NEVER BEFORE PRINTED. T MR. THE R I A L O F WILLIAM OWEN, N an information charging him with having published a libel entitled "The cafe of Alexander Murray, efq." before the right honourable lord chief juftice LEE, at Guildhall, the fixth of July, 1752. + Council for the king. Sir Dudley Ryder, attor. gen. | afterwards the famous chief juftice of that name. Mr. Murray, follicitor general, now lord Mansfield, and ch. juftice of the King's Bench. Council for the defendant. Mr. Ford, fince dead. Mr. Pratt, now chief-juftice of the Common Pleas. There were other counsellors on both fides, but these were all who spoke. Special jury. Richard Barwell, of Bread- | William Woolley, Cheapfide. ftreet, foreman. John Horton, Old Fish-street. Thomas Smith, ftreet. Watling Godfrey Lowe, Friday-street. Edward Berwick, ditto. Richard Briftow, Bread-ftreet. Richard Bridgman, Aldgate Philip Grafton, ditto. Samuel Lloyd, Devonshire Henry Hall, St. Helens. John Tuff, Bifhopfgate-ftreet. The By whom German Spa Water from the Pouhon Spring, Pyrmont, and Seltzer Water, are carefully imported. This profecution was founded on a vote, and inftituted at the request of the Houfe of Commons; who had voted the cafe of Mr. Murray to be "an impudent, malicious, fcandalous, and feditious libel, falfely, and most injuriously reflecting upon, and afperfing the proceedings of this houfe, and tending to create misapprehenfions of the fame in the minds of the people, to the dishonour of this house, and in violation of the privilege thereof." An addrefs was thereupon prefented to. the king, to defire his majefty would give orders to profecute the publisher, which was accordingly done. In the information, it was called a wicked, falfe, fcandalous, feditious, and malicious libel: and Owen was charged with having published it maliciously, wickedly, feditioufly, &c. &c. The words in the pamphlet on The attorney-general began with a detail of the Westminster election, between lord Trentham and Sir George Vandeput. He then mentioned the Houfe of Commons calling the rioters to account, of which Mr. Murray he faid was the principal; the fentence on Mr. Murray to be given at the bar of the house; how merciful for so atrocius a crime; his commitment to Newgate; his impudent refusal to ask pardon, which was to be part of his fentence; his bad ftate of health in Newgate, which the house being informed of by his friends, ordered him into the custody of a meffenger, which was more than he deserved; his refusal to be removed till the end of the feffion, when the law difcharges him. "Then appeared the moft fcandalous and aftonishing libel that ever appeared in the world. The cafe of the honourable Alexander Murray, Efq. in an appeal to the people of Great Britain; more particularly, the inhabitants of the city and liberty of Westminster. The accufed now becomes the accufer. In it is ftated and contained accufations of partiality, injuftice, corruption, and barbarity, of the Houfe of Commons. It accufes the Houfe of committing a great breach in our laws; that House which is the guardian of our liberties, and the protector of our properties. It accufes alfo the King's Bench, with overturning that bulwark of our liberties, the Habeas Corpus Act. Every one must be fhocked that reads this wicked, diabolically wicked, pamphlet. The parliament meet again and vote the pamphlet a libel: they vote it to be a falfe, malicious, infamous, fcandalous, and feditious libel, tending to create confufion and rebellion; at least, to fow the feeds of rebellion. And to me it is aftonishing, how it could enter into the mind or heart of man, to write such a libel. Now gentlemen I fhall fhew to you the nature of this libel, and begin in this order. 1. The Title. 2. The Introduction. 3. The ftate of the cafe, and the evidence laid before the House of Commons. 4. How confidered, and in what light he has put the fentence of the Commons. 5. How wickedly and malicioufly he has infinuated the thing. And 6. His treatment of the Court of King's Bench. Firft. What!-hall a perfon appeal from the judgment of that court, who are the only judges of things belonging to them, the Houfe of Commons, I mean. An appeal! to whom? to a mob? muft juftice be appealed from? to whom? to injuftice? appeal to the good people of England, particularly the inhabitants of Weftminfter! The House of Commons which the king's council laid their greatest emphafis, are repeated in the courfe of the trial: therefore it was unneceffary to print the information, which is only in the ufual form, and very long. are are the good people of England, being the reprefentatives of the people. The reft are what nothing unless it be a mob. And what can be in a mob but confufion. But the clear meaning of this libel was an appeal to violence, in fact; and to ftigmatize the houfe; but he durft not speak plain. Then the pamphlet tells you that his cafe is worthy the confideration of his fellow fubjects; here he fhews his virulence. He fays his commitment is a precedent founded on unparalelled barbarity, ftriking at our laws in a moft fhocking manner. Then he charges the Houfe with finking material evidence; which in fact is accufing the House of injuftice. This is a charge the moft fhocking, the moft fevere, and the most unjust and virulent, against the good, the tender Houfe of Commons; that fafeguard of our liberty, and guardian of our welfare. The next accufation the libeller brings against the Houfe, is, on their granting Mr. Murray's removal, on the application of his phyficians,in faying they had a mind to kill Mr. Murray, by removing him in the midft of a raging fever; and on Mr. Murray's refufing to go in that condition, the House, when his phyfician had mastered the diftemper, ordered that none fhould fee him. Next accufing another court that never injured any one: a court the most dignified by the worthinefs of the members: the court of King's Bench (Vide Letter on Libels, pag. 76. edit. 5. Gentlemen, this libel to whofoever reads it, will be found the most pungent invective that the skill of man could invent: I will not fay the fkill, but the wit, art, and false contrivance of man, inftigated by Satan: an indirect pamphlet -though not faid plain, yet understood; as being understood, is a libel: and to fay that this is not a libel, is to fay that there is no