of the people, and subjecting them to the most cruel oppression and bondage, will, in the judgment of your petitioners, be introductive of every species of mischief and confusion, and thereby precipitate the impending ruin of this country. Your petitioners therefore earnestly beseech this honourable house, That the said bill may not pass into a law, or at least to take such care, as in their wisdom may seem meet, to prevent it from being extended in its operation or construction to any of his majesty's subjects resident in these king doms. Monday, Feb. 17. At the third reading of this bill, a warm debate ensued, and the question being put, the numbers for the bill passing were 112, against it, 35. Summary of the Trial of Dr. Dodd, for Forgery, at Justice-Hall in the Old-Bailey, on Saturday, February 22. SOON OON after ten o'clock the judges (Gould, Willes, and Perryn) and aldermen (about sixteen) being seated, Dr. Dodd was brought to the bar, led in by the Rev. Mr. Butler, when he read a paper to the following purport: That Mr. Robertson, who was committed with him as a principal, had, by an order from the court, (surreptitiously obtained) been conveyed before the grand jury, to enable them to find the bill; and this being, as he was informed, a thing unprecedented, he therefore requested that he might, by his counsel, be heard thereon. Messrs. Howarth, Cooper, and Butler, then produced several objections against Robertson's evidence, and were replied to by Messrs. Mansfield and Davenport. Mr. Baron Perryn expressed his sorrow that so much time had been taken up, occasioned by a mistake of the officer, which he believed would not have happened had not an ill-judged lenity been shewn to the prisoner; for had he been removed with the rest, his name would necessarily have appeared in the Kalendar, and perhaps the former application to the bench might then have been complied with. The baron was of opinion, that either a new indictment should be preferred, or proceed to trial; and if the prisoner should be convicted, then this matter to be left to the determination of the twelve judges. The prisoner's counsel agreed that the trial should go on. The indictment being read, Lord Chesterfield was the first evidence sworn: but as it was necessary to prove a release from Mr. Fletcher to his lordship before his examination, Mr. Manly was sworn, and produced said release. His lordship was then examined; he said, neither the signature to the bond, nor the receipt for the money, were of his signing. Lord Chesterfield's gentleman likewise swore, that the signatures of both bond and receipt were not the hand-writing of his lordship. Mr. Manly gave a substantial detail of the whole transaction, from the time the bond came into his hands, to the time of the commitment of the prisoner; he said the bond had been in his possession from the 4th of February to this time; that the blot, by which the forgery was discovered, appeared to to him not to have been done by accident, but purposely with a pen; that, having doubts whether the bond was a good one, he applied to Mr. Fletcher, to advise what to do; that he likewise waited on Lord Chesterfield, who denied the bond; that on going to Sir Charles Raymond's, Mr. Robertson happened to come in, and was taken into custody; that afterwards he went to Dr. Dodd's house (leaving Mr. R. the officer, &c. at a house near at hand); that on seeing the Dr. he told him his business, and asked him how he could be guilty of such an act? that the doctor seemed much shocked, and as soon as he could recover himself, said, urgent necessity was the cause; that the witness then asked the prisoner if he had any of the money left, as the restitution would be the only means of saving him. Dr. Dodd replied, he had six drafts on Sir Charles Raymond, of 5004, each; he had also 500l. in the hands of the banker, all which he would very willingly give up; that he (the evidence) then asked Dr. Dodd if he would give a bond in judgment on his household goods for the remainder; to which Dr. Dodd replied, he would, that or any thing else. Mr. Manly further said, he had been told another execution had been in the prisoner's house, but had been withdrawn, and he believed there were sufficient to answer the demand. Mr. Innes, who attended Mr. Manly, confirmed Mr. Manly's evidence, as to what passed between Dr. Dodd and Mr. Manley; he also read from notes taken at the time, Dr. Dodd's confession before the lord-mayor, and his declaring Mr. Robertson innocent. The notes which were given in payment of the bond were produced, which Mr. Fletcher swore to be the identical notes paid. Mr. Leecroft was called to prove the hand-writing of the prisoner, but could not swear positively. ་ Mr. Neal, treasurer to the society for the relief of small debtors, was next called to the same fact, who swore that the signatures Chesterfield' and 'William Dodd, both in the bond and receipt, were the handwriting of the prisoner. On being asked by the judge how he could be so positive? he said, by being so long acquainted with Dr. Dodd's