The National Register.
London, England, 1821-01-21 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

Mr.. Cartrie who was not assisted by any Counsel,
was then called on for her defence. Sue put in a long
paper, which was read by the ollicer of the Cour:.
In it the defendant justified the original libel by large
quotations front Isom sacred and profane history, and
concluded by apprising the Jury that a verdict of guilty
iii this case would be a great triumph for tire Ministers,
whilst, ull the oilier hand, a verdict of acquittal would
be a death blow to their power.
The defendant called no witnesses.
The Solicitor General 111 reply said, he did lint con-
sider it accessary to offer any aiguinents to prove

.0- 4 • de,
..I,lllt 474.
_ A

Manor, which leases had been renewed from time to
time, ou the .payment of the animal rent by the Company
of Free Fishermen to the Lord; and no fisherman Wdz,
it'll/Wed to enter and fish until he had signed this lease,
and paid a certain sum; the sum so paid harmed a fund
out of which the rent to the Lord was paid. Ou the
expiration of the last lease, however, the Lord being
desirous to raise his rent. the li3herlllell turned round
and disputed his right to exclude them front dredging,
and the result of that refusal was, proceedings in Chao-
eery, which have been pendiug for some years. 'lnc
Solicitor General now conducted the cause on the part
of tile plaintiff, and produced a multi ude of documen-
tary evidenCe, from the reign of Edward 111. to the
present time, consisting of grams by letters patent from
me different Sovereigns to the iamily of Herbert Eal
of Penihroke and Mentgoinerie, through whom the
present Lord of the Manor claimed. lite establish-
ment of the Court of Free Fishernieu in 170 b, was also
proved, and that the Members of that Court paid a
certain fee on admission, out of which the rent to the
Lord of the Nlatior was paid—and further, the Learned
Cosousel called evidence, amid pia in documents to prove
a quiet elijoyment of this right on the part of the Lord
of the Manor for upwards of WO years.
\lr. Scarlett, on the part of the defendants, went to
the Jury on the general issue, abandoning the sp.cial
Ica ott behalf of the fishermen of Milton, and contended
the Lord of the Manor could not, by the law of the
(and, have a right, any more thin the ildlertnen had, on
the evidence adduced, to exclude the public. The
loyster-beds were overflowed by the tide, and the Crown
itself could inn grant such a right to the Lord as gave
hint a right to exclude the public. Upon this ground
he should contend that a verdict must be entered for the
defendants, as part of the public. He believed the Court
of Fite fishermen and the claim of the Lord of the Manor
arose in 17db, alit of a collusion between the parties, to
which the public were to be made a sacrifice.
The ChielJustice said, if the claim of the Lord of
the Manor was not established by die evidence adduced
in tile present case, he was at a loss to conceive what
evidence would be sufficient to enable a man to retain
possession of his estate or property. Should this property
be thrown open to the public, the result would be, that
in less than three years there would not be an oyster lea
for any one.
1 he Juryy, without hesitation, found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages One Shilling; the piestion being
tried to decide tile rigid, and nut to acme,* damages.
Mr. Scarlett said, tLe unfortunate defendants were by
this decision reduced to a state of great distress, and lett
wholly at the mercy of tile plaionti.
The Solicitor General said, he haul no doubt the
plaintiff, Mr. Falun:in, who was MA 111 fact the Lord of
the Manor, hot the lessee muter we Lord of the East
Ground Fishery, would do every cling that was tight
fur these unfortunate individuals.
FRIDAY, JAN. 19.
THE KING V. JANS. CARLILE.

This was a criminal information til.tl by the Attorney
General against the defendant, 1M the publicanun of a
libel in a viper called T he !lepul•Jicau.
The Solicitor General addressed We Jury on the part
of the prosecution. The husband of the deleitilatit, It.
Cathie, was at present sullering for his concern in that
publication; the husband being reuloved, his wiie then
took up the trade.
The libel was contained in a leiter dated from Dor-
chester gaol, signed " Richard Cathie," and addressed
to the Rev. 11 . of Kitte; Square, Bristol, and
pitri.ortecl to be an aii,ker to some questions put by that
Use. G.:mit:man m the writer of the letter. Although
tile letter bore the Sielaalure Of Carlile, the Crown
had not the means of proving it to be his prodoLtion,
and the refine proceeded against the seller and publisher.
lielerring to the libel, he would abstain from all argu-
mum to shot•, its mischievims and horrid tendency. 11
the bare perusal did nut satisfy the Jury, nothing that he
could say would have that effect. Alter some argument
tile libel proceeds to speak of the Cato Street conspiracy
—that conspirecy which had had the seal of four tritelk.
gent juries set upon it. lit speaking of this, the,writer's
words were, '• 1 hold the destruction of tyrants by a
smiden and vi•.tlelit death, or (if you think 1 am not
explicit enough) Ly assassination, to be highly just,
mural, virtotitis, legal, and conformable to the law tit
nature, which is, or ought to be, the foundation of all
law."—Thus any one whom the writer though► fit to
say was a tyrant, he openly contended lie was justified
its assassinating; but thank God 1 such doctrines were
Aril to the breasts 01 The wild goes on
to say, " with regard to th.ise persons whom you call
Cato Street conspirators, I entirely disapptute. lobject
to them, because I think it was cowardly and impolitic
to enter into association ldr assassination. whicii hail OW
be 'wile!' done lay ally 1111.10. S single arm unincuinhered
311 d unassisted." The Learned Counsel concluded by
observing, that the Jury had heard the libel read, and
lie doubted not that they would without hesitation give
him their verdict.

Richard Samuel Hon'ditch was then sworn and exa-
mined. 1-1 e proved Mat he bought the paper put Intro
his hands, No. 8, of Vol. 111. of The Republican, on the
17th June, t 84% of the defendant, personally, St her
shop in Fleet-street.
The witness %%es not cross-examined.
Tue judgment of the Court of itia's Bench on 11.
Cathie was put it: its evidoice.

malignity and dangerous character of the libel. If 111
Jury, upon reading the work in qucstion, were not 'a-
tislicd
in its being libellous, he did not ask them to find
the defelidairt sudsy. Ile concluded by requesting the
Jury to lay aside all prejudices, and dkcide fairly from
the work.

The Lord Chief Justice briefly summed up, and after
alluding to the nature of the defence, which, he con-
tended, rattier aggravated the libel. told the Jury that if
tiiey were S.illblicd that the libel was directed against his
lajesty's Alinisters, they would bud the defendant
platy.
Tile Jury retired for about twenty iii itt utes, and ou
their return, brought a verdict of Guilty.—Mrs. Carlisle
kit the Court befole the verdict was Otto.