Parry v. HuntThe TimesAnonymous Markup and editing by David Hill Radcliffe Completed August 2009 Times.1827.Parry Center for Applied Technologies in the Humanities Virginia Tech
Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
License
Lord Byron and his Times: http://lordbyron.org
Parry v. HuntThe TimesLondon15 June 182713,306
Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed.
Obvious and unambiguous compositors’ errors have been silently corrected.
NINES categories for Genre and Material Form at
http://www.performantsoftware.com/nines_wiki/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Cnines:genre.3E on
2009-02-26BibliographyBook HistoryCollectionCriticismDramaEphemeraFictionHumorLawLettersLife WritingHistoryManuscriptNonfictionPeriodicalPoliticsReference WorksPoetryReligionReviewTranslationTravel
The Times.
Number 13,306.LONDON, FRIDAY, June 15, 1827.Price 7d.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, JUNE 14. PARRY V. HUNT.
Mr. D. F. Jones opened the pleadings. The declaration charged the defendant
with having printed, in the Examiner newspaper, of which he was the proprietor, a false, malicious, and
defamatory libel on the character of the plaintiff. The
defendant pleaded—first, that he was not
guilty, upon which issue was joined; he then pleaded also special please, in justification of
the alleged libel.
Mr. Serjeant Taddy stated the
case. The question the jury would have to decide would be, what damages they should think
proper to give Mr. Parry, who was a gentleman who had
published a work entitled “The Last Days of
Lord Byron,” and which was most certainly in his (Mr. Sergeant
Taddy’s) opinion, a very entertaining book—for a libel which had
been published by the defendant in the Examiner. What could have induced Mr.
Hunt to have acted in the manner he had done, he was at a total loss to say, nor
could he conceive any excuse for the gross, brutal, and offensive matter he had published; but
a more disgusting attempt to confirm, to fix, and to give additional force and sting to a
libel, had never before been made the subject of an action at law. Mr.
Parry was formerly employed in the dock-yards as a ship-builder, and was induced
to give up his situation there to go to Greece at the solicitation of a gentlemen of the Greek
committee. He accordingly went out to that country in the capacity of an engineer, and when he
arrived he was introduced to Lord Byron, in whose house he
continued to live. This nobleman gave him authority to act over some of the military and
mechanics whom he had raised and supported with a view to the benefit and service of Greece,
whose cause he had espoused. While he was employed in this manner, still living with
Lord Byron, the plaintiff collected that information which he had
embodied in the book he had published. It was as the author of this work that he had been
libelled by the defendant, at two different times. The learned Sergeant would read these
libels, and when the jury had heard them, they would see that one of Mr.
Hunt’s objects was to make an attack on The Times, but in so doing he did not scruple
to attack the plaintiff, either as an author or an individual. An editor of a newspaper might
at times a little exceed his proper bounds, from a provocation he might have received from
another editor; but here there was nothing of the kind, no provocation had been given, nor
could the parts complained of be considered as criticisms. The plaintiff was held up as a
worthless creature, ignorant in the extreme, and even incapable of writing ten lines of his
native language, and was termed a bully, a drunkard, a sot, and a poltroon; in fact, was
attacked in every form in which slander could be applied to a man as an author or a man.
Mr. Parry never gave the slightest provocation to have called them
forth. Ignorant, therefore, of having given any offence, he now demanded very serious damages
from the hands of the jury for the very serious injury his character had sustained.
The learned Sergeant now read the first libel: it was in the Examiner of the 2d of May, 1825, and was
in the following words:—
“The
Times has thought proper, in its strange anxiety to depreciate the
character of Mr. Bentham, to notice with praise the very
contemptible production of a very contemptible fellow—one Parry, lately a caulker, but now calling himself a Major, and who had
unfortunately prevailed upon the Greek Committee to send him out to Greece as an engineer.
This exceedingly ignorant, boasting, bullying, and drunken individual, it seems, while
engaged in the cause of the Greeks, got introduced to Mr.
Bentham’s table, an honour which the late estimable Sir Samuel Romilly, and other similar spirits, have always
duly appreciated. Taking advantage of this unexpected condescension, the worthless creature
in question, in order, we suppose, to get something that he thought would sell, has
published various details (of no sort of interest however) respecting Mr.
