1.  Sheet from the Reformists' Register containing the opening address.

2.  Copy of Hone's Political Litany: at the top is inscribed "1817 Feby 21st.  Purchased at the shop of Mr Hone No. 55 Fleet Street.  [signed] Griffin Swanson"

3.  Another copy of the Political Litany with the same markings as above.

4.  Copy of Hone's The Sinecurist's Creed, inscribed "1817 Feby 17th.  Purchased at the Shop of Mr Hone No. 55 Fleet Street.  [signed] Griffin Swanson"

5.  Another copy of the Sinecurist's Creed, with same notes as #4 above.

6.  Another copy of the Sinecurist's Creed, with same notes as #4 above.

7.  Another copy of the Sinecurist's Creed, this time without Swanson's notes.

[It is clear from the following letter that the Home Secretary was ready to move against Hone, most likely in response to the flood of letters from local magistrates and other concerned citizens.  It is perhaps not a coincidence that a bill to suspend Habeas Corpus passed through Parliament on the following day.]

Whitehall 3 March 1817

Gentlemen,

I am directed by Lord Sidmouth to transmit to you the enclosed printed Pamphlets with the Depositions which accompanied them, taken before the Chelmsford Division of the County of Essex, and transmitted by them to his Lordship;— and I am to desire, that you will lay the same before the Attorney and Solicitor General, and move them to Report their opinion for Lord Sidmouth's Information, whether the Pamphlets afford fit matter for Prosecution.  Evidence of the Sale of which has been procured, as appears by the Depositions above alluded to.—

[signed] J. N. Addington

[bottom p.1] Messrs Litchfield & Hobhouse

The record begins:  "It appearing to the Magistrates present that certain Scandalous or Seditions Pamphlets or Publication tending to promote hatred & contempt of His Majesty's Government and Laws had been circulated in the Town of Chelmsford. . . " then Henry Guy, a constable, produces the documents in question: (1) the Reformists' Register of 1 Feb. 1817, (2) the second number of the Reformists' Register, 8 Feb. 1817, (3) Political Litany, (4) A Political Catechism, (5) The Sinecurist's Creed, and (6) A Handbill describing and advertising Hone's various publications.

[Note that these magistrates say nothing of blasphemy.]

Depositions from John Bewley and Henry Webb:

The constable, Henry Guy, on orders from the magistrates, went to the house of Mr. John Bewley, an agricultural machine maker.  Bewley "admitted he had got some of them [the pamphlets] but his wife had lent them to a Neighbor to read...."  Eventually, "John Bewley . . . deposeth and saith that being in London on Tuesday the eleventh day of February instant in company with Henry Webb Chelmsford Carrier they went to the Old Bailey to a public House there to get some refreshment, that after they had so done and were proceeding on their business they were attracted to a Booksellers Shop by the appearance of a great number of persons at No. 67 in the Old Bailey, that finding the people so assmbled were purchasing cheap printed Pamphlets or Publications he and Webb had the curiosity to go in and purchase some, that they were lying in large heaps or parcels in the window, that this Deponent selected out four of them from different parcels and asked the person in the shop the price of them he said they were eight pence but added that if this Deponent would take eight he should have them for a shilling which Deponent agreed to and asked Webb for a shilling to pay for them that Deponent cannot say whether the Man in the shop was the Master or a shopman but should know him again if he was to see him that Deponent had not the least intention of disseminating the principles contained in the said Pamphlets or publications but purchased them merely from Curiosity . . . and also saith that a sheet similar to the one numbered 6 [a handbill advertizing Hone's wares] was enclosed in each of the Publications when he purchased them."

Henry Webb deposed his agreement with Bewley's story and also "that the Shop at No. 67 Old Bailey was on that Morning like a Fair from the number of persons resorting there. . .  that he paid the shilling for them and had two or three of them himself which he permitted his children to read without thinking there was no harm in so doing [sic] and this Deponent saith that neither himself nor the said John Bewley (to his belief) had any intention of disseminating any of the principles laid down in the said Pamphlets to the prejudice of his Majesty's Government of Laws but that they were purchased and read by him merely from motives of curiosity."

