attempt to shew that I ought not to have been acquitted. His argument, if argument it can be called, amounts in substance to this, that his evidence was founded in truth, and was sufficient to convict me, but that in my defence I made so effectual an attack upon his character, as to induce the court wholly to dishelieve the "correct and respectable evidence of Mr Morrison," and consequently not only most honorably to acquit me, but to express the most marked approbation of my conduct. This was rather an extraordinary result to be produced by a gross attack upon the character of a witness, unsupported by facts," but this attack of mine must have produced a still more extraordinary effect-it must have induced His Majesty to give his most decided approbation of the sentence of the court, and to brand with his displeasure the motives which had actuated the Prosecutor in preferring such "ILL GROUNDED". charges against me. To refute these gross absurdities it is only necessary to state them; and, if Mr Morrison had written a folio volume upon this part of the subject, it would not have produced from me one word in reply. The other parts, however, of the "Address to the Army," have been written for the purpose of endeavouring to make the public believe that, having made the before mentioned groundless attack upon Mr Morrison's character, I evaded his requests to substantiate my assertions, and that he, having been induced by my evasive conduct to make use of insulting language in his letters to me, I had availed myself of my superior rank, and procured his dismissal from the regiment for writing those letters, instead of SENDING HIM A CHALLENGE as I ought to have done. Did it never occur to Mr Morrison that it might be asked why he did not challenge me? He complained of having been injured, and he it was therefore who ought (if the matter were to be so settled) to have sent the challenge. I have no hesitation however in saying that if Mr Morrison had challenged me, I would have laid his challenge before my commanding officer, conceiving his conduct to have been such as to have deprived him of all title to the character of a GENTLEMAN. What Mr Morrison's conduct really was, is known but to few; his letters, and the accompanying statement addressed to the army, have been circulated with all possible diligence throughout the kingdom, and as that garbled publication may be read by thousands to whom my character and that of Mr Morrison are equally unknown, I do feel myself called upon, by a sense of what is due to my own honor, to put the public in possession of the facts of my very extraordinary case. With this view I shall republish the whole of the correspondence between Mr Morrison and myself, together with the proceedings upon my trial, as copied from the original minutes in the office of the Judge Advocate General. The public will thus have the whole case before them, and if in this ad dress should be found any inference not warranted by the fact, the means of correcting the error are in the hands of the reader. With respect to Mr Morrison's trial for writing the letters in question, it was my original intention to have published that also, though it contains no evidence as to the truth or falsehood of the allegations contained in the letters; and when I requested my correspondent in London to procure a copy of the proceedings upon my trial at the Judge Advocate General's office, I desired him also to obtain a copy of the proceedings upon that of Mr Morrison. My friend obeyed my instructions, but he was informed at the office, that it was a positive rule with them not to grant copies of the proceedings upon any court martial, except to the officer who had been tried. Not being satisfied with this answer, I wrote myself to the Judge Advocate General upon the subject, and the following is a copy of the answer which I received: "Sir, "Downing Street, 31st Jan. 1811." "I am desired by Mr Manpers Sutton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th inst. and to acquaint you that he does not consider himself at liberty to acquiesce in your request of a copy of the proceedings upon Lieutenant Morrison's trial; but that he will direct a copy of those upon your own trial to be made out. I have the honor to be, « Sir, "Captain Dale." Your most obedient humble Servant, 1. A. OLDHAM.” The public will see by this letter that there is nothing to prevent Mr Morrison himself from publishing the proceedings upon his own trial, and I sincerely wish that he may do so. To put him upon his guard, however, against the publication of "garbled extracts," I beg leave to inform him, that though I cannot obtain a copy of the proceedings upon his trial from the Judge Advocate General's office, yet that I am in possession of a copy of those proceedings, of the accuracy of which there can be no doubt, and which I am only prevented from publishing by my anxiety to avoid the slightest deviation from the usual practice in such cases. I come now to the main object of the present publication, and I trust I shall be able to demonstrate in the first place, That even if I had done Mr Morrison injustice by my remarks upon his conduct, I could not possibly have done more than 1 did, for the purpose of giving him an opportunity of explaining that conduct, and that the whole of the EVASION was on the part of Mr Morrison; and secondly, That his conduct was such as fully to warrant the remarks which I made upon it, and conse quently that had he even challenged me, which he did not do, I could not, without degradation, have put myself upon a level with a person who had so demeaned himself. The first of these propositions I shall prove from the correspondence itself; the second, from the proceedings upon my trial. The following is a copy of the first letter which I received from Mr Morrison. « Sir, "Norman Cross, 25th June, 1810." "In the charges preferred against you by Major Hedley, I was unfortunately implicated by being placed in the command of that party, for the neglect of which, those charges were preferred against you; and, being obliged to attend as a witness, it became my duty to answer fuch queftions as were put to me according to truth, without any reference as to their tendency of convicting or exculpating any party whatever. Now, upon mature confideration, you must be fully aware that a great part of your defence is a moft grofs attack upon my character, unsupported by fuch facts as can be satisfactory to your own feelings. “1 