sages, the following: "O eternal disgrace of France! When Cæsar was on the Rubicon, he was opposed by the senate, by Pompey, and by Cato; and, though victor on the plains of Pharsalia, a dagger yet remained in the hands of the last of the Romans; but Frenchmen wear their chains without a murmur!" It also contained many other strong passages, calling to the French nation to arm,-to march,-for the times admitted no delay. The second libel was also in verse; and, after affecting to admire the fortune of Bonaparte, whom it describes under the name of the Son of Letitia,' concludes, "I do not envy his fortunes! Let him be named first consul for life! There is nothing now wanting to him but the sceptre and the crown,-let him have them, let him be elected emperor! The story of Romulus reminds me of this; and I wish his apotheosis may follow on the morrow."-The third libel begins in this manner: "I hardly conceive that the mildness of your nature and character will permit you to give credit to the various atrocities committed by the present dictator; it is not only you who suffer, but your children yet unborn are proscribed, perhaps before they have seen the light. And was it for this that France has combated Prussia, Russia, Austria, and all Europe, to surrender her sovereignty and her liberty to a Corsican rebel?" The libels were of prodigious length, and were read throughout by Mr Abbot.

Mr Attorney-general opened the prosecution nearly as follows: "Gentlemen of the jury, you are now, by the indictment that has been read, put distinctly and fully in possession of every information on the subject on which you have been brought here to decide. The case is simple, and the question, in my mind, by no means difficult to be tried. It will be for you to examine whether or not the defendant be the author of these publications, and whether or not this prosecution be rightly brought forward before a British jury, and in a British court of justice. It is impossible not to know that considerable interest and curiosity are attached to this trial; and when I cast my eye about the court and observe an attendance so different from what usually graces trials in courts of justice, I feel that such motives must have operated in a more than ordinary degree. Many, no doubt, have been curious to hear the observations that may fall from me in conducting the present prosecution. Yet, sorry as I should be to disappoint such an assembly, the course which duty and inclination point out to me will not be likely to gratify such expectation. This duty and inclination confine me to the dry and dull trial of the intention; for the law will determine by what takes place in court, by reason,-by justice, whether a publication of this kind can be defended as innocent, or tolerated as inoffensive. In discussing these questions, so notorious and so recent, there can neither be much instruction nor amusement; and if any one could suppose that on this, or any other occasion, I should either derogate from the dignity of my public duty, or shrink from the faithful discharge of it, he will be disappointed. Though no person can entertain a higher opinion than I do of the abilities and acquirements of the learned gentleman who is to lead the defence; though no person be more unaffectedly convinced of his splendid talents, his brilliant imagination, his cultivated mind, and his enlightened reason; yet I doubt if even he can satisfy much curiosity on this occasion.

The points to be considered are: Whether the defendant be the

author of the publication or not?-What was the intention of publishing? What is the legal character of guilt or innocence belonging to it? These questions are the only points at issue between us; and these will afford little opportunity of displaying the powers of imagination and reasoning to excite interest or gratify curiosity; for I cannot bring myself to suppose that the learned gentleman would so far adopt the spirit of the libel as to make his defence a republication of the slanderous matter that it contains; neither can I be persuaded that he could have been instructed by his client to come into court for the purpose of making the proceedings here a vehicle for the wider dissemination of the libel. If such were his intentions, he would have a wide and abundant field to expatiate on. Of all the extraordinary and eventful facts that arose out of the late extraordinary revolution, that which originated the present government is most surprising. Yet if no other considera. tions than those of an ordinary discretion were to influence his manage ment of the defence, he will abstain from that course which may exasperate justice, without serving the cause of his client.

"What is it brings me here in the discharge of a public duty? I prosecute this libel because it endangers the tranquillity of this country. When the question shall arise for consideration of the punishment, I appeal to my learned friends, if I would not ill discharge my duty to the public, to the honour and character of the law, if I should not earnestly press the consideration, that proceedings, which had been made the vehicle of defamation and slander, should not escape in a British court with impunity. The present prosecution is to satisfy justice, and to see that the law be not disappointed. Without previously troubling you with stating what the prosecution is, I shall state to you what it is not. It is not for a work containing an impartial account of the transactions of any given period;-it is not for an historical narration of events in a neighbouring country, accompanied with philosophical reflections on their causes and consequences;—it is not for a publication whose author,—even approaching to licentiousness, has dealt in simple defamation in any particular instance. But the case which the present prosecution brings to notice was conceived originally in libel and in defamation. Defamation is its best object. Its further object is, to excite the subjects of the first magistrate of the French republic, at peace with this country, to deprive him of his authority, and to assassi nate him. It was published with the intention of traducing and defaming Napoleon Bonaparte, first consul of France, and of exciting the hatred of the subjects of this country and of his own against him.

