Page images

Do you

as it is in my power to produce it. If there be | June the 9th, and of July 14, 1775. The witany evidence on the other side, and if that is ness inspects newspapers.) sufficient to refute the imputation which the Are those papers published by you !---I print evidence that I have to produce lays upon bim, that paper, and I suppose they are. I sball be as ready to exainine that with exactly

Cross-examined by the Defendant. the same degree of candour, and, I hope, of uprightness, as I have done the present. My Mr. Horne. I am very glad to see you, Mr. duly is done by laying the matter before you. Woodfall. I desire to ask you some questions, Your duty, I am sure, will be done to your Pray what was your motive for inserting that own honour and the support of public justice advertisement ?---Your desire. by the verdict you will give upon the occasion. Had you no other motive?---) was paid for

it, as the advertisement is paid for. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.

Pray was it by accident, or by my desire,

that there should be witnesses to see me write Thomas Wilson sworn.

that advertisement ?---By your desire. Examined by Mr. Solicitor General.* And did I, or did I not, formally, before that

witness, when called in, deliver that paper as Sol. Gen. Look at those papers. (The se.

my att and deed, as if it had been a bond ?--veral Manuscripts from which the advertise

Yes. ments were printed in the newspapers. The

It is true, I did. Did I not always direct witness inspects them.)

you, if called upon, to furnish the fullest proof Do you

know whose hand-writing those that you could give ? ---You did, Sir. papers are ?—They look like Mr. Horne's Now then, Sir, if you please, say whether 1 hand-writing

have ever written any thing in your newsDo you know Mr. Horne ?-I have seen paper before ?--- Yes, frequently. him write.

How many years ago, do you think ?--The take these to be his hand-writing? first remarkable thing that I remember, was - They are like his hand-writing. I will not something about sir Jobo Gibbons, about his upon my oath say that they are his hand-writ- mistaking Easter for a feast or a fast. ing; I believe that they are.

How long ago is that ? ---About the year (The manuscripts of the two advertisements 1768, about the election time. read in court.)

That is about pine years ago ?---Yes.

Have I at any time desired you to screen me Henry Sampson Woodfall sworn.

from the laws ?-- No. Examined by Mr. Wallace.

Has not the method of my transactions with What business are you?-A printer. you at all times been, that you should at all Do

you print any newspaper ?— Yes. times, for your own sake, if called upon, give Wbat paper ?--- The Public Advertiser. me up to justice ?-Certainly; that has always

Mr. Wallace. Look at these two papers been your desire. (shewing the witness the manuscripts of the Pray, Sir, were you not once called upon by advertisements. The witness inspects the ma

the House of Commons for something ibat I nuscripts.)

wrote in your paper ?-Yes, Sir. Have you ever seen these papers before ?--- Do you remember that I did or did not, when Yes.

I took care to furnish such full proof of this When did you see the first of them ?---About advertisement, give you the reason for it ?-1 the 7th of June 1775, as near as I can recollect. cannot say I recollect the reason.

By what means did you come by the sight I will mention it. Whether was this the of ii ?---Mr. Horne, the defendant, gave it reasop ? That in the last trapsactiop belore the

For what purpose ?--- To publish in the Pub- House of Commons it was pretended they let lic Advertiser.

me off, because they could not get full eviDid you accordingly publish it ?..-1 did. dence. Do you remember whether" I rehearsed

Had you any other directions from Mr. that or not; and said, that if they now chose Horne ? ---Yes.' 'He desired me to send it to to take notice of this advertisement, they should several other papers, which I did.

not want full evidence?-I do recollect that Do you recollect the names of any of them ? | conversation, ---The whole, I believe, of them ; I cannot ex- You remember that was the reason I gave? actly recollect.

-I do. Did you follow his directions ?---I did.

