The recorder (Richmond, Va.), 1803-03-12 00:00:00

THE RECORDER;
PRINTED BY HENRY PACE, & JAMES T. CALLENDER, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY MORNING. SUBSCRIPTION TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM, IN ADVANCE.
SATURDAY, MARCH 12, 1803.
REVISED CODE.
THE SUBSCRIBERS to the REVISED CODE are respectfully informed that the Book will be ready for delivery on the first of April next. February 16th 1803.
At a meeting of the Common Hall, for the city of Richmond, called by the Mayor and held at the house of William Rose, in the said city, on Monday the 28th day of February, 1803. Resolved, that the Mayor give notice in the newspapers, that the Hall have adopted a plan for a POOR HOUSE, and will receive proposals from underwriters for building the same, at any time before the third Monday in next month. The plan is lodged in the hands of Mr. Robert B. James. The proposals must be made in writing. A copy
Teste ADAM CRAIG, c. c. h. c.
RICHMOND MILLS.
THE subscriber hereby informs the public, that at length, after much trouble and expense, he has nearly completed one of his Mills on the James River Canal, in which there are two pair of Burr stones for manufacturing WHEAT, and two pair of Cologne stones now ready to grind CORN.
That the inconveniences which might arise from delay and difference of measures may be avoided, CORN will be received only by weight, at fifty pounds to the bushel, and a supply of MEAL and HOMINY will always be kept ready to give in exchange, at the rate of eighty five pounds of Meal, or ninety two pounds of Hominy, for one hundred pounds of Corn.
After the loss of weight by cleaning, and evaporation in grinding is deducted, the toll on Meal will be only about one tenth, and on Hominy one twentieth; it will, therefore, be much to the interest of those who keep horses, to have all their Corn ground.
As the subscriber is now providing a Fan and Screen for the purpose of cleaning the Corn effectually before it is ground, and as the Meal will be made from the best Corn only, and none but such as is mercantable will be received; he hopes that general satisfaction will be given.
THOMAS RUTHERFOORD.
N. B. The deduction for Storage and Shrinkage on Corn, deposited to be exchanged for Meal and Hominy, will be made as moderate as possible. January 1, 1803.
VIRGINIA.
At a court continued and held for Halifax County, on Wednesday the 24th day of November 1802.
Mac Coles, Senr. Plaintiffs. AGAINST Stephen Biggs and James Snead, Defendants. In Chancery
THE defendant Biggs, not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this country. On the motion of the plaintiff by his counsel, it is ordered that the said defendant do appear here on the fourth Monday in March next, and answer the bill of the plaintiff; and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper of the city of Richmond for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the court house of this county.
A copy—Teste BERRYMAN GREEN, D. C. H. C.
THE SUBSCRIBERS
To the Washington Federalist are respectfully informed, that I am empowered by Mr. William Rind, to receive payment of the balance due to him in this city, and neighbourhood.
THOMAS TAYLOR. Vendee Master.
Richmond, Feb. 26th. 1803.
TO BE RENTED,
THAT large and convenient BRICK TENEMENT in this city, lately occupied by Mr. Robert Turner, as a Tavern and Boarding-House, situate on the corner of the Main-Street, and that leading to Col. Mayo's Bridge. The central situation thereof cannot fail (if rented by a gentleman qualified for the purpose) to ensure a considerable number of respectable boarders; or, it is an eligible residence for a genteel private family. The premises may be entered, on the first day of March next, or immediately, as circumstances may suit for terms apply to
ROBERT GAMBLE
Who has for sale a handsome assortment of CAR-PETS and CARPETING, and genuine PORT-WINE, in pints or quarter casks.
CITY OF RICHMOND.
In Common Hall, Jan. 17th 1803.
WHEREAS the present funds of the corporation are not adequate to the expense of erecting a WORKHOUSE for the city, which would combine within itself all the conveniences which a well regulated institution of this kind would require; having a regard to the future population of this city, yet it is wise and expedient that the funds now destined for this useful institution should be laid out in such a manner as to answer the present purposes of the corporation, and to admit such future additions as the increasing population may require. Your Committee, therefore, beg leave to recommend to the consideration of the Common Hall, to call in the aid of those who have experience of such institutions, and to offer a premium for the best plan of a Workhouse, which will be so contrived as to admit of being erected in parts, as the funds of the corporation will from time to time afford.
Resolved, therefore, that the committee appointed to prepare a plan of a Workhouse be discharged from further proceeding therein. And that the Mayor be requested to give notice in the newspapers, or otherwise, that the sum of thirty dollars will be given by the corporation, as a premium to the person who shall produce to the Hall, on the third Monday in February next, the best plan of a Workhouse, constructed as above mentioned, and to be approved of by the Hall, estimating the cost at four thousand dollars.
Copy Teste ADAM CRAIG, c. c. h. c.
BURR MILL-STONE MANUFACTORY.
THE subscriber returns sincere thanks to his friends and the public generally, for the very great encouragement he received in his business since his commencement in Richmond. He has lately received a large supply of excellent Burr-Stones at his manufactory, and does not hesitate to say, that he will sell Burr Mill-Stones as cheap as they were ever sold in the United States; he will warrant them to be of the best quality, and give ample security (if required) for their performance. Country produce will be taken in payment, or a short credit given; he has almost every fixed Mill-Stones ready for delivery; also PLASTER OF PARIS ground and in the store.
CARSON HOLIDAY. Richmond, Jan. 25th, 1803. (tf.)
FRESH FLOUR.
THE Subscribers hereby give notice, that they are now ready to make Sales of FLOUR of their own manufacture, and are also desirous to purchase Wheat, Corn, Flour-Barrels, and Straw.
Such as may want a supply of Meal, Hominy, Slop-Stuff, and Bran, are informed that they can be furnished at certain prices during the year, and that for the present quarter, ending the last of March, the prices will be for 50 lbs. Meal, 3s. and 6d. and for 50 lbs. Hominy, 3s. 3d.
They hereby solicit all those indebted to them, to make payment as fast as possible, as their situation does not enable them to grant such indulgence as heretofore.
They have still on hand a large assortment of IRISH LINTING, which they are anxious to dispose of.
THOMAS RUTHERFOORD, & Co. Feb. 16th. 1803.
BURR MILL-STONE MANUFACTORY.
THE subscriber takes this mode of returning his thanks to his former patrons, and informing the public in general, that he has (by desire of his friends) re-commenced the MANUFACTURING OF BURR MILL-STONES, and having furnished himself with a supply of the best materials, and having had sixteen years experience in the business in Baltimore, Peterborough, and Richmond, hopes to be able to give satisfaction to his employers. The stones he will warrant to be as good as any in the United States.