After hearing these depositions the magistrates unanimously resolved to send these materials on to Sidmouth and also instructed "the constables and other Peace Officers to be vigilant in suppressing the circulation & use of any publications of the same or a like tendency. . . ."

Whole document signed: 

"By order of the Magistrates

Thos Archer

clerk

These folios contain three brief notes from Garrow; each says: "To move that Defendant may be charged with an Information for printing and publishing a Blasphemous Libel entitled xxxxxx and committed to the Custody of the Marshal."  In each note, of course, the xxxxxxxx is replaced by the title of one of the parodies for which Hone was to be prosecuted.  Unfortunately no date is given, but sometime in early May 1817 seems likely.

I, the Defendant, having a motion to the Court, which I desire to make in person, and the Marshal of the Prison acquainting me that he has no authority or power to take me into Court for that purpose I solicit that the requisite measures may be taken for my appearance in Court forthwith.

The object of my intended motion is the immediate discharge of my person from the custody of the Marshal on grounds which I shall submit on Affidavit.

I have written to Lord Ellenborough, the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General Sir Samuel Shepherd to the like effect.

Brief note from the Attorney General (?) saying that he "will be pleased to attend to the Motion [Hone's] on behalf of the Crown."  The note appears to be a response to Hone's request in the previous document.

"Dear Sir— The Defendant says that this publication [Wilkes's Catechism] was printed in a more offensive form in the Morning Chronicle in 1769.  Perhaps you may be able to refer to it."

Clearly the writer had spoken with Hone, but it looks as though he was at the same time interested in assisting the prosecution.

The official copy of the charges against Hone.  The document begins with legal formalities, then 

"Be it remembered that Sir William Garrow Knight Attorney General . . . cometh here into the Court . . . at Westminster . . . [and] giveth the Court here to understand and be informed that William Hone late of London Bookseller being a person of a Wicked depraved and malicious Mind and most unlawfully wickedly impiously and maliciously devising contriving and intending to excite impiety and irreligion in the minds of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King and to ridicule scandalize and profane and to bring into contempt in the minds of the said liege subjects a certain part of the public and divine service of the Church by law established in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called England which said part of the said public and divine service is therein called the Litany or General Supplication and to apply and adapt the Idiom Stile Language and form of Expression used in that part of the said Service in such a manner as to serve profane and scandalous purposes. . . ."  

The piece goes on to name Hone's parody and identify the sale date and so forth.  Oddly, after a few more "scadalous profanes" the focus shifts to the political.  Hone's parody, the charges claim, contains 

"divers . . . Matters of and concerning . . . the Litany or General Supplication and of and concerning amongst other things the Regent . . . the House of Lords . . . and the House of Commons . . . ."

Having levelled these charges, the document proceeds to quote the whole pamphlet—in this case, Hone's Political Litany.  After the quotation, the document introduces a second more decidedly political charge:  Hone intended 

"to excite disaffection or discontent in the minds of the liege subjects of our said Lord the king and to scandalize and vilify and bring into hatred and contempt in the minds of the said liege Subjects the Regent . . . the House [of] Lords . . . and also the House of Commons . . . and to represent and cause to be believed by the said liege subjects that they were unjustly and oppressively governed . . . ."  

After bringing this second charge, the document actually quotes the whole parody once again, this time with parenthetical tags identifying each element—e.g. where the parody says "O Prince" it is followed by "(meaning the said Regent.)"

Finally, the document brings a third charge against Hone: he intended 

"to excite impiety and irreligion in the minds of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King and to scandalize profane and turn into ridicule and to bring into contempt . . . the said part of the said public and divine service called the Litany or General Supplication and to adapt and apply to profane and scandalous purposes the style and form of expression used in the said part of the said service for the purpose of solemn prayer to Almighty God."

Each of the parodies elicits a virtually identical set of charges.

A note from John Richardson of Middle Temple, 26 June 1817.

"The King vs. William Hone"

[clerk's hand] "Mr Richardson will be pleased to advise on the Evidence and particularly whether it is necessary to give any Evidence of the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments and whether it is necessary to produce in Evidence one of the copies of the Book of Common Prayer Exemplified and recorded according to the Act of Uniformity or whether a Book of Common Prayer printed by the King's Printer will be admissible in Evidence."

[Ironic, especially given Hone's title-page claim regarding his candidacy as "King's Printer."]

