Mr. Justice Best, at the request of the defendant, enquired if either of the Jurors was a member of the Constitutional Association. The answer was in the negative.
Mr. Tindall opened the pleadings.
Mr. Gurney appeared to conduct the prosecution, and Mr. Cooper was for the defendant.
Mr. Gurney.—May it please your lordship; gentlemen of the Jury; my friend, Mr. Tindall, has told you the nature of this action, and it is now my duty to lay this case before you. The indictment has been found by a grand jury, upon the prosecution of the Constitutional Association; and it charges the defendant, Mary Ann Carlile, with publishing a libel upon the government and the constitution of this country; and, gentlemen, after a not very limited experience in these cases, I will say, that a more criminal and atrocious libel never met my observation. It purports to be written by Richard Carlile; it is dated from Dorchester Gaol, and it has been published by the defendant, the sister of that man who is now suffering imprisonment for his own criminal conduct. It is entitled, “A New Year’s Address to the Reformers of Great Britain;” and, among other objectionable passages not charged as libelous, it contains the following; “As far as the barrack system will admit”—
Mr. Justice Best.—I do not think that you are entitled to read that passage, Mr. Gurney.
Mr. Cooper.—I think not, my lord; I was just rising to interrupt Mr. Gurney.
Mr. Gurney.—I have no objection, my lord, to abstain from reading the passage to which I was about to call your attention. I shall read the passage which is charged as libelous, and if the learned counsel for the defendant can find throughout a single passage to qualify its malignity, do you, gentleman, give the defendant the benefit of it. The passage is this:—“To talk about the British Constitution, is, in my opinion, a sure proof of dishonesty; Britain has no constitution. If we speak of the Spanish constitution, we have something
tangible; there is a substance and meaning as well as sound. In Britain there is nothing constituted but corruption in the system of government; our very laws are corrupt and partial, both in themselves and in their administration; in fact, corruption as notorious as the sun at noon-day, is an avowed part of our system, and is denominated the necessary oil for the wheels of the government; it is a most pernicious oil to the interests of the people.” And in another passage the following words were contained:—“Reform will be obtained when the existing authorities have no longer the power to withhold it, and not before. We shall gain it as early without petitioning as with it, and I would again put forward my opinion, that something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary. At this moment I would not say a word about insurrection, but I would strongly recommend union, activity, and co-operation. Be ready and steady to meet any concurrent circumstances.” Now, gentleman, these are the passages charged as libelous, and I defy even the ingenuity of my learned friend to show that they are not most odious libels. What! are the people of this free and independent country to be told that they have no constitution? It is an assertion, the malignity of which is only equalled by its falsehood. We have a free and glorious constitution. It has descended to us from our brave and free ancestors, and I trust that we, too, shall have virtue and magnanimity enough to transmit it unimpaired to our posterity. We have laws, too, equal in their administration. We have a constitution where no lowness of birth—no meanness of origin—operate as an obstacle to preferment; in which the chief situations are open to competition, and for which the only qualifications are integrity and information. Our laws are here
stigmatized as partial and corrupt. If they were not impartial, this man would never have dared to vilify them. The very accusation proves that the charge is false; for if it were true, this libeler must have suddenly suffered for this assertion. It is because that they are administered in a spirit of mercy unknown to the laws of any other country—it is because they are administered in tenderness, that this man has had the power to promulgate his vile and odious falsehood. He thought it meet and right, and most becoming too, to tell the world that this was not the precise time for insurrection. He plainly indicates, that he has no objection to it; but he would not say a word about it at present, the time was not come; but he tells his fellow reformers to be “ready and steady to meet any concurrent circumstances.” Gentlemen, it would be an idle and impertinent waste of time to make any further observations upon the pernicious tendency of this libel. But what is the defence which is to be set up by my learned friend? Are we to be told that the prosecution of this libel is an invasion of the liberty of the press? I will not yield to my learned friend, nor to any man in existence, in a just regard for the freedom of the press. But who, I would ask, is invading its liberty? He who brings to justice the offenders, or he who under the sacred form of liberty promulgates such language as I have just read to you? I do not think that on this subject you can entertain a doubt. I feel the most perfect confidence in committing this case to your good sense. If you believe that the defendant is guilty of publishing this libel with the intention charged, you will pronounce your verdict of guilty. If, on the other hand, you think that the passages which I have read to you contain nothing libelous, or that the defendant is not
the publisher, I shall sincerely rejoice in your conscientious acquittal.