The Sun. — London, England, 1829-12-26 00:00:00

. .; • • i 'I7SP 3 p . • • JIM PUBLIC JOURNALS. . - inisterial prosecutions for libel, ~ssiCeV..f onsequences of su c h prosecu : , sstd s are such, th a t the More , . 4 1 " mister tnem, the more tntenable (14stiswappr,.is argument, soil in practice the more impossible'to be borne. An editor is at tacked by the law-ofliters of the Crown for hex ing composed and published that whidt has " a tendency" to bring Governments—that is, the existing Admiuistrationsa—into contempt or obloquy with the (motile. Then see how the very terms of such a charge re-act upon those on whose behalf they are, at least on occasions like the present, had recourse to. if any writing press-tented as a libel sets forth a distinct and po mtive.fact, which if true, would imply in a Ca binet Minister and his colleagues a criminal neg lect or violation of duty, and one therefore punishable by the law t 1 .England, 'three is an end of the matter ; let the .intiictment be pre ferred, or the informatien laid, and although truth cannot be pleaded in defence, it may be sworn to by all who have the mean or proving it in mititallon of punishment. If so attested, and not denied, it is obvious that the Ministers are ruined, while the defendant escapes with at most a trivial sentence.. nut if the libel charged he nothing more than gross, coarse, and general declamation % accusing the Ministry, on the more opinion- of the writer, of incapacity, or bad in tention;, not acts or absolute unfitness for office, hos's does the argument of tendency act in such a descriptson of cases ? Why, if the Admi nistration deserves contempt from the people, or dismissal by the Crown,—if it be a Government to which the foul epithets and insulting re proaches complained of by its law-officers are tally applicable,' might, in the first place, a British subject to be tongue-tied when he sees such men ruling over him ? Ought such men, iii the second place, to usurp these rewards and sours, that universality of support and dura tion of. power, which is equally the right of the Sovereign, of the people, and of the whcle class of meritorious and able statesmen, that the latter e* should enjoy and exercise ? Will it, ia the last place, serve a worthless Ministry to where k the expression of public feeling through state prosecutions, which can only obtain verdicts, but rsat never refute arguments or crush men's thoughts, but, on the contrary, must exasperate and augment that ill-will, the prevalence of which amongst a large portion of society, is that which gives exclusively its sting and 'force to, newspaper in vectives upon Ministers. If, again, . the Go- Nernment, thus abused and scandalized, be in reality one which has gained the good - opinions of the people,—one which acts with even ordi nary firmness, intelligence, and honesty, or rhich enjoys pretty generally the reputation of so acting—how operates this famous engine of " tendency" in writings hostile to such a Go vernment ? The tendency of such writings is indeed to " bring down contempt ;" but con tempt on whom ? Why, on the libeller him self, and no other. • Nay, the more furious, frantic, outrageous, and brutal, the declamations of the foul-mouthed termagant, the more .alive will all mankind become to his revoking in justice—the.more inapplicable to the parties in veighed against, will every man of the least in• fluence or respect consider his accusations ; and the more certain and powerful will be the re action against the malioant writer of the libel, and in defence of 'the- parties abused. Thus, where the libel is least deserved it is most inno cent, and to prosecute it becoMes a downright folly. Where it is effectual, as against a bad Go vernment, it is virtuous and praiseworthy, and its punishment becOmes a crime aeainst the nation. But Juries ought to see all this, and insist on being, what the law of England has designed them for —protectors of the realm against official prosecutors,—the sacred and glorious function of those whom the Constitution has established and the Bench itself has recognized.to be sole judges 'of the law in every case of libel. If die Juries of England now desert their post, they will have the execration of posterity. For our selves we can declare that, never having seen a more contemptible farrago than that for winch the Duke of Wellington in person prosecuted the Mornin g Journal. on Thursday last, •we have felt hardly less pity at the weakness of ar raying such enormous power by an individual of the Duke's illustrious name and station, for the punishment of such insects as those con cerned in concocting and publishing that mass of nonsense, than - contempt at the fury of the poor - creature himself who aspired, we suppose, to favour in some secret quarter, for inventing it. .1-lad we been on these Juries, we would have fasted - lmg ere we had found guilty on either round,Ls.df tendency" to bring into contempt a powerful and respected Government, or of actual injury inflicted on the Noble person at the head of it.