The National Register. — London, England, 1811-11-24 00:00:00

TI-It NATIONAL MISTER. 4 , And should the Chief Pontiff depart this life (which God fbrbid should happen in the present perilous state of the Church), we, no less than you, venerable brethren, are fully persuaded, that God will not be wanting to this Church, which, though it should even for a considerable time be deprived of its Chief Pastor here on earth, would be exposed to less mischief titan if any person by force or terror were to place himself in the Chair of Peter, and thus the mystical Body of Christ was to be torn in pieces by fatal schisms. Hence we are resolved to instruct the flock committed to our care to acknow ledge no person as the true and genuine successor, but him whom the far greater part of the Bishops of the whole world, and whole Catholic people in a manner, shall acknowledge as such. d , If we, who are hardly yet known among the Christian Churches, thus venture to declare our selves to you, our venerable brethren, it is in conse quence of your sending to us, in common with the other Bishops of the Catholic world, your late ener getical letter, for it would be highly unbecoming of us not to acknowledge this high mark of esteem in which you hold us. As to yourselves, you are seated in those Episcopal Sees, which have been illustrated through a long series of ages by the vir tues of the Holy Prelates, your predecessors in them. In imitation of them you conduct the peo ple entrusted to you, by example as well as instruc tion, in the ancient and true faith and in sincere piety, and together with them you exhibit, in defi ance of all human artifice, fraud, and violence, a rare and perhaps singular instance of invincible fortitude in preserving and fostering the Catholic Faith. 4‘ We humbly commend ourselves to your pray ers, and we earnestly besrech God to show favour to your Country, to your Churches, and each one of yourselves. Fare ye well, most Illustrious and Reverend Prelates. " JOHN, Archbishop of Baltimore. " LEONARD, Bishop of Gertyra, Coadju tor of the Bishop of Baltimore. " Fit. MICHAEL, Bi,hop of Philadelphia. " JOHN, Bishop of Boston. " BENEDICT, Bishop of Bradstown. raitimoer, Sept. 10, 1811." LAIV REPORI'. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 20. THE KIM; V. DAVENPORT SEDLEY. The Defendant in this case who had been tried for conspiring along with the Baron Kierrulf, Count Meyer, John Sedley, the son of D. Sedley, and others, to defraud the Marquis of Head- fort of various acceptances, and of different sums of muney, was brought up to receive the judgment of the Court, he having been convicted, on an indictment to which Baron K. and he al'ne pleaded, and on which the Baron was acquitted, of conspiring with Meyer and John Sedley for the purposes specified in the indictment. The nature of the charge must be so fresh in the recollection of our readers, that we deem it quite unnecessary to enter into the particulars of it. The noes of the Learned Judge being read— " he Defendant gave in an affidavit, purporting to have been made by a person named George Hill, in which the Deponent asserts that George Barnes, a witness, who proved the signature both of .1.). Sedley and J. Sedley on the trial, was guilty of per 74g jury, in swearing that the letter signed O'Connor, transmitted to Mrs. Massey, a friend of the Marquis's, was in the hand writing of John Sedley. On the contrary, the Deponent swears that he was present, and did see anotlier person sign the letter alluded to. The affidavit also bears, that the defendant knows both Barnes and Walker, another witness on D. Sedley's trial, to be men capable of every crime, and who were nut to be believed on their oaths. The Defendant, who had no Counsel, addressed the Court on his own behalf. He charged the Marquis with having himself been 'the conspirator and the deviser of fraud. He himself was the first granter of bills which were never intended to be paid— how then could be charge as an offence against others, what had originated in himself ? He had repeatedly shifted his ground in the course of the transaction. At one time, he had recognised this, as it really was, as an exchange of paper, and as such had, sven through the evidence of Meyer himself, endeavoured to get the better of his own engagements on the head of•usury. Failing in this, he had boldly ventured to swear that those bills had been taken front him by force, and under the sanction of that oath, had indicted him (Sedley) and others for a capital offence. Again failing in that charge, he had at last sworn to a charge of misdemeanour against him at Clerkenwell, in consequence of which he was now called before the Court for Judgment. He averred, and now contended, that the Marquis's own letters would prove the fact, that the constant requesteef the Marquis to Meyer had been, to make his bills payable at