Some Account of the Proceedings at Westminster-Hall, on Thursday, June 8, on the Trial of Lord Sandwich, against Mr. Miller.

ON

N Thurfday morning, exactly at nine o'clock, came on in the Court of King's-Bench, the long-depending action brought by Lord Sandwich against Mr. Miller, Printer of the London Evening-Poft. The action was brought for Scandalum Magnatum, and the damages in the noble plaintiff's declaration were laid at ten thousand pounds. The ground of complaint was as follows:

On the 2d of February laft, a letter under the signature of Alfred appeared in the London EveningPoft, charging Lord Sandwich with corruption in the difpofal of certain places within his department as firft Lord of the Admiralty. In particular, the letter-writer charged the noble lord with having expofed the office of a commiffioner of the navy to fale, for the fum of two thousand pounds; and Alfred further infifted, that Lord Sandwich had employed one Henry Corte as his agent to negociate the affair.

Thus flood the plaintiff's matter of complaint.

The defendant in his plea put himfelf upon his country to prove the truth of the charge.

Mr. Buller, one of the plaintiff's counfel, opened the caufe; and touched upon the atrociousness of the crime.

The Attorney-General next took up the matter, upon more enlarged grounds. He stated the important nature of the charge; afferted, that if true, it would have operated to the utter ruin of the noble Lord: and if false, was a fpecies of atrocious defamation, which ought to be punished with the utmoft feverity.

That the charge could not be true, the Attorney-General ftrongly infifted upon, both from the known public virtue of Lord Sandwich, and the imputation of folly which fuch tranfaction would faften upon his Lordship. To the public virtue of Lord Sandwich, to his honour, his integrity, and his rectitude: to all thefe good qualities, the AttorneyGeneral bore teftimony.

That fuppofing the charge true, would be to impute folly in the extreme to Lord Sandwich; this the Attorney-General endeavoured to prove, by declaiming on the ab furdity of the conduct laid to the noble Lord's charge. That he fhould entrust a ftranger [Mr. Corte] with his fame, his reputation, and his honour; that he fhould empower this ftranger to barter all with another ftranger, for the paltry

inadequate

inadequate fum of two thoufánd pounds; that Lord Sandwich, a nobleman not devoid of honour as a peer, nor deftitute of abilities as a man; that he should do this, implied a fpecies of weakness, as well as criminality, which even Lord Sandwich's most inveterate enemies could never on any foundation impute to him. The Attorney-General therefore concluded, that the charge was totally groundlefs, and being fo, the propagator of the fcandal deferved exemplary punith

ment.

The Attorney-General then attacked with virulence the general abuse of the public prints; he called them public nuifances, difgraceful to this country; and that if a per fon wanted to abufe fyftematically, he had no more to do than make fuch publications his vocabulary. He then folemnly affured the jury, that, in his opinion, the damages, though laid at TEN THOU. SAND POUNDS, bore no manner of proportion to the heinoufness of the offence."

The Attorney-General having finished, feveral witneffes were called by the plaintiff's counfel, in proof of Lord Sandwich's being a peer of the realm, a privy-counfellor, and firft lord of the admiralty; and one witness proved the publication of the papers.

Serjeant Glynn next arofe, and, as counfel for the defendant, he entered into the whole of the cafe with that fpirit, precision, energy, and force of argumentation, which fo ftrikingly characterise this eminent pleader, when, roused at the call of liberty, he chooses to exert himfelf in her defence. The Serjeant ftated at large the cafe before the court. He infifted, that it was

not the cafe of a private individual, of a particular printer; it was a direct attack upon the liberty of the prefs; and every printer in England was concerned in the event; that if the freedom of political difcuffion was denied to a free people, men in office might commit errors with impunity; they might trample upon the rights of humanity, yet go unpunished: that the charge alledged against the noble Lord in queftion, if untrue, could not materially injure his inte→ reft, nor ought to affect his peace of mind: that it was never understood Lord Sandwich poffeffed that extreme delicacy, as to be fhocked at trifling occurrences, or alarmed at trivial imputations; that his Lordship to be fare had a nice fenfe of honour, but happy in a spotless character, hitherto unimpeached; happy in an integrity unfullied, his Lordship, wrapt in confcious inno cence, might defy the fhafts of malice to wound his pure, his imma❤ culate breast.

