The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-10-31 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN eceornieg to the King's friends. it was slander, it was sneer, it was libel, to mention his Majesty's " benevolent" mind. And the loss of a dloghter, she who was to continue the Royal Sue eesaioo fu a direct line, was it a li •el to rosy that the King was afflicted with mat excellent lady's loss? The loss—R ought to have been aid 1 the death—of a eonaort was also mentioned as having been the subject of affliction; and yet that mention wee milled libel. sneer, and malice. 11 it were so. the late Marquess of Londonderry had bees equally guilty of libel. — That Noble Lord hid &elated is Me Hone of COaiIIIODS, that when on his way to Dublin, his Majesty. on bearing of the death of his royal consort, was moue affected. He had no doubt that such wits the fact. The King, under all the circum stances. must have been greatly affected with that event. Next it was said to be sneer and libel to represent the King as af flicted with the mem of the proud Bourbons in Spanish atal's —with that contest in which this country most ultimately be involved, only under disadvantageous cireentstanees. Was it to libel the King to say that he was *Meted by that momen tous transaction notch deeply interested all his subjects ? Sorely it was a most extraordinary way to show reward end friendship for the King's character, thus to Goateed that it was a libel and sneer to allude to his undoubtedly bene volent mind, and to those unquestionable talents which. par ticularly in his early years, made him collect around his Court some of the *blest men of the age. In conclusion the Learned Gentleman lamented, that where the public mind was com pletely tranquil on the painful topics which formed the subject of the article complained of in the newspaper; when all these serious rumours, which his Majesty's illness had unfortunately riven rise to, had subsided, It should have been deemed a ju dicious discharge of duty to institute the present criminal pro ceeding. Within a week of the publicitlon, in February last, the Attorney General, in the exercise of his sound diseretioa filed the criminal information; had he paused a " little feet : night." he mach questioned whether that Learned Gentleman would not have been dissuaded Rom adopting the Momeding. ' The Jory now, looking to all the circumstances of the came, anti reading the publication with the eyes of common sense, must be satisfied that there was no pretence for charging this; as a libel. All the circumstances alluded to in the Paper, wen, explained by others. The reports which had prevailed, bed proved groundless. There was no reason whatever to betheri l l that hii Majesty had ever laboured seder any mental infirmity. The Jury would rejoice with him and the rest of has fellow subjects, that such a calamity bad never visited him, and join in a prayer for his Majesty's long and happy reign, and that his tranquillity might never be disturbed by prosecutions of this nature. Mr. BROUGRAN then addressed the Jery on behalf of Mr. Harvey, and regretted his sorrow, that in defending his client, he should have to go over nearly the same grounds which hail been taken by his Learned Friend, Mr. Deowass, in defence of Mr. Chapman. It was bit mis fortune to follow his Learned Friend, because he was per snarled that in treading the same ground he must weaken the impression which his Learned Friend had made on the minds of the Jury ; but still there were some circumstances peculiar to his client's case, which could not have been so well alluded to by his Learned Friend, thongh they seemed embarked in the same rinse together. The Jury bad seen that one ground of defence taken for the other defendant. was by separating: his cause in soul* uwasnre from that of the gentleman for whom lie (Mr. B.) was now to appear. A distinction had been drawn in the degree of guilt, i f any between the person who actually wrote the article in goes tier, and the person who was only the instrument for i nri -himirally putting it into a state of publication, and who possibly might have been totally ignorant of its con teats. With this distinction —he was not now going to quarrel—he only wished that his Learned Friend had not emanated his client's cause with fir. Harvey's; for in t. Mr. Harvey claimed for himself the protection which his Learned Friend claimed for his