LITTLEDALE, J.: I have something of an impression upon my mind that something of this kind arose in the State Trials in the time of Charles 2., when a paper was found in a man's desk.

Waddington: Yes, my Lord, that was the celebrated case of Sidney.(a) The paper was found in his desk.

LITTLEDALE, J.: How does it appear that the defendant knew anything of it? It might have been taken out of his desk without his knowledge.

Balguy: A man may write, not having an intention to publish. But if the paper is out of his possession, if it has gone forth to the world, the presumption is that he who writes and signs has pub. lished it also.

LITTLEDALE, J.: How do I know that his desk may not have been broken open? You have no evidence how it came out of his custody.

Balguy: My proposition is this, that the circumstance of its being in his handwriting is primâ facie proof of the act of publication as well as the act of writing. I do not mean to say that it is conclusive, but it is prima facie evidence, which has imposed upon him the obligation of freeing himself from that prima facie responsibility. I do not say it is conclusive. He may show his house was robbed, and his drawers ransacked.

Waddington: In Sidney's case the paper was found in his desk, and they held that the writing was a publication, which has since been repudiated. But still there can be no doubt it is the clear law, acted upon in civil and criminal cases, that where a writing is proved in a state of publication, and it is proved to be in the handwriting of the defendant, that is prima facie evidence that it was published by him. Mr. Starkie says (b):

:

"The writing or even printing a libel does not, however, in any case amount to a publication, but is mere evidence from which it may be inferred."

If there is a publication by someone proved, the proof that the libel is in the handwriting of the defendant is sufficient to throw the negative proof on him.

Balguy: There is the case of Rex v. Beare, (c) and also a case in the 9th volume

(a) 9 St. Tr. 817.

(b) 2 Stark. on Ev. 3rd edn. 620.

(c) 1 Lord Raym. 414; S.C. Carth. 407; 2 Salk. 417; Holt, 422; 12 Mod. 218.

Waddington: Mr. Starkie goes on to say :-

66

Though proof that the libel is in the handwriting of the party goes far in fixing him with the publication, he is still at liberty to rebut, if he can, the strong presumption thus raised against him, by reconciling the fact with his own innocence."

LITTLEDALE, J.: I think upon these authorities that there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury.

DEFENCE.

[Lovett spoke of the agitation for the constitutional reform known as the Charter, and referred to the attempts in Birmingham to restrain the rights of public meeting.]

If the police force is to be a perambulating body to be placed at the disposal of any interested or exclusive class, the more effectually to keep back public liberty, it is very properly designated in the words of the libel as an unjust and unconstitutional force. Indeed, I am borne out by high authority in thus designating the force. My Lord John Russell, in a speech he made in 1832, states:—

"I speak according to the spirit of our constitution when I say that the liberty of England abhors the unnatural protection of a standing army. She abjures the continuance of fortresses and barracks, nor can these institutions ever be maintained by force or terror."

And what but a standing army of the worst description is this force that is proposed to be still further increased? This unconstitutional force having made an indiscriminate attack upon men, women, and children, having volunteered their services and looked forward to promotion by a wanton and, I am prepared to show in evidence, a bloodthirsty discharge of their duties. The morning after this attack a considerable number of the working classes of Birmingham called on me, (b) and were anxious that some public expression of opinion should be made respecting the outrage, and some advice given as to what was best to be done under the circumstances respecting these public meetings and more especially the meetings in the Bull Ring. Never having attended the meetings in the Bull Ring, conceiving that the inhabitants of the town must be better judges of their right

(a) Lamb's case, 9 Rep. 59. (b) See Lovett's Life, p. 218.

to meet there than strangers could be, and knowing that the public thoroughfares had been stopped up formerly by those now in authority, I so far complied with their request as to pen and propose the resolutions which are deemed libellous. (a) This admission will, I am satisfied, be taken into account by the learned counsel on the other side, though I submit to you that you had no evidence before you as to the publication of that libel. Gentlemen, had I been singular in strongly expressing my feelings respecting the unjust attacks upon the people, it would afford some argument on the side of the prosecution. But when much stronger language has been used in most of the newspapers of the day respecting it, when it has been made the subject of reprehension and censure from one extremity of the king. dom to the other, it would seem as if a victim from the ranks of labour was preferred. The late Lord Chancellor(b)-and we should presume he is no small authority regarding the law in this case-said the other day in his seat in Parliament that

"he had seen the libel for which these persons were served (Mr. Collins and myself), and hardly a day passed that he did not see a worse case in the newspapers." (c)

The resolutions were written in the excitement after the affray. There was no criminal intention. Why ascribe to Collins and the prisoner results which took place when they were in prison ?

[Lovett referred to Starkie on libel, Deacon's Digest of the Criminal Law, Sir John Campbell's speech in defence of Cook in 1827, and Lord Tenterden's charge to the jury in R. v. Marsden. (d)

(a) "The resolutions having been carried viva voce, each of the delegates present are desirous to sign. It was contended that on so important an occasion all the delegates should sign. Mr. Lovett observed that after what had happened they ought to be prepared for any illegal proceeding by the Government against them, that they could not spare victims, that the sacrifice of one would be sufficient, he would sign it."-MS. Report of Meeting of Convention, 4th July 1839. Place MSS. 27, 821.