therefore trust that you will take such steps to contradict it, as may be honorable to yourself and fatisfactory to me. "To Capt. Dale, Northumberland Regiment," "I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, Now, though I knew that Mr Morrison's conduct towards me had been such as to merit the severest reprobation, I was yet perfectly willing to attend to whatever he might have to say in his own justification, and therefore on the very day that I ceived this letter, I wrote him an answer, of which the following is a copy: "Sir, re "In reply to your letter of this day's date, I beg leave to obferve that you do me an injustice when you say I have made an attack upon your character, unfupported by facts; my obfervations were only a reply to your evidence, which observations it was as painful to me as it could poffibly be to any one to be under the neceffity of making. If therefore you will prove, to the fatisfaction of my friends in the regiment, that I was not warranted in making these observations, you will find me perfectly ready and happy to do every thing juftice may require. I have the honor to be, "Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, EDWD. DALE." Now I should be glad if Mr Morrison or any other person would point out in what respect this letter exhibits evasion, or even the appearance of a wish to avoid an explanation. Had Mr Morrison wished for an explanation, I would ask any man of common sense whether he would not instantly have proposed that his friends should meet mine, that the necessary explanation might be obtained. Let us see however, what Mr Morrison did say in reply to this proposition. The following is a copy of his reply: "Sir, "25th June, 1810." "I but this moment received your letter, or should have anfwered it fooner. You fay I do you an injustice when I affert you made an attack upon my character, unfupported by facts. I must beg leave to obferve that in repeating that affertion I am warranted by facts to which at present I shall decline giving an epithet commenfurate with their deserts, and which from their groffness I can hardly believe have originated with yourself. I shall therefore at present briefly ask you, in answer to your's, what I had done to you, whilst on the recruiting service, to warrant your affertion, that my conduct was a fettled plan to entrap you,' and to in duce you to throw out infinuations of the most unwarrantable nature against my integrity. "Now, Sir, I would ask you where was my want of integrity in my tranfactions with you. Have I ever pocketed one farthing of the public money which you advanced me? Did I ever tell you that I had paid eight fhillings and ninepence, or any other fum, as discount, and charge it to your account? Although, had I faid it had coft me fix times that amount in travelling expences, to get what I had advanced for the public fervice, as also, in discount, or what was tantamount to it in money's worth, I should not have exaggerated, and yet I never stated this or any thing of the kind to the court, as matter of infinuation against you. Where then the justice of the charges, which, if not founded in truth, as a man of honor you ought to retract, or if they are fo, you ought to fubftantiate them, which you have not yet done. With refpect to my proving, to the fatisfaction of your friends in the regiment, the unwarrantableness of your charges, I have only to fay, I don't know them; or, if I did, fhould not. wish to burt their feelings by reprefentations which are only fit in return for fuch charges to meet your own ear. However, Sir, I fhall dwell no longer on this fubject at prefent, but conclude by asking you, if in the course of my stay in the county, on the recruiting fervice, I ever fhunned any trouble or expence of my own that was requifite to its fuccefs, or did not do my duty as a good officer ought to have done. "I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, W. MORRISON." After reading this letter, I would ask whether the charge of evasion and a wish to avoid explanation were imputable to me or to Mr Morrison? In answer to the plain and simple proposition contained in my letter, he says, "With respect to my prov ing to the satisfaction of your friends in the regiment the unwarrantableness of your charges, I have only to say, I don't know them; or, if I did, I should not hurt their feelings by representations which are only fit in return for such charges to meet your own ear." It is really difficult to read this miserable cant without some degree of indignation. Mr Morrison must have been quite certain that his mean and wretched subterfuge, of pretending not to know my friends, would have been instantly removed by my declaring who they were, and he therefore takes care to tell me that if he did know who they were he would not hurt their feelings by representations that were only fit for my own ear. It would have been much more manly to have said, in plain English, that he would not explain his conduct in the presence of any third person, than to have evaded that explanation under pretence of a regard to the feelings of my friends, at a time when I was calling upon him to meet those friends, and they were ready to hear all that he might think proper to state. The substance, however, of Mr Morrison's letter was, that he declined my offer, and it is pretty clear, from his having pointed out no other mode of settling the dispute, that he intended to rest satisfied with having written me an impertinent letter, and to carry the correspondence no further; but it was impossible for me to leave the affair in this state. Mr Morrison had thought proper to reject the mode of explanation which I had suggested, without proposing any other, and yet without declaring himself satisfied. I had not yet appealed to the proper authority for settling disputes of that nature, (I mean the Colonel of the regiment) and it became my duty, under these circumstances, to prevent Mr Morrison from afterwards having it in his power to say that the proper mode of explanation had not been offered to him by me. I, therefore, on the same evening, wrote him another letter, of which the following is a copy: "Sir, "Stilton, 25th June, 1810.” "In answer to your fecond letter of this day, I beg to say, I am willing to abide by what I told you in answer to your first. In case you are not satisfied with what I have already told you, I must refer you to Lord Lovaine, who, I am fure, will decide impartially between us. |