PROSECUTION OF WOODFALL AND ALMON.
Almost every act which the government now committed tended only to excite the public clamour and indignation. During this summer it involved itself in new troubles, and exposed itself to fiercer attacks, by prosecuting the printers and publishers of Junius’s Letters. In the month of June Woodfall was tried for printing in his newspaper, the “Public Advertiser,” one of these letters, which was addressed to his majesty, and was considered a scandalous libel; and Almon was tried for selling a re-publication of it in the “London Museum.” Almon was found guilty of publishing, and was sentenced to pay a fine of ten marks, and find security for his good behaviour for two years. Woodfall was found “guilty of printing and publishing only” and in his case, the defendant moved to stay the entering of judgment on the verdict, while the attorney-general moved for a rule on the defendant, to show cause why the verdict should not be entered according to the legal import of the words. The attorney-general’s motion was attended to first; and when the matter came to be argued in the court of King’s Bench, Lord Mansfield, before whom both cases had been tried, went regularly through the whole evidence, as well as his own charge to the jury. After recapitulating the defence on the trial, his lordship remarked: “I directed the jury, that if they believed the innuendoes, as to persons and things, to have been properly filled up in the information, and to be the true meaning of the paper, and if they gave credit to the witnesses, they must find the defendant guilty. If the jury were obliged to determine whether the paper was in law a libel or not, or to judge whether it was criminal, or to what degree; or if they were to require proofs of a criminal intention—then this direction was wrong. I told them, as I have always told them before, that whether a libel or not, was a mere question of law arising out of the record, and that all the epithets inserted in the information were formal inferences of law. A general verdict of the jury finds only what the law implies from the fact, for that is scarcely possible to be produced: the law implies from the act of publication, a criminal intent.” After some further remarks of minor importance his lordship continued: “The motion of the attorney-general divides itself into two parts; first, to fill up the finding of the jury with the usual words of reference, so as to connect the verdict with the information: the omission of these words, we are of opinion, is a technical mistake of the clerk, and may be now supplied. The second head of the argument is to omit the word ‘only’ in the entry of the verdict: this we are all of opinion cannot be done. The word ‘only’ must stand in the verdict; if this word was omitted, the verdict would then be, ‘guilty of printing and publishing,’ which is a general verdict of guilty; for there is no other charge in the information but printing and publishing, and that alone the jury had to inquire. We are all of opinion, that my direction to the jury is right and according to law; the positions contained in it never were doubted; it never has been, nor is it now complained of in this court. There clearly can be no judgment of acquittal, because the fact found by the jury is the only question they had to try; the single doubt that remains, is concerning the meaning of the word ‘only.’” The court considering that the word “only” had been used in an ambiguous sense, ordered Woodfall a new trial on that ground; but when it came on, the attorney-general remarked that he had not the original newspaper by which he could prove the publication Thus terminated the second trial: the want of this was fatal to the cause.
DISPUTES RESPECTING FALKLAND ISLANDS.
During the summer and autumn of the present year the attention of government was absorbed by a subject, which at one time threatened a new war with France and Spain—this was the affair of the Falkland Islands.
