Star.
London, England, 1820-12-06 00:00:00

. •• - -
to read his private letters in a garbled state. Was
this to be defended? If a man quarrelled with 'Ps
neighbour, was that a justification for stabbing a
third person? But this was the course adopted by
the Gentleman at the hustings.. It was true, he had
said this was not his letter, but a forgery ; and he
had been charged with a breach of veracity for so
denying his own letter; but he would ask, if taking
The letter of any individual, and reading a particu-
lar part, and omitting all the rest which was in-
tended as an explanation of such passage, it could
be called the letter of that individual? He con-
tended it could not ; and that any one who should
promulgate it as such, would be guilty of a forgery.
The defendant then commented in strong terms on
the malignity of publishing such a letter as that con-
taining the reflections on Mr. Hunt, and the Lady
who was alluded to in it. This letter was written
at a time when he knew Mr. Hunt only by report;
but Cleary published it in connivance with Wright
tea years after. The defendant then contended, that
the breach of confidence on the part of Wright, and
the conduct of Cleary, who had induced Wright to
give up a confidential letter for publication, ten years
after it was written, was conduct only to be equalled
by that of the individuals who had been examined as
witnesses against the Queen. Even Baron Ompteda
had been less to be blamed than Wright, for he was
not in the confidence of the Queen. The conduct of
the Rump Committee was also worse than that of
the Baron. The Baron had only I)rced locks ; but
the Rump had seduced a confidential servant to be-
tray the confidence reposed in him. With respect
to the imputed libel, and its effect on Mr. Cleary, he
bad for a time felt a load on his conscience ; having
heard that that honourable Gentleman, who bad

..-... _ _
been preparing for the Bar, had been checked in his
career by his, the defendant's, writings. When he
considered what a scarcity Of candidates there were
for places at the Bar, and that lawyers were so scarce
we could not get law either .for love or money, he
certainly was conscience-struck to think of the sin
he had been guilty of—a poacher would not forgive
him who should crush a bird in the egg. He had
been guilty of a similar sin ; and how could he hope
the Bar would forgive, him for having thus crushed
this lawyer whilst yet in the shell—(A laugh). His
conscience was, however, in some degree relieved,
since he understood the plaintiff had other reasons
for seeking retirement. Mr. Cobbett was proceeding
to state several other circumstancsa connected with
Mr. Cleary, when
Mr. BROUGHAM objected to his going into a state-
ment of facts unconnected with this case, unless he
intended to call evidence to prove his statement.
The CIIIEF JUSTICE reminded the defendant, he
was not at liberty to state facts, unless he intended
to prove them by evidence. The defendant said,
Mr. Brougham had stated many things in his open-
ing" speech, which he had not proved. He was then
proceeding to put a case hypothetically, when he
was again stopped by Mr. BROUGHAM, who objected,
and contended, if the defendant proceeded to state
such facts, he, as Counsel for the plaintiff, should
submit to his Lordship, he had a right to reply,
whether the defendant called witnesses or nof.

The CHIEF Jusims said, Mr. Cobbett was now
putting an hypothesis. If he called no evidence to
support the statement- he had made, he should
tell the Jury it was their duty to discharge flour
their minds all which Was said by the defendant, that
was not proved by evidence.
Mr. Cobbett resumed, and commented in strong
terms on the conduct of Wright, Jackson, and the
other witnesses called against him, who, he said, had
received the weightiest obligations from him, and
were admitted to his inmost confidence ; though they
now, forgetful of all obligations, turned round upon
him, and took advantage of the confidence he had in
them, to sting him the more effectually. Wright,
to-day, had done so, by giving up the private confi-
dential communications of friendship. The Learned
Counsel had accused him of changing his principles
from day to day. Now, if he had changed, he had i
the satisfaction of reflecting that his change had been
from bad to better. But, if he was to look round
him, be thought he could find out some who had
changed their opinions, without having such constr.
lation. He did recollect a certain Learned Gentle. I
man, who, at a Public Meeting in Westminster, de.,
dared himself a Radical Reformer—a friend to Unit'
versal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments ; and he
had even the imprudence to commit his sentiments to
paper, and to entrust that to the hands of honest Mr.
Place. Some time after, the Gentleman is question,
having found occasion to change his opinion, in the I
Hcuse of Commons, thought proper to ridicule
Radical Reform altogether. On this occasion ho-
nest Mr. Place was ready to produce his written J
declaration of former principles; and, by so doing,
enabled the venerable Major Cartwright to give the
Learned Gentltman such a dressing as be had not
yet forgotten, nor he believed ever would. He had
been accused of attacking Sir Francis Burdett.
He denied that he had dime so ; but, if he had, he
I was yet to be told that to attack Sir Francis Bur-
dett was blasphemy. If men were fearful of having
their public conduct attacked, they ought to keep
themselves out of public view. That was what Mr.
Cleary ought to have done. With respect to the
present libel, he contended the proof against him
failed, since Jackson had acknowledged that he was
in. the constant habit of altering the manuscripts
,which he received from America, and that he had,
in fact, altered this very manuscript which contained
.the alleged libels; and, even supposing he -was the
author of the libel in question, he could not but
wonder at the audacity of the plaintiff in coming
here to ask for damages, after the conduct of which
he had been guilty.
The CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded to sum up, and
commented on the publication and the nature of the
evidence to bring it home to the defendant, observing,
at the same time, that should the Jury be satisfied that
the plaintiff ought to have a verdict, they would
then take into their consideration the circumstances
out of which this libel arose; and especially they
would consider that this letter, at the time it was
read by the plaintiff in public, had been written by
the defendant nearly ten years; and that had his
consent to its publication been then asked, he would,
without doubt, have refused to consent to its bitig
used in the manner it had been. • This would be a
inbject for consideration - with .the Jury. in the.cla-
mars tile/ gave•- .
The Jury retired at. twenty minute.% before seven,