Star. — London, England, 1822-10-24 00:00:00

. . first looked up and then looked down the staircase,' before he went into the room. Cross-examined by the defendant—There were two rooms on the first floor, but whether there 'was a bed in one of them she could not sat ; there was no fur niture in the rooms on the third floor. The passiges of the libel were then read by Mr. Abbott, and were of the description stated by the Solicitor-General. The case for the e rosecutiOn was here closed. DEFENCE. The defendant began his defence, by stating, that he was brought here by Diabolus Regis (Diavolus Negii, is he called bins) the King's Attorney-General. lie then proceeded, in a very incoherent and uncon nected manner, to justify, as he said, the conduct which he had pursued. It would seem, according to his statement, that the Attorney-General was deter mined 'to get at him by hook or by crook—that his pro'seeutors, right oe wrong, were bent upon his de strUCtion but 'their cunning was not equal to their ill-will, • for on the present occasion they had utterly failed in proving him to be either the publisher of or trader in the book in question. Why had the Attor ney•-General, Who was the Diavolus Regii (Wadding ton's words), brought an ex-officio prosecution against him ? An ezathikio was one of the relics of the Star Chamber, arid tyrannical proceeding : let the Jury look well to the matter—what was his case to-day, might he their's ca-morrow. They wanted to make Min the. victim of a false conspiracy. Who were his prosecutors ? Police-officers and spies, hunters of lib:sod:money, pursuers of game—the Jury knew all that; and besides, there was the Society for the Sup pression of Vice at the head of all this ; and who were they ?- The Bishop of Clogher was one of them ; and who was he ?—a man who had done more to profane the Christian religion than all the blasphemers and deists that had , ever lived i yet this Bishop was per mitted by the Government to escape, while he (Wad dingtor4 was prosecuted. Why did not the Parliament inierfereA—they were.sitting, at the time. A former Parliament had interfered with the concerns of a Bi shop,in the relgnof-Queen Ann. Here it is, said the delendant, holding up an eld.boels ; and there would be found the proofof the confiscation of the Bishop's hods and possessions:, so that. one Bishop was let to escape the g:allasys, and the other to have his lands seited:l Wad this fair dealing of - the.Governrnent ? T 44 LORD CHIEF JosTree.;—.Had you not better apply yourself to your own case ? We know no thing here of what you are alluding to; perhaps, for aught that can be 'now said, the case may yet be brought here: apply yourself to your own case. • The defendant...-I am doing so, my Lord; I must clear myself to the Jimry in my own way. .The Lows CHILF.JUSTICE.—Yes, you can do so; but it must riot be in an irrelevant manner. The defendant.—But have I not a right to know what the Government was about, when they seized one man and let another go ? Ile then proceeded to deny all knowledge of the publication; he had no thing whatever to do with it, it was no affair of his; ' but as they had brought him into Cow t, he would ; sliew them, their folly, as well as the irnpolicy of selecting him for such st prosecution. It would have been much better to have let him remain at home: not that he was sorry they had dragged him into Court, for now that Ile was before his country he should explain the matter. He would say as Paul did to King Agrippa—" How happy am I, if only allowed to answer my accusers." Now he would set one set of.opinions against another, and he should ask how the Clergy would come off when the balance was' struck between them, for their gross and scandalous neglect of the doctrines which they preached, and their covetousness and immorality? " Here," said be, " ere two boOks, one of them relating to Whiston's Memoirs of Dr. Clarice, and full of information re specting the character of the Clergy." He was in the act of reading an extract from an answer to Whis ton upon some controversial point, when The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, all this is irregular and irrelevant. The Defendant.—No, it is not, my Lord ; it is, I contend, quite regular. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—No, it is not; you must go on in a regular manner. If the passages which you seem desirous to read are meant to apply to the Clergy of the present day, they are a gross libel upon that body, for none are more active and zealous in the discharge of their duty. The Defendant.—Well, then, am I not to be al lowed to convince the Jury how impolitic this pro secution is? The LORD CIIIET Jusrtcs.—Endeavour to *con vince them in any manner you please, so you proceed regularly. The Defendant.—lt. is my duty to defend myself in the best way I can: am I, my Lord, to have my defence shaped by the Judge? The LORD entr.v.Jusricx.—No; but it is the duty of that. Judge to tell• a defendant who is proceeding irregularly, that he cannot be permitted to utter libels upon others,. not in any manner before the Court, vil l a: 1 )m is himselftcalled upon .to answer a specific charge having no connection with them. The...defendant—lf what I am uttering is wrong, and what J read a libel, then the Jury will visit it upon me; but I hope I may not be interrupted. The.Lonn CHLEV JUSTICIL—I shall not interrupt you, except where my duty requires k. The defendant then recurred to the controversial book which he had been quoting, and was again in the act of reading a passage reflecting upon the clergy of that day, when. The LORD CutEr JUSTICE again said—l will not allow youco go on in this manner. Several of the Jury rose at this moment, and said that they could mot listen to matter so irrelevant. The defendant.--My Lord, I did not know before that any Judge, that any man at the bar, or that any juror, could distil' b any defendant when he was ad- 1 dressing them—is it right? Consider my case, Gen tlemen of the Jury ; it is your province alone to do' so—the Judge has nothing to do with the matter.' I am in your hands, list in the hands of the Court— it is you wbo have the power, Gentlemen, in this case—you can do more than the King, he could not+ send me out of Court : but you can by acquitting me—you can do so at this moment. If I am sentenced by the Judge, without the Jury being allowed by that Judge to hear my defence, his name will be handed &Atli. to :posterity as the roost nefarious and, tyran nical Judge that ever sat upon the Bench, The Loin Cuter Jurnailaht—. B4 t trot afraid,' Gentlemen of the Jury, of being affected in the mind of posterity by what die defeademibei The defendant.—But, my Led, will .you not hear me? If your Lordship would thtlfhlW to MVP more patience, we should much goonst eon* to a point— indeed, we should my Lord. This last expression coined some Wetter, which induced the LORD Cam Justice •to remark, that there were several persons in Court Who had no apo logy for interrupting the proceedings, and he should punish those who behaved so indecently. The defendant.--Well, my Lord, I shall now re fer to the Bible. I have already adverted to what Paul said to King Agrippa, and now call your atten tion to Nicodemus, and implore the Jury 'to judge in righteousness--" in righteousness should'st thou judge thy neighbour." He proceeded then to repeat that the Attorney-General's eslificio prosecution had ruined him in his affairs—be had lost his capital and his trade by it, though he was here proud to have an opportunity of justifying himself. He held in his hand another book, written by a Reverend Divine, for the purpose, as its title stated, of " distinguishing truth from falsehood." It contained exactly his own 'sentiments upon the subject of religious controversy ; indeed, so much so, that if he had attempted to pub lish his own opinions, he would only have been guilty of a plagiarism upon this very book. He would give a great deal to make his prosecutors read it. What 'a compliment they paid Christianity when they in stituted the present prosecution. In the first place, the attempt to ruin him would give complete circu lation to the libel itself—that would inevitably follow from the proceedings of this day. His prosecutors were wrong. and why? Because they were weak, in the faith ; they did not place the confidence which as Christians they were bound to place in the Dairy. He who made the universe, and made all men, knew how to correct all evil without the aid of man. How dared they to profane GOD by undertaking his work.? They who did so were no Christians— they were themselves the real blasphemers; they said agricultural plenty was the cause of the suffer ings of the country—that was to say, that what the beneficence of GOD had done for the poor was an