Star.
London, England, 1810-06-16 00:00:00

fortwity with his opinion. Tt would be of no conse-
quence to any one of what opinion Mr. Cobbett might
be--but he, the Attorney General, would ask the
Jury, had Mr. Cobbett merely offered an opinion on
this subject t He had introduced his opinion by stat-
ing, that the Acts authorizing his Majesty to raise
foreign troops, were mere acts of indemnity, but, in
his defence, had contented himself with stating his
own conduct and opinion, and cpnauded his argu-
ment by assuring the Court and Jury, that the libel
was tnerely a mode of writing he had adopted, for !
pointing out the errors of Lord Castlereagh !—but
he would ask the Jury, was there any thing like dis-
cussion in the paper ? Did Mr. Cobbett, in that
paper, seem to think there was any wiser course than
that adopted by the Legislature—did he think it
would be the wiser course to await the arrival of the
enemy ere the people should be trained to arms ?
or did he wish to prevent the people from submitting
to any measure of that sort ? It must be remem-
bered that this paper appeared after a Legislative
measure had been passed, by which a military farce
had been embodied, and after a mutiny had taken
place, for which punishment had been awarded, al-
though a part of that punishment had been remit-
ted ; the object then of Mr. Cobbett must have been
L again to light up the flame of discord, by holding out
that the German Legion was brought for the pur-
pose of flogging our soldiers, who were forced into
,the army by measures -more tyrannical than those
of Bonaparte. But his Lordship would tell them,
-whether the object of this parr was not to create
general discontent, and defame and vilify those who
had legally entered into the service of this country.
He would tell them whether it was not the object of
this paper to insinuate, that our army was raised by
measures more tyrannous than even those of Bona-
parte. (The Attorney General then read several of '
the passages from the libel, on each of which he ani-
madverted.) He asked what could Mr. Cobbett
mean but to reproach and taunt the local militia for
having submitted to be flogged ? Did he not mean to
ridicule them for beir.g so dastardly ?—Surely he did,
and meant also to excite the people of Ely to rescue
the soldiers from the punishment of the Law. Could
any man of common sense doubt that he meant to re-
proach the people of Ely for having patiently wit-
nessed the scene ? These men who were punished had
surrounded and beset their Officers, and being guilty
of mutiny, were sentenced to a deserved punishment.'
But this mutiny Mr. Cobbett had treated very slightly,
and his indignation had been powerfully e.xcited,that inl
consequence of this trivial offence, this squabble, the
German Legion should have been sent for to flog
them. But that was not the fact ; the German Legion'
had been sent for to suppress, in the first instance, a
most dangerous mutiny, and eventually to oblige the
mutineers to submit to the decision of the law, by
which they were awarded punishment. Mr. Cobbett
did not even allow it to be a mutiny, but merely a,
little disorderly conduct ; a squabble about the ,
marching guinea. It would be wasting time to offer',
further observations to shew that this was a libel.—
But one word he must say on that scandal which Mr.
Cobbett had cast on the German Legion. That
among 12,000 men, some men might have miscon-
.ducted themselves he would not deny, but this he
would maintain, that there never was a military corps
in this kingdom of whom there was so little com-
plaint, or so little cause of complaint. He had ao
doubt that every act of misconduct, however trivial,
found its way to the Defendant ; but it the whole
came to be scrutinized, even in the aggregate which
he might thus collect, it would be seen that their
general conduct would be found such as he, the
(Attorney—General) had described. Mr. Cobbett
hae stated, that the German Legion had acted with
cowardice at Talavera; but this he knew, that of the
four standards taken in that battle, three were taken
by the German Legion ! That was an extraordinary
proof of cowardice. He could not hear such a ca-
lumny as had been uttered against those brave men
without repelling it. The question before the Court
and Jury was not, however, on the merits or deme-
rits of the German Legion ; the question for the-Jury
to decide was, whether that mischievous paper which
had been read, had it not in view to hold up those
brave men to obloquy and contempt, and to excite in
the minds of the military disobedience and resistance,
andrin those of the people at large of this country, a
disposition to discontent and disaffection ? -
Lord ELLENaottotten commenced with a recapitu-
lation of the material parts of the alledged libel, and
observed, that the question for the Jury to consider,
was, whether the mischief ascribed to this publication
was fairly ascribable to it, whether it was of the noxious
tendency imputed to it? The Defendant had stated,
that he was a most calumniated man. Whether that
was the case, he knew not. But he hoped and trusted
the Jury would exclude all prejudice from their minds;
that they would consider the Defendant as a new man,
whose character was wholly unknown to them before
this day. His Lordship, atter reading another extract
from the Register, proceeded in his commentary.—
The defendant had, he said, stated that this conduct
on the part of the Militia, was not a mutiny, but a
mere squabble with their officers about a marching
guinea.. But how a squabble with their officers
could be considered as any other than an act of mu-
tiny, and of the most dangerous sort too, was quite
beyond his conception. The defendant had laid in
his claim to discuss the policy of employing foreign
troops, and the propriety of this claim he fully ad-
mitted. Although the employment of foreign troops
had received the sanction of the Legislature, still it
was competent to the defendant, or any other indi-
vidual, to discuss that, or any other public measure,
in temperate and decent language, to suggest such a
change as he might think expedient and necessary.
—That the defendant, or any other person, was in-
titled to expres his opinion—to address himself in
temperate and qualified terms to the sober reason of
the country, and to endeavour to impress that opi-
nion upon Parliament itself, no one can question.
—A•id if such an exercise of unquestionable right
were brought under the consideration of the Jury, he
believed that neither they nor he, nor any person oc-
cupying the honourable situation which he so un-
-1 I worthily filled, would have been found ready to pro-
; nounce it a proper subject for punishment. It was
for the Jury to consider -whether the publication then
i before them was really of that character ? The defen-
dant had said, that it was the intention of a writer, in
Icases of this natine,which was to be looked at. But how
was that intewion to he collected ? Not surely from
the mere ;ism :i;:t1 of a Defendant in a moment of pe-