Bentham’s habits; such, for instance, as that he dines at 10
o’clock at night; that he runs rather than walks for health, &c., accompanying
them with remarks designed to throw ridicule upon his excellent and enlightened host. We
should not have noticed such wretched stuff, had not the Times given it currency, spoken of the low-minded author,
who cannot write ten lines of English, with commendation, and made a very flippant and
foolish remark upon it. The reputation of Mr. Bentham cannot be
lowered by the writers in the Times; but
such doings excite great disgust in many quarters; and the Times may be assured, that, ere long, it will have ample
reason to regret the unjust and unhandsome course which it so very frequently
adopts.”
This was the first libel: the next was in an editorial remark on a letter
published in the Examiner,
purportedly to be from Mr. Stanhope to Mr. Parry, on the subject of the work he had published. The
following were the words:—
“This man was a calker in the dock-yards, and is (not to
repeat the worst of him) a slanderer, a bully, a sot, and a poltroon. Who wrote the book to
which he has prefixed his name, we cannot say, but he himself cannot write ten words of
English.”—Examiner .
This appeared in a number of the Examiner dated April 2, 1826: so it would be seen this
remark was not made from any hasty feeling of hostility to the plaintiff, for after the
space of a year, during which he had time to consider of what he had previously done,
having vilified the plaintiff in every way he possibly could, he renewed his attack on him,
and he repeated his former assertion that he was unable to write ten lines of English. Not
content, however with injuring his reputation as a writer, he attacked his private
character, and at once declared him to be a bully, a sot, a coward, and a poltroon. What
more injurious could be said of an author than that he could not write ten lines of his own
language; or of an individual, than that he was a poltroon, bully, sot, and drunkard? This
was the light, however, in which Mr. Hunt had thought
proper to introduce Mr. Parry to the public.
Taking advantage of the law on this point, he now thought proper to justify his assertions, by
attempting to prove their truth. He intended to prove, as appeared by his pleas of
justification, that the plaintiff was a sot and a drunkard while he was living in London; and a
bully, a boaster, and poltroon while in Greece. He meant to show he was a boaster from a plan
he had suggested to take and destroy the whole Turkish fleet, and a proposal to burn Lepanto by
means of a fire kite. In further proof that he was a boaster, they intended to select some
passages from the work he had published. In one of these passages the plaintiff had said, after
having stated that he was living with Lord Byron, and that
that distinguished nobleman had a very good opinion of him, and had proposed to appoint him to
the command of a brigade of artillery, he added that certainly there appeared to him to be no
other person in the country so well adapted to fill this post as himself; no one else having so
good a knowledge of the duty that would be required. He then went on to state, that he had
actually been appointed a fire-master in the regular army, but that some German officers
considering him of a low origin, had refused to serve under him. It was also on such grounds as
these that the defence was founded to this malicious libel, which had proved so injurious to
the plaintiff, not only from the diminution of the sale of his work, but in some other
transactions to which he was engaged. It appeared that about the time the latter libel was
published, the plaintiff had entered into an engagement with Captain Ramsay to go out with him to Buenos Ayres, where he was to fill a
situation, for which he would receive 400l. a year. When
Captain Ramsay, however, saw the paragraph so defamatory of the
plaintiff, he refused to employ him, and the plaintiff had consequently been seriously
disappointed in his future prospects. His learned friend in the defence would, no doubt,
attempt to hold the whole up as a very ridiculous affair, and try to throw the contempt and
derision of the Court on the plaintiff; but let the jury beware how they indulged in a laugh,
for every smile would be an additional sting to the plaintiff, and, probably, injurious
to his case; let them consider how they would feel had they been spoken of as he had been, and
then let them give such damages as they would themselves expect as a compensation for the
injury they would think they had sustained. He would now call his witnesses, and would then
leave the case in their hands, not doubting they would do that justice to the plaintiff which
he was entitled to and expected to receive from them.
The publication and proprietorship of the paper were admitted.
