The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1805-11-25 00:00:00

The lib,l also described Lord Itedesdale as a stout• built Chancery Pleader, influence I by the most cor rupt motives, displacing piisons from office, to ' make way fur iii,known annuitants of his own, and drawing an invidiotis comparison betw •en his con duet and that of Lord Kenyon. had the latter been placed in the same situaiion. Charging Mr. Justice Osborne with wicked and corrupt motives of bribery, in reference to his charge to the Grand Juries of Antrim and Down, of pouring a broadside upon the truth, in asserting that the rehellion in that cliinty was put down by the energy and well-rimed interpadtioa of the Government, ny which jii , tice was perverted wild confounded. Further, acsusiig Mr. Marsden as the vile instrument of thei- rapacity, turough whom these enormities were praCtised ; and a ;setting that the people of Ireland might look with indi Terence on rebellion and invasion. if the ermined rode of Mai.-sty could he extended to cover such a man from citsrace, or if it coal(' be believed that Ow stetted- bawds- ssf a patsy cheek had bean wagtail in the very tountain of justice. The indietinent then set fOrth sreeral counts. cow:lining a number of the most pointed passages in the libel. The Learned Coo •.sel concluded, by stating the plea against t e jarisdietion ut the Court, ll:inurrer, and plea of Nee Guirey. The Arvontate-Gestexat. then rote, and ad dressed the Court and Jnry nearly as f news : t. My Lords and Gentlemen of the Jory—l feel real pain and most serious concern in rising to address yau on :his very extraordinary an 4 import ant cause; and, as one of the Lan Officers of the King, I consider i: a misfortune that, in my official duty, I am compelled to bring before you one of His Majesty's learned Judges of the land, charged with so mean and atrocious en offence, as purslisbing an anonymous Istel against His Majest7 s Govern ment inl reiand; an offence from which every feeling athie life, every se t:iment oillitisrality, every priti ciple o his duty, b nth as a Judge and a gentleman, ought to hatie restr tined him. Such is the pet son I am compelled to b log before yo i; and when I have pointed out to ye i :he n t re of this libel, and when, in your opioion and u tyment, I shall have establi lied the fads, beyond all controversy, you will think ale justified in calling it a most mischie vous, scurrilous, scandalous, and unfounded libel ; moat wickedly and seditiously directed against pet sons qt . the most distinguished honour and excited rank ; ,against the administration of law an.: justice in that part of the kingdom, where, as a Judge, he should have been the 3rst to vindicate those essen ial qualities in a state, and the last to vilify them ; hit: his objed was to revile and degrade the whole system of Government lin reland, at that time ; to excite the King's subjeEls to die rust and hatred of His Majesty's (!overiiment ; and to make the people of Ireland believe, they wet.: ppressed and agrieved e—His personal abuse eves eireeted against per vats raised by their merits and virtues, to the most arduous and elevated posts of honour, and to places of the greatest trust and power in that part of the empire And, now let me ask, who are the persons thus vilified and ,'darned ? The first on the fist is, my Lord Hardwicke, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the King's Representative; a Nobleman, who, notwalistanding the division of sentiment which pre vailed among the people of that kingdom, had, by his virtuous and meritorious conduCt, the happiness and good fortune of uniting all descriptions of per sons in one common respe.tt for his Pet arm and Go veriiment. The next in rotation is Lord Redesdale, now Chance!lor ut h eland, whose merit and virtues I should not here enlarge upon, from our very close and intimate connettion ; hut, wheti his honour and charaChir air vilified and impeached, nothing shall prevent me from contradißing such base and vile calumny. Ile is well known to my friends ar, , und mc,.is well as myself, for virtuous integrity and alai none are smuttiest, mid his honour and incerrup tibqua ouch above my power to praise, as, I thank God, they are Aimee the malice of the slanderer to !Owls .'s next person who falls under the lash ref ihis Gen: • T.tn's pen, is Mr. Justice Oshorne, a then, ens.an :;-. ittli, e, and in the es:stem of every ktio4l I int ; a !smeller Judge; and one es the lest pet veneer his envy or malice shuu'd have been • • led