client. If the charge had been, that Mr. Harvey himself had written the article in question, then the distinction might be correct; but what reason was there to assume that this gentleman, who was the proprietor, and for aught it appeared. a mere machine, had any knowledge of the import of the libel; or, suppose Mr. Harvey, as the proprietor. had seen this piece of writing. who would say that it would appear to him libellous? Let it be remembered, that tbere was here • no charge that the libel contained matter in itself so ob viously' •ffeesive to the good sense of mankind, that its evil tendency must be instantly recognised. The guilt was to be ascertained by the Interpretation which the Attorney General pleased to pat upon it. It was not denied that many of the allegations there set forth were true; but it was said that they were used by the writer as if he did not wish them to be in. terpreted by the ordinary import of the words. But what right hail the Attorney General to say, that the defendant did not mean what he said? He hoped the Jury would not put their thonghtsinto the Attorney General's training, but would think for themselves. If, from reading the article in question, they were satisfied that the defendant bad no bad intentions, then they must acquit him. And now lie was come to the consideraion of how far it was politic in the Attorney General to have instituted this pro secution at all. He (Mr. B.) fully agreed with his Learned Friend who preceded him, in censuring the prosecution as ill-timed. and lie contended that the Attorney Hamral could not have chosen a less fit subject for prosecution. In all questions of libel, it was a consideration, whether the dragging an obscure print into public notice hy a public discussion, and giving it Importance by a public prosecu tion. nes not more dangerous than suffering it to remain In a state of, perhaps, coMparative obscurity. Never was the wisdom of abstaining from prosecution more strongly made apparent than in the present case. Here was a Paper almost unnoticed—little known but to the spies and faint. liars of certain departments, and yet it was thought advise *Me to drag it before the public, and by apprehending from it danger, to give it an importance which, perhaps, it would never otherwise attain. In this paper was found contained a report of a circumstance which since turned out to be untrue, anti the untruth of which no man more rejoiced et than the defendant himself. It was not said that the defendant was the fabricator of this report, or that be was the only person who gave his authority to it. If that hail been proved. it would go far to show the defend ant's intentions. But the Attorney General did not charge that upon the defendant. and the Jury were still left in ignorance as to the number of Newspapers by which this report was circulated. He believed that in fact the circu lation of the report had not been confined to the defendant's paper; and if the Attorney General undertook to punish them all, he would hare his bands full of work. He (Mr. B.) hail so much confidence, however, in the justice and randoor of the Attorney General, that lie did not believe he would be influenced by the p art any particular Paper which might be fermi to contain the report. took iu poll tics. He hoped the report would he as offensive in one Pager as another. If the Attorney General then persist ed in prosecuting this Newspaper, he called rapes bum, in vindication of his consistency, to institute proceedings against all and several. the other Papers which might be found offending. He hoped the Jury w ould not go along with the Attorney-General, io adopting such oppressive pro e.ediries. Having stated thus much as to the impolicy of inaltuting upon general principles, lie should now proceed to sh.,w. fruits this article itself. that there was nothing contained in it, which called for such severe reprobation -- In the first plies, he (Mr. B ) would not concede that by the Co at tu•ton of England everyman had a right freely to discuss and freely to give his opinion npun all public measeree. And he would further contend with his Learned Friend, the Common Sergeant, that the King's health was it +object for discussion. In every country it was neces•l air that she Executive shonld be sound and capble char y ging its functions ; and it was no less is this thou in any ether. if the King had been really aMicted, in the way in which it was stated in this article, and that the ~Government was still being carried on, something at :preaching a great legal armee Would he committed. .ff he %%Wen continued to carry on toe eaverntneot Merl the * Kann', i capacity. they weal' , be platy of a cripr, , •,..