Star.
London, England, 1802-03-20 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL, MARCH
.IE.

Arrived—The Weft-Indian, Ryan, from hence at Antigua
Bicnenftock, Pauken, from hence at Rouen; Arg,), Scott, from
hence at Hull; Diligent, M'Phcrfon, from hence at London-
derry ; Molly, Tobin ; Sarah, Brailaford ; and Thomas Brown,
from Africa at Jamaica; Vlitory, Brine, and May, Callan,
from Africa at St. Croix.

The James, Flint, from Africa at St. Croix,
and gone to Trinidad; Perfeverance, White, from
Africa to Demerara, and gone to ditto ; Dick,
M'Ginnis, from Africa at St. Vincent's, and gone
to ditto ; Brook, Ivlolyneus, from Africa pallid
ditto for Jamaici ; Backhoufe, Roberts, failed
from Jamaica about the 29th of January ;
Mills, was well at Cape Benda, 28th November.

The Governor Dowdefv:ell, —, failed from
Demerara the 19th Jan. for this port, in company
with the Qaeen, who arrived here on Tuefday.

The Sufmnah, liodgfon, from Ccrlc, is on tore at BriiDal
The l'arrds. Sleigh, from Briftol, is reported to be on tore
on Gu.u.a !Mind, near Antigua

The !:.inny, Tkompfon, from Madras to the Cape of Good
Hope, as reported tg li.wc laundered.
The M,,ey, Rider, from Neweatl le, is bronght into the Downs
by the Dcal boats, having been on there on the Goodwin Sands.

The Maria, Mountain, from Smyrna to Philadelphia, was
found off Faro !aft month, with only twu dead feamen on board.
Site :tad landed:unie of her e.:rgo.
The Fortuna, Leitch; Union, Bradfhaw ; and Garthland,
P.e..d, from Clyde to Jaina:ea, were fpoki: with on ;,tit Jan.
off the :Be of Agt, and caveted to reach Port Antonio in two
The Ruffen, Mitchel:, from Sunderland, to Amfterdam,
coat•lAcit, is futil t.n the tickler, by getting on h.•r Aichori
erw laved. Tile veal js covered with water, and it is feared
w:11 to: loft.

Yeilerday a Court of Direflors was held at the
Ball India Ilotife, when Mr. ARCHIBALD ANDER
SON was fworn in as Mader of the extra fhip Cul.
land's Grove, deilined to Bengal and Bencoolen.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Docrot's COMMONS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 19.
This day the Right Hon. Sir WM. SCOTT pro.
ceededed to the adjudication of the following
caufes:—

Trelawny, Lake mailer. This was a
quellion of falvage. It appeared this fhip was
laden with a cargo of Slaves, who role upon the
Captain and crew, forced them out of the veifel,
and took poilitlion thereof, in confequence of which
the Lord Nelfon, another Ihip in the Slave trade,
fired into the Trelawny, and after an engagement
for the (pace of an hour and an half, fucceeded in
quelling the infurrettion, by which means the
Captain and crew got poicellion of the (hip again.
The Court, in this cafe, faid, the refcuing this
fhip in the manner Rated, was a fervice of confi-
derable merit, and it being the firil application of
the kind it ever recolletted, it fhould allow one
tenth of the value of the fhip, cargo, and freight,
to the falvors, and accordingly referred it to the
Regifler and Merchants to afcertain the fame.

KENT ASSIZES.-MAIDSTONE, MARCH 17.

MORE SIR BEALUMONT HOTHAM, ENT. AND A SPE-
CIAL JURY.
THE ICING AGAINST JOSEPH CATOR, SSO
LIBEL—This was an indidment againit the De-
fendant for having written and publithtd certain
letters of n libellous nature, concerning Henry
Jackfon, Efq. tending to injure his credit as a
merchant, and to ditturb the domeaic peace of
himfelf and Sarah, his wife.

