The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-04-15 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1820.

'• The Cause for wAieA HAMPDEN M iw the Field, and SYDNEY died on the Scaffold."'

•
BY THE KING'S ROYAL LETTERS PATIVIT.
THE ECONOMICAL. LAMP.
N contemplating Gio dreadful accidents which
A so freqttently aver. In the destruction of lives Red pro-
perty, from the use of Candles, the Public will duly appre-
ciate the importance of a guarded light. embracing, le all its
cases. perfect safety, 'never-failing certainty, and the closes
est economy, bearing any motion, and so particularly cal-
culated for the Chantber, Nursery, or moving Light, es to
merit universal adoption, and made the more valuable, es a
preserver of the Carpet from tallow and wax, and a security
aginst waste. This Lamp acts upon the principle of as
invariable contiguity from the flame to the oil, without a
reservoir above, and thereby rendered completely portable:
possessing great variety to form and elegance, Oide. a
bright light in proportion to the occasion, and requtrieg so
trimming daring the longest night, or replenishing with eel-
ton oftener than oace in two or three swaths, and so alas*
as to meet the weakest capacity. More than • Moulted
families (many residing in distant parts of the country, who
have honoured the Patentee with their torafidenee) are sew
In possession of this improvement ; mad it is to anthipale
the wishes and rons.mience of those who are thus
Sat the Patentee is induced to give • general Ides olt=.
Thethamber or House Lamp. is law stands, lea.
gust 11Ne. to Ills. le Droste and hop vial weal The Wady
Lamp, in a very handsome bronze pedestal. Os. to 17e.;
and for the Dining Table, ten to twelve inches high, at 00s.
to 700. the pair. Glass hanging Green's' lamps, elegant.
at Ws. to 435. for the Staircase. Passage. Sideboard, and
F.ntra ace, giving a light downwards as well as around; and
for • large flail, Ms. to Ines. Cut-glass stand, to be placed
in a Lantern, with Glass bottom, les. to gig.; or Pan-light,
and for the Vase, or York Lanterns, to Ox in a socket, las.
to leo. (a most desirable acquisition to these Lamps).
The espense, in best Spermaceti Oil, will be a halfpenny
worth in eight or nine hours for the Chamber light, and one,
In two-penny worth in six or eight hours, for Hall, Passage,
Sideboard, Study, de.
Kohl by T. Pearce and Co., Agents to the Patentee, No. S.
Pickett-street, near Temple-liar, Strand. who, to guard the
reputation of the..e Lamps from the effects of bed Oil, are
bound to sell none but genuine Spermaceti.

