The National Register.
London, England, 1821-01-22 00:00:00

1"..1111.4e) %1/4-
11111411114: • >b,‘"4 • Le4ll a *
‘l4 4.1
THE NATIONAL REGISTER

Manor, which leases had been renewed f tune to
time, On the payment In the militia' rent by the Company
(il Free Fishermen tin the Lord ; 31141 no 11340114111 was
allowed to rifler and fish until he had sip ted this lease,
and paid a certain sum ; the stint so paid formed a tuna
out of which the rent to the Lord was paid. On the
expiration of the last leas:, however, the Lord b:mig,
desirous to raise his rent. the fishermen turned room!
and disputed his right to exclude them haul dredging,
and the result of that refusal was, proceedings in Chan-
cery, which have been peudiug for softie yeats.
Stnicitur General now conducted the cause on the pail
01. the Plaintiff, and 'trounced a multi utle of docuurett-
tary evirlance, from the reign of Edward 111. to the
present time, comusiine" of grams by letters patent flout
lie different Sovereigits to the Wilily of Herbert Esrl
ul Pentbioke and Aloingumerie, through wtiona the
present Lord of the Almon clatired. estaislisii-
mein of the Court of Fire Fishermen ih 170.5, was also
proved, and that the Nit:whets of 111 at Loom paid a
certain fee on admission, out of which the rent to the
land of the Manor was paid—and further, the Learned
Counsel called evidence, and put in docuntems to prove
quiet cojoyinent of this right on the part U 1 like Lord
of the Manor for upwards of 100 years.
Mr. Scarlet', on the part of the defendants, went to
,lie July on the genend issue, abandoning the special
Ica on behalf ol tile fishermen 01 Al ilton, and Num:mien
flask tile Lord of the Manor could not, by the law of rile
!lin! nave a right, any loretiro the iisiterinet, had, on
Ilse evidence adilticed, in exclude 'he public. Toe
toyster-arils were oteiflowrd by the tide, JIM the Crown
itself could not guaitt such a right to iiie -Lord as ;;ate
him a right to exclude the piddle. Lrou tins ground
he sl Id contend dist a verdict must he enteree, lor the
defendants, as part oi the pu'ulic. II e belieted the Court
Mitre &berme» and the claim of the 1..01d ul the Manor
arose in 1705, out of a colitis:ou between the parties, to
which Ole public were to be made a sacrifice.
The Chitlitit.lice said, ii the claim of the Lord of
the Mater WitS nut tila:,!lAled by the evidence adduced
in the present case, lie was at a loss to conceit e what
evidence woulii be sufficient to enable a man to retain
posse”.tots of his estate or pro"teriy. Sitoultl this property
bc thrown open to the mnablie, the result would be, that
111 less titan three years mere would DM be all (i)bter left
for any one.
The J lily, without hesitation, found a verdict for the
Oae Sitilling; the question betty,
tried to decide the rigni, and not to it cover damages.
Ni. Searlett said, lite deleatilaiiis %sere ly
this decision' reduced to a state oi great distress, :old lest
woolly at the imicy ante idailtid.
The Solicitor General said, he had no doubt the
Annuli, Mr. Fairinam, who teas 1101 nl fact the Lord or
the Manor, but the lessee under the Loh' of tile East
Ground Fishery, would do every tliiitg Malt was right
for these nolo iiiiii ate individuals.
FRIDAY, JAN. W.
THE KING V. JANE CARLILE.

This was a criminal inforitiatiotlledi;the Attorney
General against the defendant, for the publication of
libtl iti a paper called The Haimllroun.
The Solicitor General J.:dressed the Jury on the part
of the prosecution. The husband of the defendant, It.
Cathie, was at present suffering for his concern in that
publication; the husband ben% removed, his woe then
took up the ;rade.
l'lte libel was contained in a letter dated front I)fir-
dirtier gaol, signed " Richard Cathie," and addressed
to the Bev. %Veit!,lit, of King Square, Bristol, and
purported In beau answer to some questions put by that
Rev. Gentleman to the writer of Lite letter. Although
the letter bore the signature of B. Carlile, the Crown
had not the means of proving it to be his production,
and therefore proceeded against the seller and publisher.
Referring to the libel, he would abstain Iron) all argu-
ut tit shoo, its mischhlvous amid horrid tendency. If
the bare perusal d d not satisfy the Jury, nothing that he
could say would have etlect. Alter some argument
the libd proceeds to speak of the Cato Street conspiracy
—that conspiracy' winch had had the seal mil lour
jortes set uncut it. 1.1 sneaking of this, titewriter's
womb were, " l hold the destruction of tyrants by a
sudden and violent death. or (if you think I alit not
explicit etiongli) by assaSbillatitill, to be highly just,
moral, virtotiti,, legal, awl conformable to the law of
nature. whieit is, or otiaht to be, the foundation of all
law.'—'flits any one whom the writer it gilt fit to
say was a tyrant, he openly contended he s%as justified
assassulating ; but thank (Ohl! such doctrines were
alien 10 toe breaSiS 01 1'aq:11501M:1h The writer goes 011
10 say, " with regard to Mose persons wholi you call
Cato trisect conspirators, I entirely disappiote. I object
to thew, because I think it was cowardly and impolitic
to enter Into association inr assassination, whirl) itad ever
be better done by any watt's stogie arm untite 1111 l bered
and unassisted." The Learned Counsel concluded by
observing, that the Jury had heard the libel read, amid
he dottined not Mat they would without hesitation give
Min their verdict.

Richard Samuel Honltincla was then sworn and ex l-
aniard. He proved that he Mutant the paper put into
his hands, No. 8,01 Vol. 111. of The Itepatlican. oh the
17th June, 1820, of the daetulaut, personally, at her
hop in Fleet-street.
The w ttness was not cross-examined.
The judgment of the Court of King's Bench on R.
Cathie w 4, put nz iu oin.4.ce.

Mrs. Carlile, who was not assisted by any Counsel,
was 'lieu call.d on tor her defence. Site put in a lung
!toper, whir.ii was read by tiie °dicer of the Court.
lu it the defendant justified the original libel by large
quotations from bout sacred and proitine iiistoty, and
concluded by arprisieig the Jury tabu a verdict 01 guilty
lii this case would be a great OA tint phi lot tile Al
bil SI, 021 the Other haul, a VeruiLL Of acquittal t%oulu
be a (!eatli-blow to their putter.
The defendant called Ito witiies.ws.
The Sulicitur General in reply said, lie (lid not con-
sider it necessary to oiler any aiButnents to prose the