Star. — London, England, 1820-11-17 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. BETTING AT TATTEI ODDS ON RAC DERI RSA LL'S YESTPIRDA Y. CES TO COME. LIM 11 to 1 art Gustavus 100 to Ali agat Cressida 15 101 uz7: brother to Partizan 100 to 4} agst Cowslip 19 to i It.;,t Morel 100 to 4 agst Landscape. 24 to 1 :1;-.1 . Charm OA as 8 to i ag r ct My Lady. 12 to 1 agst Emily. Mr. IlJevvnis's horse Bluches Is matched against Mr. Pairwes Littie ;Loh:. s,t. 41b. each, at the next first Newmarket spring 31e.:tirg. fur .2LOgs. h. ft. The tYke of R.% rroN's brother to Brutus is matched against m. I;•uvrtue', Belvoirina, S,t. 41b. each, at the Craven Meet -1S•!.1, tor 500g3. 200 gs. ft. At tile same time, 'NIr.THORNITILL'S Pt. ricks is matched against the I).i of I.;:t.t ETON ' S :•.ruttier to Brutus, Rst. 71b..each, for 5.006,. h. ft. HUNTING. 'lle howl 's of J, Snirii, Esq. of Paytoe, near Leintwactline, , atd-r killing one hare, ran another into the river rrem, wh,r, wa:: a,:,d drowned: a third was s.xm started, kil:ed :Wier a severe rim of two hours; ;tmongst the leading hounds at t!ie last death, to the great astonishmtnt of a niraw on. field .:f Sportsnie;:, was a favourite old bitch (Gaytess), car r> brit Ip ip her fif.frutA, which it is supposed she pupped the fault at the river !!! Every care was humanely ;..!zee. and she was sent to the kennel, where she pupped mere wh:,:h, with the first, are now living ; and %will dea`nkss prove a most valuable acquisition to Mr. Ss:;rii pad.. The Duke of Yonic transacted military business with the KINU yesterday. Da c TWEATHE.—Last night the Tragedy Ade.;;Via, by M. G. LEWIS, was performed at this Tim-Aire, to a very thin audience. It is a Play too 1%271 ' •a:o++n to require any observations; nor will it, bedr the test of criticism. BOOTH, as Michael and COOPLI{, as Loiliair, were as respectable a, their parts would admit of. Mrs. W. WEST, as acquitted herself with considerable effect. The following passage, which was exceedingly well ed by Mr. CooPEn, was applied by the audience tr the hire per,ectiticn of her AIAJESTY, and hailed kith tnniultuous .i;:plobation : lic . 4 no roan Who listens calmly, while 4 woman's slander'd! 'Weir 1 :! peasant, and you no LA . :ler-- L.ly ! my duty to our wovid bid ine Sid.ld you trum you'r.: my dwercign— Tr, you I t.wc my for due,— Tu you, I might e'en say I owe my iife.! 'fn.: orphan's gratitude, the sdldier's I:,•th louse me to repel tl•e falsehoods !" 're plea , ing Bu:lctia t.t ,Ifid(H followed, the cha-1 ot 4,09 by T. CooKE, in die place of Ma • s, who is indkpoced. NVe need not 0b !..4-! ye that I.e acquitted himself tellectahly, and the s throughout the Piece wet e well sustained. Covt.sr-f,;.‘ HUI:N.—The new Tran.edy of IVallace Some judicious alterations • 11:xii made, I,nd the performance throughout was peat approbation. The House was full. 4 NIEEri xo.—A further Correspondence I)::. Liken place between Major CARTWRIGHT and Nls.ssrs. W.-writ:JAN an.l WILLIAMs, the Sheriffs, re .•ctnp: the calling of a Meeting of the county of - .+El , Y.esex. The 31ajer says they have ‘, taken a bold p—a very ly,lt! step," and threatens them with :13 ,piing some other n:easures if they persist in their refusal. The Sheriffs' answer is so brief, that no ,bridgment is necessary. It is as follows : St'a'—ht reply to yours of this day, we have to observe, ree.ardie4s of a:;y menace, we shall continue to act from our .773 e of public duty. We have given out answer to the Gen -nen who waited upon us, and we have neither time nor in ation, nor would it become u?, to enter into any personal :•!, ;cat ion. —We remain, Sir, your obedient s,:,:vants Lordion, Y'r 11, 1820. , " ROAT. WAITHNf Sheriff of " JAMFS Wnr.usis, Middlesex. Cartwright, Esq." —Nut I.llows a letter of the Major, in which he an nmulces hi., intention of applying to the Duke of l',/RTI.A ND Lord Lieutena!:r of the County, and de srcs that the Requisitioqs, S:c. or authenticated co niay he sent to him by the Sheriffs. The She ll, reply. that it is not their business to keep copies return lteltiisitions—that their conduct has been strictly correct—that if a Requisition regularly and .npuctably signed were presented to them, they would rail the required Meeting ; and that what Major CARTWRIGHT calls Requisitions, were so far from :r.aiting this title, that they were in many respects very iI regular, particularly in having the same names mare than once repeated in the list of signatures, and a containing names that are not to be found in the Preclioltiers' Book. ACCIDENT PROM FIRE-Antas.