juftice, equity, or right, in the world. There can be ho court of juftice if the Houfe of Commons is not; and if the Houfe of Commons is not to be defended, and have protection and relief at common law, yourfelves, your houses, cannot have the protection of the law. The thing you gentlemen of the jury are to go on is, whether the cafe doth not mean the Houfe of Commons; for we shall prove to you the publication: then you muft find the Houfe is charged by this pamphlet to have been guilty of the moft daring proftitution of power. Can there be a greater harge? Witneffes called. Peter Beck fwore he bought the pamphlet of William Owen, the twenty-eighth of June, 1751, at Homer's head, near Temple-bar. Sent by Ibbot to buy it, gave 1s. 6d. for wo. John Ibbot, meffenger to the prefs, fent Peter Beck the 28th of June, to buy the pamphlet; and on the 29th, he look Owen into cuftody, and feized feveral pamphlets in his H Thop. fhop-Mealin, the 27th of June, 1751, went to Owen's by order of his mafter, Cook, to buy them: but Owen faid he had none by him, but he should have them when ready; and ia the afternoon, William Qwen let him have 12. Cook, bookfeller, on the 27th of June, the first time he faw the pamphlet advertised, fent his fervant to buy them.-Langford and Shorter alfo proved Owen's felling the pamphlet -Traven called to prove the writ for the election at Westminster.Stanhope proved that there was an election. Barwell, clerk of the Houfe of Commons, proved the proceedings of the Houfe in this affair.-The pamphlet read in court.. Then the attorney-general afked Mr. Ford and Mr. Pratt, if he need trouble the court with proving more and other things; and fhould be glad to know what they intended for their plea and defence, in order to give the court as little trouble as poffible. Mr. Ford answered, that in juftice to his client, he could not tell him what they intended for their defence; but would be fo far candid with him, as to fay, he would take advantage of his want of proof, and therefore defired him to prove all he could. Mr. Sollicitor then got up and made a fhort fpeech to the following purport. † The question is, whether the jury are fatisfied that the defendant Owen published the pamphlet: the reft follows of courfe. If the FACT is proved, the LIBEL proves itself, fedition, difturbance, &c. Therefore the printer muft bel affected with every thing in the pamphlet, if the publication is proved, and that is what lies for your [the jury] determination; you being judges of the FACT, the judge determines the LAW. But fuppofe you judges of the law, your own breafts may tell you this is a libel: it accufes the Houfe of Commons of injuftice; compares them to the Turkish divan, meant by the letters Dn; and the inquifition, meant by the letters In; and calls them a bribed affembly. Suppose a pamphlet were publifhed after this trial, that you [the jury] were perjured and bribed, and this fpread over the kingdom, would it not gall you. These fort of libels can tend to nothing but fedition, for how can the mob or the people redress but by tumult and rebellion, and thereby fubvert the conftitution; for this is a part of the legislative power, and if a third part of the legislature is deftroyed or expofed, how can that be without rifing in the face of the conftitution. There has been feveral papers, and paragraphs in the papers, printed on pur From a word Mr. Ford dropt in afking one of the witneffes a question, Mr follicitor gueffed what would be the scope of his argument; and thereupon endea voured anticipate him; of which Mr. Ford afterwards feems to take notice. pole pofe to poifon the minds of the people, and feemed calculated to influence the minds of any jury that should be on this occafion but I dare fay you gentlemen, who are upon your oaths here to try the fact, and cafe, wholly as it is, will have no regard to fuch artful and falfe infinuations t. And I know very well the council on the other fide, defign to take no advantage or notice of thefe falfe and malicious hints. But as you are upon your oaths, you judge of the FACTS we have laid before you, now in court, and ONLY them; and like honeft men bring in your verdict accordingly. do The next who fpoke, was, Mr. Ford, for the defendant, as follows: The doctrine laid down by the gentlemen for the king, that what a court of justice does, whether legal or not, is not to be called in question, nor any remonftrance to be made against it, is a doctrine that may be full of the most fatal confequences to all forts of men; fince every inferior court may the fame with equal juftice; for there can be no court but what is legally fo therefore if legal courts do wrong, muft our mouths be fhut, and not complain or petition for redrefs? God forbid !-May you, gentlemen, nor I, ever be fenfible of fuch injuftice!-I fay, if the cafe can be fo.-And here the gentlemen for the king feem to endeavour to confine the council for the defendant, in their argument, by saying such and fuch arguments will not be ufed; which is, in fact, hinting that they fhould not. Why? If they have liberty to make ufe of any argument, thought, or fact, for the king, furely the defendant's council ought to have the fame liberty for their client. I understand not the fhutting of mens mouths. Let every man clap his hand upon his heart, and examine how he would like it, was it his own cafe, Shall a man be injured, or fuppofe he fancies himself injured, which is the fame, fhall his mouth be eternally closed, and no redress for the injury ever be given nor no fatisfaction to his own mind, for a right underftanding, and clearing up of what he looked upon even as an injury. If things fhould come to this pafs, which Heaven forbid! what would be the cafe of us all? We may be scourged, afflicted, and wronged, and all for the want of liberty to complain, and put forth our cafe: the very hand that hurts us may ftill continue that preffure, not knowing of the grievances done to thofe who lie under it; and who, were this doctrine to be allowed, muft fuffer without hope of redrefs; for unless our mouths are open to complaints, there can be no redrefs, for poor fuffering mortals: for how that can be redreffed which is not known? or that known, which is not allowed to be men †This has reference to a letter in the London Evening Post of Saturday, May 30, 1752. |