The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-07-29 00:00:00

CATROLIC DISSEXTZOXS. O'Connell has addressed the following Weer to the Edith? of Cic Ds! lie Morning Register : Itlerrion-square, 28d July, 1825. !...en,-1 have been twenty-three years engaged in the Catholic sear. Daum; that long period many things have occurred calcu wed to mortify. and some to disgust me. But. either the natutal elasticity of my animal spirits, or some other cause, prevented me !NHS bang affected by any of the attacks, whether open or insidious, gado upon me. I must, however, acknowledge that my period of s p.ithy has terminated. I have at length felt with sensitiveness all rig Isi'.temess of reproach --and, in the spirit, perhaps, of humiliated pride and mortifiod vanity, I sit down to reply to a strange, and, I will add, most unnecessary. public assault, made on me by a very te vectsble Clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Kineella, of Carlow College. Until I saw his letter, 1 never felt a sensation of regret at the patron of my time and property which has been devoted to Ca. Mei.: 'Tales. It is natural that I should overrate the value of that e. and be too sensible of the amount of such property. Yet, till I saw his letter, I never felt regret for the one or the other. But Mat letter gave rise to feelings of a nature calculated. at least, to malts rue recollect that one or the most celebrated of Roman pa triots died, exclaiming that " public virtue was but a name." And if this sentiment obtruded itself on a great man, why should not so useless and obscure an individual as icyself feel a similar pang, •hea unnecessarily assailed from a quarter to which I would have :molly looked foe friendship, for protection, fur patronage. The occasion of winch the I(o , . Mr. Kinsella availed himself to " r usk into print" against me, was this—A meeting haul been rolled of St. Audeon's parish, nominally, to petition Parliament, last three days alter Parliament had ripen ! ! ! In that respect it was a bind of " privateering after the war ;" but its real ilijetet might have been, what Mr. Kinsella says it was. /lie words are, " Now, Sir, at the meeting in Bridge-street, the vault qacition at tine was, the propriety of Mr. O'Connel's viaduct in approving of the Bill fur increasing the qualification of the electors, and of the proposed plan for pensioning the Clergy." Perhaps so; perhaps that was the sole question at issue in Bridge-stmt. 'let such an object was strenuously denied by twat of the adverse speakers there. They were--Lord love them __they were, they said, merely talking of abstract questions, un iJapeitart to me. But lam apt to believe with the public, that me Rev. Mr. Kinsella is right. He may, besides, hays private means of knowing the real sentiments of the movers of the Bridge civet meeting which I have not ; and at all events, lie has lent the aid of his powerful talents and most respectable character to forward the objects of those who might have intended to " let off" that meeting at my head. The cause of the Rev. Mr. Kinsella's letter is—the report of • speech made by me, in return fur a vote of thralls passed to met by that meeting. I helloes there is not a human being amongst the reading classes of society that is not quite aware of the gross inaccuracy with which speeches arc reported in the public papers ; such inaccuracy is hardier to a proverb—indeeil it must be so. How is it possible fora writer to follow the rapid progress of a speech. or to seise with minuteaess the arrow flight of another person's ideas / It is, in truth, surprising that even so much•can be done in that way as is dose, to give any notion of an unpremeditated speech. But where thee is any subject of a delicate nature, or any thing like precision required, nobody, I believe, thinks of fastening the terms of a re ported speech on the speaker, without at least a previous inquiry. Wi t h Kara to the speech in question, it was given in a paper Ilk Naming Register) which, in my opinion, employs the best reporters in this country. And I say this the more readily, because 1 am bound to add that this report pas singularly inaccurate—it we inaccurate beyond the usual inaccuracy of newspaper reports. I ran account for this circumstance by my having apoken from the Irak ry at a great distance from the reporters, who were seated near the sitar railing. I recollect baying had occasion the next day, in a conversation with a respectable gentleman, to remark on the gross raistatementa j nisee in that report. The friend to whom I allude said, that it was lihey that either Dr. Murray or Dr. Doyle would write to me to kacw if I could have ntade ouch assertions respecting them. My mese was, that I thought it very improbable they would take that j livable, as they both knew how little reliance was to be placed on ash reports, and how utterly incapable I was of giving utterance hi the untruths respecting Ulan, which the newspapers attributed . . . little did I imagine at that time that, without any previous in -90,7y. I should be treated in print as the asserter of falsehood, and prJteit historically and chronologically to be a liar, by a respects. in. and respected Catholic clergyman. I did not imagine it possible that there ezisted any man ca pable of thinking that, in addition to my other labours, I am bound is volunteer to watch over the press ; to correct its mistatements, aid to set myself right rhenever it misrepresents me wilfully or by taVtake. If this be expected of me, I must confess lam totally usable to do it. I would rather suffer any infliction than Ise driven icto constant lo.battles with newspaper reporters. Besides, if I were of my knee motion to correct them in one instance, I would thereby incur the liability of a tacit admission of the accuracy of all which I did not correct. I have, therefore, co.:latently in my speeches, and re peatedly in pint, and more than once, in the columns of t h e Morn. leg iitgister, disclaimed any responsibility for any publication not stymie), m name. If any evi l' could occur front my Inattention to the reporters, the remedy is the most easy at.d simple in the world. It consists in at. application, either verbal or written to myself. If the Rev. Mr. :Kismet's condescended to write to me one line hefine he wrote a long letter to the Dahlia Errain Post, all would have been set yleee and I would have authorised him to publish, or I myself 'lava its el ement. at hisrequest, have published such a come. rendered it tanneeneary, • , ret of the Report as ro:::!" 