evil. " 0, what a use the S9licitor-General would have made of such a theme," said Waddington, " if, in stead of being my prosecutor. he had been my de fender. Then, indeed, he would have ably advocated iny cause, if I could have put money into the vora cious mouths of the law." He then returned again to Whiston's book—[A Juror remarke,„that he was only injuring his own cause by doing so.J—The de fendant resumed, and said that the Jury might do with him as they liked: he should not trouble them with any evidence; for, in fact, the prosecutors had done nothing in the way of proof against him. If he was to be convicted because a book was given out in a room which he was obliged to let in his house, then , the sooner the Jury went home and looked after their own houses, the better. If any one of them was, as he had been, compelled to let a room to a lodger, to help him to pay, his rent and taxes, and keep his fa mily out of a workhouse, and to be held responsible for what was done in that room, the sooner he turned the lodger out the. better; for he might depend upon it, that he would find it easier to let the rent re- main unpaid, and send his family to the workhouse, than expose himself to an ex qffacio prosecution.— If they knew the sort of place into which he had been sent in Newgate, they would have felt for his suffer ings; for they would not have turned a brute animal into such confinement. See how he had been treated there.—(Here the defendant read from a Newspaper an account of his being tossed in a blanket as" Little Waddington," by some of the prisoners, in a wanton frolic.)—lt was true he was little, but that was no crime; he had not made himself; he had no right to have his back severely hurt by being tossed in a blanket because be was little. Mr. alderman Wood and other Gentlemen had inquired into the outrage, and one convict was ordered to be sent quickly into his sentence of transportation, for being a patty in it. That he (defendant) did not wish, for the man had a family, and he wished nobody to suffer upon his ac count. He should not trespass further on the Jury, bat would leave the case to them as•it stood, without any proof by the prosecutors. He was sorry he was interrupted in his defence ; for the books (Whiston's) were, he said, really worth reading :—however, he should publish his defence and justification in another form, and the Public would judge of it. He then sat down, and put his books into a large writing-desk, which he had placed on the floor of the 'Cow t; at the same time giving a significant nod to the Solicitor-General, and saying to him—" You shan't reply, for I am calling no witnesses." The LORD CHIEFJUSTICE briefly recapitulated the evidence to the Jury, and left it to them to consider whether there was evidence of publication on the part of the defendant. It was quite unnecessary to prove that he sold the book with his own hands : if he were in a manner indirectly assisting in the sale, that would I 'be sufficient evidence against him. One of the Jurors asked, whether a book denying the Divinity of our SAVIOUR was or_was not a libel in the eyes of the law ?—he wished this information for the satisfaction of his conscience. The Lotto Cuts/JUSTUS/I.—There canbe no doubt, Gentlemen, that any book denying the Divinity . of CHRIST is a libel, fer Christianity is a part of the law of t h e land:, that is denying it in the words of this book, calling CHRIST an .impostor, an immoral min, &c. there can be no doubt that such a book is a libel.—The Airy, after a minute's consideration, re turned a verdict of Guilty. Little Waddington, who bad left the Court afew minutes before, was in the act of returning, when he was informed by a friend of the verdict : he imam diately took. to his heels and ran up King -street, leaving his deskand papers upon the shoulders of a friend to beer the burden of Whiston't cowl-comp, THE KINGe. THE INHABITANTS of ST. PANCRAS. This was an indictment preferred at the instance of the Commissioners of the New Street against the Parish of' St. Pancras, for not repairing the road Which runs round by the eastern side of the Regent's Park, on the side of which the Jew's Harp public thouse, and other houses are built. Thespestion turned entirely on the construction of the Acts of Parliament. The CHIES JUSTICII suggested that a case should be made out for the opinion of the Court, and evidence of