evidence upon an indictment, such as this is, any evidence with respect to the acts so done. They ought to be the subject of a separate prosecution: and if my opinion had risen higher upon that subject than it does, I would not in the prosecution of this case have even risked such a question as that, whether certain acts can be done and declarations made in another country by a subject of this country, without his being amenable to the law of this country? It is a question that ought to be tried, if it is to be tried at all, in a more solemn form than taken as a mere collateral point in evidence. But was not I entitled to speak about France? Did not this gentleman state, that things were going on well in France ;that he had come from France ;-that it was his intention to go again to France, and that, according to that intention, he did go to France? Is not this evidence, that he knew what he was saying;-that he was speaking that which his future acts confirmed? Then how does it appear, that he was drunk, or at least so much so, that he could not speak about any thing; that he could not correctly speak his opinion? It is clear, that he stated a fact with respect to what he was to do, that the future act of his life corresponded with; and yet my learned friend says, he did not speak advisedly at all.

Gentlemen, another observation that fell from my learned friend was, with respect to what I have stated as to the words, "otherwise well-disposed." Gentlemen, give me leave, in the first place, to call your at

try, wedded to it as they are, are in danger when this language is publicly held; I say it is fit, as between the Attorney General and such persons, that a Jury of the country should say, whether such words shall be spoke with absolute impunity? It does appear to me that they ought not to escape with absolute impunity; but if you doubt in your have any minds, you will find a verdict for the Defendant.

Lord KENYON having summed up the evidence, the Jury retired for an hour and a half, and then returned with a verdict,

GUILTY.

TRIAL

OF

MR. PERRY AND MR. LAMBERT,

EDITOR AND PRINTER

OF

THE MORNING CHRONICLE,

FOR

A Libel.

SUBJECT, &c.

THE following Speech for Mr. Perry and Mr. Lambert, the editor and printer of the Morning Chronicle, strongly illustrates our observation in the Preface, concerning the difficulty of access to genuine trials at distant periods.

These Gentlemen were tried for the publication of a libel, on the information of the Attorney General, on the 9th of December, A. D. 1793, and the trial was at the time in very general circulation. Yet it was so wholly out of print, that it made no part of the present work, as originally prepared for the press; but on its being referred to by Mr. Perry in his able defence of himself on his late trial, we procured from him the copy (the only one to be found), from which we have printed the following pages,

The Attorney General's Information charged the Defendants, Mr. Perry and Mr. Lambert, as editor and printer of the Morning Chronicle, with publishing an Address of a society for political information, held at the Talbot Inn, at Derby, which had been sent to the Morning Chronicle for insertion, in the ordinary course of business; neither Mr. Perry nor Mr. Lambert having had any kind of connexion or correspondence with the authors.

This trial being the first after the passing of the Libel Act, we have thought it best to print the whole of it, as originally published, with the Advertisement prefixed to it, by Mr. Perry.

ADVERTISEMENT.

IN presenting the following trial to the public, at a period the most critical, perhaps, with respect to prosecutions, that ever occurred in the annals of this country, the editor was chiefly influenced by two considerations:

First, the question, which arose in an early stage of the proceedings, with respect to juries, determined a very important rule of practice, namely, that the first special jury, struck and reduced according to law, must try the issue joined between parties. This decision of a controverted point, in the manner most consistent with common sense, and, as appeared from the pleadings, agreeable to the ancient practice of the Courts, and founded upon the statute law of the realm, is certainly to be estimated as an acquisition of no common magnitude to the subject.

Secondly, this is the first trial, since the Libel Bill passed into a law, completely conducted upon the principles of that bill, and may serve as the best illustration of the wise and excellent provisions of the law, as it now stands, with respect to libel: a law admirably calculated to remove obscurity, to defeat improper influence, to facilitate the ends of justice, by simplifying its operations, and to afford additional security for the full enjoyment of the most valuable privilege of Englishmen.

Impressed then with the view of this trial, as connected with great principles, and involving consequences the most important, both to the present age and to posterity, I have been anxious to render the following statement of the proceedings as full and correct as possible. Fidelity and accuracy are the only merits of a reporter; these I have carefully studied; it is not allowed to him who transmits the sentiments of others, to boast of his labours, or to claim the reward of public approbation: in this instance, I find myself sufficiently repaid, with the pleasing reflection that I have been called, in an age of prosecutions, to record one verdict gained to the cause of freedom.

We print the parts of the Address selected by the Attorney General from the Information itself, with the innuendoes, which run as follow:

"We" (meaning the society aforesaid) "feel "too much not to believe that deep and alarming abuses exist in the British government" (meaning