[Now apparently in Richardson's hand; discusses precedents:]  "Lord Hale said that Christianity is parcel of the Laws of England. . . ."  "In like manner, it seems to me that the Book of Common Prayer, being annexed and joined to the Act of Uniformity, . . . is part of the Laws of England, to be judicially taken notice of; and that a copy printed by the King's Printer might be produced at the Trial not strictly as evidence, but in the same manner as such a printed copy of any public act may be produced to strengthen the memory of the judge with what he is intended by law already to know."

"If this be so, much trouble would be saved; especially at trials to be had in the Country. . . ."  

If real rhetorical and judicially viable evidence be needed, then the prosecution should be prepared to produce a copy exemplified under the great seal. . . .  Ultimately, Richardson argues for use of just a regular BofCP copy so as to make country prosecution easier and to avoid the tedious precedent.

[NB the date—Hone wouldn't be tried for another 6 months.  Perhaps there was initially a design to bring Hone's case to trial at a time closer to Wooler's.]

to Litchfield from Charles Pearson, 27 June 1817:

Sir:

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of this morning and beg leave respectfully to solicit your attention to a proposition which I take leave with grave deference to make to you in reference to the Case of the Defendant.

It is my intention to bring the legality of a partial selection of the Special Juries from the lists furnished by the Sheriff as __________ by the Master of the Crown office before the further tribunal on the [final?] day of the next term— and as I am much convinced that it is not by means of an incompetent or partial jury—which must in my opinion be the case if the trial of this Defendant should be [brought?] in before the determination of the grand question of the legality of the Special Juries as they are now constituted— I pledge my honor to bring the case fully under the consideration of the Court as early in the next term as counsel can be heard. —and as the _________ of a Conviction of the defendant could not be ________ upon him until the next term—I therefore _____________ that as his liberation would not be productive of any more dangers or inconveniences to the public than with that of Mr Wooler I trust that you will accede to the request of the Defendant and release him to his own recognizances to _________ to      appear to take his trial when called.  The __________ of 7 children of course renders the Defendant anxious to obtain his liberation the better to enable him to provide for himself and them.

[Pearson, a solicitor from the Common Council, had been working with Wooler during his libel trials.  It appears here that he is now interested in Hone's case as well—the letter does not refer to Hone by name, but Hone was the father of seven children and he was released from prison just a few days after the date of this appeal.]

[Clerk's hand] Mr Attorney General will be pleased to peruse Mr Richardson's opinion herewith left respecting the Evidence in this case.

The difficulty of producing the exemplified copies of the Book of Common Prayer at the Assizes is not likely to be so great as anticipated by Mr Richardson.  The County Prosecutions for the Political Litany are in the Counties of Hants Stafford Chester Lincoln and Lancaster and it has been ascertained that the Chapters of Winchester Lichfield Lincoln and Carlisle are in possession of the exemplified Copies.

[in Shepherd's hand]  I think the safest mode of proceeeding will be to produce the copy exemplified under the great seal for there can be no question but that will be evidence by the 28 section of 13 & 14 Car 2nd Ch A—which directs that the copies so exemplified may be produced and shewed forth in any Court as need shall require.

S. Shepherd

June 30, 1817

A formal note in secretarial hand acknowledging that Hone had claimed he had nothing to do with the republication of The Political Litany, The Sinecurist's Creed, and The Late John Wilkes's Catechism.  Then 

". . .the accompanying copies of these publications have by Lord Sidmouth's directions been purchased of Mr Richard Carlisle [sic] the Publisher at no. 103 Fleet Street to be submitted for the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General thereon. . . "

[Then, in Shepherd's hand]  The attorneys recommend filing informations against Carlisle [sic] "as they can only be filed as of the next term."  Also, they say that "an affidavit of the publication should be made and of the intention to file an information as soon as it can be done and that upon such Affadavit an application should be made to one of the learned Judges of the Court of King's Bench to apprehend the publisher and compel him to give bail under the [40 ?] Geo 3rd c. 58."

