closet; and if it were found that that book contained matter libellous upon any human creature, the onus of proving an innocent intention was thrown upon the unhappy possessor. What a position was this! There was not, perhaps, a book in the libraries of their lordships, not even the Prayer-book itself, from which something libellous might not be extracted-libellous upon some individual, some government, or some system. The very notes which he (Mr Scarlett) was then taking might, in due time, if not destroyed, become libellous. They might by accident be locked up among his papers, and, after his death, his posterity might be prosecuted for possessing them.

On this and the following day, Mr Scarlett endeavoured to shew, by many cases and arguments, the nature and course of the error into which Justice Holt had been led. The term being closed, the case was deferred till the 16th of November, when it was reargued at great length on the same side by Mr Denman. On the 27th of November, the Judges delivered their opinion.

Justice Best gave a view of the proceedings on the trial. The cause was most ably defended in person by Sir Francis Burdett, who said little upon the point of venue, but rested mainly upon the impossibility of his entertaining the intent imputed to him by the information. The Jury found the defendant guilty. A motion for a new trial has since been made, in which that gentleman has had the assistance of the ablest counsel that any bar or any country could produce; and the matter is now in a fit state for decision. Three objections only were taken when the rule to shew cause was granted; a fourth has since been added, of which, though not taken exactly in time, I wish the defendant to have the full benefit. The first of these objections, I believe, is, that there was no evidence of pub

lication in Leicestershire. Upon that part of the case I have this to observe

if there was any evidence, of the effect of that evidence, it was not for me to judge. My duty was to put it to the Jury-theirs was to judge of its value. The rule of evidence is the same with plaintiff and with defendant; and it will hardly be contended that a judge could take upon himself to judge of the effect of a defendant's evidence; if he could, it would be a trial by judge, and a trial by jury no longer. There was, in my opinion, such evidence on the part of the prosecution as raised a strong presumption of publication in Leicestershire; and no attempt to rebut that presumption being made, it became, in my mind, conclusive proof. But I have been told that there can be no presumption in a criminal casethat we are not allowed to presume guilt. General propositions are dangerous to deal with. No doubt, we are not to presume without evidence ; the law says that we shall not imagine guilt, and, without evidence to raise presumption, such presumption and imagination would be one. But, upon reasonable evidence given, I deny that we are not to presume in a criminal cause as well as in a civil case. In fact, as regards the law of evidence, there is no difference between civil and criminal cases; and there needs no difference if the rules of evidence are the rules of common sense. I beg to say, that there is scarcely a criminal case, from the highest to the lowest class, in which Courts do not act upon presumption, and that for the reason laid down by my Lord Mansfield. "It seldom happens," says that noble lord, in the Douglas case," it seldom happens that absolute certainty can be obtained in human affairs, and therefore reason and public utility require that judges, and that all mankind, in forming their opinions of the truth of facts, should be regulated by the

superior number of probabilities on one side and on the other." And throughout our criminal law we constantly act upon this principle. In treason, upon proof of rebellion, or endeavour to excite rebellion, we presume intent to kill the King. In cases of homicide, although the act of killing may be perfectly innocent, we presume that malice which is necessary to constitute murder, and throw it upon the prisoner to relieve himself from that presumption. In cases of burglary or highway robbery, possession of the goods is presumption of the crime until that possession is accounted for. I admit that, in cases where presumption is attempt. ed to be raised for the purpose of proving the great body of delinquency, there the presumption ought to be strong, and such as should leave no rational doubt upon the minds of a Jury; but upon a portion of a case affecting merely the question of venue, and which leaves the great body of guilt untouched, I would deal with presumption even as I deal with it in the most trifling cause that ever occupied the time of Westminster-hall. I say that, even supposing the libel to have been sent by post, such sending is publication. I deny that the publication of a libel implies manifestation of its contents, or that the word is so used in the law of England. We hear of a man publishing his will; we speak of publishing an award; but it is not supposed that such a man reads his will or his award; he merely declares that instrument to be his. So, in a case of libel, if a man does the last act which it is for him to do towards the accomplishing of the mischief he intends, he publishes. The moment he passes the libel from his hand, his control of it is gone; he has shot his arrow, and, whether it hits the mark or not, no longer depends upon him; the locus pœnitentiæ is over; the body of

the offence is committed; and that moment, upon every principle of common sense-that moment he ought to be called upon to answer. What would be the effect of a contrary holding? If a man wraps up a letter or a newspaper in one county, and gives it to a boy to carry into the next, who is the publisher? Would it not be contrary to common sense to deny that the man who sent the paper is the publisher ? Suppose a man writing a libel in England upon the King of England, and sending it to be published in Paris or Petersburgh, where is that man to be punished?