(b) Lord Brougham.

(c) "He had read those alleged libels which were in the form of resolutions agreed to at a meeting in that town, called respecting the conduct of the police in the town. He would not give any opinions about this alleged libel, suffice it to say that the language used in it was very strong, and it might be a question as to the propriety of putting the men on their trial. He had no complaint to make as to putting these men on their trials."-Lord Brougham, July 18, 1839; Hansard, Parl. Deb. 3rd series, 49, 437. (d) See 1 Moo. & M. 439.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. William Wright.-Examined by Lovett. I am a printer. I was in the Bull Ring on the 4th of July. At a rough guess I should think about 800 people were there. They were paying very polite The people of Birmingham were in the attention to a person reading a newspaper. habit of meeting at different places to hear the newspapers read. This custom the Political Union. I remember during originated with the leading members of the agitation for the Reform Bill people thoroughfares. I saw Dr. Booth and the meeting in Union Street and other mayor arrive. I heard the mayor say, Men, do your duty."]

Did the police do their duty ?—They instantly began to maltreat the people.

No breach of the peace had occurred whatever. before this indiscriminate attack?-None

I

Did you see many injured ?—Yes, I did;

saw several. LITTLEDALE, J. people ?-The people.

The police or the

Lovett: Did it strike youBalguy: That is his impression. Ask him any fact.

Lovett: Did the police perform their duty in a very humane manner, or did they knock the people about indiscriminately in a very brutal manner ?—They knocked the people about in the most brutal manner.

Had they sabres at that time ?—I did not see any.

Did you hear the Riot Act read during that time ?—I did not.

Did you hear any caution or warning of the people to disperse ?-None whatever.

Cross-examined by Balguy.

[I was once convicted for forging a hawker's licence and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.

John Wallace Wilson.-Examined by

Lovett.

I was in the Bull Ring on the 4th. The people were peaceably conducting themselves. I saw the mayor and another gentleman enter the Bull Ring. One of them turned round and looking towards the people, said, "There they are." I lost the remainder of the sentence. Then the police commenced immediately to beat heard no groaning previous to the attack. the people. I saw no stones thrown and

Cross-examined by Waddington.

I am not a Chartist. I am a Radical I have spoken at the meetings. Latterly banners were introduced. There was no groaning or hissing, only a cry of "They

are coming. Make way for them," when the police approached. I saved, in Moor Street, the lives of two policemen. The men on horseback made use of no such language as "For God's sake, disperse." Thomas Farrington said that he saw the police beating the people who were injured.

Did you see any particular instances of brutality towards the people ?-I did. I stood at an opening adjoining the "Spread Eagle " tavern in the gateway in Spriceall Street, and I saw a man coming down with his wife on his arm. When they got within two yards of me the policeman, without saying a word, struck the man and knocked him down.

What part did he strike ?—I assisted to raise the man, and when I got him up I found that his nose was completely broken.

Did this man appear to be going about his usual avocations ?-Yes, he did.

He did not interfere with the meeting in any way?-He was walking on the footpath.

Cross-examined by Waddington.

The police made the violent attack without the least notice?-- Without a moment's notice.

Rushed on all at once ?-Yes.

Did anybody touch the police ?-After the attack was made. I believe they did some minutes after. I believe some people did return, but we were all dispersed from the meeting.

[William Garner spoke to the same effect.]

Joseph Corbett.-Examined by Lovett. Do you remember being at Mr. Watson's, 10, Summer Row, on the 19th of May ?Yes, I do. I was present on that occasion. Do you remember a conversation that took place on that occasion as regards the best means of uniting the conflicting parties in Birmingham ?—I do.

Do you remember any mode

Balguy: Do you think this is evidence? LITTLEDALE, J.: I do not see that it is evidence. The object is to show that you are a well-disposed and quiet man, and did not recommend any violence.

Lovett: That is the object. Littledale, J.: You cannot ask him as to particular conversations. You may ask him your general habits, manner, and opinions, and as not inclined to acts of

violence.

Lovett: I recommended a requisition should be sent to Mr. Attwood, and the terms of it will go to prove that I was not one who would seek to excite the people

O 61636.

LITTLEDALE, J.: We cannot go into all that. You may ask whether Mr. Lovett expressed any opinions discouraging people to use physical force?-I will. We were talking about the best mode, and Mr. Lovett said he thought, if we sent a requisition to Mr. Attwood and to George Frederick Muntz-not the magistrate, the elder brother-having the confidence of the working men, he no doubt would recommend a union between the middle and the working classes. Mr. Lovett suggested it, and we requested him to draw up a resolution to that effect; and Mr. Lovett will read it.

LITTLEDALE, J.: No, I think not. Ask him in general terms whether he dissuaded the using physical force?—Yes, he did, and the document he drew up has got 7,000 signatures of working men of Birmingham, denouncing physical force and violence.

