as the last witness I should consider him as a person of an attachment quite devoted to the King and Constitution of this country.

Lord MINTo examined by Mr. Adam. a. You have been acquainted, my lord, with the defendant? A. Ever since my re

turn to this country in 1801.

a. Will your lordship state what you know of him? A. I am perfectly satisfied, with the former witnesses, that he is decidedly attached both to the Sovereign and the Constitution of this country.

The Right Honourable CHARLES YORKE examined by Mr. Richardson

e Have you been long acquainted with Mr. Cobbett ? A. Ever since June 1802.

e. Are you generally acquainted with his character and conduct? A. I know some particular instances of his conduct, which induce me to think that he is a zealous supporter of the Monarchy and the Consti

tution.

a. Have any recent instances occurred to support your opinion? A. The particular A. The particular instances I allude to, took place previous to July last.

JOHN REEVES, Eq examined by Mr. Richardson.

Q. Are you acquainted with the defendant, Mr. Cobbett ? A. I am.

a. Have you any particular reasons to be acquainted with his character? A. I have. I see Mr. Cobbett very frequently. Generally two or three times a week. I conceive him to be a strong defender of the King and Constitution, as by law esta blished.

The evidence being closed on the part of the defendant,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose in reply, and addressed the Court to the following effect. I hope, gentlemen, it will not be necessary for me to lengthen out the attention which you have already given to this important subject. I trust, however, I shall be permitted to say a few words in reply to some parts of the speech of my learned friend. No small portion of that speeeh was taken up with a description of Mr. Cobbett's general character. I have no business here with his general character or past life. I have no business to inquire whether, when living in America, he was a strenuous supporter of the interests of Great Britain. There is not one word of this information that charges him with a contrary line of conduct. The question is, whether this "ardent minded man," as Mr. Liston described him, has not been induced to publish an abominable libel against the govern

ment of Ireland? Not a tittle of evidence has been brought by those respectable gentlemen who appeared to his character, to prove the contrary; and, notwithstanding his having formerly acted upon different principles, I am entitled to say, that if he wilfully and knowingly published the letters in question, he is as gross a libeller as ever came into a court of justice. I stated distinctly, that I was no enemy whatever to a fair discussion of public men and public measures. And if the character of the dif ferent governments of this country be considered, I am persuaded it will be found, that the principle of liberality has been extended full as much as at any former period. In saying this, I take no merit whatever to myself In doing so I was persuad-, ed I was following that line of conduct which was useful both to the government and the people. But, is it to be argued from this, because much has been tolerated, that therefore, a doctrine so monstrous as that which my learned friend has laid down should be acted upon; namely, that no attack upon government ought to be made the subject of criminal animadversion.. I say, this is a monstrous proposition; and if it is once supported by the authority of a British jury and British lawyers, it will lead to the absolute destruction of the liberty of the press. Gentlemen, I certainly admit that this free discussion of public measures should be open and uncontroled, and not subject to the taste of any Attorney-General; but I submit to your consideration, whether these passages of ridicule in the publication in question are libellous or not? 1 he mere circumstance of making any man ridiculous is a decided libel; and is it to be contended, that, because a man is exalted to a public situation, he is, therefore, to be libelled with impunity? If, as I said before, this libel consisted in calling Mr. Addington "Doctor Addington," my Lord Hardwicke "a sheep feeder," or my Lord Redesdale “a chancery pleader," I never should have thought of troubling you on such an occasion. But, when I see the whole administration of a country attacked, individually and personally, and their characters held up to the detestation of the public, I cannot help concluding, that there is an intention to do mischief to the government of that country, as well as to the lives of all those who live under that government. With re spect to Mr. Justice Osborne, will any one pretend to say, that it was merely in his political character that he was attacked? What does he mean when he says, "I may, I be "lieve, add, what men also say; that if it

were possible the ermined robe of the "most awful attribute of his Majesty, "should have been wrapped round the acts "of Mr. Marsden, in order to screen them "from public disgrace, we might then look "for another, but not less fatal end to our "liberties, and to our constitution, than "that which rebellion or invasion could "produce." Is not this a dreadful charge indeed? The following passage is to the same effect. "Whatever the present go"vernment may have manifested, the opi"nion of that government is known to be "influenced by motives very different from "general justice." Is not this a direct charge, that the present government of Ireland were influenced by motives very difterent from those of general justice?With respect to the comparison of the "wooden horse," and the flippancy of " the sheepfeeder from Cambridgeshire," no man alive can say that a character placed in such an exalted situation by his Sovereign, ought to be made the sport of ridicule of this sort. We are told, that Mr. Cobbett is very fond of the monarchy; that is to say, he would strip the monarchy of all its officers. This is the way in which this "ardent minded man," this "moral politician" would support the government !-But, gentlemen, you must not stop here; for the author has not stopped here. He says, that "Lord Ken

