Star. — London, England, 1810-06-16 00:00:00

t h e proper objects of Criminal Infisrmation, intend the lashing the hacks of his Ontit coatrymen ? such misdemeanors as endanger or disturb t lt had been asserted that the Germa n tr oo p s h a d be the are G ov ernment, all other offences ought to go hayed br ave ly at T a l avera—t h at he knew to be the be f or e that twofold shield of freedom, a Grand Jury; contrary of the fact ;he had a letter from an officer of Pro misdemeanor of this nature too , says. , he , ought horse artillery, Lieutenant Frederick Reed, man Of& to see med immediately. Yet this staid a cer high in Government, in the Office of Ordnance, be tir ho l e tw elvemonth before it was brought before in wh ic h i t was asserte d, t h at from the cowardice of a C o urt of Justice. • There was nothing in the pa- the Ge rman L eg i on, some English regiments would per to affront the King. Ifthe information had said, have been cut off if t he twenty-ninth had not come h e had intended so attack. Lord Castlereagh, he to their assistance. This vi as confirmed to him by should admit the fact. The Attorney-General had several officers who had slept at his house at Botley, fosener occasian, that he did not meddle af ter t h e i r arr i va l i n E ng l and. A German o ffi cer, of 'll ten a tet - s for attacking Ministers—this was a mere the name of Landreth, had indeed seized a standard, attack s and every body knew it. The and endeavoured to rally hi s countrymen , b ut i t was f orc ed construction on his words was obvious, he was found impossible. With respect to their conduct in teliculing the measure, and in saying, 66 flog them," quarters, he was himself aisle to form some estimate, h e meant nothing mor e than an-idicule of Lo r d C as - az h e li ve d i n the neighbourhood where they were nereagh's measure. The use made of B ona p arte ' s quartered. But he would first read a d ocumen t, his soldiers, was to make the treatm en t w hi c h wou ld s h ew w h at had been their conduct r2etment of the Local Militia, a warning to Ministers to desist even in Germany. (Mr. Cobbett then read a letter from that mea s ure. Were we never;to complain of f r om t h e A rc hd u k e Ch ar l es , to t h e D u k e o f Bruns addiers b e i n g ill-treated ? If vie were to see a soldier wick Ocls, reprob a ti ng t h e excesses comm i tte d b y hi s flogged t o death, was no tongue, no pen, to mo ve ' corps i n S axony .) — Th ese were the very men now in in i l l s de f enc e ? ,The object was to cause the folly of our pay. On their landing in England they were t h e measure to be done away. A young fellow with ' quartered in the Isle of Wight, where they committed a sm ock frock sentenced to five hundred lashes for every species of brutal excess—from whence they mut iny ; but this was not a mutiny; a squabble about were sent to Ireland, on account of their enormities. a torching guinea : he had told Lind Castlereagh They had even been accused of committing murders. t h at by that measure he had just made these men sol- A landlord, who refused them liquor, had been at tiers eaough to dislike labour, and yet not soldiers tacked by them with swor d s , i n hi s own b ar , i n t h e en ough to cease. to be labourers. He would read most ferocious manner. And the terror of the inha what Lord Grenville had said. bitants of Newport exceeded any thing that had Lord ELLENBORQUON interfered, he thought the i been seen in this country. The Attorney-General reference to Parliament improper. had, therefore, been grossly misinformed on the sub Mr. Cobbett continued—lt was said by Mr. Whit- ject of their bravery and good conduct. Among bead that the treatment of soldiers in the Duke of those men there might be good men, but they could Cumberland's regiment, was as severe as ever, and not have the feelings of Englishmen. There could be even picketting in that regiment, although the prat- no doubt that they would love their own country Lice had been discontinued in every other. But did best, for if a man be born even in Lapland, he would, Mr. Whitbread mean by that to bring his Majesty prefer it, and would they not prefer Germany ? If ;ad his Government into contempt ? Bonaparte were to land, he should fear they would [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL here interfered, and not be likely to be a strong defence for England Lord Erzientonotien said, that the allusion to what They might become the advanced guard of Bonaparte bad passed in Parliament had no proper reference to —the Trojan Horse, with his belly filled with Hano.i the Defendant's defence.] verians instead of Greeks. At Guadaloupe the 60th Mr. CORIIZTT resumed—The man