Any orders left with Capt. WILLIAM PENNOCK, Norfolk; Capt. WILLIAM CHAMBERS, Staunton; Mr. WILLIAM HAY, Wythe County; or Mr. ROBERT MOORE, Petersburg, shall be duly attended to, and country produce received in payment at the customary prices.
TWO APPRENTICES will be taken to the above business, and short time required. WILLIAM DAVIDSON. Richmond, Jan. 10th 1803. (tf.)
N. B. For sale, PLASTER OF PARIS, in stone or ground, for the improvement of land, with directions for the use thereof.
TO THE PUBLIC.
MANY gentlemen residing in states north of this have addressed letters to us, to send them the Recorder, and requested we would annul any action in Philadelphia, or New York, whereby they could lose their subscription money. We take this opportunity of informing the public, that Mr. Lewis, paper-maker, at Philadelphia, will receive any subscriptions sent for the Recorder, and Mr. Coleman, printer of the New York Herald, at New York.
WHEREAS Lucretia Alford, has left my house and board in my absence, and resides in another man's family, I forewarn all persons from trusting, or harbouring her on any account.
THOMAS ALFORD. Richmond, March 8, 1803.
FOR SALE.
A few likely young NEGROES. For particulars enquire of the Printer. Richmond, March, 7th 1803.
TO THE PUBLIC.
No. III. CONCERNING MR. GALLATIN, AND THE SALE OF BANK STOCK.
IN my endeavours to unfold the mysterious and dangerous character of Mr. Gallatin, I am not influenced by personal enmity, or petty ambition. I consider him as the pivot of political error, and mischief. That he never did possess sufficient talents, or a sincere disposition to promote the national glory and happiness of his country. He knows well, that he is a cold, selfish, interested character, without friendship or feeling; he knows that his reputation as a statesman has proceeded from the feebleness, or indolence of those with whom he has acted. That he became a leader from several causes. These were, having no relish for society he became studious; he read with attention; he prepared himself with notes and illustrations upon all important subjects, while his fellow labourers and associates were employed in some amusement, or at play. Habits grow with rapidity. Thus, when Congress adjourned from day to day, Gallatin retired to his studies, and the others to their amusements; it would of course turn out, that the strongest and most important parts of the next day's debate would fall upon him, while the others could be considered only as partisans and flunkers.
Who can say how often Gallatin has detained or obstructed the proceedings of Congress by his vociferations and explanations, delivered upon some occasions with a vehemence of voice, and a strain of articulation, which not only destroyed the possibility of being understood, but grated harshly and offensively upon all the organs of legislation? Who can pretend to say how many speeches of this sort, delivered in a little altogether unintelligible, except here and there a sentence, have been uttered upon the floor of Congress during the time when he pondered by night, and laboured by day to stop "decrees of de government"? Who of all those who were witnesses can say, that the speeches, which some few days afterwards appeared in the newspapers, as Gallatin's, were the same which were delivered on the floor of Congress? There is no hazard in saying that the speech which was delivered, and the speech that was published were not alike; because no man, however acute his perceptions, however active and capacious his talents, and however strong his memory, could possibly take down a speech of this sort. I am too well satisfied, as to the perception of my own organs to confide in any who will say, that upon all subjects, and upon all occasions, the title of Mr. Gallatin was such as to enable him to understand either the articulation of every sentence which was delivered, or the scope or tendency of it. Congress were unfortunately divided into factions, the minor puppets all knew their leaders; and whether the time was spent in argument, or in jargon, it came to the same thing. The only objects which required method, caution, and constancy were, "the speech to be published," and "the circular letters." Under these superior advantages, and uniform consistency, the democrats have prevailed. It was matter
of astonishment that the federalists did not contrive to introduce a Cherokee, or Choctaw orator to reply to Gallatin. He might have been directed to make his speeches of equal length, and the readers could, at their leisure, have published what they pleased in an opposition newspaper.
But jettisoning apart, there was not a candid bystander, who belonged to neither party, or to either party, who did not believe, that if Mr. Gallatin had been the member of a polemical assembly, where all questions were argued, and decided upon their intrinsic merits and where there was no party zeal, that he would have obtained little or no influence. As the case was, let him say what he would, whether in a cadence which was only here and there understood, or all jargon, he knew to an unit, how many would vote with him, and the less intelligible his speech, the more certain his number.
If Gallatin did not know to a certainty, that he was positively sure of a majority upon all occasions, if he had any fears, that truth and justice would find their way into congressional decisions, would he dare to enjoy in all the pride of triumph, that very false glory for his own services, which he opposed as a proper compensation for his predecessor? Every body knows that this very flattering though the United States in all the terms of derision, and reprobation, and that Gallatin himself was among the most clamorous.
Although this point is well understood by many persons, who will read this paper, although it has been frequently explained or noticed, yet there are, no doubt, many to whom the allusion is unknown; for such the following is written. During the session of Congress at Philadelphia, the federalists brought forward a proposition to increase the salaries of several officers of government, including that of the secretary of the treasury. His salary at that time was 3500 dollars per year. The federalists succeeded in the proposition, and raised the salary to 5000 dollars per year. Among those who opposed this measure, no member of Congress exerted himself so much as Gallatin. It was supposed, that the time which he alone waited in the opposition, was of more value than the difference. At that time there was but very little prospect that a political revolution would soon have happened, by which Gallatin, and the party, would be placed at the head of public affairs; still less, that Gallatin himself would fill that very office, and enjoy that very salary, against which he had levelled all his artillery. These events have happened. Gallatin is now the secretary of the treasury. The republican reader, who does not know better, expects that I am going to say, that Congress reduced the salary; that Gallatin refuses to accept of more than 3500 dollars, but all such readers will be disappointed. Gallatin takes the 5000 dollars, and no doubt would take as much more, if he could get them. The republicans seem just as ready to get places and money, as their predecessors were; the only difference is, the federalists were very plain and candid; one might know to a fraction the extent of their views; but the republicans having tasted the benefits of falsehood and deception, in getting into power, have only to go a step further to make the most of their bargain.
This brings us to a comparison of the conduct of Timothy Pickering, and Albert Gallatin, in paying money, which the United States owed in Holland. Pickering contrived to make all the remittances in bills of exchange, with so much prudence and judgment, as to gain more than 14000 dollars, which he relinquished to the United States. Gallatin law, or pretended to law, so much danger and difficulty in a similar transaction, that he, according to his own report, sacrificed, upon the sale of the bank stock, 120,000 dollars, besides other advantages, and yet, strange to tell, the leaders among the republicans have all united in calumniating Pickering, as a fraudulent and designing character, and the same leaders tell the same people, that Gallatin is one of the ablest financiers, one of the greatest politicians, and one of the most candid, virtuous, and upright men, who ever did exist.
