The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-06-30 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN.

Some legal objections were here taken► on account
of variations between the copy -produced and the
record ; but these only applied to one or two of
the counts, and therefore did not prove fatal to
the Pl4intill's case.

Mr. Solicitor for the Plaintiff, proved
that the separation hal not taken place between
the Plaiwiff and his wife in March 1308, when
the two first paragraphs were pnblished. He had
himself dined at Lord Leicester's house in the
April fallowing, when: he saw Lady Leicester,
with some relations of the family. When he ob.
served the paragraphs in question, he had no doubt
of their allusion to Lord Leicester. On his cross.
examination by Mr. Serjeant Cockle, he stated as
his reason, among other things, that he had heard
certain flying rumours as to the conduct of the
Plaintiff. He admitted that a person of the name
of Neri dined with him at Lord Leicester's table,
and that this man had settled his Lordship's ac-
counts with him relative to some conveyancing
matters.
Here the Plaintiff's case closed.

Mr. Serjeant Cocet.x, for the Defendant, stated,
that hi: Clients cotild not give up the author, be..
cause they did nut know him, and they hail of.
fend to make an affidavit of that fact. But he
denied that the Plaintiff had sustained any mate-
rial injury from the publications in question, be.
cause similar reports had been in circulation long
before. From the form of the record, he could
not justify, but he would prove the miserable si-
tuation in which the Plaintiff lived with his wife,
and the deplorable condition in which she was
placed from being obliged to sit at his table with
such wretches as Neri, Hayliug, and Playfair.
He would prove the reports that bad been circu-
lated respecting this Noble Lord, and the grounds
of suspicion which existed against him, which
would reduce very low indeed his claim to da-
mages.
Mr. Serjeant BST objected to this course of
proceeding, which came upon him completely by
surprise, for they had given no notice of their in.
tention to go into any evidence of this kind. He
was therefore totally unprepared to meet it, or to
contradict er explain whatever might be said on
the other side. lie objected to it as illegal to go
into circumstances out of the record. If this was
to be permitted, no man would ever come into a
Court of Justice to clear his chaiacter from any
slander, where his complaint would be met by
fresh accusations, for which his whole life would
he ransacked. His character might thus, instead
of being cleared, be completely destroyed by a
sort of evidence which he would have no means of
meeting, having no previous notice of it.
Mr. Serjeant MANLY, Mr. Serjeant Cocat.r,
and Mr. ANNOY relied upon a Nisi Prius case, in
Peake's Book; upua a case of Sir John Earner v.
Coxe, lately tried before Lord Ellenborottgh, and
others, in which it had been decided that in ac.
tions of this kind evidence might he given, which,
although not amounting to justification, might
prove such a general belief as extremely diminished
the injury arising from any particular accusation,
either in word or writing, and consequently ope—
rated in mitigation of damages.
Mr. Serjant BEST denied the authority of these
cues, and contended, that as they were only Nisi
Prins cases, his Lordship ought to reject the evi-
dence in the present instance, allowing the De-
fendants to move for a new trial, when the case
would come to be argued before the whole Court.

• Sir J. MANSFIELD, however, ow the authority
of these cases, thought the evidence might be ad-
mitted so as to prove that reports generally pre-
vailed, previous to the publication of these para.
graphs, that the Plaintiff was guilty of the of-
fences charged upon him; as this, if proved,
would skew a less degree of malignity on the part
of the Defendants, and diminish the injury sus.
tained by the Plaintiff flora the publicatiou in
question.

- Mr. Serjeant BEST complained in strong terms
of the manner in which the cause had been con.
ducted, and the situation in which he himself
stood from being thus taken by surprise. Ile even
doubted whether be ought nut to suffer a onn-suit
to go against fur the present, that he might af.
terwards come forward better instructed. But
after a few minutes consideration, he determined
to allow the cause to proceed at all hazards.
Mr. Serjeant COCKLE then requested the Jury
to consider that it was impossible, if Daily Pa-
pers were to be published at all, that the Editors
could carefully examine every thing that was in.
serted. The liberty of the press was valuable—
it was the foundation of the liberties and happi.
ness of this country; mid though attended with
some inconvenience, care ought to be taken that
it should not be crushed. He admitted that his
Clients were answerable iw•taw for-ushastater found.
its way into their paper. Ile only suggested these
considerations in mitigation of damages. He then
called a variety of witnesses in behalf of the De-
fendants.

A woman who waited upon Lady Leicester at
the time of her marriage, proved that Lord Lei-
cester and his wife had ceased to live together ai
man and wife in a short time after the marriage.
They were married iu May 1807, and were sepa.
rated, as she understood, in May, 1808. In the
August after the marriage, her Lady left town,
leaving his Lordship at his house, at Westbourn
Green, Paddington. Before that time, her Lady
generally dined at the same table with his Lord-
ship, oho, however, generally associated with
Neri, Hayling, and Playfair, who were often at
his house, but what these men were she did not
know. His Lordship was visited by few persons
of his own rank, but she had seen some female re-
latives of his at his house. Her Lady returned to
town in November, 1807, but went to a house
which his Lordship possessed in Gloucest, r-place.
1 Lord Leicester called there sometimes, but gene-
rally o hen he lived at the one house her Ladyship
lived at the other.

1\ illiam Newton, the landlord of the Cocoa
Nut Coffee House, was called to prove, bat Neri
was a person unfit for the society of Lord or
Lady Leicester. It appeared from his testimony,
that Neri had been a waiter at his house, but he
knew uothing against his character.
One ilarraden, a print-seller at Cambridge, de.

posed to the intimacy that subsisted between bis
Lordship and Neri, at the University. They
were on more familiar terms than master and ser-
vant, and his Lordship appeared to treat him ra-
ther as a companion.
Mr. Ridgway, the bookseller, proved that Ncri
lodged at his house for some time, and rented the
first floor, for which he paid a guinea a week.—
Lord Leicester sometimes visited him there.