beard imputed to an Irishman—yet to Mr. Cleary Vase
Imputed this foul and abominable crime in these words:
'•-that such a thing as the kept man-mistress Cleary
should be guilty of such an act of baseness will surprise
10 one, who reflects that lie has not a shilling to support
himself bat the wages of his own prostitution, unless it
be sometimes by your bounty."—'l bus stating, that Mr.
Cleary is a wretch who was not able to subsist but by
the prostitution of his person in a manner not to be
named among Christians. If the Jury were of opinion
with him that the charge of forgery, foul as it was, did
not weigh au atom or a grain of dust when put in the
balance against a libel of this abominable nature, they
must agreirieltb him, that they world have formed but
a feeble notion indeed of this cause if they considered it
in the light of an ordinary action for libel. This libel
was aggravated by the mode of its publication, which
seemed to be contrived for the purpose of sticking closer
and rankling deeper in the wound it had indicted.—
Coming from the pen of such a perton as Mr. Hunt, it
*veld have fallen harmless, because no one would have
kw gives it *radii or attention for a siutk mosneuts
but by the aid of We publisher the asetigeset nature d
Na riam, distilled by Air. Hunt received a new vigour.
He was truly grieved to find the respectable name of Dr.
Stoadart amongst these defendants, as a proprietor of
the paper in question, because he was convinced that
Inch • libel could never have had his sanction, as he
considered him an honourable man ; but he bad got into
bad company, and he :mat be treated as one of them.—
He might be told by his Learned Friends on the other
side, that it was Mr. Hunt who wrote this letter, and not
any of the defendants. But how was this fact to be
sbewn, even if it were important? The letter was made
public in The New Times, and there was no other au
thority for imputing it to Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt might
have written and published it, yet his client might never
have been hit by the slander of such an author ; but it
was In the columns of The New Times that person found
the most effectual mode of giving vent to his calumny.
It was The New Times that barbed the arrow, and
winged its flight to inflict a deeper wound on the cha-
racter of Mr. C.; and to the proprietor of that paper
must Mr. C. now look for reparation. Before he sat
down, he must add a short observation. Ile might be
told that this article was not intended as a libel against
Mr. Cleary; it might be said that he who published such'
la slander was next to him who was capable of commit-
ting the crime imputed. His Learned Friends might
nay it was only meant to point at Mr. Hunt ; but would
the Jury listen to such an argument? lie would tell
this the libel was against both. But, at all events, it
would not be justifiable to iojare the character of Mr.
Cleary in an attempt to abuse Mr. Hunt. If, indeed.
the attack had been made on the political principles or
public opinions of Mr. Cleary, it would have signified
nothing. But it was the true character of malice to
press through a man's public to get at his private cha-
racter, and then the poison would be sure to stick. The
only question for the Jury to decide now was, did the
defendants publish this libel or not ? Upon the point of
damages he would ask but one witness (and that one
WIN in the breast of every one of the Jury), on whose
he was content to rest for an atimpsuatioss
at. He would only wish each of them le hsh
she ease of Mt.-Cleary, whet am of
would take to have such an imputation against=
racier published in The New Times, a paper of poet
circulation; and, he was sorry to say, so highly ps.
tronised ? And the answer his own mind would make,
would name the sum they ought to give to his client.

fs his

J. Watkinaon, the Registrar of the Stamp Office,
proved the publication of the paper, and Geo. Stevens,
Clerk to the Solicitor of Stamps, that Dr. Stoddart and
Edward Quin were proprietors, and Andrew Mitchell,
the printer and publisher of the paper. The paper of
the 20th November, InlB, was then put in, and the letter
containing the libel was read.
Mr. SeAat.ave here- submitted to the Court, that it
Important for him to give in evidence a paragraph
ntainell in the leading article of the same paper, by
Which the charge of malignity would be in a great mea-
sure removed.

The Loan CHIEF .Imrtar appeared to diuent from
that opinion.
- - - -

Mr. Scsniarr contended, that he had a right so to
do. He then alluded to the inuentloes contained in the
declaration, in which the word I was averred to mean,
Henry Hunt, and similar expressions in the first person,
all declared to refer to the same individual, so that the
*iota,' had assumed that the letter meant that the said
Henry Hunt made such assertions, and not that they
'eouveyed the sentiments of the Editor.
The LORD Cater JUNTICIC remarked, that the use of
the wont I was the usual mode in that species of com-
position ; but that it would out by any means be con-
sidered as authentic.

Mr. SCABLETT added, that the letter was signed H.
Hunt. Now, in the record, I being stated to mean
Henry Hunt, there was a variance; independent of that
objection, he submitted, that it was a general rule, that
one part of a publication, having reference to, or ex-
plalaing another, could be read; it would be exceeding
bald, where the proprietors of a newspaper were charged
with having adopted the sentiments of another, they
4p514 not be allowed to show by another part of the
cation, that they did not intend to publish it as
t r own sentiments, or with the view of attacking the
character of the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel quoted
the" King r. Perry," in which the defendant was per-
witted to read a passage is the same paper, although
it was detached from the paragraph alleged to be libellous.
The Loan Unite .lysine*.—l do not say I should not
allow the sans* indulgence in a similar case.
Mr. Semitesr then referred to '6 Maceroni e. Mor-
rie," for a libel contained in The Quarterly Review, in
which ease the defendant contended, that he had a right
to read the whole of a publication of which Maternal I
was the author; and on a motion for a new trial, the'
grorand on which the application was founded, was.
that the defendant had been prevented from reedlog pas-1
sages in evidence, aad the Court agreed that he had a
right so to do.
- - -