the 'eank of Eng land. When Meyer said lie had no cash there, the Marquis an swered what signified that, the Bank was a general place of de posit for the whole kingdom, on which all had a right to draw. lie also proposed to Meyer, that the bills so drawn, should be to the amount of 80,0001.; that being payable at the Bank of Eng land, money could easily be had for them in Ireland; that the amount should be divided between them; with the one half Meyer, who %Arai a foreigner, could return to his own country, thus possessed of an ample fortune; of him, therefore, there could be no fear ; and'as to him, the Marquis, his estates were secure against the payment of any such sums, and his person was protected, he being a Peer of Parliament. The estates of the Marquis, D. Sedley added, were indeed protected, they were in a keeping hardly known in this country, they were under seques tration, or what is called in Ireland, in Cestedia. Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked, where were the affidavits to these facts ? 'The Defendant stated, that in the abject situation to which he had been reduced, he could not be supposed to have any person who Would make affidavits in his behalt. The Attorney-General said it was impossible not to regard the present attempt to impose on their I ordships as an aggravation of the Defendant's crime. 'the affidavit filed to-day, by a person unknown, alluded to a person to whom it was not even attempted to give a name. Supposing John Sedley, however, not to have written the so litary letter, the hand-writing to which axis attempted to be denied, what became of the other infamous letters, drafts of which were found in 1). Sedley's house, and in his own hand writing ? Would the story he had told about them-go down even with a babe? Then, what was the nature of the fraud, and what were the means by which it was endeavoured to be sup ported ? Were they not such as a man of common nerves must fall under ? Were they not such as the stoutest of us all would recoil from with horror) Let it not be last sight of, however, that he himself had sugges•ed a punishment alone meet for the aggravated offence of which he had he en guilty. • Mr. Garrow, on the same sine, enforced the argument of the Attorney-General, particularly that the punishment, though not commensurate to the offence, which, he thought, was impos sible, should in a particular part of it be disgraceful, and should follow so recently after the sentence, that the cause - on account of which it was inflicted should not have been forgotten. The Defendant was ordered to be remanded, and to be brought up again for judgment on Monday next. THURSDAY, NOV. 21. John Rigby, convicted of harbouring and aiding French prisoners of war to escape, was again brought up for judgment, and s entenced to twelve months imprisonment in Newgate for his first offence and twelve months for a second offence, to commence at the expiration of his first sentence. John Hambrook, convicted of a similar offence, was also sm. tenced to twelve months imprisonment in Maidstone (Jaiti. Thomas Mothersdale and Matthew Bergan, also convi ed of a similar offence, were sentenced, the former to nine months, and the latter to twelve months imprisonment at York. Major Davison, who was convicted of a conspiracy, at the Sittings after last Term, to defraud I'. Jackson, a horse-dealer, by representing a man of the name of Chaproniere as having succeeded to a large fortune, was brought up for judgment. Mr. Nolan addressed the Court in mitigation, when the de fendant was ordered to stand committed to the King's Bench h Prison, and to be brought up again on Monday. Firaucu, ['SIMI Vti vv ax••...a. ..5... .......... .• - 1 . with Meyer and John Sedley for the purposes specified in the Thomas Mothersaale ana iviastnelN ucL gdai, 41:1l8 LAlii• ”....,..• vs indictment. a similar offence, were sentenced, the former to nine months, The nature of the charge must be so fresh in the recollection and the latter to twelve months imprisonment at York. of our readers, that we deem it quite unnecessary to enter into Major Davison, who was convicted of a conspiracy, at the the particulars of it. Sittings after last Term, to defraud I'. Jackson, a horse-dealer, The noes of the Learned Judge being read— by representing a man of the name of Chaproniere as having '1 lie Defendant gave in an affidavit, purporting to have been succeeded to a large fortune, was brought up for judgment. made by a person named George Hill, in which the Deponent Mr. Nolan addressed the Court in mitigation, when the de.. asserts that George Barnes, a witness, who proved the signature fondant was orde red to stand committed to the King's Bench both of .1.). Sedley and J. Se d ley on the trial, was guilty of per A Prison, and to be brought up again on Monday. .. . • _ —........5ms ~. , P • ' . • 0 1 111 6. . 4 1 , '' . '.A.