„0„,, • c f L i : to ra 9.1 es. IV MIA it h • Oita then. that t.s• •.6 eet . t.. stzr.'whi4 rested the authority of almost every act of Government was not a proper subject for political discussion. The Jury were next to consider what grounds the defendant had laboured, for several years, under this dreadful malady. and thereirere not wasting instances, in which this bad proved hereditary in families. The King. himself, it was known, had intend reach from the goat, and it was 'a fair WNW fogy discussion to state to what ;Went she tiisaleiels of the disorder might caned. It was DOW Impend the possibility of doubt, that never dude , aorpossiest of Lis Majesty life, did the smallest dark cloud pen ever the bright snieshine of his mind. This fast was substantiated by evidence of the most unquestion able authority. Bet this was a fart, which, however, certain aid undeniable. came wields the knowledge of a few only. The defendant could not possibly be aware of it. and it was not going beyond his limits when a public journalist, is the exercise of his calling. ventured to speculate and draw inferences from the facts before him. It was net impossible that his Majesty had fallen seder that dreadful malady to which his father bad been so long I victim, and from which the strongest mad most powerful mind was not always free. Whilst then tbete was a probability or possibi lity of such an stoat it could not be said that the discussion of it was beside the provi - ice of the journalist. The machine of the State could not certainly go on, if the moving hand , which should impel it was paralyzed. A reference to the events of the tate ridge, his Majesty's indisposition In WM the aon.appolotment of a Regent, and the great deliesey of I the subject, would tend to show the very seriou s li g ht la which I thoEing's indisposition ought to be viewed. e au. n which took place when the question of a Regency to be discussed, could not be forgotten. This was a maledy.whigh in many common cases was known to be hereditary. Under all these circumstances. when it would be seen that the defend ant bad not travelled beyond the limits of fair discussion, but that on the contrary, be had some grounds to draw his infer ences from, he trusted the Jury would join with him in cos denting the impolicy of this prosecution. The defendant was charged with writing a libel which was criminal only from the construction which the Attorney-General put upon it. He (Mr. B.) challenged any man whose mind was not warped by party bias, to lay his finger upon any part of this libel, and say that it exceeded the limits of fair discussion. The Attorney- General had in fact distorted the meaning of this article. — The great defence then which Mr. Harvey set op Was, that he was not charged with being the author of the libel in question. There was nothing to show that he was cognoseest of the im port of the paragraph. And when the Jury recollected that it was charged as a libel only by inference, he was sure they would hesitate long before they convicted the defendant. It was a wise and salutary rule le all eases which admitted of , doubt to give the defendant the benefit of it. This was one of those cases. If the Jury convicted, a certain punishment of $ long confinement would follow in the first instance, and by the new law CI libel, banishment from the kingdom In the second. These remarks which were here so much dwelt upon. would not be libellous if applied to another man. Every man might be said to have his feelings oneo to all the tender emotions arising from domestic calamities, except the King. and his heart, it was said, was to be for ever closed. When the small est allusion was made to the King's feelings, up started his Majesty's Attorney-General, and exclaimed that it was meant as a sneer upon him. It would not be an offence to say of say other man, that he was deeply affected at the loss of • wife or daughter, bat the King was to have no f ee lings In cosmos' with other men. He (Mr. B.) knew from his own experience that his Majesty had a benevolent heart, and they who de nied him those kind feelings, which It was known be pos sessed is common with other men, libelled him. The para. graph stated that his Majesty's mind was affected by the die. tresses of his agricultural subjects. Was this untrue? Had not his klajesty himself, by his speech. and his Minister. ads =Wed the same, though not in the same words! The King bed also given a strong opinion upon the affairs of Spain.