The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-11-25 00:00:00

to the Revenge. and a Member of the Par-

Lament of l-eland for so many years, forces a
convielion most irresistibly on my mind, that
the greater the ditficulty, the more necessary to
carry the Prosecution into etfca. The charaCter
he owed to his country as aJudge, the peculiar al-
legiance he owed to his King, and more particular-
ly, the sitnattoo of the country at the time of the
publication of this libel, are so many barriers
ag dust belief. and stand so prominently, that they
call ten-fold lender on him to acquit himself of such
charges. The Tiestion. therefore. Gentlemen, for
you to try, will be, whether he is the author and
publis:ier of 'l as libel ? with respea to whether the
thing itself is a libel or not, it cannot give you
niuch trouble ; Ow, I suppnse, will not be contend-
ed for, by the Counsel of tne Learned Judge, as in
tan the libellous tendency appears upon the very
face of it ; the defence. therefore, will not stand up-
on that point. The first publication of these letters
appeared in November, I eOS, in Mr. Ceblet's
YAW, Resider. That Gentleman was india-
ed for publishing [he libel, and convieted at the
Sittingi, after the Trinity Term following.
Ile Aerwards represented to me, that he had been
ill ti ell, And was ready to give up the original manu-
script. This was accepted en my part, without any
qualification, nor did any *payment whatever take
place, that he was to be discharged from his
share in the transaction. Upon a strel examina-
tion of the handwriting, by turo Gentlemen, na
doubt remained upon the subjea. Yon will find
this a continued writing on several sheets of paper,
and we shall be able not only to prove the particular
charaaers which distinguish his hand-writing from
that of other persons. but ever! vat iety of his hand.
IVe are now trying this learned Judge in the county
of Middlesex, and not in the county of Dublin, and,
therefore, they may think to turn us round, by say-
ing, " You must prove the publication in Middle-
sex, and I will shine that I must be tried in Dahlia."
I cannot help suspeaing that some such attempt
will he made, and that the plea to the jui isdiaion
of the Court will be set up against me ; and instead
of being opposed upon the merits of the case, I shall
be opposed by a point of law. However, Gentle-
men. in this respell you will have the united wisdom
of all the .lodges of the Court of Kieg's Bench to
dire& you in this particular. This is the case of
misdemeanour, and all pet sons concerned in it, in
contemplation of law, are principals. The publi-
cation of Mr Cobbet, in England, is the publication
of Justice Johnsoc, in England, and it makes no
difference whether he had written it in the county of
Surrey, or the county of Dublin, having sent it for
publication into the county of Middlesex " He con-
cluded, by observing, that, the apparent delay in
the proceedings was ascribable alone to the Defend-
ant, and not to those concerned on the part of the
prosecution, who, on the contrary, had evinced
through the whole business, every possible respea
for the feelings and situation of the Learned Judge,
and • wish that he should have an opportunity to
vindicate his charaCter from those char•ges.
fhe sever..l numbers of Cobbet's IF eski, Re,r'ister,
which contained the libel, were then produced.
Mr. Joseph White, the 'Treasury Solicitor, and
ikeent for the Prosecution, proved the receipt of the
original manu.cript, by the hands of Mr. Cobbet,
all of which he marked, in order to be able to iden-
tify them at any future period.
Mr. William Cobbet was next examined by Mr.
FASKINZ. He first saw the papers, put into his
hand, in the month of Oelober, 1903. He received
them from Mr. Rudd, bookseller, of Pall-mall, whose
house was, at that time, his office, to which he had
all communications f .r the Weekly Resister direeleal.
Ihe second letter came direc'ted, under cover, to Mr.
Budd, and the cover was thrown away. lie perfealy
recolleeted it had the Irish post-mark.
Here, Mr. ADAM, for the Defendant, objeeled
to the letter being produced, as it did not appear
what had become of the cover.
The Coterie over-ruled the objeaion, and the wit-
ness proceeded.
Tne commencement of this transaftion was the re-
ceipt of a letter from IrelAnd,requesting mho .w whe-
ther it would be agreeable to him to receive froM Ire-
laud, useful and true information respeClieg theaffAirs
f that kingdom. He was Jested to give an answer
to it, as if it came from Yorkshire, in h.i next Num-
ber, and to say where he wished the letters to be di-
reeled. He answered accordingly, that it would be
agreeable ; and desired they might be dire:teal to
Mr. Budd's, in This letter was of the

,~.