-- Dating the latere picings in Leicester-square, an accident °alined which is likely to prove fatal in its consequences Crumpton, tailor, residing in May s-buildings, :lary-la-Bonne, after spending his evening near the Strand, on returning home through Leicester-square, while in the act of passing by a young man, who was .:st about to discharge a large horse pistol, it burst , rieces, which flew in every direction; part of it creck Mr. Crumpton, who collared the young man. ..'he latter struck him at the time, Mr. Crampton% ye being completely out of the socket. On disco •.::ing the dreadful state he was in, the young man apprehended and taken to St. Anne's watch -..lse, to which place Mr. Crutripton was supported, • , ble to speak ; from thence he was carried to the ‘liJdleser Hospital, where he was put to bed, and tiiends had no account of him until the following e4y. The young man was examined at Marlborough ttl eet (he is a shopman), and was merely fined twenty .shillings, under the Act of Parliament, for letting oif the pistol. Yesterday the Magi-trate (J. E. Co- N txr , Eq.) who convicted him, received a certificate .rem the Middleset Hospital, acquainting him that Mr. Crumpton was in a very dangerous condition.— :t am-ears that a piece of the pistol, about one inch • A quarter in length, entered the eye upon the u• 1; ting• of the pistol; and yesterday Mr. Crumpton • ent the painful operation ofhaving it extracted. . 6 "‘" 1 FaC/lANUa, Masse-LAM, NOVI3IIIII 117...-. We have not ,:d any fresh arrivals of Wheat this morning, but a consider .quaftity remained over from Wednesday's market, fur w.t! a thy demand was but trifling ; yet what sales were made of . 5.0 samples were on as good terms as on 'Monday, but the Lit dimciiptioos zould not be got off at an abatement of 2s. die.a: , .r. Fine ltartey, being scarce, fully supported Mon :y 4 prices, and there was rather more demand for the inferior ya . aitieA, at a (keine of Is. per quarter. Foreign Oats met at 'a advance of id. per qua r, in consequence of tik p its this week. In Peas mad Beans there is no .... 11..11 If In lfAsrtcr, Nov. 17.—Beef, Ss. 6d. to 4s. Sd. per ; %lu,tnn , Z. 6 6d. to 4i. St!. Veal. So Od. to 611, Od. I " -, • 4 :a. v, Bcti4. I.antb, Okla to Oi.od.—Cattie st Market r.t.tt ; Calves, 190; fittecp and Lambs, 5460; Pip,llo. kit;• :1. L.A. to CLoicr, 41. INr. to S. 10.• Straw, IL 125. THE HAND-BILL CLWSPIRACY. Mr. PIARSON, the Solicitor, has written a letter to ; the Editor of a respectable Morning Paper, stating that the indictment for High Treason, to which Mr. Jus tice BATLEY adverted on Monday last, is an indict ment against one Franklin, alias Fletcher, intended to have been preferred by him for High Treason, in en deavouring to excite the People to rebellion, and by force to subvert the Laws and Constitution of the Country. The overt acts upon which Mr. PEARSON grounds his charge consist in having, during a pe riod of three years, taken advantage of the agitated state of the public mind to post the most audacious placards about the streets, during the night, previ- ' ously to the holding of large Public Meetings, and with having distributed at the Smithfield, the Ken nington, the Spa-fields, the Palace-yard, and otter' Meetings, the most inflammatory and seditious hand bills, addressed to the passions of the multitude, and calling upon them by force to endeavour to effect a change in the laws of the country. Mr. Peaasox states, that he has been under the necessity of post poning the presentment of the bill against Fletcher, in consequence of the authenticated hand-bills which he had collected having, during his absence in France, been left by Mr. Hume, M.P. at Lord Stomourn's Office, on a promise of their being returned ; but with regard to the performance of which promise there is now some demur ; the Under Secretary of State declaring, in a letter eddressed to Mr. 'biome, that Lord Siomount, retains them for the purposes of publicjustice ; and for that purpose they will be forthcoming at the proper time. The. above contains the substance of Mr. PEAR sos's letter ; and. to put our Readers in possession of the whole facts, we shall subjoin hereto Mr. Hum E'S Letter to Mr. flonttovse, of the Secretary of State's Office, and the answer of the latter: (COPY.) " York-place, October 31, 1820. " Sii—l had the honour to receive your letter of yesterday, and beg leave to express my surprise that Lord Sidmouth should refuse my second application to have placed in my hands the printed placards issued by Franklin, which I entrusted to you on the 20th instant, and for which I received your receipt. " I cunsider the re..usal as not only extraordinary, but as a di rect breach of that good faith on which I acted in delivering the papers to you, for the purpose of aiding the Government to bring Franklin to justice; particularly so when I informed his Lordship, in my two last letters, that a reference to the papers was absolutely necessary to enable Mr. Pearson to institute pro ceedings against