Mr. (Witmer contended, that there never had been as
instance in which a defendant had been prohibited from
reading passages in the same publication in explanation ;
because it was possible that such explanation might re-
move the sting, partieniarly where the sentence would
bear a double construction.
Mr. Gnocumam, in reply, urged that the paragraph
ought not to be read, because the charge was for having
gives publicity to the letter. No man could be sup-
pored to read the whole of a paper, and therefore if a
defendant were permitted to read another part in miti-
gation of damages, in every case of libel, the defend-
ant nodal take care to introduce a few words in some
°barer, part of the paper, perhaps amongst the Lottery-
putts, and thus plead his nen-liability to the conse-
quences of the libel.

PRICE SEVEN PENCE.

Mr. Cntvry Said a few words in suppo.t of M!.
proughain's argument.
Mr. SCARIATT argued, that so far from the paragraph
to which he had alluded being in an obscure ears of the
paper, it r:as contained in the leading article, a more
public part of the paper than that in which the letter ap-
peared, and be eul tted that it would be manifestly an-
Just to preclude the defendant from giving it in evidence
of his intention.
Mr. ticeszt then referred to the second Campbell
Reports, containing the ease of the King r. Peer)...
Loral Ellenburough there supported the claim of the de-
fendant. and lie was permitted to read a passage in the
same publication.
The Loan I:RIEr Jl;f4Ttelt entirely agreed with Lord
Ellenhorough, but he thought the Present ease materi-
ally different, and he trusted the opinion be entertained
would not be attended with injustice' ne-either of the
parties ; the defendants might make it the ground of a
motion for a new trial, if the verdict shoalepan against
them. The character of the paragraph ditL as a r
to him as lento nor nor did it mon to the
stn ,e of the letter. Upon the whole be aid out think
the paragraph couki be given ;11 evidence.
John Wright was then called.—Wituesa hid known
Mr. Cleary, the plaintiff, for some thee past; did not
know Mr. Hunt personally, but believed Manama to be
Henry; saw the signature 11. Hunt, and should uglier-
slam! it to hare meant Henry; the name Cleary he
should suppose r. tired to the 'Albeit(
t'ross-evatnined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Had had PISIMII-
nica ti on with Mr. Cleary; knew that Mr. Ovary had
proved Mr. tobleett's hind-writing to the Woe, and
which the libel stated to be a forgery ; knew that Mr.
Hunt bad been soinetitnes called Henry +X; Ad not
know from Mr. (leery thatahe letter complidaed of had
been published in other papers; bad beard M=
speak of the literary war between them; bad o
with Mr. Cleary, and learned from him that ho hatl
published a pamphlet against Hunt; had eonretood re-
specting the letter in The New now. t had as seams
to suppose that Mr. Cleary did not believe it to be writ-
ten by Mr. Hunt ; had never beard Mr. Cleary bad bees
informed by the editor of The New Times that tt was a
genuine letter of Mr. Hunts, and that he reflood to
proceed against Mr. Hunt; bad spoken to Mr. Chary of
this letter as being the letter of Mr. Hunt; Mr Ulesry
had spoken of it, it was indentood that it was Illz.
Hunts; always spoke of this letter as the letter of
Henry Hunt; had known Mr. MET some 'time. has
had not been aetmaiated with him wen Deemahor.
1818; never heard of Mr. Cleary's living with a fill.
tress.

