R v Baillie

After four of the barristers had spoken, Mansfield announced that the court session would resume the next morning rather than continue into the night, which gave Erskine the time he needed to present a full speech rather than a brief comment.

If the issues with the hospital were not acknowledged, Erskine claimed, the Royal Navy would be "crippled by abuses",[1] with seamen no longer willing to risk their lives for a fleet that would fail to treat them well in their retirement.

[4] After failing to receive any satisfactory response from those in power over the hospital, Baillie published a pamphlet in 1778 detailing the problems and corruption, which had gone so far as to include denying food to the sailors.

Although he publicly ignored Baillie's allegations, Sandwich ensured through back channels that he was suspended from his job, and had associates go to the Court of King's Bench and secure a writ allowing them to sue him for criminal libel.

[8] The case opened with an address by Sir John Scott, the Solicitor General for England and Wales, who was prosecuting Baillie, followed by "long, dreary" speeches by Bearcroft, Peckham, Murphy and Hargrave, defending him.

[11] Returning the next morning, the counsel found a packed court; owing to the involvement of Lord Sandwich and other significant political figures, the case had received a substantial amount of publicity, and thus an audience.

[13] In it Erskine argued that Baillie, unlike others charged with libel, had merely been doing his duty; he "was not a disappointed malicious informer, prying into official abuses ... not troublesomely inquisitive into other men's departments, but conscientiously correcting his own at the risk of his office".

Were the situation in the hospital allowed to continue, the Royal Navy would be "crippled by abuses", with seamen no longer willing to risk their lives for a fleet that would fail to reward them with good treatment in retirement.