Will you please to look at these newspapers ? Was any thing paid for it ?--- Yes. Mr. (shewing several papers of the Public AilverHorne paid the bill.

tiser to the witoess. The witness inspects For the publication ?--- Yes.

them). Do you know these news-papers ?Mr. Wallace. Look at those news-papers I do. (shewing the witness the Public Advertiser of Do you believe that you published them ?

I do. Alexander Wedderburn, afterwards earl of Look at the dates. I will call them over to Rosslyn, and successively Chief Justice of c. you from a list-May the 30th and the Sist; B. and Lord Chancellor.

Jupe the 6tb, the 9th, the 10rb, the 13th, the


15th, and the 16th, 1775?-I have looked at How came you to be an evidence -I beard the papers: they are all of my publication : the that if I could produce my author, matters date of one of them I capoot make out; it is might be better for me; and as you had no Jupe something.

sort of objection (which you told me at the We will go on-June the 21st and the 27th, time) I did of course produce those copies that 1775; then there is January the 11th, fe appeared there to Messrs. Chamberlaype and bruary the 8th, February the 7th, the 11th, White, the solicitors for the treasury. June ihe 21, and June the 30th, 1777 ? They Should you at any time, if you had been are likewise of my publishing.

called upon, have declared that i was the auPray, Sir, do you recollect the contents of thor of that advertisement ?–Most certainly; the paper of May 30, 1775?-No, upon my for you desired it. soul, I do not.

And would have given your evidence ?-Yes. You are upon your oath.-I know that in- Whom was the application made by ?-It deed.

was no sort of application at all; I heard of it. Read that part (pointing a part out); read By whom ?-My brother. from “ la provincial congress, April 26, 1774,” You never refused to furnish evidence against down to that part (pointing it out).

the author ?--No. Mr. Wallace. The officer should read it; You never were applied to, to do it?-No; though not now. You will be intitled to read | I was not. it, when you come to your defence.

You have said that I never desired you to Mr. Horne. Pray do you know Mr. Arthur conceal me from the law for any thing you Lee?-Yes.

published from me. Did you ever receive any Did you ever receive any account from him letter or message from sir Thomas Mills in relative to the persons who were killed at Lex- your life?--A private letter I have. ington and Concord ?-I really do not recollect. But did not ihat private letter relate to the

Do you recollect that you ever published his public paper ?--Never. Dame to an account?-I think I did ; relating Did you never receive any message not to to bis agency for some colony.

insert any thing in your paper about lord MansLook at that, and see whether you remember field's earldom ?- No. that, and how you received it?" (Witness in- Upon your oail ?-Upon my oath, to the spects Public Advertiser of May 31, 1775.) best of my recollection, I never did. Yes. I think I received this from Mr. Arthur From any quarter ?-No. Lee.

Sir, were you ever sent for by lord Bute ?Pray who was Mr. Arthur Lee?--He is of No; I never saw bimn. the bar. I have seen him in Westminster. Were you not sent for for inserting a paraball. He was there at the trial of Mr. Wright graph about the king's marriage ?-No; I am the printer, upon this very affair. I believe he pot consulted by the higher powers, 1 assure was retained there.

yon. Pray was he retained in your cause when If I had thought you were, I never should you were to be prosecuted for this advertise- bave trusted you: I do not think you are.ment?-He was.

I am much obliged to you for your good opie And why did you retain him ? Had you any nion. particular reason ?-1 presumed he knew more Mr. Horne. I will give you no inore trouble. of the subject of the advertisement than I did. Did he ever tell you any thing upon the

William Woodfall sworn. subject ?-We have bad private conversation

Examined by Mr. Wallace. together as a matter of news.

Please to look at that paper (shewing tho Did be ever tell you he had lodged affidavits witbess the manuscript of the advertisement. with the lord mayor of London ?- He did. The witness iospects ii). Have you seen that

Sir, did you ever tell me so? I do not re. paper before ?- I have collect.