The Leading Counfel for the Profccution (aid,
that Henry Jackfon, Efq. was a merchant of the
higkeft refpeaability and charaaer, who foond
himfelf under the painful neceffity of indiCting the
Defendant, Jofeph Cator, Efq. a Gentleman of
confiderable fortune, and brother to the Mr. John
Cator, fo well known throughout the county.—
From the quality of the offence it would be unne-
ceffary for him to fay much, becaufe he was ad-
dretling men of honour, whole indignation would
be excited more by their own feelings than any
thing he could offer. He might be excufed too
from expatiating upon the enormity of the offence,
aecaufe as the charge was preferred in the thape
of an indiament, the province of the Jury would
only be to decide whether he was guilty or no..—
What was to be the confequence of their verdia
-would be the fubjea of future confederation. He
thould abllain from Rating the contents of the dif
graceful libels imputed to the Defendant; it was fuf-
ficient to obferve that libels more dangerous, more
calculated to do mifchief, to injure and diftrefs a
worthy man, and to break down and deßroy his
domellic peace, never were penned. The objet of
Come of them was to reprefent a relpeetable mer-
chant, the defendant's near neighbour and acquain-
tance, as a man infolvent in his circumfiances, and
compelled to refort, from day to day, for pecuniary
affinance to the father of the Lady to whom he
had been married above ten years. He fhould
fearce be believed when he Rated the objea of
others of them—they were addreffed to the Wife
of the Profecutor, with the diabolical intention of
inftilling into her mind a jealoufy of her H Anted,
with whom the had long lived upon the moll affec-
tionate terms, and with that view, pointing at a
particular perfon as her rival in his love. The quef-
tion to be tried was, Whether thefe letters, than
which rnan or demon never penned worfe, were the
work of the defendant ? That he fhould in the out-
fit make fuel: a cafe as would call for the verdia
of the Jury againft the defendant, was what he
did not Rate as matter of (peculation, but of abfo-
late certainty; but it might be anfwered—He
fhould give fuch evidence as would be fufficient,
on an indiament for forgery, to convia the offen-
der, and (With him to the penalty of death. The
manner of his proof lhould be this : He would firft
call Mr. Jackfon, whole evidence alone would en-
title him to a ve;dia. It was neceffary to obferve,
that Mr. Jackfon, previous to his receiving the let•
tens, was not acquainted with the charaaer of the
defendant's hand-writing, and he at firfl (tit-paled
they were the work of his brother, John Cator. It
happened that on the outfide of one of the letters the
words " noify braggadocio fellow" were written,
and Mr. Jackfon went to the Poftmafter, in order
to thew it him, and endeavour to difcovcr the au-
thor. The Poftmaller laid, he had obferved feveral
letters written upon in the fame manner, not only
direaed to him, but to Mr. Role, the Clergyman.
Mr. Jackfon then called upon Mr. Role, who pro-
duced a letter he had received, which was feurri-
lous in the extreme. Mr. Jackfon fuggelled the
probability of Mr. John Cator having written them;
when Mr. Role replied, he was mtftaken, that it
was not John, but Jofeph. In confequence of this
information, the Profecutor was advifed to poffels
himfelf of fome of the Defendant's hand-writing,
by fending him letters on different fubjeas, to whith
the Defendant returned an(wers.. Before the Pro.
fecutor had received many, .he was perfealy con.
vinced the libels were the handy-work of the De-
fendant. When men fat down to aft deeds of vil-
lainy, it was fufficient for them, if no human wit-
nefs obferved them; but it generally happened that
in the commiffion of all crimes, there was a fatality
which brought the delinquent to the bar of juftice.
This Defendant, vilf.de iinfamy no expretlion could
be too ftrong to defcribe,lhould the Jury pronounce
him guilty, had, in writing thefe extraordinary
compofed libels, fpared no pains to difguife his
band; but it was difficult for any man to difguife
the charaaer of his writing—it was therefore not
to be wondered at that the Defendant had at times
forgot what he was about, and relapfed into his or-
dinary charaaer. Vie proof of his hand-writing
would, however, be confirmed by other circism.
(Lances, and pat ticitlaily by one ftmilar to that
which occurred in the cafe of Ryland, who was
fome years ago ex...clued for a forgery on the EaR
India Company :—the perivn whole name Ryland
had forged was unable to fay whether he bad writ-
ten it or not, th.alo he knew he had not figned it
to two bills on the day ibis was dated; hut it hap•
penced that ilie manoltaurer who had made the
paper was able to that the mould in which the
identical paper was made was not in exilic:nee at
I the time the bill purported to havebeen drawn by