writing, and having so often seen him write. Mr. Robertson swore to the: prisoner bringing the bond to him unsigned; that he next day brought it signed Chesterfield and William Dodd; that he (the evidence) also signed it, received the money, and paid it to Dr. Dodd. Being asked if it was usual for him to sign a bond, without seeing the principal sign it, he answered, Sometimes. No witness being produced in favour of the prisoner, he was called upon for his defence. He said he was fully sensible of the heinousness of the crime of forgery, but presumed the guilt solely centered in the intention: he called God to witness, that he meant no injury to any one, and that he should have been able to re-instate the money (and it was his real intent) in a few months; that this was a most cruel prosecution, as Mr. Manly had given him hopes,if he made restitution, that no farther notice would be taken : that he considered a person committed as principal, and being admited evidence against him, an entire new + ceived. Mr. Robertson was ordered to be kept in custody till the gaol delivery. Summary of the Trial of John 4 new case, and therefore affected court, which was favourably rehim the more; that life to him,, after being exposed to shame, was of no value, he should willingly re-, sign it; but he had a wife [here the tears flowed from his eyes, and indeed from the eyes of the greatest part of those who heard him; then asked pardon of the court and jury for his weakness] a wife, with whom he had lived seven and twenty years in the most perfect conjugal felicity; for her he felt: his creditors must likewise, he said, be sufferers, should he now suffer; and as restitution had been made, he hoped the court and jury would consider all these circumstances, and acquit him. Mr. Baron Perryn summed up the evidence very fully; he said, that the indictment stated that the bond was forged with intent to defraud Lord Chesterfield and Mr. Fletcher; if they believed it was done to defraud either one or the other, then they must bring in the prisoner guilty. As to the defence set up by the prisoner, the only thing for their consideration was, whether the forgery was committed, with an intent to defraud; if they thought not, then they must acquit him in regard to the other parts of his defence, it would have no weight with them; for if it was listened to in this case, not a criminal brought to that bar but would set up a similar one. The jury then went out, and, after staying about twenty minutes, brought in their verdict, Guilty. The jury afterwards drew up a memorial in recommendation of the unhappy prisoner to his majesty, for the royal mercy, signed the same, and presented it to the FRIDAY, July 4, at nine o'clock, the earl of Mansfield came into the court of King'sbench, at Guildball, when the special jury, summoned to try the cause between the King and John Horne, Esq. on an information filed, ex officio, by the attorneygeneral, for a libel, were sworn, Mr. Buller opened on the part of the crown, and stated to the jury the subject-matter of the information, which was an advertisement, dated, King's-arms-tavern, Cornhill, June 7, 1775, and purporting to be an account of the Constitutional Society's having met on the said 7th of June, and agreed, that the sum of 100/. should be raised, to be applied to the relief of the widows, orphans, and aged parents of our beloved American fellow-subjects, who, faithful to the characters of Englishmen, preferring death to slavery, were, for that reason only, inhumanly murdered by the king's troops at or near Lexington and Concord, in the province of Massachuset's, on the 19th of last April;' which advertisement was signed by the defendant. The attorney-general then arose but was prevented from proceeding, to inform the jury more fully of the case, by the defendant, Mr. Horne, who addressed himself to the the court, and, declaring he thought to a knowledge of the circum that the proper moment to urge an objection which struck him as exceedingly essential, desired to be heard; the court assenting, Mr. Horne turned to the jury, and began speaking; when he was told by Lord Mansfield, that he must make his objection to him, and not to the jury. Mr. Horne replied that his lordship had stopped him before he had heard what he had meant to offer, and which his lordship, when he heard, would have found to be altogether regular; the words he was about to say to the gentlemen of the jury being of no other purport, than to entreat them to attend particularly to his objection, a circumstance exceedingly necessary, as the matter he wished to urge was very material, and as juries had of late but too frequently been considered as out of court, when any point of law was debated. Lord Mansfield again desired him to proceed, when he began objecting to the practice of the court, on the late trials of the printers (convicted of publishing the advertisement, of which he was charged in the present information as the author) in admitting the attorney-general to reply, although the defendants called no