1 ! s well, indeed, as impossible, for hint to onste.::.: Ynidrt hnfiect accents of undeserved prose, with the foul names of Ha and calum r ator. That the Report contained a falsehood was perfectly clear. How tare I deserved that he should fix it upon me, without an in quiry ? Would not courtesy have required that an enemy thould or asked, whethet be really was guilty, before his guilt was pro !teemed certain ? Alas ! my vanity and foolish pride made me think I deserved more than courtesy. It made me believe, that , before a Catholic clergyman joined in print the Bridge-street gang. as they have been celled, and the mime calumniators, in assailing me. he would not pet my certain conviction on the mere hazard of my contradicting or not newspaper reporters; but would give him self first, the kind and considerate trouble of asking me how the tact really was.. Nay, if I had really used the word attributed to me, I would have expected the contlesceneion of a private expostulation ; and the opportunity of myself publicly retracting, before I was met in hastile array, by a gentleman, whose sacred charamer and station make his hostility Justly appear to be of itself an absolute cond. =anon. Let me not be mistaken ; let me not be supposed to titter re pent-hes ; but I have a ri ght, in the bitterness of sorrow, to ieaelain, that at such a period as the present those who, no matter tent whet motives, seek to destroy that unanimity, to which mainly our chance of success depends, should be able to wield the none, and use the labours of as truly excellent a person es the Ray. Mr. Kinsella against me, and against those who, with ins, are struggling to keep our forces together for the day of constitu tional battle against the common enemy. lied the Rev. Gentleman, on reading the report in question, the Li thins towards me, and the condescension to write to me, I tell you, Mr. Editor, what would have been my reply. should have expensed my sincere pleasure at becoming the correspondent of &gentleman, :o whom, as a scholar and a di. star, the Catholics are se much indebted, during the memorable,' and to him, as well as to the Catholic maw, mpstleonourable Bible battle in Carlow. :..seoratly-1 would have expressed, as I now cheerfully express, my respectful affection, as well as my profound veneration, for the digeitied Prelates to whom allusion is made, and declared, that I wiz delighted to have a 4;6mile opportunity to do awry apy pos t.ely suspicion that I would have spoken of either of them in any et) , calculated to derogate from their high and venerated chime. it:.. I would have reseectfully alit gratefully thanked the Rev. Mr. Kinsella for giving me that opportunity. 'Ehirilly-1 would have distinctly disclaimed the accuracy of the neon. I would have taken up loth the passagesquoted in his let ter, aid shown him, in detail, that they contained most gross mis tiees of ivy meaning. I should have proceeded in these or similar words :—The second passage you have quoted, Rev. Sir, demands my attention la the firs. instance. It is this—l use your own words—" He says of the B shops, they may have been taken by surprise. The purity of Melt own motives, and the consciousness of their own integrity, may have exposed theta to the artifices of designing per ions e but the period will never again arrive when thee will be unprepared foe say measure the Govemeteet rnay propose." I did use the language sufficiently similar to this passage 'to enable me to ii7ol , the passage itself. But I think you will be • taken by surprise" when you hear the simple fact, that I was sneaking, not of the year Mee but of the year 1799--not of his Grace Dr. Murray, or the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle, but of Prelates, many, nay most of whom, are long since dead—not, in short, of the measure of making a provision for the Catholic Clergy, but of the I The matter occurred thus :—One of the speakers against "the CIEs" actually went the length of arguing that a State provision tar our Clergy, in the event of Emancipation, was a branch of the Veto. He said that the laity should watch over the subject, as the Prelates hadlbefore beets induced, at one time, to sanction the Vero. It was as a reply to that remark that I applied the sentiment at toes:tea. 1 threw some ridicule on the assertion of there be me a connexion between the two m moues, and showed that. Othocgh in 1799 some of the Catholic Prelates had been deceived tote a qualified assent of a manna of the Veto, yet, that from the chiracter and roused vigilance of our present Prelates, there was no apprehen s ion o f any recurrence of mistake or surprise on that stihject. I then spoke as I think of the existing etas of Catholic Prelates in Ireland. I poured out my heart: in the expression of the stn. tim,ats I enter:win of all the Prelates who attended in London in the present year, and of the two Prelates in question I spoke, as .Nery Catholic must speak, in terms of the most unmixed and un mitigated approbation. I relied upon their unblemished characters as the surest and strongest proof that any measure to which the y iixt given an assess, Hociant or otherwise, could not be Vetoisu cd. I asserted that, it it were Vetoistical, no earthly connidera• tem could have indseed them, nor any human terrors could compel' them, to assent to the measure. I alluded to the evidence of Dr. Leyte. as conclusive against such an unworthy supposition. I was thus naturally html to the part I took in the details of the " provision" for the Catholic Clergy. I did then assert, and I repeat the assertion, " that in all the communications I had with the persons who patronized that providon, I did not do anything, or assent to any one detail, which had not the assent, and, as such, the unction, ut the wand Prelates In question." In this asertion, I my allusion was to the details constituting the ptincVe justly put forward by the Rev. Mr. Kinsella, on behalf of the Right Rev,' Dr. Doyle, namely, " that It was not to be a Rsgiunt donum, or made to depend on an annual vote of the House of Commons," but " that it should be a permanent provision established by law." These details, Rev, Sir, were what I alluded to ire that part of ' my speech which gave rise to the first passage you Tune. mime. curate as the report is, yet it does not, as I respectfully submit, bear eau the inference you draw from it. There certainly is not a' word in that passage respecting " the freehold wing," and what ever there be to justify your inference extending it to the " free hold wing," there certainly was nothing in my speech to justify the Reporter au that respect. I solemnly declare that I did not say one word connecting, di- I rectly or indirectly, the name of any Catholic Pre:ate, or the opinion of any Catholic Prelate, with my support of (if you choose to call it support), or, as I should say, my acqniescence. in " the freehold wing." I could not have said it with respect to Dr. Murray, or Dr. I Doyle, without being guilty of what you, Rev. Sir, really foolish owl- I bute to me—namely, a and absurd falsehood. With respect to his Grace the Archbishop, I do not know what his opinion may be with regard to this wing—or whether he has any opinions at all on the subject. It he have. I certainly respect them—but I never beard him utter them. Nay, if I had asked bun his opinion on " the freehold bill," I really believe his reply would consist in a smile, and a repetition of my question—" And pray what is your own opinion ?" AR to the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle. I was quite aware that his published sentiments were very different from mine. I was also i aware that he avoided, whilst in London., any interference with that subject. lie seemed to consider it as foreign from the duties whi7h he had to perform there--and, at all events, I never consulted him on this topic—l considered our opinions as opposite—and, whilst on every thing connected with religion, I should pay the most deferential and unqualified respect for his judgment, I certainly would, and do respectfully differ from him on the forty shilling freehold