartwright. These results would have been sufficiently serious if the ministry had succeeded in the prosecution. They had not even the solitary consolation of achieving success. The foreman of the jury, indeed, returned a verdict of guilty;' and the judge was proceeding to act upon it, when it transpired that the finding was not the finding of the entire jury. The judge could not, of course, accept a verdict which was not unanimous; and Wooler, like Watson and the Huddersfield rioters, had the credit of achieving a victory over the Government.2 Wooler's trial had taken place in June. The country was still in a state of ferment. The insurrection, which had resulted in Brandreth's rising, was supposed to be on the eve of occurring; and the ministry might have been pardoned for being carried away by the terrors which they professed to feel. As the year wore on, however, every symptom of danger gradually subsided; confidence returned; the persons arrested under the Habeas Corpus 1 Life of Cartwright, vol. ii. p. 165. 2 Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., p. 165. Wooler was subsequently concerned in the election of Sir Charles Wolseley as Legislatorial Attorney for Birmingham, and imprisoned. Vide infra, p. 506, and Ann. Reg., 1820, Chron., p. 961. V. 1817. Hone. Suspension Act were released; and the last excuse for СНАР. exceptional measures was removed by the suppression of all panic. Neither, however, the failure which they had incurred in prosecuting Wooler, Watson, and the Huddersfield rioters nor the return of confidence deterred the ministry from persevering in the extraordinary course which they were bent on pursuing. In the middle of December 1817 they proceeded against a small publisher, William Hone, for a profane book which he had pub- Trial of lished and sold. Hone had parodied some of the most solemn services of the Church of England-the Litany, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Church Catechism. The parody of the Creed was called the 'Sinecurist's Creed; the parody of the Litany, the Political Litany; and these titles will perhaps convey the purport of the parodies without polluting the pages of history with their offensive and profane language. Every rightthinking person must feel contempt for a writer who deliberately tries to cast ridicule on the words of services which, whether he believe them or not, he knows are regarded with extraordinary veneration by the great mass of his fellow-countrymen. Such a writer deserves to be scouted by every honest man and reprobated by every decent person. The last course, however, to take with such a writer is to give currency to his works by honouring him with a prosecution. Yet this was the course which was deliberately taken by Lord Liverpool's ministry. On the 18th of December the Attorney-General prosecuted Hone for his seditious and profane libels on those parts of our Church Service called the Catechism, the Apostles' Creed, and the 1 Hone, a bookseller, living in a little shop in the Old Bailey, was a very remarkable man. He was pos sessed of various and extensive information; and some of his publications-his Every Day Book,' for example were very useful. He was described as 'a middle-aged man—a V. 1817. CHAP. Lord's Prayer. Mr. Justice Abbott before whom the case was tried, told the jury that the production was 'highly scandalous and irreligious, and therefore libellous.' But, notwithstanding this direction, the jury, after only a quarter of an hour's consideration, returned a verdict of not guilty; and their finding was received with applause in every part of the court.1 The verdict of the jury, in direct opposition to the charge of the judge, ought to have convinced the ministry and its advisers of the folly of the prosecutions which they were pressing. On the very day after Hone's acquittal on one charge they insisted on trying him on another, before Lord Ellenborough and a special jury. In the previous trial they had charged him with his parodies on the Catechism, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. On the second they charged him with libel for his parody on the Litany. The Attorney-General pressed on the jury the enormity of Hone's offence, and attempted to add force to his arguments by quoting passages from the parody. But his object was defeated by the indecorous laughter' which immediately rose in the court. The Attorney-General, disconcerted, declared that if the parody were not a libel there was no insult of the kind that might not be offered to the established religion and to the sacred writings with impunity.' Lord Ellenborough, with very doubtful propriety, pronounced the publication to be a most impious and profane libel; but the jury, in less than two hours, returned a verdict of not guilty. Hone had now been acquitted on two of the three charges preferred against him. With incredible folly the ministry, instead of withdrawing the remaining charge, persisted on the succeeding day in prosecuting him for his parody on the Athanasian Creed. The Sinecurist's Creed,' one of the counsel for the crown declared, was of the worst class of productions.' But the jury thought otherwise. 1 Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., p. 161. After an absence of half an hour they returned a verdict of not guilty. The moment the words were pronounced a spontaneous burst of applause issued from the crowd in the court, which soon extended to the crowd outside; and for some minutes the halls and adjoining avenues rang with shouts and acclamations. Some days afterwards a liberal subscription was entered into for Mr. Hone and his family.' The folly of the ministry had made a hero of a profane parodist, whose productions, but for the persecution of the Government, would have been regarded with contempt by every member of society.1 Hone's trials had one effect which the ministry probably had not foreseen. The first of the three trials had been before Mr. Justice Abbott; the two last before Lord Ellenborough, the Chief Justice of England. It was probably hoped that Lord Ellenborough's high authority would influence the jury, and that with his assistance a conviction would be secured. But it became painfully evident, during the progress of the trials, that Lord Ellenborough had no longer either the health or the temper to qualify him for his office. He suffered himself to become involved in a dispute with the prisoner about the admissibility of evidence; and, after dogmatically laying down the law, was obliged to give way. The mortification which he suffered at the result of the trials made him resolve on resigning; and, though his resignation was delayed for a time, he retired in the following autumn. There was much to condemn in Lord Ellenborough's career, yet it was difficult to supply his place. Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, was a sound lawyer. But he had been distinguished for a virulent persecution of the press as Attorney-General; he was a disagreeable and unpopular 1 Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., p. 175. Hone's other productions are full of information, and deserve anything but contempt. CHAP. V. 1817. |