Star. — London, England, 1829-12-24 00:00:00

He. in point of fact, knew nothing of the publication of this al 'gad libel. He had never by his conduct, either at the time or afterwards, expiessed his approial of this paragraph. His defence yesterday was Eis defence to-day—namely, that a partner with abtrs was only responsible for his own acts, and ought not to be made an for those of others. Although his lordship had differed from him in the opinions which be had stated yesterday, be should (with his lordship's permission) take another opportunity of bringing the subject before the Court. Lord Tinosarissi—lt is your right. bk. Post oci said he was aware of that. After the opinion ex pressed by his lordship yesterday, be would now only occupy a few moments of their time on this subject. His learned friend (the Attorney-General) hi his opening speech, seemed to rely not on the merits only of his own case, but bad put—in answer to his observations of yesterday—an hypothetical case, which be _ _ (Mr. Pollock) conceived did not at all apply. He bad opposed the ease of two persons, one of whom provided pistols and other weapons for the other, for the purpose of entering Into an engage ment to rob and plunder, or to commit any Illegal act. Now, ►e seemed to compare this associatioo to the proprietors of newspa pers, who entered into paquership with persons of literary attain ments, for the purpose of conducting a newspaper. He (Mr. P.) was at a loss to conceive bow an association like that to which his Learned Friend had alluded could for one moment be compared to the partnership of a capitalist with a man of talent for the purpose of managing a newspaper. He (Sir J. Scarlett) bad done this, well knowing that the press in this country (in his Mr. Pollock's opinion most erroneously) was slowed as an engine of sus picion and danger. The press had formerly been—and indeed was-- in some degree now placed under considerable difficulties and re strictions. Most, however, of the old regulations which had re• strained its liberty bad been repealed, and in particular that great measure of Mr. Fox, by which the Jory had been declared judges of the law as well as the fact In cue of libel, was a most Important security for it. Previous to this, most of the Judges who had pre sided in the various Courts of Law had repeatedly declared that the question of the publication being a libel or not was for the con sideration of the Court. This was a proof that in former times the Press bad been viewed with much greater jealousy than at present, and be conceived that a great portion of the jealousy with which it was now viewed arose from groundless conies. If persons of capital were made liable to punishment for whatever might appear in a news paper in which they had embarked capital, but over which they met deed no controul, he feared it would tend to throw newspapers into the power of improper persons. He still conceived that the law did not make one partner in a newspaper concern liable for the libels which another person might publish without his consent ; and be should bring the subject forward on another occasion. The groundless fears prevailing from the power of the press have been the cause of all these proceedings. When he made the ob servations which he did yesterday, on the non-liability of proprie- tors of newspapers, he considered such opinion to be founded on the law of the land. He was not only then of that opinion, but he had seen no reason to alter it; be had entertained this opinion, not only as the counsel engaged to defend the proprietor of a news paper, but it bad long been his private opinion. After the result of the trial of yesterday, however, be should not now say anything more on the subject. He felt assured that it would not operate prejudicially to Mr. Gutcb, in consequence of Ms havingataken the line of defense which he (Mr. Pollock) bad thought it expedient to do. He again repeated that Mr. Gutch bad had nothing whatever to do with the editorial department of the paper. That it was for the Jury to say whether the publication in question was a libel, which, how ever, Mr. Gutch did not express an opinion upon. When he made use of the expression libel, however, he trusted that it would not act prejudicially to any one ehe. Mr. Out& had, im mediately after the commencement of these proceedings, exerted _ _ _ _ himself to get rid of his share in the paper and in the hugeness, which st last he had succeeded in doing. His client had acted with the greatest propriety in this business, and be trusted that he should, if the Attusney-General should think it expedient to bring him up for judgment (which, however, he thought would not be the case) be able to show that he ought not to be made liable for the acts of another person, when he bad no controul over those acts, and was at a distance at the time. Mr. Marrow then shortly addressed the Jury for the defendant Fisher. He said he was instructed to say that that person. w►o had been the means of vending the publication in question, left his ease entirely to the feelings