Every well-informed man knows that these facts exist; that members of Congress not only conceal them from their constituents, but endeavour to obscure their vision by other misrepresentations. That the people themselves are so infatuated by prejudice, that they shut their eyes and ears against all information, except that which comes from one of

their own party; very little, therefore, can be expected by writing. Listening would lead to reflection, reflection to knowledge, knowledge to a change of opinion, a change of opinion to a revolution. All this the democrats well know: and as they have gained the ascendancy by misrepresenting, or suppressing the truth, it is in vain to expect that their present or future conduct will be more just.
There are many well-informed people throughout the United States, who have not only persuaded themselves, but have also persuaded many other people, and to the opinion has become general, that Mr. Gallatin is a man of preeminent and superior talents. There are others who think that he is the very pinnacle of virtue, candour and integrity. There are a few; but alas! how few, who believe that this torrent of popularity and public favor is altogether a delusion.
I treat any of his idolatrous disciples to read the observations which I have already made upon the sale of the bank stock, and all the collateral subjects to which I have alluded; which either were connected with it, or which Gallatin, if he had understood his business, might have brought to bear. I treat my fellow citizens to consider that this is not the idleness of a declamatory denunciation; it is not the madness of disappointment; it is not the zeal of partyism; it is written by one of yourselves, who neither ever had, nor sought to hold a lucrative office, who neither ever did or will attach himself to any political faction, unless there should be one which would pronounce all its decrees in the temple of truth, and perform all its deeds under the banners of justice.
FEDERALIST. To be continued.
WILL BE SOLD,
AT Public Auction, to the highest bidder, on Tuesday the 25th instant, before the door of James McClure, in the city of Richmond, all the personal estate of James Stuart, deceased; consisting of a few articles of Household furniture, two hogheads of West India Rum, one crate of Barbary-ware, a few barrels of Sugar, a small quantity of Northern Rum, and about 4000 lbs. Obols. Ninety days credit will be given for all sums above ten dollars, on the purchaser's giving notes with approved security, to HENRY REID, Adm'r. Richmond, March 9th. 1803. (1 25 M.)
WHANTED,
A CLERK, who has been used to keep books and who writes a clear strong hand. Such a person may find employment by applying at this office. He must be disposed to attend to his business, and able to bring proper testimonials of his character. March 12th, 1803.
The RECORDER. RICHMOND.
MARCH 12th 1803.
TO THE PUBLIC.
WITH the present number commences the Saturday's Recorder, the price being two dollars per annum, paid in advance. We shall often be unavoidably compelled to continue long articles from one paper to the other, so that the subscribers to the Wednesday's Recorder will find it extremely convenient to take the Saturday's likewise, in order that they may have articles always in their full and complete form. We shall now be able to take notice of a wide variety of foreign and domestic news, which we formerly were obliged to leave out for want of room. In doing this, we shall be particularly careful to select such articles as wear a serious appearance of authenticity, and are really worth reading. More cannot be demanded, and we shall endeavour not to do less. The three first numbers of the Saturday's paper will be sent round to all our subscribers. After that, they will be sent only to those who, in the mean time, have remitted money to pay for their new subscription. From those who do not chuse to take the Saturday's papers, these three numbers will be deducted in reckoning up their year.
SOME time ago, we suggested that there was a person in Richmond, who frequented George Hay's house, and assisted in some of his operations at Loo. One of the editors of this paper was asked a few days ago, what was the name of this person. The reason assigned for this question was that the querist frequented Hay's house, and played at cards there. We are not in the habit of answering impertinent questions. Those, whom the cap fits, are welcome to wear it.
The following paragraph, which appeared in the Recorder of February 6th, gave rise to the above intrusion.
"Hay came to reside in Richmond something more than two years ago. He was not then worth four thousand dollars. His practice as a lawyer, supported a genteel subsistence, and that was all. He is now building a house near the capitol, which cannot cost him less than ten thousand dollars. One is tempted to ask where he got the money? He lives in a sumptuous style. He keeps a great deal of company. We wish to know if it is true that after dinner, or supper, cards are constantly proposed, as an amusement, that two separate parties are immediately formed, and Hay presides at one of the tables. An hundred people in Richmond have reported such particulars. If the tale is false, those people make a very bad return for his good cheer. It is further said that a person in Hay's confidence, and who is continually paying visits at his house, is always at one of those tables. We have already explained the nature of the game at Loo."
FROM THE NEW-YORK HERALD.
SEVERAL letters have appeared in the Recorder under the signature of FEDERALIST, addressed to Mr. John Clifton, member of congress, in which the writer reviews and analyses the prominent measures of the administration with much spirit and ability. Did our limits permit, we should with much pleasure republish those valuable essays. We doubt not they will render essential service to the cause of federalism in the quarter where they appear; and we hope the writer will be encouraged to proceed in his valuable undertaking.
FROM THE BALANCE.
To the EDITORS.
AT this alarming crisis, while political doctrines are advanced and measures are attempted, by men high in office, which are utterly subversive of the liberty of the press, it is necessary to test the present conduct of some of the leaders of the democrats with their former professions and to expose their hypocrisy to the view of the public. For this purpose, I request you to republish an extract from a pamphlet, containing a number of letters, which were directed to president Adams: and also to publish my remarks upon it. At the same time, I advise you to be cautious; for the late resolve of the Virginia assembly, and the speech of governor McKean, which has been followed by a public avowal, that truth itself is a libel, induce me to believe that there is a systematic plan to muzzle the federal presses.
Your editorial and agricultural departments are safe: but in regard to politics, I warn you not to publish the whole truth . You may yet have cause bitterly to remember the old adage, namely, "the truth is not to be spoken at all times." Therefore, if there should be any sentiment in my remarks, that will expose you to the lash of the new republican law, I wish you to suppress it. But to the point.—In the first number of the aforementioned pamphlet, the writer, after declaring the sedition law to be unconstitutional, proceeds and concludes as follows:
"Yet, Sir, however clear your opinion, however decided your conviction may be, on this great constitutional question, there is one point in which we must all agree. It is a truth which cannot be denied, a truth supported by facts, as notorious as they are alarming, that the sedition bill is in the highest degree dangerous and inexpedient. In this part of the world it is justly regarded as an attack on the liberty of the press, and has roused the attention of the supine. It has inflamed that spirit of suspicion and discontent, which, unfortunately for the people, has been already too powerfully excited, and has a direct and obvious tendency to
produce the very crime which it professes to punish. God forbid that I should say, that such was the object for which the law was made. If I entertained an opinion so dishonorable to my countrymen, so disgraceful to humanity, my soul would sink with horror and despair. But I cannot despair. Truth, liberty, and virtue, must prevail in America, and I therefore, believe, that the servants of the people, will not continue a law, merely because it has passed, when they know, when they see, that the evil which it has already produced, infinitely outweighs all the good which they expected to obtain."