When did you first see it?-Mr. Horne dePray when bad yon, for the first time, any livered it into my hands in my brother's comptnotice of a prosecution for the publishing of ing-house on the 8th of June, to be inserted in this advertisement ?--About two years ago. the Lopdop Packet and Morning Chronicle ;

Pray did that prosecutioo go on?-No. both wbich papers I print.

Do you know why ?-Yes. I let judgment Was it accordingly inserted in those papers ? go by default.

It was. The first time?-1 was never called upon Look at those papers (shewing the witness till last January

several papers of the Morning Chronicle and It began two years ago ; and you were never London Packet. The witness inspects them). called forward upon it till last January?-1 Are those papers published by you ?--They think that was about the month.

As vear as you can recollect ?-Yes.
Wbeu were you first applied to, or were you

Cross-examined by the Defendant. ever applied to, to be a witness in this cause? Mr. Horne. Mr. William Woodfall, I will - was not.

not repeat all the same questions to you. Did You never were ?-No.

you ever receive any application?. -No. VOL, XX,

2 X


Your answer is of the quickest. Had you | small allowances might have been made for not better hear the question ?-1 presume you me by my judge who presides upon this cause, meant to ask the same question you put to my when be considers the peculiar disadvantages brother; as you laid an emphasis upon the word in which I stand here before bim. Gentlemen, 'you.

I am an absolute novice in these matters; and Did you ever receive any letter, or message, yet opposed to gentlemen some of the mosi emior desire, or request, of any kind, in any man- nent in their profession, and some of the most ner, pot to insert any ibing in your paper rela- conversant in practice. But that is not all; I tive to lord Mansfield's earldom, on your oath? bave a farther disadvantage. I stand here, -On my oath, I never received any letter. gentlemen, before you, a culprit as well as a

Message, or request, of any kind, in any pleader; personally and very materially in.. mauner, Sir, from sir Thomas Mills, I ask ierested in the issue of the cause which I have you ?-No, I think not.

to defend. And every gentleman in the court You must be a little more positive, because must know-(some perhaps by their own ex., my question will not admit of'a'tbiuk.'- I do perience, all by the reason of the thing)—how not recollect I did.

very different is the sportful combat with foils Then take a little time.--I don't recollect from that which is seriously disputed with un-, that I did. I know very well, that some per. bated swords; and how frequenily the flutterson or other, once, mentioned it to me. ing of the heart, in the latter situation, has been

That is an application. To mention it to known to enteeble the steadliest wrist, and to you is a stronger application than a letter.- Jazzle the clearest and most quick-sighted eye. I had some conversation about it. I don't re- Gentlemen, I have read even of counsel, emicollect that I was desired not to publish it. nent in their profession, conversant in practice,

Was it to request you not to insert squibs or approved and applauded for their ingenuity in any thing ?-1 recollect I did insert it.

the defence of others, who, when they came to What?-Lord Mansfield's promotion to an stand in the same situation io which I vow earldom,

stand, have complained to the Court (and met What was that application ? That you with an indulgence wbich I have noi), they • would' ipsert paragraphs about it, or would have complained to the Court of the same disDot'?~ It was a conversation, not of the nature advantage which I now feel. Gentlemen, I of business ; nor any express desire to me ; bave listened to Mr. Attorney-General's decla. some conversation, as might be between two mation with as much patience, and, I believe, friends.

with much more pleasure, iban any one in the Upon your oath, you had never any appli- court. That pleasure I do acknowledge was cation to omit inserting any thing of that kind? personal to myself; arising from the futility of

Upon my oath, I don't recollect that I had. ibe support which Mr. Aitorney-General has

Nor have you ever said that you had ?-?f attempted to give to the serious charge which I don't recollect that I received any application be has brought against me; a pleasure, bowto keep out any thing relative to ii, i conse- ever, mixed with some pain, when I consider quently cappot have spoken of it.

the wretched times at which we are arrived ; Did you, or did you not, ever speak of it?- when a gentleman of bis natural sagacity is, I Not that I am aware of.

