258 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



was an information filed against 

 the defendant by his majesty's 

 attorney general for publishing, 

 in a weekly newspaper, called 

 the British Guardian, a gross 

 and scandalous libel upon his ma- 

 jesty's government, tending to vilify 

 the same, and to bringit into hatred 

 and contempt. The libel was con- 

 tained in a letter to theking, which 

 inferred that his majesty governed 

 the country by unconstitutional 

 means; that he had a private cabi- 

 net, and that his councils were di- 

 rected by a secret junto, no way 

 responsible for the advice they 

 gave. 



The publication being proved, 

 and the libel read, 



Mr. Clifford addressed the jury- 

 in behalf of the defendant, and 

 contended, that the author of the 

 letter in question had said nothing 

 more than what the late lord 

 Chatham had done in the House of 

 Lords, and what Mr. Burke had 

 again and again repeated in his 

 works, namely, that there was an 

 unconstitutional influence behind 

 the throne, which swayed his ma- 

 jesty's councils. It was never 

 dreamt of, in their days, to say 

 they were libellers ; and he trusted 

 the jury would not, by their ver- 

 dict, extend the law of libels. 

 Every individual had the right of 

 fair political discussion, and the 

 author had done no more. The 

 learned counsel also cited the 

 speech of alderman Beckford to 

 his majesty, which breathed the 

 same sentiments, he said, as those 

 contained in the letter in question, 

 and contended, that if the freedom 

 of discussion was to be thus tram- 

 melled, the liberty of the press 

 would soon become a non-entity. 



Lord Ellenborough said, it was 



nothing to the jury whether lord 

 Chatham, in his speech in the 

 House ot Lords, or Mr. Burke, in 

 his writings, had advanced doctrines 

 similar to those promulgated in the 

 letter under discussion. The ques- 

 tion was, whether the publication, 

 looking to its entire contents, was, 

 or was not, libellous, and written 

 with an intention to vilify and de- 

 grade his majesty's government ? 

 His lordship then commented upon 

 the several passages deemed to be 

 libellous, and left the jury to draw 

 their own conclusion. 



The jury immediately found the 

 defendant guilty. 



The King v. Horseman. — This 

 was also an information for a libel, 

 tending to degrade and vilify his 

 royal highness the Duke of Sus- 

 sex, and to bring him into hatred 

 and contempt ; inferring that his 

 Royal Highness had been guilty of 

 a criminal offence, for which he was 

 liable to be brought to public jus- 

 tice and punished. The libel wa» 

 contained in the following hand- 

 bill, stuck up in various parts of the 

 town : 



" His Royal Highness the Duke of 

 Sussex ! ! 



" Twenty Guineas Reward ! ! 



" Whereas, in the night of the 

 23rd inst. a hand-bill, signed • A 

 Yorkshireman,' was stuck up in 

 several places without a printer's 

 name affixed to it : Now, as I sus- 

 pect the Duke of Sussex to be the 

 author, or privy to it, whoever will 

 give information, so that he may be 

 acquitted of that suspicion, or the 

 real offender brought to justice, 

 shall receive from me the above 

 reward, at No. 8. Hanway-street. 

 " Thomas Hague. 



« *^» w^. Horseman informs the 

 public, that notwithstanding such 



hand- 