ag ainst. to those three ate ;tildes), Mr. Marsden,. a r-...ntletnan holding a parti cular and important statioc limier Government, one of the Undo. Secresui ies of State, to whose particu lar department belongs the direaien of the Police, one 4 the most essential and important branches under the Government ; to thes-, I might also add many other persons held up to the ridicule and con papt of the people. as the most gross peculators, aod most gr.ssly corrupt. Whatever may have been the gratification of Has libeller, in such a pro duaion, his ohjeß was no , that of private malice ; but his purpose WAS to vilify and degrade the Go vernmont of the Country, and nothing could do it mere effeThially than the method he adopted. To represent the seat of justice polluted, a Judge of the land corrupted and tampered with by the Crown. when about to discharge his duty ir. the trial of persons chat ged with the most criminal offences against the state ; such was his objea, and such were the means by which he sodght to attain his purpose. And at what time was this given to the public ? a very little while after the zebefli 'in had disgraced that Colltrrv; at is time that the blood of a virtuous and amiable Nobleman (I,mA Kilwarden) was shed, in the midst of tumult and insurrection. Such was the time of this publication ; when, instead of a pallia tive to heal the wounds of a divided people, he en deavoured to kindle again the flame of anarchy and contusion among them." After commentiag, at great lengi h, upon all the various prominent a nd parts of the libel, the Learned Counsel con- tinned—" It is scarcely possible even to suppose a min in such a situation could he guilty of such 4 crime; but supposiog it possible Tor Judge of the land to du so, it must be proved on the most unclitivoc i 1 testimony. This I shall do. We shall profiler the original hanii-writing of himself, to wl•ich two Solicitors of the Revenue, and either re- speztable professional gentlemen, who had daily and familiar ineans of knowledge. will swear. A Judv, holding so high a situation of trust and honour, who h id hen so many years a confiden tial ad•iser of the Crown. as one of the Counsel end LAW INTELLIGENCE. or - 0•Y I, in and ruin • nut , d so warts 1111.1 right. ~fI~IG case. Lion cf quisite spirt le that nd ws more What C'UW nature, itancesi. it at the, n, xnd a little and tilt ing ex• in /Will rt, f ever Laic t g:it di pt ev: of Ca of th li.s Mt ings. to :,.st vantar been t 0 ught ni 01 MI trun, seve.l r. M.. a dispel to , clc, al eud icy ,;r :Ter, 1 COURT OF KING'S SAlllll.l%l', Nov.:s. TRIAL. AT BAR. THR KING r. THE HON. NOSIST 1011P3014. gef;re Lord ELL,. Boir , uGtt (NI.) . Attic). ), Sir NAsll Citrise, Sir S. I.4wftercc, Su 4 iIMON LE BI ANC (the utbet .Itaget), awl a Special Jury of ibe Cunt!, of Vir.iii;eser. This very ieterveing cause came or to be tried s oon after ten otlock this morning. A vast num ber of persons were assembled Awn the several en grAites to the Court. and before half past eight o'clrck, every part of it was o:!CHpifd. Mr. Ascot. ai Junit;r Counsel for the Prosecu tion, opened the ple.sdings.-1 le stated, that this Iw o an indinment, charging the Defendant, one of His Nlaji•sty's Justici.s f the Court of Common Ireland. with having putilished, in the ug uity of Middlesex, a gross, scandalous, and ma licious libel, against the Evil of Hardwielce. Lord Ventrnant of Ireland ; Lord ficdesdale, Lord lloph Chancellor of Ireland; the Hon. Charles CWsorne, one sit the Justice of His Majesty's Court of King'; Bench, in Ireland ; Mr. Marsden, one of el,e Under Secretaries of State, in Ireland ; aad other Members of His Majesty's Government, in that Kingdom: intending, and thereby wickedly con triving, to vilify and di.graee, And brirg into con tempt and disrepute, His Maje,ty's Government in that pars of the united kingdom, and to cause it to be believed, by the King's subjefts, that they were oppressed and aggrieved,and that the Earl of Hard. wieke WAS an improper person to , ovurn Ireland. lib.l was pub'istie„l 0066.