, •
same hand-writing of the manuscript produced to
him ; hut, after puhlishing a part of it, it was de-
stroyed. He published the two letters in his Regis-
ters of the 29th of October, and 2lith of Novem-
ber, which came under cover to Mr. Build.
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. Aos *a, he
said, he did not live in Pall-Mall, hut in Duke-street,
Westissiaster, the time when the letters were sent to
him; he :eceived them at his own house. Bud:

opened the first one, but the next came unopened to
himselt; they were sent by Budd,but he could not say
who Was the messenger. He could not rey-; left watt
became of the covers, buy thought they were thraxo
141 the fire, or otherwise d, ctroyel. It was the usual
'Liston), in his printing-uffire, to throw all the papers
they had done with, into a box or basket, and they
were afterwards de Aroyed. lie could not tell what
became of any of the covers, but presumed, and, in-
deed, was satisfied. ;hey wete deittoyed. He had
made no resent search for them
Mr. Waller, Solicitor to the Commissioner: of the
Customs in Ireland. was examined by Mr. Gas-
now, and said he had been the principal in that
office upwards of 23 years, and had belonged to it
sometime before. Thtre were always two Counsel
to the Commissioners ; but sometimes only ene at-
tended. Judge Johnson was in the situation of
Counsel to the Board for n.‘ar ten years, in that ca-
pacity he had frequent consultations and communi-
cations with him, had often seen him wriat, and was

as well acquainted with his hand-writing as any man
could be. Ile /lei examined the manuscripts pry--
stinted to him, three times before. Tne body of
them he really believed to be Mr. Justice Johnson's
hand-writing, and he had as little doubt upon it, as
any man could possibly have upon such a sulj--a.
On his cross examination by Mr. Naga:, lie said,
that the Defendant was made a Judge, in June 1801;
he had never known him since, except meeting him
in the street, or in his judicial capacity, to swear
an affidavit before him, or something of that na-
ture. Judge Johnson was in the Irish Parliament
for some years ; and, before the Union, WAS a con-
fidential servant of Government. He had seen these
manuscripts when he went before the Grand Jury.
The Judge did ri,,t always write as fair as the writ-
ings produced to him.
Mr. Charles Ormsby, attorney, stated, that he
had frequently seen letters and opinions in the hand-
writing of Mr. Justice Johnson; lie was in the habit
for twenty years of cnnselting him, and was perfealy
acquainted with his hand-writing. He verily be.
lieved the papers produced to him, to be written by
Justice Johnson, and could entertain little doubt
about it.
Mr. Cobbet was again called, to prove some al-
terations which had been made by him in the manu-
script.
Josiah Nnnn deposed, that he was in the Deputy
Remembrancer's Office, in Ireland, arel one of the
Secondaries. He was sufficiently acquainted with
Mr. Justice Johnson's hand-writing to deliver his
opinion with respeft to it. The manuscripts were
then produced to him, and after he had looked over
them, he said, he had examined them before, and
believed the body of them to be the hand-writing of
Judge Johnson. There were, he said, some small
interlineationz,which did not appear to be written by
the Judge. These were read, and afterwards
proved, by Mr. Cobbet, to he direSions to the
printers, in his own hand-writing, of the kind of
type in which the manuscript was to be cnmpAsed.
On cross-examination, Mr. Nunn said, he had not
seen the Defendant write since he became a Judge,
nor was in the habit of seeing his writing.
John Edwards, an attorney, was formerly a clerk
in the office of Mr. Carr, who was formerly Solicitor
for the Inland, or Esc ;se Department, of the Reve-
nue. Before the Defendant became a Judge, he
aGted as Counsel to that department of the revenue,
as well as the other; and Witness had frequent
opportunities of seeing him write, and reading his
opinion,. The manuscripts were then put into his
head, and he said, from the best opinion he could
form, they were the hand-a citing of Mr. Justice
Johnson. On his cross-examination, he said, lie
WAS pnly sixteen years of age when he went into
M. Carr's office; and he has had no opportunity of
observing the Defendant's writing since he became a
Judge. Ile believes the Judge is, at present, a
very infirm man, and nearly sixty years of age.
A witness was then called to prove, that at the
time these libels were written, Earl Hardwicke was
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Redesdale, Lord
Chancellor, Mr. Osborne, one of die Justices of
His Majesty's Court of King's-Bench, and Mr.
Marsden, Under Secretary of State. The insiendoes
of the libels, which, as Lord Et uscisoaotioe ob-
served, were of themselves pretty plain, were also,
for form's sake proved, viz. that by the Cambridge-
shire Earl, was understood Earl Hardwicke, by the
stout built Chancery Pleader, Lord Redesdale, and
by Mr. Marsden, Alexander Marsden.
The ATTOSPILY-GENEILAL having desired that
the libels should be read,
Mr. ADAM, as leading Counsel, an the part of
';
tlse Defendant, rose, and addressing the Court, said,
be exerted the best discretion he was capable of, by
iaserposing in this part of the prosecution, and sub-
mitting that the Prosecutors were not in a condition
to have the libel read as evidence, against the
,Learned Judge. In a case cl such public inteiest,
end of so much importance to the individual, he
Was convinced he would have the utmost attention,
which could be given by the Court. He was the
more convinced set it, as tha Learned Avroaszv-
Creases, had, in his most eloquent and elegant
opening, broached doEtrioes, unknown in an English
Court of Judicature, namely, tint toe hand-writing
being proved, it would not be aftieg with propriety,
for Counsel, on the part of tilt Learned Judge, to
make any legal objefticins with respeft to the publi-
cation of the libel, He would not say that it was
sot a part of his case to deny the hand-writing of the
libel; on the contrary, he assured the Court, that
he had a body of evidence to produce on that bead,
which, if the trial went so far, would effeftually
silence every suspicion with respire to Mr. Justice
Johnson. But he conceived he would be fulfilling
his duty indifferently, if he did not take an objec-
tion, which the Learned sages in the Lew of former
times had considered at infallible, and which, as it
ezaiftly coincided with the present case, must be al.
lowed to stand good. Their Lordship., he was
sure, were well aware of the precedent to which he
alluded ; namely, the case of the seven Bishops,
who were rried for a libel in the reign of Jan.'s.
On this precedent, he entirely dpenderia that as

