Mr. William Cobbett sworn.-Examined by Mr. Erskine. Give that paper to Mr. Cobbett. Will you look at that paper, sir [Giving him a paper.] Have you seen that paper before?Yes. When did you first see that paper, and how did you come by it?-I first saw it in the month of October, 1803. Was it sent to you?--There are different dates, showing that one of them came before the other. By what conveyance did you receive that paper?-I received it from Mr. Budd, in Pallmall, the bookseller in Pall-mall, from his house or shop; which was, at that time, my shop or house, from whence letters of communication came to me. In what manner did it come to you?-It came to me under cover, directedMr. Adam.-Stop, sir. Have you got the cover here?-No. Mr. Erskine.-- What is become of the covers? I do not know. Have you looked for them?-No; it was useless, because they were immediately thrown into the fire; but this I recollect with respect to the covers, that they had the Irish post-mark upon them. Mr. Adam. My lords, if they talk of covers they must produce them, otherwise this is not evidence. Mr. Erskine to the witness.-Have you any doubt that the covers, of which you have just now been speaking, were destroyed?-No, sir; they were destroyed immediately. Mr. Adam.-Do you know that these particular covers were destroyed? Mr. Erskine. He speaks of no other co vers. Witness.-No, I cannot swear that they were destroyed. Mr. Erskine.-I rather think this is not the time for my learned friend, Mr. Adam, to interpose. Mr. Adam.-I am asking with regard to the destruction of these particular covers, which must be taken to exist, unless proved to be destroyed, and therefore cannot be talked of unless they are produced. Mr. Erskine to the witness.-Have you any doubt that these covers were destroyed? None at all. Mr. Park. We must examine farther into the covers, for they are written directions on the letters; and I submit to your lordships, that my friends cannot interpose in the midst of our examination. Lord Ellenborough.-As far as we have got, we have, from the witness, probable evidence of the destruction of these covers, as it seems to me. We have such probable evidence of the destruction of the thing, as to let in parole evidence of its nature; if you, in your examination of the witness hereafter, can change it, that will be evidence for you to support your objection to the parole testimony. Mr. Erskine to the witness.-Having said that you received these letters under cover, and that you have no doubt the covers were destroyed; what mark was on this particular cover? It had an Irish post-mark on it. What address was on the cover?-To Mr. Budd, No. 100, Pall-mall. Being the office which received communications for you, and from which they were forwarded to you?—Yes. Was Mr. Budd's the place where, in the publication of your Register, you referred com munications to be sent?-In the first place I received, in the same hand-writing as the other letters, an anonymous letter, requesting of me- Mr. Adam interposing.-What is become of that letter?-It was published in the Register. What is become of it?-I believe it was destroyed. Mr. Erskine.-Will you state what were the contents of the letter of the same hand-writing, which you believe to be destroyed? Mr. Adam.-My lords, surely this is going too far: Mr. Erskine is now proposing to give evidence of some other letter, which, for aught that appears, has no connexion whatever with those which are the subjects of this trial, not connected with those covers which the witness thinks he destroyed, and which your lordship says there is probable reason to suppose were destroyed, and upon which your lordships think that parole evidence of their contents becomes admissible. The witness only says he believes the letter which Mr. Erskine is examining to was destroyed. Mr. Erskine to the witness.-Have you any doubt of that letter being destroyed, any more than the covers you have been speaking of? — None at all. Will you relate, sir, the circumstances under which this letter came to be directed to Mr. Budd?--I received a letter, inquiring of me whether it would be agreeable to me to receive, from Ireland, certain useful and true information respecting the state, respecting public affairs in that country. Mr. Adam.-My lords, my learned friend, as I humbly submit to your lordships, is going now quite beyond that which the case warrants. He is now seeking to ask the contents of a paper which the witness received, without establishing any connexion whatever with that which is said to have been destroyed; which is going beyond the boundary. Lord Ellenborough.