The National Register.
London, England, 1811-11-03 00:00:00

'l'b'e Attorne;:bGeneral atairsVered dirif9lisieitiestbystleacling from
the Act a proviso, that.it should not, he necessary. to •.prove the
Deptity.a Conintissioner•orOificer. •-• • . •;. •
Lord ,ELLENBCHLOUGS svould.'assume froth lie coy •of the
affidavit produced; that the affidavit itself ,Waii Orniini because
lie .was directed to do soby the• Act: but that was-not enough ;
it. .must be sworn eitlier Were a Confivissioner, or a person ail,
thorised by the Commissioners. The Act' did"ii6t. Vel
.blaore •
hat
t
the authority should 'be Proved; bt th6••Offidavit.t
Court ran " sworn before. me, Whitaker, *distributor." The
Alt did not state that a distributor, qicoad distributor, had any
authority to take the affidavit. •
The Attorney-General called Mr. •Whitaker, who proved that
he had received from the Stamp-office,. in 1803, an authority in
writing to take such affidavits; but he had mislaid it.
Mr. E. Lours rising to cross-examine this witnestr—
Lord ELIANBOROUGH Itatd; he would not have what was
meant for lenity quoted as precedent.. The Counsel must put
his client upon examining the witness: he might suggest the
questions to him.
Mr. Garrow, for the prosecution, said, that this was not a new
doctrine. It had been decided in Virestiniusier Hall; and Mr.
Clifford had left the Court in consequence the decision.
Mr. W itaker produced the letter from Mr. 13ereSforil, late
Secr,..taly to the Commi sinners, which enclosed his Aninlaid
*intro! y. It mentioned the authority enclosed.
Friel iocornelettness of this evidence, the fact of the pl.
e, in (plead -4i being bought at the office of The Independent
Whig, 140 23., wolvick-square, was proved; and Mr. Samuel
pf t!‘e Stamp-office, produced the original affidavit.
-Mr. E. Laves 01),Wed that the evidence was now, more in-
complete du,: More.
Lund ELLE au stounn.—They are not proceedingutider the
statute law; they have proved what they are not required by the
Act to do—the buying of the publication. •
Mr. E. ',awes proceeded •to state that, the affithivit was a
nullity.
Lord F.0.,x si wtoup H.—The certificate is now only supple-
tory evidence;. an if the affidivit, was not 'kvy(lril Before the
proper officer, it i:. void. But if thr defendant. had only written
a, letter, saying, I shall carry on such a printing busiqess at such
g place, a parer had heen produced bought at Itifit place, it
would he e fellable evittenee,tO gq to a Jury, that the 'defeudinit
was the ;)uhllslier of the paper. f •
Mr. E. Luwesiaict, that his übjection..was, that the affidtait
'as a pert, ct nullity, unless' authorised by tine Act of
mem. litre the affidavit had been sworn before a -person riot
appointed it..
Lord Et.l.E;t4l Butt VG .•-•rjt it againi:i you, both ways. if they
g tom the Act of earlianolt, the affitlavitwiLl be .left to the
y with such observations.o.pe prodqc.edenvelope, sug-
in tavour of itsAutliority,.. 3t.it, at any rate, they have a
d claratiou under the di•leinlinit's hand, that he is the printer,
p:!•.lisher, ands ile proprietor of a paper intended to lie publiihed
at No. -43, Warwick-square, on the lath of May; ankon the
23d of,Seetember following, a paper is purchased three.. .It is
competent to you to w, that in the intermediate time he
ceased to carry fai the Outing business there. titherwise the
evidence: is competent to go to a ./ury,.as to the fact of Ihet.
fendant being the publisher ofshe-paper in question.
Mr, fi, rc;quested that a note Might be taken of hie
objection.
Lord F.l.l.esaoßotlnli.-...1 have already anticipated your
wishes.
The libel was then read
.by the proper officer, Mr. lowten,
. published by, iind fur the

were not ytt pnesessiop
coUI4 t* Mad foy
was rna4l4- •
hcard your sit4ittioige.4l4;*