own, justified by recent experience for supBut you will not swear positively you never posing it possible to obtain from a London jury did ?-i bad no direct application to me to keep a verdict for the crown, upon a mere commonout any thing

place declamation against scandal and jode• Direct'--My question was direct' or 'in cency in general, without one single syllable of direct,' or of any kind.— I mean to answer di- reason, or law, or argument, applicable to that rect. I don't recollect that I was ever applied particular charge which he has brought against to, to keep out any thing; or that I ever said I me, and which you are now upon your oaths was applied to, to keep out any thiog.

to decide. Gentlemen, you koow, as well as More than that you cannot recollect?-No. I do, that I am personally and in all respects [The Associate read the advertisements in

an absolute stranger to every one of you. I the several papers that bad been proved and

am glad of it. I do not expect or desire from put into court on the part of the prosecution.]

you either friendship, or favour, or indulgence,

It is yoor duty to do impartial justice, and I Alt. Gen. My lord, we have done. only request your attention. I began with re

questing it; and I requested your attention, Mr. Horne. Gentlemen of the jury; I am that you may be able to judge for yourselves, much happier, gentlemen, in addressing my. and that the verdict which you shall give self to you, and I hope and believe I shall be personally as it respects myselt it is totally inmuch more fortunate as well as happy, than different to me-but that the verdict which in addressing myself to the judge. I have you shall give, may be really your own, as it been betrayed, gentlemen, I hope, into no un ought to be, and not the judge's. That is the seemly warmth ; but yet into some warmth. only thing I request of you, and I request it, I have felt myself like a man first put into bot because it is your duty and your path. water; but I bave now been long enough in it Gentlemen, as for the charge tbat is brought to be perfectly cool. And, gentlemen, some agaiust me, you cannot be ignorant that I am

[ocr errors]

" The prero

[ocr errors]

charged with the only unpardonable crime officio is a very gentle expression for a very which can, at this time, be committed. I am barsh thing. 'Ex officio (ihe gentlemas well accused of a libel.

explained it to you, when he boasted of bis Murder and sodomy, you know, have in conscience, and his integrity, and duty; for it these our days ofien found successful solicitors: and the laws against popery (though unre- the means of great persecution. In truth it pealed and in full legal force) are, when re- seems a power vecessary for no good purpose, sorted to, thought, by the magistrate who pre- and capable of being put to a very bad one. sides bere, too rigorous to be suffered to bave For, although a man may doubt whether a their free course against a religion so destruc- grand jury in times of violent' party would tive of the civil rights of mankind, and so fa- always find a bill of indictment or present, yet vourable to absolute and arbitrary power. But there can be note but that a court of King'swhilst that has been favoured beyond the laws, bench would grant an loformation, wherever it nothing beyond the laws has been thought ri-could, by any administration, be applied for gorous and severe enough against the charge with the least foundation.” of libel. Murder, attended with the most ag.

And in another place he says, gravating circumstances, has been repeatedly gative which an Attorney: General assumes of pardoned ; and treason, the blackest treason, filing an Information against whomsoever he against the family on the throne, and (what is pleases, is certainly a reproach to a free peoof much more consequence to us than any fa- ple; and if the regular information awarded mily) against the free constitution of this coun-upon special inotion by the King's bench were try, has been not only pardoned, but taken into likewise taken away, I do not think the confavour; and the estales of convict traitors have stitution would be injured by it: in which case been restored to them and to their families.* the old common law method of indicting for a Whilst mercy and forgiveness, gentlemen, have libel, as a violation of the peace, would be the been tbus Aowing unnaturally in a full stream means that every body must resort to; and in over the highest mountains of' iniquity, has any my opinion a grand jury are very competent one of you ever spied the smallest rivulet de and the properest judges, whether any publiscending towards the valley of the libeller?cation be destructive to the welfare of the state Has any man charged with a libel (and what or not." And for this last clause wbich I have bas not been charged as a libel?)—bas any man cited, he refers to the valuable treatise upon so charged ever yet met with inercy ? Gentle-Grand Juries, called, · The Security of Eng. men, I do not call back again these things to lishmen's Lives,' attributed to Mr. Sommers. your remembrance in order to arraigo them; The attempt at the time of the Revolution 10 that is not my present business: I only men- take away Informations in the court of King's tion them to gain from you, the only thing I bench, is noticed in the • Letter concerning wish, your attention. You will be pleased then, Libels, Warrants,' &c.; but I had not the pasgentlemen, as one motive for your attention, tó sage in my recollection when I wrote the Note remember the nature of the crime charged. to the Case of sir William Williams, vol. 13,