The libels were then put in and read by Mr. Knapp, the associate, and the following witnesses
called.
Captain Robert Ramsay.—I am a captain in the Royal
Navy, and was authorized by the Government of Buenos Ayres to organize a small navy for them.
Mr. Parry was recommended to me by a friend.
Mr. Hullett is Consul-General of Buenos Ayres; and
it was in consequence of his recommendation that I saw Mr. Parry. I
entered into an engagement with him, which I afterwards broke off. It was in consequence of
seeing a paragraph in the Examiner, which I had no sooner seen than I broke off the engagement.
Mr. Parry was to have received 400l. a year.
Cross-examined.—Had the negotiation gone on between me and Buenos Ayres,
it is probable I should have taken Mr. Parry out; but in
consequence of the Brazilian war, the British Government forbade their officers to go out. I
wished to serve the Government of Buenos Ayres, and communicated that wish to my own
Government, who sanctioned it, but the Brazilian war breaking out, it fell to the ground.
Re-examined.—This is the letter I wrote to Mr. Parry. It is dated the 3d of April, 1826, and was sent to inform
Mr. Parry, that he should decline engaging him, in consequence of the
paragraph he had seen in the Examiner. The prohibition of the British Government did not actually occur
until four or five months after I broke off with Mr. Parry.
By the Court—I engaged no other person, nor was there sufficient time to
have done so. If I had engaged Mr. Parry, as events turned out, he would
have received no salary. Previous to seeing the Examiner, I had confided no original papers relating to the
affairs of Buenos Ayres into his custody.
The letter written by Captain Ramsay to
Mr. Parry was then put in and read, which, with the
evidence of the Captain himself, constituted the plaintiff’s case.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde addressed the jury for the defendant. He should certainly be sorry that any account
of his “last days” should fall into the hands of such a person as he who had
fabricated the matter which he had published in the book which had been so frequently alluded
to by his learned friend, at whose opening he (Mr. Sergeant Wide) had been
a little amazed. He had there accounted in some measure for the manner in which he disposed of
his own time, by declaring that he had derived much pleasure from the perusal of the work of
which the plaintiff stated himself to be the author. His learned friend, stating what was the
nature of that defence, had read certain passages from the work, but he had not continued to
read them through,—he had stopped at those places where to go on he thought might not
prove beneficial to the credit of his client. He had read only that relative to the burning of
Lepanto by a fire-kite, by the mention of which he had hoped to have blown up the
defendant’s case. What his friend had omitted, however, the learned sergeant felt it his
duty to fill up, and that for the sake of increasing the sale of the book; after which he would
give some account of Mr. Parry. It was stated that the object of the
attack on that gentleman by Mr. Hunt was to take an
opportunity to remark on another public journal of the greatest eminence, which had mentioned
Mr. Parry, with the name of another individual, whose name would never
be mentioned but with the greatest respect and veneration,—he meant Mr. Bentham, whom the plaintiff, in his work, had held up as an
object of ridicule. Indeed, the learned sergeant would show, by the extracts he would make from
the “Last Days of Lord
Byron,” that the plaintiff was himself a slanderer, not only of the
noble lord whose memoirs he professed to write, but of many other distinguished characters;
among whom would be found the Hon. Colonel Stanhope, whom
he had spoken of as a deserter from the cause he had espoused, in conjunction with many others.
The learned sergeant then went on to make very copious quotations from the work, which he
contended were slanderous and libellous to the characters of those spoken of. He contended also
that the plaintiff could not, in fact, be the author of that work himself, it being written in
a style far superior to any thing he could have produced, being, indeed, as had been said of
him by the defendant, a most ignorant and illiterate man. There were, however, some passages
which he allowed might have been from the pen of the plaintiff, which was a proof that he had
certainly lent some aid in some passages which were written more broadly or in a more vulgar
strain, than the other parts. These he did not wish to deny were the production of the
plaintiff. These quotations, and the comments made on them, occupied the learned sergeant a
long time, and he concluded by informing the jury that he would call witnesses who would prove
the truth of all the assertions that had been made respecting him; and when he had done so, at
any rate, he should be able to prove so much as would act very considerably in mitigation of
those damages that they might otherwise have felt it their duty to give.