--Times. . . . . , Now that the first hatch of prosecutions against the Press has been disposed of, it may not be amiss, before Sir James Scarlett recom meneeS3lig lalcours (and we have no doubt that he has chalked-out to himself an extensive plan of operations), to advert to a few points con nected with the late cases. The alleged offences, the subject of the prosecutions, resolved them selves into false statements, affecting the honour and character of individuals.; and attacks di rected against the Administration, and House of Commons, calculated to bring them into con tempt.. The first elassimay be easily disposed ;of. No matt contends that the liberty of writing -and, publishing should be carried so far as to =luso wrongful injury to individuals, any more than he contends . that liberty should in any other respect be carried to - the length of injus , tics. With regard to the second class, it may be said that without the liberty to bring into -contempt, there Can be no liberty of the Press. Theimr-mak& has said,. that such and such `things shall not be brought into contempt : but the law is like many others, a bad one, and is itself deserving of contempt in the - strongest sense of the word. A free PreSs, as contra distinguished from'an enslaved Press, necessa rily supposes the liberty to censure. The liberty •to praise is . not only not denied lay any Govern ' meat in Europe, but, on the contrary, praise • through the Press is encouraged by the liberal re ' ward of the writers. Under no Censorship, under no Licenser, would there be any impedi ment in the way of as . abundant praise and flat . tery as a writer could possibly lavish on all pub lic men, from the Prime Minister to the Con '.stable.. But when we censure, we do that which we could not do without a free Press, which renders a free Press such an inestimably benefit to a country. Undeserved censure as well as undeserved praise, under a state of freedom, re. • coils no doubt on the author. But where there is liberty to censure as well as to praise, till we can find mankind unanimous in their judg ments, we mint be prepared for both injudicious .eensuie and praise. And what is censuring any thing kit the endeavouring to hold up that which is censured to contempt P When we do not feel Conteffipt fo4. that against which censure has been dittited, this merely means that, in our opinion, the censure is misplaced. We trust Juries will constantly bear in min*, tht the idea of punishing for holag lip anything to con tempt, is at k'aliance with the very principle of • fret discussion ; and when they punish an indi vidual for speaking contemptuously of men CM account of their public measures, they proscribe all freedom of the Press. As to the decency or indecency or the mode ill which the censure is exprtssed, this is altogether arbitrary, as no rule can be laid down on which any two men would agree as to the course which would be proper. Let us take the question ofthe inside of conducting business in Conamittets of the House of Com mons. Hive not Members again and again stated, that there was nothing so corrupt and abominable as the system pursued ? Does not that hold Committees of the House up to con tempt ? When a motion is made for Parlia mentary Reform, is it not stated that the exist ing house of Commons does not represent either the property or the population—that inte rests opposite to those of the people at large govern the majority—that the Representation is founded on the principle of corrupting a few with the money improperly taken from the com munity at large? Is not this holding the House of Commons up to contempt ? How can a motion for Parliamentary Refoim be conceived possible, without the existing House of Com mons being he'd up by it to contempt? It is true the Judges and the Attorney-General tell us that liberties must be allowed to speakers in discussion which ought not to he allowed to writers. But we deny this. There can be no liberty allowable in debate which ought not to be allowed also in writing. The discussions of the House of Commons receive all their value from the diffusion throughout the country which is given to them through the Press. Annihilate the freedom to censure, to hold up to contempt, and you destroy equally the freedom of discus sion, whether in Parliament or in writing. But the law says so - and so. True, by law we have no liberty whatever ; for, as Sir James Scarlett, after Lord Mansfield, observed, the Liberty of tlie Press, legally speaking, means merely the pnblishims, without,a licenser, what could only be ~published formerly with the consent of a licenser. The doctrine of bringing into contempt being punishable, amounts to a complete frustration of the only object for which Free dom of the Press is desirable. All the liberty we have we owe to Juries protecting us against the strict interpretation of bad laws. We admit that we have only an illusory freedom, by law.