yon, therefore, as Chancellor, never would "have made any rule or order by the ef"fects of which, the secretary of the Mas<ter of the Rolls would be deprived of all "fees, for the purpose of throwing all those "fees into the hands of the secretary to the "Chancellor, the better to enable that se

cretary to discharge the pension of some "unknown annuitant on his official profits." Meaning thereby, that Lord Redesdale, as Chancellor, has done all this.-My learned friend has passed over the last part of the libel, which insinuates, that Lord Redesdale has employed his leisure in searching into offices for practices, by which he might harass the domestic arrangements of others, whose pride and integrity would not bend to his views." And how does my learned friend leave this? Why, he says, that you do not know exactly what it means. suppose, then, that the " spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas" are all gone by. But, notwithstanding what my learned friend tells you, I will venture to say, that it is impossible to ascribe to this passage any good meaning, and I trust that you, gentlemen, will have the same sense of its atrocity as I have. What! because Mr. Cobbett has been twelve years before the public without

I

a prosecution; because he has manifested in America and elsewhere a spirit of loyalty, is he to have a complete indemnity for the publication of such gross libels as those before you?-Gentlemen, I shall not trouble. you with any further observations. The merits of the case are now before you. If my lord tells you it is a libel, you may still judge of the facts. If you think conscientiously that it is not a libel, if you think that this is the way that governments are to be treated, you will, of course, acquit the de-. fendant.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.-Gentlemen of the Jury. The evidence on both sides, and the arguments of the counsel being now closed, it remains for us to discharge the respective duties which the laws of the country have cast upon us. I never doubted that an English Jury had the right of judging in these cases, not only of the fact of publication, but also of the nature and construction of the thing published. And the noble person, whose place I so unworthily fill, entertained the same sentiments. The Act of Parliament which has been alluded to, is merely declaratory, and, had it not passed, I should nevertheless have submitted the whole case to your consideration. On the three following points you have to exercise your judgment: first, the preliminary allegations and inuendoes; next, as to the fact of publication; and, thirdly, the quality and sense of the thing published. This is the matter at issue. Upon the subject of libel,

it

may be as well for me to observe, before I enter upon the question, that, by the law of England, there is no impunity to any person publishing any thing that is injurious to the feelings and happiness of an individual, or prejudicial to the general interests of the state. Gentlemen, the law of England is a law of liberty, and, consistently with this liberty, we have not what is called an imprimatur; there is no such preliminary li cense necessary. But, if a man publish a paper, he is exposed to the penal consequences, as he is in every other act, if it be illegal; and it is illegal, if it tends to the prejudice of any individual. Now, there fore, applying this doctrine to the publica tion before us, the question for your con sideration is, whether this paper is such as would be injurious to the individuals, and whether it is calculated to be injurious to the particular interests of the country? It is no new doctrine, that if a publication be calculated to alienate the affections of the people, by bringing the government into disesteem, whether the expedient be by ridicule or obloquy, the person so conducting

V.

himself is exposed to the inflictions of the law. It is a crime. It has ever been considered as a crime; whether it be wrapped up in one form or in another. The case of the King . Tutchin, decided in the time of Lord Chief Justice Holt, has removed all ambiguity from this question; and, although at the period when that case was decided, great political contentions existed, the mat ter was not again brought before the Judges of the Court by any applications for a new trial --Having said thus much on the general law of libels, let us apply it to the case before us. It has been proved to you, that Mr. Cobbett is the sole proprietor of the publication; that Lord Hardwicke and the other characters mentioned hold the several offices in Ireland attributed to them; and that the publication was sold by Richard Bagshaw, in Bow-street, Covent Garden, both on the days of publication, and also so late down as Tuesday last. The reason of purchasing this second copy on Tuesday last, is to show you, that Mr. Cobbett persevered in the sale of the libels to the very last. Mr. Crowe has proved to you, that by the "Cambridgeshire earl" was meant Lord Hardwicke, and that the appellation of "Chancery Pleader" was intended to designate Lord Redesdale-Gentlemen, the several inuendoes in the papers being thus proved, let us a little consider their quality and context. The first paper begins thus: "Equo ne cre"dite Teucri, was the advice which, in a "dangerous moment, Laocoon gave to the "Trojans. It will be remembered that the

"such wooden instrument; and not to suf"fer themselves to be lead to exalt it into

