that point. The last part of this ruling is entirely in accordance with the case of Hughes v. Rogers', where a witness having denied that the signature of an attesting witness to a bond was genuine, and having further denied that another paper, not in evidence in the cause, was written by that person, the Court decided that he could not be contradicted by calling persons to prove that this last paper was actually written by the attesting witness. The rules deducible from these cases would seem to be these: first, that if a witness is called to prove or disprove a writing, any documents, though inadmissible in the cause, may be put into his hand on cross-examination, and he may be asked whether such documents are or are not written by the person who is supposed to have written the paper in dispute; secondly, if he denies that these documents are so written, witnesses cannot be called to contradict him, nor can the documents be shown to the jury; and lastly, if he admits that they were written by such person, he may be further cross-examined as to the reasons for the belief he has expressed respecting the disputed paper. Thus, if he considers it genuine on the ground of some peculiarity in the signature, he may be asked whether such peculiarity is observable in the paper he has admitted to be an autograph; if for the same reason he rejects the disputed writing as spurious, he may be asked whether in the paper offered as a test the same peculiarity does not prevail; and, in either case, the Court would probably permit the irrelevant documents to be laid before the jury, not that they might judge of the genuineness of the paper in dispute by comparing it with these, but that they might be enabled to appreciate the testimony given by the witness. Whether the course proposed to be pursued in Griffits v. Ivory was correct or not, is another question, and one which, until some further decision is pronounced upon the subject, it would be mere speculation to attempt to resolve. 3 It remains only to be observed, that the rules of evidence which govern the proof of handwriting, are precisely the Young v. Honner, 2 M. & Rob. 536. 28 M. & W. 123. 3 Younge v. Honner, 1 C. & Kir. 53., per Alderson B. same in criminal as in civil proceedings; though in favour of life and liberty, judges will naturally feel more disposed than they would be in ordinary disputes between man and man, to resist any endeavour to infringe these rules, or to introduce evidence of a doubtful description. 1 ART. V.- LETTERS OF LORDS CAMDEN AND THE important station which the Duke of Grafton (grandfather of the present Duke) very long filled in the councils of this country is well known. His intimate connection with Lord Chatham and Lord Camden is also known. But the persevering slanders of Junius, who bore a personal hatred to the Duke of Bedford, and assailed the Duke of Grafton as head of the ministry which the Bedford party joined, have obscured the reputation of as honest a statesman and as sensible and prudent a man as ever directed the councils of England. This is not the place for undertaking his Grace's defence against that unprincipled and much overrated writer. But having been honoured with the permission of the present Duke to make public one or two of the valuable letters in his possession, we are much gratified in laying before our readers three from Lord Camden, one from Lord Northington, and one from Lord Chatham; because these refer to matters which have an interest with professional men. When the last administration of Lord Chatham was formed, in 1766, he accepted an earldom, and his steady friend Lord Camden quitted the Common Pleas for the Great Seal, Lord Northington became President of the Council, the Duke of Grafton remained First Lord of the Treasury, and Lord Chatham took the Privy Seal, but was avowedly Prime Minister. The first of the following letters was written from Bath, whither he had gone to free himself from that very 1 R. v. Cator, 4 Esp. 117. 144., per Hotham B.; R. v. De la Motte, 21 How. St. Tr. 810., per Butler J., and see 779. S. C. severe attack of gout which in the following spring reduced him to such a feeble state of body, and so nervous and depressed a condition of spirits, that he was for many months wholly incapable of attending to business of any description. The story of his derangement was a mere fable; for while he was at the very worst the Duke of Grafton had an interview of two hours with him at his villa of North End, in May, 1767, and, discussing with him every subject of public affairs, took his opinion upon all points, but he was in a state of extreme nervousness and debility. The terror of his name most wonderfully continued to protect the ministry through all the time that he remained, as it were, in abeyance. Earl of Chatham to the Duke of Grafton. MY DEAR LORD, Bath, October 19th, 1766. Ir is with much difficulty and at the same time with peculiar pleasure that I attempt a few lines to return your Grace my respectful and warm thanks for the honour of several most obliging letters. That of the 17th 1 just received gives me great satisfaction, as it informs me of a very agreeable conclusion to a matter which I confess gave me much uneasiness. As to the phalanx your Grace mentions, I either am full of false spirits infused by Bath waters, or there is no such thing existing. The gentleman 2 your Grace points out as a necessary recruit, I think a man of parts and an ingenious 3 speaker. As to his notions and maxims of trade, they can never be mine. Nothing can be more unsound or more repugnant to every first principle of manufacture and commerce than the rendering so noble a branch as the cottons dependent for the first materials upon the produce of French and Danish islands instead of British. My engagements to Lord Lisburne for the next opening at the Board of Trade is already known to your Grace; nor is it a thing possible to waive for Mr. Burke. Mr. Hussey, I believe, is in Cornwall. That gentleman's ability and weight are great indeed, and my esteem and honour for his character the highest imaginable. I flatter myself with some share in his regard; but as to his intentions, my Lord On the 17th Lord Cardigan had been created Duke of Montagu. 