who meant to regiment, we were told, had run away. The depot eecite disaffection in the army would not have taken of that regimgnt was at Lymington, and was filled up such open measures as had been imputed—he would principally with Foreignersand vagabonds taken from have proceeded more secretly and insidiously. He our jails, whence they were shipped off to the 60th would, however, suppose a case, in which a man regiment in the West Indies, where they had an op should be so wicked, or so imprudent, as to pub- portunity of shewing their braveq—by running away. lisp an account which might have a tendency to Under these impressions he had written the article in o • duce incalculable mischief. If, for instanin, when question, and lie trusted the Jury would see that it our shores were threatened with the immediate pre- could arise from no evil intention, but from the irri .nee of the enemy, and our fleet were going off to Cation of his feelings alone. Every advantage he sleet them, a man should say, in any public news- possessed was prospective--all his prospects, his pro laper, that there was a great deficiency, not only of petty, his publication, even the very trees he planted, comforts, but even necessaries, for the use of our a ll d e p en d e d on t h e cont i nuance o f hi s M a j esty ' s Go fleet; at it was deficient of every article that was vernment ; and that, therefore, it was impossible that requisite. Such a publication might be presumed to any man could impute to him an intention so stupid, have been published with an evil intention, although, so absurd, so senseless, as to wish for the overthrow in fact, no such intention might exist. Such a pub- of that Government under which he lived. Nation be would read—[Here Mr. Cobbett read a The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought Mr. Cobbett paragraph from a Newspaper.] For this paragraph would have better consulted his interest, if instead of the late Attorney-General (Sir A. Pigott) had insti- the defence hehad made, he had admitted, as the other tuted a prosecution, which, however, the present Defendants had, that he had published a libel (by Attorney-General had abandoned. For this, he did letting judgment go by default), instead of adding to net mean to cast any reflection on the Attorney-Ge- it by the scandal he had uttered in his defence. He neral, who, he was convinced, had dropped the pro- would tell the Jury why the Defendant had not been secution from a persuasion that there was no evil brought to trial sooner. It had been industriously intention in the mind of the writer. In a late prose- circulated that he, the.Attorney-General, had given cution in that Court (against the Mo rn i ng Chronicle) up the trial, when he had no such intention. It was the Attorney-General had said, that it was not his well known to every professional man, that the de practice to prosecute men for warmth of discussion fendant, living at 40 miles distance from London, had or animadversion on the measures of Government, it in his power to protract the trial, which he certainly where it only proceeded from indiscretion or inadver- had done. He had availed himself of his right of de tency. It had once been observed by Lord Erskine ferring the putting in of his plea , . until after three in that Court, on a similar occasion, that there were ru l es to p l ea d h a d b een g i ven ; he had remained at many cases in which expressions, in themselves °fen- Botley, which, from the distance from London, re sive and dangerous, might be used without having quired that lie should have 14 days notice of trial ; any evil intention. If, for instance, in coming down this, together with an imparlanee, was the sole cause to that Hall, which was then occupied by the accom- that the trial had not sooner come on. The Defen modations for the trial of Mr. Hastings, he had ex- dant had stated, that he was first called up to Lon pressed his dissatisfaction at being stuffed into this d on to be tried, and then told to go back again. That 6 hole in the wall," (speaking of the Court of Corn- was a mere dry, cold, invention of the Defendant.