on to account for his having first justified, and afterwards abandoned, his plea of justification. Instructions for that plea had been delivered to his attorney, at a time when he was deeply engaged with business of more interest, and when he was not aware of the precise documents which would be necessary for him to support that plea. He had power to prove all that he had said against the plaintiff, and ten times more; and whatever course the present action might take, that proof should, in proper time, be forthcoming; but it was not ready now. He well understood that against no man but himself would the present action have been brought. He knew the political feeling which the plaintiff trusted to. The Jury had been told that he had libelled Sir Francis Burdett, and it was hoped that the Jury would visit that libel upon him in the damages which they might give for the present. He trusted, however, that they would do no such thing, and he was sure that no man would despise more heartily than the honourable Baronet himself, such a miserable attempt to pander to their prejudices. He still contended that the mutilation of a letter virtually amount ed to a forgery of that letter. Even Dr Franklin, having made an improper use of some letters, obtained from the Governor of Massachussetts, had been called a thief by Lord Rosslyn, at the bar of the House of Commons. Mr Cobbett then remarked upon the evidence which had been adduced by the plaintiff, and intimated to the Jury the ground upon which he proposed to rest his defence-that ground being simply this ;-that it was his son William, and not himself, who had been the publisher of the libels in question, and that a considerable portion of the matter complained of in the Register of the 6th of March, 1819, had been written by his sons William and John. He then called

William Clement, who deposed that the Political Register, in 1816, was legally published by William Cobbett, junior. In the beginning of 1817, witness published the Register. Witness kept his accounts with William Cobbett, junior. He settled his accounts with the son; but always considered the father as responsible. He considered the father the proprietor of the Register, though not legally so.

In his cross-examination, witness admitted that he had never treated with the son, but as the agent of the father. The father's name was entered in his books, although he settled accounts with the son. Before Mr Cobbett went to America, witness gave bills to a considerable amount for his use. Those bills were given in anticipation of the proceeds which were to arise from the sale of the Register.

Charles Preston, clerk in the Stamp Office, produced an affidavit of William Cobbett, junior, dated 5th of January 1816, stating himself to be sole proprietor of the Political Registerand another of the 25th of the same month, in the same year, stating himself to be printer, publisher, and sole proprietor of the Register.

pa

William Cobbett, junior, was next called. The material part of this witness's evidence went to the question, whether he or his father was in truth the proprietor of the paper. The witness swore that the property of the per was made over to him by his father, and that his father received a salary from him, as editor. That salary varied from time to time, from 35 or 40 guineas a-week to 350l. per month. Witness was bona fide proprietor of the paper. He frequently made alterations in the matter transmitted by his father, and made most material alterations in that part of the Register of the 6th of March, 1819, which alluded to the plaintiff.

In his cross-examination, witness ad

mitted that he paid his father no consideration for the assignment of the paper, and that he reassigned it without receiving any consideration. During the time that the paper was the property of witness, his father had not the power at will to resume it; but, of course, if he had withdrawn his writing, the shadow only would have been left to witness.

Mr John Cobbett, another of defendant's sons, deposed principally to some alterations by him, and by his brother, in the article of the 6th of March, 1819, which regarded Mr Wright, the plaintiff. The alterations were made, because the article was not sufficiently bitter.

Mr Scarlett, in reply, contended, that the whole course of Mr Cobbett's defence had been an aggravation of the injury which he had done to the plaintiff.

The Lord Chief-Justice, in summing up, held that Mr Cobbett, either

as the bona fide proprietor, or as the editor of the Political Register, would be liable for its contents. With respect to the alterations he had authority to make; if a principal authorised an agent to make reasonable alterations, then, for the effect of such reasonable alterations he was still responsible. It was for the Jury to decide, whether the evidence had brought home to the defendant the libels in question. If they were of that opinion, the line of defence adopted by Mr Cobbett, if not permitted to weigh in aggravation of damages, would certainly be a very sufficient bar to any plea in mitigation.

The Jury retired at about a quarter to nine, and, after an absence of near. ly one hour and three quarters, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff.

Damages, 1000l.; costs, 40s.

The trial occupied the Court from half past nine in the morning, till a quarter past ten at night.

NESBETT, FOR THE MURDER OF MR PARKER AND HIS HOUSEkeeper.

Maidstone, July 28.