-Hereafter he is to apply this evidence, in some shape or other, to the case, as it appears; he is endeavouring to show why he cannot produce it, which is, because he thinks it is destroyed; non liquet that it will have any bearing on the case; it cannot affect the defendant, unless it be a part of his correspondence. The purpose is to show how the letter came to be directed to a Then, if I understand you, Mr. Cobbett, this paper that you hold in your hand, first came to No. 100, Pall-mall, addressed to Mr. Budd? particular place; but I take it for granted, Mr. Park. But how does all this affect the defendant? Mr. Adam.-If this is not afterwards made to apply to the defendant, it will of course go for nothing. Lord Ellenborough.-Whether from the defendant or a stranger, is immaterial for our purpose; it cannot affect the defendant, unless it be applicable to some act of his: it tends to account for his address, and that is all it purports to do; it does not address itself to any thing else. Mr. Erskine to the witness.-You were saying that a letter, of which you are speaking, is in the same hand-writing Mr. Park. This is proceeding to prove hand-writing by comparison, which is not evidence. Lord Ellenborough. This really is nothing more than to account for the letter being directed in a particular manner, and really it is hardly worth a contest. As to the handwriting in that letter, there is nothing in this evidence to affect the defendant, and it does not signify a farthing. Let the witness proceed. Witness.--In case it was agreeable to me to receive such communications, I was desired to say where I should wish them to be directed to; and, in the next number of my Register, I, of course, did say, I wished them to be directed to Mr. Budd's, No. 100, Pall mall. Mr. Erskine.-Did you, sir, subsequently to the time of your giving in your Register that publice reference to Mr. Budd, receive that which you now hold in your hand?—Yes, I received both; that was received first, which is dated the 29th of October; both addressed to Mr. Budd, and which Mr. Budd sent to me in consequence of an order he had from me. Did you, in consequence of having received them, publish them in your Register?-Yes, I did. What is the date of the second?-The date of the second is, the 2nd of November. One is dated the 28th of October, and the other is dated the 2nd of November. Did they come open to you?-The first was opened by Mr. Budd. After the first, I requested him not to open the next, but to send them to me as he received them, the next therefore was not opened. Then Mr. Budd sent them to you?-He sent them to me. By whom did he send them to you?—I do not recollect, sir. Mr. Cobbett, you mentioned that these covers had a mark upon them; where are they now?-I do not know, sir; they were destroyed, I think. You think?-Yes. Did you ever search for them?—No, sir. Have you never searched for them since?No, never searched for them; I was looking into the drawer, where perhaps these papers were thrown, as others were, and I know that I have never seen them; and I believe, sir, in answer to your question, that the office was searched; and that at the time the letters were received the covers were torn off, and thrown into the fire. And that you suppose, from its being your usual custom?—Yes. Have you made any recent scarch for them? Mr. Erskine.-I have no farther question to put to Mr. Cobbett at present, but he will be so good as not to go away, since we may have occasion to examine him. But one question I forgot to ask: I believe that is your Register [putting a number of his weekly Register into the hand of the witness]?—Yes, it is. [Mr. Cobbett was desired by the attorney- Mr. Richard Waller sworn.-Examined by Mr. Waller, do you exercise any public office in Ireland?—I do. What is the office you hold?-Solicitor to the commissioners of the customs, sir. How long, sir, have you filled that office?— Upwards of three-and-twenty years, as principal; and I was in the office before that. Is there any person at the bar who acts as Both your house, and Mr. Budd's, I under-standing counsel to the board? any consulted stand to be in the county of Middlesex?-Yes, sir, in Pall-mall, and Duke-street Westminster. Mr. Cobbett cross-examined by Mr. Adam. You do not live at No. 100, Pall-mall your self?-No, sir. Where do you live?-At No. 15, Dukesircet, Westminster. You lived there at the time this publication was inserted in your Journal?-Yes, sir. Did you receive them at your house, or where did you receive them?--At my house in Duke-street. as counsel to the board? at the bar, sir, of this court as counsel to the board there? There are always two counsel to the commissioners latterly, formerly there was only one. In the course of your duty, had you frequent opportunities of communicating with the gentlemen who act as counsel to the board?→→ Very frequent. Did you receive directions from them as to your conduct in your office, as to carrying on proceedings, and so on?-Almost daily consulting with them. Have you occasion frequently to have Mr. Cobbett.