of the Court and Jury. After the verdict of yesterday, be (Mr. Barstow) thought that this was the best course that his client could pursue. Mr. Alexander then rose to address the Jury on his own behalf• The Learned Gentleman ( Mr. Pollock) had said that be appeared for only one of the defendants, and bad endeavoured to separate the case of his client from that of the other defendants. The object of the Learned Gentleman, it was obvious, was to defend his client at any risk. even to the prejudice of others. In his (Mr. A.'s) opi nion, this was in no degree a libel, and he was surprised that the Learned Gentleman did not explicitly state so; for in his ( Mr. A.'s) opinion, he would have done his client much more justice if he said so. and if he had been perfectly silent in his other observations. His Lordship had yesterday stated that, in a case of libel, all parties were equally liable, and that the law made no distinction.— There certainly was no distinction in the. present case, for Mr. Mitch and himself were partners, and in this case they must stand and fall together, and the verdict of the Jury must be given in such a way that both would be equally affected. Before bringing under the consideration of the jury the merits of this case, it was ne cessary that they should be informed of the history of the rise and progress of these prosecutions. The Attorney-General bad very pro perly told them that the publication in question had grown out of the discussion on the Roman Catholic bill —or, as it was called, 'the Catholic Relief Bill. He bad no disposition to bring up now the propriety of those measures, which the Attorney-General had declared bad performed so much in allaying the angry feelings of opposite parties, and had healed wounds which bad long beta of a dangerous nature—by which hostile opipions had been reconciled, and party opposition put an end to. He, however, (Mr. Alexander) would ask the Jury whether they were surprised at the warmth of one who bad long and sincerely entertained strong opinions on this subject, at the sacrifice of so much of what he consi dered principle, at the abandonment of character and honour, by so many persons. When that Bill was first introduced, every mind which was capable of weighing it, or of considering its importance, was excited on the subject. He bad relied on the public principles of men whose honour bad never before been called in question, that they would strongly and firmly oppose that measure. When the BM was introduced, was it•surprising that he should feel greatly ex. cited at the exhibition that took place? They must remember the great public excitement, when men, who were bound by every tie to oppose this question, bad deserted their former opinions. He (Mr. Alexander) considered himself bound, not only from the public situation which he held as editor of a Journal, but alike bound by character and principle, to give his strenuous opposition to a measure which he considered was fraught with danger to the well being of the country ; his opposition might not be wise, but he con sidered that duty called him to follow the line of conduct which be did. His opposition, and his strictures on public men and measures might have gone beyond the limits of discretion, but he coosiderod that the magnitude of the question called for them. At the timed publishing this alleged libel, namely, on the 14th of May, the on. citement bad not been allayed. These proceedings against him arose entirely from his conscientious opposition to a mean» which be consideted to be fraught with danger. The Mal of yesterday had been the first of the series. He would call to the minds of theory that the very first motion made in that Coon by the Attorney-General of Duke of Wellington was for a rule for &criminal !oformatioo acainst him. This was the first of a studied series of prosecutions to put down the liberty of the press in this country. Before he directed their attention to the alleged libel itself, he would shortly relate to them some circumstances which bad occurred respecting these prosecutions. At the time when the warm discussions were going olt respecting the Catholic question, he was waited upon by a distinguished nobleman—a noble friend of bb--who was intimately connected with the government of the Duke of Wellington, who informed him that the Ministry had determined to prosecute the Morning Journal. and that they bad been only re-, strained by the circumstance of the resignation of Sir C. Wetherill, l the Attorney-General, and the great difficulty they laboured under finding a successor in that office; and also feeling, le consequent* of the high degree of excitement in the public mind at that time, the inexpediency of doing so. He was,however, bound to take wars. log (and his 'obit friend fervently begged him particularly to regard his caution) that on the very first slip, a failing which could by any construction be made to appear libellous they had determined to pro secutebim. When he first beard this statement he did not believe% nor indeed, until the commencement