-e,6 reeky Revster. in the ranwhs of Oaah , r :ind November, 1803, in the form ril letters, signed J ovta s a," reinesent ing, among other things, under the ...;rnile of the Vi•-ioden I ease of Troy, the Earl of liardwicke ; imputing to him, like the fable, secret and the means of destruaiw, though 4,)pxrently tit nnxious. Imouting to Hi, F.xcAlency. as his only vii me, that of being 11l goo•I idgeshire sheep feeJ:r, and wholly Incapable of cooilufting affairs of state, telling the people of Leland, they might say, as Fahtqf did to Prince lbnr l , the night Wire the battle of Sahib:try, when he gave him the bottle of sack, There% chat will sack a tit*" to the Revenge. and a Member of the Par- Lament of l-eland for so many years, forces a convielion most irresistibly on my mind, that the greater the ditficulty, the more necessary to carry the Prosecution into etfca. The charaCter he owed to his country as aJudge, the peculiar al legiance he owed to his King, and more particular ly, the sitnattoo of the country at the time of the publication of this libel, are so many barriers ag dust belief. and stand so prominently, that they call ten-fold lender on him to acquit himself of such charges. The Tiestion. therefore. Gentlemen, for you to try, will be, whether he is the author and publis:ier of 'l as libel ? with respea to whether the thing itself is a libel or not, it cannot give you niuch trouble ; Ow, I suppnse, will not be contend ed for, by the Counsel of tne Learned Judge, as in tan the libellous tendency appears upon the very face of it ; the defence. therefore, will not stand up on that point. The first publication of these letters appeared in November, I eOS, in Mr. Ceblet's YAW, Resider. That Gentleman was india ed for publishing [he libel, and convieted at the Sittingi, after the Trinity Term following. Ile Aerwards represented to me, that he had been ill ti ell, And was ready to give up the original manu script. This was accepted en my part, without any qualification, nor did any *payment whatever take place, that he was to be discharged from his share in the transaction. Upon a strel examina tion of the handwriting, by turo Gentlemen, na doubt remained upon the subjea. Yon will find this a continued writing on several sheets of paper, and we shall be able not only to prove the particular charaaers which distinguish his hand-writing from that of other persons. but ever! vat iety of his hand. IVe are now trying this learned Judge in the county of Middlesex, and not in the county of Dublin, and, therefore, they may think to turn us round, by say ing, " You must prove the publication in Middle sex, and I will shine that I must be tried in Dahlia." I cannot help suspeaing that some such attempt will he made, and that the plea to the jui isdiaion of the Court will be set up against me ; and instead of being opposed upon the merits of the case, I shall be opposed by a point of law. However, Gentle men. in this respell you will have the united wisdom of all the .lodges of the Court of Kieg's Bench to dire& you in this particular. This is the case of misdemeanour, and all pet sons concerned in it, in contemplation of law, are principals. The publi cation of Mr Cobbet, in England, is the publication of Justice Johnsoc, in England, and it makes no difference whether he had written it in the county of Surrey, or the county of Dublin, having sent it for publication into the county of Middlesex " He con cluded, by observing, that, the apparent delay in the proceedings was ascribable alone to the Defend ant, and not to those concerned on the part of the prosecution, who, on the contrary, had evinced through the whole business, every possible respea for the feelings and situation of the Learned Judge, and • wish that he should have an opportunity to vindicate his charaCter from those char•ges. fhe sever..l numbers of Cobbet's IF eski, Re , r ' ister , which contained the libel, were then produced. Mr. Joseph White, the 'Treasury Solicitor, and ikeent for the Prosecution, proved the receipt of the original manu.cript, by the hands of Mr. Cobbet, all of which he marked, in order to be able to iden tify them at any future period. Mr. William Cobbet was next examined by Mr. FASKINZ. He first saw the papers, put into his hand, in the month of Oelober, 1903. He received them from Mr. Rudd, bookseller, of Pall-mall, whose house was, at that time, his office, to which he had all communications f .r the Weekly Resister direeleal. Ihe second letter came direc'ted, under cover, to Mr. Budd, and the cover was thrown away. lie perfealy recolleeted it had the Irish post-mark. Here, Mr. ADAM, for the Defendant, objeeled to the letter being produced, as it did not appear what had become of the cover. The Coterie over-ruled the objeaion, and the wit ness proceeded. Tne commencement of this transaftion was the re ceipt of a letter from IrelAnd,requesting mho .w whe ther it would be agreeable to him to receive froM Ire laud, useful and true information respeClieg theaffAirs f that