1817.]

PROSECUTIONS FOR LIBEL.

85

of the peace before trial a right to decide that difficult question; and to commit to prison (in many instances, perhaps, to inflict a severer punishment than the Court upon conviction would adjudge), upon a charge which, after all, may turn out to have had no foundation, but in the false interpretation of words perfectly innocent by the justice before whom the charge was brought ?.... If such be the power of the magistrate, and if this be the law, where, I ask, are all the boasted securities of our independence and freedom?" The House of Lords was indifferent to the preservation of these boasted securities. Writing four months after this debate to the bishop of Durham, lord Sidmouth says, "The attempt to check the progress of treason and blasphemy, by apprising the magistrates that they had the power of apprehending and holding to bail the publishers or venders of either, was one of the charges brought against me in the course of the last Session. Such a charge it shall be my constant endeavour to deserve; and I am happy in being able to assure your lordship, that the activity of the itinerant dealers in these articles is materially controlled, and their number greatly diminished." We apprehend that there cannot be the slightest doubt in many minds, at the present day, that this proceeding of lord Sidmouth was most unconstitutional; and that he speaks and writes in defence of his conduct with all the self-approval of the worst political bigot of the worst periods of tyranny.

It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and dangerous position than that in which every political writer was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned. The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during which three years forty such informations were laid, only one person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default, to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were committed to prison during this year. To complete a triple cord with which the ministers believed they could bind down the "manmountain "of the press, came forth lord Sidmouth's Circular. The entire course of these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one solitary instance of success-William Cobbett ran away. On the 28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication of his 'Register' for four months.

On the 12th of May earl Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's famous parody, "Praise Lepaux;" and he asked whether the authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law? This hint to the Ante, vol. vii. p. 345.

* "Life of Lord Sidmouth," vol. iii. p. 176.

86

THE THREE TRIALS OF WILLIAM HONE.

[1817.

obscure publisher against whom these ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years, with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to perplex the technical acquirements of the AttorneyGeneral, to whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly useless; and to change the determination of the boldest judge in the land to convict at any rate, into the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause, we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,-an improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best gift of heaven,-that of knowledge.

On the morning of the 18th of December there is a considerable crowd round the avenues of Guildhall. An obscure bookseller, a man of no substance or respectability in worldly eyes, is to be tried for libel. He vends his wares in a little shop in the Old Bailey, where there are, strangely mingled, twopenny political pamphlets, and old harmless folios that the poor publisher keeps for his especial reading as he sits in his dingy back parlour. The door-keepers and officers of the court scarcely know what is going to happen; for the table within the bar has not the usual covering of crimson bags, but ever and anon a shabby boy arrives with an armful of books of all ages and sizes, and the whole table is strewed with dusty and tattered volumes that the ushers are quite sure have no law within their mouldy covers. A middleaged man,―a bland and smiling man,—with a half sad half merry twinkle in his eye,—a seedy man, to use an expressive word, whose black coat is wondrous brown and threadbare,-takes his place at the table, and begins to turn over the books which were his heralds. Sir Samuel Shepherd, the Attorney-General, takes his seat, and looks compassionately, as was his nature to do, at the pale man in threadbare black. Mr. Justice Abbott arrives in due time; a special jury is sworn; the pleadings are opened; and the Attorney-General states the case against William Hone, for printing and publishing an impious and profane libel upon the Catechism, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, thereby bringing into contempt the Christian religion. "It may be said," argued the Attorney-General," that the defendant's object was not to produce this effect. I believe that he meant it, in one sense, as a political squib; but his responsibility is not the less." As the Attorney-General proceeded to read passages from the parody upon the Catechism, the crowd in Court laughed; the Bench was indignant; and the Attorney-General said the laugh was the fullest proof of the baneful effect of the defendant's publication. And so the trial went on in the smoothest way, and the case for the prosecution was closed. Then the pale

1817.]

HONE'S FIRST TRIAL.

