the prosecutor in that case, was alternately the object of the keenest indignation, and the most jeering ridicule, and I have a right to be equally as free, as the counsel in that case, with the prosecutors in this: but I shall by no means follow the example. On the contrary, I think, we are deeply indebted to the Constitutional Association. Consider how we were circumstanced when they first arose amongst us. There was the state, with a standing army of only a hundred thousand men, and nothing besides, except the whole civil force of the realm, a revenue of no more than seventy millions; and the feeble assistance of the established law officers of the crown to prosecute public offenders, when this Constitutional Association in the pure spirit of chivalry, steps forward to help the weakness of Government, and succour its distress. Now, whatever men may talk of justice, who can say that disinterestedness has altogether abandoned the earth? Who can say that generosity has forsaken us and flown to heaven? Let it be considered too, that but for their active vigilance Carlile's shop would not have been known. No productions from it had ever been the subject of prosecution, and but for the keen scent of the Association, the rank and huge sedition contained in the New Year's Address might have lain in its covert undetected and undisturbed. But to drop this irony and be serious, the law officers of the crown are fully adequate to their duties, and Carlile's shop was as well known to the Attorney General as St. Paul's to you. For years he has not had his eyes off it. I will engage that every publication, that has issued from it; and this very pamphlet among the rest, has passed through his hands, and under his review. Yet the law officers of the crown do not appear here to prosecute it as a libel against the state: and I entreat you to mark this; for I have a right to urge it, as a strong negative proof, that they do not so consider it; and how can that require your condemnation which they (with a judgment surely very much. superior to that of the Committee of the Constitutional Association) have not thought worthy of prosecution or notice? Yes, you are actually called upon by this Association to deliver over to punishment the publisher of this paper, whilst the law officers of the crown (who neglect their duty, if they do not prosecute offences against the state) have thought it of a nature not at all requiring their interference. What can be so preposterous? So monstrous? And in taking leave of this view of the case, let me once more ask you who have been actually the publishers of this paper? Have

you a single iota of evidence, which ought to satify your minds, that, but for the insidious conduct of the Association, and its spies, this pamphlet would ever have been before you or the public? Is there a shadow of proof that one copy was ever sold, except those bought by the creatures, employed by the honorary secretary (who is also the feed attorney in this prosecution) for the sole object of entangling the Defendant in this indictment? None, whatever. None. They conspired you see to procure and seduce (the word is neither too broad nor too long for their conduct) the publication for the very purpose of this prosecution. How then having thus suborned the offence of which they complain, can they dare to stand forward as prosecutors, when they themselves are the criminals, and ought to be the Defendants.

Mr. Justice BEST.-You mean, Mr. Cooper, to offer some evidence of that, I suppose.

Mr. COOPER.-None, my lord, but the evidence already before the Court and the Jury, and the strong and necessary inference from the facts proved by the witnesses for the prosecution themselves.

Mr. GURNEY.-There were many others lying on the

counter.

Mr. COOPER.-What of that, does it follow that they must therefore have been sold? In the absence of all other proof of any publication, I have a right, I am forced to consider the Association as the only publishers.

Mr. Justice BEST.-In the evidence there is nothing like it.

Mr. COOPER.What, Gentlemen, is it a necessary conclusion, that because the pamphlets were lying in the shop they must have been sold to other persons? The Defendant but for their intrusion, for the sole design of prosecution, might have sold no others. She might have changed her intention to sell. The pamphlets might have lain like bad verses untouched on the shop counter, till they were turned over for waste paper, and not a soul have ever known of their contents. The Association, therefore, by their insidious and plotted purchase for the sole object of prosecution, have provoked the act of publication, and they, who provoke crimes are the criminals, and ought to be the culprits; and those, who would punish the crimes that they have provoked, are devils, and not men; "the tempters ere the accusers." When I contemplate such conduct—but I will not waste another word, or another moment of your time

upon this miserable Association. If I had consulted my better judgment, I should have passed them in silence: thus much my indignation has wrung from my contempt.