Gentlemen, if the nature of the crime and p. 1369. In the case of Rex o. Mary Jopes the rancour with which it is pursued, if that and another, mentioned in that Note, the vexaaffords a strong reason for your particular cautious operation of the Attorney-General's lofortion and care and attention in this sort of trials, .mation was, that it caused two poor Welsh a much stronger reason indeed will be afforded persons, convicted of a minor offence against the you by the nature of the prosecution. It is revenue laws, to come from the principality calleil an information er officio.f The term er to the bar of the court of King's-bench at West

minster, in order 10 receive judgment, wbich * Mr. Horne's mention of tbe restoration of would have been passed upon them in their own the estates of convict traitors alludes to the neighbourhood, if the proceeding against them Case of general Fraser, eldest sor of lord Lovat bad been by indictment. who was executed in 1746. See the proceed. In the case of Philipps and others, Trin. ings against him, vol. 18, p. 530. See, also, 4 G. 3. 3 Burr. 1564, lord Mansfield declared, stat. 14 G. 3, c. 22; 24 G. 3, stat. 2, c. 57; that the Court would never grant an loforma28 G. 3, c. 63.

tion upon the application of the Attorney Ge+ In the celebrated . Letter,' which has been neral, in cases prosecuted by the crowo; beascribed to Lord Chancellor Camden, and also cause the Attorney-General has a right bimto Mr. Solicitor General Duoning, concerning self er officio to exhibit one: and in the same Libels, Warrants, the Seizure of Papers, and case be said, “the Attomiey.General may, if Sureties for the Peace or Behaviour, &c. by he thinks proper, summon the parties to shew the Father of Candur,' are alleged with great cause, why an Information should not be exability many objections against the Attorney bibited, before he signs it." General's Joformation er officio, of which the And in the case of the King o. William aotbor says, “ It is a power, in my apprehen- Davis Phillips, esq. Pasch. 7 G. 3. 4 Burrow, sion, very alarming; and a thinking man can- 2089, De Grey, Aitorney-General, baving on ont refrain from surprise, that a free people the part of the crown) moved for a rule upod should suffer so odious a prerogative to exist. the defendant to shew cause, why an InformaIt has been, aud may most certainly be again, tion should not be granted against him, the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