"HORTENSIUS."
"Virginia, Jan. 1799."
REMARKS.
Col. Hay, one of the leaders of the Virginia democrats, was the avowed author of the letters to Mr. Adams, signed "Hortensius." He was a friend of Callender, and advocated his cause, as an attorney, when he was prosecuted for a libel against the senate of the United States. While Callender was publishing "The Prospect before Us;" while Duane was continually pouring forth torrents of abuse upon the federal administration, and accusing every department of the government with the vilest corruption, Col. Hay was a mighty stickler for the liberty of the press. But mark the man! He and his friends are now in power; and it is no longer necessary that the presses should be free. This same Col. Hay has lately thrown a printer into jail, for refusing to give bonds for his good behaviour; that is to say, for refusing to bind himself and sureties in the penal sum of a thousand dollars, that he would not utter or publish aught, which the democrats might deem a libel! But Col. Hay is a republican and patriot. Robespierre and Marat were also republicans and patriots, and were zealous declaimers for the liberty of the press, till they had thrust themselves into power; and then, if any printer presumed to publish any thing against their conduct, or was even suspected of such a design, off went his head, without a trial.
I intended to have applied some remarks nearer home. It is reported that Mr. Spencer was among the loudest in exclaiming against the oppression and tyranny of the sedition law, and against the federal administration, for passing it. However, Mr. Spencer was then in the minority; and might think it necessary that every battery should be opened against the wicked federalists, who then held the reins of government. "Circumstances alter cases." This same Mr. Spencer, I am informed, has lately avowed principles and attempted measures, in comparison with which, the sedition law was mildness itself .—So the world goes; but enough. Mr. Spencer is attorney-general, and the federal printers, in this state, seem to be in his hands: therefore, I say again beware .
OBSERVER.
Who made George Hay a colonel? OR when and where was Callender prosecuted for a libel against the senate of the United States?
MR. WOODING of Pittsylvania is requested to observe that we cannot help the incessant robberies of the post-office. We begin to wish that this corrupted institution could be cast aside. The business would be better managed by a state post-office. We shall do what we can to repair the loss of his Recorders. This is your pretty republican government! Your Jefferson millennium! With regard to Mr. Wooding's remarks on the public printing , we published a defence of Mr. Nicolson, which implies a complete defence of Mr. Wooding. No answer is, or ever can be given to that defence.
Brockenborough did not go to judge Roan, as we had stated. Mr. Rae and Hay only went. Brockenborough even affects to disapprove of Hay's conduct. He has quite as much reason to condemn his own. He had the audacity to
interrupt the reading of a memorial, a thing before unheard of in the assembly. He was an associate in that act of theft, by which the majority stole fifteen hundred dollars from their constituents, to be made a present of to the public printer. For what other or better than the blackest and most downright theft can you term it, to pay twenty-seven hundred dollars for a piece of work, when two responsible and reputable printers in Richmond had separately offered to do the same thing for twelve hundred? The assembly did this because they were playing with the money of the people. To that people, we submit whether it is a crime to cheat them, and whether they think that such fellows should be sent back to cheat them a second time? It is very true that fifteen hundred dollars are not a great sum for a state like this to lose. But mind that your treasury is often quite empty. When you are going to entrust a man with ten thousand pounds, it is very interesting to learn that he has been detected in stealing five shillings. This shews you what he is, and puts you on your guard. In the same manner, the robbery of the fifteen hundred dollars shews how the assembly were likely to behave in the armory business, and how the executive council came to give citizen Loo a fee of seven hundred dollars, when the whole inside furniture of his skull was not worth half that sum!
DEMOCRATICAL FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
Continued from our last.
"ON the ground of this prosecution," says the Examiner, "correctly conducted on the best established principles of the common law, not only the attorney general is besmirched, but the whole republican party polluted with the foulest abuse." To be sure. It is just what they deserved and must have expected. The prosecution of Croswell presents the broadest and most brazen fronted reversal of all their former professions; for as to principles , they seem out of the question. The republicans are just now running their heads against the very same post, upon which the federal persecutors knocked out what brains they had. The Examiner adds that, "with the most egregious folly and stupidity, too, or with the most criminal destitution of candour, the republican party is charged with inconsistency in putting these persecutions on foot, after their execration of the sedition law." A little after this the Examiner says that this law was repealed . It expired of itself, and the republicans, for the sake of consistency, were obliged to oppose the renewal of it. The Examiner has not even attempted to shew in what sense it can be stupid or criminal to blame the republican party for this prosecution of Croswell. This alleged common law principle is ten thousand times more impudent, more tyrannical, more hideous, than any part of the sedition act. And shall not the republicans be condemned for it? The suit is commenced by a republican attorney general. The bills were found by a republican jury; and by a jury of the same stamp will Croswell be condemned. That the party are committing the most insolent and criminal inconsistency no mortal can doubt. As for the common law, we have only to consult Madison's pamphlet. Here follows his opinion upon the character of the common law. The third of the subsequent queries marches as directly into the heart of Croswell's case, as if the author had wrote it on purpose. The maxim in question has been crushed by parliament. Indeed what could be more preposterous than to place the writer of a true, or even of a false paper upon a footing a million of times worse than that of a robber, or a parricide? We proceed with Mr. Madison.
"The difficulties and confusion inseparable from a constructive introduction of the common law, would afford powerful reasons against it."
"Is it to be the common law with, or without the British statutes?"
"If without the statutory amendments, the views of the code would be UNSUPPORTABLE!"
"If with these amendments, what period is to be fixt for limiting the British authority over our laws?"
"Is it to be the date of the eldest or the youngest of the colonies?"
"Or are the dates to be thrown together, and a medium deduced?"
"Or is our independence to be taken for the date?"
"Is, again, regard to be had to the various changes in the common law made by the local codes of America?"
"Is regard to be had to such changes, subsequent, as well as prior, to the establishment of the constitution?"

As regard to be had to future, as well as past changes? "Is the law to be different in every state as differently modified by its codes; or are the modifications of any particular state, to be applied to all?" "And on the latter supposition, which among the state codes could form the standard?" "Questions of this sort might be multiplied with as much ease, as there would be difficulty in answering them."
"If it be understood that the common law is established by the constitution, it follows that no part of the law can be altered by the legislature; such of the statutes already passed as may be repugnant thereto, would be nullified, particularly the 'sedition act' itself, which boasts of being a melioration of the common law; and the whole code with all its incongruities, barbarisms, and bloody maxims, would be inviolably saddled on the good people of the United States."