the-facts was then gone into for that purpose. I It was established that the sciaiitiad been .open to tiug Public.; but it appeared it had been greatly cut tafis by the cartage of tliilterilds ter the erection of the Hone Barracks. . . . . The CHM Jelsetee etpessed Mt opinion that this vests a somewhat premature proceeding, if it were to try the question of liability, and thought,,as regarded the compelling the parish to repair it, had an ungra . icious aspect. The Sotactrott-Gennat., after disclaiming any -illiberal Intention on the part of those by whom, he was employed, consented to withdraw a Juror, it being understood that Government would repair the road at present; - and the question of future liability still remains undecided. OLD BA 1 LET. Yesterday John Benjamin Brookes was capitally indicted for forging a receipt for 151. 10s. with intent to defiaud William Clarke. Mr. ALL stilted the case for the prosecution.— An action was brought by Clarke against Brookes, in the Court of Common Pleas, to recover 181.55. , and as a set„off to that claim, and in order to defeat Clarke in the aetionothe prisoner produced a check, 'upon the back of which were 'undry items, amount ing to 151. 10s. and underneath these, in the way of receipt, was written " William Clarke," which was alleged to be forged by the prisoner. The case was decided in favour of Clarke, and the prisoner being afterwards ordered by Mr. Justice Best to produce the original check, he said he had had advice, which. had induced him to destroy it. Brookes's attorney had previously, by order of Court, furnished Mr. Hill (Clai ke's attorney), with a copy of the check, and Brookes, on this occasion, admitted that copy to be a correct one. These facts were proved by a clerk to the Court of Common Press, and by Mt. Hill.-- The latter further stated that an action was pending in the Court of King's Bench between Brookes and Clarke; but Brookes, when he said he bad destroyed the check, declared he would withdraw that action and pay the costs. His bill of costs for the actions between Clarke and Brookes amounted, up to July last, to nearly 1001. He had received 1401. since that time from a person whom he believed to be clerk to a Mr. Bickennel. That money he now had in Court,', to abide any order the Judge might make. William Donald scorn.—l am a dealer in goods by commission. I recollect selling a hoese to Salmon, the Bow-street officer, and he gave me his bill for £l5. 10s. and the remainder in money. This was in December, 1821. I applied to Clarke, the prosecu tor, to get the bill discounted, and I went with him to the prisoner's house in Broad-court, Bow-strcet— (the bill was drawn by witness upon Salmon, at two months). The bill was discounted by the prisoner at bis house. The money was paid to me in a check for 1:10 upon Hodson and Stirling, and the remainder in money, 255. being deducted. Clarke had the check in his hands for a few moments, but • he had no op portunity of writing 'anything on it. Theist was no name or .figure on the back of the check wheri witness , had it. It was paid.at Hodsoll and Stirling's.. George Ward.—l am a hatter in Clare-street. The, prisoner; Brookes, called upon me, and produced a check, on a day before he was to a-Tear before Mr. Justice Best. He asked me if the endorsement on the back of the check was Clarke's hand-writing ? There were some figures, and " William Clarke" written on the back. I said the signature was not in Clarke's hand-writing, it was nothing like it, and I would call my wife, who also knew Clarke's hand-wriOng ; she looked at it and said, it's nothing like it. Cross-examined.—l have seen Clarke write: I am not aware that he writes different hands at different times; lie writes his name sometimes " W. Claike," sometimes " Win. Clarke," and sometimes " William Clarke." • A paper, in which was written " Wm. Clarke," was here shewn to witness, and he said he should think it was Clarke's hand-writing. Another was shewn to him, which, he said, he believed wail not Clarke's hand-writing. . John Goldsmith sworn—l• was examined , as•a wit ness on the trial of the cause in the Common Pleas. On the 7th of August - 1 was arrested; and on the Bth I saw Brooks in' Coldbath-fieldsTrisOn. ;;,;saw hint in. the Governor's house, and. - -Useent with- him and. Mr. Clark, an attorney, ilito'the'Yard-:- .'Brookes said to me—" Will you swear that is' eimiwi