Star.
London, England, 1825-06-01 00:00:00

A

a

!

. LAW REPORT.

. .
MAY OF KING'S BENCH, MAY AL
LINAL.•••••QUARTAILT RLIFITW.
HAMILTON DROWNS, NM. O. MIJANATi
Mr. Baotiousu opened the pleadings. The declara-
tion stated this to be a libel, to which the defendant
pleaded, first, the general issue; secondly, a justification
that the facts in the libel are true, and, therefore, be
was entitled to publish them; to which the plaintiff put
in a replication denying the truth of the facts as in the
declaration. . On these two issues there was joinder.
The COMMONSERJEANT—The libels for which this
*WOW is brought were published in the 57th and 58th
• NO% of the Quarterly Review. The defendant, as you
all know, is one of the most eminent publishers of
books who ever lived. The plaintiff, Mr. Hamilton
Browne, is a most respectable Gentleman. Having
been introduced to Lord Archibald Hamilton, he be-
came interested in the prosperity of Mr. Browne, and
applied to Lord Lauderdale to give him a letter of
introduction to Sir 'f.• Maitland, the Governor of the
lonian Islands. About the latter end of the year 1817,,
Mr. Browne was appointed by S'r T. Maitland, Chief
Assistant of the Office of the lonian Senate. On June
7, 1821, Mr. Hume, who had always taken an active
interest in the affairs of the lonian },lands, moved for
a general inquiry into the conduct of Sir Thomas Mait-
land. In making this motion, Mr. Hume adverted to
certain private documents,
.which he had obtained from'
a certain Nuble Lord who sat near him. This was, in
fact, Lord Carhampton. Sir Frederick Hankey, the
Secretary of the lonian Government, on reading the
account of this debate, immediately saw th it Mr.
Hume's infor ma:ion could only have been derived from
Certain documents in the public offices. He suspected
that the N •ble Lord to whom he alluded wasLordArctii-
bald Hamilton, and that Lord Archibald Hamilton
had derived his information from Mr. Browner—
tlir Hankey immediately went to his office,
and asked if they had made in, communicatit as to
England ? and they all denied it. Lord Sidney Osborne
went to his office, and without imputing anything, said
to his assistants, that they ought not to transmit airy
England. One of them, M'Caddy, im-
' made any such communi-
ne retiring, Mr. Browne
and, with a singular cle-
at the request of Lord
some comnrinications ; to
trn -sorry for it—if I had
e tried to prevent it." Mr.
longer in office. He then
consequence of some new
!re no longer necessary.—
ory ; but it was added,
for his dismissal." Mr.
inquire what they were, but
Two years after all this, the
Review appeared. ,It charged
' to his pauoa, Sir T. Malt-'
had secretly transmitted
in his official capacity
that in consequente hei
he had made no coofes-i
l; and whatever was the
is not the reason.
. defendant was admitted. •
examined by Mt. Buono's AIL•H
-- of Commons in 18'21. In
wird to info' 'nation derived
..file Lird was not Lord A.
my infctratation from Lord.
I )iiian Islands. Before
:emmunicatlon frosts Mr.
seen know his name; first
,d of 1822. by the intro-
Thanet. Bead the 57th
Review; w,as directed to it by
in consequence sant to Mr.
,eerober. In presence of Mr.
article on the lonian }ends
-y inaccuracies .and false-
anxious that it should be
iar that he did not come
said respecting himself, but
Lard A. Hamilton and Mr.
of witness's own knowledge.
of the writer, not for the
for that he had never pro-
Irosectite, for libel, but to
his inaccurate atatemeats.
!up the name of the writer,
the Quarterly Review any
tness ;night write. Witness
it was not inserted. Wit-
:ontaini oily the substance
gieen.—(Some portions of
Ilume). Witness corn-
:urray replied by a note,
he insertion or rejection of,
' otirely vi iai the Editor;.
Fuld do was to transmit
Mr. Murray was ready
paper " as a separate pam-
'e defity it was returned to

Arreamer-Gannuic..—The lecumentsi
were three ktters, which witness
charged was distributed'
basis of it was the state..
Browne. in the 57th number;
which is in the 58th number,
referred to in the words,l
Mr. Browne to his patron,"
in the following number,•
, which purported to be a-
l:Woe's communication EO

f.r Mr. Murray, ad-
speecb of greet eloquence and
- the libel was substantially'
iassage in tile index, it was,
neither of tote Editor nor Writer'
- Browne, but of some subor-
liojed to make upthe index,!
his own impression on read.