— mon Pleas)—if he had said, 61 Is there never to be an Mr. Cobbett had urged as a reason why he should not end of this Hastings's trial ? I wish the roof might be prosecuted, that others had published worse libels fall in and crush them all together, and so put an end than his, for which they had not been prosecuted. to it." This, in itself, would be very offensive, and Fecerunt am et multi et perjures. very wicked on the face of it, but without an evil That was his argument. The libel he had alluded intention could be proved, would not any Member to, it was true, had been prosecuted by his Learned have been laughed at, who should move for his ex- Predecessor ; and it was also true, that it had been pulsion from the House of Commons ? Such was the suspended by himself, bdt not for the reason assigned observation of that Learned Lord. If every passage by the defendant. The wickedness of him who corn that is written - was to admit of such forced con- poses, and of him who prints, a libel, certainly bore structions as had been put upon his paper, the press no comparison—and except for deterring others, there must be sile n t, or writers would have to confine their was no reason for prosecuting a printer, unless it were columns to the praises of men in power. The employ. for the purpose of getting at the author. Although went of the German troops was that circumstance , men who lend themselves to others were, in such which had excited his indignation ; to see those fo. cases, guilty of a serious crime, there was, he re reigners brought to seperintend, or perhaps inflict peated, no comparison between the Printer and the the punishment on the misled young men who had Author. Now the Author of the article in the paper been concerned in the squabble at Ely, excited his alluded to had been ascertained, who, not being in the indignation more than the punishment itself. Our kingdom, had not yet been prosecuted; but when that ancestors had always disliked foreign troops ; almost person returned to England he would certainly be every body disliked them, and surely that dislike prosecuted, and if found guilty, punished as he de could not be construed into any thing Jacobinical.— served. On that account the prosecution already In 1623 the Commons had remonstrated with Charles instituted had been suspended—not dropped. Mr. I. against the introduction of German horse—[Here Cobbett had given them a pretty long account of Mr. Cobbett read the passage.] Those s en ti ments , himself and of his principles—and according to th.tt, contained in that protest, were his (Mr. Cobbett's) no man had been so greatly, so cruelly calumniated sentlfuents, and the•conduct of the German troops, as Mr. Cobhett. 3 -le was not, however, sure, that within his own observation, had strengthened that Mr. Cobbett had an accurate distinction between the Opinion. [Mr. Cobbett then read another passage, active and ftassive voice. He was not a constant reader from - a debate on the appointment of Foreign Officers, of Mr. Cobbett's Register; but it had not fallen in his in the reign of William lll.]—There were no fewer way to see many publications which should lead him than 4or 5 German Generals who commanded even to believe that Mr. Cobbett was a man more tinned English Generals. Since the year 1786 this force against Man sinning —that he was, as he said, " the had increased from 21. to 34,000 men. We had I most calumniated man in th e country ." H e h a d, i n ::,124 fo re i gners , 4 G enera l s , 4 Li eutenant . Gen - the course of his defence, bestowed no inconsiderable N l 3, and 19 Colonels. There was also a Frenchman, share of praise on himself, of the full benefit of which n i the name of Montalambert, on the Staff in Sussex, he would. not deprive him. One concession he was aed 2 Frenchmen at a Dock-yard in Wales—that was ready to make to Mr. Cobbett, that at the early part directly against law. Both the Acts of Parliament, !of his life he had pretensions to that loyalty which he by which German troops are allowed to be in Eng. now so loudly professed ; but Mr. Cobbett turfing ap land, were in truth, merely Acts of Indemnity, for the 1 pealed to him . (the Attorney-General) as knowing declaration of rights and other statutes had declared the loyalty of his principles, at this time be felt him- the holding placeaof trust either civil or military ilk- self bound to say, that no means had been afforded gal. There were no less than 773 German Officers in him of drawing any such conclusion. Mr. Cobbetts! our service, and, including foreigners of other nations, in defending himself, had dispraised the taste and style there were 1509 foreign officers in our pay. Of the of the alledged libel—but as to the evil intentions im number of foreign troops in oursery ice, not more than pined to hirrk,for . th4tr 11Fation. *mai that es a 4or 5000 men had been enlisted in this countr;y l • nseretritk r -es to anzwl . Beso.ofitol, that was, many of the 34,000 had been'even enlisted fit'Speirt; oki sight:44nd cObieWread a pro.' taken out of •prison there, having beeii iiitilp o tte s 'test *lasi the introaucticin of foreiintfoops, and army ? Why then were these ;mu brought is super e i 144 afterwards stated, that such protest was in con- fortwity with his opinion. Tt would be of no conse quence to any one of what opinion Mr. Cobbett might be--but he, the Attorney General, would ask the Jury, had Mr. Cobbett merely offered an opinion on this subject t He had introduced his opinion by stat ing, that the Acts authorizing his Majesty to raise foreign troops, were mere acts of indemnity, but, in his defence, had contented himself with stating his own conduct and opinion, and cpnauded his argu ment by assuring the Court and Jury, that the libel was tnerely a mode of writing he had adopted, for ! pointing out the errors of Lord Castlereagh !