66

66

66

consequence, or to pay it any respect.” Can there be any other meaning by this, than to impress the people of Ireland with a contemptible opinion of the abilities of Lord Harwicke? And, gentlemen, if that is the meaning and intention of the publication, it is a libel; for no man has a right to render the person or abilities of another ri diculous. Not only in publications, but if the peace and welfare of individuals, or of society, be interrupted, or even exposed, by types and figures, the act, by the law of England, is a libel. Then he goes on to say, "that any people who submitted to be governed by a wooden head, would not "find their security in its supposed innoxiousness, as its hollowness would soon be "occupied by instruments of mischief." Submitted! Is not this instigating the people of Ireland to rebellion? For, in what way, but by acts of open violence can they avoid "submitting" to the government which is set over them?-Then he goes on: "When I found, Sir, this portion of the "kingdom overwhelmed by such conse"quences to our property, as the rapacity of "Mr. Marsden, and his friends, and such "consequences to our lives, as the pikes of "Mr. Emmett, and his friends, have lately "produced; when I could trace all these "evils as the inevitable issue from the head "and body of such a government as that of "Lord Hardwicke, and I am told of his in"noxiousness and his firmness, I still reply the story of the wooden horse, and I shall still, "notwithstanding the fate of Laocoon, raise

66

to say, that he could trace all the evils which the pikes of Mr. Emmett and his friends have lately produced, as the inevita ble issue from the head and body of such a government as that of Lord Hardwicke. He admits this noble person to be celebrated for understanding the modern method of fattening a sheep as well as any man in Cambridgeshire." Now, gentlemen, what does this mean? Does it not clearly mean to infer, that Lord Hardwicke is ill-placed in his high situation, and that he is only fit for the common walks of life?-Their is another part of the libel to which I wish to draw your attention. The author says, "What! "Is he one of the tribe of the Hobarts, "Westmorelands, and Camdens? Is he one "of that tribe, who have been sent over to us to be trained up here into politicians, ་ as they train the surgeon's apprentices in "the hospitals, by setting them first to bleed "the pauper patients? Is this the time for a continuation of such experiments?" What does the whole of this mean? Is it not saying, that Lord Hardwicke was sent over by his Majesty to the people of Ireland, merely to be trained up into a politician, as they train surgeon's apprentices in the hos pitals, by setting them first to bleed the

66

sentence connected with what was said before?-It then says, "It was said of Lord "Kenyon, that he loved money, if so, he "loved his own money only, and not the

66

money of any other man." Which is saying, as was observed to you before, that Lord Redesdale is fond of the money of other men. The last passage I shall call to your attention is this; "Lord Kenyon, therefore, as Chancellor, never would have "made any rule or order, by the effects of "which, the secretary of a Master of the "Rolls would be deprived of all fees, for "the purpose of throwing all those fees in"to the bands of the secretary to the chan"cellor, the better to enable that secretary "to discharge the pension of some unknown "annuitant on his official profits." Con. trasting Lord Kenyon with Lord Redesdale, this passage clearly imports, that lord Kedesdale, as Chancellor, did make a rule or order, by the effects of which, the secretary to the Master of the Rolls was deprived of all his fees, for the purpose of throwing those fees into the hands of the secretary to the chancellor, the better to enable that secretary to discharge the pension of some unknown annuitant on his official profits.Gentlemen, such is the evidence of the pub

ther this is not the obvious sense of this sentence. There is one other part of the pub lication to which I am desirous of drawing your attention. It relates to the imputation on Lord Redesdale. It says, that "the

"what amazement," says he, "the grand "jury must have received such a broadside,

"

poured upon the truth of the fact, I cannot, as I was not present, kuow; but I "can very well imagine what the feelings "of 23 well-informed gentlemen must have "been." Is it to be endured, that it should be said of any person, but, more especially of a person sitting in the capacity of a judge, that he had poured a broadside upon the truth of the fact? Then it goes on; "in "truth, they say, that, except as to momen "tary effects, rebellion and invasion might "be viewed with indifference, if it can be "supposed, that the stained hands of a petty "clerk had been washed in the very foun "tain of justice." Is not this saying, that rebellion and invasion may be viewed with indifference? And is not the whole of the

in its plain sense. The question for you to consider, if it can be a question, is, whether these libels (when I call them libels I am anticipating your decision) are capable of any other construction than what has been put upon them? It has been stated of the defendant, that he is a self-taught politician. Gentlemen, no man can write without control. It is necessary he should know, that every man must be controled by law. It has been observed, that it is the right of the British subject, to exhibit the folly or imbecillity of the members of the government. But, gentlemen, we must confine ourselves within limits. If, in so doing, individual feelings are violated, there the line of interdiction begins, and the offence becomes the subject of penal visitation. Evidence to character has been produced on the part of the defendant. But the effect of character is to render the charge doubtful. As to the fact of publication, in the present case there can be no doubt whatever. If you are of opinion that the publications are hurtful to the individuals or to the government, you will find the defendant guilty; if, on the contrary, you consider them neither destructive of the peace of the one or the other, you will acquit him of the charges under this information.

