286 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



liad greatly injured him ! and in 

 order to rebnt it, he entreated his 

 lordship to furnish him with a tes- 

 timonial that there was no founda- 

 tion for the report. The plaintiff 

 did not inform his lordship of any 

 payments of annuity ; on the con- 

 trary, it was the impression on his 

 mind, that in the conversation he 

 asserted that he had not received 

 any such annuity ; and this was 

 stated by his lordship in the letter 

 which he wrote on the occasion. 

 Lord Moira had afterwards found 

 reason to alter his opinion, and to 

 write to the plaintiff, requesting 

 the return of the letter which he 

 had before written to him; and 

 also to write to the chairman of 

 the quarter sessions explaining the 

 error into which he had been be- 

 trayed. He found that an annuity 

 had been paid to the plaintiff, but 

 there were circumstances which 

 led him to think it possible that 

 the plaintiff had not accurately 

 ascertained the point of the an- 

 nuity's coming directly from the 

 Prince of Wales. 



Mr. John Beardmore, executor 

 to the late Mr. Richard Tattersall, 

 said, that he paid an annuity to the 

 plaintiff through the present Mr. 

 Tattersall. The plaintiff drew 

 upon Mr. Tattersall, and the wit- 

 ness reimbursed him. The wit- 

 ness was reimbursed from the 

 duchy of Cornwall office by Mr. 

 Gray. The plaintiff complained of 

 the deduction of the property tax, 

 by a letter to the \/itness, which 

 was proved and read. After men- 

 tioning, that the annuity had 

 been granted free of all taxes and 

 deductions, and that if these had 

 not been made, the amount would 

 have been 400/. instead of 350/. it 

 asserted; that if the deduction was 



persisted in, he ** should have no 

 other mode than to complain to 

 that personage on whose account 

 the annuity was originally granted, 

 and who had fully indemnified Mr. 

 Tattersall." 



Mr. Richard Tattersall confirm- 

 ed what was said by the last wit- 

 ness respecting his payment of the 

 annuity and reimbursement. It was 

 admitted by the plaintiff that the 

 payment was made out of the 

 Prince's privy purse. 



The Solicitor-general, in reply, 

 observed, that it was notorious that 

 the Morning Post, at the time of 

 the plaintiffs secession, changed its 

 pohtics to the anti-ministerial, and 

 he attributed the annuity to the 

 officious zeal of some of his Royal 

 Highness's household in desiring 

 Mr. Tattersall to make a bargain 

 with the plaintiff, and get rid of 

 him as editor. The question was, 

 whether the annuity was granted 

 for the suppression of paragraphs, 

 of which no proof has been pro- 

 duced. The Prince might have 

 considered himself as under an 

 obligation to reimburse those who 

 had foolishly been over zealous in 

 his service. 



Lord Ellenborough, in charging 

 the jury, pointed out several ma- 

 terial defects in the defendant's 

 plea of justification ; whence the 

 question was reduced to one of 

 damages merely, and it was for 

 them to take into consideration the 

 circumstances which should regu- 

 late those damages. It was clear 

 that the publication was a libel, 

 since it accused the plaintiff of the 

 abominable crime of suppressing 

 calumnious paragraphs for lucre. 

 If such an imputation had been 

 made upon a person of pure and 

 entire fame, it would have de- 

 tracted 