The Falkland Islands are situate in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, off the extremity of the South American continent, and the eastern entrance to the Straits of Magellan. They consist of two larger islands called East and West Falkland, and a great number of isles and islets. By right, they certainly belonged to England. The discovery of them was made by Captain Hawkins in the reign of Elizabeth, who called them “Hawkins’ Maiden Islands,” and they were afterwards visited by Strong in 1689, who gave them their present name. Subsequently they were visited by the French, who in 1764 formed a settlement at Berkeley Sound, an excellent harbour on West Falkland. In the next year, Commodore Byron formed a counter settlement at Port Egmont on East Falkland. The Spaniards, who had neglected these islands and their resources, now took the alarm, and demanded their evacuation both from France and England, as territories belonging to them both by right of papal bulls, and degrees of latitude and longitude. The French abandoned their settlement, but the English refused to accede to the demand. Spain, dreading the power of England, was for the time compelled to give up the claim; but at length, in 1769, the domestic distractions of Great Britain, her ready acquiescence in the transfer of Corsica to France, and the encouragement of the French minister Choiseul, emboldened the Spanish court to revive its pretensions to these islands. An armament, consisting of several ships of war, provided with apparatus for a siege, sailed from Buenos Ayres, and in the month of June suddenly appeared off Port Egmont. The British commandant, Captain Farmer, knowing that the place could not sustain a siege, after a few shots, submitted to terms of capitulation. Contrary to all the rules of war, however, the Spanish commodore, in order to prevent the intelligence from arriving in England on an early day, or from being first related by English lips, enjoined Captain Farmer not to sail without his permission, and to ensure compliance, he even unshipped the rudder of his vessel, and kept it on shore for three weeks. This was an insult to the British flag not to be endured. As soon as the proceedings were known in England, all ranks were inflamed with resentment, and eagerly desired that the national honour, thus grossly violated should be avenged. Lord North prepared for the worst, by putting ships in commission ready for war. It was thought expedient, however, to avert war, if possible, by negociations, and Spain was ultimately induced to disavow the enterprise of the governor of Buenos Ayres, and to restore the island. At the same time it was either stipulated or understood, that the settlement should at a future period be abandoned by the English: an arrangement which, as will be seen, formed a subject of complaint in parliament against the ministry.
AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.
When the news arrived of the repeal of the taxes by the British parliament, the people of Boston were by no means thankful for that act. The retention of the duty on tea, it was said, did away with all its merits, as it proved the unalterable resolution of asserting the disputed right. As, however, they could not hope to keep up the whole of the non-importation agreement, it was resolved, in a meeting of merchants, to import every thing but tea. This resolve was also entered into by the Philadelphian merchants, and great efforts were made by the leaders of the movement, to induce the people to adhere strictly to this agreement, until the tea duty should be repealed. But most of the provinces were not desirous of persevering in the quarrel, and consequently renewed their commercial intercourse with the mother country: orders came over to England, indeed, to such an extent, that our exports to the colonies in this and the following year exceeded in amount what they had ever been before. Still the progress of a revolution was not impeded. There were many zealots in America, who could not rest satisfied while a connexion subsisted between England and her colonies, and who were still busied in sowing the seeds of discontent. Some such zealots existed in every colony, but it was in New England and in Virginia that that they were chiefly to be found. In the great southern province they were headed by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, and by their means the popular party in Virginia were led to deplore the massacre at Boston, and to uphold that city as a new Sparta and the seat of liberty. The assembly of Virginia, in a petition or remonstrance to his majesty, ventured to express their strong dissatisfaction at Lord North’s imperfect Repeal Act, and their deep affliction at seeing that the pretension of the mother country to the right of taxing the colonies was persevered in by the retention of duty upon tea. They also criticised the conduct of Lord Bottetourt, their governor, and represented that no alliance was to be placed upon the good-will or moderation of those who managed the affairs of the mother country. All the houses of assembly, now re-opened, were, in truth, scarcely less difficult to manage than they had been the year before, and in almost every instance they were prorogued by the governors. In the assembly of Massachusets, especially, there were great commotions, arising partly from communications received from England, which represented that the state and conduct of the colony was likely to be submitted to the consideration of parliament in the present session, and partly from the dismissal of the provincial forces from Castle William, and the establishment of the royal troops in that fortress. It was suspected that measures were in train to reduce the province to a state of utter dependence on Great Britain, and they proceeded to prepare instructions for their agent in London, in order to prevent the blow. But before they proceeded to business the house made another attempt to obtain a removal of the seat of government to Boston; and having failed in this, they made a strong protest against their conduct being drawn into a precedent. Soon after this Mr. Hutchinson was appointed governor of the province; but the subject of the assembly’s removal afforded matter of dispute in the remonstrances of the house at the opening of every session.