-The 29th of October is the date which came on one of the papers. written opinions from gentlemen standing in that relation to the board?-Very frequently, Was Mr. Robert Johnson, now one of the judges of the court of Common Pleas in Ireland, ever in the situation of counsel to the board to which you are the solicitor ?-He was. As nearly as you can recollect, for how long a time?-As I recollect, very nearly ten years. During that period, sir, had you very frequently personal communications with him? -Very frequently. Did you very frequently receive writings from him?-I did. Did you frequently see him?—I did. Did you become well acquainted with his hand-writing?-I did: I think as well as I could be with that of any one. Mr. Garrow. Give the witness the letter of the 29th of October. Will you be so good as to look at that paper [giving him the letter, the witness looking at it. I believe, sir, you have had an opportunity of examining it very carefully, before you came here?—I did twice; I have examined this in June 1804, and in November last [instant he meant], and now in this court. You carefully examined it?—I did, carefully, for I signed my name to every page. Do you believe that to be the hand-writing of Mr. Justice Johnson ?-Witness. [Looking at the whole paper again.]—I do, sir. Have you any the least doubt that it is his hand-writing? I do not feel that I have a doubt in my mind but it is his hand-writing; there are some little words here and there I do not know; they may be the printer's marks, but what I mean is, that I do believe the body of it to be Mr. Justice Johnson's writing. Lord Ellenborough.-As to the other, what do you say, the second letter? Mr. Cobbett. That letter had no date when it came, and 1-8-0-3, were written on it by a young man belonging to me; the figures 1-8-0-3 were written by my direction. Mr. Garrow And "affairs of Ireland They were written by me, to make it correspond with others. Mr. Garrow to the Court." Irish affairs," were written on it, and Mr. Cobbett wrote on it "affairs of Ireland," to make it correspond with others. To Mr. Cobbett. With directions for the manner in which it was to be made? Mr. Cobbett.-No, sir, that was made by another. Mr. Erskine. That is in your Register of the 28th of November?—Yes, sir. Lord Ellenborough. The copy you have now shown him, is his published copy? Mr. Erskine.-Exactly so, my lord; this evidence is necessary merely as matter of form. Mr. Richard Waller cross-examined by Mr. Park. Were you the sole officer of the commissioners of the board of customs, Mr. Waller? -I am the sole solicitor of the customs. The office which I hold is solicitor to the commissioners of the board of customs. Have you any partner in the office?—No, I have not. How long has Mr. Justice Johnson ceased to be counsel to the board?—I believe he was made a judge, I rather think, in the month of June 1801. Will you look at the top of the first page, and which you take not to be his hand-writ- Then from that time, of course, all coning? I do not believe that is his hand-writ-nexion as to your office (though probably priing [pointing at a part of the paper]. Tell us what that is?—I declare I do not know. Mr. Cobbett looking at it said, it is long primer, indicating to the printer the characters in which he was to print it. Mr. Garrow to the witness Mr. Waller. As to the body of the letter, you say you entertain no doubt of it?-Indeed, sir, I have as little doubt as any man can have on any subject. [The witness looking at the other letter.] Mr. Garrow. Have you examined with equal care, that paper?-I did, and put my name to each, indeed each side. With the exception of like notes, which are of the hand of the printer, have you the same opinion of that as of the other?-I have no doubt; I entertain as little doubt that it is the hand of Mr. Justice Johnson, as I can on any subject whatever. Lord Ellenborough.-Are the dates 28th or 29th, dates put on this, or on the other side of the water? vate friendship had not) ceased as between you and him?-Except meeting him in the streets, I had no connexion with him; neither did I often see him, except on the bench, afterwards. You had no acquaintance, or business to transact with him, after that time?-Certainly not, that I recollect. Mr. Justice Johnson was in parliament in Ireland for a great many years before the Union?-He was, sir. And for ten years of that period filled the office you have alluded to very ably?—I believe he has held another public ofhce. Do you mean previous to his being counsel to the commissioners? That I want to know from you, whether it was at one, or at different times, you will be so good as to tell us?-I had no acquaintance with Mr. Johnson before, but I did hear that he held another office under government. It was a confidential situation he had in your board?