o(tbese prosecutions could he . have done so. He would maintain that the alleged libel did not can lain one word which WllO not full of the utmost affection and respect towards the Sovereign; and from the language used by Lord Ellen- Jxtrough, that that learned personage held the doctrine that it was 'perfectly justifiable in a subject of the State to carry on political discussions in the way which he had done ; it was a species of free discussion which was perfectly warranted by the free institutions of this country. He then adverted again to the case of Mr. Perry, and, attar observing that that gentleman was honourably acquitted of an offence in no respect different, he also pressed upon the attention of the Jury the fact that an acquittal was pninounced in a case where the writer went the length of saying that a good government could not be obtained litchis country until the then King should be in his grave, and the successor of George the Third in possession of the sovereign authority. No such inuendo could be dragged out of the publication then before the Court. The Attorney-General bad told them that it was an of fence to pity the King; what! to express commisseration for the state in which evil advisers had placed the Royal person? If that were law, they might at once shut their offices, burn their books, and throw their printing-presses into the Thames. If such lan, guage were a libel. then he thread hold it to be his duty, and the duty of every man in England, to petitioe Parliament for censor ship of the Press; under a censorship. they should have infinitely more liberty than under any such state of the law of libel. He would infinitely rather have a Board of Controul, with the learned Gentleman, Mr. Gurney, at the head of it, to cut out with his scis sors all that was objectionable, and thus protect a man from- the over-ardent expression of his opinions, than be exposed. as he rhea was, to the effects of afessecution, for such he would call it, in thus being brought to the bar of a public court for pitying his sovereign. The Attorney-Gen. had not denied what was stated in the alleged Ithel, namely, that there did exist more than a marked coolness be tween the King and the Duke of Wellington—lt was the flee there was such a coolness (a laugh.) The publication stated that his Ma jesty bad complained that he bad net been allowed to exhibit himself to his loyal people; and it went on to say, that till then " George IV, hid been a popular monarch." Now the unfortunate sitaltdotfie which ise(the defendant) stood, was just this be wee not allowed • svels did be possess the swans, Islay before the jury any evidence to show that tilts statement was tree. It might be as true as the hely bible, but the Attorney-General would send hiss out of Court with a legal objection. did he attempt to give any evidence to show that it was true. He awned it was tree, and bow ass* any other proof be offered Is the presets state of the law But. eves sup posing *lt to he otherwise, be had no difficulty in asserting that it was no libel tending to degrade the character of the King, or to bring him or his government into contempt. It did not say that the King bad done this or that particular act; it merely said that his Majesty had been placed, by the advice of his Minis 44se, is a position which was Mehly hasardous. He (the de ' feedant) ;remembered perfectly well that, immediately after tit; passiag of the bill called the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. a gentleman called on hint to ask his opinion whether, in the event of his Majesty's going to ,Covent-garden or Drury-lane Theetre, be would be likely to experience any thing like an unpleasant reception. He decidedly gave his advice, under the influence of the dutiful respect which be bore his Majesty, that he should not incur the hasard of doing so, and the advice of the defendant was taken; his Majesty did not go.—(Laughter.) The Attorney-General, he observed, seemed muds amused at that statement ; bet, be it remembered, there was no insinuation that his Majesty bad been brought into that situation by his Minis ters. The libel went on to state they (of the Morelos Jeered) regretted the occurrence, and Lord Ellenborough had ralittbar pub. lie writers were entitled to use such language—they regretted that their " aged and revered sovereign should have been placed in such a situation." He then came to the second pan of the libel, and said that his observations on the former were perfectly applicable to the latter part. From beginning to end there was nothing but an expression of regret that his Majesty should have been placed in that embarrassing and unhappy situation. The next paragraph referred to the Duke of Wellington. He would show that from the unhappy agitations which arose out of the Catholic Question did alone proceed these strictures upon the character of his Grace. In the address which he published en the oth of Octoberoeite, on as suming the management of the Minting Jeunsal, he said that he reposed great confidence in the Duke of Wellington ; that he was, no doubt, trammelled by the measures of his predecessors ; that he was bound by treaties; that be was tied up to a bad system, but they (of the Morning Awned) would support him to the ut most limits of their conviction. There was surely no wain of respect in that—the fact was, that the whole matter arose out of the discussions and agitations immediately consequent upon the introduction et the Catholic Relief Bill. It further went as to say, he observed, that if it were true that his Majesty was really under the influence in questien, the national sympathy would naturally be excited for the King. It is to be hoped that they might say so much without incurring the penalties of the law. The Deem of Wellington was not King yet in this country—it was to be hoped he was still a subject—nay more, that be was a public servant, and as such, that every man bad a right to speak of him in what terms be pleased. He (the defendant) had never spoken of the Duke of Wellington otherwise than as a public man—he had never entered the privacy of domestic life for the purposes of private slander—to injure the happiness of families. If indeed be bed dose as ether journalists had been known t. do, he might well have bees charged with libel, and brought to the bar of a court—but such was net the fact. It bad been made matter of accusation against Wu that he had imputed ambition to the Duke of Wellington— pee, the Duke of Wellington was ambitious—who doubted that he was so? bad he asserted the contrary, not a man in England would believe him; to charge the Duke of Wellington with ambition was a noble charge ; ambition was a noble virtue ; bad be not been ambitious be would never have conquered at We.. terioo, or been at this moment Prime Minister of England. He bad charged the Duke of Wellington with being a dangerous person. If there was any word in the whole article which was a libel, this word was the one upon which the whole stress lay. If the Jury convicted him, because he had called the Duke of Wellington a dangerous person—it they, by their verdict, estab lished the doctrine that it was a libel to say that a Minister was it dangerous person—then was there an end for ever to the Liberty of the Press in England. It was upon this that the lights and privileges of public discussion now depended. Upon their verdict those rights must stand or fall. He contended that every man had a right, if he thought so. to say that any particular Minister was a dangerous man ; and, confident that the Jury would also think au. be would leave that part of the ease is their bands. Lest any advantage, however. absuld be taken of him, he would read the libel through. lino man was to be allowed to express his vial:mot a Minister, or .• remark upon hie ascendancy at Court, or the frequency of his =to his anvereigu—if the doctrine were to be established no man had a right to speak upon these matters, thee would then be no such thing as free discussion—there would be an sad, owe and for ever, to the liberty of the press, Wawa ore law were male for its protection ; for then no man could speak of a mi nister but la *terms of a slave. Gentlemen, said the defendant, I have greatly told you that these are the first of a series of promo thous, instituted by the Attorney-General, to fetter the liberty of the prep, and to crush the humble individual who now stands before "GM I have read the libel to you, and I implore you to give it your most dispassionate consideration, and to say whether I have there written anything which I was not entitled to do, or 'whether I have used any expression calculated to bring the Go vernment into contempt. The charge is a serious one as regards me, but it is of no consequence to the Duke of Wellington whether lamor am set convicted. The result of this trial will not affect his measures : my conviction wiU not reader him more popular, nor will my acquittal take from him one vote, or one supporter to his administration. If you convict me, however, you destroy my character, you take away my liberty, and you ruin my fortune.— In these circumstances I leave the case entirely in your hands; and, as men upon your oaths, I confidently submit to you that it is no libel. The Arronew-Gninsin then replied at considerable length, and having cooclnded kis gddress, as we reported yesterday, Lord Twingeing summed up. The Jury retired at twelve o'clock, and at half psis three re turned the following Veediet, which they read from a paper : We find the defendants Guilty of a libel of his Majesty, and acquit them on the charge of libel on the Government. The Jury are of opinion teat the libel was written under circumstances and in times of great excitement, and therefore recommend the defen dants to the mercy of the Court." THIRD LIBEL. TUE NMI V. PLUM AND OTIUS. The following Jury were sworn to try a third case of Libel against the Morning Awned. There being only eight Jurors in at tendance. the knoanze-Gansub prayed a tales, and the last four la the list were added u common Jurors : Hugh Hammersley I Richard Blanchard John Lockey