is certaiply so)-er officio means, that which, verdict against me, because he is a man of hohe dors from a sense of duty. it in this you nour, an uncorrupi man, a pure man of inie. consider ouly just what meets the ear, there is grity, and would not charge me, if he did not no harm in it; it is a good thing: duty is a ibiok me guilty. Let him think what be good thing. But if you examine ihe real force pleases ; if you do not thiok me guilty, I care and consequences of the term, as here applied, very liule what he professes to think. I know you will find it to contain every thing that can ibai be is manly enough ; and I honour that be imagioed illegal, unjust, wicked, and op- part of his character. He bears a man's beart pressive. For my own part, I am astonished in his bosom, and (though his office has made that any mau, at ihis time of day, exercising him hold tbe language he does) I defy him not such powers as are not according to law, and to respect me. I know he does. I am sure are much less according to reason, should talk of it. to you, with an open face, of integrity, of bo. Gentlemen, I said that ex officio contained nour, of duty, of conscience ; and that, instead every thing that was illegal, unjust, wicked, of aggravating and shewing you in what the and oppressive; aod I will prove it to you. Es charge which he has brought against me, in officio“(a little specimen of it you have seen)what my crime consists, be bas employed half er officio means a power to dispeuse with all his barangne in boasting of his owo character. the forms and proceedings of the courts of jus. If any man in the court who had not knowo tice, with all those wise precautions which our that I was the defendant had come in at the laws have taken to prerent the innocent from time ibat ibat gentlenian was talking of bis in being oppressed by exorbitant and unjust tegrity, bis conscience, and his duty ; I ask, powerwould he not immediately have concluded ibat Gentlemen, I was thrown off my guard. I Mr. Attorney General was the defendant then own I was. 1 bad prepared an argument; making his detence? He must. Let the gen- winch I believe his lordship, perceived: he tlemau's integrity and honour be as great as be therefore granted me what l'intended 10 hare tells you it is; what has that to do with me? inforced ; and, baving granted it to me, that What has that to do with the charge which he grant was made use of to prevent me from has brought against me ? except indeed this; gaiving any argument in answer, of any kind. that, baving nothing really to charge me with, You must have taken notice of it; it is your he sets up his own great, immaculate character duty to take notice. Juries bave been too in opposition to mine; that you may give a much considered as men out of court; and

when an application has been made to the motion was rejected, upon the ground, that if judge to determine upon a point of law, the the Attorney-General thougbt it right, that an jury has been considered as haviog nothing to

Information should be granted, he might grant do with the matter. No more they have, in. it himself; if he did not think so, he could not deed, to decide it. But the jury has this to do expect the Court to do it: and Jord Mansfield with ibe matter: they are to make a true desaid, “ If the Attorney-General should bave liverance; and they will see and will judge auy doubt about the propriety of it, he might whether the defendant has justice done him send to the person complained against, to shew or not, even in the practice of the court. I bim cause why be should not grant it." know notbing of the law: I am not sorry for

With respect to an Attorney-General send- that: this is not a question of law; and '1 am ing to a person to sbew cause why an lofor. happy to bave Mr. Attorney-General's authomation should not be filed against him, see rity to say, that it is "the plainest, the simwhat was said in parliament upon tlie conduct plest question; and that it was too obvious for of the Attorney-General of Ireland in the case him to foresee a difficulty in it.” He said, it was of Fitzpatrick, A. D. 1812, 23 Parl. Deb. pp. " the plainest of all the plain and simple mat996. 998. 1081. 1086, 1087. 1111, et seq. ters that were ever laid before a court;" and

For more concerning the Information er being so, you are the best judges of it. And officio, see the Case of sir William Williams, indeed the nature of a libel always makes a vol. 13, p. 1369. See, also, 16 New Parl. Hist. jury the best judges of it; for a libel (if it be pp. 40. 1127. 1175.

so) is intended for mischief: it must therefore Mr. Hargrave has, more extensively than has be intelligibie to the people, or no mischief yet appeared in print, investigated the subject could be produced by it. "If a man writes a of the luformation ex officio, as well as that of libel that a common jury could not understand, the examinableness of commitments by a House (and you are a special jury, gentlemen) be of Parliament or Court of Justice, for contempt must fail in his design. Observe then, gentle. or breach of privilege. It is to be hoped that men, this advertisement is the plainest and the result of his investigations may be made simplest of all the matters that were ever laid public.

before a court in which the Attorney-General See, also, distinctions as to the rights of the was concerned: and in these two years and a Attorney-General in matters of practice, when quarter that he has had to bring it to trial, be he proceeds for the crown as formal prose has not been able to see a difficulty in it; and cutor; and when he proceeds for the crown as yet he has had a special jury to determine it: actual prosecutor, in 2 Stra. 216, (cit, vol. 17, a common jury could not be left to determine p. 311), and 4 Burt, 2458.

it, and that I will explain to you hereafter, I

« PreviousContinue »