Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:29:54.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English State Trials in the 1790s: A Case Study1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

F. K. Prochaska
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 10, 1800, a group of whigs and radicals met in the Shakespeare Tavern to celebrate the anniversary of the first election of Charles James Fox for the city of Westminster. But there was little to be festive about. The speeches, toasts, and songs betrayed a sense of despair tinged with nostalgia. Fox and the Lord Mayor, Thomas Erskine and Lord Bessborough, all toasted “the Memory of the Liberty of the Press” and joined in a song, written for the occasion, which reflected the general disillusionment:

      HOW chang'd are the times, and our people of late,
      When my brother John Bull has no use for his pate?
      A head without tongue ev'ry wise man maintains,
      Is just as absurd as a tongue without brains.
      Sing ballinamona or a,
      No head without tongue then for me.
      Fine laws have been made, for the good of the land,
      And our heads are now placed where our heels us'd to stand,
      Topsy-turvy's the word where fair Order and birth,
      And this once land of plenty's now chang'd to a dearth.
      Sing ballinamona, &c.
      No plenty of starving for me.
      But still it is some consolation to think,
      How little we need either victuals or drink,
      For the Minister's able, who fram'd these wise laws,
      Has given to a Justice the key to our jaws.
      Sing ballinamona, &c.
      No justice to lock jaws for me.
      When enslav'd thus the People, the Ministers then
      Send to Botany Bay all who dare to complain,
      And religion they mock, when we've scanty of meat,
      For they publish a Fast, when there's nothing to eat.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , November 1973 , pp. 63 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

The English state trials of the 1790s, particularly those in the provinces, still lack an exhaustive study. Among the best introductions to the various aspects of the subject are George Stead Veitch, The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform (London, 1913); E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963); A. Aspinall, Politics and the Press, 1780-1830 (London, 1949). The state trials in Scotland have been treated with considerable insight by Lord Cockburn, An Examination of the Trials for Sedition which have hitherto occurred in Scotland (Edinburgh 1888).

References

2. Mr. Fox's Celebrated Speech, with the Proceedings at the Shakespeare Tavern, on Friday, October 10, 1800, being the anniversary of his first election for the city of Westminster (London, 1800), p. 22Google Scholar.

3. Ibid., p. 23.

4. Though an incomplete guide, Howell, T. J., State Trials (London, 1820)Google Scholar gives a good idea of the trend. In 1790 and 1791 there are no cases listed for seditious misdemeanor. In 1792 there are two, and in 1793, ten.

5. Howell, , State Trials, XXVI, 591Google Scholar.

6. Quoted in Cockburn, , An Examination of the Trials for Sedition, I, 87Google Scholar.

7. Howell, , State Trials, XXI, 1040Google Scholar.

8. The Parliamentary Register (London, 1798), VI (June 13, 1798), 387–88Google Scholar. The art of Parliament imposing press censorship was not reimposed after it expired in 1695. Thereafter, anyone could publish anything, though he would be responsible to the courts if his work were deemed seditious, obscene, or blas-phemous.

9. 25 Edward 3, St. 5. c. 2.

10. Cockburn, , An Examination of the Trials for Sedition, I, 15Google Scholar.

11. Before the passage of Fox's libel bill in 1792, the jury was used only to determine the fact of publication.

12. Howell, , State Trials, XXIV and XXVGoogle Scholar.

13. Ibid., XXV.

14. Witnesses testified to hearing Crossfield singing a song damning King George III. Howell, , State Trials, XXVI, 1–224Google Scholar.

15. Ibid., XXVI and XXVII.

16. Lincoln, Anthony L. J. and McEwen, Robert Lindley (eds.), Lord Eldon's Anecdote Book (London, 1960), pp. 55–58Google Scholar.

17. Scott passed his deductions on to Sir John Mitford, who replaced him as Attorney General. See John Mitford to Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, 5 Feb., 1801, quoted in Twiss, Horace, The Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon (London, 1844), I, 358Google Scholar.

18. See the case of John Lambert, James Perry, and James Gray, all of the Morning Chronicle, found guilty of “publishing with no malicious intention,” a verdict later changed to not guilty. Howell, , State Trials, XXII, 1016–20Google Scholar.

19. The Attorney General was deprived of this privilege in 1825.

20. Lincoln, and McEwen, , Lord Eldon's Anecdote Book, pp. 73–74Google Scholar.

21. Wickwar, William H., The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press, 1819-1832 (London, 1928), p. 44Google Scholar. For a contemporary discussion of this subject, see Bentham, Jeremy, The Elements of the Art of Packing, as applied to Special Juries (London, 1821)Google Scholar.

22. The special jury in Eaton's case returned a verdict of “guilty of publishing the pamphlet in question.” The presiding judge, Lord Kenyon, was not satisfied with the judgment, but the jury would not change it. Eaton was released on bail, pending a ruling by the court. The outcome of this ruling is not given in Howell, , State Trials, XXII, 822Google Scholar.

23. Lincoln, and McEwen, , Lord Eldon's Anecdote Book, p. 74Google Scholar.

24. Political Register (April 6, 1811), p. 836Google Scholar.

25. Hardy offered to send Cobbett Wakefield's Defense and his Address to the Judges in 1811. BM, Hardy to Cobbett, 14 Jan., 1811, Add. MSS, 27818, fol. 113.

