: 
\ 
ing 
re. 
APPENDIX to the CHRONICLE. 
Can you conceive a more noxious 
and a more offensive publication ? 
It is written in a language calcu- 
lated for its circulation through 
every corner of France, and its ob- 
ject is manifestly to vilify and de- 
fame the first magistrate of that 
country, not only in France, but 
throughout all Europe. ‘This seems 
to be the end and necessary couse- 
quence of this publication in this 
place: and if you view it in that 
light, and if you are satisfied that 
- is the fair interpretation of it, there 
is no question of difficulty between 
us. Weare both agreed as to the 
illegality of printing, and the ille- 
gality of publishing, libels against 
those with whom we are at peace: 
the only question, then, for you to 
decide, is this, whether or not these 
publications, such as they are; 
whether these papers were or were 
not published, with an intention of 
vilifying the French consul! My 
friend tells you, if that is your 
judgment—he tells you, that if that 
was really the intention of the pub- 
lication, that then the defendant is 
to be delivered up to your verdict, 
and that you cannot rescue him 
from the consequences ; but should 
you be satisfied that it was not pub- 
lished with any intention of vilify- 
ing and defaming the first consul of 
France, but that it was written in 
the spirit of history, and that it 
comes under the description of free 
discussion; if you can, in your con- 
sciences, really believe that this 
comes fairly within the range of free 
discussion, or that if comes within 
the scope of historical privilege, 
then 1 do not ask your verdict : 
but if you are satisfied, in point of 
fact, that it was published with the 
libellous intention J impute to it, 
do not be driven from your pur- 
615 
pose by any theoretical or declama- 
tory address, or be led to appre- 
hend you are doing wrong, by act- 
ing on the clear principles of public 
law, on a case fairly brought before 
you, It is your province, and 
your duty, to act on the question 
before you, ou true and clear prin- 
ciples, and not to look to those 
cases which are to follow.» It will 
be time enongh to stir up an Eng- 
lish jury, when some unprecedented 
proceedings take place, and it will 
be time enough then that the ad- 
dress of my friend should be re- 
peated to them. And if that pe- 
riod is about to approach, I have 
only to lament, in common with 
you all, in common with every man 
who has heard that speech, that 
most eloquent, most able, most ir- 
resistible address, which has been 
applied to such a case as this, was 
not reserved for that occasion, to 
which it might, with more proprie- 
ty, have been applied. 
Lord Ellenborough, in his address 
to the jury, said, the matter in is- 
sue, included three things, Ist, the 
fact of the publication; 2dly, the 
truth of the allegations on the re- 
cord; and, 3dly, the nature and 
quality of the papers themselves. As 
to the first thing, the aét of publica- 
tion, that seemed to be proved by 
the evidence of- Mr. De Boffe, who 
published the work, aad a¢ted un- 
der the orders of M. Peltier, the 
defendant. That Napoleon Bona- 
parte was the first consul and chief 
magistrate of Irance, both at the 
time the definitive treaty of peace 
was signed, and also at the time 
when these papers were published, 
was admitted ; and, indeed, if it had 
not, it was capable of easy proof 
from the notoriety of it. The next 
and only remaining material point 
Rr4 for 