George Farley Down Wm. Nicholson John SUvester Henry &one I James Ward David Beavan Francis Trueman Thomas James Daniel Henry Straw. The Attoaegy-GIXILAL observed that this was the third infor mation against the defendants; and thej might take it for granted how newspapers were conducted, from what they had already seen. Had there been three or four libels published through inadvertency in different papers, it would be thought there were not grounds sufficient for prosecution; but this was the third example front the same quarter. The libel in question had a teudeney to degrade his Majesty and both Houses of Parliament; ft stated that the House of Commons was bloated with corruption, and the House of Lords was net- better; and that his Majesty was a weak sad imbecile Monarch, unable to uphold the dirtily of his station. If allegations like these were to estaothe front newspapers, he geoid not conceive how any country could be governed. They must recollect that the stability of a Govenunent depends upon the integrity and abi lity with which it is conducted; and by their verdict they would say whether the public press was justified in disturbing the pub lic peace, by caching the people to acts of insubordination--by stating that the Monarch was treacherous, and the House of Commons corrupt. Was this the mode to recoacile people to their King, or make them obedient to the laws. Was this eon of attack to be tolerated in any country ? The prosecution of such offences was intended not more for public example than to preserve the people from a delusion which the daily publication of such libek was cal culated to make. However fake they were, they might influence public opinion. The eahibition of to-day and yesterday showed how fit the defendant was to instruct the public through the medium of the Press. He would not trespass further on them, but re quested their attention to the libel which he would read to them. It was published in a number of the Morning Armed of the 16th of June last. The libel having been read— The Arroeurr.Gemutat. observed, that hers was one of the most direct attacks upon a Minister (Mr. Peel) that ever was made. It accused him of being unfeeling, and totally beanies and dead to the feelings of humanity, when he suffered 11 000 peo ple to be in the state described in the libel, actually starting. The Learned Gentleman then read another paragraph from another number of the llansisog Astrid, representing his Majesty tao he a I weak and vacillating Monarch, and asserting the neceseity of tatt abolition of the House of Commons. He would now, without far ther comment, leave the case to the Jury. The same evidence was produced as in the former trials, prove the proprietorship, and also the patent of jr. Peal. e• Seem tart' of State. Mr. Pou.oca, on the pan of Mr. Gutcb, declined addresshti the Jury, as did Mr. BARSTOW on the part of Mr. Fisher. Mr. dasgannsa then addressed the Jury, and said that it was the third time be had appeared there within twenq•four hours.— He was net aware that this trial would have so soon come no. —He contended that the Jury were not competent to judge ►im that he was charged with an offence against the House of Com mons, and that they had it in their power to punish him witbetst the intervention of the law, and that the present prosecutor was a volunteer one by the Attorney-General., In support of his argument, be would read from the Life of the late Mr. Burke, a speech made by him in Parliament, in the year 1759, en the prosecution of a Paper called the Work!. The Ithel was, " That Warren Hastings would have been brought to another trial unless the then House of Lords bad had spirit enough to put it nff." Mr. A. proceeded with his reading of the alleged libel. end said that it was gross oppression to punish a man in that Court when he was still liable to be called before the bar of the House of Commons. There he was ready to answer any ae.cutiat.on that might be brought against him ; but here would the Attorney- General bring forward the Right Honourable Gentleman, this Honourable Member—put them into that box, and ask them if they were the apostates alluded to ?—(A laugh.)—But he sub mitted that be was entitled to make any comments upon wy matter of commerce or trade; and If there were any Loudon tnerchant in the box, he trusted he would protect him against an Information Med against him for expressing opinions that every Engli►hman bad a right to give. With respect to the picture of distress contained in the libel, the only melancholy part of it was its troth; for at the time it was written the greatest misery was prevailing in all the manufacturing districts. But he did sat state this to bring • the Ministry into contempt, for the measures adopted by Parliament, of -which be complained, were passed when 'ante, now out of the Ministry, were influential members of it. The Attorney General had attempted to persuade them that the tendency of the article was revolutionary, and that the laying the axe to the root of the evil meant cutting o human life, but such was not