The Common Serjeant detailed the facts of the case. The deceased, Thomas Parker, lived in Mulgrave-place, in the town of Woolwich. He was

70 years of age, and had formerly been engaged in business as a working-jeweller in London. He had retired from business some years before his death, and lived in this house at Woolwich, in which there was only one other inhabitant, a person who had also met with her death on the same occasion. Mr Parker's habits were extremely regular, and being advanced in years, he retired early to

rest; ten o'clock was the usual hour at which he went to bed. The housekeeper had been seen as late as one o'clock in the afternoon coming from the butcher's with some meat for the use of the family; she had been seen going to the house by a person who lived opposite. By the same neighbour Mr Parker had been seen at four o'clock in the evening. It was a tempestuous day, and therefore not very likely that they would be out after four o'clock; indeed, so tempestuous was the weather, that it prevented Mi Parker's son-in-law from going to see him on that day, as he had intended. At seven o'clock a neighbour, who lived in the next house, heard the door going. Thus things remained till half-past one in the mid

dle of the night, when the watchman, who was stationed near the house, and who, he regretted to say, was now in Ireland, observed smoke issuing from the parlour window. He immediately sprang his rattle, which drew to the place several soldiers from the adjoining barracks. The alarm also attracted a carpenter's apprentice, who got in at a window, and was present when the door was 1 broken open. There were only Mr Parker and the housekeeper to be awakened and rescued from the fire, and therefore the first object of the : persons assembled was to alarm them. They would learn from one of the witnesses that he went to the bedrooms, but found neither any person, nor the appearance of any persons having been in them; there were no candles in the rooms. The beds had been set on fire in both rooms; but there was no connexion between the fires in these two rooms, or between either of them, and any other part of the house, so that they must have been lighted separately. They found the parlour full of fire and smoke, which they subdued by water, and then they ascertained what had been done there. On breaking open the outer door, they found it had not been bolted, and from this it appeared that the inmates of the house had never gone to bed. There was another circumstance, which would shew that this fire had been caused by design, and that was, that in every room which commanded a view of the street, there were blankets nailed up against the windows. The Jury would be told by the neighbours who lived opposite, that they had never known this to have occurred before, and he would put it to their understanding, whether it could be reasonably accounted for on any other supposition, than that it had been done for the purpose of concealment. On entering the parlour,

a horrid sight presented itself. Two dead bodies were found, half consumed by fire. These bodies he believed he should be able to identify, though evidence to that effect was scarcely necessary; for it was not likely that Mr Parker and his housekeeper should have left the house, and that two other persons had come into it, and had been burnt to death. The head of Mr Parker was almost entirely consumed, but the left leg remained perfect, and furnished suf ficient proof of the identity of the body. On the left foot there was found a shoe, which, having origi nally been too small, had been burst in tying on a circumstance that would be proved by the person who made the shoe. The body of Sarah Brown was also known beyond any doubt. The surgeon who examined the bodies had not the smallest doubt that both had been dead before they were burnt. The fracture on the skull of Mr Parker was quite sufficient to produce instant death, and seemed to have been inflicted with the claw of a hammer. On the head of the housekeeper, also, there were two deep wounds; and it was impossible that these injuries could have been occasioned by fire. It was likely that the murderer was single in the transaction, for the linen was mostly all left behind, and the articles which had been taken away, were chiefly jewellery and trinkets. Immediately after the discovery of the murder, a constable had taken charge of the house, and had taken care to preserve the property found in it. Among that property were several articles of jewellery; and it would appear in evidence that the articles found on the prisoner corresponded exactly with those in the house; for the whole plate and jewellery were very old-fashioned; and the articles would be sworn to by a

person who had been the apprentice of Mr Parker when he was in business, and who had assisted in the making of many of them. At the time there was no trace of the person who had committed the crime; several persons indeed were arrested on suspicion, but were soon after discharged. He would now proceed to relate the case of the prisoner, as he should be able to prove it in evidence. He had formerly been in the artillery service, and had been stationed at Woolwich; but he was discharged in 1816, and had a pension of 9d. a-day. He had a wife and six children at Woolwich. It happened, that four months before this murder, the prisoner had been arrested on another charge, but he had escaped from the constable, and had left Woolwich a short time before the murder was committed. His name was Nesbett, but it would be proved that he went to Portsmouth under the name of Watson, and there he remained till February. During his stay there he was on terms of intimacy with a woman of loose character; and it was not likely that in such society he should retain his money long. He was, in fact, altogether destitute of money when he left Portsmouth. On the 19th of February, he borrowed 20s. from a person of the name of Cole, leaving a box as security for the amount, and stating that he was going to London to receive some money. Cole believed this, and advanced the 20s.; so that it appeared that on leaving Portsmouth he was without money. It would be proved, that on the day after the murder, about one o'clock, he was seen at a place called Mouse-hill, about 36 miles from London, and taken up by a Portsmouth coach. He stated to the coachman that he had made his way to Milford by the Chichester coach, and had walked over from Milford to Mouse