"The committee feel the utmost confidence in concluding that the common law never was, nor by any fair construction, ever can be, deemed a law for the American people as one community, and they indulge the strongest expectation that the same conclusion will finally be drawn, by all candid and accurate enquirers into the subject. It is indeed distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution, on the whole face of which is seen, so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; and a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution as a system of limited and specified powers. A severer reproach could not, in the opinion of the committee, be thrown on the constitution, on those who formed, or on those who established it, than such a supposition would throw on them."
After this solemn and deliberate declaration of his sentiments, would any mortal have supposed that Madison, the virtuous Madison, was to have countenanced a prosecution founded upon the most corrupted and exploded portion of that very law! a portion that has been expunged by a British act of parliament! We are told, indeed, that the prosecution was commenced not by a federal, but a state attorney general; and from this an inference is to be drawn that Mr. Jefferson, honest man! has no concern with the matter. This story will not go down. Jefferson read about eight hundred of Callender's pages before publication. He studied and paid for paragraphs in the Aurora. His microscopic attention would not have suffered a suit of this kind to proceed, if it had met with his reprobation. Neither would Ambrose Spencer have embroiled himself with such an host of accusers, but for some strong and weighty reason. As for Madison, he either condemns, or approves of this prosecution. To say that Jefferson did not consult him, would be to say that he is a cypher. If he condemns the measure, he should give up his place, according to the constant and manly practice of an English minister. If he approves of the suit, which is most likely, what are you to make of his consistency? If he approves of Spencer, he has either altered his political opinions, or he never had any. If he condemns the suit, then he clings to his place in defiance of his conscience. He prefers five thousand dollars per annum to the purity of his fame, and the freedom of his country. Take either end of this proposition, and neither the deeply piercing wisdom of Davila, nor all the semi-omnipotent eloquence of Henry could restore him to your esteem. After such a cold deliberate error of the heart, confidence, like virginity, can never be regained.
The Examiner next launches into a long argument to show that the sedition law is worse than the common law. To give him a full answer, it would be necessary to make a long quotation. For this we have not room; and, what is worse, the quotation would not be worth it. He rests the republican opposition to this act entirely upon its being unconstitutional. "It is," says he, "perfectly immaterial, how merciful and gentle the provisions of the sedition law were. The whole law was an usurpation of power, was unconstitutional; and the republicans, THEREFORE, protected against it." The law had much worse faults than this. We have already mentioned some of them. One great objection was the creation of political trials, upon any account whatever; because before an American jury, such trials are always, and without any exception, a scene of prejudice, and oppression.† It was
NOTE. † There was one juror, and only one, who rose above the rank of his brethren. He told Chase that he had already formed his opinion of The Prospect , and therefore could not serve. Chase bullied him into the box. Behold
the conduct of the federal judges, of Washington, of Patterson, and of Chase, it was the same savage tyranny of the sentences, which routed, and will long continue to route, the astonishment, and the horror of mankind. On this subject of giving the truth in evidence , the Examiner of March 5th, speaks thus:
"The common law doctrine, which prohibits the truth to be given in evidence under an indictment for a libel, is directly in hostility to the nature and principles of our government. It is the most dangerous of all faults on the freedom of the press, that can well be imagined; it ought to alarm the people, and call immediately into action their remedial power. Under the pressure of this law, who would be so bold and disinterested as to expose an impostor, when that very truth which might be his overthrow, could not be given in evidence? TRUTH can never be the enemy of society: the man of veracity can never be a libeller. Shall we then, at this enlightened epoch, when political institutions are admitted to have received an high polish, drag from the tomb of neglect, a doctrine clad with the rust of oppression and of darker ages? No---in the name of liberty let it corrode, until the state legislatures shall perform its funeral rites; until the voice of the people shall interpose to abolish it, and leave not a trace behind."
This is a prompt, and forcible declaration. It is to be hoped that the Examiner will never more advance or defend an arbitrary and atrocious maxim so unworthy of his common sense. We shall now say a few words concerning the case of Croswell.
On January 11th, 1803, this printer was taken before the court of sessions of Columbia county, in the state of New-York. Two indictments were there read to him. The first consists of a summary of some garbled quotations from Callender's Prospect . It is most likely that Croswell never saw the book; and therefore he may plead ignorance as an excuse for having misquoted it. If he can be punished, however, without endangering the liberty of the press, he deserves punishment, both at the hands of the president, and of Callender. The former is charged with having hired the latter to calumniate Washington a traitor, and a robber. We have already taken notice that no such accusations exist in the book. On the contrary, it contains an elaborate apology for general Washington's mistakes, which, as the head of the federal party, he did occasionally commit. The strongest attestation is given to the purity of his intentions. There is one editor, who had been barking at Callender upon this and such other points, for months together. He had never seen the book. He had depended entirely upon the mangled federal quotations. The author at last, chanced to be in that part of Virginia. He waited upon this editor, and shewed him the passages at full length. The gentleman at once confessed that he was grossly mistaken. He sketch- ed a recantation. But it was afterwards suppressed, for fear of offending some of his federal patrons, who did not wish to see Mr. Jefferson acquitted of a charge so atrocious. Of this charge, however, he is innocent, before God and man. That he patronized both the first and second volumes of the book has already been proved, after the president and his friends had dared to deny the fact. But assertions must not be pushed farther than truth will go along with them. When overretched, the strongest cable must snap asunder. A spoonful of soot, says the proverb, spoils a peck of potage. A single gross and detected falsehood, when blended among a thousand truths, will shake the credit of the whole. The majority of federal editors cannot see this very plain and important distinction. While the ripe and rich harvest of truth is bending towards the sickle, they have the weakness to pollute this crop with the tares of falsehood. While Mr. Jefferson is vulnerable on a thousand points, they will run their heads against the strongest part of his fortifications. They will accuse him of faults which he never conceived, and far less committed. This we apprehend to be a fair statement with respect to Croswell. If any thing like justice, firmness, or consistency, had existed in the present federal cabinet, these prosecutions would have been commenced nine months ago. They would have been pointed, in the first place, at field Marshall COLEMAN. He can at once make a story ring through an hundred and fourteen quires of paper.† Why did they not prosecute him? The plain answer is that they durst not . This would have been giving an alarm too soon. They chose to set out with the printer of the Balance , a printer, who does not possess the fortieth part of Mr. Coleman's editorial importance. Ambrose Spencer fancies that the cobweb of common law is not strong enough to catch large flies and therefore he wishes to catch small
NOTE. † The New-York Evening Post has forty six, and the Herald sixty eight quires of paper.
ones. This trial must be regarded as an opening wedge for others of more importance, and of equal atrocity. If Coleman is not alert in founding the typographical tocsin, he may in his turn, expect a prosecution within six months at furthest. Croswell's affair is the morning star of despotism, which is to usher in the broad day light of slavery.