r''

!til.when open his tt:Al, but from the tenet 414
lication, If that publication imported mischief; Vie
,Jury were bound to conceive that mischief was inteod•
el. This was the correct and legal rule of juskgme it ;is
an intention. The publication before the Bata eas re t,
it musebe seen, one random expression, liable to be in•
discreetly written in a hurry, but a continuity of terms, •
and it was their province to decide whether such a pub•
lication had, or could have any but one purpost? (Here;
the Learned Lord read a passage from the libel, refer.;
ring to the contrast of Mr. Werdle's opinion with,
that of Mr. Huskisson, with respect to the employ.,. • .
meet of foreign troops, and the use they were meant,
for in this county, namely, for the infliction of pip
nishment upon 13r:tish soldiers, and pointed the at-
tention of the Jury to this passage, if any doubts exis-
ted in their mind.) If any thing indeed were wantet
by way of explanation, in order to enable them to
collect the defendant's real meaning in this pae:ar,
it was only necessary to refer to the following ex-
pression of li s own, towards the close of his defence :
44 I should not have said so much of those Germans,
if they had not been brought into this country to
flog the backs of my own countrymen." Could
the Jury then, after this exposition of his dein text,
entertain any doubt of the defendant's intention ?
What. he would ask, was the obvious tendency, the
probable effect of such a publication, upon the
minds of men employed to defend the Country, at
the risk of their lives ? Was it not calculated to
'generate a spirit of discontent—to loosen all the
links and ties of military subordination—and, of
course, to produce the most serious mischiefs ? If
such, then, were its tendency, it must surely de-
serve the character and consequence of intemper-
ance and libel. But could the purpose of the De-
fendant be deemed fbr a moment ambiguous ? The
repeating so frequently and emphatically, she words,
" Flog them! flu them," could he mean it as an advice
to the officers to urge a repetition of the punishment,
or as an exhortation to the men to induet them to sub-
mit to it ? No, the meaning was clearly this, that if
these militia-men endured punishment, that if they
suffered themselves to be punished with arms in their
hands, with which they might make resistance, they
richly deserved that punishment, however severe it
might be. Now as to the defendant's address to the
inhabitants of Ely, did not this address appear to im-
ply an imputation or reproach upon the inhabitants,
for having passively witnessed the punishments alluded
to ? What else could it mean ? The defendant had
not, he observed, touched upon this.point in the course
of his defence, but he had endeavoured to defend the
whole article, by stating that it was merely a compo-
sition of bad taste—that it was only defective in style.
Was this, however, the only fault attributable to it ?
Was this the only inference to be drawn from it ? Did
it not betray a bad moral and political feeling ? and
was not its evident purpose to excite the soldier/
against each other, and to excite the people against
Ministers—against the whole Governmentuand Cons
stitution, under whose !aws and orders the punish.
ments referred to had been inflicted ? With regard
to the Defendant's allusion to the conduct of Bo-
naparte, as contrasted with the conduct of the Go-
vernment of this Country, he had thought proper
to appeal to those whom he described as loyal writers
against the practices of Bonaparte. Now, whether