"Gentlemen, I shall now say a few words on the law of the case. I do not feel myself called upon to define to what extent the subjects of one country may carry their observations or strictures on the administration of affairs in another. But I have no difficulty in asserting that a publication like the present, tending to embroil the tranquillity of nations, and encouraging the assassination of one who is, de facto, first magistrate of France, is not more opposite to the feelings and sentiments of Englishmen than it is libellous and illegal. The fair detail of history,— the impartial recital of events,-the unprejudiced account of transac tions, not rendered the vehicle of defamation,-is not the subject of information. Defamation constitutes the whole of this publication, and I am confident no lawyer will maintain that it is not an offence of the

deepest die and meriting the severest reprehension. It is not possible that there can be any difficulty in supporting the proposition that such an offence against the laws of the country ought to be severely punished. The prosecution is not unprecedented. Instances of the same kind occur in the history of the country. I shall cite you two: Lord George Gordon was prosecuted for a libel against the queen of France. J. Vint was accused and convicted of a libel against the emperor of Russia, yet the libel with which he was charged was not marked by any such foul and hideous features as the subject of the present prosecution. If you find, then, that upon that principle and this authority that crime was punished by a British court of justice, it will only be necessary for me to call your attention to the libel that is the subject of the present prosecution.

"It is not immaterial to observe that two of those charged are in the first number of the 'Ambigu.' And here it may not be amiss to notice the frontispiece of this work. It bears a sphynx, as you may perceive, with a variety of enigmatical Egyptian figures, of which it would neither be easy nor of consequence to discover the meaning. There is one circumstance, however, which is decisive of the object of the publication. The face of the animal resembles that of the prints which are publicly known in this country to be intended as likenesses of Bonaparte. Having never seen the first consul I cannot positively affirm that it is a fac simile of his countenance; but, as it bears a striking resemblance to the prints that are said to be like him, this circumstance, coupled with the matter of publication, can leave little room to doubt that its object was to defame and render him vile in the eyes of the world in general. Two numbers, the first and third of the Ambigu,' are subjects of prosecution. I shall direct your attention first to the matter of the third. [Here the learned attorney stated, that, as he had, to save himself the pain of going through the whole libel, procured a learned friend to read it through, he would not follow him, but observe upon the material parts as he proceeded.] This libel asserts that they had in vain maintained a glorious contest against Austria, Russia, and the powers of Europe, if their liberties were to be sacrificed to the Corsican. It goes on: And now the tiger dares to call himself the founder and regenerator of France, possessing himself of the fruit of their labours, as of a spoil taken in war!' It excites them to rise, to march, to regain their liberty, and seek revenge. Bonaparte, it says, has no longer any object of ambition but security. His Mamelukes, having no contact with the army, nor speaking the language of France, are ready to act as mutes, cut-throats, and hangmen. Every thing-justice, the law. the finances, is in the possession of the despot. It then calls upon them to avenge their wrongs or perish with glory." After having read these passages, the learned attorney called the attention of the jury to the two libels contained in the first number of the Ambigu.'"Upon what principle, I will ask," said the attorney-general, are those examples of assassination recalled, if not for the purpose of exciting the subjects of that chief magistrate to rebellion and assassination? Let me not be told that I am an enemy to the English press, when I prosecute the abuse of it, a licentiousness that would bring it into discredit, infamy, and disgrace. I will put it to your bosoms, whether such a publication would constitute a crime in this country,-a publication so base, so disgraceful, that even in a time of war I should not

6

hesitate to pronounce it unjustifiable? We were then, and are happily now, at peace; and the conduct that a state of war cannot sanction. must be criminal in a high degree in peace. Let me not be told of character. The first magistrate of a great nation,—no matter whether descended from a long line of royal ancestors, or lately raised from the abyss of obscurity,-is entitled to respect, and should be treated with decorum. We may be told, gentlemen, of abusive articles in the 'Moniteur:' I am not here to vindicate the conduct or the publications of the French government, or its journalists. If there be any feelings in another country that can reconcile such vile calumnies, let them have the benefit, but let not us have the disgrace."