-Certainly he was a confidential servant of government. Did he hold this office you have alluded to, in your board, at the period when the Union between Great Britain and Ireland took place?-He did, and he was then a member of the House of Commons. He was then a member of the House of Commons?—He was, and he was a member of the House of Commons in the last parliament of Ireland. You had no opportunity of seeing his handwriting since he was a judge, you only met him in the street, no intercourse of civilities past between you afterwards?—I do not recollect any communication, but there might be affidavits, or something of that sort, signed by him. You said you have seen the paper which I have in my hand [meaning one of the libels], three times I think; once since you came last to England, and twice before?—I did. Where? In England, or Ireland?—In England, every time I saw them. In November, and at the time you were before the grand jury?—I did. Did you see them in the preceding June, or at the time of Mr. Cobbett's trial?-No; I saw them in Mr. White's hands afterwards. I would beg of you to look at these papers, they seem to me to be remarkably well written; did Mr. Justice Johnson always write so clearly and so neatly as that?-No, he did not. His opinions were not so written?-Not quite so small. Nor quite so fair?-His general hand was free, but more like the size of the words "affairs of Ireland." How long have you been acquainted with You are an attorney, I believe?--I am, sir. And you are acquainted with Mr. Justice Johnson ?-I have seen him very often write franks; I have seen him write franks; and opinions of his writing I have seen, which I am sure were of his writing; and also pleadings corrected by him. I am in partnership with Mr. Reeves, and by that means have seen his opinion, when he was counsel for the revenue in Ireland. Have you sufficient acquaintance with his hand-writing to know it when you see it?— Yes, I have. Now sir, have you examined that paper before? [putting one of the libels into the hands of the witness]-I saw it this time twelve months. Did you look it over carefully?—I did, sir. Lord Ellenborough.-Is that the paper of the 29th of October?—Yes, my lord. Mr. Wood. Having examined it carefully, be so good as to tell us, whether you believe that to be Mr. Justice Johnson's hand-writ-. ing?-There are a few words, I see, that are not his hand-writing; but the general tenor I do apprehend to be his hand-writing. Can you read the words which are not his writing? [The witness looking at the paper.] Mr. Justice Lawrence.—Is the general body of it his hand-writing?-For instance, at the end, "I am yours," is a different hand-writing; and 586, and 545, are not his writing. Mr. Park. The words "affairs of Ireland," Lord Ellenborough.---But the general body? is quite a different hand, I only wish to have-The general body I apprehend to be his that understood, my lords. The first letter contains at the top of it," affairs of Ireland," which the witness says is more like the common writing of the defendant. You admit this writing is much more fair and small than the general hand of the learned judge?-It is much fairer and smaller than bis common writing. You hold another office under government, I understand?-I have no other office under government; I am general agent to the University of Dublin, and I have another office, but not under government. writing. Mr. Garrow. The parts he points to, as not of the defendant's hand-writing, are annotations of the editor. Mr. Justice Le Blanc.-Are the words, “ I am, sir, yours," the annotations of the editor? -I apprehend so, my lord. Mr. Cobbett.--These were words put in by myself; "I am, sir, yours," were in, but I was afraid the printer would make a mistake, and. I put the same words up here [pointing at the place in the paper], to be more intelligible to the printer. As to the bottom of the first page, the words were not written by me, but by a person who was in my house, which is a reference to a former letter: the words are, You have stated, that the learned judge's" for the introductory letter, see page 586; opinions were not generally written either so and for letter 2, see page 545." small or so fair as this. They were not intended to be printed, I believe?-Certainly not, they were for our direction. Mr. Richard Waller re-examined by Mr. Mr. Garrow.-Not intended for the press? Mr. Charles Ormsby sworn.-Examined by Mr. Ormsby, do you hold any office in Ireland?-No, sir. Are you acquainted with Mr. Justice Johnson?—I am, sir. Mr. Justice Lawrence to Mr. Cobbett.Written by some person in your office?—Yes, my lord. Mr. Wood to Mr. Ormsby.-Now, Mr. Ormsby, what do you say to the second?— The words" affairs of Ireland," are not of the hand-writing of Mr. Justice Johnson at the beginning; but the general writing I believe. to be his hand-writing, from the best opinion I can form. Lord Ellenborough.