the Compinv's A4eat in In.li,t. In the or,:fent
cafe he thould prove that paper on there
libels were written, was in the tin; 11,'L wh,:t
was ufually employed in correfponinct ; he
prove that the Deffra!ant was in di: habit f oli :s•
fuch paper,that it was manufa.ftured in the yea r t
and confequently not likely to be found in the flay
of any ftationcr ; and that the pert; 411 wln ha piwaed
to have a flock of it, never had f,ld
to any of his euflomers, except the Deflititia,,
and the Bilhop of Rochetter. He would n‘a !:!
that Reverend and Learned :relate, whom lie i;..•1
the honour of teeing on the Bench, by lilpi.,::';l;4
he was the author of the libels. He thould
feveral perfons betides Mr. Jackfon, who were a e!1
acquainted with the hand-writing of Mr. Jul. Cal or,
who would prove that the letters in queltion,thotil4it
not like his ordinary Ityle of writing,were preeitely
fuel' as he would adopt, in order to conceal lonic
guilty purpofe. It might be alked what motive
could induce the Defendant to write libels of a
Gentleman in his neighbourhood, and with whom
he was in the habits of intimacy ! He could not
account for every man's falling into a fnare, but
the abfence of every motive for a bad anion was
no reafon why pregnant proof of it (hould not be
admitted. If he was to he told his learned
Friend, the Attorney General, was capable of
writing libels to wound the feelings of a Lady, he
(tmid fay, " No, No; it was inepoifibie : his
Friend was too honourable to he gitiky of g; vinq
la moment's uneafincfs to a beautiful woman ;"
but if he was to fee the libels written in his lea: n•
ed Friend's remarkable hand—if he was to Gb-
ferve thole tall charaaeis to which no other man
thee the flood had ever formed any thi•.g
he thould fay, the Devil had been at woi k with his
friend, and had perverted his mind. He believed
there was no temptation to induce the Def. adant
to at as he bad dnne—he could atlign no motive,
but that the D—vil had let him on, and that he
had turned his back upon all glace. It had hap-
pened that in Beckenham, where the Defendant
and the Profecutor relided, the parodtial rates
for a.m.: years petit had been made with the afEit-
ance of Mr. John Cator, the Defendant's Brother.
He might have been actuated by the purell mo-
tives, but fomehow or other, till Mr. Jacklon came
to refide there, his own property never ufed to be
rated at its full value. Mr. Jackfun found that
the Parifh Officers were tradefmen follfervient to
Mr. John Cator, he therefore let himfelf to•work
to remedy the alaufe; with this view he propoftd
a Committee to revile the rates. Mr. John Cator
was the party who refitted this reform, and the re-
Ihit was, profecutions were inttituted againll the
Churchwardens, who at his instance had refilled
to make jolt rates, and thofe mifguided men were
committed to goal by the Court of King's Bench.
Perhaps it was this circumstance which urged the
Defendant from brotherly attachment, to dip his
pen in thegall of bitternefs. He lhould call witnefres
who were well fkilled in the fubje& of hand-writ-
ing, and who would prove that the writing in
queftion was not a natural but a difguifed hand.
He concluded by obferving, that the fingularity
and importance cf the cafe merited the moil feti.
oils attention.