S. Shepherd

R. Gifford

Serjeants Inn  Aug. 14 1817

[These matters apparently involve the pirated republication of Hone's parodies by Richard Carlile in August of 1817.  Hone—perhaps because of the legal proceedings against him or perhaps simply through a personal dislike of Carlile—sought to distance himself as much as possible from the Carlile issue.  Carlile, incidentally, was arrested on Ex Officio Informations in August and held in prison until shortly after Hone's acquittals.] 

[These matters apparently involve the pirated republication of Hone's parodies by Richard Carlile in August of 1817.  Hone—perhaps because of the legal proceedings against him or perhaps simply through a personal dislike of Carlile—sought to distance himself as much as possible from the Carlile issue.  Carlile, incidentally, was arrested on Ex Officio Informations in August and held in prison until shortly after Hone's acquittals.] 

Three virtually identical, undated notes from J. Richardson.  Each names one of Hone's parodies, and then requests: "Please to move for a Peremptory Rule to Plead."  At bottom, it says "Dealtry & Barlow."

Three more notes from Richardson, one for each Hone parody: "Please to move for a Special Jury."

to Hone and [Charles] Pearson from Litchfield,  22 Nov. 1817

After some introductory material identifying each case and each specific parody, Litchfield gets to the point:

"Take notice that the Issue joined in this Prosecution will be tried at the sitting of Nisi Prius to be holden after this Term in and for the City of London by adjournment."

Letter from Hone to Shepherd in response to the above,  23 November 1817.

Sir

Last night I was served with Rules for nominating Juries and notices of Trial for the Sittings after Term on the three Informations filed against me for the Parodies.

I confess I was much surprised at this because after the waiver of the Juries and my liberation on my own Recognizance, I did not expect further proceedings.  It has occurred to me that these measures, in the multiplicity of business, may have escaped your notice—for I can scarcely imagine that I should continue to attract the attention of a public officer on account of Publications of which I have not sold a single copy within the last nine months.

As it would be extreme hardihood in me, with a very large Family and wholly inadequate means, to court a contest with the purse and power of the Crown, so I should feel no less pleasure in being indebted to your liberality for putting an end to the Prosecutions—in that case I pledge myself not to reissue the Publications, and indeed the entire quatity in my possession may be disposed of as you direct.

I might enhance on my having suspended their sale nearly three months before the Informations were filed—on my never having resumed it—on my two months' confinement in the King's Bench Prison—on consequent estrangement of connexion, and domestic suffering during that period.

I forbear to say more than that the appointment of the Master of the Crown Office to nominate the Juries is for the day after tomorrow (Tuesday)—I am already indebted to you for the politeness of something more than a mere acknowledgment of a former communication, and I persuade myself that I may be obliged by a line, in the course of Tomorrow, (Monday) which favour, in my unexpected, unadvised, and wholly unprepared situation, I take the liberty of soliciting, and anxiously await.

--------------

[note on 97a, where one would expect to see an address]:  

"Delivered to me by Mr Atty Genl  24th Novr.   Wrote to Mr Hone thereon same day."  [Appears to be in Shepherd's hand].

A cryptic, suggestive little note, perhaps to Shepherd, regarding jury packing apparently:

My dear Sir:

Most willingly & most heartily would I do what you require, if I could but I really cannot point out any general quarter of information.  I should think Rivingtons might give useful information; a better than Joshua Watson you could not have selected.  Of individual persons, you could have two better that John Paterson of Old Broad St. and Wm Soltan of St. Helen's Place.

Jas Gibson is a capital Juryman in civil matters; but he is a Presbyterian, or rather an Unitarian.

Pray, burn this

Yours ever faithfully

J. A. Park

Title on 101a: "Rex vs. Hone: Note of what passed at the nomination of the Hone Special Juries on 25th Nov. 1817"

Persons present: Mr Pearson, Mr Dickson, his _____, ______ ________, Mr Litchfield, Mr Dealtry, Barlow, & Lushington, and a young man from the Sheriff's office with the Book, & myself [George Maule]. . . .

Mr Pearson objected to the Masters proceeding to nominate that the Rule had been satisfied by the former nominations, and that an application ought to have been made to the Court to [________ they domain?]

Mr Litchfield enquired whether he waived the former nominations or not, to which he answered that he considered it as a ___________ and did not consent to its being waived.