2 Mr. E. Burke. This is a use formerly made of the word to express great ability. From this it seems that you find a First Lord of the Treasury suing in vain to a Lord Privy Seal for a place at the Board of Trade. Richard Hussey, Att.-Gen. to the Queen, and counsel to the Admiralty. Chancellor may possibly be more able to inform your Grace when you meet than I can promise to do. Mr. Nugent I have not yet seen, having missed him when he was so good to call. The inclosed draft 2, which is submitted to the consideration of your Grace, the Secretaries of State 3, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has the approbation of Lord Camden and Lord Northington. If new matter should arise before the meeting, the speech will to be sure adapt itself to the event. I have the most sensible joy in being able to acquaint your Grace, that Lord Spencer has with infinite goodness listened favourably to my earnest entreaties, and will move the address. Your Grace will be so good as to think of a seconder. I think of going about Wednesday next, for one day, to Burton Pynsent, and hope to pay my respects to your Grace in town about the 4th of November. My hand recovers very slowly, but my general health is mended by the waters, and I trust that a second reprieve of ten days will help my hand. I am, with truest esteem and respect, I hope the special commission will not be delayed. CHATHAM. This letter, and its humility of style, as well as the humble manner in which very insignificant men are mentioned, shows the curious habits of speech of the writer. The suaviter never went further, so as to encroach on the fortiter. The next letter which we shall give is from Lord Northington, and certainly it proves that a good chancellor and great lawyer could write in the language and with the elegance as well as propriety which might better beseem a common housemaid. There are worse written letters, too, in the collection than this, and by the same person. Lord Northington (President of the Council, and formerly Lord Chancellor,) to the Duke of Grafton. MY MY DEAR LORD, Grainge, August 9th, 1767. eyes would not permit me to write to your Grace by the last 1 Lord Camden. 2 King's speech. • Lords Shelburne and Hillsborough. 4 C. Townshend, post, as I intended, with respect to the affairs of the Canada Legislation, and to inform you fully of my ideas on that business. I must first premise, that the formation of any plan of that kind can never commence or proceed through the office that Inow enjoy, in whatever hands it shall be placed: because the Council cannot correspond with any of the King's officers there, to know the true state of that country, which correspondence alone resides in the Secretary of State. When such information is acquired by him, I am of opinion that, before a plan can be formed, which must necessarily have the sanction of Parliament, it is necessary to have the full sense of the King's servants upon that subject, that the measures may have the general support of Government, and not be thrown, as they were last year, upon one person, not in the least responsible for them. When every information is obtained, I am certain your Grace's penetration anticipates the difficulties to be encountered, not only from the civil constitution of that province, composed of French received under a capitulation, incorporated with English entitled to a legislation at some time, and who have been encouraged to call for it by the proclamation, the King's commission, and other excitements. To this, as great a difficulty succeeds, with regard to a Popish hierarchy, and of course a Protestant one; both of which are in my opinion delicate subjects: loads too heavy to be sustained by any strength less than that of a concurring administration. I have all along been of this opinion in different administrations, and have been willing to lend my aid to this difficult task. I hope to be able to be in London in about ten days, though I am very indifferent still. Your Grace has heard the receiver is dead: I hope my recommendation may take place, or my credit will be very low here. I have the honour to be, &c. NORTHINGTON. A letter from Lord Camden will now be inserted, on a subject of some interest at all times, and of peculiar importance at the present time. There is no need of our observing, that a more firm friend of constitutional liberty, or a man of more liberal sentiments on all subjects, never flourished in this or in any country than the writer of the following letter, though it must be borne in mind, that he was dealing with an Irish question at a time when that country's chains had not yet been broken. Ireland was then in a state of vassalage to this |