Star.
London, England, 1822-07-10 00:00:00

- •
ft6ellikilee7fors,stlemlreanme*cetiinsotcl°ll": :eau' fihncnet4uhtgiein'ttoohrediaenchinmdveie:
list that the Counsel for the defendants were rat'tled
AO state any defence on the part of their clients, s hick
they thought the facts admitted et, is a propomtiou,
the truth of which the spirit of party alone could
lead any man to dispute. In reference to the very
unfair and extraordinary comments made by you and
Sir-James Mackintosh on the paragraph ,•1' the de-
fence
last quoted, it is material to observe, that It
is wholly unwarrantable to ascribe that reference
to public opinion as necessarily applicable to Mr.
Stuart's refusal to fight Mr. Stevenson. The passage
in the newspaper of which Mr. Stuart seemed to have
most reason to complain, was that already quoted, in
which he is accused of employing person: to hold
the arms of the man he assaulted. That averment
the defendants offer to prove ; and the passage in the
pleading, to which you adverted in so singular *
manner, bears reference, as I understand, generally
tithe edible of Mr. Stuart's conduct, and particularly
'to his employing men to hold Mr. Stevenson's armss
•. The paper containing this plea was, I understand,
lodged in the Jury Chin, in the course of tie month
of January last. Since that period, Mt. Stuart, as I
am informed, has not taken one step to forward hit
case—to obtain the opinion of the Cou I ton the legality
and competency of this line of defence (if he has any
objections to its legality), or to bt ing the facts to an
issue before a Jury. The cause is, •Imwever, still in de-
pendence—the legality or relevancy of the plea of
the defenders is still s b judice, and the opinion of a
Jury must be taken on the met its of the action, mt. •
less it is abandoned by Mr. Stuart.
In these circumstances, you and Sir James Mack-
intosh—English lawyers—think fit to make the me-
rits of that action—the pleas maintained by the de..
fendants, and the conduct of their Counsel, the sub-
ject of virulent invective in the House of Commons.
You pronounce a confident and violent opinion on
the case of the defendants, on which the Court and a
Jury are still to decide.
On thegross injustice to the defendants, resulting
from this perversion of the privileges of Parliamen-
tary discussion, in order to aid the private action of -
a political associate, and to prepossess and prejudice
the minds of the Public, from wham the Jury must
afterwards be selected, it is needless to enlarge.
But your attack on the Counsel, acting, or sup-
posed to be acting for the defendant., requires more
particular animadversion. The character, and pri.i
vileges, and usefulness of the Bar, and the interests
and rights of the subject at large, are, indeed, as-
sailed in a manner not less novel than alarming, if
the conduct of Counsel in a private case, not yet de-
cided, is to be the fit and legitimate topic of itivec
sive, insinuation, and abase in the British Parlia-
14ftent. If the characters, the talents, and the pro+
fessional knowledge, aye, and the motives of Coun—
sel, are to be impeached in the House of Commons,
by every violent political partizan, w hose fr lend may
be involved in an action of doubtful issue, which they
are called upon to defend ; and if the pleas main
tained in that action are to be made the subject of poi
pular declamation, and severe stricture in Pat liament;
an advantage may no doubt be gained to the party id
the action m whose favour such interference is ex‘
erted : but it•is in vain to conceal that this is an a&
vantage gained at the expense of the justice due to
the other party, and is a departure from that regard
to judicial proceedings, which has ever been ob•
served as one of the most sacred maxims of British
Legislation.
A more serious attack upon the privilege., and
rights and proceedias of the Bar, r proceedings
fraught with more danger to the interests which pri-
vate parties may have to defend in Courts of Justice,
can hardly be imagined, than hare been exhibited in
the conduct of yourself and Sir James Mackintosh.
The comments upon the merits of this action seem
not to be the only instance, in which you have
thought fit to invade the private right and interests of
parties, at this very moment litigating in Courts of
Law the points which you have selected as the to-
pics of Parliamentary discussion. You. have_ eche.,
rnently maintained that legal property iu a news-
paper is created by a suhact iption to a bond of et edit
to a banking. house for a specific sum, though that
very question is at this moment the subject of judicial
consideration in a Court of Law. But then it happens
that your opinion coincides with the l leas and the
interests of a political friend. In like manner; you
have chosen to prejudge the merits of twoother actions
of damages, and have loudly condemped a news-
paper, for daring to censure the public conduct of a
Magistrate of a Scotch Burgh, er to persecute 111 m,
as you are said to represent the matter. But then
that Magistrate happens to be .e attached to the
noble family of Hamilton," as you are reported to
say, and doubtless may on that ground beentitled to
a sacred and inviolable immunity from the political
-
anima& of
Burghs
. Again,
notoriety,
vonduded
private
"avermerr
action h;
,
of tne "
the defen,
condemt
qualified
the Corm
are said
before a 1/4
lued frieur
family—a
whatever,
land of .
Newspaper,
moment -
enee ag•

w

'version, of v Ilia the Magistrates ofi Scotch
seem generally to be considered the fair objects. .
In, you roundly asserted, as matter or public , 1 I
ty, that an official individual in Hamilton had I
, '
ed a Newspaper in that town, whp has, in a • S
action against him, founded on that very
nt, denied that responsibility. But then, that • ,;
lappens to be at the instance of this supporter ti i
Nt ble Family" of Hamilton, and the case of i Li,
endant may in this manner be prejudged and
med. And, last of all, I observe, with uti•
d astonishment, that you actually proposed co ! I
umons of England, to subject to what you 1
I to call a "full, fair, and open examination," I 1
s Committee of the noose, a young and vo. I
end of mine—of great promise and ancient ,ii,'
. ! ,
—a private Gentleman, ix no pul' situation •
_
ci e a
peet this ,i.
rr," on • the allegation, forsooth, that, in this
f liberty, be had dared to write snicks is a , l ~
'
tpaerp,riwvhateen ypcotuiun muss
of
dbAaasaveses
known, that
was
in
,11 '
. .
;ainst that Lientlesoast which turned on that
. - -
1
. .
.4 ,