—but he would ask the Jury, was there any thing like dis cussion in the paper ? Did Mr. Cobbett, in that paper, seem to think there was any wiser course than that adopted by the Legislature—did he think it would be the wiser course to await the arrival of the enemy ere the people should be trained to arms ? or did he wish to prevent the people from submitting to any measure of that sort ? It must be remem bered that this paper appeared after a Legislative measure had been passed, by which a military farce had been embodied, and after a mutiny had taken place, for which punishment had been awarded, al though a part of that punishment had been remit ted ; the object then of Mr. Cobbett must have been L again to light up the flame of discord, by holding out that the German Legion was brought for the pur pose of flogging our soldiers, who were forced into ,the army by measures -more tyrannical than those of Bonaparte. But his Lordship would tell them, -whether the object of this parr was not to create general discontent, and defame and vilify those who had legally entered into the service of this country. He would tell them whether it was not the object of this paper to insinuate, that our army was raised by measures more tyrannous than even those of Bona parte. (The Attorney General then read several of ' the passages from the libel, on each of which he ani madverted.) He asked what could Mr. Cobbett mean but to reproach and taunt the local militia for having submitted to be flogged ? Did he not mean to ridicule them for beir.g so dastardly ?—Surely he did, and meant also to excite the people of Ely to rescue the soldiers from the punishment of the Law. Could any man of common sense doubt that he meant to re proach the people of Ely for having patiently wit nessed the scene ? These men who were punished had surrounded and beset their Officers, and being guilty of mutiny, were sentenced to a deserved punishment.' But this mutiny Mr. Cobbett had treated very slightly, and his indignation had been powerfully e.xcited,that inl consequence of this trivial offence, this squabble, the German Legion should have been sent for to flog them. But that was not the fact ; the German Legion' had been sent for to suppress, in the first instance, a most dangerous mutiny, and eventually to oblige the mutineers to submit to the decision of the law, by which they were awarded punishment. Mr. Cobbett did not even allow it to be a mutiny, but merely a, little disorderly conduct ; a squabble about the , marching guinea. It would be wasting time to offer' , further observations to shew that this was a libel.— But one word he must say on that scandal which Mr. Cobbett had cast on the German Legion. That among 12,000 men, some men might have miscon .ducted themselves he would not deny, but this he would maintain, that there never was a military corps in this kingdom of whom there was so little com plaint, or so little cause of complaint. He had ao doubt that every act of misconduct, however trivial, found its way to the Defendant ; but it the whole came to be scrutinized, even in the aggregate which he might thus collect, it would be seen that their general conduct would be found such as he, the (Attorney—General) had described. Mr. Cobbett hae stated, that the German Legion had acted with cowardice at Talavera; but this he knew, that of the four standards taken in that battle, three were taken by the German Legion ! That was an extraordinary proof of cowardice. He could not hear such a ca lumny as had been uttered against those brave men without repelling it. The question before the Court and Jury was not, however, on the merits or deme rits of the German Legion ; the question for the-Jury to decide was, whether that mischievous paper which had been read, had it not in view to hold up those brave men to obloquy and contempt, and to excite in the minds of the military disobedience and resistance, andrin those of the people at large of this country, a disposition to discontent and disaffection ? - Lord ELLENaottotten commenced with a recapitu lation of the material parts of the alledged libel, and observed, that the question for the Jury to consider, was, whether the mischief ascribed to this publication was fairly ascribable to it, whether it was of the noxious tendency imputed to it? The Defendant had stated, that he was a most calumniated man. Whether that was the case, he knew not. But he hoped and trusted the Jury would exclude all prejudice from their minds; that they would consider the Defendant as a new man, whose character was wholly unknown to them before this day. His Lordship, atter reading another extract from the Register, proceeded in his commentary.