Page images
PDF
EPUB

himself, for nothing but his unwearied endeavour to procure justice for others.

For the best use of great talents for public business, and of a higher kind than Mr. Hutton attended to, I have not yet known any man superior to Mr. Russell, hardly any that, in all respects, I think to be his equal; and the malice of his enemies is in full proportion to his talents and his virtues. With respect to damages in the court, he came off better than Mr. Hutton. This, however, was only with respect to that part of his loss which Mr. Russell claimed in court. In reality he was probably a loser to a great amount.

To return to this subject, our adversaries not content with the counsel that usually attended the circuit, at a great expense employed Mr. Hardinge, the Queen's solicitor, who, to serve them, neglected his duty as a judge on the Welsh circuit, and who spared nothing to inflame the court and the jury against us; quoting not only in my cause, but in those of the other sufferers, passages from my writings calculated to represent me as the pest of society, and unworthy of protection or of recompence. The first judge, Baron Thompson, endeavoured in vain to check his violence, and therefore Baron Eyre, it is thought, came down on purpose; but though he did it in the causes of the other sufferers, when my own cause came before the court he was permitted to declaim against me and my writings (of which he appeared to know nothing more than the extracts with which he had been furnished for the purpose of his abuse) without any restraint, though there was nothing properly before the court but the estimate of damages occasioned by the Riot; and if I had been guilty of sedition, I ought to have been accused as such, and suffered the penalty of the law.

The legal proof of the articles of my loss was peculiarly difficult, from the nature and multiplicity of them; nothing of the kind having ever, as I believe, come before a court of judicature before. It was deemed necessary that I should prove my having been in possession of more than a thousand different articles, and at the time of the Riot. One friend or other could have attested my having had most of the instruments, though not the chemical substances; but it was necessary they should all be present in court. Their certificates in writing, (and for this purpose I came provided with them, in the hand-writing of Dr. Heberden and others, who at different times had made me presents of them,) were

rejected as no legal evidence; and when a number of articles in my laboratory were classed together, the opposite counsel diverted themselves and the court, exposing their own ignorance, just as so many Goths and Vandals would have done. My own leading counsel was as little qualified to defend me, being equally ignorant of philosophy, and declaring in court that he had not read any of my theological or political writings.

The judge, though no chemist, was willing to make allowance for the singular difficulty in my cause, as both the catalogue of my books, and the index of substances in the laboratory were destroyed, together with the books and instruments; and had any regard been paid to his opinion, considerably more would have been awarded me. On what principle the jury proceeded is best known to themselves, but I believe that very little was allowed for my books, because many of them were destroyed in another hundred, whither they had been conveyed by my friends, though the destruction began at my own house, and they did not say what claim I had on the other hundred.

In general I thought the judge impartial in summing up the evidence; but in some respects, considering the manifest disposition of the jury, it tended to give too much colour to their injustice. The catalogue of my library being destroyed together with the library itself, I could only make out a list of the books that were wanting from my own recollection of them, my friends not being able to attest their knowledge of more than a few of them, such as they had occasionally seen or borrowed, though the number of the books lost was sufficiently ascertained. "This enumeration," said the judge, "coming from the plaintiff himself, and not proved by any witness, I was bound to reject evidence of that kind, and could not suffer it to be received." Mr. Payne, my witness, had set a value upon 440 other volumes, which were proved to be missing, (though I could not myself pretend to recollect what they were,) by supposing them to be of the same value, one with another, with books of the same size in what remained of the library. This, the judge said, was "no measure of value at all, as it was impossible so to estimate books; and therefore he found himself bound to reject that evidence;" adding, however, that " as the plaintiff could not have been supposed to have collected trash, the jury might, if they thought proper, make some addition to the sum, upon the ground of damage to the library." But

[blocks in formation]

disposed as they evidently were, they were sure to allow nothing on this account."

I have heard of a judge deciding very differently in a case not much unlike this of mine. A boy had been robbed of a seal which had contained some precious stone, of the nature and value of which the boy himself was wholly igno rant, being only able to produce the socket in which it had been set. The judge, however, observed, that the case should be interpreted in damnum fraudatoris; and he directed that the boy should receive the value of the finest diamond that would fill that socket, because the stone might have been of that value.

Mr. Hardinge also, (whose virulent declamation the judge himself observed might, for any thing that appeared in court, be mere calumny,) should not have been suffered to proceed as he did, since it could only tend to prejudice the minds of the jury against me, and indispose them to do justice. His abuse of me was exactly similar to that of Mr. Wedderburn's (now Lord Loughborough) on Dr. Franklin at the Privy Council, when the cause before the court related to the conduct of the governor of the province. It was a day of great triumph for the court party. But had they any reason to exult in it ten years from that time?* As little reason may the Church and King party in this country have to exult in the Riot at Birmingham and the Assizes at Warwick ten years from that event.

