to him not to have been done by accident, but purposely with a pen; that, having doubts whether the bond was a good one, he applied to Mr. Fletcher, to advife what to do; that he likewife waited on Lord Chesterfield, who denied the bond; that on going to Sir Charles Raymond's, Mr. Robertfon happened to come in, and was taken into cuflody; that afterwards he went to Dr. Dodd's houfe (leaving M. R. the officer, &c. at a houfe near at hand); that on feeing the Dr. he told him his bufinefs, and afked him how he could be guilty of fuch an act; that the doctor feemed much fhocked, and as foon as he could recover himself, faid, urgent neceffity was the caufe; that the witnefs then afked the prifoner if he had any of the money left, as the reftitution would be the only means of faving him. Dr. Dodd replied, he had fix drafts on Sir Charles Raymond, of 500l. each; he had alfo 500l. in the hands of the banker, all which he would very willingly give up; that he (the evidence) then afked Dr. Dɔdd if he would give a bond in judgment on his household goods for the remainder; to which Dr. Dodd replied, he would, that or any thing elfe. Mr. Manly further faid, he had been told another execution had been in the prifoner's houfe, but had been withdrawn, and he believed there was fufficient to answer the demand.

Mr. Innes, who attended Mr. Manly, confirmed Mr. Manly's evidence, as to what paffed between Dr. Dodd and Mr. Manly; he alfo read, from notes taken at the time, Dr. Dodd's confeffion before the lord-mayor, and his declaring Mr. Robertfon innocent.

The notes which were given in payment of the bond were produced, which Mr. Fletcher fwore to be the identical notes paid.

Mr. Leecroft was called to prove the hand-writing of the prifoner, but could not fwear pofitively.

Mr. Neale, treasurer to the fo ciety for the relief of Small Debtors, was next called to the fame faft, who fwore that the fignatures

Chefterfield,' and William Dodd,' both in the bond and receipt, were the hand-writing of the prifoner. On being afked by the judge how he could be fo pofitive? he faid, by being fo long acquainted with Dr. Dodd's writing, and having so often seen him write.

Mr. Robertfon fwore to the pri foner bringing the bond to him un figned; that he next day brought it figned Chesterfield and William Dodd; that he (the evidence) alfo figned it, received the money, and paid it to Dr. Dodd. Being asked if it was ufual for him to fign a bond without feeing the principal fign it, he answered, Sometimes.

No witnefs being produced in favour of the prifoner, he was called upon for his defence.

He faid, he was fully fenfible of the heinoufnefs of the crime of for gery, but prefumed the guilt fole. ly centered in the intention: he called God to witness, that he meant no injury to any one, and that he fhould have been able to re-instate the money (and it was his real intent) in a few months; that this was a moft cruel profecution, as Mr. Manly had given him hopes, if he made reftitution, that no fur. ther notice would be taken that he confidered a perfon admitted as principal, and being committed evidence against him, an entire

new

new cafe, and therefore affected him the more; that life to him, after being expofed to fhame, was of no value, he should willingly refign it; but he had a wife [here the tears flowed from his eyes, and indeed from the eyes of the greatest part of thofe who heard him] then afked pardon of the court and jury for this weakness; a wife, with whom he had lived feven and twen

court, which was favourably re ceived.

Mr. Robertfon was ordered to be kept in cuftody till the gaol delivery.

Summary of the Trial of John Horne, Efq; for a Libel. RIDAY, July nine

gal felicity; for her he felt his creditors must likewife, he said, be fufferers, should he now fuffer; and as reftitution had been made, he hoped the court and jury would confider all thefe circumftances, and acquit him.

Mr. Baron Perryn fummed up the evidence very fully; he faid, that the indictment ftated that the bond was forged with intent to defraud Lord Chesterfield and Mr. Fletcher; if they believed it was done to defraud either one or the other, then they muft bring in the prifoner guilty. As to the defence fet up by the prifoner, the only thing for their confideration was, whether the forgery was committed with an intent to defraud; if they thought not, then they must acquit him in regard to the other parts of his defence, it would have no weight with them; for if it was liftened to in this cafe, not a criminal brought to that bar but would fet up a fimilar one.

The jury then went out, and, after staying about twenty minutes, brought in their verdict, Guilty.

The jury afterwards drew up a memorial in recommendation of the unhappy prifoner to his majefty, for the royal mercy, figned the fame, and prefented it to the

field came into the court of King'sbench, at Guildhall, when the fpecial jury, fummoned to try the caufe between the King and John Horne, Efq; on an information filed, ex officio, by the attorney. general, for a libel, were fworn.

