274 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



thought to imply a necessit)' for 

 using the strong arm of the law in 

 its refutation. He acknowledged 

 that if he was addressing their 

 lordships merely as lawyers, these 

 arguments would be only as chaff 

 thrown before the wind ; but he 

 appealed to their feelings as men 

 and as philosophers acquainted 

 with the human mind, and with 

 the influence of religion. He un- 

 derstood that the Attorney-General 

 had claimed some merit for lenity 

 in not prosecuting the defendant 

 upon the statute of William HI. 

 If he had done so, their lordships 

 would have had no discretion in 

 apportioning the punishment; but 

 on the common-law prosecution, 

 they were open to every argument 

 of humanity and philosophy. The 

 information charged, that this libel 

 was published against the King's 

 crown and dignity; but that in- 

 fidelity did not militate against 

 these was proved by the many 

 millions in the East who were not 

 Christians, and yet were such ma- 

 terial additions to the crown and 

 dignity of the King of England. 

 If deists were tolerated and formed 

 into a sect, would any injury ensue 

 to those morals of which the court 

 was guardian? Many who had 

 written with as much audacity, 

 but more artifice, had gone un- 

 punished — this he instanced in 

 Hume, Gibbon, &c. He also ad- 

 verted to a new translation of Lu- 

 cretius advertised with the name of 

 the Attorney-General as a sub- 

 scriber. 



The Attorney-General made a 

 brief reply, in which he observed 

 that there was nothing in the pam- 

 phlet which was not drawn from 

 the very dregs of infidelity, and 



which had not been answered again 

 and again ; and that where one 

 person might be injured by the 

 literary works alluded to, five 

 hundred would be by one of this 

 kind. It rested with the court to 

 determine the defendant's crime 

 and punishment as the libel re- 

 garded the peace of the country ; 

 and if there were no authorities on 

 the subject, reason and principle 

 must decide that this was an offence 

 against that peace which it had a 

 direct tendency to disturb. 



The defendant was then ordered 

 to be remanded to custody, and to 

 be brought up for judgment on that 

 day se'nnight. 



On May 8th his sentence was 

 pronounced by Mr. Justice Grose, 

 which was, imprisonment in New- 

 gate for eighteen calendar months, 

 and to stand in the pillory during 

 the first of those months. 



Court of Kings-Bench, Thursday t 

 Nov. 19. — The King v. Daniel 

 Lovell. — The Solicitor -General 

 prayed the judgment of the Court 

 upon the proprietor of the Statesman, 

 for a libel in that paper of the 19th 

 of March, 1812, upon the com- 

 missioners for the transport service, 

 and for the care of sick and wound- 

 ed seamen and prisoners of war. 

 To the information ex-qfficio, filed 

 by the Attorney- General for this 

 libel, the defendant had suffered 

 judgment by default, and was now 

 brought up, under custody, from 

 Newgate, to receive the judgment 

 of the Court. The libel was read 

 by the clerk of the Crown-office, 

 and related to the conduct of the 

 Transport Board, in regard to fo- 

 reign prisoners of war confined in 

 England. The libel was contained 



in 