kingdom. He was Jested to give an answer to it, as if it came from Yorkshire, in h.i next Num ber, and to say where he wished the letters to be di reeled. He answered accordingly, that it would be agreeable ; and desired they might be dire:teal to Mr. Budd's, in This letter was of the ,~. , • same hand-writing of the manuscript produced to him ; hut, after puhlishing a part of it, it was de stroyed. He published the two letters in his Regis ters of the 29th of October, and 2lith of Novem ber, which came under cover to Mr. Build. Upon his cross-examination by Mr. Aos *a, he said, he did not live in Pall-Mall, hut in Duke-street, Westissiaster, the time when the letters were sent to him; he :eceived them at his own house. Bud: opened the first one, but the next came unopened to himselt; they were sent by Budd,but he could not say who Was the messenger. He could not rey-; left watt became of the covers, buy thought they were thraxo 141 the fire, or otherwise d, ctroyel. It was the usual 'Liston), in his printing-uffire, to throw all the papers they had done with, into a box or basket, and they were afterwards de Aroyed. lie could not tell what became of any of the covers, but presumed, and, in deed, was satisfied. ;hey wete deittoyed. He had made no resent search for them Mr. Waller, Solicitor to the Commissioner: of the Customs in Ireland. was examined by Mr. Gas now, and said he had been the principal in that office upwards of 23 years, and had belonged to it sometime before. Thtre were always two Counsel to the Commissioners ; but sometimes only ene at tended. Judge Johnson was in the situation of Counsel to the Board for n.‘ar ten years, in that ca pacity he had frequent consultations and communi cations with him, had often seen him wriat, and was as well acquainted with his hand-writing as any man could be. Ile /lei examined the manuscripts pry-- stinted to him, three times before. Tne body of them he really believed to be Mr. Justice Johnson's hand-writing, and he had as little doubt upon it, as any man could possibly have upon such a sulj--a. On his cross examination by Mr. Naga:, lie said, that the Defendant was made a Judge, in June 1801; he had never known him since, except meeting him in the street, or in his judicial capacity, to swear an affidavit before him, or something of that na ture. Judge Johnson was in the Irish Parliament for some years ; and, before the Union, WAS a con fidential servant of Government. He had seen these manuscripts when he went before the Grand Jury. The Judge did ri ,, t always write as fair as the writ ings produced to him. Mr. Charles Ormsby, attorney, stated, that he had frequently seen letters and opinions in the hand writing of Mr. Justice Johnson; lie was in the habit for twenty years of cnnselting him, and was perfealy acquainted with his hand-writing. He verily be. lieved the papers produced to him, to be written by Justice Johnson, and could entertain little doubt about it. Mr. Cobbet was again called, to prove some al terations which had been made by him in the manu script. Josiah Nnnn deposed, that he was in the Deputy Remembrancer's Office, in Ireland, arel one of the Secondaries. He was sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Justice Johnson's hand-writing to deliver his opinion with respeft to it. The manuscripts were then produced to him, and after he had looked over them, he said, he had examined them b e f ore , an d believed the body of them to be the hand-writing of Judge Johnson. There were, he said, some small interlineationz,which did not appear to be written by the Judge. These were read, and afterwards proved, by Mr. Cobbet, to he direSions to the printers, in his own hand-writing, of the kind of type in which the manuscript was to be cnmpAsed. On cross-examination, Mr. Nunn said, he had not seen the Defendant write since he became a Judge, nor was in the habit of seeing his writing. John Edwards, an attorney, was formerly a clerk in the office of Mr. Carr, who was formerly Solicitor for the Inland, or Esc ;se Department, of the Reve nue. Before the Defendant became a Judge, he aGted as Counsel to that department of the revenue, as well as the other; and Witness had frequent opportunities of seeing him write, and reading his opinion,. The manuscripts were then put into his head, and he said, from the best opinion he could form, they were the hand-a citing of Mr. Justice Johnson. On his cross-examination, he said, lie WAS pnly sixteen years of age when he went into M. Carr's office; and he has had no