The other Judges concurring in all the material part of this opinion, the motion was refused.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.-As it was not to be expected that Sir Francis Burdett should be in daily attendance during the continuance of the long argument which had been just terminated, and as it was impossible for him to be acquainted with the result to which it had been just brought, he (the Solicitor-General) should not press for judgment against him (Sir F. Burdett) that term, but would allow the matter to stand over till the next.

SIR CHARLES WOLSELEY, BART., AND JOSEPH HARRISON, FOR SEDITION.

Mr Lloyd stated the indictment to be against Sir Charles Wolseley, Bart., and Joseph Harrison, schoolmaster, on two grounds. The first count charged that they had excited to tumult and insurrection, by holding a numerous meeting on the 28th of July, and addressing seditious words to them, calculated to bring the government into hatred and contempt. The second count charged that they had agreed together to stir up the people to tu

mult and insurrection, and to excite hatred and contempt against the go

vernment.

Mr BENYON rose on the part of the prosecution. No doubt, the learned gentleman said, the Jury were already aware that the present prosecution arose out of one of those dangerous meetings which had been held in Cheshire, and in the adjacent counties, during the last summer-meetings which were calculated to terrify the peaceable subjects of the realm, and which had been headed, and principally promoted, by itinerant orators. The Jury, however, were called upon -and from the knowledge which he (Mr Benyon) had of many of them, he doubted not that they would fulfil their duty-they were called upon by their oaths to dismiss from their minds every circumstance which they had previously heard upon the subject, and to try the case upon the evidence, and only upon the evidence, which would be adduced before them. The two defendants, Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr Harrison, were well known: the first was a gentleman of estate in the county of Stafford, and had inherited a considerable paternal property, together with the rank and title of Baronet, which had been conferred upon one of his ancestors in the reign of Charles the First: the second defendant, Mr Harrison, had been, until lately, a stranger in the county of Chester; he was, the learned counsel believed, a dissenting minister and a schoolmaster. Upon the 28th of July last a public meeting had been announced at Stockport, and, previous to that day, the residents in the neighbourhood had been advised that a meeting was to take place for the real or pretended purpose of petitioning for reform in parliament. Upon the day appointed a number of persons, not less than five thousand, and, according to the statement of one of the defend

ants, amounting nearly to ten thousand, assembled; and it would be found, that, previous to that meeting, Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr Harrison had been known to each other, and that they had corresponded; and it would be shewn, that, upon the 28th July, they were in intimate conversation for at least an hour before the assembly took place. It would be seen, therefore, that these defendants were not persons accidentally coming together in consequence of the handbills which had announced the meeting, but that they came there together in consequence of a preconcerted scheme. The meeting was numerous, and was attended by men who had bludgeons in their hands; those bludgeons were not merely carried for shew, or for intimidation, but a constable, whom they were pleased to call a spy, was nearly put to death by some persons in the crowd. The meeting in question, the learned counsel would shew, had not been a peaceable meeting for the purpose of petition. It had been attended by persons carrying banners, inscribed with the common cant terms of "no corn laws,” “ universal suffrage," "annual parliaments," and "voting by ballot." At a particular house a platform had been erected, upon which the leaders mounted; and the Jury would find the two defendants taking a leading part in the ensuing transactions. It having been previously agreed that Sir Charles Wolseley, as a gentleman of rank and property, should be called to the chair, that individual took the chair amidst the acclamations of the crowd: he then opened the meeting, and used the seditious words imputed to him by the present indictment. Sir Charles Wolseley had said, "that he was in Paris at the beginning of the French revolution: that he was the first man who made a kick at the Bastile; and he expressed his hopes," and the Jury

would hear in what direction he then pointed, "that he should be present at the demolition of another Bastile." He then abused the Ministers of the Crown, and said that he could not find terms in which to speak with sufficient detestation of them. He spoke of spies, and said that he detested their employers, Sidmouth and Castlereagh. He said, that where the people were not represented, no allegiance was due; taxation was a robbery; and resistance to the government justifiable. A great deal more had been said; but those were the principal points upon which he (the learned counsel) charged the defendant, Sir Charles Wolseley, with having used seditious speeches at this illegal meeting, with a view to bring into hatred and contempt the government and constitution of the country; language more calculated to produce that effect could scarcely be conceived. Mr Harrison, the second defendant, followed Sir Charles Wolseley. He declared against "petitioning any more, which he considered degrading and humiliating. There would be a meeting," he said, "of delegates at Oldham, on the Monday following, at the Union-room, for the purpose of establishing a National Convention; and it would also be one of its duties to devise farther means for extending and consolidating the national union." How far the evidence would bring home to the defendants, or either of them-indeed, if it did to one, it must to both-the charge which was alleged against them, it would be for the Jury to determine. As to the seditious language, there could be no doubt; the Jury would judge of the intention and of the tumultuous meet ing. If any words more strongly tending to bring the government and the constitution into contempt and hatred could be used, he (Mr Benyon) was at a loss to know what those words were. It would, perhaps, be