son.

/

•••••7

' s • f • , • ;'
there 1/2i no evidence of the 'publishiee, by the
Learned Judge, in the clunty. of Middlesex, kb*
prosecution (AU to the r:T•10•11 li.thet•ine
stance, the rase was hetween county and count! t
in thectresent, it was between email:l.y and country I
but, before he .ploceeded with his argenteet, he
th-ught it necessary ferrate, weat the fans ss ere in
that case, and what t,,e jedgment was, in copse.
garner of those tees. Re wool(' also state, what
the fa!h were ie this care, and what the indgmeral
Mint 11.••• in consevesice of tilos, Gas. Th- Learned
Gentleman then read, froni a printed hodk. a short
statement of the case of the seven Bishops. They
were charged with publishleg a libel, by nresenta-
tien to the King; and the feel to be peived els,
the publication in Mi filmic, where their Iso:dsi.'es
were tried. Iles was attempted to be done, les pr. wing
their signatures to the libel; hot these sienatitres
ir.g affixed at the Archbishop's Palace, in Surrey,
the Court was of opinion, that the fieit of
the libel being friend in the possession of the King,
signed by the Bishops, was not evidence tog .0 ,he
Jury, of ,their publication :f,it in Middies. x. To
obviate this, the thee At.orney-General eveduced a
witness, who proved, that the. Biste.e. oad, when
asked by the Lord Chancellor., in the Council
Chamber, at Whitehall, acknowlei,red that ti-.ey
signed the paper in :Surrey; but i: aloe appearing.
that they denied the pliblicat on in Mid finite, the
C,urt was of opiasien. :het the acknowledgmeet. in
Middlesex, was nos steficient evidence to go ..e) the
Jury, of the publication in Middlesex ; end. that
though the presenting it to the Ki g would t.e at
publication, yet, as there was no evil-nee tbat the
Bishops presented it, they must be acquitted.—
In this state the pi-emcees ion then stood, when
Lord Sund.elard was produced, and deposed, that
the Bishops came to him, at his office, with the Pe..
tition in their hands, and offered to spew it to him.
They asked to see the King ; they were told, that
the Ling was in a room in the Palace ; aed they
went in with the Petitiote From ties, Mr. ADAM
argued, that, as in that case, the Court said"
though the Bishops wrote it in Stierey, see
constat, that they published it in Middlesex; so.
lin this case, he said, though the Le.ritteite
Judge might have written it in Ireland, nee
constat, that he sent it to Mr. Cobbet to he pnli-
listed in Middlesex. In the presert case, the me-
nuscripc is stated to have been sent to Mr. Budd ;
he breaks the seal of the first packet, and sends it
open to Mr. Cobbet, who throws tire envelopes
aside; and, on the supposition that these envelopes
are lost, Mr. Cobbet is allowed to state, that they
had the Irish post-mark on them.
Mr. Justice Laws tact: observed, that, in the
course of this argument, it must be considered that
the hend.writing of Mr. Justice Johnson was proved.
Mr. ADAM said, that certainly, for the sake of
the argument, and to assimilate this case to the case
of the Bishops, it must be considered as proved. He
then submitted, that there was a total absence of a
sufficient chain of evidence to bring the publication
of the libel in Middlesex borne to the Learned
.lodge. If it had been proved that he put tinrietter
into the Post-ofSce, in Dublin, there wield be a
kind of presumptive evidence that it arrived in
London ; but no such thing was proved ; and it was
not to be considered that Mr. Justice Johnson was
the author ; a man, who, from his situation, was
amongst many others, equsily atpabie, though he
is extremely well informed, the most unlikely. Sop-
nose he did write, and then left it in his bureau, the
paper might be stolen from thence, and sent to Mr.
Budd ; or it might have been altogether a contriv-
I ance of Mr. Budd's, .4 nd he might have forged the
post mark.
Lord Et LIINBOROUGH-••" It is not a question for
1 the Jury to consider, whether this manuscript were
I sent by Mr. Justice Johnsen to Mr. Cobbet, for the