the fact ; what he meant was, that the system must be totally changed—that the Ministry should:be changed—that the Attorney-General should be changed—that the Premier should be driven from his post—that was what be meant ; not that the Attor cep General, et any one elm, should be shin. Again. he was perfectly instilled in toying that there had better be ■a House of Commons than that it should be the cause of all the misery that ►e believed it to have been. With regard to that part of the publication which repressed pity for the Yips, and which the Attorney-Genteel mid had a tendency to bring hie Majesty litre contempt, it wag if the same nature as that which another Jury were now cooddeeing s mth he should say no more upon it than to observe that the Attorney. General was she bet man wiscs had charged hies with disaffection and disloyalty; but be &Sod him, with ill his acuteness, and the help of alibis spies, to hunt out one fact in hie W. that could prove I it. Mt. Alexander concluded by reminding tip Jury that this rap' the third informatiost of the aerie, that had been Led to crush taps ; and begged them beware that thedr yerritet did pas untwist s the liberty of the press. The A?soattxr•Gxulset. tore to reply. He observed, that from the extraordinary and repeated professions by Mr. Alexander of Ms owe loyalty, he should have called a whole train of witnesses to have spoken to his character. In that case, the Jury might have been able to judge whether It was a single deviation by a man who Iliad previously been one of the most loyal men in the kingdom , ice whether ft were one continued system of attack upon the Government of the country, merely because that Government bad executed a measure contrary to Mr. Alexander's avowed opinions. This course had always been deprecated, and were it generally adopted, what would become of the liberty of the Press? Wm it suilletent, because the Editor of a Newspaper w•s opposed to any measure of the Government, that he should be justified in attacking the King, the Ministry, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons? He (the Avanutzr-Genxitaa) was very sorry to detain the Jury upon a yield= which was so plain. He submitted that this was a libel of a most atrocious character upon the House of Commons in particular, reflecting oa his Majesty's Ministers the most scandalous and undeserved abuse, and bold. ing up the King to that contempt which no moral or lop; person could sanction. Unless this were put a atop to by the strong arm of the law, bow could the Jury or himself tell how much further Mr. Alexander would dare to carry his ins°. knee? With respect to the number of prosecutions that had been Instituted, no one was to be blamed but himself. He said he was the victim of persecution, but why did be not try whether.. change of conduct would not relieve' bias from further prosecutions? In stead of that, he had persevered in his illegal conduct; and he (the Attorney-General) had no other course left but again to endeavour to put a atop wit by farther punishment. The Defendant hid an waded that he ought not to be liable to punishment foe what he had written in the present libel. but he would put it to the Jury to say if it was not 'Widow to tell the people, who were represented as discontented and starving, that they must expect no help irons the Ministers, or from Parliament, but that their only hope of relief was in an abolition of the Houle . of Commons. The Attorney-General then called the attention of the Jury to the falsehood of that part of the libel relating to the presentment of the Petition. How dared the defendant speak thus of a man so eminent for his rank and station as Mr. Peel? Did he know that Gentleman—did be know that he had a hard heart—that be was callous to the distress a his fellow-creatures—that be treated them with contempt ? He had said that he saw hint smile; but he (the Attorney-General) must doubt the fact, backed only by his assertion. How dared he, then, hold up Mr. Peel, n honourable and humane man, as laughing at the dis tresses of the nation? Wu this necessary for the liberty of the press? If there were any class of men that could be separated pent the community, or feel more acutely than the rest for the miser/ of the people, it was the Ministry. If they could suppose a est of men raised to that station utterly destitute of merit or caps- city—heartless, cold, and indifferent to the interests of the nation —yet they could not be supposed guilty of such conduct as was here ascribed to Mr. Peel. For their own sake they could Yet that was the absurd length to which the blindness of the de fendant had carried his. and that too against his own COIII4ACOCe and honest conviction of the truth.