The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-05-28 00:00:00

LAW.

COURT OF KING'. a.“..**:.J, FURDAY, MAT 26.
Before Lind ELLEN antinvorr and a Special J:try.
LIBELS.
THZ RIGHT Hem. WILLIAM CCNNINCHIAIt
PLVNKrTT V. WILLIAM CORNETT.
This was an aftion of damages brought azainst
e I)efend-int for a Libel nt a scandalone and
malicious tendency, published by him in his l'oberial
lierrs,ter, of the sth of November and 10th of De-
cember last, wherein he had grossly libelled the
Plaintiff; who is the present :iohcitor-General of
Trel Ind. The pass Iges from whence the libel was
aferreJ, were as follow, and contained in a letter
igned " Cambricus:"
" If Dr. Aildiocton had requir—l Vat Lord Kenyon should
direct a Cambridgeshire Eat' in his Councils, the integrity of
uis Lordship would have shrunk from such an undertakiLg,
isrticularly if a condition hail been added to it, that a couple of
.1 wren, without political !lane's, political information, or ho.
nourable connections, were to be joined as Asivs:ors, and to be
th:only A.sessms : on the contrary, his prids and integrity
would have both joined in preventing such men from being
introduced into the Cabinet. It any man could be found, of
whom a young hut unhappy victim of the justly offended laws
of his country, had, in the moment of his conviction and sen-
time.., attended to the following apostrophe %het Pip r,
whom estryirther nenrisisest ! He it was frens whose principles and
doctrines which now by their sleets drag sir to sty yrore; and he
K ia who is new bean& forward as nat Prosecutor, and who, by an
oaheard.sy eserri,e prr...zarkw, has maidenly lashed with a
pees-% to evidence the don sox .y Err farmer friend, Wien that
dying siNg had prude. ed cv r ci.ienee, had mode no defenre, bat, en
the contestry, had aeskanytudgest the charge, and submitted to his
fats :"—Loud Kenyon would have turned with horror from such
a seene, in which, although guilt ass to be yet in
the whole dram r Justice wits confounded, Ilninanttv outraged,
and Loyalty insicted Again, " that Lord Kenyon would
have shrunk from recomms:orling to Ills Council a
man who had insisted upon the aosere.guty of the People as a
essay principle."

Mr. Nowt A I.: npened the case: the declaration
contained the usual courts, and the damages were
laid at 11,0001. The Defendant pleaded the ge-
nera al.llle.

Mr. ERSKINE stated the case. This, be observed,
was a civil aclion, and he was happy to find, on
looking at the record, that the panne' annexed to it
was nearly the same respeetable and enlightened
.Turn nho had tried the late conviction. The De-
fendant was called upon to answer for a crime of a
most heinous nature, not by a criminal prosecution
at the suit of the King, as in the former trial; but by
a civil aftion, whereby lie ii to answer for a personal
injury, and to sulThr in damages to the amount of
that injury. The Defendant had an opportunity of
jireileing, if he could justify, but he had chosen
rather to plead not guilty; he might have rejeted
the pannel, bun. he was right to chose the same
Jury, whose respectability, whose impartiality,
whose independence, candour, and integrity. he had
already experienced. He could not desire them to
forget that the Defendant was not a low, mean, ig-
norant, and contemptible person ; but that he was,
as represented by his Counsel, a man of a strong
enlightened mind a man of talent, who bad raised
himself virtuoesly, from his low birth and obscurity,
to respetability and independence. Mr. Cobbett
was now called upon to answer some part of that
libel which had already been before that Jury. What
the Plaintiff had a right to feel was better under-
stood than described ; he came in his own proper
person to seek that redress at their heads, which,
upon the due consideration of the matter, they
would find him entitled to. He was a gen-
tleman who, from merit alone, had raised himself to
the high situation of Solicitor General for that part
of the United Kingdom called Ireland. He would
asic, what justification, what exculpation, the author
of that libel could have i—When was it published?
at a time when that unhappy country was torn by
rebellion ; at a time when he well knew it was di-
vided by religious dissentions, and agitated by in-
testine disputes. He admitted that the liberty of
the press, the great bulwark of the constitution, must
he preserved, must be supp ,rted ; it would ill be-
come him to depreciate that liberty ; it was the boast,
the honour of his life, that he had a great share with
the most learned men in the land, to bring that Act
of Parliament into execution, which secures so im-
portant a privilege. But the Defendant had violated
every principle of laws, human and divine. It was
only necessary to state and to destroy.—Had his
client been the man the Defendant had represented
him, the latter might have proved it, he might
have pleaded his justification; and if founded in
fact, the Plaintiff would be abandoned to that fate
which such a wretch deserved. His client was re-
presented, in the libel, as a =an of notorious republi-
can principles, and the r of an ,infortunate
young gentleman (Mr. Ery-n‘u). The Defendant,
under the mask of friendship, put words into the
mouth of that infatuated young man, words which
never were heard before. He says Mr. Pllnkett volun-
teered in his speech to evidence upon that occasion,
and that h. gloried in insulting him at the moment
of his condemnation Could any crime be more de-
testable ? Air. Plunkett was employed as Counsel for
the Crown ; it was his duty to observe upon the evi-
dence; and, so far from attacking !I man condemned
to death, he took a warm and manly manner of
reading a beautiful and useful Lesson to the
people of Ireland; he would not have fulfilled his
duty, if he had not done so ; the case w i so clear,
that Mr. Emmett's Counsel tone of the most respect-
able and eminent G..nthenen at the bar) did riot
call any witnesses, r go into any defence whatever
When Mr. Emmet nen self was called upon to an-
swer why judgment s'iounl not pass upon him? not a
,ingle expression escaped his lips against the then
g ,vernment of the country. On the contrary, it
u.,as admitted that the of the Government
hail taken away th,' c cases of rchellion, so virtuous
as " this sheep-fsedar, this keeper of a library in
Sr. James's-square," in which terms the Earl of
I la: siwicke was described by the Di lendant. So
prudent, so wise was his government, that Mr.
Emmett, so far from comp! dning, returned to his
er.,un without a single ob ci cation upon it. The
I. arned Counsel then quot .d several passages from
the libel itself, and observed upon the mann: r in
%eh., h the Defendant had represented this transac•
teen lithe Defendant, as he had been represented
upon the malls of the several gentlemen who were
ra imiard on his behalf, was th it admirer, that lover
of the constitution, he ought to have sliewn his ar-
isiehment to it by cb.erying it. laws ; but day after
Jay he had repeat, .1 tits crime; aild this lover
f 0.,; King's G,utt ..rnent wince that infa-
mous calumny, a:1.: it in:o that distract,:

ountry, at the very moment it was torn to pieces by
march), and rebellion.
The Plaintiff was the son of a respeMble clergy-
man : he had but few prospects in early life, but
raised himself by his merit to his present most ho-
nourable situation.; he had received an injury to a
treat extent by this infamous libel. Mr. ERSKINE,
after some further observations, concluded a speech
of near three hours length by observing, that the
question the Jury had to consider war., whether the
libel eas written or published by the Defenc7ant ?
and if so, whether it w.a. written for the purpose and
with the intention ascribed to it ? and if they were
of that opinion, they were bound to give a Vordill
of damages commensurate with the injury.
The Right llon. William Wickham, the 1 ite Se-
cretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was
then -examined :he said, that when the ads-ice of
the Law Officers was required, which frequently
occurred, the Plaintiff was always applied to. The
passages in the libel were then pointed out to him,
and he said he conceived they related to Plaintiff.
Mr. Barnet, the next witness, said, he was pre-
sent at Mr. Emmett's trial, and had seen the Plain-
tiff, who was employed on the part of the p:osecu-
tion, and spoke to evidence. He also conceived
that the passages in the libel alluded to Plaintiff.
The Right l lon. John Foster stated, that he was
Speaker of the Irish I louse of Commons previous
to the Union, and remembers the Plaintiff a Mem-
ber of the Irish Parliament ; that he had given his
opinion in debate in that Parliament : he also de-
posed that he had read the libel in question, and
conceived the Plaintiff was the person alluded to in
the several inuendues in that paper.
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. ADAM, he
said, he WAS not at Mr. Emmett's trial. Being asked
upon what particular occasion Plaintiff had spoken
in Parliament, and the tendency of his speech ? Lord
ELLENROS OUCH observed, the Witness was not
bound to answer that question, he would consider
it a breach of privilege of Parliament.
Lord Castlereagh, the Right Hon. Isaac Corry,
and several other gentlemen, attended to give evi-
dence, but were not called upon.
Mr. ADAM then addressed the Jury as Counsel on
behalf of the Defendant, and said, he had aot only
to encounter the greatest force of legal eloquence,
but the verdift of the former day, to which his
Learned Friend had alluded; and it appeared his
principal objet throughout his statement, to remind
the Jury of the proceedings on that question ; but
the Jury, he observed, were to examine this ques-
tion with free and unbiassed minds ; they were not
to try it, as on the former day, as itirespeCted Lord
Hardwicke, Lord Redesdale, &c. they were to dis-
charge from their minds all the circumstances of
that day; and, notwithstanding the force and elo-
quence with Which his Learned Friend had em-
bellished his arguments, they were me:cly to con-
sider the question of damages, to which he chiefly
confined himself; they were to consider the history
of that gentlemen who then stood before them ; Ise
WAS not maintained by libelling. He had been em-
ployed at the age of eighteen years, in copying the
s'orrespondence between General Dillon and the
Duke of Richmond. In America, he was employ.
ed in defending the rights and privileges of this coun-
try : he was a MAO of perseverance ; lie lived an
uptight, virtuous life ; he was the father of a numer-
ous family, and the affeEtionate husband of an
amiable wile : his writings were cnaralerised by an
honest and zealous wish for the good of his coun-
try; and though, by his own merit and laudable
exertions, he had raised himself' from obscurity, he
had not realised the means of paying extraordin try
damages. If a Verdia was to be given to any great
amount, he must be doomed to eternal shame and
imprisinment. It appeared in evidence, that the
Plaintiff was a King's Counsel at the time of Mr.
Emmett's trial ; that he has been since appointed
Solicitor General, and sow halds that office : his situ-
ation, therefore, did not entitle him to exemplary
damages, for he had not shewn, in any manner
whatever. that he has been injured in his charac-
ter either as a Lawyer, in his public situation or pri-
vate life.

Lord EL tcm swim; oit shortly observed upon the
evidence.

The Jury retired a few minutes, and returned for
the Plaintiff a verdid of 5001.