The evidence was then called in support of the prosecution; which consisted merely of proving the publication of the two papers, at the desire, and by the request, of the defendant Mr Peltier, by Mr De Boffe, against whom an information was also filed; but he suffered judgment to pass by default. Mr Mackintosh then rose, and addressed the jury, on the part of the defendant, in a strain of consummate eloquence, for nearly three hours. The attorney-general's reply was pretty well contrived, and a verdict of guilty obtained.

In March, 1807, Mr Perceval was appointed chancellor of the exchequer; and on the resignation of the duke of Portland, and the resignations of Castlereagh and Canning, he was named first lord of the treasury.

On the 11th of May, 1812, he fell by the hand of an assassin of the name of Bellingham, who shot him with a pistol while entering the lobby of the house of commons. The following extract from the attor ney-general's speech on the trial of Bellingham, places the deed and the motives which instigated it in as clear a light as the whole transaction will admit of. "It is not revenge," said the learned gentleman, in his address to the jury, "nor is it resentment, that ought to have any influence on your consideration of the question. You are to satisfy public justice, to take care, by your verdict, this day, that the public shall not be exposed to the perpetration of such horrid crimes. With respect to the prisoner, who has committed this murder and assassination, I know nothing of his life, or how it has been spent, except so far as relates to the circumstance of this case. He was in business, and acted as a merchant; in the course of his transactions, he showed himself a man of sound understanding, in every act which he performed; he not only conducted his own affairs with understanding, but he was selected by other persons to manage theirs. Some three or four years ago, not finding his affairs prosper in this country, he was intrusted by a house, I believe in the north, to execute business of great importance. He went to Russia, and there, whether through his own misconduct, or by the justice or injustice of that country, I know not, he was thrown into prison, and applied to his majesty's minister, Lord Granville Leveson Gower, and to the secretary of legation, Sir Stephen Shairpe, for assistance and remuneration for certain losses. They, for reasons which it is unnecessary, and would be improper for me to state, refused to grant it. He then came to this country, and went on in the pursuit of his affairs in the regular mode. He found persons ready to avail themselves of his activity, experience, and knowledge, and by them he was employed. But he seems to have cherished in his mind

a feeling of the propriety of making an application to government, tc indemnify him for losses which he said he had sustained through the means of the Russian government; and he applied to many persons in this country to assist him in procuring that recompense which he conceived he was entitled to. The grounds of his application were examined, as they always are, by his majesty's ministers, who found them unworthy of attention, and therefore the claim was rejected. He then had recourse to another contrivance, which he hoped to have effected. As his majesty's ministers did not wish to interfere, he became desirous of having his case laid before parliament, to see if he had friends enough there, to obtain that which he had in vain sought from government. He made applications to various members of parliament, who declined complying with his request. He then applied to Mr Perceval himself, the late minister, to countenance his claims; which, according to the forms of parliament, was necessary to be signified to the house, when pecuniary assistance was prayed for. Governed by those principles of justice which always regulated and directed his conduct, he did not think himself justified in acceding to the request, and he refused it. From the moment the prisoner found Mr Perceval would not countenance what he called a remuneration,-from that moment the desire of revenge took root in his mind. He had been resident in this city for four months; and from the time he found his application would not be received, he made preparation for effecting the horrible purpose which he at last fatally accomplished. He provided himself with a brace of pistols,-he purchased ammunition, and was ready to take advantage of the first opportunity which offered to prosecute his revenge; and for the purpose of greater certainty, he informed himself of the time when Mr Perceval usually attended the house. That every thing might be complete, he added to the common dress he wore a pocket at the side, to receive one of the pistols. On the day when this atrocious act was committed, he placed himself in the lobby of the house of commons, at the entrance, close to the door, and waited till the victim of his malignity was likely to appear. He prepared himself for the deed; and just as Mr Perceval was passing the threshold, he discharged his pistol. It unfortunately took effect. Mr Perceval died almost instantaneously! Under these circumstances, you have to say, whether the person who stands at the bar be or be not the murderer ? Whether he shall or shall not answer the justice of his country, for the act he has performed?"

The assassin admitted the deed, and expressed his deep regret that he had been compelled to select so amiable a man as Mr Perceval for his victim; but argued that in all the circumstances he was justifiable in revenging himself as he had done.

Granville Sharp.

BORN A. D. 1735.-DIED A. D. 1813.

THIS venerable philanthropist was born at Durham, on the 10th of November, 1735, O. S. He was the ninth son of Dr Thomas Sharp, and grandson of Archbishop Sharp, the friend of Tillotson. In the