-- Seventeen mi.lions of people were to be afflicted by the most mumeotuus events, but the King was not to be me tated by them. To say, that the King was agitated by them, was to be denounced as libel and sneer. He must protest against the liberty and prooarty of any man being put is jeopardy by such fanciful constructions of language as those which• were attempted to be established by the Attorney-General and his ex-officio information. Mr. Harvey was the proprieter of the paper ; he was known in that Court legally, and as nothing more; he was not charged to be the author of the article; however, Mr. Harvey's politics were well known, in that place as well as elsewhere. But the Jury had to look at Mr. Harvey as the proprietor of the paper only. The article asserted the King to have been afflicted at the loss of his Royal Cun sort. He (Mr. Brougham) believed that his Majesty was much affected by that event; to believe the contrary was to suppose that the King had not ordinary feelings of our nature. After all that happened, after all the per secutions to which that illustrious lady bad been exposed —persecutions, about the origin of which there were per sons in that place who knew snore than he was impossible not to believe the representation of Lord Lon dooderry, that the news of such an event had filled his Majesty with sincere grief. The Jury, in considering the article charged to be a libel, would examine the whole of it; they would not allow their minds to be diverted towards any particular paragraphs, separated from the general context, by any efforts made by the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. Harvey had come into the proprietor ship of this paper only four nombers before the publication of that now complained of. He hoped the prosecution of Mr. Harvey did not arise from any conduct pursued by him whilst in Parliament, but was confined wholly to the connection which he was supposed to have with this libel. It was true that Mr. Harvey had given offence in a certain quarter, by breaking in upon the Attorney-General's profits in Exchequer prosecutions. It could not be denied. boo - ever, that the great sin committed by the defendant, was the allusion which he made to the Queen's case. He (Mr. B.) did not wish to put this case upon the old hackneyed ground of the " Liberty of the Press." He had an objection to the use of the words, as whenever he heard them in this Court, they were but a preface to a call for severe punishment, and in another place was geerally followed by some belf dozen severe and g rinding enactments. This, however, he should say, that unless the freedom of the press of this country *as upheld by spirited and honest Juries, we soan descend from that high ground which we flattered ourselves we held among the nations of Europe. The Attorney-General -might have spared himself the trouble of warning him off this topic, for it was one which he approached with the greatest reluctance. He hoped be should never see the press made the tool of those in power. The Learned Counsel then appealed to the Jury to throw themselves between the Crown and the defendant, calling upon them as citizens of London, to show upon this occasion that independent spirit which had procured for their City the title lof the cradle of the liberties of the country. and not to give their sanction to proceedings which would eventu ally sap all the foundations upon which British freedom was placed.