—The Attorney-Gateral concluded by saying, that so long as the defendant pursued the same course he had hitherto adopted, so long should he think it bis duty to put the law in motion against him. Lord Tzirrsassat, in summing up, said that he was clearly of opi taloa that the publication was libellous. Tbe Jury baying withdrawn for about ten minutes, returned with a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Was. Ilassogil Leads, who was committed on a former day fur obtaining a quantity of gloves ender false pretences, was again brought up yesterday, in the eimmiation that numerous charges would be preferred against him ; *et was, however, only one new complaint. It appeared that, about six weeks ape, the prisoner went to Messrs. Bentley, Parson, and Co. in Cbespride, silk.nianofaeta. rers, with an order for one dozen Barcelona black handkerchiefs, yV 0 .. . g to be *mid by Mr. Masking. the litlea-dcatve, vn -14. The clerk auspemlas the genuineness of tbe outer. ;;Zilt to Mr. Bentley, who - declined sending the goods by the bearer of the note, sod on inquiry it turned out that the order was, as baellseen suspected, a forgery. Mr. Making proved the latter ' (set, and said that the primer had formerly been in his art*, but was dismissed by him two pan ago. The primer was man edited for ettemptiog to commit the fraud. BOW-STREET. Tun Cum or Mu. Prumes.—Mr. Phillips Mr. Cos. Mr. Aaiun', and several other gentlemen intereste d in this Imfairg. [came again before Mr. Harts yesterday mornigg, in of Mr. Cos having on Tuesday called the attention of Mr. arcs to certain documents, which, it appeared. the worthy Magistrate bad omitted to read atnonhet the vast mu. of statements which bad been submitted for his comideration. Mr. Hass, addressing the Gentleman. said be had carefully perused the additional documents, and although some of them (particularly that of Ann Anderson) were very interesting and int ponant, yet they contained nothing that was adulated to alter his opinion upon the general question. He still remained perfectly satisfied that no case had been raised upon irhich to found a cri minal proceeding before • Magistrate. After some conversation the parties retired. Mr. Cox and Mr. Phillips having previously warmly expressed their thanks to Mr. Hats for the great attention be had given to the case ' and the great politeness with which be had treated all parties during this painful investigation. • • LAM BETH-STREET. Yesterday, the firemen belonging to the County Clece stationed in the Whittebapel district. and Banister, a turncuck belonging to the East .London Water Works, came before T. **Leas, Esq. in consequence of Mr. Williams, one of the parochial cherchwardens, refusing to pay them the rewards granted by Parliament for their attendance at a Ire, which occurred at the Pavilion Theatre no Friday night. Mr. Williams accounted fee his non-fayment, by stating that he understood that there was no fire whatsoever at the Theatre, and that chi. could be proved by Mr. Farrell, one of its proprietors, who was then present. Mr. Farrell stated that he was in the Theatre on the night in question, during the performance of the'' Bottle Imp " when some persons in the gallery, he believed called out fire The audience became so alarmed. that many of them, in endeavouring to male their escape. leaped upon the stage. The only grounds that be was aware of for the alarm, was, that one of the gas-lights in the boa corridor burned so violently as to cause a beam which was beside it to become vet) , much heated. It certainly smoked, and caused a smell of fire, but it did not ignite ; and from having been almost immediately on the spot, he could say there certainly was no fire. It must have been at least an hour, or an hour and a quarter, after the alarm was given, before be saw the firemen. The firemen said, that although they had not been seen, yet they were in attendance with the utmost expedition, and ready to give their assistance when required ; besides, they added, there must have been a fire, as part of a beam was burned. ►Jr. Walker said that it was impossible for him to determine whether there bad or had not been a fire ; but as there was a doubt on the subj• et, he thought that the benefit of that doubt should be le favour of the applicants, from their prompt attendance on the occasion—especially as the building was one of a public nature, and in the event of its ignition, several lief, might be the sacrifice. lie would therefore, under the circumstances, otder that the rewards be paid. A master baker, la the Whitechapel-road, was convicted in the penalty of £ for selling two querttrn loaves seven ounces short of the legal weight. Some alarm was produced in Chiswell-street, and which was speedily communicated to the City, yesterday (evening, by a report that the brewery of Mears. Whis bread and Co. was on fire. Engines went to the spot, but on inquiry it was found that all danger—if any had existed—from an escape and explosion of gag, bad bees removed by the promptitude shown by the worktres(T the premise*. DIED. At tenor, Dec. 13, W. S. Ntosbhattl, Esq. fate of Os hind of Jamaica. Au tfle letla int. at Camino. nw Cppway, Haw, the wife of 411.4 Nth. P614:00 E+q• Atint . st LONDON-liltibiiißTO • bears 51 oniimpuo at!se • .4.04111 1 / 4 , 54 41444444 • • • Lagoon t Printed and Published by Jona Nam, at the Nun- Ornsi No.l, Plekirtt-plaes,Temple Bar.