87

"some

man in black rose, and, with a faltering voice, set forth the difficulty he had in addressing the Court, and how his poverty prevented him obtaining counsel. And now he began to warm in the recital of what he thought his wrongs; his commitments; his hurried calls to plead; the expense of copies of the informations against him: and, as Mr. Justice Abbott, with perfect gentleness, but with his cold formality, interrupted him, the timid man, who all thought would have mumbled forth a hasty defence, grew bolder and bolder, and in a short time had possession of his audience as if he were well-graced actor," who was there to receive the tribute of popular admiration. They were not to inquire whether he were a member of the Established Church or a Dissenter; it was enough that he professed himself to be a Christian; and he would be bold to say, that he made that profession with a reverence for the doctrines of Christianity, which could not be exceeded by any person in that Court. He had his books about him, and it was from them that he must draw his defence. They had been the solace of his life. He was too much attached to his books to part with them. As to parodies, they were as old at least as the invention of printing; and he never heard of a prosecution for a parody, either religious or any other. There were two kinds of parodies; one in which a man might convey ludicrous or ridiculous ideas relative to some other subject; the other, where it was meant to ridicule the thing parodied. This latter was not the case here, and therefore he had not brought religion into contempt. This was the gist of William Hone's defence. To show fully how this argument was worked,—with what readiness, what coolness, what courage, would be to transcribe the trials of three days; on the first of which the defendant spoke six hours, on the second seven hours, and on the last eight hours. It was in vain that the Attorney-General urged that to bring forward any previous parody was the same thing as if a person charged with obscenity should produce obscene volumes in his defence. It was in vain that Mr. Justice Abbott repeated his wish that the defendant would not read such things. On he went, till interruption was held to be in vain. It was worse than vain, it was unjust. Truly did Hone reply to Mr. Justice Abbott, "My Lord, your Lordship's observation is in the very spirit of what Pope Leo the Tenth said to Martin Luther, For God's sake don't say a word about the indulgences and the monasteries, and I'll give you a living;'-thus precluding him from mentioning the very thing in dispute. I must go on with these parodies, or I cannot go on with my defence." Undauntedly he went on, from the current literature of the time, such as grave lawyers read in their few hours of recreation, to the forgotten volumes of old theology and polemical controversy, that the said grave lawyers of modern days are accustomed to regard as useless lumber. The Editor of Blackwood's Magazine was a parodist,-he parodied a chapter of Ezekiel; Martin Luther was a parodist,-he parodied the first Psalm; Bishop Latimer was a parodist, aud so was Dr. Boys, Dean of Canterbury; the author of the "Rolliad " was a parodist, and so was Mr. Canning. Passage after passage did Mr. Houe read from author after author. He thought it was pretty clear that Martin Luther did not mean to ridicule the Psalms; that Dr. Boys did not mean to ridicule the Lord's Prayer; that

The three trials were printed as separate pamphlets.

88

HONE'S SECOND TRIAL.

[1817

Mr. Canning did not mean to ridicule the Scriptures. Why, then, should it be presumed that he had such an intention? As soon as he found that his parodies had been deemed offensive, he had suppressed them, and that he had done long before his prosecution. It was in vain that the AttorneyGeneral replied that Martin Luther was a libeller, and Dr. Boys was a libeller. The judge charged the jury in vain. William Hone was acquitted, after a quarter of an hour's deliberation.