-Do you mean the writing at large, with that exception ?-With that exception, my lord. Mr. Garrow to defendant's counsel.-Do you wish to ask this gentleman any questions? Mr. Ormsby cross-examined by Mr. Do you know that Mr. Justice Johnson held a confidential situation under the crown, besides being counsel for the commissioners of the customs?-He was barrack-master, and afterwards counsel to the revenue board. How long have you known him?—I have known him since the year 1792. Have you ever seen him write, sir?-I have. Are you acquainted with the character of his hand-writing ?-Yes, sir. Will you look at that [showing to the witness the letter of the 29th of October] have you seen that before?—I have, sir. Have you examined it ?—I did, sir. the hand-writing of Mr. Justice Johnson?-I Tell me whether you believe that to be in do believe this to be of the hand-writing of pre-There may be some alterations in it, which I Mr. Justice Johnson; that is, the body of it. cannot exactly swear to. Do you know when he ceased to be counsel to the revenue board?-Immediately ceding his being a judge, in 1801. Was it immediately after the Union?-I suppose it was before that time. You had an opportunity of seeing his corrected pleadings?—Yes; and I have had franks from himu, before he was a judge; and I have scen his signature, since he was a judge, such as a signature to affidavits; but I do not recollect seeing any of his letters immediately after he was a judge. Was the character of his hand-writing to the corrected pleadings, as correct as that?They were rather of a looser hand than thisthis seems to be written more close; but the casting of the letters is the same, particularly the letter I; and the corrected pleadings was rather a wider hand. Will you point out those which you consider as not being his hand-writing?-The There seems here, at the bottom also, somewords "as its," I cannot say to be his. thing which is not his. think not his?" For the introductory letter Will you read that at the bottom which you see page 586; and, for the second letter, see page"[The witness then looking at another paper]. Have you seen that before?-I have, sir. Did you examine it?—I have. Carefully?—I did. of Mr. Justice Johnson?—I do, sir. Do you believe that to be the hand-writing Lord Ellenborough.-Do you speak to opi-ing; do you observe in it any alteration not You say you believe it to be his hand writnions?-To opinions, my lord, and the correc-his?-Yes: "affairs of Ireland," at the head, tions of pleadings. The letter I, in particular, third letter" also, I think are not of his is like the letter he signs his name, Johnson. hand-writing. The hand-writing to opinions, or pleadings, was what I call a more scattered hand. Mr. Richardson.-Is this as large as the hand to pleadings?-No; this seems to be a contracted hand. He wrote a worse character in pleadings?— It was a looser and a larger hand, and not written with the care which appears in this, of putting so much on the paper. Why so, this is on a large sheet of paper: I want to know whether his hand was as fair and equally well written as this generally?I do not know exactly how to describe it otherwise than as I have done, it was a looser hand, as if not to write so much on the same sheet of paper. Of what age is Mr. Justice Johnson ?-Oh, sir, he is upwards of fifty, or about fifty. When I knew him first, I am sure he must be a man of thirty; I knew him first when he was acquainted with the marquis of Downshire it was there I knew him first. Mr. Joshua Nunn sworn.-Examined by Mr. Abbott. Will you state what you are, Mr. Nunn, what is your situation?-My situation is that of second remembrancer of the court of Exchequer; I am one of the deputies there, and one of the secondaries there. Are you acquainted, sir, with Mr. Justice Johnson?-Yes, I am. Lord Ellenborough.-Mr. Ormsby speaks to both of the letters? Mr. Gurrow. He does, my lord. Lord Ellenborough.---Mr. Ormsby, do you speak of both as being of the hand-writing of Mr. Justice Johnson?—Yes, I do, my lord. Mr. Joshua Nunn cross-examined by Mr. Richardson. Are you still clerk to the commissioners of the revenue?---No, I am not. How long since have you ceased to be?--Since the year 1794. What situation are you in now?---Deputy of lord Donoughmore in the court of Exchequer, and one of the secondaries of the second remembrancer. You have not seen the defendant write for some years, have you?---Not since he was made a judge. I think you said you left this office in the year 1799?—No, I did not. You have not seen the defendant write that I have. since he was made a judge?—I do not recollect Mr. John Edwards sworn.-Examined by Mr. Attorney General. Mr. Edwards, I believe you are an attor ney?--I am. |