The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-10-24 00:00:00

wanli swear away the blood of any will for a fete shi'•
flees ?—Yon abused me.
IVere von not drinking at the White Hart with no-
torions pick-pockets ?—No; there were some persons
there.
Waddinoton—Pereons! were they not men?—They
were not Bishops.
Well, go down. I rare not what rot swear.
Win. Smith was next produced—lle remembered go-
ric n ith the last witness to the defendant's; Mr. Poole,
who oi-copied a part of the premises, allowed them to go
torn his parlour daring the day ; Porton watched on the
staircase, in consequence of what Mr. Poole's daughter
• a;il, witness went out of the ',hop, and entered Wad-
dington's shop; the defendant was not then there; saw the
Pallor.% of book) on the walls, attached to hooka; witness
polled it down and put the hook on the book he wanted;
it Was •• Palmer's Principles of Nature ;" there was a
tithe. and a speaking trumpet in the chop ; witness
liii d mit through it—t. Have you got that?" meaning
the book to Which the hook was attached; he spoke
“I 1, end put the money in a bag :it was five shillings;
the defendant was not in the shop then ; he came in
soon afterwards, and offered witness a chair to sit down;
shortly after a hook came down; it fell out of the sport/
on the floor ; witness took it, and went out of the situp
and marked it before it went not of his bands.
Croweexaminell by Waddington—He hail never asked
to tine any other publirationa of the defendant, eacept
• the Universal Prayer. Never had been refused any
work by hint.
Wallington—Dbl yon not swear at Bow street, that
colt had purchased the Secret Book tame?
The CoueT—Were these examinations in writing ?
Waddington—Yes.
The Courer—Then yon mnst produce them. The
r les of evidente do not allow you to put such a ques-
tion.
Waddington—The rules of evidence-- if they will not
allow me to examine the witness as to what he has be-
fore sworn, they may send me innocently to a prison.
It hat can I do? I here not his examination—How then
produce them? Your Lordship is here the representa-
tive of the King. but from the greatest man of yon all,
including even- Serjrant Copley, the Solicitordieneral,
down te the Crier of the Cohtt, you receive the wages of
the piffilic. and I contribute to them,
Dobert Duke was next called—lle is a Bow-street
officer, and accompanied Smith and Parton to the house
of Poole. On the dth of May, after Poole's daughter
Laid said something, Smith and Perton went out, and
witness went up stairs; he looked through the key-hole
of the door of the front room on the first pair ; saw a
little hey and the defendant within ; there wasa candle
hinting near the key hole, heard Smith say from the
atom below .• Have von got that?" saw Waddington
efierwards come out with money jingling in his hand.
Nothing occorted in the cross-examination of this
a Press.
John Poole, tobacconist, 201, Strand, proved that
Waddington occupied a part of the premises; saw him
there every day till lie wept to prison; Isis name was
pointed in large letters on the outside; theofficers came
a a erk before they sneceeded in taking him ; they were
in his parlour; the apartments occupied•hy Waddiognii
were before held by one Clarke,* bookseller.
Cross-examined by Watidinetoo—They lived neat
each other; witness was a tobacconist. It was not to
• rtrap him that lie lout the Bow-street officers in his
parlour. From the nattier of the placard in the defend-
t ere a 111110IC, persons considered bins as the publisher
et !.leephemons pnblicationr, and applications had been
made to bito to sell them.
Jane l'eole, the daughter of the former witness, proved
tha• Waddington sent into the front room the evening
the Officers went down, whirl; they did 4$ 1000 as she
toll there that he bail gone in. Defendant, before be
went in, !milted both up and down stairs. From the po-
sition she was in, a little above tier landing-place, Wad-
dina ton could not see her.
Cross-examined by Waddington—There were two
rooms on the first floor, in one of which she believed
Wadi,' rpm' s:ept.
The libellous paragraphs were then read, and the book
ben led to the July.
Toe defendant then addressed the Jury. Ile coin.
mence with telling the Jury that it was needless for him
to state to them that be was the defendant ; bathe asked
taints also to hear in mind by whom lie was brought be-
fore them. He was brought their by the Diavolits Regi.
He was called there at the proaecnnwo of the King, for
poblishieg a hook, altliongli the informer, on whose eel-
inane the prosecution was founded, had himself sworn
that he, the defendant, had neither given him the hook,
or that he received the money. Ile bad never read a
Lee of the book until it became necessary, in order to
prepare for his &hitter. Even allowing, for argument's
rake, that it was a libel, why did they not prove that
some persons hail been injured by reading its doctrines?
!'ahoy, as good Christians, was be not advised by them
th it ite was selling a work that blasphemed the Bible,
and that was calculated to divert the public from the path
of moral rectitude ? Was the design only to entrap him?
And what a euld the Jury think of the witness Poole, a
neiglihnur, with hom lie bail no quarrel, whom be
would have served rather that injure; and who admitted
Bow-surest Officers into his parlour for the purpose of
entrapping the man who occupied an appartment in the
amine house with hint? lie, the defendant, bad been
cruelly harrassed; be had been thrown into prison,
brought thrice into that Court by Habeas Corpus, to an-
swer an information tiled by tit% Attorney-lieneral
—that odious relic of the Star Chamber. What
was his case that day might he the case of the
Jury hereafter. They could lint fail to recollect
wh it police officers were capable of what was
brought home to them in the ease of Brack and Pelham,
a' d that flood-money conspiracy. Haw was it that it
i .T!, only poor man that were the objects of their perse-
cution? Why did they not prosecute the Bishop of
Cluuzher? Why was he allowed to escape? For, will
any man deny that the Bishop by his conduct did not
render the Christian religion a greater injury than could
•Ise effected by all the writers and advocates of infidelity
't!no ever existed. It was not his business that day to
def, nil the publication said to he a libel, lie aas there
to defend his own conduct, and, as St. Paul said to King
Agrippa, most happy teas he to stand there in his de-
fence. If those who prom...wed him were really aim.
ions to put down such publications, they wonlil not
•ihav e taken the course they had. The prosecution would
gist- a greater sale to suck a work. Such were the opi-
rio,3 ut the greatest writers, even Christian. The de-
fen dint proceeded to read from some work in the con•
• ',overly between Mr. Wllioton and Dr. Clarke, a 11111/11.
• bee Alarm tending• as he argued, to show the im-
policy of the church calling in the aid of the civil ale.
gistrates.
The LORD enter Justice attended with great pa-
tience, until at lenath lie felt called upon to imperil pt
the defendant, observing, that be iambi not allow a per.
anti charged with a libel, to read in the line of his dr.
fence the libslpf a third party on any class of his Maks-
ty's subjects. '
A Juror rap dI is coincidence in that opinion.—
The line the defendant was taking was wholly keels.-
Jai ant.
'I be defendant resnmed. The Jury were his pulps;
be was in their hands, and he hail a right to put a blush
ion the emelt, of those who isoisteil in prosecuting him.
W 1 at would be the consequence if lie, prevented from
rnahina his own defence, was cant ? I t wrothd he
that his Lordship would go down to posterity the tyran-
recalJadge of the day. He again resumed to read, and
sum if the Court would have a little patience, he would