Henry Jackfon, Efq. Paid, he refided at Beck-
enham, and was perfe&le acquainted with the De-
fendant ; the letters produced he received by the
Poll ; they were dirtied to him—he had trice
correfponded with the Defendant, and was able
to form an opinion as to his hand-writing. Be
believed the libellous letters were his hand-writing.
On his ends-examination, he laid he had no parti-
cular difference with the Defendant, except once
when he was in his carriage the Defendant told
him Reformers never did any good.
Mrs. Jackfon proved the letter file received. She
laid fhe had never received any incivility from the
Defendant. Their families ceafed viliting each
other after what palled in the coach.
James Englith Keely knew the Defendant in
India; was well acquainted with his hand-wi iting.
He firmly believed the libels to have been written
by him.
The libellous parts of the letters were now read.
Thefirll was addreffed to the Profecutor,and dated
January 22, 1801. It fuppotes Mr. Jacktbn to be
talking to himfelf, and is to this die& I myfelf
am the moll independent and the wifell man in
Beckenham, for I glory in the fhame of having
• law-faits with every body I have to do with ; and
epecially for having endeavoured to flarve the
Churchwardens and their families, by getting them
fent to gaol. Every body in the parilh refpeets
me •, but my wife and fervants know me to be one
of the greateft rafcals in it." The next letter was
neatly in thefe terms—" I am the moll grateful
man in all Kent, for I pride myfelf on having the
moll grateful remembrance of pall Et-ours—l am
the moll prudent man in the county-1 am foniild
that I am never put in a paffion-1 asp renia:kable
for keeping my fervants, for 1 have not changed
one thefe four years. I pay every body both in
town and country, for I hate to be in debt. lam
fo careful of doing wrony„ that I always keep a
Lawyer at my elbow.— lo be fort I was rather
hall), in injuring Mils M—'s charieer—l am
certainly the molt independent man in Beckenham,
except my friend, Lord Gwydir. Mr. Green and
Mr. Clarke, and every body in the pal ilh love me,
from the Parfon to the Chintney-veep, hecaute I
am fo charitable and fuck a lover of peace. Sing
O be joyful, for I have gained my point again ft the
Beckenham Churchwardens. Now I will thew
them the difference, tOr they fhall go to Newgate,
and I will tell every-body of it, and they will con-
gratulate me for loving law co well, and every-
body will dine with me who (hall know it." The
next letter is addreffed to Mrs. lar.l:frin, and is to
this etfe6l—" My hufband is the wild} and molt
independent man in London, and as f.;!Cil every-
body is governed by him, for he is the moil be-
nign man in all England, and then a:1 the neig.h-
bours love him and adore him, becatifc he has
made all the pat ilk one family, and they are never
lo happy as when he is among them. The Parfon
loves hijn, notwithllanding he told the Bifitop
had taken thirteen inches from the church-yard
into one garden :—Every-body loves him except
my father, who hates the tight of him for gnin.;
every day to barrow money of him. The Banker s

C

John Bonner, An Infpeaor of Franks at the PoR-,
office, Rated that he ''as, by habit, capable of
a'certaining whether a hand.wiitihg was a natural
eurr.4;cy, or :in imitation by rune other perfon,
or an attempt by the writer to difguife his hand ;
he hid looked at the letters carefully, they were
certainly written in a diliTuifed hand, he had not
the frnAlleil doubt a it. He was then anted whe-
ther, by comparing thefe letters with the other
writing, admitted to be the defendant's, he cculd
Rate with certainty, that the perfun who wrote
the one wrote the other ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ohjeCled _to the evict
tion—obferving that he had oppofed the admitlion
of Inch evidence recently in the cafe of Folter and
Mellifh; but in confequence of not being fully pre-
pared, he had not been able to urge thole real Ons
which lie fhould now offer. He contended agairift
the principle of evidence recognized by the modern
practice, of compatifon of hand-writing by a wit-
nels who had never ken the party write—it was a
praaice perilous and dangerous to the life and li-
b:rty of the cubic.% and never till lately admitted,
even in the worft times and the worft Judges. He
then reviewed the tales of Algernon Sydney, the
Seven hilltops, and, in (hurt, every cafe upon the
ftibjea down to the Lilt decilion of Mr. Juilice le
Blanc, in Fuller and Mellilh. He infifted that the
novel doelrine of evidence was in violation of that
principle of evidence. by which the people of
this country were fecured in the enjoyment of
their rbltts, propzrty, liberty, and every thing
dear to them.

Ile was fvllow•ed on the fame fide by Mr.ADISI,
Mr.Cossr, and Mr. I m ess, _

Mr. Serkz.int B:ST, Mi. MARRIOTT, &C. were
htard in Anfwer.

Sir I',FAumoNT Tiornam delivered his opinion
at lcagth, and decided that loch evidence was not

Mr. Hume, another of the Infpthors of Franks,
&poti:d to the letters being written in a dilguifed
Land.
Mr. Greenwood, the Clerk of Meas. Lee and
Co. Bankers, tail the dtfendant kept his cant at
their honk. He well knew his hand-writing,
having paid his drafts for the laft 2c years. He
had looked over the letters, and had hardly any
doubt as to their having been written by the de.
fen.lant—there were many parts of them not dif.
gaited at all, particularly the words "hypocritical
villain," which were exa4lly his charafter. If a
draft had been pref.:rued to him in fuch a hand-
% riling, he would have paid it without any re-
ference or hcfnation whatever.