Franklin, to bring :him to justice for the of fences he is charged to hive committed against the laws of his country. " I new, fiee the third time, have to state, for the information of my Lard Sidmouth, that as Mr. Pearson has prepared an in dictment against Mr. Franklin, for High Treason, he cannot proceed with it until he has access to the three printed papers, numbered 2,3, and 4, in the list I delivered to you ; and I, therefore, again request that his Lordship will forthwith place in my hands these three printed papers, to enable me to produce them before the Grand Jury, for the purpose of supporting the charges Mr. Pearson will make against Mr. Franklin. " I have to state, that Mr. Pearson has insuperable objections to trust the prosecution of the charge against Mr. Franklin to the Attorney-General, as far as to the finding of a Bill against him; and that if access to these papers is denied to Mr. Pearson, through me, where both Mr. Pearson and the Attorney-Gene ral may have access to them, I must consider the refusal as an act of my Lord Sidntouth, in order to prevent that effectual prosecution against Franklin which may bring him to sufficient punishment. If there is any fear for the safety of the papers, I will pledge myself net to part with them; and if his Lordship is desirous to prosecute Mr. Seale, at you now threaten to do on his own affidavit, and notwithstanding your written pledge to me to the contrary, when I delivered his affidavit to you, and brought that individual as a witness to your office, I desire you may tetain his affidavit, and ail the other papers except the three marked 2,3, and 4, which I have named, to enable you to tarry on the prosecution against Mr. Seale, because he has been he discoverer of the infamous proceedings of Mr. Franklin; and I now pledge myself that these papers shall be also forth coming, even against him, whenever you may call for them in a Court of Justice. " I understand that Mr. Seale, the printer, has behaved with good faith, and that on his evidence, at the Old Bailey, a true Bill has been found against Franklin ; and I am informed that he is perfectly ready to appear in any Court of Justice you may summon hint to, though he may be, perhaps, unwilling to sub ject himself to secret examination by persons who have already acted in a doubtful manner in this transaction. " I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient Servant, (Signed) "JOSEPH HUME. " To H. Hobhouse, Esq. Lord Sidmouth's Office." (COPY.) " Whitehall, Oct. 31, 1820. Sta—l have laid before Lord Sidmouth your letter of this day, and am directed by his Lordship to acquaint you, that he would think himself guilty of a great neglect of duty if he were to permit any papers, which evidence so great a degree of guilt, as those :o which your letter alludes*, to pass out of the hands of the Officers of the Crown into those of any individual, how ever respectable he neay be. He retains them fur the purposes of prblic justice, and for no other; and for those purpos's they will be forthcoming, not only on those ocea.sions when the At torney-General may prosecute, but also when they may be wetted on any indictment which may be preferred by Jr. Pearson, and his Lordship will give directions to the Soiicitor of the Treasury to that effect. _ _ " With regard to Arthur Seale, I beg leave to set you right as to the pledge given by Lord Sidmanith. If you will refer to my letter of the 19th instant, you will find his Lordship's promise to have been, " That no accomplice, who •hould disclose all the knowledge he possessed, and co-operate in bringing to justice the authors and original circulators of any of the libellous publi 'cations therein alluded to, should be prosecuted by the Crown, for the printing or subordinate circulation of any paper, with respect to which, he should conduct himself with good faith." Now, Mr. Seale, when you introduced hint to me, did not scruple to affirm that he bad much knowledge affecting Fletcher, as the author and original circulator of the papers mentioned in Scale's affidavit, besides that which the affidavit contained ; and he stated, that he had partially committed to paper what he re membered on this subject, and would put in writing what re ; mined, and deliver it to Sir Robert Baker on the following Monday. In the interim, Mr. Pearson arrived from the Con tinent; and then Seale, instead of producing his statemext, ex cused himself by saying that he wished it to be first seen by Mr. Pearson. A❑d on a subsequent day, Seale informed Sir Robert Baker, that Mr. Pearson had desired s laim (Seale) to inform Sir Robert Baker, that the whole of the case was before Counsel, and as soma as arranged, that Sir Robert should be furnished with a copy. It is not yet too late fur Mr. Seale to bring him self within the terms of indemnity promised by Lord Sidmouth, hut you cannot fail to see, that at ;stearin, he has nut disclosed all the knowledge be possesses, nor acted with good faith in giving a simple narrative (which was all that was desired) of the facts within his own recollection. " I have the honour to be, Sir, "'Your most obedient bumble Servant, (S.gued) " 11. 