The following witnesses were then called:—
Robert Laycock.—I was one of the mechanics who
went out to Greece in 1823. I knew Parry. He went out
with us; he was a journeyman shipwright. He frequently drank a little brandy on the voyage, and
was constantly drunk, very seldom going to bed sober. He was in the habit of drinking “by
word of mouth,” which is taking the bottle to hand, and drinking without a glass. This
mode he frequently adopted. He talked of very surprising things that he would do. He would
destroy the Turkish fleet 18 or 20 miles off. He has spoken also of a fire-kite, and said he
would destroy Lepanto with one. Mr. Rogers frequently complained of him
for the bad example he set to the persons under him. He was in the habit of speaking of
America, and said he had been to Rio Janeiro. When he spoke of this he was more than half seas
over. (A laugh.) He had mechanics under him to which he was very civil during the passage, and
was very different when he arrived in Greece, where instead of putting them in a place of
security, he neglected them, and said, if they did not obey his orders he would order out some
troops and have them shot. He was frequently abusive to them, saying he would he would send
them to hell. He was often drunk when in Greece, and said he could make Congreve rockets better
than any man in England, and that Colonel Congreve had
received a remuneration from Government for improvements that he had suggested. He told me,
that if I meant to insinuate any thing to Lord Byron about
Fletcher, it would be of no use, as Lord
Byron could place no confidence in him. I don’t know whether it was true,
that Fletcher took his master’s spirits to treat me. Speaking of
Colonel Stanhope, he said they might as well have sent
out an old woman from the workhouse, as he, and called him a d—d ass. This was at the
place where Lord Byron was living. Lord Byron died in
February, 1824. I remember the circumstance of a Turkish brig lying off Ithaca; no preparations
were made for attacking her; I was off Ithaca in the Ann.Parry was with us. He said we need not be
alarmed, for he did not think they were coming after us. He was not the commander of the Ann. I remember a Turkish
brig coming a-ground off Missolonghi. We were then all in that place. I heard that
Parry was applied to on that occasion to lend his assistance. He
was at Lord Byron’s house. Several of us were ordered by him to
go in a couple of boats, with guns, to attack the brig. Parry did not
go with us; was to come round by land with some Greek soldiers. He did not come round. He
said he would come to our assistance when he sent us out. He had a blue coat on, but I do
not know whether he was shaved or not.
Cross-examined.—We had no guns on board the Ann; she was not made for fighting. When we saw the Turkish
brig, she had two guns mounted, they were the only means of defence we had. There were other
guns not mounted, stowed away in the hold, for the Greeks. The Ann was a merchant-vessel, the Turk appeared to be a brig of
war of about ten guns. Captain Longly had command of the Ann; he had a mate named Martin
under him. They were the only officers. It was after we left the Land’s-end that we got
the brandy. I took some. I did not think it would do me any harm. When in Greece I drank with
Fletcher, sometimes wine, lemonade, coffee, rum and
water, and occasionally brandy, but this latter was not so plentiful as aboard the brig. I do
not know that these were Lord Byron’s property. We
sometimes drank it in his house.
Re-examined.—The Ann was
prepared to defend herself from pirates, previous to coming to Ithaca. I remember Mr. Parry hurting his finger on this island, in a fight with a
man named Grubb. I believe the finger was broken. When he came on board he
was almost tipsy, and kept hollowing out, “Oh, my finger! Oh, my finger!
William Fletcher—I was in the service of the late
Lord Byron upwards of 20 years, and was with him up to
the time of his death. I now receive a pension from his family for my services. I first saw
Parry at Greece, at Missollonghi. He lived in the
same house with Lord Byron. I was not much in the habit of seeing him, and
had not an opportunity of knowing whether he was drunk, more than I heard from report. He
sometimes appeared the worse for liquor. I have seen him in Lord
Byron’s company; he generally called him Captain
Parry. I have heard Parry speak of Colonel Stanhope. Some men were sent to attack a Turkish brig off Missolonghi.