George Smith, an upholsterer, said, that he
partly furnished Lord Leicester's heuits, at West.
bourn.green and Gloucester.plice. He also fur.
nis)cd some goods to Neri, who then lodged in
11.iker.strect, North—but ho was not yet paid
fur them.

James Danew, an auctioneer, sold the furni-
ture of the two houses, when Lord Leicester's
embarrassments commenced ; and he also sold
some effects belonging to Neri, at the same time
—but he considered that as a distinct transaction.

Newby, the Chapel Clerk at Cambridge,
was then called. lie said, that Lord Chartley,
as the Plaintiff was then called, bad come to Cam.
bridge attended by his father's porter.—but lie un.
derstood that the porter was only intended by his
Lordship's father as a temporary servant. Ac.
cordingly the porter went away, and Neri came.
Lord Leicester. did not treat him as a common
servant, but rather as a companion. Lord Lei.
tester was in many things eccentric. He some-
times continued shut up in his room, at his books
or music, for eight hours at a ticie. Neri some-
times accompanied him on the guitar, but often at
these times was out playing at cricket. His Lord.
ship was also in the habit of wearing ladieV shoes,
and had his head dressed like a lady ; from which.
the young men of the College sometimes called
him Miss Chartley, and Lady Chartleys Ilia
Lordship was of a retired dispositi,m, but he gave
two or three concert!, at which some of the most
respectable persons in the Woo and the college
attended. He never heard that his Lordship had
been desired to leave the University for any im.
propriety of conduct; but be had heard souse ru.
mours against his character, which, however, he
never believed.

Mrs. Busignag, who lives at Pimlico, said, that
the Plaintiff called two or three times upon a
young man of the name of Murray, who lived at
her house, and when he was sick, desired him to
get the best advice.
The Rev. henry Poultor said, that he had been
tutor to the Plaintiff at Cambridge, but knew no
particular harm in him. He never midi rstood that
he had left the Lini‘ersity for improper conduct.
Colonel Rainsford, of the Guards, was next
called, who said, that he had heard reports of
very improper conduct in Lord Chartley.
Lord John Tuwnshend was called next, who
stated, that lie was the uncle of the Plaintiff; but
that neither he nor the father of the Plaintiff were
on good terms with him.

Mr. liorjeant BEST ►n a very able speech con.
tended, that there was nothing in this evidence that
ought to reduce the damages. He himself was as
sincere a friend to the liberty of the press as any
man ; but he was an Loewy to its licentiousness.
If the newspapers were to be allowed with imps.
slily to publish such slanders as these, this would
be the worst country in the world—a country in
which no honourable inan could live. He again
reprobated the manner in which the defence had
been conducted. After the general inns pleaded
on the record, they had attempted to du farther
injury to the character of his client, without no-
tice, or giving him an opportunity to prepare him-
self to meet them. Not daring to meet the Plain-
tiffface to face, they had stabbed him in the back.
The Learned Serjeant said, there was no pretence
for the charge about the exhibition of articles in
Doctors Commons. It was pure invention. Ile
had the Officer (rota Doctors Commons with the
books in Court, and defied the Defendants to
prove their allegations. He had a right to say,
under all the circurostancesl.that a traffic had been
made of this calumny. Such things had been
heard of lately. Many had not nerves to come
into a Court of Justice ; and perhaps it was ex-
pected that the mouth under the dour for receiving
their anonymous communications would have pre-
sented them with bank paper to stop the contitiu.
ance of such publications as this. They might,
perhaps, have used their paper, in this instance, as
the highwayman did his pistol—•t:► get money. lie
coocladed by impressing upon the minds of tho
Jury, the importance of giving such damages as
would skew the world that they did not believe
these reports, and such as would serve as a warn-
ing to the press in general.
Lord Chief JuXtice MANSIIELD then addressed
the Jury. Ile said, it was sittlicieut to entitle the
Plaintiff to a verdict, that scandal had appeared
in tha paper, and it was no excuse that they did
not know the author.—A man was no more ex-
cusable for a libel, than one who sold poisonous
drugs, who had nut prepared them. There had
been many arguments used on both sides, aid the
matter for their consideration, under all the cir-
cumstanccs, was the amount of the damages.
One side had said the authors could be given up,
and the other that they could not ; that was a
point which should weigh with them in their deli.
berations. Tha.Liberty of the eress bad nothing
to do with the present case. The legal meaning
of The Liberty of tkc Press had been well de-
fined by the came Slztrox, who was as stre.
nuous, and certainly as able, an advocate for
liberty as ever appeared in this ur any other
countrp—that great Man had stated it to. con.
sist in the liber4 to print " shut one pleased
without the previous consent of a licenser."
Formerly there was an officer called a licenser,
whose duty it was to inspect works going to the
press. In different reigns such an officer had oc-
casionally been appointed and discontinued. A f.
ter the Reeolution, the :iflice of licenser was to-
tally abolished, and a famous work had since been
written upon the subject of unlicensed printing.—
But the true liberty of the press, although it con.
'Wed in printing and publishing whatever you
please, without restraint, certainly meant the•
party to be answerable for what he so printed or
published. No one could conceive the liberty of
the press to extend to en unrestrained power of
abuse of public or private individuals, although it

LONDM. : Primed and Pu!dialled by n. Levr;t,t., at the
IIiTATISII•N Orrice. 87. Fled-atatet.