Wm. Fuller had lived -o years with Mr. Cator,
know his hand-writing perfeltly ; believed the let-
ter to be his ; he had not the lean
particle if doubt.
• Samuel Heard, a Stationer at Bromley, Paid, the
letters produced were all written upon paper of
the fame manufafture : the maker's name was
Taylor, and the date in the water-mark, 1796, it
was called uncut fool's-c . He dealt in paper
of that fort, and many other forts; he had not
fold any of it to more than two perfons. Mr. Jack-
fon applied to him for form, but he had none left;
he could not mention any perfon he had fold a
tingle flieet to, except the defendant and the Bi.
fhop of kochetter • their fervants ufually came for
it and paid him ; ;he witnefs laid, he had teen the
defendant lalt week at his own houfe ; he went
there to t.tkc a little bill; the defendant Paid to
him, " Yon never fold me any paper," to which
he replied, " No, Sir, not direCtly to you ; it was
not for me to know who the paper was for." He
was not furprifed at the quefiton, becaufe the bu-
Lnefs had been the fubjeCt of converfation.
This was all the evidence for the

Mr. ATTORNEY CENZRAL then acldreffed the
Jury in behalf of the Defendant. He commenced
his ob:ervations by congratulating the Court and
the public upon the deci!ion cf the Learned Judge
uFon the roint of law-refpteling the adrniflibility of
the cride•lce—a decifion which, in his opinion, had
relieved the country from one of the moll grievous
oppretrions it ever had fuffered; for if fuch evi-
dence could have been received in the cafe of Mr.
Cator for a mifdemeanor, the fame obfcure, dark
proof, would he applicable in every cafe of felony.
Men would be condemned and punithed with death
upon the tellitnony of perfons, not who were fa-1
mili.tr with their writing from having feen them
write, but by lir-angers who had no other medium
of proof than the bare comparifon of hand. writ
ing. With regard to the cafe itfelf, it was of the
deepeß importance, not only as it affected the De-
fendant but the public—it was a queftion whether
a gentleman of fortune, charaCter, and hononr,had
done an all which, if he was guilty of, Ramped
him as one of the moil weak as Well as the moll
wicked of mankind—an at which rendered it
doubtful whether his folly or malignity moll pre-
dommatcd—an act aim-d at the clef:ration of the
peace of a family. If he thought the Defendant
was not perfectly innocent of the foul charges im-
puted to him, be fhould molt readily confign him
to the criminatory obfervations of his Learned
Friend, however fevere they might he. The Jury,
before they could pronounce him guilty of fuch a
crime, would reflect upon the character of the man.
who was fuppofed capable of having committed it.
The Defendant was a gentleman who had palled
a life in the fervice oldie Fall India Company, un-
contamitated by the fufpicion of any vice. It was
not the demerits of his brother John Cator, the
Jury were to try, and therefore be was perfuadcd
they would difcard from their minds any preju-
dice they might have entertained in confequence
of their opinions with regard to any part of his
con.luet. Could it be imagined that fo malignant j
and vulgar a libel ceruld have proceeded from a
man who& life had been characterized by quali-
ties of an oppofite nature He was a man uni-
formly fpoken of in terms of refpeet and kindncfs
by thofe whole good opinion was moil valuable.
He had, at an early period, gone to the Eaft In-
dies, where, by his indttary, he had gained a re-
fpeeable fortune, and had retired to Beckenham,
near the refidenee of his brother, to enjoy it. He
did not mean to infer that the profecutor, Mr.
Jackfon, would have imputed Inch an offence as this
was to the Defendant, if he had not perfuaded him-
fell into a bdief that he was the author of the li-
bels : but it was peifeCtly natural for perfons when
they had oi:ce adopted a notion, to perfevere in it,
however miilaken it migi.t I e. He could not help
thinking Mr. Jackfon would have acted with much
more propriety, if he had inveftigated the ground
of his fufpicion before he had attributed to the
Defendant a decd of fo infamous a nature. The
Learned Advi cate then proceeded to comment up-
on the evidence, and obferved, that the Defendant
had never mixed in the controverlies of the pa-
rilh
; that he had never had any difference with
the profecutor, except the trifling difpute in the
carriage reljneting reformers never doing any
good ; that he was a man of mild, good-natured,
and inoffenfive manners, and of liberal education;
and therefore that it was abililutely improbable he
fhould have been the author of fuch infamous
libels : he inferred, that the very circumllance of
his having furnithed the profecutor with the means
of fuhflantiating the charge in the manner he had
done, by writing to him thofe letters which had
been compared with the libels, were a proof that
he was coulcious of his innocence, and was not
aware of any potfible way in which thofe letters
could be employed to his diftdvantage. He then
Rated the nature of the evidence he meant to lay
before the Jury, and concluded by trulling they
would not by their verdict hold up the Defendant
as an object for the finger of Icorn to point at for
the remainder of his days. He proceeded to call
his witneffes.