As this case is of the highest consequence, we shall speak at large of the second and most copious of those two indictments. The first charge is in these words:
"1. He [Jefferson] ordered money to be paid out of the treasury to repair the Bercéau, contrary to the clause in the constitution, which gives the sole power of appropriating money to Congress."
We had always considered till now, that the president's friends gave up this point. That Mr. Jefferson acted to the best of his judgement nobody can doubt. But, Mr. Croswell, did not general Washington, at an expence of two hundred and eighty three thousand dollars, build the Bercéau frigate? And this without leave of Congress? And has not Callender been reviled through an hundred newspapers for saying that this act was unconstitutional? If the Bercéau was wrong, could the President be right?
"2d. He has displaced the honest patriots of this country, and appointed to succeed them foreigners and flatterers, who have always shewn themselves hostile to it; one of whom was prime agent in raising an insurrection to oppose the constituted authorities."
This charge is loose and indefinite, but certainly not worth a prosecution. Spencer might raise five hundred actions, if they can rest upon a bottom like this. That Gallatin officiated as secretary to the rioters never was denied. We have it under his own hand. His friends say that he did so by compulsion, and for the sake of preventing mischief. As to foreigners, the prime minister of general Washington was a native of the West Indies. When the president named two commissioners to act at Philadelphia, under Jay's treaty, one of them, Thomas Fitzsimmons, was an Irishman. Was it not a ci-devant Piedmontese ensign that restored the fading laurels of France, and drove Suwarow, and the Arch Duke Charles headlong over the Alps? And do the French even whisper a reproach against MASSENA, because he is a foreigner. For shame! Harry.
"3d. He planned and directed the attack on the constitution last winter, by which the independence of the judiciary was destroyed, and our constitution marred and mangled."
"4th. He has remitted a fine to a criminal, after the fine was collected, against the express provisions of the constitution."
As for the federal judges, the country has been completely deceived and bubbled about their case. If they had known that Congress could, at pleasure turn them off, they would not have acted in the sedition trials with so much impudence as they did. It is a great pity that both Chase and Patterson were not impeached and broke. If the repeal of the judiciary law was wrong, there seems no reason to blame the president in particular about it. A large majority of Congress passed the law with all its usual forms. As for the remission of the two hundred dollars, it is generally understood that the step was illegal. If Mr. Jefferson could have foreseen all the consequences of this refusal, he would rather have paid five thousand.
"5th. He released Duane from a prosecution instituted for a libel on the senate, without the least authority from the constitution, or any law---only, because Duane contributed his share to his him into office. It would be an endless task to enumerate the many acts, in direct hostility to common sense and the constitution, of which, this 'man of the people' has been guilty---These are facts and I now ask his friends and foes ---every American---do you not blush for your country and your president?---Do you not in all this, plainly perceive the little arts of every little mind."
To all this stuff the most convenient answer for a republican to make is that when the federal were the spurs of authority they were just as tyrannical as their successors now are; and that the constitution is alike out of the case with both parties.
If indictments like that now quoted are to be supported, the freedom of the press is at an end. The very existence of such an action reflects more disgrace on the democrats than all Croswell's charges themselves, admitting them to be true. It is vain to endeavour to keep Madison and the president clear of this business. We wish to found an alarm as fast and as far as possible. If such enormous tyranny and oppression are suffered to proceed, the effects cannot fail of being fatal. The time cannot be distant when the lovers of freedom will spurn this mongrel upstart despotism when they will seek shelter at the mouth of the Mississippi, from the tyrants whom they raised from the dust; when they will demand the invincible protection of the first consul. Were no other reason to be discovered for dismissing our present masters, this prosecution would, of itself, be satisfactory. But when we get rid of them, where can we find better
men to fill their places? Shall we tend our Braintree for John Adams, to Jersey for Patterson, or to Baltimore for Chase?
FIRE-BELL.
IT has been the custom, in this place, to call the citizens together at the Capitol by ringing the bell. It is generally considered as the notice for fire. When the twenty-eight republicans met the other day to talk about the feast, the bell was rung. Some persons immediately equipped themselves with their buckets, &c. and had the satisfaction of being laughed at as dupes. A similar farce was played on the 4th of March, as the anniversary of Jefferson's election. The consequence of this is, that, if there was now to be an actual fire, or other cause of alarm, the ringing of the bell would not bring the citizens together. This reminds us of the fable of the boy and the wolf. We hope that, if the democrats ever take such freedom a third time, the ringers will be sent to jail, as disturbers of the peace.
FROM THE PORT FOLIO.
A MODERN ANTIQUE.
TO form a patriot's and a sage's mind, How strange a medley, days of old combin'd! Of wit and folly, genius void of sense, Malicious deeds, and mildness in presence, And pious atheism, profligate and grave, Serenely pure, and wenching with a slave.
If friendship's rights, the patriot's bosom mov'd, Enquire of Walker's wife how much he lov'd. For faith to promise wouldst thou chant his praise? For paltry gold, lo! precious paste-board pays.
Eternal God! he bows before thy throne, Rises and whistles, "twenty Gods or none." Such was the patriot sage of ancient times: Oh! may such patriots never grace our climes, Nor virtue lend her mask to hid the basest crimes!
* Gabriel Jones.
Extract of a letter from Frederickburg, dated Feb. 28th, 1803.
It is thought necessary to add, that your paper does not at all times come regular to this place. Was it known where the fault lay, perhaps redress might be had; we hope however, you will not be negligent on your part.
NEW DISCOVERIES.
Captain Ray of the American ship Hope on the 2nd of December, 1801, discovered an island about 7 leagues in length, in 25 deg. S. lat. and 166 deg. 21 minutes east longitude. The island appeared to be well covered with wood, but he could not approach sufficiently near to distinguish whether or not it was inhabited. Four days after, in 5. 45, N. lat. and 163. 40 long. saw another island about 4 leagues in length, but the want of competent boats, prevented his further discovery. Neither of these islands is marked on any map or chart. Captain Ray, on leaving America, proceeded to Falkland's island, where he remained six months, and was successful in getting skins; he then went to the island of South Georgia, and staid three months there. He then attempted to proceed to China, round Cape Horn, but after beating about for 60 days, he was obliged to abandon the enterprise, and to put into Port Desire, on the coast of Patagonia, and afterwards return to the river la Plate, where he remained three months to dry his skins. He next touched at Port Jackson, and in his passage thence to Canton (where he disposed of his skins to great advantage) he made the discovery in question.