system in Ireland. I have not the foolish vanity to corn pare my mental faculties with his—but I have had professional, and other opportunities to watch the system in all its workings, and to ascertain facts relating to it with which Dr. Doyle is probably un. acquainted. But under these circumstances nothing could be further from my mind than to allege that either Dr. Murray or Dr. DI le had given any sanction to my opinions on the " freehold wing." I have, Rev. Sr, only further to assure you, that I never ex ressi.d any " horror" at the " freehold wing," or at the " provi sion wing." For my own opinions on the former I storm and stand on my own judgment. For my acquiescence in " the principle" of the latter, I did and do claim the benefit of the assent to that principle given by Catholic Prelates of the first and highest esti. matfett. That principle pre.suppoms Emancipation. It pre-suppoam a paternal and fostering government—not ruling for the protection of a faction, but governing for the strength and security of ali the petiole. The mode in which such a paternal government should be' cherished by the Irish people, is indeed widely different from any thing we have hitherto experienced. I cannot, Rev. Sir, conclude without assuring you, that I con cur with those who think shut ourcaune was retarded, not advanced, by " the wings," and to express my determination not to ccusent in future to connect the fate or fortune's of the Catholic cause with any extraneous measures whatsoever. Our friends cannot blame a determination which experience justities--our enemies cannot l i calumniate a determination which their own conduct has sanc tioned. Such, M. Editor. would have been my reply to the private letter of the Rev. Mr. Kinsella. If it be any pleasure to him to know that he has grieved and humiliated me, I give him the ad vantage of knowing the fact. But, although goaded by more pain ful feeling than I ever before experienced, I trust I have not said one word inconsictent with the reverence I bear to his sacred functions, and the respect 1 entertain for his personal and individual character. I have the honour to be, your very obedient servant, DANIEL O'CONNELL. P.B. Since I wrote the greater part of the above letter, I have seen my Mend Cobbett'e last publication. %Chat strange ern. ture it is ! If I had leisure I think I would laugh a little at him by way of reply; I wish he would deprive me of my " Leader. ship" amongst the Catholics. I assure him it is a very trouble. so me commodity ; but I cannot lose it on allegations, which hap. pen to have the poetical quality of invention, or the less amiable one of complete distortion. THE COMMERCE OF ENGL.4ND, FRANCE, AND AMERICA. [From the Journal du Commerce:l Ata time when commerce, and the riches of which it is the 11111111.11, and which gives distinction to nations, has become more auteoded than at any former period, it is most interesting to be well acquainted with the commercial transactions of the divers countries where manufacturing and agricultural industry Is most developed. In the last pages of the fir,ne Encyclopodiewe are some most Important observations, for which we are indebted to the researches of M. Moreau de Jonnes, so well known by the ileowledge he has evinced on similar subjects, and who is a member Of the Institute, and several other learned societies. This statirtic *ketch on the commerce of the United States, England, and France, before given in the latter part of the .25th volume, is continued in the 26th volume, in a comparative table of the commerce of these times might( maritime powers. The territory of the United States, 230 years since, was onlyin tiedby savages and wild betties; " a iew wandering and fa ptrple," says M. Moreau de Jonnes. " then occupied a Itladblee i butV 1 0.000 1 .0, 1 ,N men." alls Is 1778, that is to say less than hail a century ago. ramantry could spare from its coneumptic a ; lor the marke that ts of t h i st wan q ; metropolis, and all which it received in exchani:: for Its amounted only to 50 millions of France. At present the low. 9 10 s importations is 403,991,000 francs, and the total of its com mercial transactions amounts to 3,279,W91,000 franca. Such is the mass of etches which a free people who know how to profit by their re sources can produce in a single generation. The author has sought foe the causes which have produced this result, in official docu- Inents, which far the most part have not been published on this tilde of the Atlantic. Since the return of peace, the entire mass of the commercial relations of France had not been fixed upon sufhciently authentic bases, and the results to which 11. Moreau de Jonnes has come, acre furnished by the most exact reeearches, and from the most authentic documents. It appears that the total of the exportations amounts to 461.050.000 francs, and the total of the commercial relations to 7,323,610,000 francs. What, then, would have been the prosperity of this empire, if its immense riches had not been diverted and exhausted by twenty-five yeas of civil and foreign war. two invasions, the loss of our Colonic', and the misfortune of having so often forgotten, since the 31inistry of Colbert, that the first interests of the State arc those of agriculture, industry, and commerce ! As to Great Britain, she has attained still more important vs. salts. Never did the arts if manufacturing, of busing and of aching, give to a nation a more colossal influence. The total of its exportations amounts to 4.140.450.060 francs, and that of its commercial transactions to 10,496,123,0 W francs. " Behold."' says our author, " the prodigious riches which the ascendancy of its loans, the patronage of America, the possession of Asia, the empire over the seas, and that European preponderance which France has forced it to purchase by 2i years of war, and which it now seems inclined to dispute with Russia, has given to Eng land !" It will be seen, according to the remark of M. Moreau de Jonnes, that the sum total of commercial transactions, interior as well as exterior, of France is inferior to that of England, by a third, and exceeds by nearly a half that of the United States. Exportation, which may be considered as a proof of the prosperity of a state, is not in our favour ; but our greatest inferiority is in our cotnmer cial warehousing and re-exportation. " This important branch is from three to six times more considerable in the British Islands than in France ; and that of America triples ours." If we conetiler the exportation of indigenous products, which is the standard of the agricultural prosperity of every nation, we find that England exports annually a quantity, as well agricultural as those emanating from industry, which equals, perhaps surpasses, in value all the exportations of similar products by other great commercial powers (France, America, and Russia); and a popu lation of twenty-two millions has the power, aided by its superior industry, to produce every year a mass of wealth equal to that fur. rilehed by countries peopled by 115 millions of inhabitants. "Taken in a body, without distinguishing articles, the exports. dons of France are superior by two millions of francs to those of Russia ; inferior by II millions to those of England ; superior by 60 millions to those of the United States; compared with Eng. land they are 9to 2.3, and with America as 9 to 8 . There is then no foundation for the assertion, that the commercial power of the States equals or surpasses that of France; but it is not to be doubted that it will be realised in a few years, if our commerce remains stationary, instead of following the rapid march of other commercial nations." EAST INDIA REVENUE. The yearly aceounts of the East India Revenue have been printed, by order of the House of Commons. The accounts arc only made up fon the year ended April 30, 1823 ; but the estimate, which may be taken as pretty nearly correct, is made up fur the year ended April 30, 1824. In this last period only a very small part of the expense of the Burmese war, which began in February, 1824, can be included ; but it will be seen that the revenue is not in a state to render any increase of charge de sirable. The net surplus revenue in India was— In 1820-21 . . - X 1.471.918 1821-2'! . . . 1,916,719 1e22-23 . . . . 2.931,841 and in the year which comprehends two months of the Bur tnese war, viz. In 11123-21 - . .C 908,174. Even from this small 'surplus the whole of the expenses in England and interest of debt payable here must be deducted ; so that a surplus could be scarcely said to exist in 1 St:3-4. One great item in the estimated charge of 1823-4, however, is the redemption, in consequence of the Hy derabad transactions, of the pe4heush, or tribute payable to the Nizrm. The sum it 1,05,10,310 rupees, about a million sterling. HOME cacraz •ILENT ASSIZES, LlAzDsross, JVLY 28. CROWN SIDE. Before Mr. Baron GRAHAM. Inja am F r ench was indicted, on Lord Ellenborough's Aet, for cutting and maiming Elizabeth, his wife, with a knife, with intent to kill and murder tier, at Chatham, on the 19th July. Mr. M AIi9HAM conducted the prosecution. From his state ment it appeared, that the prisoner had been frequently afflicted with menial derangement, and confined at different periods in the workhouse at Chatham, and at the Asylum at Bethnal-green as a lunatic, but allowed to come abroad again when apparently re stored to sanity. lie had been many years parted trotn his wife, wha lived as servant at a ,public-house at Chatham. For some time, previously to the 19th July, she prisoner had been at large, and on that day h► went to the public house where his wife was, and whilst she stood at a wash-tub, lie tripped her up. and pulling a knife out of his pocket, declared his intention of cutting her legs off, and on the instant he inflicted a dreadful gash on one of her legs. ller screams brought the master of The . house and others to her assistance, and she was rescued from farther violence. Two of the arteries had been cut through, Ind but for the prompt at tendance of a surgeon, the unfortunate woman must have died from the effusion of blood. The prisoner assigned no motive for his conduct, nor did it appear that he had any. It was suggested that probably the act was committed in a returning fit of his for. mer insanity, and in that view his conduit was submitted to the Judy. The facts of the case were clearly proved. The wretched prisoner tell into an epileptic fit whilst in the dock, and his general appearance denoted unsoundness both of mind and body. Mr. Baron GRARAM left the Jury to say whether, under all the circumstances, the prisoner was of sound mind at the time the offence was committed, and if they were of opinion that he was not, directed them to acquit him on that ground. The Jury 'mm.dtately found the prisoner Not Go;:ty, ob the ground of insanity, and he was ordered to remain in custody until' the King's pleasure should be known. Bansgr, who had been brought from Salisbury gaol by !labels Corpus, having been convicted at the last Assizes for that county, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation for receiving a horse knowing it to be stolen, was now indicted for stealing a duo gelding, at Maidstone, on the . 2tl of November last, the property of Henry Floate. Mr. DOWLIgI3 conducted the prosecution, and Mr. ANDREWS the defence. _ It appeared in evidence, that in the nigh t of the 22d October last, the horse was stolen from ajleld Leloagtng to the prosecutor, a farmer, at Wilton, In Sulam On the 7th of May last it was traced to the possession of a respectable grocer at hlaidstone, who hail purchased it of a person named Chittenden, on the 17th of March. Chittenden stated that he had purchased it of the prisoner and one Thomas Steadman jointly, at Maidstone, on the 2d of November last, and paid the prisoner M. 10a. as the price of it, about three weeks afterwards. On these facts the case for the pro. aecution rested. The defence set up was, first, that the prisoner was merely the innocent agent of Steadman (who is now in confinement in an ad joining county, on a charge of horse-stealing) in disposing of the horn ; and, second, that the horse had been sold to Steadman, at Marlow fair, on the 24th October, by a man named Sergeant, who was lately executed in London with Probert, for horse. stealing. Two young men from Hounslow were called to prove that they saw a horse of the description in question in the possession of Ser geant, at Marlow fair, on the 24th of October, but there was no positive evidence of the identity. Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character. Mr. Baron G MIA)/ summed up the evidence for the Jury. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. He vehemently exclaimed against the verdict, and declared that he was a lost man in consequence of the perjury of some of the witnesses. There were three other charges against him of receiving stolen hones, knowing them to be stolen. WESTERN CIRCUIT. DEVONSIIIRE ASSIZES, EIITER, JULY 26. The Judges arrived here yesterday evening, and having opened tas the Cotnmton, and attended divine service at the Cathedral, the business of the Assizes commenced this morning before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALIC in Intl Civil, and Mr. Justice tJASELEE in the Crown Court. CROWN COURT. A numerous assemblage of Magistrates appeared on the Bench. Among others we observed Lord Exmouth and Lord Graves, Col. Pelle*, Sir H. Carew, &e. &c. The attendance of Grand Jurors was extremely scanty; after considerable delay and a !lumber of names being called over, the following Grand Jury was sworn. Lord Graves H. A. Morehead, Esq. The lion. P. B. Pellew I W. bangmead, Esq. Sir H. Carey, Bart. li. T. Treby, Esq. SirJ. Louis, Bart. B. Rosedew, Esq. Sir J. Peering, Bart. B. Pulford, Esq. W. 31. Prsed, Esq. Sergeant H. S. Northeott, Esq. at Law J. W. Clarke, Esq. R. H. Tuckfield, Esq. Geo. Carey, Esq. T. 11. Hayes, Esq. G. W. Salem ' Esq. T. Bewes, Esq. J. B. Creswell, Esq. Wm. Tucker, Esq. J. Pitman, Esq. W. H. Symmons, Esq. J. Sillifant, Esq. Mr. Justice GASELZE then proceeded tOeharge the Grand Jeey to the following effect : GENTLEMEN or Tilt GRAND JURY.—The personal expe rience I have hail of the very able and satisfactory manner In which you have discharged your Important duty upon many previous oe zasions, renders it quite unnecessary for me to address any general obeere4lns to you noon those duties with the nature of which you are already suirtmeully aelueinted. I am:happy, Gentlemen, that although the present Calendar is sufficiently heavy, yet in point of numbers and magnitude of offences (with one or two exceptions) it is lighter than most preceding Calendars which I can for many years remember in this part of the country. In looking over the list of offences, I do not perceive any of a nature requiring parti cular observation, with the exception of a charge against an indi , victual named Richard Baker (No. 23 on the Calendar), for an ' offence of a very serious nature with a child of tender age- It is In deed the age of one of the parties who will be a witness before you that induces me thus particularly to iadvert to this ease. And I wish to observe (without being aware of the nature of the indict ment that will be preferred), that in the event of the age of the fe male being described as under ten years, who will have no occasion to inquire whether or not she was a party consenting to the commission of the offence, because the law does not recog nise the possibility of consent, or admit it as a sufficient plea or excuse in such a case. If the indictment shall be so laid, it will then become your duty to consider how far the witness,from her age and situation, can be considered to understand tke nature of an oath, and consequently what degree of credibility may be safely attached to her evidence. You will farther inquire, Gentlemen, what past of the charge depends upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, and if it be in any material point corroborated by the evidence of other individuals. If the age of the female should not be laid in the indictment as under ten years, then, Gen tlemen, 1 have to tell you that the case assumes an aspect entirely different, and it will be fur you to consider whether the charge is likely to be sustained by the evidence to be submitted to a Petit Jury, and from that and other circumstances you are to determine if it be a proper case fur farther consideration. I have only to add, while upon this subject, that if you see no likelihood of conviction from the nature of the proofs laid before you, then it will become your duty to ignore the bill, as cases of this description should not be unnecessarily brought before the public. It is not my intro. tion, Gentlemen, by any observatiOn of mine, to prejudge the ease , that will be submitted to you ; I merely repeat, the less publicity given to cases of this kind, particularly if not fully sustained, the better. There is a minor case of the same kind, but somewhat dif ferent in the circumstances ; you will consider it also, Gentlemen, rat the same time holding in view the observations made upon the other, and which are in some degree applicable to this latter case: but it is not for me, Gentlemen, to anticipate what may be the de. eisian you will see fit to come to upon either of those cases. In the , remaining cases I do not observe any thing of a peculiar nature, or; which calls for any farther observation from me. I have only to request, Gentlemen, that you will lose as little time as possible In sending down bills, and should any difficulty arise in the course of the discharge of ; your duty, It will give me great satisfaction to afford you every assistance in my power towards its removal. The Grand Jury then retired, and shortly after returned, having found several true bills, when Jehe 411iy - urd, aged 23; Steplicto .Cea:rot My, 14; and Mary FiPtd, 11, were put to the bar, indicted for stealing, on the 10th at Great Bickerton, in this county, 291. in notes and 51. in PA, the property of J. Richards. J. Richards deposed as follows :—On the 10th July I lost 291. lln notes and 51. in money. 1 kept the cash in a box. I went out early in the morning, leaving the three prisoners, who were m servants, in the house. Mary Ford was my apprentice. My wi fe, was also from home at the time I have mentioned, and the three, I prisoners were left alone together in the house. My wife and I I went out to market. The cash was in a box, and the notes were in liseeket-book on the tester of the bed. Before I went out in the dierning I saw the box and pocket-book both safe. The box had Reloek upon it, but I saw the money in it two or three days before' missed it. Inside the large box was a small tin one, which con tained a seven-shilling anti crown.piece, both presents to my esughter from her grandfather. The notes were country notes., T have never seen them since. I have seen the small tin box seal a' handkerchief, both which were stolen at the same time. 1 re turned home at half-past ten on the night of the robbery. The, prisoners were gone away, and there was nobody In the house ex cept my daughter. I immediately suspected something was wrong, and, on examination, found my money had been taken away. Thomas Richards (brother of the last witness)-1 pursued my brother's servants on being acquainted with the robbery, and found them on Sunday last at Alburton. Alburton is forty miles from Great Bickerton. I took them all into custody with the assistance of a constable named Coles. James Coles—l am a constable at Alburtnn, and apprehended the prisoners at the bar at the Swan Inn, ml the day mentioned by the last witness. On taking !Wilford into custody, I asked him how he came to rob his master ; and he answered, " It was done, and could not be undone." I did not make use of any threat or promiee to induce him to confess. I then asked him what money he had about him, and he produced a pocket-honk, at the same time saying, " that is all." I opened, and examined the pocket. book, which contained 131. in notes. In one of the prisoner's pockets I found 41- also in notes, and is another 9/. There were two notes of 31. and two of 2L twit the rest wete 11. notes. 1 also found on his person 11. 19s. in silver, and a red purse containins 251. also in silver. I rout d a handkerchief anal small box. In the latter there was a crown-piece. The prisoner said a pert of the money was his own. I asked him how much of it was his owe, and he could not tell at first, but afterwards said 4s. Gd. On sea-I worthy I found a steel purse, containing 31.6 d. in silver. !Notting' was found on the female prisoner. The prosecutor being re-called, identified the pocket handkar- chief, the steel• purse, and small box ; but could not prove the' !notes to be his property. The Learned J twat summed tip the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Milfotd and Gesso:thy, and acquitted 31ary Nord. At the suggeition of the Co t•wr, the prosecutor agreed to take the female prisoner again into his SetVlCC—she appearing not to linveteen deeply implicated in the transaction. Thonsar Calacott, and John Friendship, were put to the bit!, in. dieted,. the former with burglariously breaking into tbe house of James Langbridge, at Great Torrington, on the 3.1 of May, and stealing therein tour watches. of the value of 4/. nerd the latter with feloniously receiving one of the said watches, knowing it to be stolen. James Langbridge—l am a watchmaker, and reside at Great Torrington. I generally shut my shop at ten o'clock at night. At that hour on the 3d of May I shut up my shop, and at twelve o'clock 1 observed my watches safe in my window. In consequence of au alarm I gat up at live the•neat morning. and found the shut ter taken down, a square of glass taken out, and four watches re moved. The shutter had been fastened with a bolt or pin. My shot , is attached to my dwelling-honse. The watches were silver ; 1 