— Burke has said this long ago, and Burke Will not be accused of favour ing popular excesses. " The laws of this country (he observes) are for the most part constituted, and wisely so, for the general ends of Government, rather than for the preservation of our particular libeties. Whatever, therefore, is done in support of liberty, by persons not in public trust, or not acting merely in that trust, is )table to be more or less out of the ordinary course of the law ; and the law itself is suffi cient to animadvert npon it with great severity. Nothing, indeed, can hinder that severe letter from crushing us, except the temperaments it may receive from a trial by Jury." In the struggle which awaits all of us, and which Sir James Scarlett has announced in the censure of the moderation of his . predecessors during the last ten years, it behoves Juries to be constantly nn their guard against this error—that they are bound to give effect to this defective law. Juries hare large powers to correct the defects of liber ticide laws. They ought to be particularly on their guard again,t Sir James' Scarlett, whose powers of mind are admirably suited to the sort of work in which he is engaged. He is a common-place speaker, but a dexterous ad vocate. We have always looked forward with apprehension to the possibility of his be coming Attorney-General, for we -have never been one. moment in doubt as to his principles, and the illiberal cast of his mind: He is the most _bitter enemy of discussion that ever filled the situation he holds since the Revolution. He would reduce every Journalist to a state of com plete subserviency to himself. We hope the warning will not. be thrown away. With respect to the mode of conducting these trials, we hare also something to say. On what principle is it that the public money is lavished in feeing, be sides Sir James himself and the Solicitor-Ge neral, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Wightman—the only individual doing anything being the Attorney-General himself? And this in the - case 'of a - lay individual who, under every disadvantage, pleads his own cause ? What is this but buying with the public money the sanc tion of the talent of the Bar ? We trust this matter will be made in time the subject of in quiry ?—)Morning Chronicle. There is something extremely anomalous in the nature of the prosecution against the Atlas newspaper when contrasted with that directed against Mr. Gutch. for a libel, which, if its worst inuendoes could' have been sustained, would have been venial compared with that ascribed to Mr. Bell.. The chair imputed to us was, that we accused the Lord Chancellor of bestowing the office of Solicitor-General upon Sir Edward _Sugden from corrupt motives. •We denied that this inuendo could be sustained, and we, more over, fortified.this denial by affirming upon oath that the paragraph was not intended to apply to the Lord Chancellor, but was exclusively a mili tary satire. If any explanation could clear the injured reputation of Lord Lyndhurst, satisfy his conscience, or soothe his wounded feelings, this should have done so. Where there was no malus animus there could .be no crime. We did all that could be done to prove that no intention existed to criminate Or censure the Chancellor, and, being convinced of our innocence, we had no further apology to offer. We were, never theless, by a very itniTtien,t jury, by a jury, the foreman of which wouid scarcely listen to the defence, and who .repeatedly interrupted it, round guilty ! Well, all this may be right ! We hope the justice of the case is satisfied, and that the successor of Lord Eldon is gratified and contented. But let us glance at the case of Mr. Bell. This gentleman is the editor of a Sunday Paper, which is printed by two persons of the names of Whiting and Swift, who are also the proprietors of the paper. Mr. Bell's alleged libel charged Lord and Lady Lyndhurst with simony or the sale of church patronage. These noble persons were represented, in terms so plain that it was impossible to - misunderstand them, as bartering the livings of the church for the favours of Mammon, ofsclling the cures of souls for filthy lucre, and of making a profitable speculation of glebes and tithes. A more atrocious or cruel charge never was brought against any judicial functionary in this country. A crime more re pugnant to morality, religion, and the Constitu tion of England, never was imputed to exalted persons ; ybt Messrs. Whiting and Seat were not brought to trial by the injured Lord and Lady Lyndhurst: They, tke printers and pro prietors of the paper in question—they who re ceived the profits of the paper—they who were the employers of Mr. Bell, and derived an In come