CHRONICLE. 



289 



that sum was awarded. The libel 

 in the Morning Herald was a para- 

 graph onlhe 3rd of Uecember,1808, 

 to the following effect : — " Articles 

 have been exhibited against a noble 

 lord by his lady, similar to the arti- 

 cles which were exhibited by lady 

 Audley against her lord, upon which 

 he was convicted and deservedly 

 executed ; but in the present in- 

 stance, there were circumstances of 

 far greater atrocity." Now, as to 

 the libel, he should first ask, is it 

 true or false ? It was unquestion- 

 ably false ; for if such articles had 

 been exhibited, the defendants 

 could have proved them from the 

 oflSce at Doctors' Commons, where 

 such articles must have been filed. 

 This charge then, as false as it was 

 "wicked, the defendants must have 

 known to be false, or they could 

 have easily ascertained that it was 

 false, by taking the pains to inquire 

 at Doctors' Commons before they 

 inserted it. On the 5th of Decem- 

 ber, the following paragraph was 

 inserted : — The wretched son of 

 an English marquis has absconded, 

 on charges which lady C. ( Chart- 

 ley being his title when the old 

 marquis of Townsend was alive) 

 has exhibited against him. A spe- 

 cial warrant has been issued for 

 apprehending this lord, whose in- 

 famies have long rendered him a 

 disgrace to human nature." This 

 special warrant for apprehending 

 the plaintiff', was a pure invention 

 of the writer of the paragraph. 

 •As a proof of the malicious motive 

 in which these publications origi- 

 nated, he should state, that, in the 

 month of April preceding, a para- 

 Igraph had been put in the Morning 

 Herald, announcing tiie separation 

 of lord Chartley and his lady at 

 a lime when they were living affec- 

 tionately together. In considering 

 Vol. LI. 



the malignity of this libel, and the 

 injury it was likely to do, it must 

 be recollected what a horror the 

 British nation entertained against 

 the vice so imputed. He trusted 

 therefore that the jury would con- 

 sider both the rank of the person 

 injured, and the greatness of the 

 injury which had been inflicted, 

 and relied upon their finding a pro- 

 per verdict. 



The first evidence was the regis- 

 ter of pamphlets or papers at the 

 Stamp Office. He proved the de- 

 fendants to have sworn themselves 

 proprietors, printer, and publisher, 

 of the Morning Herald. 



The papers were then produced, 

 and the libellous paragraphs read. 



The next witness was Mr. Barlow, 

 who produced from the records of 

 the Court of King's Bench the in- 

 quisition upon lord Audley, his in- 

 dictment and conviction. 

 ■ Mr. Mills, solicitor to the plain- 

 tiff, said, that he believed the para- 

 graphs which had been read to ap- 

 ply to the plaintiff, he had no 

 doubt at all of it. 



This witness was cross-examined 

 by Serjeant Cockle. 



The case of the plaintiff was 

 then closed. 



Mr. Serjeant Cockle then rose on 

 the part of the defendants. He said 

 he rose with considerable concern 

 upon a subject, odious in its own 

 nature, and which must give pain 

 and disgust to every man. His 

 learned friend would have wished 

 them to believe, that the aspersions 

 against the character of lord Lei- 

 cester originated in the newspaper 

 which was conducted by the de- 

 fendants. The fact, however, was, 

 that they did not ; but as the plain- 

 tiff's own attorney had admitted, 

 there had been ^flying rnmours 

 against the character of that noble 



U lord 



