The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-08-04 00:00:00

EARL OF ATOUVT NORRIS.

eta JOar CUM. C. 5t...1584.100p and %HARPS.
A report of. this ....1.411 WU, giVell in 1 HE: Bai fists
PaEas of the 2tith ult. a::41 the following curious
letter upon the saihjeLt appeared in au Evening
I/Cita of yesterday :
SARI. OF MOUNT NORRIS'S LETTER,
Respectrnr Sir John Can's Ink detwa.
TO till EDITO:t.
Stet—la the report of an Action brought by Sir John Carr
ugaiust :loud and Sharpe for a LOA which appeared in
Tits Ba Mall PRESS, of the With Mat. I am -4ilivvly
representrd as given evidence in favour of the Dc-
fvuouta, when I attended mid, and coracieuttously un be-
half of Sir John car,.

For the purpose of effacing so foul an aspersion epos my
honour sad my judgment, I beg, through the medians of yoor
Paper, to state that I never did say that I thought lb • a orb.
%rich formed the groom/ of the liftlotl JIM sriticon, that I
spoLe tlaireopectbilly of Sir John Carr's literary pro-
ducuuua, or sw rtcd that the Caricature Prints, coutumid iu
flue wor.. complained of, sere sanctioned by fair and jest
criticism. tSigneil) MOUNT NORMS.
Wm held Grove, July 31, MS.
We are strongly inclined to believe that the
above letter is a upon the Evening, Paper tun
which we have copied it, and also upon his Lord-
ship. It is the brat time we ever heard it advanced
that a witness upon a trial attends solely On
of one pa fiy, and that lie cannot conscientiously
give evidence in favour of the other. A witness is
bound to tell the truth, the whole truth, and no-
thing but the truth, without favour, or affeetion,
or any relation to the party producing him. Ile is
to teli the truth, upon his cross-examination, with
the same willingness as he gives his direct testimo-
ny, and he is equally indietahle for perjury in
a wilful departure from the truth in the one
case as in the other. He is bound, in con-
science, to speak the truth. Truth is the only
party which he can fairly look to, and he is nut the
sole and exclusive champion of the party is ho calls
hitu. It is, co doubt, fair to presume, that his evi-
dence wait be in favour of the party who produces
him, because a man would not he likely to call a
witness, whose testimony lie knew, or eves sus-
pi...led, would defeat his case; but that presmnp-
bon may have been atertained in ignorance or
want of judgment in Cite party, or his agent, ll 111:
cannot prejudice the ss coess. We read every day
of a Plaintiff noit-ired, because lie cannot make
nut his case iu 41 illeoCe.—W. see verdicts !Ali en
every day far :efendauts, as in the,, present ease,
neon the evide:lce brought out on the cross-vita-
.:er-tion of th- Ilaint..l% witnesses; but this is the
firs.. time we e.er i!, dit stated as a 44 foul asper-
ii us" upon tint wo,. .s giving such testimony.
The eCei thexharacter of the witness,
is quite ti... en., teary ; he witness who does not
completely su • .ort the . awr in' the party producing
luau, but lets ot.: itnetinn; tu favour of the oppo-
site party, shews t the resiwies his honour, his
conscience, and .th, and that he is not what
is vulgarly call, ,! a thick and this witness. If the
Noble Baii officiously reprei.nited himself to the
Plait • :it or his agent as a witness competent to
prose • ease, and afterwailts defeated it 111)011 the
trial, he might feel some unpleasantness at having
led the party into a very serious error, yet Int'inight
have done so very innocently, from various other
obvious canoes, :nil it would he no foal aspersion
upon his honour, nor even hisjudgment, unlees
indeed his Lordship means to contend that hi, jtidg-
anent is infallible. ‘Ve have not, however, heard how
his Lordship,who it appears I i ves in the count ry.raine
across the Plaintiff's attorney, nor under si list eir-
cunistalices his Lordship's name found its any into
the brief. On this part of the subject we ure to-
tally ignorant, and we only know that there
was nothing in the manner of Rising his evileace
that could be construed into a gross aspersion nom
his character.

As to; the concluding part of his Lordship's let--
ter, or. pett:l;os, more properly and truly, the let-
ter fals,•ly hearing his Lordship's signature, it is
tottdly ttatounded. He is not charged in the re-
port of Tits. Ifarrisit Pa;:ss with having." s;.ookcii
•hsrespos•olotry of Sir John Carr, or of ':is literary
works, or s th h.niug asserted thott the caricature
prior •, in the wool( cc-umlauted of, were sanctioned
by fair and just criticism." There being no such
passages in the report, it was towns- supelluoms
in his Lordship to vindicate himself from the im-
putation of haying used I hem, or to have charged
Time BRlrt.tt Pans with having put them into his
Lordship's mouth.