But Guildhall" saw another sight." With the next morning's fog, the Lord Chief Justice rose from his bed, enfeebled by illness, but undiminished in the energy of his talent. He had been deeply mortified by the acquittal of Watson for high-treason. He was now resolved that the libeller should not go unpunished. "He swore," says Lord Campbell," that at whatever cost he would preside in Court next day himself, so that conviction might be certain, and the insulted law might be vindicated."* With lowering brow lord Ellenborough took his place in that judgment-seat which he deemed had been too mercifully filled on the previous day. The mild firmness of the poor publisher, and his gentlemanly sense of the absence of harshness in the conduct of his first trial, had won for him something like respect; and when on one occasion Mr. Justice Abbott asked him to forbear reading a particular parody, and the defendant said, "Your lordship and I understand each other, and we have gone on so good-humouredly hitherto, that I will not break in upon our harmony," it became clear that the puisne judge was not the man to enforce a verdict of guilty on the second trial. Again Mr. Hone entered the court with his load of books, on Friday, the 19th of December. He was this day indicted for publishing an impious and profane libel, called "The Litany, or General Supplication." Again the Attorney-General affirmed that whatever might be the object of the defendant, the publication had the effect of scoffing at the public service of the Church. Again the defendant essayed to read from his books, which course he contended was essentially necessary for his defence. Then began a contest which is perhaps unparalleled in an English court of justice. Upon Mr. Fox's libel bill, upon ex-officio informations, upon his right to copies of the indictment without extravagant charges, the defendant battled his judge,-imperfect in his law, no doubt, but with a firmness and moderation that rode over every attempt to put him down. Parody after parody was again produced, and especially those parodies of the Litany which the Cavaliers employed so frequently as vehicles of satire upon the Roundheads and Puritans. The Lord Chief Justice at length gathered up his exhausted strength for his charge, and concluded in a strain that left but little hope for the defendant: "He would deliver the jury his solemn opinion, as he was required by Act of Parliament to do; and under the authority of that Act, and still more in obedience to his conscience and his God, he pronounced this to be a most impious and profane libel. Believing and hoping that they, the jury, were Christians, he had not any doubt but that they would be of the same opinion." The jury, in an hour and a-half, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

It might have been expected that these prosecutions would have here ended. But the chance of a conviction from a third jury, upon a third

"Lives of the Chief Justices," vol. iii. p. 224.

89

indictment, was to be risked. On the 20th of December lord Ellenborough again took his seat on the bench, and the exhausted defendant came late into court, pale and agitated. The Attorney-General remarked upon his appearance, and offered to postpone the proceedings. The courageous man made his election to go on. This third indictment was for publishing a parody on the Creed of St. Athanasius, called "The Sinecurist's Creed." After the Attorney-General had finished his address, Mr. Hone asked for five minutes' delay, to arrange the few thoughts he had been committing to paper. The judge refused the small concession; but said that he would postpone the proceedings to another day, if the defendant would request the Court so to do. The scene which ensued was thoroughly dramatic. "No! I make no such request. My lord, I am very glad to see your lordship here to-day, because I feel I sustained an injury from your lordship yesterday-an injury which I did not expect to sustain. . . . If his lordship should think proper, on this trial to-day, to deliver his opinion, I hope that opinion will be coolly and dispassionately expressed by his lordship.. . . My lord, I think it necessary to make a stand here. I cannot say what your lordship may consider to be necessary interruption; but your lordship interrupted me a great many times yesterday, and then said you would interrupt me no more, and yet your lordship did interrupt me afterwards ten times as much. Gentlemen, it is you who are trying me to-day. His lordship is no judge of me. You are my judges, and you only are my judges. His lordship sits there to receive your verdict. I will not say what his lordship did yesterday; but 1 trust his lordship to-day will give his opinion coolly and dispassionately, without using either expression or gesture which could be construed as conveying an entreaty to the jury to think as he did. I hope the jury will not be beseeched into a verdict of guilty." The triumph of the weak over the powerful was complete. "The frame of adamant and soul of fire," as the biographer of lord Sidmouth terms the Chief Justice, quailed before the indomitable courage of a man who was roused into energies which would seem only to belong to the master-spirits that have swayed the world. Yet this was a man who, in the ordinary business of life, was incapable of enterprise and persevering exertion; who lived in the nooks and corners of his antiquarianism; who was one that even his old political opponents came to regard as a gentle and innocuous hunter after "all such reading as was never read;" who in a few years gave up his politics altogether, and, devoting himself to his old poetry and his old divinity, passed a quarter of a century after this conflict in peace with all mankind, and died the sub-editor of a religious journal. It was towards the close of this remarkable trial, that the judge, who came eager to condemn, sued for pity to his intended victim. The defendant quoted Warburton and Tillotson, as doubters of the authenticity of the Athanasian Creed. "Even his lordship's father, the bishop of Carlisle, he believed, took a similar view of the Creed." And then the judge solemnly said, "Whatever that opinion was, he has gone, many years ago, where he has had to account for his belief and his opinions. . . . . For common delicacy forbear." "O, my lord, I shall certainly forbear." Grove and temperate was the charge to the jury this day; and in twenty minutes they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

....

Lord Campbell has an anecdote of the Chief Justice, which indicates the