Parry came home to his house on that occasion, and did not get out
again, but said he wanted to shave and dress. This was early in the evening, and it was a
considerable time before he came down again. He went into his room at the back of the house. I
don’t know where he went when he had shaved. The brig was afterwards in flames.
Parry was sent to, and discovered to be asleep. I did not see him go
out before the brig was in flames. I have seen Parry once since my return
to England. Since I have been subpœnaed here as a witness, I have seen him frequently.
Having been here in attendance a long time, and feeling a want for something to eat, I went to
get some bread and cheese. Zambelli was with me, and
Parry came in, and was very polite to us. I do not know whether the
word rogue was used. Parry addressed himself to me, but I do not recollect
the words he made use of; they were meant to imply that he had always been my friend.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Parry never
made an attempt to influence my evidence. I am not a sufficient judge to tell whether he acted
in a cowardly manner. The Turkish brig was set on fire by its own crew. I believe
Parry went into the room in which he usually dressed. He had the
command of a brigade, composed of mechanics from England. I believe he acted as engineer. I
never knew anything dishonourable of Parry. I have not seen him exactly
drunk; but what would be called half and half. He was not always so.
By the Court.—We were certainly surprised that when the brig came on
shore, no measures were taken to secure her. Some of the Greek men went out with some of the
brigade of mechanics, but the plaintiff went to dress. The brig was aground. I have not drunk
with Parry this morning. I paid for what we drank.
— Zambelli, a Hungarian.—I
lived in the service of Lord Byron at Missolonghi, and had
the care of liquors and provisions in his house. I knew Parry at Missolonghi, and have twice known him absolutely intoxicated. He was,
on those occasions, asleep with the bottle by his side lying on the floor, and Lord
Byron called to me to take him away. Those are the only times when I have known
him affected by liquor. I cannot say how many bottles he drank on those occasions. I recollect
a Turkish brig being on shore when Parry came into the house and went up
stairs. He did not go out of the house again that day. The brig was not burning before he came
into the house. It was burned while he was in the house.
Cross-examined.—It was in flames about six or seven hours after Parry came into the house. During that time he remained in his
room, and did not come out. It was 11 o’clock when the brig was on fire. Lord Byron sometimes called him Parry, at
others Captain Parry, and latterly Major. While Parry
was in the house I heard no person calling out. Individuals, the proprietors of small
fishing-boats on the coast, came to desire Captain Parry’s
attendance on account of the vessel that was on shore. That was after Captain
Parry had come into the house. They saw him, and he said, “Stop,
stop.” He did not go out after this until the brig was burned.
Colonel Stanhope.—I am a Lieutenant-Colonel in the
army. I went out to Greece, and saw Parry there; he
lived in my room, and ate his meals at my table. He was in the habit of drinking to excess. He
was a sot, and a boaster, and frequently spoke of making Congreve rockets, in which, he said,
he had made an improvement, of which Colonel Congreve
had taken the merit. He said he would take Lepanto by a fire-kite, and destroy the Turkish
fleet. He never carried any of his plans into execution. I have read the Last Days of Lord
Byron. Parry is not capable of writing such a work.
He is a man of a strong natural mind, but uneducated. He does not speak grammatically correct.
He frequently spoke of his great science as an engineer. I saw the brig on shore, and was
there. The brig was on shore four or five miles from Missolonghi, and the Greek officers
applied to Lord Byron and myself to lend assistance; we
despatched artillery and the greater part of the soldiers and townspeople immediately proceeded
there; we were for some time under the bombardment of this vessel. After having been stranded
for two days, and seeing the impossibility of getting her off, her crew set her on fire, and
escaped in their boats to another Turkish vessel which had been hovering in the offing.
Parry never made his appearance all the time. Lord
Byron treated him as a fool, a buffoon—not as one of these fools that have
so often graced the tables of the great. Parry called Lord
ByronHal, and
he called him Falstaff.