The Bi(hop of Rochefter faid he had known the
Defendant nearly eight years. The Defendant's
family and his own were in habits of intimacy.—
His opinion of him was, that he was a plain, ho-
goodnatuted gentleman, a very valuable
neighbour, and he believed incapable acompofing
the libels in queflion. His Lordfltip raid he was
well acquainted with his hand writing, and he was
of opinion the libels had not the leaft refemblance
to it. Upon the eras-examination of the witnefs,
it appeared his knowledge of the Defendant%
hand-writing was derived from letters written fub-
fequent to the libel.
Barwell, formerly of the Supreme Council
of Bengal, laid, be was well acquainted with the
Defendant's hand-writing : he was furprifed that
any one fhould have fuppofed him the writer of
the libels ; he had examined them narrowly, and
the more he looked at them the more he was con-
vinced they were not the produ&ion of his pen ;
from his long knowledge of him he did not think
him a man likely to have done a thing of the kind:
he had been in fituations of confidential truft in
India, and he believed incapable of a dilbonourable
anion.—On his crofs-examination, he admitted he
had, as one of the Members of the Council, figned an
order for the difinifTal of the Defendant, in confe-
quence of an imputation of perjury, in having fworn
that a debt, which he well knew was due from the
houfe in which he was a partner, was not owing
from the firm, and for endeavouring to fhift the
debt upon another houfe. The witnefs attempted
to explain this, by laying that he was adverfe to
the difmiffal of the Defendant, but that he was
compelled to fign the order becaufe the majority
of the Council were againft him. He raid he was
reftored after a fufpenfion of feveral years.
Mr. Smith Barwell, the brother to the lel wit-
nefs, raid, he had long been in the habit of corref-
ponding with the Defendant, and was perfedly
acquainted with his manner of writing. The libel
had not, in his opinion, the leaft refemblance to it.
Mr. SPAR Is, the Defendant's Solicitor, depofed
to the fame effect ; but, upon his crows-examina-
tion. admitted that the words hypocritical vil-
lain" did very much refemble his hand-writing.
Mr. Farmer, a gentleman of Wickham, in Kent,
I laid, the Defendant was an inn/fulfill man, and,

totally incapable of writing the libels imputed to
him.