JUST PUBLISHED
AND FOR SALE AT THIS OFFICE
PRICE TWO SHILLINGS AND THREE-PENCE
THE CONDUCT
OF MERIWETHER JONES,
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC,
By JAMES T. CALLENDER.
MANY gentlemen, when subscribing to this paper, have enquired for complete sets of the Recorder. These are not to be had. But this little publication will, in some measure, supply the want of them. Besides the seven letters to Jones, the last of which has rung through every state, and every second newspaper in the union, the collection contains many other articles. Among these are, Defence of Aaron Burr ---Mr. Samuel Coleman, No. 1.--- Defence of Timothy Pickering ---A little more about republican economy---with a variety of small pieces.
7 12 1 6 1 10 4 9

LAW INTELLIGENCE
Court of King's Bench, Dec. 24.
CRIM. CON.
William Lingham the younger, v. Hunt.
DAMAGES LAID IN THE DECLARATION £. 5000.
Mr. Lawes opened the pleadings, from which it appeared that this was an action against the defendant for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
In drawing a distinction between cases of this nature, Mr. Garrow said "To day we present you a case of the last enormity on the part of the defendant, and the most spotless purity on the part of the plaintiff. I challenge my learned friend (meaning Mr. Erskine, counsel for the defendant) to ransack the life of this unhappy man, and to shew a single circumstance which should lessen him in your esteem, or abate one shilling of the damages you will award to him." After alluding to certain threats made use of out of doors to terrify the plaintiff from publicly meeting his adversary and saying that he courted the threatened investigation, he proceeded to a statement of the facts, which he meant to give in evidence. By this statement it appeared that on the 16th of August, 1800, the plaintiff was married to the young lady whose misconduct is the subject of the present action; that she was but nineteen, uncommonly beautiful, and highly accomplished; that the defendant's lady was an amiable woman, remarkably domestic and attached to her children; and such as every new married man would be anxious that his inexperienced wife should associate with. That a strict intimacy thus arose between the two families. That in March last Mrs. Hunt died in child-bed, leaving her infant unconscious of the loss it had suffered. That Mr. Hunt received deeply affected, deplored the helpless state of his child, and entreated Mrs. Lingham, for the sake of its mother, frequently to visit and see that it was treated with all the tenderness it could receive in its orphan condition; that the obsequies of his own wife were scarcely celebrated, when he formed the diabolical purpose to seduce the wife of his friend, who had not the slightest ground of suspicion. That, on the evening of the 8th of July, the plaintiff returned to his house after the business of the day, found that his wife was not within, and, the weather being very bad, and no coach to be procured, he waited till late, when hope yielded to apprehensions, and to his astonishment and consternation he received, the next morning, the following letter, which (the handwriting and delivery to the plaintiff being proved) was read in evidence.
"SIR—With sorrow great how can I announce that you have most miserably misplaced your confidence in me? Your wife cannot return to you without forgiveness. This I think it impossible you should ever grant. See, however, discreetly my poor brother, who, as well as Eliza, (Mrs. L.) myself and yourself will go distracted.—Still yours,
JOSEPH HUNT.
Mr. Garrow concluded by saying, that if the witnesses he was about to call, stood uncontradicted, he was sure the jury would not be lead astray by the brilliant speech of his learned friend, to give one pound short of the five thousand, at which the damages were laid.
Several witnesses were then called by the plaintiff, who proved his marriage with Miss Eliza Dixon, on the 16th of August, 1800; that they appeared to live perfectly happy together; that Mr. Lingham, (at the time of the trial) was about 27 years of age, an exemplary husband, and treated his wife with kindness and affection; that Mrs. Lingham was an agreeable and accomplished young woman, and intimate with Mrs. Hunt; that she had a child; that on 8th of July, about ten o'clock in the evening, a gentleman in morning with a lady came in a hackney coach to the house of a livery stable keeper in Great Windmill Street, and ordered a chaise for Barnet; that, after leaving two let-
ters to be sent into the city, they were driven to the Green Man at Barnet, where they arrived between 12 and 1, the night being very rainy, asked for a bed, and one was immediately prepared, to which they both retired. That the next morning a gentleman and his servant arrived from London, enquiring after them; the chambermaid knocked at the chamber door, the gentleman opened it, and she saw the lady in bed; she saw the bed afterwards, and had no doubt but two persons had slept in it; she observed a pair of white cotton stockings, with the name of Eliza Lingham written in them at length. They remained there the whole day and went off about half past nine in the evening. A post boy belonging to the Green Man drove them to town. At Halloway they stopped at Mrs. Skirrel's, washerwoman, and took in some things belonging to the lady; the gentleman stood at the horses' heads. He then drove them along London Bridge, and set them down at the end of a street in the Borough. Mrs. Skirrel said Mrs. Lingham came to her house on the night of the 9th July and got a change of linen; a gentleman was with her, and stood at the horses' heads; but did not see who he was. Mrs. Hunt let lodgings; a lady and gentleman left her about a fortnight ago, they had been there 3 months, their names were Mr. Hunt, and Mrs. Lingham; they had a waiting woman, Mrs. Roberts. Mr. Hunt used to come down on Saturday night and stay till Monday morning; he had three beds in two rooms, and Mrs. L. with her maid slept in the double bedded room, and Mr. H. when he came down in the other; he told the witness his town-house was in Tower-street. "Oh! they made no secret of it," exclaimed the old lady. This occasioned an immense laugh.
Lord Ellenborough, justly indignant, said, this was not a matter to entertain the vicious end of the idle and thoughtless. They were gravely considering a most serious subject. A man complained of a civil injury, and it was now to be determined what redress he was entitled to. If the court was again disturbed by such indecent behaviour, he should certainly commit some of those persons who thus violated decorum to Newgate, by way of example.
Some of the plaintiff's witnesses gave in evidence, chiefly on the cross examination, that the plaintiff's family, that of Mr. Dixon, his wife's brother and others, in the whole about twenty, Mr. Hunt being one, went to see the illumination, (the illumination on account of the late peace) that Mr. Lingham walked with his wife's sister, and Mrs. Lingham with Mr. Hunt; that in the crowd which was immense, the party was separated near Mr. Otto's house. Mr. Lingham's party afterwards went to a pastry-cook's and took some refreshment, and then went home about two o'clock. Separation took place about eleven. That Mrs. Lingham, afterwards mentioned, in the hearing of her husband, that she and Mr. Hunt had supped together and fared better than the rest of the company, who were obliged to put up with what they could get at a pastry-cook's; but nothing was laid about a tavern. The witnesses did not think there was any thing bad in it from the manner in which it was related, and her husband treated it with that railing or badinage, which a man, who has confidence in the virtue of his wife, would do a trifling thing to state, he joked about it, and said it was very well for her that she fell into such good quarters. That after that Mr. Hunt drove her out in his chaise.