Cross-examined.—Captain Parry has
naturally a strong mind. I do not know that he has built several steam-boats. I had some
differences with Lord Byron previous to his death, nor did I
ever know a person with whom I was acquainted with whom I had not differed on some points. A
difference arose between Lord Byron and myself, principally, on the
subject of the application of a free press in Greece. I was an advocate for a free press, and
so was Lord Byron at times. Parry was nominally in
command of a portion of the forces I commanded myself. There were also German officers in
command. I was at Missolonghi about six weeks or two months after Parry
came there. During that time he was in the habit of drinking to excess whenever he could get
liquor. I never saw him in such a state as described by the witness who preceded me.
Re-examined.—When the brig was on shore, some of the men were there who
had been disciplined by Parry. I should conceive that
Parry should have been there. He was at the head of the laboratory,
and he might be right in remaining there till the stores were given out. He was, however, in
the house, and at neither of his posts. The brig frequently fired so as to endanger those on
shore. If Parry had been a good engineer, his attendance would have been
of great importance.
By a Juror.—He was for a time called Major, to gratify his vanity; but it
was merely nominal. He was allowed by Lord Byron to act as a
Major, and wore a sort of uniform.
By the Court.—The title of Major was given him
by the Greek Government.
Martha Gill.—I am a widow; my husband went to Greece at the same time with Parry, whom I knew before he went out: he was a shipwright, and has informed me
that he worked as such; that was his employ until he left the country. I have seen him affected
by liquor.
Cross-examined.—I have not been taking notes to-day.
By the Court.—I never knew him do the work of a calker. I believe
journeymen shipwrights do the work of calking, but do not know it of my own knowledge.
Mr. Bowring.—I acted as Secretary to the Greek
Committee. Parry was recalled by a vote of the committee
of the 3d of July. I should consider him incapable of writing such a book without some
assistance. I have not seen him in a state of actual drunkenness, but when he has drunk rather
too much. After his return, he showed me the materials from which this work was formed, but I
did not look them over. I should think them, however, insufficient to have made the book.
Mr. Knight.—This book was published by Knight and
Lacy. I am not of that house. Parry applied to me early in 1825. He was announced as
Captain Parry, and I fully expected to have seen that Captain Parry who had been so frequently towards the North
Pole. He, however, undeceived me, and said he came from Greece, and that he wished to publish
something relative to Lord Byron. Having said this, he left
a portfolio for my perusal, and we had no further conversation at the time. In a few days he
called again, and I returned the papers. They consisted of a few official documents, containing
technical particulars, terms of war, and estimates of ammunition, and several Greek newspapers,
with a few sheets, purporting to be the journal of Captain Parry. They
amounted altogether to about 40 or 50 folios. I have read the book which he has published, and
towards the end, in the appendix, there are some expressions similar to those I saw in the
papers he brought to me. The body of the book does not contain a line of what was in those
papers. If he were the writer of the journal put into my hands, he could not be the author of
this book. My interview with him was very short; but from what I saw of him, and from his
conversation, I should not think him capable of writing this book.
Cross-examined.—My interview with him lasted only about 10 or 12 minutes.
By the Court.—I do not remember having observed any errors in the
orthography of the journal.
Mr. Lacy.—I am a partner in the house of Knight
and Lacy. We published this book for Mr. Parry. He said
he had received some assistance in the arrangement of the work from another gentleman.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde thought this evidence was sufficient to show, that the plaintiff was a sot, a
drunkard, and a poltroon. The witnesses had stated him to be frequently drunk, and it appeared
that in spite of all his boasting, he was afraid to show himself when his services were
required.
The passages from the work which had been read by the learned serjeant in the
defence were not put in and read.
Mr. Sergeant Taddy called a great many witnesses to contradict the statement given by those for the
defendant with respect to the plaintiff’s drunkenness and want of courage. They had known
him many of them from his earliest years, and all spoke in the highest terms of him in
steadiness and sobriety, and, so far as they were capable of judging, of his courage.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde replied to this, and Mr. Sergeant Taddy to
the whole of the defendant’s case, contending that the pleas of justification had not
been made out.
The Lord Chief Justice summed up, leaving it to the jury to say whether they believed the defendant had
sufficiently justified the assertions he had made use of.
The jury retired for 40 minutes, and returned with a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 50l.
The foreman stated that the grounds on which this verdict was returned were,
that they did not think the justification clearly made out, and on account of the charge of
such profound ignorance.