•
‘'rederiek kiankey. on inter-.
In and read. The whole of
Jith the passage in the 57th'
Quarterly Review *as drawn up, was
Mei .lourgibed all the iefortnation
Berviee, for ;he •pnr of cop.
Allirtmlesss shat peevieled is re-

B:Osborne, aho on interro-
in which he stated that be

and asked if they had made I
I England ?end they all denied it
I went to his office, and without i
to his assistants, that they ougl
1 1 information to England. One I
mediately disclaimed having m:
I
`cation; and on Lord S. Olborni
immediately followed him, aft
I
I ' grec of candour, avowed that
, •,.. A. Hamilton, he had made son
Which Lord 0. reeled, 4, I am
known it before I should have t
:Browne remained some time lot
' • is: received an intimation that in c
• • , • .arrangements, his services were
• : So far this was Very satisfacio,
. 41 there were other reasons Cot
Browne went to Lord 0. to inqi
i .
.f
• could get no information. Twt
57th No. of the Quarterly Repko
'I .Air. Browne with ingratitude to
land, with confessing th it he h
4 to England documents which
came under his controul, and 1
i t was dismissed. Now, in fact,
lion, for no question was asked.
I
reason of his dismissal, tisis wan
. Thepobaestion of the libel by the •
Joseph Hume, Esq. examinei
. •
• Was a Member of the }Luise 0
the course of a debate, alluded
1, • f
1/..i.:1. from a IsLble Lord; that 11.. bl
Hamilton ; never received any
, A. Hamilton, concerning the
's
•
that period never had any co
0
Browne ; at that time diJ not CI
knew him about the latter en(
auction of the late Earl of '1
Number of the Quarterly Ii wit
,
. a note from a Noble Lord; in*
-Murray, on the 21st Novecab 6
Kinnaird, stated that the artic
Ilt. contained altogether s ) man)
:• hoods, that Le (witness) was a
, i... contradicted ; told Mr. Murr
in consequence of what was sai
i
, • of the statements respecting Li
Browne; that they were lalse of
i.':
Witness requested the name of
purpose of prosecuting high, ft
muted, and never would pro
t
11 convince him publicly of hi
t Mr. Murray would not give o
but promised to insert in •th
t
thing in refutation wh ch witn
.: wrote a refutation, sent it, but
' • 1 , tress has the paper now; it co
J ' of the testimony he had now
, the paper were now read by 31
, .
plained of the delay; Mr. MI
that he had no controul over tt
V 14 *: •i, arty article ; that this rested
.1
1, * 7;' aid.that all he (Mr. Mortay)
-
~ , ic. any communication to him.
1
- *
• to publish Mr. litime's papa
phlet." After considerable .
Mr. Hume.
!. it Crow-ciamined by Mr. Arroam
received from Lord Cathamptun w,
save for about half an hour.
' lk: The whole of the libel
through three nurabers; the I
ments concerning Mr. Brov
I 1
;.;, another in the index, which
.
where the above passage is r
ig The perfidious conduct of /
..
and certain other statements
1 ' in an article on the dry rot,
summary and reply to Mr. I
Mr. Murray. •
The ATTORNEY-GEF BRA]
dressed the jury in a speecl
address, contending that tl
true. Itt respect to the past
clearly the production neittil
of the observations on Mr. I
dinate perrn who was empl
. , and who put down mereiy,l;
1 ing the at Oale is -question.
The evidence of Sir Fre
li
, ~
rogatories, was here pot in
A.!
the infOtOration upon lohiCh
'Number of the Quarterly II
1: 1 . famished byhim. age .toin?
. t
in 4his istialet• ifia Same
- ,
i eg
otbe 'erraelerilloipe
•!- %pea Pugs. - " • :''''"
The widows et Lord 8:
t .
- i _ luaus, wiaritiow read, it
, .
1 4..