“Sir John shews somewhat of the simpleton here. He proclaims to the world, if the world happen to care anything about him one way or another, that all the respectable part of the constituency of the place he represents, is zealously and unanimously opposed to him. Certain it is that all the respectable portion of the population voted against Sir John; but to shew that political feeling had but a small share in their disinclination to him, the very same people voted for Mr. Littleton, who is also a Whig, and now also a placeman.
“One cannot wonder at Sir John’s soreness, but that he should permit it to be seen seems extremely curious—for he is a Lawyer, and hath a reputation for ‘cunninge;’ yet when the Magistrates petitioned the House of Commons on Monday, although Mr. Littleton, the Secretary, and (as he says himself) de facto Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Sir Oswald Moseley, the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, gave those gentlemen the highest character, founded not only on their public conduct, but upon their own personal knowledge, Sir John Campbell, would not retract a word of what he had said, but only, as Sir Oswald Moseley observed, ‘made his attack worse by his explanation.’
“This stubbornness in his calumny is easily to be accounted for. Sir John knows that his doom at Dudley is sealed, and therefore imagines, perhaps, that it will look manly, and bold, and patriotic, not to flinch. The effect of his venom, however, has been rather different from what he anticipated. Addresses, expressive of their best thanks and high admiration of the manner in which the Magistrates have discharged their public duties, and preserved the public peace upon every occasion, have been spontaneously prepared, and are already signed by hundreds of the Clergy, Bankers, Merchants, Manufacturers, and Farmers. Never did there appear more unanimity in an insulted town—insulted and libelled by its own Representative—and never was insult more keenly felt.
“We have now shewn who the persons are whom Sir John Campbell ventures to stigmatise and abuse—now let us exhibit some of those to whom he is obliged to truckle. One case will do for the present.
“It seems that a radical bookseller at Birmingham, of the name of Russell (no relation we believe to the Bedfords) published a libel upon the Street Commissioners. Sir John was retained to move for a criminal information against him—‘it was in his vocation, Hal!’ of course he took the Gaus and did his work. Will it be believed, that because he did this, his constituents in Dudley write to him—to Sir John the Knight—the Parliament man!—the King’s Solicitor General, to know how ‘he came to do such a thing as move for a criminal information against a libeller?’
“Will it be believed, that this Solicitor General—the denouncer of Magistrates—the representative of independence, wrote the following letter to Mr. Samuel Cooke, a small draper, and Chairman of a Political Union, in his vindication against so heavy a charge:—
“London, 17th May, 1833.
“My Dear Sir,
“I was actually on the point of writing to you about Russell’s case, when I had the pleasure of receiving your letter. I had been told that you, and many of your friends in Dudley, were under a mistake, which I am desirous of clearing up, in supposing this was an official or a Government prosecution. Government has nothing to do with it, nor had I any power or discretion respecting it. I merely, as a private barrister, received a brief to move the Court of King’s Bench for a criminal information, and I could not refuse the application. What I said upon the occasion, I really do not recollect; but I was not speaking in my own person, or my own sentiments. I spoke from my brief, according to the instructions I received, as any other gentlemen of the bar might have done. The freedom of the press I have ever maintained, and ever will maintain.—
I remain, yours faithfully,