I said from his note of this month I had not expected his attendance otherwise should have brought copies of his brief, but that speaking from memory I recollected that yt Deft had made a protest to the Master against the former nominations as illegal, and that Mr Litchfield had ______ in a brief address to Mr P to waive that nomination and that he should proceed to apply to the Master for a new appointment, and that Mr P had never dissented therefrom.

I sent for the Masters Book and afterward, when the Master had finished nominating the 2nd Jury, shewed him the letter.*

* [in margin next to the above:] I believe it was after the 2nd Jury tho' I have not a distinct recollection that it ws then or when the three remaining were recorded.

The Master said he thought there had been a virtual consent to waive nominations under the former appointment and he should proceed.

Mr P still maintained that it was not [competent?] to Mr Litchfield to waive the former appointments.

The Master then proceeded with his pen in his usual way — almost immediately after Mr P said he supposed it would be of no use but still protested against the selection which the Master adopted professing to name the person on whom his pen alighted and yet not naming him but some other.

The Master answered that he had never professed any such thing and Mr P well knew that, and that he only professed to take a person described as Mercht who was nearest to his pen.

Soon after Mr P said that the Master had declined taking John [Thomas?] Wood Mercht tho' his pen fell on him.

I was not near enough to see whether his pen did so fall, but I sat to Mr P that _______ the Master nad not uttered the name or a word about [J. Thomas?]   After having named Geo Harding [?] the Master said as there was so much cavil raised by his using the pen, he should lay it aside, and did so, and proceeded to nominate out of the book without any pen and so continue to do during the nomination of all the three juries.*

*[in margin next to paragraph above:] Mr Pearson here required the Master to state upon what principle of selection he _______ to proceed.  The Master answered that he should proceed to nominate as he thought proper without stating any thing farther.

 

N. B. This note added the next morning, Nov 26th

I stood part of the time on the Masters left hand and he asked me to read a name which appeared to be Elyand but I could not read it distinctly and asked the others who stood by and they not agreeing in the name.  The Master said He could not take it but would take the next.

Mr P left the room before the nomination of the first jury was concluded.

-------------------------

N.B. I wrote this [-----fully] from the rough notes (page 1) taken at the time, so soon as I returned to my chambers from the Crown Office at about 11 oclock p.m.

G.M. [George Maule]

Mr Litchfield went away about immediately upon the Masters beginning to nominate the first jury.

[George Maule was "Assistant Solicitor" at Treasury from 2 July 1817 until 1 January 1818 when he became Solicitor upon Litchfield's departure.]

from Hone to Litchfield, Nov. 26, 1817

In the King's Bench

Take notice that I intend personally to move the Court of Kings Bench Tomorrow for a Rule to show cause why the Juries nominated last night to my Issues in these Prosecutions should not be set aside on the ground of such Juries having been illegally unjustly and partially nominated.  Dated this 26th day of November 1817.

November 27, 1817.  Depositions (announced in letter above) from Hone, John Elvin Dickson of Hanway Street (Middx, Gentleman), and William MacDonald, Old Bailey, Laborer.

In his deposition, Hone claims that . . . the Special Juries had been "nominated from a Book or list imperfectly and illegally constructed" in a selection process taken on 19 November.  He protested to Litchfield who, he says, consented to waive the jurors nominated on that day and to set up a different day on which to select jurors afresh.  This happened on Nov. 25 and Mr Dickson was present as a witness.

Dickson said that the Master would insert his pen between the leaves of a book "purporting to Contain a list of the names of all persons qualified to serve on juries within the said city."  At one point, says Dickson, the pen fell on the name of John Moxon of St. Martin's Lane, Cannon St., Wool Merchant.  The Master paused, then directed Mr. Barlow (the secondary of the Crown Office) and Mr Dealtry (cleark of the Rules of the Crown Office) to write down the name of William Webb, Miles's Lane, Eastside, Wine Merchant.

An "altercation" immediately erupted as the Wool merchant Moxon also would seem to fit into the correct juror category [being himself a merchant].  Maule and Litchfield noted down the name of the passed-over Moxon.

Soon thereafter—according to both Hone and Dickson—the Master laid down his pen and said "that he should proceed to nominate the Juries as he thought proper. . . ."  At this point the Master began to go through the book, occasionally naming a name—his "skimming over the leaves was by no means done in an apparent hurry and with a view to make in indifferent selection of names but that the said Master in making his said selection in a variety of instances chose more than one name and in one instance four names without turning over a leaf. . . ."

