Star.
London, England, 1827-12-20 00:00:00

K

motes; knew two petenns named May., •seroolmertera;
inslß Mr. Taylor was a tutor in that school; Messes.
Mee had SS .nceoeut there; it was s coasislerable One ;
renternbetereceieing a bill from them accepted by Mr.
Tayiere, armangst either bills w• that bill was duly carried
to the account of !Newt. May.
iirtr. Sergeant WILDS then addressed the Sory for the
defendant. He was sure his Lordship would do him the
justice to acquit him of the supposition•of neglecting
hie client's interest, when he permitted his Learned
Friend to go into an examination like the preceding,
'wbol:y irregular, and such as would not for a moment
be allowed if he.(Mr. Sergeant Wilde) had objected to
it. But the reason why he had made no resistance to it
was simply his cluviction that the Editor of the 7111/N
would feel displeased with him, if, in the course of hie
defence, he took any technical objection which might
prevent the plaintiffs from giving on that occasion the
fullest possible explanation of their case to the public, ow
was it the fault of the Editor that an explanation of de
circumstances under which the libel had been published
wits not given to the public long since ; for if the plain-
tiffs had furnished him with the means of making-such
etplaneiion, he would undoubtedly have made it; they,
however, did not condescend to offer any, though re-
quested by him in a written communication ; and, in-
deed, with some reason, as, it was clear that their repu—
tation stood too high in the opinion of the world to suffer
soy injury from a delay of the necessary explanations;
indeed, so very high, that, up to this hour, they migist
have safely, and unhurt, for borne to seek any means-id
via d ic at ion, partictilarl y against accusations coming feeble
arrebtor to their establishment, and that debtor such*
character as Mr.ltobertTaylor ; these, however,wereDiat
citeunhstsnces which' cowl? prevent them from bringing
the present action, though they might have soggeatet
the very doubtful pulley of such a step. Now-for the
matter at issue. As to his Learned Friend's assertion tft
the' late abundance of newspaper libels, he would ado*
the justice of the remark In general; but would recant'
the Jury, whether a line of distiaetioo ought not to be
drawn between those Journals which sought and gen*
avitculation by the publication of libels against private
character, and those papers, like the limes,. Which oh
Loaned extensive circulation, by, their early and valuabbe
intelligence, and by their sound and able exposition sad
discussion of important public questions. With respect
to the wound said to have been inflicted by this libel,
on the joint feelings Df the plaintiffs, it was' uosthy
of •remask, .that. though they had a community et
Interestcms.partners in a banking house, there could be
no commonity. of feeling between.them arising from an
attack on their religious opinions, inasmuch a; they
diffract on religion one from another. The usual topics
of aggravation were, therefore, 'quite out of place in the
case of the present Plaintiffi. Then as to his Learned
Brother's deduction, that the damages ought to be ill-
creased by the fact, that the letter had been published,
ptetnptly and without, inquiry; admitting 'these pre-
:nisei to be correct,' surely the just inference from thesis
would be quite different from that drawn by his Learned
Brother, inasmuch as, by the ordinary course of reason-
ing. the very circumstance of the precipitancy with
which-it was given to the world, indicate that the pub-
hati..n occurred without consideration on the part of
the defendant ; in fact, if he had seen or road it, hi
vsould not have published it at all—and this circuala
stance of the absence of due consideration; instead
of aggravating the damages, ought rather to mid•
gate their amount. Then, as to the attack itself—
from whom did it proceed? Was it pot ;he railing lin=
garage of a man indebted to the plaintiffs, it man de.
barbed by the nines itself as a bad moral character,
under two 'prosrcutious f rr blasphemy, and one for coo.
spjracy ? Wei it not to be naturally expected, that node
a person was the man to say he was ill-tweeted. and that
bre iirseditors were cheats and swindle:a.' The Juiy
whold remember the story of the galley slaves; who all,
ithlhe cusp. don of one, told a certain Prince that they
were qeite-inuocent of the cherges .foe which they had
been vonsolemned to • punishes :at. while the one only
Omitted be was guilty, and deserved his fate, on whim
the Piitlice. instantly ordered him to quit his bonds?
as-h♦ was net it company for such an 'honest, in.
roma iet•-.01 Gentlensen—(Laughter). Who, thee,

w' el4•' feel concerned for any libels uttered by a
ifrales ii‘the y. Could such a man's slanders in Silt
islitliling% mirth of injury on the character ot any man?
If nots,:so,iseither could the ravings of a man uncle's'
twoindletrents for blasphemy, arid, at the same time,
debtor. But what had been the conduct
ot ▪
the defendant ? When the Editor of the 7'irnes was
informedvf•the error he had committed, by the pla;n-
tiffc'Ameer, stating their intention to bring an action,l*
wrote back to them, expressing his regret it hiving
published the libel, declaring that, if her had seen the
latter part of it, he would never have published it ; and
• ringrto send forth to the a orld a • contradiction of
TA) inerstatement, if the plaintiffs a otritl‘furnith him'
frith- the. materials. This the plaintiffs declined
doir►gr'The• Editor, however, took an early oppor-,
wonky :of at:quitting them, through that-medium of bist
Jourmil, of all' the imputations thrown oat against
then:thy Taylor, and declaring bit regret, that by some
tfruecconntablechance.it foundits way into publication.
Irwas dear the plaintiffs could have suffered rth injury
honr thrirstatements ot such w man as Taylor, labour.
en, as he then en, under charges of crimes,. which,
ribmentl others, were calculated to deprive his aster
-
Citrus 4'211 credits l*fect, the plaintiffs itsjureritheins
!diet more than Tayfor.coold ;• for, mild and merciful
as daubtlenly.they were, they gave the malicious a
handle to inter the probability :of Taylor's •charge ot
persecution against them, by lact.of their relining
to accept any apology—any expresoieloi-iegretes-any
offer of repetition; and by their pertinsitiirin pressing
this unmerited prosecution against a man. who, if. he
Offended thenrat all, offended'shem moss unintenvioa-
ally and innocently. The Learned Sergeant conchtehrd
an animated address by repeating, that the plairuifs
bad' suffered no injury from the publication, and could
be ent ided to nothing room than nominal da mages,if any.
' :Mut. Sharpe HlstehMson proved the letter to be in
the hand-writing of libber* Taylor.
•Mt. Chater, of the Times irffice, .believed the letter
wits received at the Thaorotfite ; did esotupen it ; could
trot be positive, as a great number were received every
day., • ••••!. .• r •

Mr. ilareltritt piintstrto ilia I iota; • received the lee.
ter; and furnishedethe conspositinewith it... . -. ...,....
Sevetat letters; Wiricit,hl4 trotted • between the Odom
tiffs sad. defendinfOittteraerpwcier rhea -pat in: ;, lbw
stated on thepaitcllthirdeceat4aol she areatessmitz
rest' tainrskrany aitologypor %stets in. an; raper'. -
fur stheistadvertenvillary-sustaittee.by-tb• plalatgfik, ..I
Mr. aid* lamer, in tepty; COvendeck the de( .
g.
.17
wa a efig,wrikblea •agicraeatk ni or * original in' "
the, limit ha ?<rest eftialittiva; to **chili* greitik
sham %if '• the Nine inllieted, and 'so mach. Ole ihori
cOlfs4a r . tilt
.plalnai.:tir, re lick. the erects. r'
it. kg. Sititilt: tad* Yoten ..11110ed I,"
it ...,11,tlical Ida *ice It/ *Obi apotok
i ..
---" •• i • Ills the ; -was itptisirtasids'of thdites...
Otis/ adacet directly it was received. Mr.. Sergeant

thai