from his labours—were permitted to escape, and he alone made answerable for the libel in a Court of Justice. Now, let the un prejudiced reader contrast the treatment which Messrs. Whiting and Swift received with that experienced by Mr. Gutch, one of the proprie tors of this Journal, Mr. Glitch was not a party to the squib imitated from Sterne. He was in Worcester, confined by indisposition, when it was written, and, consequently, was as innocent of it as the child unborn. He was a proprietor ofthe Morn ing Journal it is true ; but Messrs. Whiting and Swift were also proprietors of the Atlas. He expressed his regret at the insertion of the satire, and they regretted the insertion of their much more libellous article. He was living at a great distance from London, they were on the spot. He had it not in his power to correct the press, or admit or refuse articles of intelligence ; they, on the contrary, had all this in their power-,- they were daily in the habit of exercising this power —it was their duty to exercise it, and yet he was brought to trial and convicted, while they were allowed to escape with impunity !! ! We have no wish to censure the Lord Chancellor for this invidious mode of prosecution, but we cannot help saying it is not the way we should have ex pected justice at the hands of Lord Lyndhurst. There is not a man of any honourable or inde pendent feelings in England who can possibly approve of the proceeding, or admire the candour of those who advised it.—Morning Journal. There has been a considerable stir for some days past among the holders of the hits of paper called Spanish Bonds, whose hopes have been excited, for the five-hundredth time, that they arc about to be acknowledged by the Govern ment of Ferdinand. What better foundation there is for this rumour than for the four hun dred and ninety-nine which has preceded it we know not, unless it be this, that Governments, as well as individuals, often make a virtue of necessity, and that people often find it convenient to appear to be honest, when the contrary policy. has deprived them of all credit in the world. The rumour upon the present occasion is :that, in contracting fora new loan, the old Bonds are to be taken, some say, at 15, others at 20,per cent. Though we feel as little sympathy to wards the holders of Foreign Loans, raised upon usurious terms, as we do towards those who were bitten by the bubble mania at home, yet we have a regard for national faith and cha racter, and have all along regretted to see one of the ancient Governments of Europe reduced to the dilemma of having its public securities hawked about at a depreciation of upwards of 90 per cent.; nor do we think the matter will be much mended if the Government at last should be induced to pay its creditors in full, by a fresh security for five or six shillings in the pound. Nor is this the less mortifying when it occurs to a nation in whom we are taught, from infancy, to look upon faith and honour as inherent and proverbial. Both history and romance—both poetry and the drama, uniformly hold up the Spanish character as the model of the severer virtues, and one to which both public and private engagements are as sacred as the honour of his trusty Toledo. Ferdinand, it is true, acquits himself of the engagement by declining to acknow ledge there Bonds as the debt of the Cortes ; and, however erroneous such a view of the mat ter may be, there might be some pretence for it were the Spanish Government to hold out to the last. But a man in private life who compounds with his creditors at five shillings in the pound admits the justice of the whole debt, and rests the compromise upon his inability to pay more. So we should imagine history will deal with the partial recognition of the Cortes' bonds now talked of, should it ever take place. In such case the plea that they were not his debts will serve the Government of Ferdinand no longer. He either owes the whole amount of each bond or he owes nothing; and, therefore, though the Spanish bondholders, worn out by chicanery and despair, will probably look upon the•smallest price as a Godsend, the discredit of compound ing with its creditors must, we apprehend , at tac to the Spanish Government for the future, and reduce its credit still lower even than it has long stood on all the Exchanges of Europe.