With respect to the "proof of the publication," Serjeant Glynn obferved, that it refted on the teftimony of a man, whofe fole employment it was to act as a " fpy upon the prefs." upon the prefs.". This disgraceful office, the Serjeant faid, had been: erected towards the clofe of the infamous reign of Charles the Second; the office was founded to promote the purposes of tyranny, and to deftroy the people's liberties: hence the perfons employed in this infamous trade, were generally to the laft degree infamous themfelves. The man hired to prove this publication of the paper, wherein the fuppofed libel was contained; this man, the Serjeant contended, was of that ftamp, an obscure indivi

[N] z

dual,

dual, avoiding the light, and feeking to hide from honeft men even the place of his refidence; for he was afked, where he lived," but hung off from replying. How far the evidence of fuch a man fhould operate to the conviction of the defendant, this the Serjeant left to the optional difcretion of the jury.

The Serjeant then touched upon the hazardous fituation of printers in general, fhould they be liable to exceffive fines for every piece, which, through inadvertence, through hurry, or the careleffnefs of fervants, might appear in their feveral papers; and he pleaded for the extenuation of damages in the cafe before the court, as nothing fhort of the defendant's ruin was at, ftake; he added, that in respect to the enormous damages laid down by the oppofite counfel, it was worthy obferving what different languages gentlemen held upon particular occafions; that in a late popular affair of the printers recovering but 2001. there was the greateft outcry againft exceffive damages; but here, where a printer is innocently concerned as defendant, the damages are talked of in an unlimited manner.

With respect to the action, the very bringing it against the printer partook of the nature of a malicious profecution; for the Serjeant contended, that it ought to have been brought against the agent Corte; it was he, if any perfon, who had traduced the noble Lord's character; it was he who had caft a ftigma upon his reputation, by offering to treat for the difpofal of places in the noble Lord's depart

ment.

Yet this man," concluded the Serjeant," remains unmolested; he is suffered to exercise his office, to carry on his traffic as

an agent and though clearly convicted of having treated in the bargain and fale way, for the purchase of places to which Lord Sandwich has a right to recommend; though clearly convicted of having done this, no notice is taken of his criminality, whilft the ruin of a printer is aimed at, for admitting an unguarded publication to appear in his paper."

Capt. Luttrell, and the Rev. Mr. Parrott, were then examined.

The Subflance of Capt. Luttrell's Evidence.

Capt. Luttrell depofed, "That when the death of Mr. Hanway, Commiffioner of the Navy, was hourly expected, he received a meffage from Mr. Corte to the following purport, that if he, Capt. Luttrell, had any friend who could advance the fum of 20001. he might be appointed to the place in cafe of Mr. Hanway's death." Capt. Luttrell replied, he had a friend who would advance the fum required, but he fpurned at the propofal, as there were fo many gentlemen, his feniors, better entitled, from their long, fervices, to the appointment."

The Captain was afked, "Whether the name of Lord Sandwich was mentioned? Or whether Corte gave any intimation that he had his Lordship's authority to treat for the difpofal of the place?" To both which questions Capt. Luttrell replied in the negative.

He was then afked, "Whether after the charge appeared against Lord Sandwich in the paper, he had not attended his Lordship's levee ?" and "Whether he had. not attended it purpofely to give his Lordship an opportunity of converfing with him upon the fubject "

jeft?" He answered both those queftions in the affirmative, but added, "that Lord Sandwich never had faid a syllable to him about the affair." Captain Luttrell was then afked, "if Mr. Corte was agent to Lord Sandwich ?" he replied," that to the best of his knowledge he was not his Lordship's agent."

The Subftance of the Rev. Mr.

Parrott's Evidence.

This gentleman depofed, that "Mrs. Brooke, wife to a Clergyman at Norwich, first told him in general, that he had an intereft to procure places ;" and added," that if he knew any perfon capable of prefenting her with a handfome douceur, fhe would use her intereft in his favour."

Mr. Hanway's death being at that time likely, Parrott applied to Mr. Corte, and asked him what he thought would be deemed a proper compliment for the place of a Commiffioner of the Navy?" Corte replied, "it was not worth more than 2000 1."

Mr. Parrott having finished his detail, was asked the following pertinent, queftions by Mr. Morgan, counsel for the defendant, "Who the perfon was through whose intereft Mrs. Brooke could procure the places ?"

Mr. Parrott replied. "Not Lord Sandwich."