hand-. writing at the back. of the checirtere":.4l4 . !.lit is quite impossible, for I have 'newer seen: the. cheque since the trial." He said, "1 supPisse3rOultriow What. I have directed. Clarke, the attorney, to inforth you?" I said I did. and I understand by the. Papers. he had destroyed the cheque ; that-I had seen Clarke' hand writing very often, and that if he had not destroyed it, and would chew it to me, and if it was Clarke's hand-writing, I would swear to it. Mr. Isaacs& and another person came in at time, and Brookes and he retired to a corner of the yard. Brookes after some time came to me, and said, any communica tion which I might have to make might be made to Mr. Isaacson, " for really," added he, "I am so agi tated in my mind that I don't know what I am about." I then retired with Isaacson. • Mr. Todd, a clerk in the bank of Hodson and Stir ling, proved the payment of a cheque in the name of l Clarke on the 18th of December. William Clarke was next called. Mr. Serjeant PELL objected to this witness being examined, on the ground that he was incompetent to give evidence, he being an interested person. Mr. ALLEY and Mr. CIIRWOOD argued at length for the admissibility of Mr. Clarke as a witness. Mr. Justice PARK decided, that, under all the cir cumstances, Mr. Clarke could not be examined. J. Beckenham, Clerk to Mr. Stretton's brewhouse, went with Mr. Clarke to the House of Correction, and saw Brookes there. • Clarke introduced Brookes, and said he had brought me with him respecting the business of which they had been talking the day be fore. Brookes then asked Clarke not to attend at Bow -street, and he said he would not, if Brookes would pay his law expenses. Brookes said he would, and paid into my hands 1501. in money and bills. I paid 1001. of this to Clarke,. and 501. to the brother of Mr. Hill, the attorney for the prosecution. Two letters were then read, one from the prisoner to Clarke, and the other written by him, but signed ,by Clarke, and addressed to Sir Richard Birnie. • ' The former implored Clarke to visit him, and de elated that he . only . could save him. The other was expressive of an opinion, on the part of Clarke, th:tt he had " in some respect been deceived," and a wi•.lt that Sir Richard Biruie would allow hint to withdraw from any further proceedings against Brookes.'• The prisoner, in his defence, called on to ness that Mr. Clarks did put lila RAMC to 1119 ulieck and proceeded to eye a detafted account' di. the vit. rictus transactions between them. He had liten in the habit of discounting bills for Clarke, and 4 quitrel having arisen betvieen them. Clarke an nnenced proceedings for usury, but which was driqi., .ped. . This gave rise to the proceedings already fore the Public. He ascribed his present situation to Mr. Hill, the attorney for the prosecution, who* he had served with a notice, and tainst whom hi had intimated an intention to prefer a charge for pin.: jury on a former occa,ion. He was proceeding td comment in strong language on the character of the witnesses for the prosecution, when the Court called him to order, and he concluded. Mr. Isaacson, attorney, stated that he had °Kees in Brookes's house, and that he was his (Mr. Isaacson's, managing .clerk. He remembered the trial in tl.e Common Pleas ; no objection was then mate th:rT the check was forged. Was present when applicA, tion was made at the Judge's Chambers to have t.le check produced ; it was not produced ; there was a second order to.produce it, but Brookes declined F r o . ducing it, but he did not say he had destroyed it, nor could witness now say it was destroyed. J. Turner, Isaacson's clerk, swore he was present when Clarke called and requested the loan of £4 or .£5 on a bill ; Brookes was at dinner, and gave wit ness four sovereigns, which he gave to Claike. He afterwards saw Brookes give Clarke the cheek for ten pounds, and heard him say —" Chyle ywu hat better indorse this check ;" and saw him (Clarke) so indorse it. Mr. Henry Arthur said he lived in Brookes's house s and was present when Brookes told Clarke to write on the check, and saw him write, but he knew not whet it was. Ten witnesses were called, and they all concurred in giving the prisoner a very excellent character ; none of them had known him less than five years; some of them had known him f!om a child. Mr. Justice PARK summed up the evidence with his usual ability, and the