opportunity of observing the Defendant's writing since he became a Judge. Ile believes the Judge is, at present, a very infirm man, and nearly sixty years of age. A witness was then called to prove, that at the time these libels were written, Earl Hardwicke was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Redesdale, Lord Chancellor, Mr. Osborne, one of die Justices of His Majesty's Court of King's-Bench, and Mr. Marsden, Under Secretary of State. The insiendoes of the libels, which, as Lord Et uscisoaotioe ob served, were of themselves pretty plain, were also, for form's sake proved, viz. that by the Cambridge shire Earl, was understood Earl Hardwicke, by the stout built Chancery Pleader, Lord Redesdale, and by Mr. Marsden, Alexander Marsden. The ATTOSPILY-GENEILAL having desired that the libels should be read, Mr. ADAM, as leading Counsel, an the part of '; tlse Defendant, rose, and addressing the Court, said, be exerted the best discretion he was capable of, by iaserposing in this part of the prosecution, and sub mitting that the Prosecutors were not in a condition to have the libel read as evidence, against the ,Learned Judge. In a case cl such public inteiest, end of so much importance to the individual, he Was convinced he would have the utmost attention, which could be given by the Court. He was the more convinced set it, as tha Learned Avroaszv- Creases, had, in his most eloquent and elegant opening, broached doEtrioes, unknown in an English Court of Judicature, namely, tint toe hand-writing being proved, it would not be aftieg with propriety, for Counsel, on the part of tilt Learned Judge, to make any legal objefticins with respeft to the publi cation of the libel, He would not say that it was sot a part of his case to deny the hand-writing of the libel; on the contrary, he assured the Court, that he had a body of evidence to produce on that bead, which, if the trial went so far, would effeftually silence every suspicion with respire to Mr. Justice Johnson. But he conceived he would be fulfilling his duty indifferently, if he did not take an objec tion, which the Learned sages in the Lew of former times had considered at infallible, and which, as it ezaiftly coincided with the present case, must be al. lowed to stand good. Their Lordship., he was sure, were well aware of the precedent to which he alluded ; namely, the case of the seven Bishops, who were rried for a libel in the reign of Jan.'s. On this precedent, he entirely dpenderia that as son. / •••••7 ' s • f • , • ;' there 1/2i no evidence of the 'publishiee, by the Learned Judge, in the clunty. of Middlesex, kb* prosecution (AU to the r:T•10•11 li.thet•ine stance, the rase was hetween county and count! t in thectresent, it was between email:l.y and country I but, before he .ploceeded with his argenteet, he th-ught it necessary ferrate, weat the fans ss ere in that case, and what t,,e jedgment was, in copse. garner of those tees. Re wool(' also state, what the fa!h were ie this care, and what the indgmeral Mint 11.•• • in consevesice of tilos, Gas. Th- Learned Gentleman then read, froni a printed hodk. a short statement of the case of the seven Bishops. They were charged with publishleg a libel, by nresenta tien to the King; and the feel to be peived els, the publication in Mi filmic, where their Iso:dsi.'es were tried. Iles was attempted to be done, l e s pr. wing their signatures to the libel; hot these sienatitres ir.g affixed at the Archbishop's Palace, in Surrey, the Court was of opinion, that the fieit of the libel being friend in the possession of the King, signed by the Bishops, was not evidence tog .0 ,he Jury, of ,their publication :f,it in Middies. x. To obviate this, the thee At.orney-General eveduced a witness, who proved, that the. Biste.e. oad, when asked by the Lord Chancellor., in the Council Chamber, at Whitehall, acknowlei,red that ti-.ey signed the paper in :Surrey; but i: aloe appearing. that they denied the pliblicat on in Mid finite, the C,urt was of opiasien. :het the acknowledgmeet. in Middlesex, was nos steficient evidence to go ..e) the Jury, of the publication in Middlesex ; end. that though the presenting it to the Ki g would t.e at publication, yet, as there was no evil-nee tbat the Bishops presented it, they must be acquitted.