purpose of having it published."
Mr. AD.tm—" That was not the opinion of the
Learned Judges in the ease of the seven Bishops."
Mr. Justice LaWitEsCS said, that in the case of
the seven Bishops, there was mot a tittle of
evidence that they presented the petition to the
King, until Lord Sunderland was called, but
M this Cabe there uses the evidence of Mr. Cobbet
to prove that it was sent to him by the author, to
be published.
Mr. ADAM still dwelt on the case of the Seven
Bishops, and concluded, by saying, that here there
was no evidence of the transmission ; and even sep-
posing it was Mr. Justice Johnion's hand-writing, it
did not appear that it was published by his procure-
ment.

Mr. PARKE, on the same side, rose, in support of
the argument of his learned friend, Mr. Adam.
The A•rruansv-Gr.taat. interpoaing, said, it
would save the Court much trouble on this objec-
tion, if the libel were first allowed to he read, as tnat

. ,
in itself would clearly prole the puSlicAtion with
the knowledge and permission of Mr. Justice John-

The Collar, however, thought that if the libels
were once allowed to be read as evidence, tie oh-
jetion could not be afterwards taken.
Mr. PARK!, in continuation, urged, that a man
might write a libellous paper in his closet, intending
to send it to the press, and afterwards, changing his
mind, it might be stolen and published by another
person. Toe envelopes in which these libels were
enclosed, should have been produced, of at least
proved to have been the Defendant's hand-writings
and this. he conceived, was the most material deli&
in the evidence.
Lord EILLNBOROUGI4....." 1,1 it were proved that
Mr. Justice Johnson dire Red the envelope to 11r.
Cobbet, your argument might still apply, as after
writing it he might have changed his mind, and not
sent it.
Mr. P• est e acknowledged the truth of the remark.
hut conceived, that if such a proof had bean offered.
it would have been a presumptive evidence, which
could not be withstood. The Learned Gentleman then
entered at considerable length into logical deduc-
tions lrom the case of the seven Bishops. and con-
clnled by saying, that as the links in the chain of
evidence. with respeet to the procuration of the pub-
lication, were entirely broken. there *mid not be a
convictiim.
Mr. LOCMIL ART and Mr. 11 Ica Avows, on the same
side, shortly submitted their opinions in support of
the obje3ion, depending entirely os the before-men-
tioned precedent, from whiLli they deduced, as an
inevitable consequence; that the present evidence
%mild not be allowed to go to the Jury.
Lord Li.i.esnomaticsat was convinced, that no-