— Morning Herald. As the Session of Parliament approaches, the public anxiety receives a fresh impulse, and the general inquiry is, what reductions will take place in the public burthens ? There is, however, another question of at least equal im portance. That weighty and important matters will be discussed is quite evident; but that there is to be any serious intermeddling in the concerns of the Protestant Church we cannot bring ourselves to believe. The preservation of the Protestant Church, with all its rights and immunities, is essential to the security of the State, for without a pure religion what can be the basis of public happiness ? Church Reform sounds well to certain ears, and were it necessary we would not oppose it. But what is to be complained of ? Are our Clergy uninstructed ? Who will prate this ? As a kidy, are they immoral ? We empha tically answer, the reverse. We go further, and add, that as a body there is no class of society who can parallel them. Undoubtedly we are not without instances of a few who dishonour their sacred character, but why from thence argue against the general body? The exception proves the rule, and fully bears out our proposi tion. But it is said they have too large emolu ments. This again we deny. Taken in the aggregate, they are worse paid than any other body of persons who are descended from respect able families, or upon whose education so much money has been expended. A Bishop here, or a Dean and Chapter there, may enjoy a large reve nue ; but strike an average of the incomes of the Clergy, and it will scarcely be found adequate for their support. The payment of tithes we know is Considered a hardship in many cases, but whO ever heard of a man taking a farm with out first ascertaining their amount? Tithe is a species of rent, which, if it were not paid to the Clergyman, would be laid on by the landlord, and so far diverted from its fair and legitimate object. The Church has as much right in the property of tithes as the freeholder has in his estate. The payment of tithe is sanctioned by Divine Revelation, and amply guaranteed by the law of the land. It is of immemorial usage—it is necessary for the decent maintenance of the Ministers of Religion, without whose piety and learning it must fall into decay, and be followed by the prostration of the State. Religion is.ne cessary, absolutely necessary to the support of the State, but it cannot exist without a sufficient Ministry ; they cannot devote themselves to the Church without an adequate maintenance, and does not the inevitable conclusion follow, that if they may not claim tithes, S3IIIC other provision must be granted from the State to an equal amount ? In all cases it is admitted that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and why there should be any indisposition to pay it to the Clergymen, we are utterly at a loss to imagine. With respect to any reduction of the public burthens, we are left in a great degree mainly to conjecture. That the Corn and Silk Trades, the Currency and the Shipping Interest, will be the subjects of many a weary debate, is to be cal culated upon ; that melsures of a permanent and efficient character may be devised to relieve the existing pressure, and do justice to all classes, must be the constant prayer of every lover of his country.—Morning Post. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 21. CRBK. CON.-CROFT, BART., V. LYSTER.. This was an action brought by Sir Thomas Croft, Batt., to recover compensation for the injury inflicted upon him by the defendant, Colonel Lyster, in having had criminal conversation with his wife. Mr. Serjeant WILDE and Mr. THESIGER conducted the plaintiff's case, the facts of which, as they appeared in evidence, were these : Mr. Lateward, a gentleman of fortune, having I I died some years ago, his widow martied Colonel Marsac, of the Guards. The plaintiff, Sir Thomas Croft (son to the late eminent physician of that name), who belonged to the same regiment, visited at Colonel Marsac's house, at Cavesham-park, and there became acquainted with Miss Lateward, Mrs. • Marsac's only child by her first husband, who suc ceeded to her father's fortune, amounting to about 3,0001. a-year. Sir Thomas paid his addresses to her, and they were favourably receive:!; but the young lady being at that time a ward in Chancery, it became necessary that his proposals should .he submitted to the Lord Chancellor. This was in 1823, when Miss Lateward was only 16 years of age, and the Lord Chancellor thinking that she was then too young to be married, desired that the sub ject should stand over for a year; at the expiration of which period, the application to the Lord Chan cellor was repeated, when, after having referred it to the Master, his Lordship was pleased to express his assent to the match, and the marriage took place to the satisfaction of all parties, Sir Thomas being then 25 or 26 years of age, and his lady IJ. By deed of settlement executed by the parties before mar riage, Lady Croft's fortune was settled in the fol lowing manner :-700/. a-year was settled upon her husband for life; 5001. a-year until Lady Croft be came of age, and 3001. a-year subsequently was di rected to be set apart to form an accumulating fund, as a provision for the child or children of the mar riage. This fang was to continue until it amounted • to 10,000/., should there be only one child ; 15,0001., should there be two; and 20,0001. should there be three : 