— In this state the pi-emcees ion then stood, when Lord Sund.elard was produced, and deposed, that the Bishops came to him, at his office, with the Pe.. tition in their hands, and offered to spew it to him. They asked to see the King ; they were told, that the Ling was in a room in the Palace ; aed they went in with the Petitiote From ties, Mr. ADAM argued, that, as in that case, the Court said" though the Bishops wrote it in Stierey, see constat, that they published it in Middlesex; so. lin this case, he said, though the Le.ritteite Judge might have written it in Ireland, nee constat, that he sent it to Mr. Cobbet to he pnli listed in Middlesex. In the presert case, the me- nuscripc is stated to have been sent to Mr. Budd ; he breaks the seal of the first packet, and sends it open to Mr. Cobbet, who throws tire envelopes aside; and, on the supposition that these envelopes are lost, Mr. Cobbet is allowed to state, that they had the Irish post-mark on them. Mr. Justice Laws tact: observed, that, in the course of this argument, it must be considered that the hend.writing of Mr. Justice Johnson was proved. Mr. ADAM said, that certainly, for the sake of the argument, and to assimilate this case to the case of the Bishops, it must be considered as proved. He then submitted, that there was a total absence of a sufficient chain of evidence to bring the publication of the libel in Middlesex borne to the Learned .lodge. If it had been proved that he put tinrietter into the Post-ofSce, in Dublin, there wield be a kind of presumptive evidence that it arrived in London ; but no such thing was proved ; and it was not to be considered that Mr. Justice Johnson was the author ; a man, who, from his situation, was amongst many others, equsily atpabie, though he is extremely well informed, the most unlikely. Sop nose he did write, and then left it in his bureau, the paper might be stolen from thence, and sent to Mr. Budd ; or it might have been altogether a contriv- I ance of Mr. Budd's, .4 nd he might have forged the post mark. Lord Et LIINBOROUGH-••" It is not a question for 1 the Jury to consider, whether this manuscript were I sent by Mr. Justice Johnsen to Mr. Cobbet, for the purpose of having it published." Mr. AD.tm—" That was not the opinion of the Learned Judges in the ease of the seven Bishops." Mr. Justice LaWitEsCS said, that in the case of the seven Bishops, there was mot a tittle of evidence that they presented the petition to the King, until Lord Sunderland was called, but M this Cabe there uses the evidence of Mr. Cobbet to prove that it was sent to him by the author, to be published. Mr. ADAM still dwelt on the case of the Seven Bishops, and concluded, by saying, that here there w a s no evidence of the transmission ; and even sep posing it was Mr. Justice Johnion's hand-writing, it did not appear that it was published by his procure ment. Mr. PARKE, on the same side, rose, in support of the argument of his learned friend, Mr. Adam. The A•rruansv-Gr.taat. interpoaing, said, it would save the Court much trouble on this objec tion, if the libel were first allowed to he read, as tnat . , in itself would clearly prole the puSlicAtion with the knowledge and permission of Mr. Justice John- The Collar, however, thought that if the libels were once allowed to be read as evidence, tie oh jetion could not be afterwards taken. Mr. PARK!, in continuation, urged, that a man might write a libellous paper in his closet, intending to send it to the press, and afterwards, changing his mind, it might be stolen and published by another person. Toe envelopes in which these libels were enclosed, should have been produced, of at least proved to have been the Defendant's hand-writing s and this. he conceived, was the most material deli& in the evidence. Lord EILLNBOROUGI4....." 1,1 it were proved that Mr. Justice Johnson dire Red the envelope to 11r. Cobbet, your argument might still apply, as after writing it he might have changed his mind, and not sent it. Mr. P• est e acknowledged the truth of the remark. hut conceived, that if such a proof had bean offered. it would have been a presumptive evidence, which could not be withstood. The Learned Gentleman then entered at considerable length into logical deduc tions lrom the case of the seven Bishops. and con clnled by saying, that as the links in the chain of evidence. with respeet to the procuration of the pub lication, were entirely broken. there *mid not be a convictiim. Mr. LOCMIL ART and Mr. 11 Ica Avows, on the same side, shortly submitted their opinions in support of the obje3ion, depending entirely os the before-men tioned precedent, from whiLli they deduced, as an inevitable consequence ; that the present evidence %mild not be allowed to go to the Jury. Lord Li.i.esnomaticsat was convinced, that no- I