The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-15 00:00:00

THE KING C. SAMUEL WADDISGTON.

The SOLICITDIt-GENEIAL then moved for the
judgment of the Cuurt on Samuel Waddington,
convicted before the Lord Chief Justice at the sit-
tings at Westminster, of publishing • blasphemous
libel, called Painter's Principles of Nature.
The Defendant appeared on the floor with his
low library under his arm, and tendered an affida-
vit, which he was desirous of bearing read by the
officer.
The CHIEF JOSTICE—" The proper time for
reading your affidavit will be after I have read my
notes taken at the true"

The Defendant expressed a hope that he should
not lose his opportunity, as it was an affidavit com-
plaining of a misdirection on the part of the Judge,
and other irregularities in the proceedings, ou which
he grounded his application for a new trial.

The CHIVY Jotretca then read his notes ; after
which the Defendant's affidavit war put in and read,
in which he submitted to the Court that he had
sot been properly tried, as he had been tried by a
Special Jury, whereas. according to Blackstone, he
should have been tried by a Petty Jury. He alio
complained that the Chief Justice, in one part of
the trial, said, that denying the divinity of Christ
wu contrary to law ; whereas there was an Act of
Parliament which legalised the denial, in the sanc-
tion it gave to Unitarians, who did deny the doctrine
of the Trinity. Another ground of compleiot
which he had to make was, that one of the witnesses
(Duke) mast have forsworn himself on the trial,
when he swore that he saw his (the Defendant's)
name over she door.

The Cunt JOiTICS said the Defendant had
put • wrong construction on the passage in Black-
stone.

The Defendant submitted he had not, as Black.
stone decidedly laid it down, that Special Juries
were only to be called in aid on civil proceedings,
where there was not the intervention of a Grand
Jury. He proceeded to state his objection to the
proceedings which had been taken against him. He
knew of isistai.ees in which prrsons had given SO4'.
to have their names put on the Special Jury lan.
He again contended that, according to Slack..
stone, he ought to have been tried by 11 Petty Jury.
Mr. Justice UAvL•Y said the Defendant seas
mistaken entirely in his interpretation of Slack-
stone : all that Blackstone said was, that after a
question had been submitted to • Grand Juty it
•hould be subsumed te. * Petty Jury; that was, a
afferent July : s,Special Jury was • different Jury
to a Grand Jury.
The Cause ANTIC' ••••• We have no dot& on
the question respecting the propriety of the Jury—
it was COrreCio"

The Defendant —" My Lord, Mr. Baron Wood
has bald a cluferrot doctrine ; of such a case as Una
had come before that Learned Judge he would
have sleeked it a:ut of Coust."—(A laugh.)

The Souctroa-Gatrutat.-1' As to what your
Lordship said of its henig a libel to doubt the 4i.
trinity of Christ, what your Lordship said was Sere-.
ply to a question, whether to deny the divieity of
Christ, and to deber....;ise him ai a murderer impales
ciple, and an impostor, was M libel, and your L.
ship replied in the affirmative."
The Defeadant—" But, Mr. Copl.y. dot4idw
Irrupt me. 1 was in
,the habit of attending,a*Bek.
tartan chapel, and know that the doctrine a f
divinity was denied hy them."
The Cum, JUSTICE—i• But this publication is
offensive to all religions sects." •

The Defendant then resumed, sad proceeded Sri
argue that the publication by him had not'hireo
proved. tie eras not w the shop when it was sold.
Mr. Justice Battt.sr But you are arrive
that the prop.irtor of a shop is answerable fur what
is sold in it ?"

The Drfrwl•nt.—" As to Dukes evidence, he
swore he saw me through the key.hole ; now 1 Lase
sworn that was itoposssblr, and tan sbew it •s• sa
by • plan of the petunias. On these smooth
think I ought to hove • new trial."
The Cams JusTscs—., Have pm Salami ea
this hrad ?"

The Defendant —" Yes, usy Am* r him/ •t•
Mr. Justice BATLEY Will Ilti-jss'tll4l,l4s
opinion here were no grouridallf*lftli Wit "
first ground on which thit-004intunt teak(
that there was no proof of patrlieuttow; bitY :
~erveirely fad oed him. It was evtotrtwhed 004.'
ti
;individual was answerable for tlar vansphtejelbllD
i hie 'Mop. It was proved that lbw *as fhtil Ad-
otit'a *hop, sod further, thot Ifivkalfiolw teettatt
for cosoalmeill: lifild tkilteditti •14110 %lite
vetted to the contrAulte—lPZ/roilitiiii
/le as bag, attil• Midi MO litlkembld
poirte• es leustink losselekisi Silt ktothitt4Aeit '"'A
second gr,sud ou 'shad, the befisridabt°l sits
Oa% Wat•easswe4.tlW *A tilliai mrtli a-
dotard co well tuitoktrair as f i
grslial, feridtituibtog Iles Walk

L'

4

i~

''~;