Star.
London, England, 1805-11-25 00:00:00

ror from fuch a fcent, to wfileh,altliough guilt was in one part to
be punifhed, yct in the whole drams juttice was confounded, hu.
inanity outraged, and Liyalty intuited."
The Lilt paflage on the record was on the follow.
jog terms :
"it was fold of Lord Kenyon, that he loved money—if fo, he
loved his own money only. an dl not the money of any other man.
Lord Kenyon there ore. a. Chance.!lnc, never would have made
any rule,or order, by the ((fed. of which. the Seercta.y of a
Matter f the Rolls would be deprived of all fees, for the purpofc
of throwing all thofe fees into the hands of the Secretary to the
Chancellor, the better to enable that Secretary to difchaFge the
penfiou of tome unknown annuitant on his official profits."

The Counfel for the Profecution having doled
their cafe on behalf of the Crown,
- -

Mr. ADAM commenced a molt able deferee for the
:geared Judge, whom he defcribed as a gentleman
who had paffed a long life in the honourable exer-
cife of thofe important duties, demanded by the high
flotation of public truft and confidence he had held.
Afflictive, indeed, would it be to fuch a man, wlinfe
whole time and attention had been devoted to the
(import of the Government and ConQitution of the
coontry, and the laws, in the adminihration of which
he had been fo materially concerned, to have it recor-
ded of him that he had been guilty of fo malevolent
an aa, as that of fending into the world an anony-
mous libel, to deffrov the fame of the immediate re-
prefentative of the king, vilify the firft Law Officer
of the country, reflee upon the honour_ and charac-
ter of a brother Judge, and by the
.general fenpe•
and tendency of the publication, excite a fpirit of
difenntent and difaffeeion to his Majefly's Govern.
menu, the eminent perfnns engulfed by him with
the higher funftions of the State. Truly had it been
Rated by the Attorney General, that no one could
contend the publication was not a libel ; he admitted
it was a libel of the tuna fcandalous defcription—it
was not the with of the Defendant to deny that it
had that charaeler—but in proportion as it was ma•
licious and malignant, it was the duty of the Jury
not to convict a man of having written it without the
cleareß and moft unequivocal proof legally brought
forward that he was beyond dtfpnte the author.—
The queftion of his criminality would confequently
depend upon the comparative dependence to be plac-
ed on the teftimony of the witneffes. If the Crown
had produced four witnelfes, who fpeaking only
from their knowledge of the Defendant's hand writ-
ing, five or fix years ago, conceived that the mann-
fcript was written by him, he thould, in oppofition to
their teftimony, produce more than an equal number
of witneffes who had been the intimate friends of the
Defendant during the whole of his life up to the
prefent Moment, and who were as well acquainted
with the charaeer of his hand writing as with his
features. There perfons would hate that the libel,
inftead of being the production of the Defendant's
pen, had not the leaft refemblance to his manner of
writing. The proof then would be equally balanced
—and as it was the firft principle of jutlice not to
prefume guilt where innocence was equally proba
ble, fo he united the Jury would take into their con-
fideration the charafter and long habits of life of the
Defendant, and the utter impoffibility of his being
capable of publithing Co defamatory a libel, and in-
clineto that decifion which would reftore the Defen-
dant to that rank in fociety which he enjoyed before
he was the objet of this accufatiun.
Sir Henry Jebb was the tint witnefs examined.—
He Rated. that he had been intimately acquainted
with the Defendant for the 'aft thirty years, and due-
ing the greater part of that time was equally well
acquainted with his hand writing, as with the features
of his face. Being (hewn the papers in queftion, he
Rated that the former of the two letters, bearing
date the 28th of Oaober, 1803, was, in fume degree
Similar to the hand writing of the efendant when
fuperficially viewed, but, when more rearrowlyinfpec-
ted by any perfon fo well acquainted with it as the
witnefs was, it would be eafily difcovered not to be
his hand wilting. The other letter, bearing date
the 29th November, he thought had no Similitude
whatever to the writing of the Defendant. On
his crofs examination, the witnefs raid that he had
lately been given to underhand, that there were pew
plc who could fo exaely imitate the hand writing of
the Defendant, that the real writing could not be
dillingnithed from the counterfeit. About a month
ago the Defendant ogled at the witnefi's houfe, ac-
companied by another gentleman, and informed him
of this circumilance. He alto told him that a young
man who could imitate his handwriting to perteeion
had cuntefled that he was author of the publication
attributed to the Defendant in the prefent
indiEt-
ment ; and that he was alone prevented from divulg-
ing the ti eret left it Should affect his father, who
held a Situation under Government. In proof of the
affertion that this perfint could write it . fuch a man-
ner as to render it impoffibie to dillinguith between
it and the Defendant's hand writing, the Defendant
proptiled that the witnefs Should mark feveral Sheets
of blank paper, and of brieves addreffed to the De-
fendant, which the other gentleman lhnuld take to
the perfon alluded to, on which he Should write,
while the Defendant remained in company with the
witnefs. This was accordingly done, and in about
three hours the gentleman returned with the (Ileac
and brieves, written upon in Such a manner as made
it impotlible for the witnefs to dillinguiflt them from
the hand writing of the Defendant. The name of
the perfon who wrote thete (fleets the Defendant ne-
ver communicated to the witnefs, nor did the witnefs
know it. The name of the gentleman who carried
out and brought back the Sheets was 'Carr, but he
was not here as a witnefs. Being interrogated by
Lord Ellenhorough, it there might not be fume tie-
felon in the btilinels, it being far more practicable to
imitate the initials of the witnefs which he had put on
the Sheets than to fill them up entirely with writing,
refembling that of the Defendant? the witnefs de-
clared that he had no doubt the Sheets brought back
to him were the fame which when blank he had
marked with his initials.
Dr. Francis Hodgkinfon, Senior Fellow of the
Univerlity of Dublin, and brother-in-law to the de-
fendant, whom he had known intimately far upwards
of zo years, deprfed, that he did not believe the let-
ter fira (hewn to him, dated aBth October, twbe the
hand-writing of the defendant. The other letter was
lo'totally different, that he had no hefitation in fay-
ing it was not his hand.writing.—Crofs examined—
He laid he had particularly remarked the words
_mad andfhead, though he confeffed he had heard it
remarked in public, that the fpelling of thefe words
without the letter 6 pointed out the defendant as the
author. He alto acknowledged, that feveral pieces
of writing had been (hewn to him, not written, as he