Mr. Erskine stated his defence in able and serious speech, which he introduced by saying that his learned friend had pleaded to be speak from him a speech eloquent and amusing. He appealed to all who knew him, whether there was in the profession one so little capable of affording amusement upon such a subject. Though he stood on that side of the cause, he never would be heard to
talk lightly of adultery, or try to turn it into pleasantry. He spoke in a solemn manner of the sanctity and importance of marriage. He did not deny the adultery, but said his client's letter undoubtedly condemned him, while it placed him in an unfavorable point of view, and not in that of an abandoned rake, or unprincipled debauchee. His principal defence, however, for lessening the damages was attempted to be drawn from the conduct of the plaintiff, whom he said he classed among those gentlemen of his description who were unfortunate, not among those who were infamous; that he did not represent him as a wretch seeking his own shame, yet that the calamity he deplored was chiefly owing to himself; that he was negligent and, regardless of his wife's virtue, and his own honour, and was not entitled to more than nominal compensation. He then stated a number of circumstances, which he alleged he would prove to establish his position. He examined three witnesses, the principal of whom was his client's brother; the other two proved nothing for the defendant, but gave favorable testimony for the plaintiff. Charles Hunt stated the circumstances which happened the night of the illumination, and that, when the conversation afterwards took place relative to it, Mrs. Lingham said she had supped with his brother at a tavern; he gave a long detail of the conduct of Mrs. Lingham in keeping company with the defendant, her riding with him, and staying out late at night, his brother's attention to her, and Mr. Lingham's neglect. That Mr. Lingham had observed to him, that he did not like Mrs. Lingham being so much at the defendant's house; that at one time on her coming home late, the plaintiff told the defendant, that he should not suffer him again to keep Mrs. Lingham out so late or after dark; and that he himself had mentioned to Mr. Lingham, that he thought it was very improper in his brother to keep Mrs. Lingham out so late, and that if he were him he would not suffer it. He said his brother was about one and thirty; that while he was married he was a grave man; that he was married 7 or 8 years to a very amiable and worthy woman, who died last March, in consequence of child-birth; the child survived; he had four children by his wife. The testimony of this witness was very unsatisfactory; to some of the questions on the cross examination, he gave answers only to the best of his knowledge, but could not answer positively; and in the conclusion of his evidence pointedly contradicted what he had said respecting the tavern, where his brother and Mrs. Lingham should have taken the refreshment, and said that neither tavern or any particular place was mentioned; but only Spring-Gardens. When Mr. Erskine had finished his examination, Mr. Garrow delivered the concluding argument, in which he spoke of the defendant as a most wicked and profligate adulterer, not satisfied with tearing from his friend the wife of his bosom; but coming forward to defeat the justice of the country, by the perjured testimony of his own brother.
Charge to the Jury.
Lord Ellenborough.—"Gentlemen of the jury, this is a case which deserves your most serious attention. When it appeared on the part of the plaintiff, it complained of the seduction of his wife, the destruction of all the happiness he had in the marriage state, and the extinction of all the comforts of marriage, both as they were procured him by the possession of the wife he loved, and the child of that wife. It stood, therefore, with all the circumstances that usually aggravate the offence of adultery, with this addition, that it was committed by a friend in whom the plaintiff placed implicit confidence, and in whom the defendant himself admitted, that confidence was miserably misplaced. Stronger language than what is contained in the defendant's own letter cannot be used; and it would have been well if he had continued so to contemplate his own act, made such reparation as was in his
power, and had not come into this court, but had suffered judgment to have passed against him by default, and endeavoured to protect himself by such obstructions as his counsel might have made in mitigation of damages; but he has chosen to deprive the plaintiff of the little remaining comfort he has; thus stripped of the wife of his bosom, and deprived of the parent of his child, namely, by destroying his character, and insinuating that he was himself the cause of the loss of his wife's virtue, of which he ought to have been the guardian and protector. He has stated the plaintiff as guilty of criminal negligence towards his wife, and by that negligence facilitating that dastardly honour by which he has involved herself and her husband in ruin. How this charge has been made out it will be for you to say; whether the injury done by the defendant, is not much aggravated by the way in which he has brought it to shape his defence? It has been made out by imputing negligence to the plaintiff in suffering his wife to be with a man with regard to whom, after what had passed on the illumination night, he ought to have been on his guard. As to the circumstance that took place on the illumination night, do let us see how it stands, and whether there are any grounds of suspicion, to the prejudice of the plaintiff, for permitting his wife to hang upon the arm of his friend, upon an occasion when it was necessary she should have the protection of a man? In the common courtesies of life, if a man has a friend he can trust, he generally, on any party of pleasure, takes some other female under his charge, and entrusts his wife to that friend. In what friend did the plaintiff repose this confidence? In a friend whom he had shown attention to at a time when his heart was smarting under the loss of a beloved wife. When any one would suppose a man farthest from purposes of gallantry and seduction? Surely at such a time as this, unless we are to consider society so polluted in this bad age, that we are to suspect our most intimate friends. In this situation, they went out on a night when every one knew that such a party might be innocently walking out. They were separated by the crowd; a circumstance extremely likely to happen. Could the plaintiff suspect that a woman, with whom he had been living in harmony for a year and a half, had been mispending her time by going to a brothel; for that is the insinuation of the witness, Charles Hunt, though he knew he was at some place at Spring-Gardens, and did not communicate that fact to us at first. It turned out she had come home after her husband's party, and the account given by the girl who was servant in the house was, that she said they had been wandering all over the town in search of their friends. Should you, under such circumstances, have suspected any mischief? Then what follows? The whole defence depends entirely on the evidence of Charles Hunt, who tells you the plaintiff was guilty of some negligence in suffering the defendant, after this, to take his wife out in a chaise; but though there was an attempt to disguise the fact, it appears the defendant's son, a boy about eight or nine years of age, was with them. What limits must there be to our jealousy, if conduct like this is to excite suspicion? Gentlemen, I will not detain the evidence, I do not wish to occupy more of your time than is necessary. I have no one observation to offer, by which I can shield this defendant from the full reparation, you may be disposed to make in favour of the plaintiff, who has had every social right invaded by a false friend, who has violated every moral virtue.
The jury, without a minute's hesitation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £. 5000.
WANTED, AS AN APPRENTICE
To the Printing Business, A Young Lad, from the Age of Eleven to Fifteen Years. Enquire at this Office. Nov. 1710. 8405.