оп

Mr. Buller opened on the part of the crown, and ftated to the jury the fubject-matter of the information, which was an advertisement, dated, 'King's-arms-tavern, Cornhill, June 7, 1775,' and purporting to be an account of the Conftitional Society's having met the faid 7th of June, and agreed, that the fum of 100l. fhould be raifed, to be applied to the relief of the widows, orphans, and aged parents of our beloved American fellow-fubjects, who, faithful to the characters of Englishmen, pre. ferring death to flavery, were, for that reafon only, inhumanly murdered by the king's troops at or near Lexington and Concord, in the province of Maffachufet's, on the 19th of laft April;' which advertisement was figned by the defendant.

The attorney-general then arofe, but was prevented from proceeding, to inform the jury more fully of the cafe, by the defendant. Mr. Horne, who addreffed himself to

the

the court, and, declaring he thought that the proper moment to urge an objection which ftruck him as exceedingly effential, defired to be heard; the court affenting, Mr. Horne turned to the jury, and began fpeaking; when he was told by Lord Mansfield, that he must make his objection to him, and not to the jury. Mr. Horne replied, that his lordship had stopped him before he had heard what he had meant to offer, and which his lordship, when he heard, would have found to be altogether regular; the words he was about to fay to the gentlemen of the jury being of no other purport, than to intreat them to attend particularly to his objection, a circumftance exceedingly neceffary, as the matter he withed to urge was very material, and as juries had of late but too frequently been confidered as out of court, when any point of law was debated. Lord Mansfield again defired him to proceed, when he began objecting to the practice of the court, on the late trials of the printers (convicted of publishing the advertisement, of which he was charged in the prefent inform ation as the author) in admitting the attorney-general to reply, although the defendants called no witneffes. Lord Mansfield obferved, that this objection was premature, and that, if neceffary, the time to urge it was, when the attorney-general should attempt to reply. Mr. Horne fhewed why it was of importance to him, that the matter should be fettled in this ftage of the trial, urging that he was aware the attorney-general would take all advantages, fair and unfair, to convict him, and that he hould fhape his defence agreeably

to a knowledge of the circumftance; whereupon Lord Mansfield declared that he would confent to it, if Mr. Attorney had no objec tion. The attorney-general declared his acquiefcence, and Mr. Horne proceeded with obferving, that, although he thanked the court and Mr. attorney-general for acceding to his motion, he was not fo well pleafed with accepting that as a matter of favour, which he had demanded as a matter of juf tice. He then proceeded to fhew, that, although the practice objected to was not without precedent of late years, it was nevertheless injurious and oppreffive to the fubject, as well as contrary to every principle of that protection and fafety, which the reafon of the laws, and the ancient modes of dif penfing juftice, were calculated to afford to innocence.

Mr. Horne then went on to fhew, that, in his caufe tried at Guildford in 1771, he was advised by his counfel to forfake the advantage of examining witneffes, in order 10 difprove the having spoken certain words ftated in the declaration as defamatory, but rather to admit them as true, (although he could have proved their falfity) than afford the leader on the other fide an

opportunity of replying; that he acquiefced in this advice, the confequence of which was, that the leading counfel for the plaintiff did reply, that his counfel rofe to object, and upon that his lordsbip (who then alfo tried the caufe) over-ruled the objection, and fuffered the reply, upon which the jury had given a verdict against him, with 400l. damages.

Lord Mansfield told him, that nothing was more clear, than that

the

the attorney-general had a right to reply, if he chofe it; that it had been often exercifed, and might be exercifed again.

Mr. Horne complained that his lordship, by taking upon himself the duty of the attorney-general, had deprived him of hearing from that officer fuch arguments as he doubted not the attorney was able to have offered, and which he would have endeavoured to have refuted; he obferved, that at all hazards his fituation was a very difadvantageous one; but that he was particularly unfortunately cir. cumftanced, if the judge, who was to try him, took upon himself to do the business of the attorney, general; for between the two he fhould find it extremely difficult to obtain a verdict in his favour.

Lord Mansfield defired the trial might go on, and that, if there was any informality in the proceeding on the trial, or if he thought either the judge or counfel did him injuftice, Mr. Horne had a remedy by a fubfequent appeal to the court, who would fet afide any verdict obtained irregularly.