The Jury, after a pause of about ten minutes delivered their verdict-Guilty.

**The next No. of the Register will contain a co-rect Report of the Trial in the Action brought by Mr. Plunkett against Mr. Cobbett, the issue of which was decided in favor of the former, in the Court of King's Bench, on Saturday the 26th ult.

LOYALTY OF IRISH CATHOLICS

SIR,I proceed to examine the charges. of your correspondent C. R. on the loyalty of the Irish Catholics; but in performing this part of my task, I am filled with sensations, which I think, I never experienced before. That a man, apparently not destitute of literature, should sit deliberately at `his desk, in order to collect the various misrepresentations and calumnies which have been invented to asperse a large body of his fellow subjects, that he should deface the fair page of history, and misconstrue the most innocent opinions for the same ignoble purpose, is a circumstance, in the annals of learning, which in some instances must excite pity, but in most, sarprise and indignation. How far this accusation, with respect to your correspondent, is founded, the readers of my last, and of this letter, must determine. In order that you may clearly see the groundless nature of the accusation, which your correspondent brings against Burke, the Catholic Bishop of Ossory, I will subjoin to his account of that prelate's observations referred to, the original text with a correct - translation of the passage. Your correspondent asserts, that in the year 1757 an act passed the Irish Parliament to secure the Protestant succession, containing au oath of allegiance, and that Burke the Popish Fishop of Ossory made on it the following observations: "Would it not exceed the "greatest absurdity imaginable, that a Ca

tholic Priest, who instructs his Catholic "people in the will of God, from scripture "and tradition, by his discourse and actions, "and nourisheth them with the sacrements "of the Church, should swear fidelity to "King George, as long as he professeth an "heterodox religion, or has a wife of that religion? Since then, and in that case the rr same Catholic priest ought instantly to abjure the very king to whom he had be"fore sworn allegiance, &c." (See Register Vol. V. No. 18, p. 660). Such is the representation of C. R. how far it is remote from the truth, the original text will clearly demonstrate. "Nonne plus quam absurdum foret, quod sacerdos Catholicus, Catholico "populo verbum Dei scriptum et traditum, sermone et opere, prædicans eundemque sa

66

"cramentis ecclesiæ pascens, juret fidelitatem reg: Georgio, quamdiu cultor est religionis "heterodoxe, quamdiu uxorem non kalet or"thodoxam; si vero fidem amplectatur or"thodoxam (ut anno superiori ipsius fecit giner, Fredericus nempe princeps Hessia) aut uxorem ducat orthodoxam prout reges Care"lus primus et Carolus secundus fecere, eo ipso sacerdos iste Catholicus abjurare debet regem, cui fidelitatem ante juravit" (Bibernia Dominicana page 721 et seq. 4 Edit. Colon. Ann. 1762.) Would it not exceed the bounds of absurdity, that a Catholic priest, who preaches to his Catholic people by word and work, the written word of God and tradition, and nourishes them with the sacraments of the Church, should swear fidelity to King George, as long as be professes an heterodox religion, or has not a wife of the orthodox faith, but that if he should embrace the orthodox faith, (as his son in-law Frederic Prince of Hesse did in a former year) or should marry a wife of the orthodox religion as Charles the 1st. and Charles the 2d. did, then in that case, the same Catholic priest ought. to abjure the King, to whom be bas before sworn allegiance. It is thus apparent, that your correspondent represents the bi-hop enforcing the necessity of renouncing all allegiance to a heterodox king, when the reasoning of that much injured man evidently shews, that his difficulty did not consist in swearing fidelity to a Protestant Sovereign, but in the supposed obligation of consenting to the deposition of such a sovereign, whenever he should either embrace the Catholic faith, or marry a Catholic consort. The passage which I have produced from the Latin original, consists of one long sentence, which your correspondent has mutilated by leaving out two important clauses, and thus has given it a turn widely different from the meaning of the author. After this, Sir, I appeal to any dispassionate man of real knowledge, whether, in the whole compass of polemical discussion, there ever appeared a more dishonourable instance of misrepresentation. In the name of honesty and truth, let us no more witness such base at. tempts to calumiate and injure the Catholic cause. -As to the declaration attributed to the pope's legate, let me tell your correspondent, however painful it may be to my feelings, that it is false; that the legate in question ever avowed the doctrine that no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that princes deprived by the pope, may be deposed and murdered by their subjects, that he never ascribed such doctrine to Catholic nations, much less did he represent it to be sanctioned by the practice of the Holy See.