I shall now, Gentlemen, proceed to the examination of the libel, or rather that which is charged as a libel itself; and I shall begin with the last part so charged in the indictment, instead (as my learned friend has done) with the first; and let me beg your regard to one remarkable fact, that at the very point of the paper, at which the motives, and design of the writer present themselves to the reader; at that very point this indictment stops. It has not, as you will presently see, the candour to proceed a single syllable farther. I will now read the passage, "Reform," it says, "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." This it has been urged to you, with great emphasis, is an excitement to insurrection; and you are called upon to draw that inference, though the author immediately afterwards diavows, expressly disavows any such intention. But even, if the words stood alone, I deny that you are compelled to such a construction. Gentlemen, will any one venture to say, that I, standing in this place, and in the very exercise of my profession, mean any thing, but what is strictly legal, when I say myself, that supposing reform in Parliament to be necessary, something more than mere petitioning is requisite to obtain it? But in saying this, do I mean any thing violent or illegal? Heaven forbid; No: but I would have societies formed, and meetings held for the purpose of discussing that momentous subject. If reform be necessary, and the desire of a great majority of the country, I would have that desire shown unambiguously to the Legislature, by resolutions and declarations at such meetings. Who will deny such societies and meetings to be legal? Yet, such meetings would be more than mere petitioning, much more: and the author means nothing beyond this; for I say, that in the absence of all other criteria, the only means of judging of a writer's intentions are his words. Look then at the words, which immediately follow the assertion, that "something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary." If those words had been included in the indictment this prosecution must have been at an end upon merely reading the charge and those words, therefore,the Association avoided, as cautiously as they would

the poison of a viper. They felt, that though the indicted words standing alone might perhaps admit of a doubt for a moment, yet the context completely explained them, and gave an air of perfect innocence to the whole passage. But you shall judge for yourselves: I will read the passage-" Something more than a petitioning attitude is necessary. At this mo

ment 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 circumstance." Now what kind of union, activity, and co-operation does he mean? Is it military association, marches and attack? No. Hear the writer's own words again :-" The Union Rooms at Manchester and Stockport are admirable models of cooperation, and are more calculated than any thing else to strengthen the body of reformers." For what do the reformers assemble in these rooms? How do they cooperate there? Is it to consult how they shall arm and organize themselves, and seize with a violent hand the reform which they despair of gaining by petition? Nothing like it. The writer himself still tells you his meaning. "Here," (that is at the Manchester and Stockport rooms) "children are educated, and adults instruct each other. Here there is a continual and frequent communication between all the reformers in those towns." This, then, and no other, is the cooperation which the author intended, and proposes. If any man, taking the paper in his hand and reading the whole paragraph, can say that any thing more is meant, to his reason I should cease to appeal. I should sit down in silent despair of making any impression on such an understanding; but you, Gentlemen, I ask you, adding the words which I have read to the broken passage, which is insidiously separated and included in the indictment, can there be a doubt remaining in any rational and unprejudiced mind, that the union and cooperation called for by this Address from those who desire reform in Parliament, is nothing more than the establishment at other places, of rooms, on the model of those at Stockport, and Manchester; where children and adults are instructed, and information disseminated on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. And if this is all that is meant, there is an end of this part of the indictment; for it cannot be libellous to recommend in a writing the people to do that, which it is perfectly legal to do.

With regard to reform itself, I cannot know, whether any of you are advocates for it or opposed to it, nor is it requisite that I should: I do not ask you to think or say with me,

and others, that reform in Parliament is necessary, and that nothing but reform can save the country from ruin: all that I ask of you is to allow me and others credit for the conscientiousness of our opinions, and charitably admit, if yours are opposite, that though we may be mistaken in our judgments, we must not of necessity be criminal in our intentions. I leave you and every man to the free exercise of your thoughts and the free enjoyment of the conclusions to which they lead you. Let this liberality be reciprocal, and concede the same freedom to others which you demand for yourselves. I have always thought that a difference in religious and political matters need not and ought not to create hostility of feeling, and sever those, who would otherwise be friends. I myself enjoy the friendship of several, who entertain very different opinions from mine upon those subjects; and yet that difference has not, and never shall, on my part, at least, disturb our friendship. In all questions in which you cannot have mathematical demonstration, there may be fair, honest, conscientious difference of opinion; and you cannot have geometrical proof in questions of religion, politics, and morals. The very nature of the subjects altogether excludes it. To expect it, as Bishop Sanderson says, would be as absurd as to expect to see with the ear and to hear with the eye. So various are our opinions upon these subjects, that we not only differ from one another upon them, but at different times we find we differ from ourselves; and, as another learned churchman, in more recent times, has said, What could be more unjust than to quarrel with other men for differing in opinion from him when no two men ever differed more from one another than he at different times differed on the very same subject from himself. Under this state of uncertainty in human judgment, I call upon you, and I am sure I shall not call in vain, to be slow to condemn the opinions of others, because they are different from your own; and therefore, if any of you should think reform in Parliament needless or even dangerous, I still call upon you (though the writer of this paper should be a reformer, and even though he is called in reproach a radical reformer) not to condemn the Defendant in this case through prejudice against the author's opinions; but solely to enquire (be those opinions ever so just or ever so absurd) whether he is sincere in entertaining them; for, if he be (as I shall show you presently from the highest authority) the law does not consider him criminal. Try him by this test, and this alone; and then, whatever may be your verdict, you will be free