Jury returned a verdict of —Not Guilty. SURREY SESSIONS. Yesterday the trial of Henry Marshall, alias lcoare, whose case some time ago excited so much interest at Union-Hall Office, came on. He is a young mart of prepossessing appearance and not more than 13 years of age. It will be recollected that he endea voured to pass for the son of a Gentleman of high rank and fortune. He was.tried for stealing a pistol. Thomas Reed, constable of Clapham, stated, that on Tuesday, the 4th of September, the prisoner was brought to the Clapham watch-house, and left alone for a few hours locked up in a roost, where there were several muskets and j;istols loaded. .The re spectable appearance of the prisoner prevented all suspicion, and he was next day taken to Union-Hall on a charge. Afterwards a pistol was shewn to wiL ness at the office, for which pistol he was resi , onible as constable of the watch•house. The prisoner said, on being-charged with the robbery, that he did net take.it for the purpose of stealing it, but for the put pose. of shooting himself. It appeared from the evidence of Hall and aiother officer, that on the day after the prisoner was com mitted for not paying a hackney-coachman his he was locked up in the strong room . at Union-11.!1/ with two felons, and the report of a pistol was heard and a smoke issued from that room. The pistai was taken out of the hands of one of the felons, a ho said he had got it from Marshall. Tile two felons had been so strictly seat ched, that it was impossible they could have taken in the pistol with them'. The prisoner denied that he had stolen the pistol. The Jury• found him Guilty. The CHAIRMAN said he understood that Hall had inquired inter the history of the prisoner, which it ' might be necessary to hear publicly. Hall said the prisoner's character was perhaps one of the worst that had ever come before the Court. Su fir from being the son of a Gentleman of rank, he.was the son .of, a butler, and his mother was poor washerwoman, who with ditfiCulty supported herself..Tixo . prisbner was her only son, and his habits from his earliest years had been most depraved, his propensity to ihieying being quite incorrigible. Be (rare he was .13 - year c s old he *as sentenced to be transported for Seven years, but his sentence having been commuted to imprisonment at the Penitentiary, he got out .upon the Public after a confinernent of five years and a half. His first act, after passing the prison -door, was to go and rate his mother, from whom he stole five of her `customers' shirts, and he had packed up fourteen more to "carry away. Ile was not long infinding companions of his own stamp, with whom there was reason to believe he concerted an attack upon a house at Clapham Common. From the Common, where ,he did not meet his friends, he was driven off by a coachman, who lodged him in the watch-house for not paying his fate, and in that watch-house he had stolen the pistol. Had the pri-, sorter been acquitted on the present charge, his mo ther determined to prosecute him, to save him from the.gallows. A note was. handed to the CHAIRMAN from the. Governor of the Penitentiary. It stated that the pri soner, who had been. liberated but a week before he was taken into custody, was the worst of 1800 pri soners whom the Governor had under his care. The CHAIRMAN said he was sorry the law did not enable him to secure the prisoner for life. Particular care should be taken that he shOuld not again go,intu the Penitentiary, however. Sentence— Transportation.,for seven years. The prisoner, who during the trhil !Lad conducted himself with the greatest humility, afterthe seutencc smiled contemptuously towards the Court. COAL- tA 11K ET, OCTOBER 23. Bunion 42s 61-11eatim 44s—W411suud Brown's 43s 6(l—. Walhend Green 41s ini—Wiiiington 44s 6d—Cuwren 405 Culin 34s—Wa11setni Myth 39s—Eden Alain 435-I'awcet Mein 42s—Iledsvotth Main 36s 6d —Wallsend Lintbton 475 Wane+ end Liddeirs 39s—Wallsend Stolhirt 42s 6d. 2; Ships at market; 19 Ships sold ; '2 uniiohl. AILS. Asir:. out. Dublin 1 • 0 Wxrrforcl 1 0 Guettary add Jens/ . 0 0 Lisbon 1 0 an M. t.t.i. France 1 0 Hamburglt 0 1 Flanders' 0 0 IlalLlnd • 0 0 Leeward - Islands' 0 0 Malta o u Gnett.nliargh 0 1 Brizit o iiiGs LUts. DON uRIDOM 1 Jot/ Li it sJ • • .94 u.t tr .ftr• $ Vrettionn - 49 minittes af , er 8 Lozipoti ; rnnt.i and published by Pecs rims, 1t1e...11. place, limiple-LIES p ',l I IF