Mr. Horne warmly faid, Oh my lord, my lord, let me not hear of remedies of your lordship's pointing out; that poifon is the most baneful of all, which poifons the phyfic; your lordship's remedies are worfe than the difeafes of the patients who apply them; and it is but a poor fatisfaction for a man who receives a wound, to receive a plaifter from the fame hand. At Guildford, your lordship talked to me of a remedy, I fubmitted and tried it; it is true I fet afide the verdict, but it cost me 200l. The verdict was but for 400l. and the remedy coft half as much; it was

therefore a pretty dear remedy! Mr. Horne, in this part of the trial, was fo hafty in his animadverfions on the conduct of the judge and the attorney-general, treating each with a degree of unexampled feverity and rudeness, that Lord Mansfield was provoked to a declaration, that, if he did not behave more decently, he should be under a neceffity of committing him.

The attorney-general then rofe to open the cafe fully to the jury, and began with expreffing his contempt of the imputations caft on his character by the defendant, in what he had just urged; and declared, that he would not condescend to ftoop low enough to offer an anfwer to fuch groundless, fuch ridiculous affertions. It was neceffary, however, to fpeak to one part of what had been faid, and that he did by denying the charge made againit him by Mr. Horne, that he came prepared to take all advantages, fair and unfair; and that his view was at any rate to obtain a verdict. He folemnly protested that he had no other motive for his conduct on the prefent occafion, than a faithful discharge of his duty; that, as an officer of the crown, it behoved him to take notice of every thing tending to alienate the minds of the people from the king and his government, and to bring every public delinquent to punishment; that there never was a more fimple, plain, and obvious cafe, than the prefent, fubmitted to a jury; that the advertisement, pretendedly fetting forth a meeting of the Conftitutional Society, and their refo lution to fubfcribe one hundred pounds towards the fupport of the widows and orphans of the Ame

ricans,

ricans, faid to be barbarcusly murdered by the king's troops at Lexington and Concord, was a most impudent and malignant libel. That in point of compofition it was below notice; it contained no argument, nor was it founded on any rational plea; that he knew not the author, nor had he ever had fo great a proof of his talents and abilities as on the prefent occafion; but that, if he could at all judge from what he had just heard, the defendant must have purpofely drawn it up in fo ftupid and balderdash a manner to fit it to the vile occafion it was intended to serve. That it was evidently meant as a defiance to the laws of the kingdom, and a teft how far libellers might proceed with impunity. That the author's figning his name to it was an impudent attempt to laugh at profecution, for that he was as infcrutable, while he skulked behind the bulwark of the printer, as an anonymous writer poffibly could be. That the age teemed with libels, no perfon was now fafe from flander; that he was determined, if poffible, to check the licentioufnefs of the prefs, and therefore he had filed the information now before the court.

The witneffes were then examined. The first was - Wilfon, who proved the three copies of advertisements, produced by the folicitor to the treasury, to be the hand-writing of the defendant.

H. S. Woodfall, printer of the Public Advertiser, proved that Mr. Horne delivered to him one of the copies produced, paid him for the infertion of it in his paper, and commiffioned him to fend round copies of the fame to most of the other papers, which commiffion he

executed, and Mr. Horne dèfrayed the expence.

This being all the evidence called in fupport of the information, the defendant rofe, and addreffed the jury in a fpeech, which took him up four hours in delivery, to the following purport:

[Mr. Horne, when he began his fpeech, produced a pile of manuferipts, written on fome quires of paper, folded in the form of a note-book, which he laid before him; and, after having spoken for about an hour, he adverted to his written text.] His exordium went chiefly upon a reply to what had now fallen from the attorneygeneral, which he declared by no means full enough for the occafion; he afferted, that the learned gentleman had not produced a tittle of evidence in fupport of the charge made against him in the information, that he had rested his argument chiefly upon abufing the advertisement, and that above half of his fpeech had been merely an eulogium on his own immaculate character. As he had talked fo much of his honour, his conscience, and his integrity, he would, he declared, juft fhew how far the honour, the confcience, and the integrity of an attorney-general extended. He then proceeded to trace the power of that officer from the times of our forefathers, thewed what privileges he had enjoyed in different reigns, and went into a very long difcuffion of the nature and confequences of profecutions and informations filed ex officio by the attorney-general, pointing out to the jury both the fimple and applied meaning of the words ex officio, fhewing that the different technical terms of information, in,

dictment,