stated by Mr Pearson, the learned Counsel for the defendant, that the meeting in question was a peaceable meeting for the purpose of petition, but it would be shewn to the Jury that Mr Harrison had expressly disavowed any intention to petition. The right of peaceably meeting together for the purpose of petitioning the Sovereign or the Legislature against grievances, either real or supposed, was the right, the birthright, of Englishmen, and Heaven forbid that he (Mr Benyon) should stand before the Jury to deny that right. There was no impropriety in a peaceable meeting for the purpose of seeking reform in parliament, but the meeting at Stockport had not been a meeting of that character. The language, the conduct, the whole insignia of that meeting, shewed that the purpose was not petition, but intimidation. The conduct of the meeting on the 28th July had been calculated, not for the reform of the British constitution, but for the subversion of it.

John Kenyon Winterbottom, examined by Serjeant Cross, said he was a solicitor in Stockport. He saw a public meeting in the town of Stockport, between one and two o'clock on the 28th July last. He attended in a building (a Sunday-school), near the meeting. The place is called Sandy Brow. He should think there were 4000 or 5000 assembled. He was not so near as to observe whether they were strangers or inhabitants. They were quiet at first. Most of them had sticks, which appeared to have been newly cut from hedges. They were not walking-sticks. The population is upwards of 20,000. There were hustings or a scaffold. Several persons were on the scaffold. Sir Charles was pointed out to him as one: he knew Mr Harrison, and saw him there. He heard Harrison say, "The House of Commons was the people's servants;

that it was as absurd to petition them as it would be for a master to petition his groom for his horse. He said that there was a barrier between the throne and the people, which must be removed either by force from heaven or hell, in order that they might see whether a man or a pig was upon the throne." He thought there was laughter. The expression of derision was general. Harrison said, "The united will of the people was sure to prevail. It was an axiom that could not be confuted. It might be necessary in some cases to petition the House of Lords, who were, by the constitution, placed in a different situation to the House of Commons; but in the present corrupt state of things it was useless, and he would not recommend it."

Thomas Bolton lived in Stockport. Great numbers of the people were townsmen: he saw no unusual sticks: they were not more numerous about the hustings than he should have expected. He stood amongst the crowd, and gained high ground when he could. He saw no chair. The first attention he paid was to Sir Charles: he heard what he said. He made a minute about an hour after, and could state that Sir Charles had said what he had there noted. [He was allowed to read it.] "He was happy in addressing the people of Stockport from Sandy Brow; it was a place consecrated to liberty, by the absence of friends he would have been happy to meet there; and he trusted Sandy Brow would be more famed in history than the field of Waterloo. Was there a peace-officer present, he trusted they came to keep the peace, and not to break it. But was there any of your spies, your notetaking, or black-book gentry, tell your employers, the tools of a Castlereagh and Sidmouth, that I hate them, that I detest them that I eternally execrate them. He was proud to say, that he was at the taking of the Bas

tile in France-he should be happy to be at the taking of a Bastile in England." (He saw nothing but the action of speaking with force and energy.) "And were all hearts but as firm in the cause as his own, they would soon put an end to the present tyranny and corruption." He heard Mr Harrison, but took no note of it, and now recollected nothing of it.

Joseph Johnson, surveyor at Stockport, gave similar evidence relative to Sir Charles, Mr Harrison, &c. Mr Harrison stood next to Sir Charles, and spoke, and said they wanted to get to the throne in order to see whe ther there was a pig or a man on it; and if there were 10,000 walls betwixt them, they would blow them up either to heaven or to hell. The expression about the pig, and that of the walls, was received by acclamations.

Thomas Welsh, a clerk to Mr Harrop, in Manchester, said that Mr Harrison had read from a letter that the Deity had intended man for happiness, and provided a sufficiency of all good things to make him so; but as the majority of that meeting was extremely unhappy and miserable, and rendered so by their rulers, the intentions of the Deity had been frustrated, and rebellion against that government became almost a duty. Sir Charles read the resolutions, and put them to the meeting. One of the resolutions was, that Lord Sidmouth had been guilty of high treason. Another was, that a general meeting of delegates should be held at Oldham, or other places, as might be agreed upon. Another resolution was, that a subscription should be entered into to defray the expense of prosecuting his Majesty's ministers. The resolutions were put separately. He did not recollect who read them. All the resolutions were agreed to. Mr Harrison recapitulated the speeches, and said a deputation from the delegates should present their petition to