have since seen one of them iu the possession of Saunders, the constable. I knew Friendship previous to the robbery, but not the other prisoner. The prisoner Collacot acknowledged he had committed the robbery in the presence of the magistrate. He said ; Friendship told him what shutter to remove, and described a patti cular place where he would find a hole in the glass. Prisoner ac knowledged he did so, and also that he took the watches at one o'clock in the morning.. Collacot said the watches were concealed in acm field, and I went and searched, but could not hod them. He afterwards said Friendship had the watches, except one which he himself retained and took to pieces. I made Collacot no pro+l miss or threat of any kind to induce him to confess. There were thirty or forty watches in the window, from which the four were stolen. I know of no hole baring been in the window. • 1 William Saunders (constable at Torrington)-1 received a watch from Serjeant Palmer, of the llth regiment of toot, on the 14th of June, and have had it in my possession ever since. I now produce it. I heard Cdllacot'a confession before the magistrate. It was the same as that stated by prosecutor, but was not taken down WI writing. Mr. Justice GASELET—The confession should have been taken down in writing, and the prisoner waned of the consequences of hisi admission. Witness—Friendship acknowledged having received this watch from the other prisoner, and stated he had left it in the hands of Sergeant Palmer, at Barnstaple. James Palmer—l am sergeant in the 11th regiment of foot. Friendship came to me to enlist in thY 11th, from thomilitia, on the 13th or June, but it turned out his time in the militia did not ez. pire till the 7th of July. 1 accepted him, and told hint to come back on the 7th, on pain of being proceeded against as a deserter. Prisoner then took out the watch, and told me to keep it as a secu rity. He farther told me he was in ill health, and if he did not pass the doctor on the 7th 1 should have it. 1 delivered the saute watch to the last witness on the 14th ntJune. Prosecutor recalled—l identity this watch as one of the four stolen from my shop on the 3d of flay. There is a chain to it, which is also mine, but it was attached to another of the watches stolen at the same time, and not to this watch. I consider the watch to be worth 31. exclusive of the chain and seals. The prisoner Collacott being called on for his defence, said the prosecutor took him to a public-house, made him drunk, and by that means induced him to accuse himself of the robbery, and plicate the other prisoner (Friendship) in the transaction. Friendship disclaimed all knowledge of the burglary, and stated he received the watch from Collacott for the purpose of disposing of It. Mr. Justice GARELEE summed up the evidence, and left it to the Jury to consider how far the prisoner Collacot was guilty of the burglary, and Friendship of the minor offence laid to his charge. The Jury found the prisoner Collacot Guilty of stealing, but Not Guilty of burglary ; and Friendship Guilty of receiving the pro perty knowing it to be stolen. Mr. Justice GAREirt put it to the Jury, as they had acquitted Collacot of the burglary, to say whether be was guilty of stealing property to the amount of 403. in a dwelling-house or not. At the same time it wu but right to inform the Jury that stealing to the value of 405. - was equally a capital offence with that of which they had acquitted the prisoner. • The Jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty of stealing to the value of 40s. The COURT pronounced sentence of trans?ortation for fourteen years upon Friendship, and recorded judgment of death against Thomas Murphy and Thomas Magrath were put to the bar, indicted for a highway robbery on Thomas Nash, on the 30th of April, in Plymouth. Thomas Nash—l belong to the Royal Sappers and Miners, and am stationed at Plymouth. On the evening of the 29th of April three men came to enlist with me, one of whom shortly after left us, and the remaining two proposed to ma to go and search after their companion. I went with them to Castle-street, and not find ing him, the other two left me on pretence of finding him. I waited in the public honse for an hour, and as they did not come, I went to the Rising Sun, a public house opposite the former, in ex pktation they would return. There I saw the two prisoners at the bar. I pulled out my pocket-book to pay fur a pint of beer I had ordered, and took out 6d. for thatparpose, leaving 191.8 d. in the pocket book . I had no conversation with prisoners in the house, and did not drink with them, but on leaving the house both fol ' lowed me, and Magrath asked me to go to the Highlanders with diem, offering to treat me to a pot of beer. I consented. When we reached the Highlanders the house was shut, and the people gone to bed. Both prisoners proposed going to another public house, and we proceeded to New-street. The prisoners wished me to go up that street, and I did so till we reached Castle Dyke-lane. I then refused to go any further. I desired them to go in that di rection, saying it was the nearest way home to their barracks, and I would go home to my quarters by the shortest way. They both said they would not let me-go till I gave them my pocket book. I refused to part with it, and the prisoner :Murphy seized tun by the shoulders, and threw me down. 1 struggled, and had neatly succeeded in getting up, when Murphy struck me on the side of the head, and knocked me into the gutter. alagrath then fell on me, and placing his knee on my breast, and his hand to my throat, insisted on getting my pocket-book. I refused to give it, but finding myself nearly done for by his squeezing my throat, and kneeling on my breast, 1 told him to take it. Magrath said. " You rascal, give me your pocket-book, or I'll take your life." I changed my mind, sad would not. lie then said, " You villain give It me, or I'll murder you directly." I said, " Then take it, and do'nt take my life." Magrath took the book, and ran away ; Murphy:stopped for the space of a minute, till somebody ap proached, and he made off. I got up, and thought to go the bar racks to look for the prisoners. When f came up to the first sentry, he challenged me, and 1 answered ; the sentry then said, " I know what you're come about, two of our men have knocked you down, and robbed you of your pocket-book." I then went into the barman, and finding the sergeant of the guard, he went with a file of men to the prisoners' bed-room, where 1 found them both in bed. They were taken up and confined as soon I made my charge against them, which they denied. I saw my pocket. book to-day in the hands of May the constable. It was twenty minutes from the time the.prisoners took my pocketbook that I got to the barracks. The sergeant of the room found my pocket- I book in Matrath's cap, which was under his bed. Notting was found in the beds. I identified the pocket-book as my own. I was in the same house, and sat in the same room with prisoners, but did not drink with them. It was a moonlight night. I met Mr. Way In Castle.street, and told him I was going home ; we bid each other good night. There were a few memorandums, a broken pencil, and 19s. kid. in silver in the pocket-hook when it was taken. After the men were given in custody, as I was re turning from the barracks, I met May the constable, and we went back to the barracks. Prisoners belong to the Bth regiment of foot. By the prisoner Murphy.