— The defendant had, he said, stated that this conduct on the part of the Militia, was not a mutiny, but a mere squabble with their officers about a marching guinea.. But how a squabble with their officers could be considered as any other than an act of mu tiny, and of the most dangerous sort too, was quite beyond his conception. The defendant had laid in his claim to discuss the policy of employing foreign troops, and the propriety of this claim he fully ad mitted. Although the employment of foreign troops had received the sanction of the Legislature, still it was competent to the defendant, or any other indi vidual, to discuss that, or any other public measure, in temperate and decent language, to suggest such a change as he might think expedient and necessary. —That the defendant, or any other person, was in titled to expres his opinion—to address himself in temperate and qualified terms to the sober reason of the country, and to endeavour to impress that opi nion upon Parliament itself, no one can question. —A•id if such an exercise of unquestionable right were brought under the consideration of the Jury, he believed that neither they nor he, nor any person oc cupying the honourable situation which he so un -1 I worthily filled, would have been found ready to pro ; nounce it a proper subject for punishment. It was for the Jury to consider -whether the publication then i before them was really of that character ? The defen dant had said, that it was the intention of a writer, in Icases of this natine,which was to be looked at. But how was that intewion to he collected ? Not surely from the mere ;ism :i;:t1 of a Defendant in a moment of pe- r'' !til.when open his tt:Al, but from the tenet 414 lication, If that publication imported mischief; Vie ,Jury were bound to conceive that mischief was inteod• el. This was the correct and legal rule of juskgme it ;is an intention. The publication before the Bata eas re t, it musebe seen, one random expression, liable to be in• discreetly written in a hurry, but a continuity of terms, • and it was their province to decide whether such a pub• lication had, or could have any but one purpost? (Here; the Learned Lord read a passage from the libel, refer. ; ring to the contrast of Mr. Werdle's opinion with, that of Mr. Huskisson, with respect to the employ. ,. • . meet of foreign troops, and the use they were meant , for in this county, namely, for the infli c ti o n o f pip nishment upon 13r:tish soldiers, and pointed the at tention of the Jury to this passage, if any doubts exis ted in their mind.) If any thing indeed were wantet by way of explanation, in order to enable them to collect the defendant's real meaning in this pae:ar, it was only necessary to refer to the following ex pression of li s own, towards the close of his defence : 44 I should not have said so much of those Germans, if they had not been brought into this country to flog the backs of my own countrymen." Could the Jury then, after this exposition of his dein text, entertain any doubt of the defendant's intention ? What. he would ask, was the obvious tendency, the probable effect of such a publication, upon the minds of men employed to defend the Country, at the risk of their lives ? Was it not calculated to 'generate a spirit of discontent—to loosen all the links and ties of military subordination—and, of course, to produce the most serious mischiefs ? If such, then, were its tendency, it must surely de serve the character and consequence of intemper ance and libel. But could the purpose of the De fendant be deemed fbr a moment ambiguous ? The repeating so frequently and emphatically, she words, " Flog them! flu them," could he mean it as an advice to the officers to urge a repetition of the punishment, or as an exhortation to the men to induet them to sub mit to it ? No, the meaning was clearly this, that if these militia-men endured punishment, that if they suffered themselves to be punished with arms in their hands, with which they might make resistance, they richly deserved that punishment, however