—At the conclusion of the Learned °rage man's address, the Chief Justice retired for a moonlit, when the occasion was seized upon by the audience in the Court to express their applause by clapping of hands. Tne ATTORNEY-01INER 1 L rose to reply. He believed Mr. n a ve.) , to be the author. and es such he charged toe individeal with the publication. Till Mr. H.'s article appeared, it was admitted that there were only rumours: they were acknow ledged to be such, and roomers which there was a (Jadeite conceal ; let in this article they were proclaimed to be fact, and such declaration professed to be made on authority. Only a few days before the publication of this libel, the Parliament had been opened with a speech fawn the King; yet, at such a time, this man had the impudence to declare that the Ministers were base enough to carry on the Government at a time when the King, from mental derangement, coos. incapable of a/tenti ng to the duties of the Kingly office. Let the Joey recollect, that the paper did not chide to the reamers es such, but the paper after noticing the. declared the reasonred mental de rangesoent to be fact. if ;hat were to be sedated. If the King might be so libelled with impunity, be trusted that it alOald, not be adduced as Front of the " Liberty" of tue Press. The d'stlnction endeavoured to be set up between the Pauler and t le ?rally i•tor, was weak, and mats Alliy of answer; Muse who pocketed the profits, were not to escape with saying, that they were not the authors of the libel. If the Jury were of opinion that the public mind ought not to be disturbed by such hiss and seeedeloss remoras and statements, they would retain a verdict of •• Guilty." The Lord Chief Justice Assam, in addressing the Jury, detailed the nature of the case. According to the law of the land s he printers and publishers, as well as the pro• pricier., were liable for the contents in their paper. As to the matter that was charged to be libel, be bad no bad. ratios, whatever, in distinctly awning, that if it were falsely stated of the King—or of any subject in the realm— that he was afflicted with mental insanity, the party pub. lisbing each entreat would be acting criminally. Os this point be had no doubt. The question thee was, bad the paper in question promulgated such a statement raw gardiog his Majesty ; and that was the question of fast which the law very properly left to the Jury. But be would observe, if it were a libel to make any such stave went falsely against any private individual, that it was • still greater libel to publish such a statement against the highest executive authority in the country. In cases a libel, in particular, it was the custom of the Judge to es press to the Jury his opinion of the publication. He bad ever done so since he was a Judge—be would do so new and he therefore bed no hesitation in declaring his °pipit* to be, Bindle publication was a criminal libel. The Jury. after • very short consultation among each other in the box, retired, at 'a quarter past use o'clock to consider of their verdict. The Court still remained awe crowded. At three the Jury returned to the Court. and by their Foreman, B. Hanson. Esq. asked. whether it wool requisite for the Jury to be satisfied of the " maliciessi intention" of the Publication? The Clll2O JUSTICt —OentIODIOD, when a man publishes ) matter which openly slanders and vilifies another, the pre. sunration is that the act is intentional, unless be show to the contrary. - The Jury again retired, and at a quarter to six returned a verdict of Guilty against both defendants. The Foreman —My Lord, we recommend the defendants to mercy,—The Chief Justice-1 shall take a note of it, Gentlemen. BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL. TOD 11010 r. TRUST. This was an ex-offiiitio information, filed by the Attorney General against J. J. Trust, for having . published a blas phemous libel against the Christian religion. The libel in question was published in Palmer'sl Principles of Nature. When the case was called on, the defendant, a respectable looking lad, apparently about 18 years of age, addressed the Court. He said he intended to defend himself, and before the Solicitor General st ated his case. ire wished to offer a few words.—The Lord Chief Justice—Upon what subject?—Defendant—Jay bard, against the Competency of the Court to try this case.—Chief Justice--We can't hear you; the Court is perfectly competent. Defendant-31y Lord, in the case of the King and Carlile your Lordship— CHM JUSTICII-1 cannot hear you ; I tell you the Court is perfectly competent to try the case, and it is very improper of you to adopt such a course. u. fendant—l hope, my Lird, you Will hen me speak. CHM/ JvBTICS -1 cannot bear any argument against the competency of this Court it is perfectly competent to try a blasphemous libel —Deeendant—it 116 e hot yet been su declared, my Lord' Chief J ustice—l cannot hear you, Sir. The SOLICITOR-GRNERAL proceeded shortly to state the ease. The libel in question, lie observed, was contained iu " Palmer's Principles of Nature." It was not his wish; Nor was it nee sssss y, that he should detain the Jury at any length, nor would he offend their ears by reading morel than a passage or two. In one passage it stated that Moses, blabomet, and Jesus, can lay little claim to merit, or to having beoetitted society. They were all impostors; the two first were notorious murderers in practice, and the last In principle. There were other passages of an equally offensive nature with respect to the Bible, the Birth of Christ, &c. but we forbear to quote them. The Learned Gentleman said, lie should be fully able to bring the sale of the book home to defendant. Bond, jun. and J. Parton, Bow Street officers, were then called. They proved the purchase of the book from the defendant, who keeps a shop at the corner of Ncwgate Street, 126. It appeared that the defendant had resorted to the recently invented mode of evading the law, namely, having the money put into a crevice in the wainscot, after which the book called for is thrust to the purchaser either through a hole in the wainscot, or from the ceiling. The owner of the shop proved having let it to the de fondant at a weekly rent ; and the beadle of the parish proved the nuisance caused by . the crowds attracted to defendant's shop. The beadle seised some placards, and on being brought before the sitting Alderman at Guildhall by defendant, he (the defendant) admitted that he was a supporter of Air. Carlile's principles, and an active ages* of his. This statement was corroborated by Mr. Derision), clerk to the sitting Magistrates at Guildhall. The witnesses were severally cross-examined by defendant, but notbiog material was elicited from them.—The case for the prose. cation having closed, the defendant retired for a few mi. notes ; on his return. Several passages alleged to be of a blasphemous nature were read from pages 16, 18, 72, 79. and 143, of " Palmer's Principles of Nature ;" they . were principally attacks upon the Scriptures, upon the Divinity of Christ. who was called au illegitimate Jew, upon the Christian Religion, 6w. Defendant.-1 wish to have the information read. Cuter JUSTICg: It is not necessary. but yon may have it read if you wish. Defendant-1 wished to analyse it; but no matter. The defendant proceeded to read to the Court a statement, which be originally intended to urge as an argument, or a series of argansents, against the competency of the Court it was rather on this document, which occupied much of the time of the Court, and consisted mainly of assertions of its incapacity to try en offence where no party was stated to be offended. save Almighty God—a fact which, the defendant observed, it would be difficult for Mr. Attorney General to prove. He next proceede d to read "Palmer's Priaziples of Nature," commencing with the title page. and proposing tu go through the book(some 130 pages). Having at length got to a passage, in wnich it was avowed that the work was in opposition to the Christian religion, the Chief Justice objected to his going on.-1 cannot read I any thing worse than what has bee n selected by , the Attor. ne General.—A Juryman: can you read any thng betterl —The Chief Justice : If there be any passage or passages in the book which will have the effect of explaining away those in the information, you have a right to read them ; but I will not. I cannot allow you to go on reading a blasphemous book in a Court of Ju stice ; you injure,iostead of serving your cause by it. Defendant—'lhe objectionable passages, you will find, arc directed against matters contained in the Old Testa ment. The CHM JUSTICZ said be could allow of no attack upon religion.—Defendant—lt is not an attack, it is only a l l comment. The Cam Males repeated his objection. The Defendant here put it to the Jury if the nature of what he had read was such as to induce them to prevent his going on ? A Juryman: Yes, certainly (an end Jurymen called out " Shocking," as the defendant proceeded) Defendant: Oh then you condemn me; you find me guilty already?—A Jur yman : If there be any part of tha t book which will explain what is charged against you, read it; if not, you had better nut proceed. Defentlent—Oh no, I find I have but a poor chance bore!—Can a man be punished for saying the Christian Religion Is not true lalef Justice: --Certainly, it is so declared ley the law of the land. The Defendant:— My Lord, witchcraft was once held to be a crime, but it is not so new. CM/ Jurrtcs.