—l went into the house whoa the mi. sours were drinking, to have a pint of beer, and see after the two young men who were going to enlist. I don't recollect seeing the prisoner in company with Mary Stephens. It was the first time I ever met him. Ily the prisoner Magrath.-1 didn't drink three quarts of beer with the prisoners at the Rising Sun, it was with the two ycung men who were going to enlist. The prisoner Magrath—l beg your Lordships will refer to the prosecutor's deposition, where you will find that he swore at Build hall that he drank three quarts of beer in our company. Mr. Justice OASELEE—I can't find it so stated in the deposi sition. Prisoners, do you wish to ask the witness any questions ? Magratla--It's useless, my Lord ; he'll swear any thing. The prisoner he sonesraNwlmureplitn the y—fie . itness—l would not swear to you then till day - ligh t . ainl Farrell.—l am a private soldier in the Bth, or King's regi- W barracks. saidrr aek l s. was not the person who robbed bent. I was on guard at the eastern gate of the citadel between twelve and two on the night of the 29th April. I saw the prisoner " Murphy running from towards Castle - street. I asked " Who's there ? He aoswered " Me." I asked him what he was doin g out at that late hour. Ile told me Magrath had knocked down a sapper and robbed him. He farther told me if the sapper came not to let him in. I made answer—if the sapper didn't come l'd report it myself as soon as 1 left my post. In about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour the sapper (prosecutor) came and told inn what bad happened, and I admitted him. NV hen I came off' sentr y , in about three quarters of an hour, I reported the circumsta n ce to t h e officer of the guard. Murphy hail been taken into custody by that dine, but Magrath hod not. I didn't see him that night. fil'hauren, examined by the Court—What are you ? I'm a Presbyterian. ((treat laughter.) I do'nt ask your religion ; what is your situation in life? I am a sergeant in the Bth regiment. 1 was in the citadel on the night of the 29th April. It was a moon. light night. Prisoners were in the barracks and answered to their names at the tattoo, at 8 o'clock that evening._ Between Wand 1, both came into the barrack-mom. Magrath went to the fire place and put his heath up the chimney. After rernaii,ing there a few seconds, he w'rit to bed. Murphy undressed and went to bed like.. wine; RS soon as they were in bed, I ordered a man to bring me a light, which was done. A sergeant of the guard and a file of men came in, accompanied by Thomas Nash (the prosecutor), I then took the candle from the corporal, who had it, and searched about the chimney end lire place,,but could find nothing. I went over es M wrath's bed, and on the next bed to his own, where he had un, dressed, I found a red pocket-book in prisoner's foraging cap, which ,O I took into my possession ; with the pocket-book. - Nut morn.' Ing, Leave the book to May, a constable. There was nothing hi the pocket-book, but a few papers. Magrath was taken into 'tuatody, and oL being searched, nothieg, except a purse, contaiaisS a few halfpence and *bad shilling. was found on Illus. Prosecutor could not identity Murphy, the other prisoner, then. By the pilsonet Ylagrath.—Nash was tipsy when he name in, and took hold of me. and said, r I was the man," but as soda el he saw Magrath, said, it was he that robbed him." By the pnsoner Murphy.—Prosecutor said -Murphy nas not fhb Man twice over; he first said he could not identity Murphy senile undressed, and on the latter'being ordered to dress, he said, 1 .40 did not know him at present." Nash *as not so tipsy, bit lie Met, what I.e was doing and saying. Richard May—l am a constable in iPlymoeth. .0a the high es? area 29th of April I met Nash, the prosecutor, about tint Alining from the eltadeL We returned thither together, Oita lie I elecused blagratti of having robbed him. which the latter fieutd. Oa that occasion I received a pocket-book from eerg,....uit Iti•Lua . which has been ever since in my possession. Mr. Justice (3ascatt-:-Prisoners, do you's:l36 to put any don to the witness? Murphy—lle lib ea by swearing, my Lord. It's useless lam. !dm anything. i-- Way —I am a constable at Plymouth. Between Il and 14 is the night of the 29th of April t saw three men to Csatimatrate knocking at the doors to get drink. I got a light, and sae ifim phy, filagrath, and • Nash, the prosecutor. I told them it was very late hour, and requested them to go to their vetmectite time: ten. They went away together, and were all a little tipsy. Thomas Nash recalled—This is the pocket-book which *se stolen from me. My name is in it in my own handwriting. I die not drink with prisoners, to the best of my knowledge. I drat said M•Lauren was the man, but I immediately identified Magrath tit soda es I saw trim. I said I could net swear to Murphy that nigh bat thought it was bins. The prisoners being called on fee their slefenc?, Murphy said the proscutor had been drinking in company with a female named Mary • Stephens, and brae quite intoxicated. They afterwards went out all together, and he let Megratli and the pro. , isseator together in Castle -street, being determined to go horse to Ids quarters of what night have occurred bet viten Nail) and Ala. grath afterwards, be profiseed himself completely ignorant. He had been eleven yews in the regiment, and hi t c h a r acte r was never before questioned . if had w itnesses to prove this, but they Were at a distance, and be had no means to enable him to bring thew bet. Magrath—" My Lord, l're been a soldier ever thee I was born mean I've been born, bred, and brought up in the army all my life, and my conduct was never doubted during their time. Os the eight in question I was intoxicated very much, but knew flushing at all about the crime laid to my charge. I could bring witnestave so the facts, but that I am in the same situation as my igliow.pri !asser in that respect." Mr. Justice GASELEE recapitidateti the esideqce to the Jury • also found tile prisoners Not Guilty, on the ground that they had been all drinking together. CIVIL SIDE. Before Mr. Justice LiTTLEDALE O i nd Common Juries. DIsFAiIIATION. VtiMIVELL V. KNOWLING. Mr. Sergeant PELL, with whom was dlr. Helmet, stated the case (o the Jury. This was an action fur defamation. The partial were individuals in rather humble life, and the wards spoken by defendant, of which Mr. Nicht-ell complained, imputed to the lat. ter the offence of having stolen a sheep, the property of a farmer named Jackman. Under the circumstances of this case, which was a very short and plain one, he did not feel it to be necessary to the interests of his client to make any elaborate statement, of trespass long on the patience of the Jury. He would merely preface his observations by saying, that defamations were of venous deer:p ions, and of a very unequal character ; but of whatever kind they might be, they were all equally illegal in point of fact, although the proportion of damages to be apportioned to plaintiffs was a matter of consideration for a Jury, according to the nature and pe culiarity of each particular case. Some cases of slander were