Liberty’s ‘Terror’
was not uncommon: Home Office papers relating to forty-three cases for seditious words reveal that prosecution was advised against in all but eleven. 41 For seditiou s writings, Fox’s Libel Act of 1792 further necessitated an unimpeachable case for prosecution. 42 Although allowing that ‘the court shall give their opinion’, the new law empowered juries to judge whether a publication was actually libellous, rather than j ust determine whether it had in fact been produced. Now, the jury could ‘give a general verdict upon the whole matter’, and consequently conviction for libel was more difficult to ensure. 43 Certain mitigating factors, such as drunkenness, likewise hampered proceedings for seditious speech. Inebriation generally warranted acquittal and consequently the authorities were often reluctant to act. Crown Law Officers advised against the prosecution of Yorkshireman John Greathead, for example, because he was drunk when he spoke his ‘highly improper’ words. 44 In 1800, Jesse Hilliar was acquitted of sedition, having exclaimed in a public house ‘damn the King and the parliament’. The fact that, according to one witness, Hilliar was ‘in as great a state of intoxication as I ever saw’ seemingly earnt the sympathy of the jury. In this instance, even the prosecution acquiesced: ‘ If you think that this was a drunken conversation, ’ the Attorney - General conceded to the jury, ‘you will acquit the defendant . ’ 45 Of the aforementioned Home Office cases, six were advised against on the grounds of intoxication. In addition, the nature of punishment contributed somewhat to the lack of prosecution. As mentioned, punitive sentencing often acted as a deterrent: William Hudson, who in 1793 was imprisoned for two years and fined £200 for calling the King a ‘German Hog - butcher’, 46 further exemplifies this. For crimes of a less severe nature, magisterial leniency allowed for disputes to be settled outside of court. A bookseller in Halifax, for example, was able to avoid prosecution for selling seditious tracts by advertising a public apology in a Leeds newspaper. 47 However, sentencing was, in general, proportional and just; many, such as John Maclane and John North, who were independently convicted of seditious libel and fined one shilling, received fair sentences. 48 This is, arguably, an underemphasized factor in explaining the relatively moderate temperament of most radicals. Combined with notable acquittals, proportional punishment seemingly confirmed to Jacobins that the legal system was both neutral and pure. 49 Whether this was true was, ultimately, irrelevant: most radicals and reformers believed that they could achieve their aims without extreme action. In fact, some even attempted to apply the law to 41 Ibid., 162. 42 See the entry on Fox in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed R. Thorne (1986), available at https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/fox-hon-charles-james- 1749-1806. Accessed on 12 July 2021. 43 Libel Act 1792 (repealed); see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/32/60/body/1991-02- 01?timeline=true 44 Emsley, ‘An Aspect of Pitt’s “ Terror ”’, 162. 45 Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 16 July 2021), December 1800, trial of JESSE HILLIAR (t18001203-94). 46 Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 16 July 2021), December 1793, trial of WILLIAM HUDSON (t17931204-54). 47 Emsley, ‘An Aspect of Pitt’s “ Terror ”’, 160. 48 Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 13 July 2021), April 1793, trial of JOHN MACLANE (t17930410-57). and Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 14 July 2021), February 1798, trial of JOHN NORTH (t17980214-57). 49 Emsley, ‘An Aspect of Pitt’s “ Terror ”’, 175.
39
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator