their evidence it appeared, that, previous to, and up nearly to the time at which the libel was published, it was generally reported and believed that the agricultural labourers were in a state of insurrection, destroying threshing-machines, and pulling down manufactories, and causing burnings in different parts. Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Twyford were both in disturbed districts during part of the month of November, and saw large mobs, consisting of farming labourers, some of them armed, and some not. Mr. Rawlinson said, on cross-examination, that he did not himself see any burnings, but that he saw an assembly of sixty or seventy persons enter a blacksmith's shop, and seize sledge hammers. He also said, that he did not, during the time he was in the country, see any copies of the "Political Prompter," which was the book in which the libel appeared. Mr. Twyford, on his cross-examination, said, that he had seen a mob of about 140 persons, who said that, they had got the farmers prisoners, but they were not armed; and also, that a paper, purporting to be a humble petition for an increase of wages, was carried about in a mob of about fifty persons, and presented to different persons; but the persons who presented it did not use any violence. The defendant, in his address to the Jury, (inter alia), contended, that prosecutions for libel containing general remarks on the Government, and the affairs of the country, and not reflecting upon individuals, were not sustainable. by law, notwithstanding the practice of the Courts for some time past. He instanced, on this point, the case of Hampden as to ship money, and the case of Wilkes as to general warrants; and argued, that things which had long been considered legal, when they came to be solemnly considered and determined, turned out to be illegal. As to the first sentence set out in the indictment with respect to a constitutional monarchy, he said that he only meant, that, in former times, it was considered necessary to have splendour and shew, in order to dazzle the multitude, 1831. REX ບ. CARLILE. 1831. REX v. CARLILE. but that those days were gone, and no such things were at all wanted now. For the purpose of negativing the allegation as to the rumours of insurrection, burning, &c., he proposed to read from the "Morning Chronicle", and other newspapers, respecting the state of the country, statements purporting to be written in what was called the disturbed districts. Adolphus, for the prosecution, objected. The statements might just as well have been written in some garret in London as in the disturbed districts. The RECORDER said, that the defendant must do what he proposed to do, by calling a witness, and not by producing a printed paper; that paper could not prove that there were no such reports in existence. The defendant also wished to read from the "Times newspaper a report of a speech made by the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords, in the latter end of November, in which he said, that, while he was in office, he had not been able to trace any of the fires which had taken place to the agricultural labourers. This also was rejected as not being evidence. The defendant then observed upon that part of the libel which was addressed "to the insurgent agricultural labourers," and argued that a particular state of affairs would justify the use of expressions which at another time would be considered as illegal. He referred to Blackstone's "Commentaries (a)," and contended, from the spirit of the passages there contained, that, under special and extraordinary circumstances, some departure (a) Book 1, c. 16, p. 243, 244, commencing with the words, "next as to cases of ordinary public oppressions," and ending with the words, "the prudence of the times must provide new remedies upon new energencies." from the rules of general law was justifiable. He also observed upon the conduct of the labourers, whose object, he contended, was legal, viz. to increase their wages. He relied much on the evidence of Mr. Twyford as to their being unarmed, and abstaining from acts of violence. The RECORDER, in summing up, said, that, with respect to the first count in the indictment, as it contained three distinct passages, if the Jury had any doubt as to any one of them being a libel, they might give their verdict upon some of the other counts in which the particular passages were set out separately. With respect to the object of the labourers, he observed, that, in his opinion, the raising of wages could not, in any well regulated country, be allowed to be effected by numbers congregating together, for the purpose of intimidating those who are to pay them. If the masters had congregated together for the purpose of lowering the rate of wages, it would be thought a foul conspiracy; and, on the other side, it could not be considered in any other light. Every man had a right to put a price on his own labour, but a number of men had no right to congregate together to fix the rate to be paid to every labourer; and, if the object were sought to be accomplished by terror, it was a most serious offence. One of the witnesses had said, that there were no weapons in the possession of those people; nor was it necessary that there should be, for numbers might create terror as much as weapons of violence. That witness had also said, that they had not used actual violence; nor was it necessary that they should, in order to render their assembling together unlawful. The learned Recorder then read over the evidence, and in conclusion observed Although you are at liberty, by the act of the 32nd of his Majesty King George the Third, to give a general verdict, yet, by the same act, I am bound to give you my opinion upon the law of the case, as if it were a case of murder, or any other species of offence. I have already 1831. REX V. CARLILE, 1831. REX ຍ. CARLILE. said, that, with respect to the first count, there may, perhaps, be some difference of opinion; but, with respect to the second, which contains only the part addressed to the agricultural labourers, I am bound in law and in conscience to tell you, and I do tell you, as solemnly as I would pronounce the last supplication on my death bed, that the matter set out in that count is a most atrocious, a most seditious, a most scandalous, and a most dangerous libel, calculated to encourage his Majesty's subjects, who were then, as the libel states, in actual insurrection, to continue in that state. This must be the tendency of it. The Jury retired for some time, and afterwards returned a verdict, finding the defendant guilty upon the second and third counts; and he was, at the close of the Session, sentenced to pay a fine of 2007. to the King-to be imprisoned for two years in the House of Correction in Giltspur-street, and, at the expiration of that period, to give security for his good behaviour for ten years, himself in 5007., and two sureties in 2501. each; and to be further imprisoned until such security should be given, and such fine paid. Adolphus, Wightman, and R. Gurney, for the prosecu tion. The defendant in person. Jan. 29th. In the course of Hilary Term, Evans applied to the Court of King's Bench for a writ of Habeas Corpus, to discharge the defendant out of custody, on the ground that, when the verdict of the Jury was returned, only one Commissioner was present instead of two, as required by law in the commission of Oyer and Terminer. The Court, in the absence of any precedent upon the subject, refused to grant the writ of Habeas Corpus, but suggested, that the objection might, perhaps, be taken advantage of on a writ of error. 1831. OLD BAILEY FEBRUARY SESSION, 1831. BEFORE MR. BARON BAYLEY, MR. BARON BOLLAND, AND MR. REX v. JOHN ST. JOHN LONG, MANSLAUGHTER. The first count of the indictment stated that the prisoner, on the 6th of October, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 12th of October, feloniously did assault Colin Campbell Lloyd, the wife of Edward Lloyd, and that he, on the said day and the said other days and times, feloniously did cause and procure the said Colin Campbell Lloyd to inhale certain noxious and injurious vapours, and that he, with a certain corrosive, inflammatory, and dangerous liquid, secretly prepared, mixed, and made by him, feloniously did rub, wash, and sponge, and cause and procure to be rubbed, washed, and sponged, the breast and chest of the said Colin Campbell Lloyd, and by such rubbing washing, and sponging, and causing and procuring to be rubbed, washed, and sponged, the breast and chest of the said Colin Campbell Lloyd with the corrosive, inflammatory, and dangerous liquid aforesaid, feloniously did make and produce, and cause to be made and produced, one mortal sore and ulcer in and upon her breast and chest, of the length of sixteen inches, of the width of nine inches, and of the depth of two inches; and that he, by such causing and procuring the said Colin Campbell Lloyd to inhale the said noxious and injurious vapours, feloniously did cause and procure the said Colin Campbell Lloyd to become mortally sick and diseased in her body; of which said mortal sore and ulcer, and mortal sickness and disease of her body, the said Colin Campbell Lloyd, from the said 6th of Feb. 19th. Where a person, undertaking the cure of a disease, (whether he has received a medi cal education or not), is guilty of gross negligence in attending his patient after he has applied a remedy, or gross rashness in the application of it, and death ensues in conse quence of either, he is liable to be convicted of manslaughter. |