The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-22 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. 20.

LIBEL-RICHMOND V. MARSHALL AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged libel,
published in fait's Magazine, of and concerning the plaintiff.
The work itself is printed in Edinburgh, but the defendants
are the publishers of it in London. The plaintiff, who con-
ducted his case in person, addressed the Jury at very great
length. He said that he felt himself placed in circumstances
of considerable difficulty, in consequence of the length of time
that had elapsed since the circumstances transpired to which
the libel referred. The defendants had pleaded the first ge-
neral issue, and secondly a justification. In order to put the
jury in possession of all the facts of the case it would be
necessary for him to go over a general retrospect of his life
during the last twenty-five years. After stating several
circumstances of no material consequence the plaintiff said
that in 1816 he received information that a conspiracy ex-
iited in Scotland to overturn the Government, and he was
requested by Mr. Kirkman Finlay (in consequence of his
having formerly assisted in getting up petitions to Parlia-
ment on behalf of the people) to ascertain the nature and
extent of it. He consented, from anxiety to prevent a
breach of the peace, and believing that he had sufficient in-
fluence with the people to enable him to do so. He named
certain conditions on which he would consent to act in the
business—that lie should be allowed to communicate freely
with his friends in Edinburgh ; that he should be at li-
berty to take any steps he chose without any interference ;
and that if he failed to induce the people to abandon their
proceedings that any of them who might have been taken
into custody in consequence of his information should not be
punished, and that the most profound secrecy should be
observed with respect to his proceedings. The latter con-

dition, unfortunately, was not complied with, and several
persons were prematurely apprehended and brought to
trial, who were acquitted for want of sufficient evidence
against them. The arrest of those persons led to a state-
ment that he (the plaintiff) knew of the existence of the con-
spiracy. The men were acquitted. Had they been con-
victed he should have laid the whole facts of the case
before the country ; but was prevented by their acquittal
from so doing, and which had caused him great misery.
He was advised by his friends to quit the country, and
they offered him the means of doing so ; but Mr. Jeffrey,
the late Lord-Advocate, said that as he had been ruined
by his exertions to keep the peace of the country, the Go-
vernment was bound to indemnify him. A representation
was made to the Government, in consequence of which a
sum of money was given to him (plaintiff). After some
further observations he proceeded to read the alleged libels.
He then complained that rules of evidence prevented him
from laying many facts he could wish before the Court ;
and said that, notwithstanding he was convinced that a Bri-
tish Jury would judge fairly of his case, he denied altogether
the truth of the charges alleged against him.
The Clerk of the Court having read the libels,
Mr. Sergeant Tatsouaro rose to address the Jury for the
defendant. He commenced by expressing his astonishment
that the plaintiff had brought his action against the London
publisher of Tait's Magazine instead of Mr. Tait himself,
and the only reason could be that he would not venture to
entrust the case to the decision of a Jury in ScotlaP:',. If
the plaintiff were, as he had described Intusolf in the decla-
ration, " a person of good fame anri a worthy subject, and
unsuspected of miscondnet," &c., why had he not ventured
to try this cause where all the facts of the case were well
known ? He knew that Mr. Tait was the proprietor of
the Magazine, and had even written to Mr. Tait upon the
subject of the libel. Why, then, had he selected the Lon-
don publisher of the Magazine, except because he dare not
venture to try the case in Scotland, where his exploits were
too well known ? The plaintiff himself confessed that he
was in 4 Situation which would lead persons to believe that
he was a spy, as represented by the defend-ants. The ar-
ticle he now complained of was not the first that had been
published on the subject. Above fifteen months before a
work was published, entitled, " A History of the Spy Sys-
tem, and an Account of the Exploits of Richmond." The
author of that work was a Peter Mackenzie, and the alleged
libel was merely a review of that work, which had since,
however, become a part of the history of the country. But,
after allowing the statements in the original work to re-
main so long uncontradicted, was it not too much for the
plaintiff to institute proceedings against the receiver, and,
above all, to try the cause in a place where the real merits
of it could not be fully and properly discussed ? But the
best and most complete answer to the action brought by
the plaintiff was a work published by himself in 1824, and
re-published in 1826, entitled " A Narrative of the Con-
dition of the Manufacturing. Population, and the Proceed-
ings of the Government in Scotland, with reference to cer-
tain State Trials of persons accused of administering Un-
lawful Oaths, together with an account of the Suspension
of the Habeas Corpus Act, and of the system of espionage
adopted in Glasgow and the neighbourhood." In this week
the plaintiff was the hero of his own tale. He entered into
a full detail of his own exploits, and he (Mr. Sergeant
Talfourd) would leave the Jury to judge after hearing ex-
tracts from that work, whether the defendants had pub-
lished any thing worse of the plaintiff than he had pre-
viously published of himself, when he found that he could
not obtain that compensation for his services to which he
thought he was entitled, and the withholding of which in-
duced him, to a certain extent, to unfold the secrets of the
prison-house, becoming thereby the voluntary historian of
his own exploits, and appealing to the public for their opi-
nion. The Jury would find, on comparing the alleged libel
with the work of the plaintiff, that the defendant had only
republished what the plaintiff had said of himself. The
Learned Counsel proceeded to read several very long
extracts from the plaintiff's work, commenting upon them
as he proceeded. It gave a full history of the disturbances
in Scotland in the year 1816, and in which the Philo tir de-
scribed the part he had taken in furnishing sums of
money to the persons who were most actively en in
the proceedings, and aver fllereby gaining gag
their confidence,
informing the geranment authorities of what took place at
their various meetings. It also appeared that the plaintiff
was himself subsequently indicted for the part he took on
that ooP•iliOn, that ho left the country in consequence, and
was outlawed, but the outlawry was subsequently reversed,
and he again returned to Scotland. The Learned Counsel
contended, after reading these extracts from the plaintiff's
own work, that the defendants were perfectly justified in
publishing the article of which he uow complained.
The Qounssl laving concluded, was about to ,