Lovett: May I read that requisition. LITTLEDALE, J.: No, we cannot go into particular requisitions. [Balguy replied.]

SUMMING UP.

LITTLEDALE, J. (in summing up): The first inquiry you have to make is, whether the defendant published this paper. If he did not publish it there is an end of the case altogether. If you are of opinion that he did publish it you will then have to consider whether he did so with the intent charged in the indictment; and if he did publish it with that intent, then the question arises whether it be a seditious libel; and I am bound to tell you that if it is proved to your satisfaction that the defendant published this paper, and had the intention charged, it is in my opinion a seditious libel. (a) It is for you, however, under a recent Act of Parliament, (b) to decide upon the law as well as the facts; but I have told you what is my opinion if you are satisfied as to the publication and the intent. There is in this indictment an allegation that there was an unlawful assembly which was dispersed

by the police; a great deal of evidence has been given to show that this was an unlawful assembly; and a great deal of evidence has also been given on the part of the defendant with a view of showing that it was a lawful meeting. With respect to the intent of the defendant, a man must be taken to intend the natural consequences of what he has done; and if this paper has a direct tendency to cause unlawful meetings and disturbances, and to lead to a violation of the laws, that is sufficient to bring it within the terms of this indictment, and it is a seditious libel. With respect to the publication of the paper, it is proved that the paper is in the handwriting of the defendant, and that copies of the paper were printed; but there is no evidence that that was done by the direction of the defendant. However, you are to judge of that, and you will consider, on the evidence that has been given, whether the defendant has published this paper or not. If you are of opinion that he has published the paper then you will inquire whether it is a paper of the character which has been assigned to it. You will first consider whether the introductory allegations of the indictment are proved; and, if they are, whether the defendant published this paper; and whether he published it with the intent imputed to him by the indictment; and, lastly, whether it be or be not a seditious libel; as to which latter question I have already given you my opinion. (a)

Verdict-Guilty.

August 8, 1839. The prisoners Collins and Lovett were asked what they had to say, why the Court should not give judgment upon them according to law.

William Lovett: Because, my Lord, in the first place, the jury were prejudiced against me. I have it from high authority that several of them declared their express wish that all the Chartists should be hung. I think that is a very good reason without taking into account the evidence given on the trial proving the truth, as I conceive, of the facts stated. The prejudicial feelings of the jury ought to weigh very much on this case.

LITTLEDALE, J.: You, John Collins, and you, William Lovett, have been severally

(a) "The whole of the case is this: If you are of opinion that this was an unlawful assembly, and these persons were dispersed by the police force, under the direction of the magistrates, and that it was properly done by the act of the magistrates, then you come to the inquiry as to the libel itself; and you will consider whether you are satisfied that this pub lication is a libel published with the intention charged in the indictment."-Shorthand Notes.

convicted, each of having published a seditious libel. I have taken all the circumstances into my most serious consideration. With regard to you, John Collins, the jury recommended you to mercy on account of your having a good character. With regard to you, William Lovett, the jury did not so recommend you; but you have also had a very good character given you by some of the witnesses. But the jury did not recommend you. I do not see that I can make any difference between you. The sentence of the Court is that you, John Collins, be imprisoned in the common gaol of this county for one year, and that you, William Lovett, also be imprisoned in the gaol of this county for the space of one year.

Collins In the year 1821 George Edwards, Charles Maddocks, William Greathead Lewis, and Thomas Jonathan Wooller(a) were convicted of a similar offence. They made an application to the Court and the Court granted it. They requested to be imprisoned on the debtors' side instead of the felons' side. I humbly make that request to your Lordship in our case.

LITTLEDALE, J.: John Collins, I observe what you say, but it does not appear that I have any power to give such instructions. You allude to what took place in 1821. It is generally held that the debtors' side ought to be appropriated to debtors only. I do not mean to say the Secretary of State has not that power, but I have none. Since 1821 there has been an Act passed as to the classification of prisoners. There was one in 1825, but it does not appear to me that I have any power. If you have be to make an application to the Secretary any application to make your course will of State for the Home Department.

Collins: Since that time other parties selling unstamped publications, and they at Birmingham have been convicted of were placed on the debtors' side. The application was made to the Court of sent Court had quite as much power as Quarter Sessions, and I thought the prethe Court of Quarter Sessions.

LITTLEDALE, J.: I have no power.
The prisoners were removed from the

bar.(b)

MATERIALS MADE USE OF. The report is taken from the shorthand notes in the possession of the Solicitor of the Treasury. The report of "The Trial of W. Lovett, journeyman cabinet maker, for a seditious libel (Hetherington)," has been consulted.

(a) See 1 St. Tr. N.S. 785.

(b) See Times, July 19 and 31, 1839, as to the complaints of Lovett and Collins of alleged improper treatment in Warwick Gaol. See also Com. Journ. 95, 284. Hansard, Parl. Deb. 3rd series, 53, 1103.