of a mild, and others of an aggravated character, and if in the present case the words spoken were not of the most grievous kind, they were at least sufficiently so to inflict an injury, and conse q uently sailed for reparation in the shape of damages at the hands of a Jury. The defendant had not merely assailed his client in a loose and angry manner, but he had accused him of a grave and 'paid. eally defined offence. He had not contented himself with a general charge of dishonesty, but had given point and virulence to the ac amation, by naming in express terms the thing supposed to have been stolen, and the name of the party from whom it was alleged to have been purloined. Here was net an indefinite and perhaps ahgry word, such as " thief," applied to the plaintiff, an expres. don such as an honest man might despise, and a prudent man ores. look—but a distinct crime, imputed in the most circumstantial and therefore offensive manner. It would only be necessary for him to prove the facts, the words spoken, and the circumstances under which they bad been uttered, to entitle his client to such a verdict as any honest man upon the Jury would reasonably expect, had he been charged with the commission of a capital offence in the same groundless manner as the plaintiff'. He would not trouble then: with another word, but shortly prove his case, and call upon the Jerry for damages to the extent of the injury inflicted upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff's son proved the utterance of the words complained eft they were spoken in the presence of his father. Defends:it said u he had stolen one of Jackman's sheep." • By the JUDGE—Are these the very words used by the des fendant ? Witness—Yes, my Lord. Mr. Justice LITTLED•LE--.The words were spoken the plea 'ewe of your father, who was the person accused ? Witness—Yes, my Lord. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALL—And do you mean to say that wet the natural mode In which the defendant was likely to express him. self In the presence of your father—" he stole a sheep ?" Ifs matt , owed you 101., and you were going to ask - him for payment, what would you say to him ? Witnesa—My Lord, I'd my," Please to let me have the money.'', (Laughter.) Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Yes; but if you wanted to get hits to acknowledge the debt, would yos say to him, " he owes me 101." or " you owe me the money." Witness.—l came to speak about the sheep and not about ffits • money. (Loud laughter.) Knowling said to my father, " You stole the sheep, and I'll have you at the bar fur It. • Several other witnesses spoke to the expressions having been made use of. It was also proved that the sheep which plaintiff was accused of stealing had been for a length of time In his possession. and that he bought it from a man named Adams. On the cross-examination of some of the witnesses, it was cited, that the defendant (who was Jackman's servant) had men. tioned some marks ou the sheep, by which he said he knew it to be his master's. Mr. Sergeant WI sot appeared for the defendant, and maintained that his client was merely acting in the capacity of Jackman's servant, and, entertaining a strong persuasion the sheep was his mashes, he was justified in acting as he did, and was not to be held accountable for what he might hate uttered under circumstances of surh a peculiar nature. Mr. Justice LITTLNDALE—The defendant's persuasion is no justification for having charged the plaintiff with an offence of this nature. The Jury found • verdict for the Costs 40s. HI/TCHINGS V. TosturWt. This Was an action brought for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant riding over hits, and . I tramplins him under his horse's feet on the 15th April last. The circumstance occurred in the neighbourhood of ilarsettaple. from the fair holden at which place the plaintiff was returning is company with two or three other farmers, when he was knocked down and ridden over by the defendant, who was galloping his horse at a very rapid rate at the time when the accident happened. The plaintiff and his companions had carts along with them, voided were going along the left side of a lane, fourteen feet in width, at an easy pace, and the plaintiff walking by the aide of one of the earls, close to the hedge, when the defendant came up galloping at a hunt's rate, and in endeavouring to pass between the carts and the hedge, knocked the plaintiff down and rode over him. De. fendant seeing the injury be had inflicted, rode back and offered the plaintiff half-a•crown as a compensation, which was not accepted. Plaintiff walked to his own house, a distance of five utiles from Banntaple, complaining much of the injuries his had received. He afterwaids applied to a surgeon, who deposed to the sufferings of the plaintiff in consequence of the accident. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, dl.: costs, 403. NU.RTHE RN CIRCUIT. YORKSHIRE ASSIZES, Yost, JCL? SLANDER. When the case of Booth r. Haigh was called on this 'Mating, all the ladies were ordered out of Court. Mr. Iltat:ot then opened the pleadings. This was an schist brought by the plaintiff, a farmer living near Barnsley, against the defendant, also a farmer, for having charged him with being a at the town of Barnsley, on the 15th of May last, in the presence of several persons. Mr. BROUGHAM.—Bcfore this ease is proceeded with think It right to say that my chant has sent a letter of apology to the plaintiff, and also offered to have the may ter of damages, if any were suffered by him In consequence of the use of mush slanderous words, left to the arbitration of any one whom the plaintiff might name. Mr. Scattr.vre—The plaintiff has been much injured and ag. grieved, and I think that the plea of defendant's being intoxicated when helloed such coarse and slanderous expressions, is not a auf. ficient reparation to the plaintiff. One vice cannot be offered as an excuse for another, and I understand that the defendant war not drunk at the time. The object of the plaintiff is net money ; and if a full and passible apology be now made to him, there is an end of these proceedings. The offence was committed in a large mom. before a great many persons, and a private letter of apology I cote- Rider as none. None however was offered until the writ had bee* sued out, and now if a full, ample, and unequivocal apology be made we shall accept it. The charge made against the plaintiff was of a nature which would hang about a man for lite. and the fullest reparation should be made to him. I believe the fact to be, that the defendant never really meant to make a fair or full apology. Mr. BRO I'GB AM—I do not see how you ran have a inme mita factory apology than we have already made to you. We have expressed our regret at making the charge, and it never you'll have been made at all if it were not for the drunkenness of nip client, Mr. Jultice RATT.EY—if your client be conscientiously taut, and make a public apology, you cannot think that will be giving the plaintiff too much: AIIr.FCARLETT—With leave to us to eater upon a verdict whisk shall carry B rry ao ml uo t tave—Oh, costa! I really think, my Load, CIA 'Juror should be withdrawn; after the apology whittli iry ....+-- - r.. I C t.„ $l l Ia I t~ i ~ } 'F" % ill na sr is, orf 6 r be NIA' ience f liii .- 1 .^