Mr. Grote, of Beckenham, Paid, the Defendant
was not a man likely to have written anonymous
letters—he was a quiet peaceable man, bringing
up his family virtuoufly, and exerciling all tile pro-
per duties of a father.
Mr. Jenner, of Dodoes Commons, fail, lie was
intimately acquainted with the Defendant—lie teas
a man of mutt inoffensive manners, fulfilling ail the
duties of life—as far as his opinion went, he was a
molt worthy member of Society.
Mr. Fuller, of Beckenham, fail lie had known
the Defendant- fixteea years ; he had a riling fa-
mily of his wan, and thought the Defcnd.ust and
his family the littelt for them to affociate with ;
his family was a pattern of domeltic harmony ; the
Defendant was a peaceful,ftiecdly, inoffensive, and
valuable neighbour ; lic conceived him the molt
unlikely man in the word to have committed tb
infamous an aCtion as the one invented to him.
Mr. Lee, the Banker, flared that the li:)els had
not the leaft refemblance to the defendant's hand-
writing. On his crofs.examiaation he faid the
witnefs, Mr. Greenwood, had been his paying-
clerk twenty-five years.
Mr. Hobart Rated, that the defendant was inca-
pable of writing letters of fo libellous a tendency.
The Counfel for the profecution then entered
upon his reply. He maintained that the evidence
for the defendant, In far from controverting the
filet of his guilt, eflablifhed and confirmed it. He
laid he little thought when he ieleaed his ‘k it nefles
from the tradetinen, whole means of exiltence in a
great meaftne depended upon the defendant and his
brother, that he fhould have been able to have ex-
miffed from them evidence of fo ftrong and un-
anfwerable a nature as they had given. They had,
however, afforded a proof that English tradcfmen
were as independent in fpirit as the higheß Peer
or Prelate in the land. He animadverted upon
the arguments ufed by the Attorney General, and
obferved they only cached his pity, that lb great a
man fhould have been driven by the weaknefs of
his cafe to the neceffity of ufing them. He re-
ferred to the telEmony given by the different wit.
neffes, which he contended amounted to next to
nothing, compared with the decilive evidence on
the part of the profecution. With regard to the
argument, founded upon the improbability of a
man of the defendant's character writing inch li-
bels, it was ridiculous. It was the conitant coin fe
of perfens of education who depended to the in.
famy of writing libels, to underwrite thernli ivee,
and adopt a flyle Inked to the meridian of Grub-
area. The defendant had purpofcly alfurned that
ftyle—he had purpofely mis-fpelt words, in order
that it might not be inferred he was the author of
the letters ; he had direCted the letters to Mr.
Henry Jackfon, Efq. that they might have the ap-
pearance of having come from an illiterate writer.
It was Carnival time with him ; he was going
about nabbing with his Ililetto in the dark, and it
was therefale neceffary he fhould difgnife ldmfeh
with the mafk of vulgarity. lithe deferident wa,
innocent, it was truly unfortunate that the libel,
fhould have been written upon the identical paper
which it had been proved had been fold only to
him and the Bifhop of Rocheller ; the guilt was
between them ; the letters could only have been
written by him, or by that Reverend Prelate.
Even the defendant's witneffes had admitted the
libels bore a Itrong refemblance to his character
of writing, but forfooth they could not believe a
man of his character would have been guilty of
writing them : whether he had written them, the
Jury would determine. It was a quettion which
emphatically belonged to them. Had the de-
fendanesfriends been ten times more numerous and
refpedable than they were, their teftimony widd
not have prevailed againft the unequivoc..l praof
of the defendant's having in an evil and unguarded
hour fuffered himfelf to deviate from the path of
honour. The Learaed Advocate having further
commented upon the evidence on both fides, finifh.
ed his obtervations by expreffing his firm convic-
tion, that the Jury would not helitate in pronounc-
ing the defendant guilty, painful as it was to con-
fign a man who moved in an honourable and re.
fpeetable fphcre of life, to infamy, contempt, and
difgrace.
Sir BEAUMONT HOTHAM laid, that after the
laborious attention of the Jury for fo many hours,
he fhould deem it extremely indifereet to occii-
py their time many minutes by his &Wei-ration,
The cafe was reduced to a tingle queftion, nerve
ly, whether the defendant, Mr. joreph Cator, had
been guilty or not of the fcandalous aCtiun imput-
ed to him? there was no legal point to he con-
fidered, it was a plain matter of faR. The Lear n
ed Judge recapitulated the evidence, and obi-creed
upon it ; he Rated that thofe letters could not have
been written by any perfon who was indifferent to,
and unacquainted with, the politics of the parilh
of Beckenham. If the defendant, as had beets just-
ly remarked, was innocent, it certainly was a very
unfortunate coincidence of circumstances that the
libels fhould have beets written upon the paper
which had been fold only to him and the Bifhop
of Rochefter. The Witnelles for the defendant
had allowed there was a fining refemblance of
character between the libels and the defendant's
ordinary manner of writing, but they had at the
fame time Rated their conviction that a man of
his character was incapable of fo bale an amticn.
It was a queltion which emphatically belonged to
the Jury. Numerous and relpeaable as the de-
fendant's friends were, yet if' they were ten times
more numerous and refpeaable, their evidence
ought not to weigh a moment, if the Jury were
fatasfied, and felt no difficulty in determining as
to the fad of his being the author of the letters.
If they were not pofitive as to his guilt, then cer-
tainly it was a cafe in which they were bound to
take into their ferious confideration the very high
character the defendant had received. 'Mt their
verdict would be conformable to the jullice of the
cafe, and fatisfaaory to the public, who were ma-
terially concerned in the queftion, was what he
entertained no manner of doubt of—they would
weigls the evidence on both fides, compare the let-
ters, and give that opinion, which, as honclt men,
would juffify them to the world.
The Jury retired for about a quarter of an hour