1801. a-year was also directed to be appro priated to the formation of a fund to pay certain tines upon property held under the Bishop of Lon don; and the residue of her fortune, amounting so long as no reduction of rents took place, to about 1,200/. or 1,300/. a-year, was settled upon Lady Croft for her life, with power, after her husband's death, in the event of his dying without issue, to dispose of the estate as she pleased. If there should be a son, of course he would inherit it solely; if only daughters, they would inherit it jointly. If the lady should, after her hus band's death, marry again, then a son by such second marriage, if there had been none by the first, would inherit the estate, to the exclusion of daughters by the first ; and if there should be only daughters by. the second marriage, they, as_ well as those of the first marriage, should take it jointly between them. Immediately after the marriage, Sir Thomas and his lady took up their abode at the house of his mother, the Dowager Lady Croft, by the desire of Lady Croft, and lived together upon terms of mutual af fec: ion. In the month of February, 1826, Sir Thomas had a fit of illness, during which his wife showed him the most affectionate attention. On the 3d of June following, Lady Croft gave b;rth to a daughter. From the moment of her confinement, her temper, which it would appear had been always somewhat violent, becathe much more so; but she endeavoured to conceal it from the observation of her husband, and no diminution of her affection took place until the beginning of 1828. Previously to that period they had been on the Continent to gether, and had visited Mussels in 1827. Early in the month of April, 1828, Sir Thomas was afflicted With a severe attack of a convulsive disease, in con sequence of which it became necessary to go to Bromley to place himself under the care of Mr. Scott, a skilful surgeon, residing at that place. Lady Croft, however (for which no reason was assigned), refused to accompany her husband, arid he - therefore went without her. During his illness she went much to parties, and indulged in the gaieties of London. The plaintiff's mother, disapproving of • such conduct, censured her for it, upon which she delared she would leave the house, and go and live with her mother at Cavesham. She accordingly removed to Cavesham, accompanied by her mother in-law, and thenceforward resided with Colonel and Mrs. Marsac. -On her way she wrote one or two hasty lines on a small scrap of paper, which she had conveyed to her mother-in-law, as also a more formal note, written on, the following morning, which the Dowager Lady Croft received upon her return. The first was in these words—" Pray for me, for I never shall forgive myself: it is entirely my own fault." The other note was to the following effect : " Dear Lady Croft,—Oh, I have suffered still more this night, and shall every night while I am in this state. You will hear from me on Thursday, God bless you and my dear husband and child. I hope you did not hear touch in the night, but I really was delirious. I - say again I must come back to you." She subsequently wrote the following letter to a Mrs. Millingharn " April 30. " My dear Mrs. Millingham,—l am much better to day, and I trust I shall soon be better still, at least my medical man says so, but he says that certainly I shall never be well till my mind is well.. Where does Martin live? Do you know? For I shall certainly go to him when I am of age, but not befdre ; so you see I am not mad, far from it, though Dowager Lady Croft iv kind enough to send Dr. Tuthill to see me. lam quite glad to get down amongst these lonely and quiet people, and the birds and flowers, &c. Good bye, my valued friend, you must allow me to call you so. Do write and tell me what the world says." Whilst she was residing at Cavesham, Sir Astley Cooper was called in to attend her and found her, as he stated on his examination to-day, very froward. She had a disease in the head, which caused a dis Charge from the nose. She evinced considerable excitement, and seemed to Sir Astley like a spoiled child. She said she hated her husband, and dis liktd her mother-in-law. " But," said Sir Astley, " you have a child; will not von return home for her sake ?" Ito," replied her Ladyship, " the child is with Sir Thomas, and he is very welcome to her." Upon one occasion, when Mr. Hanley handed her a letter from Dowager Lady Croft,written by a gentlemats of the name of Martin, she opened it with violence, got up from a sofa on which she was sitting, tore the letter into the smallest pieces, flung them on the ground, and stamped her foot upon them with rage. In September, 1828, Colo nel Marsac and his family went to reside some time at Boulogne, whither Lady Croft accompanied them. Shortly after their arrival there, they attended a horse-race; and it was upon that occasion that Lady Croft first