26. The Treasury Solicitor's Office also prepared an information against an earlier pamphlet by Wakefield, A Letter to William Wilberforce, but it was never used. A draft of this information, signed by G. Abbott and dated December 1798, is in the PRO, MS, T.S 11/1073/5194.

27. Watson, Richard, An Address to the People of Great Britain (London, 1798)Google Scholar. This work represented quite an about-face for Watson, who had encouraged French self-determination in the House of Lords in 1795. See Parliamentary History, XXXI, 1257–68Google Scholar.

28. Wakefield, Gilbert, A Reply to some Parts of the Bishop of Llandaff's Address to the People of Great Britain (Hackney, 1798), pp. 8–24Google Scholar.

29. Watson to Wakefield, 3 Feb., 1798, included in Wakefield, Gilbert, Memoirs, ed. Rutt, John Towill and Wainewright, Arnold (London, 1804), II, 122Google Scholar.

30. BM, Fox to Dennis O'Bryen, 29 July, 1798, Add. MSS, 47566, fol. 19.

31. This was because of the death of one juror and the illness of a second.

32. This letter is included in Wakefield, Gilbert, Defence (London, 1799), pp. 92–95Google Scholar.

33. Fox to Wakefield, 16 Feb., 1798, Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, ed. Russell, Lord John (London, 1857), IV, 316Google Scholar.

34. These cases are not included in Howell, State Trials, but John Gurney, the defender of Robert Crossfield, Arthur O'Connor and others, took shorthand notes of them, which are included with the Treasury Solicitor's records. PRO, MS. T.S. 11/456/1511. The Guildhall was sometimes used by the Court of King's Bench.

35. John Aikin, a character witness for Johnson, said that the government was especially anxious to silence his friend because he had been a consistent irritant as a publisher of radical books. Aiken, , Memoir, ed. Aiken, Lucy (London, 1823), I, 363Google Scholar. Among others, Johnson published for Home Tooke and Joseph Priestley.

36. PRO, MS. T.S. 11/456/1511, fol. 45.

37. Times, 12 Feb., 1799.

38. Fox to John Cartwright, 29 July, 1798, in Cartwright, F. D. (ed.), Life and Correspondence of Major Cartwright, (London, 1826), I, 248–49Google Scholar.

39. Wakefield, Gilbert, A Letter to Sir John Scott, His Majesty's Attorney General, on the Subject of a late Trial in Guildhall (London, 1798), pp. 12–20Google Scholar.

40. Ibid., p. 21.

41. That it annoyed him is clear from his comments in the Court of King's Bench, 25 Nov., 1798. PRO, MS. T.S. 11/456/1511, fols. 161-62.

42. Fox to Wakefield, 16 Feb., 1798, in Russell, , Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, IV, 316Google Scholar.

43. Among these churchmen were Dr. Beadon, Bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Pretyman, Bishop of Lincoln, and Dr. Sutton, Bishop of Norwich. Their letters are included in Howell, , State Trials, XXVII, 714–18Google Scholar.

44. Howell, , State Trials, XXVII, 673Google Scholar.

45. Wakefield, , Defence, p. 96Google Scholar.

46. Ibid., p. 7. Only ten of the special jurors appeared, but the Attorney General saw fit to “pray a tales,” i.e. the court made up the two absent jurors from those “standing around.” Scott had been unwilling to do this when Cuthell first came to trial and two jurors were absent. Wakefield's jurymen are in Howell, , State Trials, XXVII, 679Google Scholar.

47. Bodleian Library, Wakefield to unknown correspondent, 26 Nov., 1798, Montague MS, d. 10, fol. 260.

48. Howell, , State Trials, XXVII, 679–702Google Scholar.

49. Quoted in LordCockburn, , An Examination of the Trials for Sedition, p. 65Google Scholar.

50. Howell, , State Trials, XXVII, 702–03Google Scholar.

51. Ibid., p. 703.

52. Ibid., pp. 704-23.

53. Ibid., pp. 708-10.

54. Ibid., p. 722.

55. Wakefield signed an affidavit to this effect on 30 May, 1799.

56. Howell, , State Trials, XXVII, 733Google Scholar.

57. Ibid., p. 734.

58. Ibid., pp. 735-36.

59. Ibid., p. 737.

60. Ibid., p. 753.

61. Ibid., p. 755.

62. From a letter dated 1801, quoted in LordCampbell, John, The Lives of the Lord Chancellors (London, 1845–1847), VII, 126Google Scholar. Sir John Mitford's remark should be read in the light of the Home Office Papers in the PRO; see, for example, MS, H.O. 49.3.

63. Boswell's Life of Johnson, ed. Hill, George Birkbeck (Oxford, 1934), II, 250Google Scholar.

64. Fox wrote to Wakefield on 2 March, 1799, “the liberty of the press I considered as virtually destroyed by the proceedings against Johnson and Jordan; and what has happened to you I cannot but lament therefore the more, as the sufferings of a man whom I esteem in a cause that is no more.” Russell, , Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, IV, 337Google Scholar.