the persons appealed to, whom perhaps it was not
quite delicate to introduce on this occasion, namely,
(Mr. Bowles, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. Hunt), had
written against the French Ruler, or not, he did
!not know, and therefore could not refer to their au-
thozity. But he had read a work, lately written
by an American of eminence, who strongly repro-
bated the policy and practice of Bonaparte, parti-
cularly with respect to the law of conscription, or
the mode of raising men for his army, and he thought
that such policy and practice was not to be paral-
leled in this country. What, however, was the De-
fendant's object in the paragraph alluded to? Why, it
was evidently this—that the British Government had
nought to complain of Bonaparte for any cruelty
attributed to him, because " as many cruelties are
committed here as by Bonaparte in France." Was
not this, he would appeal to any candid reader,
the purport of the publication, and had it not there-
fore a tendency to excite mutiny ? But it was for
the Jury to consider and pronounce on the whole,
whether this publication was that of a writer whose
zeal overstepped his discretion, or whether the words
of it were to be understood to mean what they
clearly imported—whether they had a tendency to
create irritation and discontent between our foreign
and British troops, to produce discord and disunion
among the different branches of that military force
upon whose entire and cordial union, particularly at
the present crisis, the safety of our country so mate- .
rially depends. If such were the object of the writer,
if he designed to produce such a mischievous species
of animosity, he surely well• merited the descriptio*
of a seditious libeller. 46 According to law (said his
Lordship) it is my duty to state to you my opinioa
upon any case submitted for your consideration.—.-
When I have doubts, I never decline to communicate
those doubts, and when I differ in opinion from the
prosecution, I have not hesitated to state that dilly.
rence ; but upon this occasion I must say, that I feel
no such doubt or difference, it being the confident cer-
tainty and full conviction of my mind, that this is a
most seditious libel."

The Jury, after consulting for about two minutes,
returned a verdict of—Guilty.
:l'he Hall and the Court were crowded at as early hour, and
among the persons present we noticed Lord LA UUSROALL and
Mr. tamer, who sat on the Bench with his Lordship, and
Major CARTWRIGII r, who sat among the Counsellors. Mr.
COIICTT, in making his defence, appeared firm and collected,
and at the same time paid great deference to what was said to
him by his Lordship. lie ,poke for an boor and a ball, and the
trial lasted for about aree hours and a half. Mr. ellill&TT left
the Cuurt when the A riven a w-G NICRAL had Ilidead his reply.

Wednesday were executed, in the Old Bailey, R.
Jones, alias Costing, for forgery; and Mdiad Ma/tea,
alias Alit:tar, for burglary ; the man appeared a
wretched squalid figure, inAtbe dress of a sailor, stu-
pidly insensible to the horror of his situation ; while
the woman was shook almost to premature dissolution
by her feelings..

On Sunday, June IN at St. Andrew Hubbard's Church, Lea-
don, Captain Robert Browne, at the 4th Ceylon Iteshweut, to
Miss Elizabeth Webb Anderson, only daughter of James Ander-
son. Rag. of Ramsay Grove, South Carolina.

DIED.

At his seat. in Ayrshire (Scotland) on the 4th June Patti*
Baliantine, Esq. 431 Castlo-hili, to the &expressible pie( olf kis A
relations and friends.

A