saw the defendant Colonel Lyster. One of the horses which ran belonged to him. After the race was over, he was invited by Mr. and Mrs. Beecher, with whom Lady Croft was i n company, home to dinner. The invita tion was accepted, and at dinner Colonel Lyster sat next Lady Croft, and Mrs. Marsac observed some thing in their manner which she complained of to her busbrtnd: In a few nights ,afterwards the de fendant danced with her Ladyship at a ball, tinl sub sequently sat next her at a concert. Colonel Mar sac had remonstrated with her on the subject of Colonel Los'er's attentions, but to no effect. On the night of the concert, after they had returned to their hotel, Lady Croft having gone up to her room, Colonel Marsac went into the room over her's, and npon going to the window he observed a man dressed like a groom in the street ; presently after wards he heard a whistle, after which some whis pering took place between that person and Lady Croft's maid. The man then went round the cor ner of the street, and immediately afterwards the Colonel saw the defendant come from that direction, and creep along close to the houses toward the hotel. Upon which he went to Lady Croft's room, and conducted her into another apartment; he then returned to her room, and left the maid at the window, upon which the defendant entered into a whispering conversation with the maid. Find ing his expectations foiled, he retired. Colonel Marsac then took apartments for his family and Lady Croft, in the rear of the hotel, which they occupied during the 'remainder of their stay at Bou!ogne, avoiding, when they went out, the promenades and all public places. Previously to this Colonel Mar sac, who corresponded with Sir Thorns Croft, through his solicitor Mr. Hanley, communicated to that gentleman his observations respecting Lady Croft's conduct. The plaintiff, in consequence, addressed a letter to his wife on the 10th of August to the following purport :—" He had intended," lie said, " to have written to her to. return home on the Ist of the next month, that being the anniversary of his former letter, and the expiration of the period appointed for the probation of her promise of amend ment, but in consequence of a recent communica tion frotn Boulogne, too painful to mention, he was obliged to defer his intention until he should receive some proofs of her sincere repentance. If she de sired, as he believed she did, to return to him, she would not hesitate to adopt the course which could alone effect that end,—that was, to submit herself to the controul of Colonel and Mrs. Marsac, and conduct herself in all respects to their satisfaction. He should be ready to receive her on being certain of her repentance, and terminate that separation which she had commenced by quitting his house. He was then on the point of seting out for the continent. Perhaps site would be glad to hear that his health was improved. He hoped soon to have cause to subscribe himself once more her affectionate husband." To this letter her Ladyship replied on the 14th of August in substance as follows :—" She felt truly grateful to him for his kind letter, which had occasioned her a pleasure that she had not known for a long time, and she trusted her future good conduct and sincere repentance would prove that she was not unworthy of his ( * .affection. She candidly confessed she had been wrong, and had done min) , things, when her mind was excited, which she had reason to regret; but she had never committed any crime. She trusted that he would pardon her, and receive her again before long, for she had known no happiness since she had ceased to live with him., She had always thought of her dear child with the feelings of a mother ; and until that foolish occurrence had taken place she had never been guilty of any thing which he could condemn. She was now sensible of her faults, and hoped she should not much longer be obliged to endure ab sence from him and her child. She entreated him not to go upon his travels until he either came or sent for her." Besides the above, Sir Thomas also received a letter from her in the preceding July, which, how ever, was not produced. On August 15 Sir Thomas sailed for Ostend, his going abroad, although nat . prescribed by his medical attendant!, being .calcu late(' to benefit his health. In the mean time Col. Marsac having determined on returning to England, in consequence of what he had witnessed on the part of Lady Croft and the defendant, kept his purpose concealed until the night before his depar ture, when he communicated it to her ladyship's maid, in order that she might have her mistress's luggage prepared. On the following day, accord ingly, he set off with Lady Croft, and having em barked on board the Calais steam-boat, just as the vessel was putting off, she was hailed from the coast by two passengers, who immediately came on board and took their passage for