—Do yen wish to speak to the evidence? Defendant said, that be must respectfully protest against being prevented from going on to read. lie then pro ceeded to enter into various o bjections to the evidence, the mode of impanelling the Jury, the iolleence of Crowe Lawyers, &e., through which details we have not space to follow him. At length the Cuter Jusvcs summed up, and the Jury instantly returned a verdict of—Guilty. The CUM JusTice observed, that there could not, per' bas be found a stronger instance of the evil tendency of suc p h , writino than that furnished by the misled young man before them . OLD BAlLEY—Trwasear. semvel 311 Won was found guilty of stealing* sofa, the pro perty of Lek° Farrell. Samuel Blackman was charged with secreting and stealing one sovereign entrusted to him, it being the property of Wil liam Grilliths, his master. on the trith of April, 1822. Tne fact was proved, and the Jury returned a verdict of—Guilty. John Core was indicted for feloniously driving a certain dray at and against the body of J. Tucker, and thereby causing his death.—The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. George Evans, a silk dyer, stated, that he was stsading at the corner of Worship street, on the 24th of September last. when he saw two brewers' drays there ; the deceased was on the same side as the driver should be; the Om dray bad driver, and passed the deceased ; the prisoner was a eonelder* able distance behind his dray; saw the deemed endeavour to avoid the dray, by propping h emelt behind it ; had the driver hese up with the dray, the accident would not have happened; the fore pert of th e dray passed over deceased's head end crushed it to pieces, and Ws brains were mitered on the ground • deceased died instantly. —Triree other witnesses gave exactly the same testimony.—An officer from Worship street proved that the width of the carriage way was near fourteen feet. The drays were the property of Messrs. Danbury, Bei , ton, and Co.—The Jury, without hesotation. retailed a verdict of Guilty. The Reconnea having made several observations on the scandalous neglect of draymes, ordered the prisoner to he , kept to bard labour in the House of Correction for 6 mon th s. SI:NTENCES ON TUE PRISONERS. - - - All the business for both London and Middlesex being finished, the Recorder proceeded to pass the following sea tepees :—John Scott, Charles Louis, Caroline Williams. Geo. Thrush, and Isaac Barron, transportation for life.—James Tibbs, Wm. Hunt, Geo. Glover. Charles Bear, and Thomas craven, for fourteen years.—Benjamin Death, Thos. Seurrah. J o shua Salentine, Wm, Daltry, Win. Ashley, Chas. Fisher. James Harrison, John Mesh. Frederick Foster, Henry Mellor. James Smith, John Wasey. John Miller, William Led, Joseph Irwin, Midas Jounings. Richard Leeworthy, John Melville. Abraham Alexander, John Collet. William Comities, Eliza beth Bevil, illiam Clerk, Johnones, Edward Dormidae. James All e n , ` Margaret Steward , Charles Evans, sod James Fey, for seven years. The following prisoners were sestencedao be imprisoned in the Honse of ,Correction, and there kept to hard labour :—John Hale, EdzabttliJeekson, El e anor MTarthy, Thomas Maw ford, Jane Mathews, Mary Davies, Mary Smith, John Anne reau, Thomas Kelly, E izabeth Mills, Elizabeth' Parry, John Ash, and Miry Jones, for one leer. Samtel Million, for the same tern.. nd whipped in the gaol. William Turner, who was convicted of a misdemeanour, for a similar period, and to find securities fur his good belie tiuur at the end of that time. William Adams, for nine months. William Werner, George M•Kilight, John Thomson, Peter Wil isms, William Lerida. Thomas Buchitasn, Francis Sweney, and John Harris, fur Aix months. William Lewis, blowy Woad, Henry Seers, Richard Isieworthy. Samuel Fitch, William Paterson, NliehielSullivan, Benjamin Ford, and Samuel Campbell, for three moral's. — George Davies. Sarah Williams, Susannah Justice, Samuel Blackman. Martin Brown, George Absolara, for two months. Edward Haynes and M idiane Nash, for the same term, and also publicly whipped. Anne Curtis, for silt weeks. Harriet Cook. henry Morgan, Elizabeth Simpson, for cosi month: and Richard Fowles. for the same period. in Relegate. Sarah James, John Rowlands, for fourteen days, In Newgate. Thos. Ratherford, John Wilson, Mary Tracey, and Daniel Wright, Aged a shilling, and