1101;110USE. " To Joseph Hume, Esq." yore OF TIM ZDITOR. • Nimely, the three printed placards, in which, when pre sented by Mr. P.:also'', my Lord Sidmouth did not see any rea vim for his interfering, at a time when Franklin was within reach, and might have been arrested. But the intanent he is, by his correspondence with Sir It. Maker, known to be out of reach, his Lordship discovers " so great a degree of gutlt," as to refuse to entrust them with those Gentlemen who have taken so trouble to bring Franklin to justice, and have actually almost forced his Lordship so take any measures at Anti! . . . LAW INTSiLiGE CF . ': ~•• . , . COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 16. THE OPERA HOUSE.--WATERS 11. TAYLOR: Mr. HEALD said, he bad a motion to make on the behalf of the defendant in this cause. He understood his Learned Friends, the. Attorney-General and Mr. Hart, were Counsel for the other side. If he made the motion in their absence, he was afraid his Lord ship would have to hear it• twice. He had several other motions similarly situated. The LORD CHANCELLOR-" I am not sorry for it, Mr. Heald, as there is not a man in England that wants a holiday more than I do." His Lordship then rose at eleven o'clock, the Bar not being prepared with motions. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 16. The argument in the case of the King against Sir Francis Burdett having been fixed for to-day, the Court was crowded at an early hour. The SOLICITOR GENERAL was called upon. and he rose to move for judgment upon Messrs. Wooler, Cartwright, and others, convicted at the late War wick Assizes of a conspiracy ; but as the Judge's notes were not in Court, the motion was postponed to a future day. THE KING V. SIR FRANCIS BCRUETT. Mr. DENMAN said, that it was his duty to support the argument of his Learned Friend, Mr. Searlett, calling upon the prosecutor to show cause %shy a new trial should not be had upon the ground that no offence had been committed within the jurisdiction where the trial took place, and the first proposition which he had to establish was, that the mere writing of the libel did not amount to an offence. his Learned Friends, the Attorney and Solicitor-Gene ral, found it essential to their argument to maintain that the writing in itself was a libel. Mr. Justice BAY LEY—But here has been a pub lication. Mr. DESMA N—Bnt there was no proof of what way that publication took place; and, although he might admit, for the sake of the argument, that the letter had been written with the intention of publish ing it, yet even that intention, if it were not put into execution, did not amount to any offence, and there was not a single authority for a contrary opinion, with the simple exception of the case of The King and Bier,' and in that case, Chief Justice Holt not only did not 'rely on antecedent authorities, but his position was at direct variance with all former authorities, and before their Lordships came to the same conclusion, they also should get rid of those authorities ; they, too, would find it necessary to say, that the opinion of Lord Coke, in Lamb's case, was erroneous. Of course it became extremely important to look at the wording of that case, and the mode in which it was supported.—(The Learned Counsel here referred to the precise words of the indictment itself—composuit scripsit ct .fecit, (S-c. guos guidon tlivulga vitet publi cavil )—and in that case the Jury found quoad col lectionem et scriptionem culpabilis, quoad publicationem non culpabilis—and yet the doctrine of Holt would make the collection of libels a crime, because, after the d:ath of the collector, they might fall into other' hands, and thus be promulgated to the world. There was nothing like that doctrine in the whole law of England, with the exception of forgery, which, in itself, was a criminal act; but the two cases were so decidedly opposed to each other, that no analogy could be instituted between them. .In the case of forgery, the right of property was equally affected, and if the addition of a cipher, or the alteration of a word could make a man liable for £5OOO instead of £5OO, the offence consisted in that addition or altera tion. But if a man were to be considered guilty .of libel because he happened to have in his desk or his library what, if published, would amount to libel, he knew not who could be considered beyond the power of this visitation who had a