The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-09-07

some might have miscouducsed themselves, he
would not deny; but he could maintain there ne
yer was military corps in this kingdom of whom
there was SO little complaint, little cause of
complaint.
The question before the court and Jury was not,
however, ON the merits or dement's of the Ger
man Legion the question for the jury to decide
was, whether that mischievoss paper which had
been re sd had il not in view to hold up these
brave men to obloquy & contempt, and to excite
III the minds Of the military dIsobedience and re.
sistance, and in those of the people ut large of
this country, disposition to discomfort and disaf.
lection. . r.
Lord Peterborough observed, that the question
was, whether the publication that had been read,
was of the noxious tendency imputed to it The
defendant had stated that he laborel under great
calumn, whether that was the fact he kne W
not but the Jury, he was sure, would CONSIDER
the defendant - a man whose character or situ,-
ton was totally unknown TO them. The defcn
dant bad stated, that this, in his opinion, was a
mere sQuabble about marching guinea, but how
that could be otherwise considered than as an act
of mutlny, his lordship was at total loss to dis
cover. The defendant had laid III, claim TO dis
cuss the utility or proprety of employing foreign
troops. Every individual had right in tempe.
rate terms to offer his opinion of the policy or ex
pediewcy of any public measure. And no person
could, or would have questioned a temperate sni
qualified discussion Ut that subject. No person
in the situation he filled, could have objected To
that discussion but it was the intention that
was principally be looked at. and how was it to
be collected :sby fair consideration of the im
port of the publication which il it imported mis-
chief. must be intended to mean mischief His
lordshiPread paragraph of what Mir Cobbett
had SAID in his defence, respecting that subject,
tia seemed to convey idea that the employ
ment of the foreign troops bad been with view
to punish the British army. II it had been doubt.
ful whether those observations were intended to
have been the nearing, they might take his own
words" should not have said SO much of the
German Legion if they had not been brought to
fog the backs Of my own countrymen." Wha,
was the probable effect of such publication |
ties of military subord,nation Must he not have
been understood to have intended that Another
passage went to this " AS many cruel,ies are
commtted by you here. as by Bonaparte" This
was the scope of the publication and it rested
with the jury to say, whether the publication
was that OF a man whose zeal had overstepped
his discretion, whether it was not calculated to
loosen those bonds of society by which the coun
try was held together, and to excite anmosity. so
that it should come under the well merited des-
crption of a sedtious libel His lordshp, for his
own part, had no hesitation in stating IT. with full
confidence, his decided opinion, that the paper
was most sedtlous libel
The jury consulting together, shortly returned
a verdict, without going out of court, finding the
defendant-GUILTY.-B Belts Weekly Messenger
The London papers state, that several of
he