discharged. The sentences on lieury Pitt, John Butler, Jose,.h Wright, and William DOM, were respited. His Lordship then paned sentence of death upon the follow ing criminals :—John Williams, John Young, Wm. Kitson, and George Fletcher, for stealing in a dwelling-house ; James Gregory, Win. Leddington, Joseph Farmer, and John Hide. for housebreaking in the day time; Henry Thomson, James Field, and Joseph Shepherd, for burglary ; and James Scott, for timing and maiming his wife, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm. In reference to tile case of the last prisoner, the Recorder remarked that whatever might be the effect of the intercession of the Learned Judges who the cases of some of the prisoners then before him, with tried his Majesty, be must expect no such indulgesee.—The ad vice of the Court, therefore, was, that he should be as speedy as possible in endeavouring to make his peace with the Al mighty. Immediately after the prisoners had been removed from the Bar, a female in one of the Galleries was taken out of Court shrieking violently, and exclaiming " Oh, my William." The Board of Trade, it is understood, is occupied with the consideration of the intricate state of the Fishery Laws, witb the design of simplifying and restoring them to efficiency; but there are many difficulties to be overcome, not generally known on the coasts. SUICIDE.—On Tuesday John Sparkes, jun. Esq., of the firm of Sparkes and Co., 4listillerA. in St. John-street, Smithfield, in a fit of despondency, oc4 asioned, as it is re• ported. by losses io hie speculations in the Funds, par ticularly in Spanish Bonds, put an end to his existence, by shooting himself through the head with a pistol, by which the greater part of his countenance was dreadfully lacerated. He fell on Isis face, and the report of the pistol not being heard by the family, the body was not discovered till tau hours afterwards, when a surgeon was called in, who stated that the unfortunate young gentleman moat have died in. stantly. A Jury has since sat on the body, at the Windmill. St. Jobn's-street, and returned a verdict of insanity. The deceased has left a wife and four children. The meiancboly intelligence was conveyed to her at the country residestet near Edmonton. MARRIED. —Yesterday, at St. George s Church, Hanorerirquare , L‘ ret• General Sir Thomas Miami, Bart. 0.C.8. to EMUS, daughter of the R 04 ed Hosoarable Hugh Elliott; and a t the same time, Captain Million. eldest of the Right Honourable Hugh Elli ott . to Margaret Seymour. onlyda4 l6 of James Masterton, Esq. of Brew Cattle, Perthshire. Yesteray. at Wandsworth, A. M. Maxwell, Ca, t. in the Bost Ail d es to Marc. third daughter of John Falconer Mice, Esq. of West ilill Wandsworth. Ou Thursday, atSl James Jame Church, J. S. Oasicniii. Ems. o f Clargerstl 4 to Mary, seignid daughter of J. A. Hermon, I:•sq Of Whetstone. Oct. 9. at Albion Villa, near Gothenburg, the Rev. Morgan Horgars,eb*„ . thin of the British Factory at Gothenburg.nbur. to Fanny, eldest daughter Monsen, Esq. late of Jaraesotreet. fflattli - itaiLL OA4 of • On the 2ith instant, at Stoke Newington.Hart, Esq• terrace, to Mary, the eldest daughter of Mr. .Maltby . of Barret resit On Wednesday tut, Oct. 29, at Islingto n Church. 0. C. OrrecoMil; Lieut. R. A., to Martha Elizabeth, third daughter of the late J. 4;n 4,4 ol'Highbure Park. Mt l• EID.-1/n the tXh Inetant. Mrs. Ann Barnar d 79 d, relict of the late • Barnard, of College-unreel, Westusiniter,sge. D R. EADY respectfully 41 care, end afflicted, to Ins peculiar and effectual meth Pd calls the attention of 00 although he will not presume to pledge infallibilr in every description of case , y et as Ser as hum'n .id, sass ad by medical and surgic al ex p erience can be 1iP1 4 . 41 ;, I : promises a speedy and permaneut r,stomtion.--Dr. I- . , consulted daily at No. SS, Deati- curet, Soho. and I,ll.ta' street, Stamford-street, Block:liias and Waterloo -I.oc if patients of both sexes. Country letters, (post PlilL e l closing a fee, Wee respeetsbk ay.cation by rears of '.- post.—Upper Ground street,surrey side of Illaclariars 0,1"- leads directly to I, Hatfield street .--- London : Printed and Published at the Office, No. VA Irsili° by R. WARDELL, LLD. Proprietor. 4 an iid ISM Pu or vid . Sal 4Th jut p. MOI pry r • A .. A mm to Wil As tit sty La ve ' fts 6P to wi tit - 1 • _0 (B Di Ph • ric Uti Or h 4 Ai TN 11.1 • Ift a .4 a I a I