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

was informed, by the defendant, but fo like to the
defendant's writing, that the witnefs would have
been unable to diftinguifb the difference.
Mr. Archdale raid, he had known the defendant
for 4 or 15 years, and had been clerk to Mr. Wal-
ler, one of the witneffes for the profecution, during
the greater part of that time, during which period
his opportunity of tieing and of judging of the de
Pendant's hand-writing had been much greater than
Mr. Waller's could be. In his opinion the letters
. (hewn him were not the hand writing of the defendant.
Of that he had no doubt. The latter of the two papers
had not the fmalleft fimilitnde to the hand writing of the
defendant. On his crofs examination. the witnefs Paid
that he had feen imitations of the defendant's writing,
fo like, that he could not have pofitively laid whe-
ther they were written by him or not. He had leen
fuch written at a Mr. Fleming's, in Smock Alley,
Dublin, about a month fine. 'the perfcn whom he
law write fo like the defendant, he did Hot know, but
he went by the name of Fleming. Fleming was on
the door. The witnefs knew nothing of him good,
bad, or indifferent. Mr. Giffard called on the witnefs
at his houfe in Cup-ftreet, and carried him to the
lunge of Fleming. He did not know much of Gif-
fard, but believed he was a Barrilter. The witnefs
was afraid of no man, and therefore would not refufe
to accompany any man, even a itranger, to any
place to which he might be a(ked to go.
John Giffard Paid he had known the Defendant up-
wards of thirty years, and knew his writing well.—
He believed the firft letter (hewn him not to be of
the Defendant's hand writing. The fec.ind, he was
convinced, was not. On his crofs-examination, the
witnefs Rated that he had held a place under the re-
venue, from which he had been removed by Lord
Hard wicke for being a Proteftant, • and as Lord
Hardwicke himfelf acknowledged, it was for pre.
fenting a petition to the King, praying of him to pre-
terve the Country and Conilitution. He Rated that
he was acquainted with a perfon of the name of Arch.
dale ; alfo with one of the name of Mitchell, who had
been Lord Mayor of Dublin, and, though not inti-
mately, with a young man of that name who had
fucceeded him in bufinefs. The younger Fleming,
he reconciled, did write fomething like the Defen-
dant. He writes a (lathing hand. Re-examined for
the Defendant. He knew the elder Fleming, he be-
ing Lord Mayor of Dublin while the witnefs ferved
the ottee of Sheriff.
Daniel Cafeidy, who Rated himfelf to be an apo:
:thecary refiding in England, raid that he had known
the Defendant from his earlieft youth, and had uni-
&linty correfponded with bim. There was fume
refemblance betvieen the hand writing of the Defen-
dant and the letter firft Shewa him, dated in 06tober
—but hardly any between the Defendant's hand-
writing and the fecond letter—he did not think the
former of the two letters was written by the Defen-
dant. He was certain the latter was not.

All of thefe witnefres reprefented the Defendant as
writing a more diffufe, larger and freer hand than
that in which the letters were written, though all of
them agreed that the former letter was more freely
written and more like the writing of the Defendant
than the other.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL then addrefledThe Jury.
Grofs and unbecoming as he had formerly Rated,
and, as he was convinced, the Jury muff be fatisfied,
the libel was, in any man, but more particularly in a
Judge, it would be impoflible fir them, or for any
man who had heard the tenor of the defence attempt-
ed to be fet up, not to declare that it was infinitely
more difgraceful, and inflicted a deeper Ram on the
charader of the defendant, than the libel, malignant
and mifehievous as it unqu e Ilionably waNcouldpoaly
have done. He then proceeded to point out the con-
tradidory nature of the defence let up, by which it
was alledged that a perfon who, from prudential mo-
rives. durtl not avow himielf, but who wrote a hand
exactly fimilar to the Defendant, was the author of
the publication in queflion ; and the pofitive tefli•
mony of the witneffes in defcribing the letters in quer-
tion written, as the Defendant would infinuate, by
,his very perfon whore hand could not be dißinguifh-
ed from the Defendant's, as being altogether ditlimi-
lar from his hand writing.
Lord Eeettraoaouc a, on proceeding to recapitu-
late the evidence to the Jury, obferved, that in this
cafe there were but two queßions for their confidera-
ration ; the one, whether the publication Rated in the
indictment was or was not a libel? and if it was, then
the other queflion would be, whether the tranfmif-
lion and procuration of its publication by the Defen-
dant, was proved to their fatisfaftion I With re-
fped to the &ft quellion, it was not denied, nor any
attempt made to difprove the fad. On the contrary,
the publication was fully acknowledged by the De-
fendant's Counfel, as a libel on Lord Hardwicke, the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Reprefentative
of his Sovereign, Rating him as only fit to be a feeder
of fheep ; a libel upon the Under Secretary of State,
who aided the meafures of Lord Hardwicke's Go-
vet mem. accufing him of the foul crime of prole&
ing affaffins and peculators, and endeavonting to ex-
mire a corrupt influence over a Judge of the land ;
a libel upon the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, a
Privy Counfellor, and a Member *lithe Ira Govern-
ment, charging him with corrupt proftitution of the
fulls committed to his charge ; and, by an invidious
contrail of his condo& with what would have been
Lord Kenyon's, had he filled :he Ration, obvtotifly
adopting a pretext for conveying a Rill Rronger flan-
der upon the charatler and conduit of the Lord-
Chancellor ; and, laltly, a libel on the Judge Mince%
charging him as guilty of a corrupt collufion with
the Under Secretary of State : the whole together
amounting to a libel of fuck complicated and malici-
ous guilt, as had an obvious tendency to produce that
effect which it called for in words, namely, to fink
into difrepnte and contempt the Government in Ire-
land, and to feparate from it the loyalty, the confi-
dence, and the fupport of his Majeßy's fubjeds in
that part of the United Kingdom. If Each a libel
could come with inveterate malignity through ordi-
nary hands; from thofe of a Judge of the land, bound
by every tie of loyalty, of duty, and decorum, to
fupport his Majelky's Government, and thofe laws of
• The affair here alluded to our Readers will remember. Mr
Giffard wag very adive in the oppolition made in the Corporation
of Dublin to the Catholic Petition. Lord Hardwicke was deft-
ly= that ryovernmeat should not be confidered as influencing the
oppofition made to the fair dirculkon of the qatition. Mr. Giffard
having adopted a line of contlua which Lord Hardwicke did cot
approve, was wooved on that account, as was laid, from a lu
crat ive office. Of the clad merits, and whale details of the twit*.
adios Jiludetito, we areasaintaxasal.