Mr. Dunning facetiously faid, "It must be Mr. Breflaw the juggler."

The question was again put, and the counfel infifted on a fair explicit anfwer. Parrott faid, "that the gentleman through whofe intereft Mrs. Brooke procured the places, was a Mr. Friedenburg, one of the -'s German attendants."

66

Mr. Parrott was then asked, " If he had received or expected any preferment from Lord Sandwich ?" answered in the negative. Did he know him?" the reply was, I should not know his Lordship, if he was ftanding here."

ཟ་

The evidence on both fides being thus gone through, the AttorneyGeneral arofe, and replied to every part of Mr. Serjeant Glynn's fpeech: he declared himself a friend to the liberty of the prefs, and the freedom of political difcuffion; but he hoped no man would pretend to call a base attack upon public charafters, political difcuffion."

With respect to the greatness of the damages, he urged thus: "An attempt has been made to ruin Lord Sandwich; the perfon base enough to make it, dares not ftand forth; the printer therefore is the refponfible party; and if he is ruined for having aimed at the ruin of another man, he falls only by the hands of " diftributive justice."

Mr. Thurlow faid, that the offence was aggravated by the defendant's having in his plea avowed the fact, and pledged himself to prove the truth of the charge. This was ftigmatizing Lord Sandwich, upon record: and as it was done with a defign to intimidate his Lordship from proceeding, fo fhamelefs an audacity deserved the feverest reprehenfion."

Mr. Thurlow then concluded, by addreffing the jury as men who had "characters to maintain; and he doubted not, as the law was in their hands, they would give every fupport to the noble Lord, who had appealed to that law in justification of his innocence, labouring under afperfions of the vileft kind."

Lord Mansfield then proceeded to give his charge.

The Subftance of Lord Mansfield's

Charge to the Jury.

He faid, "There were two forts of prof cutions in matter of libel, criminal and civil.

"In cafes of criminal profecution, the truth or falfhood of the charge was totally immaterial, the charge itself being the libel. If a perfon charges another with felony, forgery, or theft, fuppofing the charge true in every part, the perfon is ftill guilty of a libel; and why? because the law has provided a punishment for fuch offences: if, therefore, the man is guilty, profecute him; but to charge him with crimes is an extra judicial proceeding, and as fuch may be punished.

"As to civil actions in cafes of libel, the matter is otherwife; there the falfhood conftitutes the crime. In the cafe of the libel before us, the defendant hath put himfelf upon proving the truth of the libel: Well what have the evidences proved? Nothing which affects the plaintiff. Had Corte been Lord Sandwich's agent or fecretary, the plaintiff might have been affected by a kind of implication; but that not being the cafe, and the evidences both concurring to clear Lord Sandwich from having any hand in the bufinefs, not the flighteft ground appears whereon to accufe the plaintiff. Parrot was very properly afked the name of the perfon who procured thefe places; he at firft boggled a little, but afterwards mentioned the perfon..

"With refpect to the whole of the evidence, had the plaintiff's counfel objected to it, fuch objection would have been well founded,

for undoubtedly it is not evidence de bene effe; it goes no farther than to prove a converfation which paffed between the parties who delivered it, and a third perfon; however, the counfel did not at first object to it, though they did afterwards.

With respect to the publication, that is proved by the witnefs who bought the paper; and from the returns made by the StampOffice, it appears that the defendant was the publisher at the time the libel appeared.

"You will, therefore, Gentlemen, find for the plaintiff; but I fhall not fay one word about the damages, as you are perfect mafters of the cafe, and will, no doubt, maturely weigh every circumftance of private and public character."

The jury withdrew about a quarter after one: about three they returned, and brought in a verdict for the plaintiff, with Two THOUSAND POUNDS DAMAGES.

From the evidence delivered on this important trial, it inconteftibly appears, that there is a corrupt tampering for the fale of places fomewhere; but that Lord Sandwich is entirely innocent of the fat laid to his charge is manifeft, as the proof was not in the fmallest degree brought home to him.

On the day of Mr. Hanway's death, which happened foon after the publication of the above letter, the place was given to Mr. March, of the Victualling-Office, who was fucceeded at that board by Mr, Gordon, of Rochester.

Some Account of the Trial on the 12th of July, at Guildhall, before Mr. fuftice Gould, and a Special Fury, between Antonio Fabrigas, a Na