and returned aVadia, pronouncing the DS:ndant
Guitrv. _

This interefling Trial occupied nearly elegy a
hours, and excited a (!gree of curiosity' hard:y
ever paralleled with reference to the pruceedir%s
of a Court of Jut.lice.
The Era of THANI:T, and many ditlirtguifited
Characters in the County of Ktr.t, were prefent.
The general approbttion of the auditors at the
Verdi& was cxprelf:d t manner the raoft. un-
equivocal.

LONDON 112.11?,VETS.

CORN-FXCHANGI 1-121 DAY, M R 19.

A Reim of the PRICL.S of FLOUR, (rum thc Ltla ut Mardi
to the 12t14 of NIA-ch
Total 13.611 fi•Cits.—Aver•tv 65!+.
ss. 4;tl.llirb•:r than hit reran.
SRUTHI lIU.U, March 19.
To fink o.e offal--r,r It me ci Slb.
_ _

llcef 4s 8d w6s cd Veal - 5s 8d to 7s e
Miatrin - 5s 8d to 6s 8d - 5s 44 to 6c 8d
Scork 2! Market this morvin, MAR % ;sc, Sitecp 9co.
NEWG ATE :tad LEADENHALI. March ti.
Pc. floor of M. by tit:: cacAt.
_ _ _ _

Beef 3s 8,1 to 5s od Veal 4s 8d to 6. RI
Mutton 43 Od to c, !;.1 Pork so 44 to 66 84
RAW I IIDES, March r;,.
Bites (per acne) 3s 4.1 to 3s 6d Heavy Calf 93 od each
Mid-Bing as sod to 33 ad Hinfe Skins 125 to iGs
Ordinary as 2d to as 64 Sheep Skins 4 0450 itsi
PRICE OF LEATHLR, per lb. AT LEADEMIALLs
Butts, 50 to 36I't each, - -18 d to sad
Ditto, 60 to 6tylb - - - 226 to 24d
Merchants Backs -
Dreffing Hides - -
rizie Coach Hides •
Crop I :ides for Cutting - 1
„d I4dd tto oto irri,
d to 1.,t,
Hat Ordinary - - ted to rid
Calf Skins, 35 In 4cll. per dozen, - 2id to 274
Ditto 5o to -01 S - -26 d to 20
Ditto, 7o to 'Rolls - . - 254 to 274
Small Seals (Greenland) per lb. 24 6d to 21 yd
Large ditto - - Zoos to 1405 per doz.
Tanned Horfe Hides - tfis to 303 each
Goat Skins - - 203 to 643 per dozes
PRICE OF TALLOW IV LON[)ON.
St. James's market 43 2d Yown d'alove 705 6d to gas
Clare market Ss 21d R ulna ditto(ea.) 66s ~.al to of
Whiter hapel market 45 1.1 Rullia ditto (ioap) 63s to eas
(per name of 81b.) White Candle Ru Ilia 63, to 65s
Miltiti.z Stuff 544 06 t 0565
116 543 Ditto ROUgII 4010 d to as
Average Price 41. 2i,i GrcillftS . 1)5 Od to 01
1:00:1 Dregs 1:6 to os
Yellow Soap, 725. to cs—Nlweed, Boi.—C•ard,B43;
candln, 1110. 641---‘111111(:., I as. 611
PRICE OF HAY AND STRAW, M.a•ch 19.
SmitliLell Et. Tattles's. Whitechaprl.
o.llay 3t0t0c51213 c to 5 12 014 00to S 14 0
Straw 2ibto 2 y i 2, j C, tr, 2 11 o I t 8 oto 2 3 3
•
Clover 5 15 to o 4 I
~....
.. —7 . 5 1J oto b 12 o

COAI S. :%:.ircit 19.. -
Bert Coal. in :Le l'oo:, Li. ic. Cd leer ClwlJrnn.
Delivered 2). mi. V.
Stinderlzild, I. 16s. ,:d.
13,1;vered 21. cs. C..