M111M1NP...............",
-rule it—and now we will go t 4.) 34

underwent a long-
cross-examination by the
purpose.
asEtd the Attorney-General if he went upon
third count; as he wished to know which the:
applicable to ; for, having only the common
had compared it only with the first in tho
roes,_As applicable to any. If it is stated
counts, it was your business to discover
you came here.
in and proved; it being an allegation that
in it as the libel quoted.
there had been no proof where The Ga-
Joll.—Your paper admits it. The produce
evidence in all cases of bankruptcy.
. proceeded to read his defence. He had
chcisen to commit it to writing, mistrustful of the effect of his,
feelings, and desirous not to waste the time of the Court. In
thus digesting his thoughts, he was following the example of,
that great literary genius, iN;11. Gilbert Wakefield, who was long
immured within the very walls from which he bad just emerg-
ed. Mr. Wakefield did bur live to taste of liberty atter his Con-
finement in Dorchester goal, and died. For the defendant was,
erhaps; reserved even a worse calamity, from end t had
)o prospect of escape but in the truth and mercy of his Jury ;
and these he trusted he should obtain, notwithstanding All past
transactions and offences • which, as far as related to him, ke
trusted would be completely effazed from the minds of the
Jury. in the first place, he took an objection that the place of
publication, as set forth in the information, was erroneus. The
libel was there stated to have been published in the parish of
St. Mary-le-bow, in the ward of Cheap; whereas, it was in fact
published in the parish of Christ Church, in the ward of Far-
ringdon Within. He should be told that proof in London was
sufficient. If so, why introduce a
.positive falsehood in the re-
cord ? The information charged a fact which had been dis-
proved in evidence and, however the Court might rule it, the
Jury had a right to say that the defendant had not published the
libel as alleged in the information; especially as it waa
the criminal intention which constituted the crime ; and as no
criminal intention could be proved upon the defendant in p.ablisto;
ing the alleged libel, which he never saw till it was printed; and
which, being then confined at Dorchester, a distance of 120
n., es from London, it was impossible he should have seen.
But he should be told, that the law imputed to him the respon-
sibility for every thing which appeared in a newspaper of which
he swore himself proprietor. Notwithstanding all that profes-
sional ingenuity should maintain, the Jury would still decide
from their consciences; and, a+ to the libel in question, the de-
fendant was aA one who was told that he had done an act in his
sleep. Hr could call witnesses to prove that the libel was not
his; that the article was written so close upon its publication,
as to preclude the possibility of its being previously inspected by
him and that when it did reach him, in the paper in which it
had been published, he disclaimed all knowledge of it. He was
biirne away from the scenes of his employment by the heavy
ientence of the law, with the only alternative of continuing the
public,,tion of his paper, or embracing immediate ruin by reliti.-
quishing his only support.. He took God to witness he never
saw the article till it was published, or counselled or sanctioned
its appearance. The actual writer of it, and bona fide publi,her,
was willing to answer fur it; but had been rejected, for the sake
of bringing the defendant once more to punishment. He did
not impute to the Attorney-General any other motive for this
conduct than a sense of duty : but here the defendant stod4
after having been three years a solitary prisoner at the distance
of 120 miles froin his business, which he was either compelled
to renounce, or to entrust to the management of another.
This deputy had eflered to surrender himself, provided the
Attorney-General would prosecute him, and not the defendant;
butle had refuse:rto do so. Surely, however, the Jury would
not confound the innocent with the • guilty; and where
was that justice' whi,sh rejected the Utter, and prosecuted
the former io The .lefend4it was aware that he might have
been spared this trial. if lie had suffered judgment to go against
Nat he default ; whereby he would have confessed what he
was utterly unconscioes r.f,.--the wicked intent charged by ,this
information: For resisting so mean a proposal, be trusted he
shoult3 :meet with the approbation, rather than the censure, of
the )ury; and should nut place himself in their hands with the
leas:safety- for titat conduct. The law took him to a distant
place. It could nut be supposed that it thereby meant to deprive
him of his prop of life; and it was from the optration Of its
sentence alonethafte was brought to answer for this offence. It
.might be urged that this was no defence • the allowance of it in
his case Would open a precedent which would set wide the gates
of Judie% and reduce her to a mere mockery. • But would not
• .• • .

692 THE ZONAL REGISTER.
,
, ,•..
••• • ...-..-cliw to Filo ''Qidissili uati:teshall. him& no foundation--a
mt., t..: i,,. :Loy titleattliUll li • . , ,
bave the benefit of your assiitancel4frbbuld; o . bate thing else.
such a cainplication of spartVluil • `li YOuipfi4 a him Mr. Whitaker uncle]
about what,Questions to aikki ats •=ittbeite toe Ally in4fier , lir
Chile
defendant, to no purpc
upon, them., 1 will hear •you'isib elaw.': - :
~
.. s ,
.. , ".,
~
the Mfir. E. Laws asEtd
Mr. Z. Laufer the 9 rceriii ' Weilidilt.P..Atta,..tatt..fa„49;4ft: i i
wrsast or the third
read as a pl
tion as to the copy of 111 c. - ;.%rt. .. Al ' , faculties of man, he Phi
prove the respousihility'nfiA ..cligiV4-04t tc.lll.a6whawmvaaieler,‘r,i;s.
.7,,
tuned iii the Sunday Nei** .1 A.,
St• ;Or* . • Lard ELLENBOILOIIC
The Act of t 1,4 SlitWoi the '4....,. ia.,,,... Ths .1,1141444.-. rukawiji4aa ii,Vi; ' --,i.` record.
.
cient proof, directed chef * -,-- ,•. 0 • - - eineteilir . differently in different
ship shJuld be sworn
.before .i."•,.%'-':?....s r.• t 4 . egeC2br-vr%le-w .. that difference before 1
0 'amilti:l3l4).-- . The Gazette was put
whom the Commissiowa ssfiot . .. ?!..3tii.,
.4‘,.ine,,gor HA out, • "
ii, Such an order existed i
pole. ihe present affidavit•aPpear . 1. , Ile beert-AWOE23 ' . -The defendant said,
before the Distribut9r of Otgnlps far .?- i • tivitiiroiclitrkt,.}
side was obtained..
defendant, being, at f)le. time alit* being niade, a.priaoner in
ri *veil
pircneAter gaol; and nu aut.boxity aitptaodlo have treed. Lord ELLENIOROUC
tion of the paper is evi
to hint for that purpose. . - 1.• t.f.,...nif ••••1 • The defendant then
• ... • . le.:_!-1k.i....•:..., Ilhes.iffiiintt from ". _,....:_.... •- .ntirwil i•it tr

4trariper y; its said to be rain ti
Led azi4 p
, •
4 . 411. !it i 4.,
, ,was afraid the Court w
A,4111%. 71r1„ tfr,---, .
_- .> wa4, that. thp glithii
P/g:i it.,:, , 6"l";,*' . that for which it t
(C.
' IT:i& :1:' -.- .0"t Ve. Is. •1• • . 02.-1 have heat
ti
V-. !-4•ti1ia.,;:f4614114 ;,": • ... • • .•.• • i
..e1.7
t40.:4). 4` •':11111". •- 4 411 e 1.4
vp\i:
sett.,!fd)l. •. • t - .'',e' i',
\)•• - 'i4JA! --- '.. . .
: ;1 , . : ,• ,