The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-02-05 00:00:00

. • .
lag dome MONA* bail Its deserivdly ; earl whltli
in the maw Ist 4401 thing good and ilettioult, and sacred
mime spisisidse sleeve rem ate never motif have."
Cleief.tstatieslAltaith*T.—l think, Mr. Brougham, yoti Imre
.alsrsra esioneemowittlier year rote.
ble4-11litantowastTlie deponent of course, my Lords,
• .-.
*imam that her Majesty the Queen is the person idluited to
la die 'Mflnda. And this part of her comfort ',flailed to,
nonsily,..hre twit, to church oil the %sudsy al H
'Anstalt; is ensiw• for tlistilleat ham called in question. It wits
wrier in issue before.—(A lough fa Court.)
• • Ale. Justiire-Pas•LEY—ten have your rule; there is no
necessity to read iv. r any further passages.
The rule was artoldingly `.anted.
• TSB LINO V. RIR T. BURDETT.
The drroithesr GENERAL then moved the judgment of
the Court on Sir F. Burdett.
The .Defendant entered the Court, accompanied by Mr.
Hoblionse, Ike.
Mc.Justice Byer read his notes taken tit the trial.
The affidavit of Henry fitckeratafl, Ks* was read, which
stated that he was not in Leicesseisbiee airy time in the
month of August, 1819; that he received Sir F. Buritett's
letter at his residence in Linguist's Into, enclosed in an mime-
pipe, pealed aud folds.] in each • stammer that no person
timid discover, until the seal was broken, what the fo'c's'le,
contained. -
The affidavit of Sir F. Burdett was next put in moil read,
giving a detailed accusint of the Manchester meeting, as it
appeared in the papers of the day.
The affidavit of Arthur Seale, printer, of Tirtietthem-
'court-rood, stated, that in March last Fletcher, alias Frank-
lin,called on hies, and desired he would print a certain let-
_ter to be sent to the Jury at Leicester.
The Arroanast.Ganwitat. objected to reading this let-
ter or affidavit, which related to sudterbing done its March
last.•Mr SCARLET?' said they wished Us slew endeavours to
excite a prejudice against the Defendant.
Mr. Justice BATLET.—. That would have been a reason
fur a new trial."
Mr. DENMAN liaised, if their Lordships were of that ithi.
Mon, no lime would be tau late to do the Defendant justice.
The ArroangT-GENERAL observed, if the Defendant
considered the letter as likely to prejudice him, he was per-
fectly well acquainted with the eirctim-tasice at the time of
the trial, and it might have funned a reason for putting off
the trial.
Mr. SCARLET? ISill, at the time of the trial it was in-
sinuated that Sir Francis might have some roituexiou with
writing the letter.
Mr. Justice Ben fully acquitted the Defendant of any
such knowledge, and .so be believed did every one its
Court.
The Arscianae-Genattm said, as soon as he learnt
the circumstances of Frauklin's conduct to respect to this
letter, be filed a criminal isfurmation against him.
The affidavit was, after some further observations, with-
drawn.
The affidavit of a person named Buller was then put its;
its purport was to describe the transaction* which look
place at Manchester, where he resided, on the lath of
August.
The ArvowneW G objected to this affidavit, a•
having nothing to (19 with- the present case. Sir F. Burdett
had avowed that be hail acted uw a statement in a news-
paper; whether that statement was true or false was Hot a
subject of inquiry at present; the account on which Sir
Francis acted must be his justification, if jostified he
could he.
The Sotiertoa-Geneast. said, in Finnerty's ease, who
was charged with a libel on Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Finnerty
tendered affidavits to shew that persons bad been flogged
and massacred in Ireland, but the Court njected these •ffi-
davits.
Mr. SCARLtTT contended fur the right of Sir F. Ilnrslett
to read these affidavits, not to justification, but to mitiga-
tion. These affidavits were not put in to make any charge
on the Government or on any individual, but to slow the
fouudatiou for the feeling on which the Defendant had acted.
—ln the case of the King e. Horne, the defendant was al-
lowed to put in affidavitsas to the facts to which the laid
related.
Mr. MIKAN followed on the same side, and expreasesl his
*open that the Court would pause long berme they would lay
If obwo i.• a rule, that affidavits put in to prove the tenth of
the facts un which a libel was fouuded might not be read in
mitigation of punishment, when brought up fur judgment.
In the case of Lord Leicester against the Morning P.
for a libel, the Defendant was allowed to
to shew that there were parts of the Flab
afforded grounds of suspicion as to his
improper conduct imputed to hint.
Mr. BLACKBURN sad Mr. EVANS argued
The Arroftwcy•Gs AAAAA replied to
and contended, that if such affidavits •
ties not at all before the Court might
most heinous offences, sod have nu
fending themselves.
The COURT was decidedly of opinion ,
could not be received. The proper course
pursue would be to look to the PUlllll{Oll
at the time he wrote this libel, and t
which he acted. He bad himself admit
the information be received no reading
It would be mast unjust to the Defeo,—
evidence of the falsehood of such statements
and, on the same principle, it was equl
receive affidavits of the truth of such
especially as reading such affidavits might
dice persons not at all before the Court. 1
the Court thought the affidavits In muesli
read.