severe it might be. Now as to the defendant's address to the inhabitants of Ely, did not this address appear to im ply an imputation or reproach upon the inhabitants, for having passively witnessed the punishments alluded to ? What else could it mean ? The defendant had not, he observed, touched upon this.point in the course of his defence, but he had endeavoured to defend the whole article, by stating that it was merely a compo sition of bad taste—that it was only defective in style. Was this, however, the only fault attributable to it ? Was this the only inference to be drawn from it ? Did it not betray a bad moral and political feeling ? and was not its evident purpose to excite the soldier/ against each other, and to excite the people against Ministers—against the whole Government u and Cons stitution, under whose !aws and orders the punish. ments referred to had been inflicted ? With regard to the Defendant's allusion to the conduct of Bo naparte, as contrasted with the conduct of the Go vernment of this Country, he had thought proper to appeal to those whom he described as loyal writers against the practices of Bonaparte. Now, whether the persons appealed to, whom perhaps it was not quite delicate to introduce on this occasion, namely, (Mr. Bowles, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. Hunt), had written against the French Ruler, or not, he did !not know, and therefore could not refer to their au thozity. But he had read a work, lately written by an American of eminence, who strongly repro bated the policy and practice of Bonaparte, parti cularly with respect to the law of conscription, or the mode of raising men for his army, and he thought that such policy and practice was not to be paral leled in this country. What, however, was the De fendant's object in the paragraph alluded to? Why, it was evidently this—that the British Government had nought to complain of Bonaparte for any cruelty attributed to him, because " as many cruelties are committed here as by Bonaparte in France." Was not this, he would appeal to any candid reader, the purport of the publication, and had it not there fore a tendency to excite mutiny ? But it was for the Jury to consider and pronounce on the whole, whether this publication was that of a writer whose zeal overstepped his discretion, or whether the words of it were to be understood to mean what they clearly imported—whether they had a tendency to create irritation and discontent between our foreign and British troops, to produce discord and disunion among the different branches of that military force upon whose entire and cordial union, particularly at the present crisis, the safety of our country so mate- . rially depends. If such were the object of the writer, if he designed to produce such a mischievous species of animosity, he surely well• merited the descriptio* of a seditious libeller. 46 According to law (said his Lordship) it is my duty to state to you my opinioa upon any case submitted for your consideration.—.- When I have doubts, I never decline to communicate those doubts, and when I differ in opinion from the prosecution, I have not hesitated to state that dilly. rence ; but upon this occasion I must say, that I feel no such doubt or difference, it being the confident cer tainty and full conviction of my mind, that this is a most seditious libel." The Jury, after consulting for about two minutes, returned a verdict of—Guilty. :l'he Hall and the Court were crowded at as early hour, and among the persons present we noticed Lord LA UUSROALL and Mr. tamer, who sat on the Bench with his Lordship, and Major CARTWRIGII r, who sat among the Counsellors. Mr. COIICTT, in making his defence, appeared firm and collected, and at the same time paid great deference to what was said to him by his Lordship. lie ,poke for an boor and a ball, and the trial lasted for about aree hours and a half. Mr. ellill&TT left the Cuurt when the A riven a w-G NICRAL had Ilidead his reply. Wednesday were executed, in the Old Bailey, R. Jones, alias Costing, for forgery; and Mdiad Ma/tea, alias Alit:tar, for burglary ; the man appeared a wretched squalid figure, inAtbe dress of a sailor, stu pidly insensible to the horror of his situation ; while the woman was shook almost to premature dissolution by her feelings.. On Sunday, June IN at St. Andrew Hubbard's Church, Lea don, Captain Robert Browne, at the 4th Ceylon Iteshweut, to Miss Elizabeth Webb Anderson, only dau g ht er o f James Ander son. Rag. of Ramsay Grove, South Carolina. DIED. At his seat. in Ayrshire (Scotland) on the 4th June Patti* Baliantine, Esq. 431 Castlo-hili, to the &expressible pie( olf kis A relations and friends. A I