copy of Gibbon or Flume in his possession. Some chapters might be selected from these writers, and a 'man found guilty of libel for having and keeping in his pos session certain libels. But whatever might be the maxims in other countries, where the Press was sub ject to the inspection of the Police, yet in England no man was amenable to the laws for having such works in his possession. That being the case then, and the obligation imposed upon Chief Justice Holt of dispensing with the case in Coke, and his quoting no authority, but saying, that the mere writing was punishable, he was assured would never be recog nized by their Lordships, except as an example to be avoided. Mr. Justice BEST—In what sense was the term writing used in the case of g The King and Bier?' Mr. DEN!sAN said, in the sense of copying, he apprehended ; but his Learned Friend, the Attorney- General, had sail, that writing with a view to publi cdtion, or collecting libels with a similar object, was an offeßce, and he referred to cases in the Star Cham ber ; but in looking into these cases, it turned out that the persons who were there convicted were not only guilty of writing but of publishing. He did not mean to lead their Lordships through the Roman law on this subject, but it was quite evident from the cases which bad been cited from it, that the libels were either published, or proved to be published by the writer. He remembered that the Attorney-Ge neral said that he did not go to the Roman law, be cause he could not find authCirities in the English law, but though his Learned Friend might select examples from the practice of the Emperors, yet he apprehended such authorities would have even less weight with their Lordships than the case of ' The King and Bier,' where the Chief Justice laid down law for which there was no English authority, and nothing but the Roman law to resort to, which when observed, appeared most equivocal, and when exa mined, implied the publication. The CHIEF JUSTIOE.—Are you aware , Mr. Den ' man, of the case in the Fourth Volume of Mackstwic's Commentaries? Mr. DEntAw.—f mean, my Lord, to refer to that case in the course of my argument. Them was the case of Doctors Edmunds and Hooper, where one of , them libelled theother, and sent a letter to him alone, but he made it public by his own fault : but as it might tend to a breach of the peace, he might, at the suit of the King, be found guilty of libel. In order, however, to be made liable, lie must take steps tend ing to a breach of the peace, which alone would cony stitute the offence. In the reign of Charles 11. there; were some doctrines never acted on before and never recognised since. In the case of " the King against Harris," Sr William Scruggs said, that all persons writing, printing, or publishing libellous pamphlets; were liable to Save such books seized, And themtelvel pro , baited. • Mr. Justice was the opinion of the twelve Judges. • . • o Mr. DENnutim—Yes, my Lord, in the tunes o f Charles 11. and further, that all writers in newspaperi were indictable, and punishable on that account. The CHIEF JUSTICE.-1 never, until the premt argument, heard one insinuation against the character of Chief Justice Holt. He passed his early life in opposing those doctrines that made against tht liberty of the subject, and he continued to oppose them alter his elevation to the situation of Cl.ier Justice. Mr. DeNsias said, that it was extremely painf' , ll. to him to be compelled to cast am- reflection on the character of Chief Justice Holt, bat it was the miij, fortune of the time in which Lor.l Holt rived that the best minds, after obtaining the principal object of their ambition, unconsciously sunk undef the inrai ence of those principles, in opposing which their ear; liest and best days had been past. So late as 1618; it was laid down by Sir G. Jeffreys, that the writing or publishing any intelligence without the King's pet mission, was an offence against the State; and -:non after the Restoration, an Act passed prohibiting that any book should go forth to the world except' by permission of the licenser, and it was not until after the Itcve-Aution that this law was dispensed with; and that, too, after an attempt was first made to re , new it. The doctrine was then extremely different .from what it is in these days, since tilt only did the tight of licensing exist, but the general warrant of searching for all papers continued until the year 1667, when Lord Camden pronounced against it.