witnesses. Lord Mansfield observed, that this objection was premature, and that, if necessary, the time to urge it was, when the attorney-general should attempt to reply. Mr. Horne shewed why it was of importance to him, that the matter should be settled in this stage of the trial, urging that he was aware the attorney-general would take all advantages, fair and unfair, to convict him, and that he hould shape his defence agreeably stance; whereupon Lord Mansfield declared that he would consent to it, if Mr. Attorney had no objection. The attorney-general declared his acquiescence, and Mr. Horne proceeded with observing, that, although he thanked the court and Mr. attorney-general for acceding to his motion, he was not sa well pleased with accepting that as a matter of favour, which, he had demanded as a matter of justice. He then proceeded to shew, that, although the practice objected to was not without precedent of late years, it was nevertheless injurious and oppressive, to the subject, as well as contrary to every principle of that protection and safety, which the reason of the laws, and the ancient modes of dispensing justice, were calculated to afford to innocence. Mr. Horne then went on to shew, that in his cause tried at Guildford in 1771, he was advised by his counsel to forsake the advantage of examining witnesses, in order to disprove the having spoken certain words stated in the declaration as defamatory, but rather to admit them as true; (although he could have proved their falsity) than afford the leader on the other side an opportunity of replying; that he acquiesced in this advice, the consequence of which was, that the leading counsel for the plaintiff did reply, that his counsel rose to object, and upon that his lordship (who then also tried the cause) over-ruled the objection, and suffered the reply, upon which the jury had-given a verdict against him, with 4007. damages. the attorney-general had a right to reply, if he chose it; that he had been often exercised, and might be exercised again. Mr. Horne complained that his lordship, by taking upon himself the duty of the attorney-general, had deprived him of hearing from that officer such arguments as he doubted not the attorney was able to have offered, and which he would have endeavoured to have refuted; he observed, that at all hazards his situation was a very disadvantageous one; but that he was particularly unfortunately circumstanced, if the judge, who was to try him, took upon himself to do the business of the attorneygeneral; for between the two he should find it extremely difficult to obtain a verdict in his favour. Lord Mansfield desired the trial might go on, and that, if there was any informality in the proceeding on the trial, or if he thought either the judge or counsel did him injustice, Mr. Horne had a remedy by a subsequent appeal to the court, who would set aside any verdict obtained irregularity. Mr. Horne warmly said, Oh my lord, my lord, let me not hear of remedies of your lordship's pointing out; that poison is the most baneful of all, which poisons the physic; your lordship's remedies are worse than the diseases of the patients who apply them; and it is but a poor satisfaction for a man who receives a wound, to receive a plaister from the same hand. At Guilford, your lordship talked to me of a remedy, I submitted and tried it; it is true I set aside the verdict, but it cost me 2007. The verdict was but for 400/. and the remedy cost half as much; it was therefore a pretty dear remedy?" Mr. Horne, in this part of the trial, was so hasty in his animadversions on the conduct of the judge and the attorney-general, treating each with a degree of unexampled severity and rudeness, that Lord Mansfield was provoked to a declaration, that if he did not behave more decently, he should be under a necessity of com mitting him. The attorney-general then rose to open the case fully to the jury, and began with expressing his contempt of the imputations cast on his character by the defendant, in what he had just urged; and declared, that he would not condescend to stoop low enough to offer an answer to such groundless, such ridiculous assertions. It was necessary, however, to speak to one part of what had been said, and that he did by denying the change made against him by Mr. Horne, that he came prepared to take all advantages, fair and unfair; and that his view was at any rate to obtain a verdict. He solemnly protested that he had no other motive for his conduct on the present occasion, than a faithful discharge of his duty; that as, an officer of the crown, it behoved him to take notice of every thing tending to alienate the minds of the people from the king and his government, and to bring every public delinquent to punishment; that there never was a more simple, plain, and obvious case than the present, submitted to a jury; that the advertisment, pretendedly setting forth a meeting of the Constitutional Society, and their resolution to subscribe one hundred pounds towards the support of the widows and orphans of the Ame ricans, |