I was present at that memorable abuse of Dr. Franklin; (being accompanied to the Privy Council by Mr. Burke ;) he smiled, and shook me by the hand as he went out of the room; and the next morning he observed to me, that the things for which he had been so grossly insulted were, he

“Jan. 29, 1774.-The merits of the petition, presented some time ago by the Doctor as agent for the Massachusets, praying for the removal of the Governor, came on to be heard before the Privy Council. It is reported, that Mr. Wedderburn, wandering from the proper question before their Lordships, poured forth such a torrent of virulent abuse on Dr. Franklin as scarce ever before took place in judicial proceedings. His reproaches appeared to some present to be incompatible with the principles of law, truth, justice, propriety and humanity. And it was thought it would have redounded more to the honour of their Lordships, had they seemed to enjoy less the lashes which the Doctor underwent; and had they expressed their dissatisfaction by reducing the orator to the remembrance of the exalted characters before whom he uttered such language. The petition was dismissed, and the Doctor is displaced from the office of Deputy Postmaster General for the Colonies. The philosopher may recollect in some future day the liberties taken with him before the Privy Council on the 29th of January, and take ample revenge on British ministers and courtiers." Letter, July 2, 1774, in Gordon's American Revolution, p. 350.

*

believed, among the best actions of his life, and such as he should do again in the same circumstances. I can truly say the same with respect to every thing that has been most virulently urged against me.

On the whole, it is evident that, by whatever rule the jury at Warwick went, they allowed me little or nothing for my books, philosophical instruments, or manuscripts, as the sum that was awarded me would do little more than refurnish the house as it was before. They refused to say what they allowed for the separate articles of my loss, except on account of the house, which I was under obligation to rebuild. For this, which was not mine, it was thought by some that the allowance was ample enough, being 9571. 18s.

This detail I thought necessary to go into, in order to explain the consequences of the Riot, and the state of our laws, and of the actual administration of them in my case, that those who think it a proper object may provide a more effectual remedy for a similar evil in a future time.

I must add, that though the mischief was done more than a year ago, I have not yet, (November 1, 1792,) received any part of the compensation awarded me, † and yet I have been obliged to advance the whole expense of the law-suit; so that, if any allowance be made for the interest of money, my pecuniary loss will be considerably greater than I have stated it to be. If I had not been assisted by my friends, I could not have prosecuted my right at all, and therefore must have gone without any redress. And so much trouble and expense have attended this business, that in case of any other misfortune of the same kind, (from which I am far from considering myself as exempt,) my present determination is to sit down with the loss, and not to trouble the country on the subject. The law, as now administered, may do all very well for Churchmen, but I have found by experience that it is not calculated to protect Dissenters, as such, or to procure a redress of the wrongs done to them.

Dr. Franklin had procured and caused to be published "several letters written by Hutchinson, [Governor of Massachusets,] Oliver, and others, to persons in eminent stations in Great Britain. These contained the most violent invectives against the leading characters of the state of Massachusets, and strenuously advised the most vigorous measures to compel the people to obedience to the ministry.-The solicitor-general, Wedderburn, [afterwards Earl of Rosslyn,] was engaged as counsel for Oliver and Hutchinson.' Continuation of Franklin's Life, Works, 1802, I. pp. 158, 159.

+ This was paid in 1793. See Vol. XV. p. 528.

SECTION X.

Of the Approbation of the Riot, and the Extent of HighChurch Principles, which were the Cause of it, in other Parts of the Kingdom.

THE spirit of party, intimately connected with the appro bation of the Riot in Birmingham, is even now far from being confined to that town or neighbourhood, especially among the clergy. One of the most speaking and curious instances of this is the following: A clergyman, distinguished by his writings, requested another clergyman, who was going to Birmingham, to procure him a quantity of ashes from the ruins of the meeting in which I had preached; and the request was complied with. What an excellent Protestant Dominic would this clergyman make!

So far were the clergy from being moved to any thing like compassion by what I had suffered in the Riot, that immediately after this, their calumnies were doubled, and their cries for farther vengeance upon me became louder than An instance of this is an extract from the Shrewsbury Chronicle, signed ΟΥΔΕΙΣ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΣ. *

This virulent paper was, however, very ably answered by a person whose signature was An Enemy to Intolerance and Persecution, though he avowed religious sentiments very different from mine.

Mr. Burn seems to doubt the truth of what I said † of a clergyman calling our sufferings in an Assize Sermon wholesome correction. "Had he," he says, "been a Birmingham clergyman, we have no doubt his name would have appeared." I do not see why I should be more backward or more ready to mention his name on this account. But the sermon is now published, though without the name of the author, which was Allen, who resides at or near Ilford. The expression in the sermon, as now printed, is not the very same that was reported, but to the same purport. He was, however, properly reprimanded for what he delivered, by the judge and the counsel afterwards. This Mr. Allen was the clergyman who fought a duel with a Mr. Delaney, and killed him. He may perhaps send me a challenge, but Dissenting Ministers do not fight duels.

• Which may be seen in the Appendix, No. XXIX. (P.) + Supra, p. 394.

Reply, p. 73. (P.)

« PreviousContinue »