E eighteenth century, while during the Pittite `Terror’ of the 1790s it was directed against radical groups such as the London Corresponding Society. Although the number of indictments trailed off during the early years of the nineteenth century they rose again after 1815.54 Cobbett served two years for Flagecidin supplier seditious libel in 1810 and was forced to flee to America when, in the aftermath of the Spa Fields Riots of 1816, parliament suspended habeas corpus and empowered local magistrates to imprison anyone suspected of publishing or selling seditious material. As a consequence of this campaign, William Hone was arraigned on three separate counts of blasphemy while T. J. Wooler was charged with two counts of seditious libel. Richard Carlile was likewise threatened with prosecutions for seditious libel and blasphemy, eventually serving a six-year prison term.55 However, as Philip Harling has suggested, the law of libel proved to be an ambiguous tool of political repression; its application was sporadic and inconsistent and, in spite of juridical direction, juries generally proved reluctant to reach a simple guilty verdict (i.e. one without `special grounds’) when the alleged libel could be construed as `fair comment’ on the political system.56 Indeed, in radical circles prosecution for libel became a veritable badge of honour and a contributor to Cobbett’s Political Register was only repeating a general maxim when he claimed `the greater the truth the greater the libel’.57 As Smith, Epstein and Gilmartin have demonstrated, indictments for seditious libel could also backfire on the authorities as the trial itself `became a key forum for radical assembly and verbal expression’.58 The defendant, often representing himself, subverted the space of the courtroom, presenting an image of the independent citizen subject to the unequal forces of political oppression. Meanwhile, the conventions of the trial provided an opportunity for the defendant to restate their opinions, turning legal defence into rhetorical and political offence not only for the benefit of their immediate audience but also for the readers of published accounts which would become radical documents themselves.Smith, Politics of Language, op. cit.; McCalman, Radical Underworld, op. cit.; M. Wood, Radical Satire and Print Culture, 1790 ?822 (Oxford, 1994); J. Marsh, Word Crimes: Blasphemy, Culture and Literature in Nineteenth-Century England (Chicago, 1998). 54P. Harling, `The law of libel and the limits of repression’, Historical Journal, XLIV , 1 (2001), 109, Table 1. 55Smith, op. cit.; Gilmartin, op. cit., 115?1; Harling, op. cit. 56 Harling, op. cit., 110. See also M. Lobban, `From seditious libel to unlawful assembly: Peterloo and the changing face of politicalcrime, c.1770 ?820′, ARQ-092 biological activity Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, X , 3 (1990), 307 ?2. 57 Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, 27:9 (4 March 1815), 285. In strictly legal terms, however, the truth of a statement was irrelevant so long as it constituted a breach of the peace. 58 Gilmartin, op. cit., 115 59 ibid., 121 ?3; Smith, op. cit., chap. 5; Epstein, Radical Expression, op. cit., chap. 2 and J. A. Epstein, `”Our real constitution”: trial defence and radical memory in the Age of Revolution’ in Vernon (ed.), Re-reading the Constitution, op. cit.Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.Libel therefore occupied a central place within early nineteenth-century radical culture. Unlike Wooler and Cobbett, of course, Wakley was not subject to criminal prosecu.E eighteenth century, while during the Pittite `Terror’ of the 1790s it was directed against radical groups such as the London Corresponding Society. Although the number of indictments trailed off during the early years of the nineteenth century they rose again after 1815.54 Cobbett served two years for seditious libel in 1810 and was forced to flee to America when, in the aftermath of the Spa Fields Riots of 1816, parliament suspended habeas corpus and empowered local magistrates to imprison anyone suspected of publishing or selling seditious material. As a consequence of this campaign, William Hone was arraigned on three separate counts of blasphemy while T. J. Wooler was charged with two counts of seditious libel. Richard Carlile was likewise threatened with prosecutions for seditious libel and blasphemy, eventually serving a six-year prison term.55 However, as Philip Harling has suggested, the law of libel proved to be an ambiguous tool of political repression; its application was sporadic and inconsistent and, in spite of juridical direction, juries generally proved reluctant to reach a simple guilty verdict (i.e. one without `special grounds’) when the alleged libel could be construed as `fair comment’ on the political system.56 Indeed, in radical circles prosecution for libel became a veritable badge of honour and a contributor to Cobbett’s Political Register was only repeating a general maxim when he claimed `the greater the truth the greater the libel’.57 As Smith, Epstein and Gilmartin have demonstrated, indictments for seditious libel could also backfire on the authorities as the trial itself `became a key forum for radical assembly and verbal expression’.58 The defendant, often representing himself, subverted the space of the courtroom, presenting an image of the independent citizen subject to the unequal forces of political oppression. Meanwhile, the conventions of the trial provided an opportunity for the defendant to restate their opinions, turning legal defence into rhetorical and political offence not only for the benefit of their immediate audience but also for the readers of published accounts which would become radical documents themselves.Smith, Politics of Language, op. cit.; McCalman, Radical Underworld, op. cit.; M. Wood, Radical Satire and Print Culture, 1790 ?822 (Oxford, 1994); J. Marsh, Word Crimes: Blasphemy, Culture and Literature in Nineteenth-Century England (Chicago, 1998). 54P. Harling, `The law of libel and the limits of repression’, Historical Journal, XLIV , 1 (2001), 109, Table 1. 55Smith, op. cit.; Gilmartin, op. cit., 115?1; Harling, op. cit. 56 Harling, op. cit., 110. See also M. Lobban, `From seditious libel to unlawful assembly: Peterloo and the changing face of politicalcrime, c.1770 ?820′, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, X , 3 (1990), 307 ?2. 57 Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, 27:9 (4 March 1815), 285. In strictly legal terms, however, the truth of a statement was irrelevant so long as it constituted a breach of the peace. 58 Gilmartin, op. cit., 115 59 ibid., 121 ?3; Smith, op. cit., chap. 5; Epstein, Radical Expression, op. cit., chap. 2 and J. A. Epstein, `”Our real constitution”: trial defence and radical memory in the Age of Revolution’ in Vernon (ed.), Re-reading the Constitution, op. cit.Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.Libel therefore occupied a central place within early nineteenth-century radical culture. Unlike Wooler and Cobbett, of course, Wakley was not subject to criminal prosecu.