Here the case for the ion elated.
Mr. SCARLZTT the addressed the hlry en the part *I
the defendants. The Learned Counsel for the prosecu-
tion hall not oily vesture to seldom.* a wattle for
the plaintiff, which, if he taw rightly, le was persuaded
he would not get, bet be had, by as kihmotil and exag-
gerated picture of the tweet of the.defeduate, and,
with the view of obtaining heavy damage, asked them
to give his client smelt a sum ae they would toweisler to
be a compensation Is themselves, bad a similar imputa-
tion been cast upon them. The injury Mmlehood by the
plaintiff was merely the trait of the is= of the
Lethal Cease' and hie Mee. If
ttr had been sustained, weld it sot be enineod, he
would hare called wifeless to prows Ilhe mama of
damages? Would he se also have take On le awl
out whether the lege Imo written by the Rat
whose signature we Mead to it? It wu by so mane
impossible, although ho AM set expect such was the
fact, that the presto' nodes was directed against one of
the defendants is particular; and that they were anxious
to brio g down ruin on Dr. Stoddart; and this they
would effect by what they might perhaps call the Maud-
ship of the law. It was likelita, perhaps, if the Sittings
lasted long enough, that the rued Counsel would ap-
pear there as the advocate of Mr. Hunt in anotheresue
against the present defendants, and calling upon them
to vindicate the said Henry Hunt from the imputations
cut upon him. Thus placed between these two Ares, if
verdicts passed against him, it would place The JV nit
Time. in a very peculiar situation. He would pet it to
the Jury whether it was probable, that if Mr. Cleary
felt himself injured, he would have delayed so long be-
fore he brought the present action? He emdd sot, in-
deed, look into the brief of the Learned Camel for the
prosecution, but he should not be surprised to And that
the same solicitor was employed by Mr. Leary and Mr.
Hunt; and, had the plaintiff been put to a point, he
should not hare been surprised to see Mr. Haat himself
brought forward as a witness. Was it not evident that
this present action had not for its object the wish to re-
move any stain from the reputation of Mr. Cleary, but
that it was thereby intended to accomplish the ruin of
Dr. Stoddart? How had the character of Mr. Cleary
been attacked? What proof had that geodesists given
that he considered himself injured ? He would appeal
to Mr. Brougham, than whom no man had Auer feelings
of honer, whether he would have remained one night
with sock an imputation as that which it was alleged
had been east upon Mr. Cleary, without taking measures
to obtain redress ?

Mr. BILOVGIIIild:Mr. Cleary was lIMICiad with W-
WI&

Mr. Scantirrr.—Prove it.
Mr. Bitouousis then called
Major Cartwright.—Witness was acquainted with Mr.
Cleary. At the mid of the year 1815, Mr. Cleary was
allicted with ill health, and, as far as be mid judge,
it proceeded from distress of mind ; be thought hiss at
that moment incapable of writing as Le bad been accus-
tomed to do. Mr. Cleary, he believed, was paralytic.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Heeellected the
election at Westminster, when Mr. Lamb was returned,
in February, 1819; always understood that Mr. Cleary
bad taken an active part at that election.
William Henry Shiers said, be was clerk to Pearson,
Mr. Cleary's solicitor ; Mr. Cleary had employed Mr.
Pearson professionally before Mr. Hunt.
Crowe:mined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Wituars had con-
ducted the proceedings in the present case; had never
heard that an offer had been made to Mr. Parson by
Messrs. Sweet and Stokes to give up the manuscript, nor
did he- know that Mr. parson had missed to proceed
against Mr. Hunt. Ha never been employed to ascer-
tain whether Mr. Hunt bad written the letter or not.
Here Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had a letter to prove
that the action had been commenced is Easter Term,
1819. -

-- ---
Mr. SCARLET? objected to ibis, whoa
Mr. Baorstwe put the letter into the band of the
witness to prove that fact ; bat as it was ;merely a letter
from Messrs. Sweet and Stokes, the defeatkats' so-
licitors.
The LORD Vizier JVATTCR said, it OREM not he re-
ceived as evidence of the commenceumet of as action.
Mr. SCARLC7 T resumed.—The Jury would observe
the probability that ma Mr. Hunt would be called, as