Still seeking to reform the law, Erskine sent the court records to Charles James Fox and Lord Camden, who, after much effort, passed the Libel Act 1792 (32 Geo.

Following the end of the American War of Independence, British public attention had turned to the need for Parliamentary reform – specifically, the lack of franchise in many towns and the presence of rotten boroughs.

[5] As a result, Thomas FitzMaurice, the brother of the Earl of Shelburne, indicted Shipley for seditious libel, specifically for "publishing a false, scandalous and malicious libel ... to raise seditions and tumults within the kingdom, and to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt, by armed rebellion and violence, to subvert the state and constitution of the nation".

Acting as "the government's chief weapon against criticism",[2] it followed principles laid down in De Libellis Famosis and R v Carr: that seditious libel was a criminal offence, that the intention of the publisher or the truth of the allegations was irrelevant, that mere publication was sufficient for a conviction, and that juries were only allowed to deliver a verdict on whether the material had been published by the defendant, not whether it was libellous.

[2] Because of public disquiet with these principles, Shipley's trial acted as a "test case" for the law of seditious libel; a Society for Constitutional Information was formed by concerned citizens and began raising money to pay for his defence.

With the exception of Mr Justice Wiles, the court unanimously declared that Erskine's arguments were incorrect, and that the jury had no such role; accordingly, his appeal was denied.

[6] Lord Mansfield, giving the main judgment in the case, expressed his concern that Erskine's argument about the law of seditious libel would lead to uncertainty.

Erskine had attempted to pre-empt this objection by arguing that it was the trial judge's duty to direct the jury on the law of seditious libel.

[14] Although the case did not directly lead to legal change, it was nevertheless widely seen as a victory; upon his release Shipley was greeted with fireworks and bonfires, and Erskine was rewarded with the Freedom of the City of Gloucester.

[9] Erskine, however, perceived it differently, and had records of the entire trial printed and sent to Charles James Fox and Lord Camden.