Also the depositions record a technical objection about the Sheriff's absence at jury selection—MacDonald deposes that he delivered Hone's notice (above) to Litchfield.

Hone to Shepherd, 15 Dec. 1817

"It being my intention to defend myself upon the Trial of the Informations against me I shall be obliged by you acquainting me as soon as possible with your intention as to which you will take first—if it be convenient to communicate this by the bearer and to apprise me about what day it will come on the favour will be the greater."

to George Maule, 17 Dec. 1817.  

[The note is in a bad and hurried hand making it difficult to be certain of the exact wording; the context would suggest that the writer has been investigating the jurymen for Hone's trials.]

My Dear Sir

I am this instant returned to town, and am sorry to say I return you the list with very few observations  I spent all Saturday in [Aldgate?] and could get little or no information _________ I in Bread Street at all;  All the names seem to be little known as men but more particularly as to their Politics.

W Gurty  [?? illegible really]

George Maule to Richardson, with Richardson's reply at end.  17 Dec. 1817.

Maule sends along an "agreement" (following)

"The witness James Bevans if he can be found which is doubtful is a Quaker, and therefore I apprehend will not be competent."  Bevans can't be put under oath, he's a close friend of Hone's, etc.

"It will be useless to give Hone notice to produce his part [of the 'agreement'] because it is unstamped and would not be evidence upon the production. . . ."  Maule considers asking Hone to produce receipt for last 6 months' rent.

[The issue in all these dealings appears to be that the prosecution fears they will have to prove that Hone was responsible for selling the pamphlets at 55 Fleet St., even though he had another shop in the Old Bailey.]

Richardson writes back recommending that the prosecution get a copy of the agreement, get Bevans, get Hutchings...in other words, get every bit of potential documentation possible to prove that Hone was indeed a bookseller at Fleet Street.

"Memorandum of Agreement" made 13 Dec. 1814, between Henry Hutchings, 448 Strand, Baker, and William Hone of Old Bailey.

Hutchings leases to Hone the "Small shop" at 55 Fleet Street, and a house, #1 Lombard Court.   ". . . assigns for the Term of thirteen years from Christmas 1814 wanting three days when the said William Hone . . . what require the same and the said Henry Hutchings agrees to give possession of the said premises . . . on the 19th instant."

Hone's rent on the properties: £65/year, payable quarterly.

Also, Hone was to pay Hutchings £28.15.00 "on receiving possession of the premises for the fixtures in the inventory appraised to . . . Hutchings by john Mead and Richard King (14 Nov. 1814)."

The whole agreement—in WH's hand, by the way—is witnessed by James Bevans, 8 Bunhill Row.

Brief for the crown's case against the "Sinecurist's Creed"; this one has a few, very sketchy notes from the trial on the back.

Brief for the crown's case against the "Late John Wilkes's Catechism"; this one too has some few trial notes.  The notes stress the sanctity of the Lord's Prayer, the 10 Commandments, &c.—much emphasis on the statement that "Christianity is parcel of the laws of England — 27 & 28 Car 2nd."

Hutchings' statement regarding Hone's lease (listed as "additional papers" for the trial):

* Hutchings bought the lease of 55 Fleet Street from Mr. Dowdney "about three years ago."

* The Defendant paid his rent from Christmas 1814 until last midsummer.

* Defendant lived in the house with his family "until the time they moved into the Old Bailey but the little shop was kept open after that. . . ."

* Defendant did not give up key until 10 days after midsummer.  "Witness went several times to him in the King's Bench for the rent and the Defendant said he would pay but that witness must wait — At last Witness went to get the Key and Defendant at first refused to give the Key but he gave it up to Witness after he came out of the Bench about a week or 10 days after midsummer.  At that time Defendant paid the last half years rent up to that midsummer.  . . . The House [1 Lombard Court] is in St. Brides and the little Shop in St. Dunstans.

A collection of notes, apparently made at the trial of the catechism, by the prosecution.  Nothing unusual here—most appears in the trial itself.  At one point a double-underlined

To Ridicule the Trinity