— In the State Trials, Lord Camden expressed as clear an opinion as a Judge could on the subject of gene-' ral warrants, and if the right of search no longer re mained, the mere writing could not ccnstitute The very supposition implied the right.. of search. If the writing; only were punishable when the paper was published,. then in its simple state it is no offence: but the Attorney-General went the whole length of saying, that the mere writing amounted to an offence. Now, he believed it was the general feeling of Weir- . minster Hall, that the case of " the King and Bier," had become obsolete. It was certainly not now ques tibned for the first time, because there was in Mr. Starkie's book a very long and a very modest argu ment to shew that the case in question was not law', that the authorities were inapplicable, and that there were other cases at direct variance with it, by which the law therein stated was particularly questioned. Mr. Justice BEsr.—lf the case rested on the au thority of " the King and Bier," after what Lord Camden said on that subject, I should think that the law of that case was very questionable; but if the letter was written with the intent that it should be published, that was one step towards a crime, and every step towards a crime is a misdemeanour. Mr. liesmn N.-•-• Upon general principles, though the letter was written, yet, as long as it was withheld from publication no offence was committed. Their Lordships would perceive the pernicious consequences that must result from the recognition of such a prin.!. ciple; it would hold out a premium to spies, and establish in every family a sort of inquisitorial power that must make servants the arbiters of life and berty, and the supreme disposers of both ; it would be holding out a bribe to servants to break open the desks of their masters, and drag into public view what was, perhaps, never intended to see the light. lie would suppose the case of a man, who, in a mO= ment of irritation, had written a violent letter, who afterwards repented of having written it, and was it to be asserted that at a period, however distant, the individual who wrote that letter was afterwards td be punished because he did not execute his original intention ? There was no authority for such a pro ceeding, with the single exception of " the King and Bier," and he was quite sure that their Lordshipe opinion would not confirm that authority. It had been said, that the writing and the publication was one and the same offence ; but this was a most unz founded assertion : they were distinct and separate acts, they might be performed by different hands.—: In the case of " the King and Johnston," the trial curred at Middlesex, and not in Dublin, for the let ters were published here. There was no doubt but , Sir Francis Burdett might have been tried in Middle= sex for circulating there what he wrote, if the offence was committed. Mr. Justice BEST.—If I, living in the country, write to a Newspaper Office in London, desiring them to send me a Newspaper, and they send down one containing libelous matter, where does the publica , Lion take place ? Mr. DENMAN.-I should certainly apprehend that the publication took place in the County to which ' the Newspaper was sent. Cases of nuisance were guided, it was true, by a principle apparently but not really different. •A windmill, for instance, to situated in one County as to produce annoyance and inconvenience in another, might give rise to an in dictment in either of, the two Counties. With re spect to the presumption that the letter had been sent open, it was, in his opinion, in direct opposition to the way in which that presumption should have been; because there was evidence to be had of the fact; the person to whom the letter was sent might have been called to that fact. Sir Francis Burdett . was seen on the 22d or 23d riding on the borders of ltutlandshire, and it did not appear that he had not put the letter .into the post-office in that County. He might have delivered it to his servant to put into the Post-office. But there was also this remarkable circumstance, namely, that the 'letter given to Mr. Bickerstaff m as contained in an envelope, and direc tions given to him to forward it to Mr. Brookes, which shewed that Sir Francis Burdett did not de liver it to Mr. Bickerstaff; The Learned Counsel on the other side, with all their ingenuity, and months for preparation, had discovered only a single autho• rity, a maxim from the State Trials, and upon look ing for that maxim it was not to be found there ; and then the • Solicitor-General had to recur to the authority of Mr. .11:if-grave, whose accuracy was never questionable, but who himself disclaimed th very part of the work upon which the Solicitor-Ge neral's argument rested. Upon the whole of this case then, he trusted, that he had offered sufficient observations to convince the Court that the wilting alone did not constitute the crime, and that the pub. lication was essential to the commission of the crime of libel s that no publication was ;moved in the County where the indictment was laid; mid thst,