hill, to take the Portsmouth coach. By this plan he got back to Portsmouth, and the moment he arrived there he appeared to be rich. What money there was in Mr Parker's house he did not know; but he should be able to identify the property found on the prisoner. The morning after his arrival at Portsmouth, he sent a person to Cole, with what the woman whom he cohabited with supposed to be a 10%. note, but what turned out to be a 51. Bank of England note. The Jury would naturally expect that the prisoner should account for this sudden alteration which took place in his circumstances after he left Portsmouth. Not only did he send the 5l. note to Cole, but he also made this woman a number of presents, consisting of shawls and various articles of dress, the amount of which she would tell when examined. But the question was, on the prisoner's return to Portsmouth, from what place did he come? from London, or from Woolwich? He should bring the prisoner's nephew into Court, though he did not mean to examine so near a relation in support of the prosecution; but if the prisoner could shew by his nephew's testimony that he had not been at Woolwich, he should have an opportunity of doing so. The pri soner's sister lived at Woolwich, and his nephew could prove that on his return to Portsmouth, he brought news of his mother's health, as a person coming from Woolwich. would put this to the Jury as strong and pregnant proof that the prisoner had come from Woolwich, and not from London. He continued to go by the name of Watson; but after the news of this murder reached Portsmouth, it was discovered there that his real name was Nesbett, and a magistrate, who deserved the greatest praise for his vigilance and activity, thought it proper that he should be

He

taken up. It would appear, that on the 10th of March, he gave a gold watch to a person of the name of Irish, to be cleaned, and that watch he afterwards sold to Barnard Solomon. The prisoner supposed it to be all gold, and it might well have deceived any person; but it turned out that only the inside case was gold, and that the outer case was gilt. The account he gave of it was this :-He thought it had been all gold, for it had been long in the family, having belonged to his father, who lived to the age of 84. At the same time he also sold a number of silver table and tea-spoons, which bore the mark of a P. at the top, with the initials T. and M. below, Mr Parker's wife's name having been Mary. In order to give a colour to this person, for supposing that he was honestly possessed of the property, he told him his name was Page, that name answering the initials on the plate. No person had ever known the prisoner at Woolwich by the name of Page, and therefore he would put this circumstance as a strong proof of guilty possession. Upon his return to Portsmouth, he cohabited with the woman already mentioned, and she would state in evidence his mind at that time to be in an extremely disturbed state; so much so, that after a few days she declined having any farther intercourse with him, her nights being disturbed by his starts and troubled dreams the indications of a guilty mind. A few days after this he prevailed upon her to return, and told her there was a secret on his mind which gave him great uneasiness; that he had been the cause of death to three persons, two men and a woman; that the men he had killed in duels, and the woman by a blow. The particulars of these acts he promised to tell her at some future time. To drown reflection, he was in the habit of frequent

VOL. XI. PART III.

ing taverns and theatres; and it was material to observe, that at the latter he regularly appeared disguised, for there he might be recognized by persons from Woolwich. To effect this disguise, he always wore a foragingcap, and to it he added a pair of spectacles, though not in the habit of wearing spectacles. Those very spectacles, however, which had been worn for the purpose of disguise, afforded the very strongest proof of his guilt. Mr Parker, who was old, and whose sight was bad, always used spectacles; those he commonly wore were silver, and marked "T. P." Now the spectacles which the prisoner wore, and which had been found in his box, had the initials "T. P." marked on them, and would be sworn to as the property of Mr Parker. The prisoner, it would appear, had carried arms about with him, and had said that no person should ever take him. The moment that Hunt and Hill, who arrested him, opened the door of the room in which he was, he drew out a pistol, and presented it at Hill. Hill darted on him instantly, and in the struggle which ensued the trigger was drawn, but the pistol did not go off, but was afterwards found to have been loaded to the muzzle with powder, but in his hurry the prisoner had omitted to put in any balls. While Hunt was coming to Hill's assistance, the prisoner contrived to draw out another pistol, but was secured before he could discharge it; it was found to be loaded with ball. In his trunk was found a little red box, which contained a variety of trinkets and articles of jewellery, and among the rest a child's silver coral, which was very material. That coral he had with him when he took the Portsmouth coach from Mouse-hill, for the coachman had seen it. The mark on it, whatever it was, had been filed off, and the file had been found in his trunk. The

R