England. These turned out to be the defendant anti his friend Mr. Knotvlys. Lady Croft having entered into conversation with the defendant, Colonel Marsac remonstrated with her on her conduct; upon which she said she was in dependent and would do as she liked; she was only talking to Colonel Lyster, and there was no harm in that. A. discussion then ensued, in which Col. Lyster stated, that he and Lady Croft had commit ted adultery four times at Boulogne, and would have committed it a fifth time, on the night of the concert, had they not been prevented by the inter position of Colonel Marsac. That being the cue, he felt himself bound, he said, in honour, to afford her his protection, and was perfectly ready to enter into any arrangement which her friends might de sire. He did not do this, he added, on account of her money, because he had quite sufficient for his own purposes as a single man; but after what had passed he should not feel that he acted honourably towards her if le d d not continue towards her that protection to which she had chosen to confide. On arriving at the Custom-house, Colonel Marsac pro posed to her that she should go to the York Hotel, in Bridge-street, to which she objected, alleging that she was known there ; and would therefore go to the Percy Hotel ; upon which the defendant expressed his approbation of her good taste in tier not going to the 'York. The Colonel next proposed that before she went to the Percy Hotel, she would first go with him to the house of Mr. Hanley, to which her lady ship objected, unle , s she had the permission of, and were accompanied by the defendant, who agreed to do so ; but on arriving at Mr. Hanley's that gentle man was not at home, anti 'Colonel Marsac was therefore obliged to consult one of his clerks, ; by whom he was advised that he ought, he being one of her trustees under the marriage settlement, to accompany Lady t rofr, and Ic.ep his eye upon her until he SAW Mr. Hanley. Accordingly, acting upon this advice, he attended Lady Croft, to the Percy Hotel, where he remained w.th them in the same apartment until eleven o'clock at night. Lady Croft had left the room a few minutes when Mr. Hanley was announced, and Colonel Marsac withdrew to speak to him. On his return the defendant, whom he had left in the room, had also retired, and the Colonel departed from the hotel. A clerk, of the name of Thomson, was sent from Mr. Hanley's office for the purpose of identifying Lady Croft, and ascertaining the situation in which she and the defendant stood to wards each other. Ile did not see either on the first night, but having slept at the hotel, he saw the defendant on the following morning in a small ante room in his dressing-gown. He was proceeding to apologize for intruding on him, when the defendant told him he knew his purpose, and would throw no impediment in his way. He then conducted him into Lady Croft's bedchamber, where, the curtains being undrawn, he showed him her ladyship in bed; upon which Mr. Thomson, having seen and recog nized her, withdrew. This was on Tuesday th e 18th of August ; and on a subsequent day in the same month the defendant went to his army agents, Messrs. Codd and Co., and told Mr. Could h e intended to appoint them receivers of Lat:y Croft's property; but Mr. Codd told him they should de cline the appointment. Upon which the defendant observed " 1 saw your brother in the street, and he too is angry with me for what I have done; but surely you do not think I should be such a fool as to miss 3,0001. a year when it came in my way ? , Such were the leading facts proved on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. BROUGHAM, assisted by Mr. Serjeant MERE WETHER, haying declined calling any witnesses, ad dressed the Jury on behalf of the defendant. After which the Jury retired for about ten minutes, when they returned with a verdict for the plaintiff-- Damages; 2,5001. The Court adjourned to the 11th of January. (Flom the Maidstone Journal.) • The.following letter to the Duke of VirelliingtO i " ' t t on the distress of the country, was unattorolt, agreed to, and signed by all the Gr and JurY..ll. forwarded to his Grace on the 16th instant Grand Jury Room, Maidston e, Dee- .1_0?,:t0 Mr LOAD,—We, the •Grand:Jury of 'the county offs assembled from all parts of the county in discharge ot".°l'F' public duties, feel, that in justice to ou r respeztirt lle a e:g hours, we ought not to separate without coalman .„„. to your Grace, for the information of his Majeati -I ~f ig ~ nistets, the deep and unprecedente d distress, erbicli.: our personal and local knowledge. we a re enabled t o it t ' -- prevails atn ,, ng all classes throughout this county, gree that must not only Le ruinous t o the interests ef;HT A side's's, but must also, at no distant period, be at of with serious consequences to the national prosperity.. In making this communica6en to your Grace, it a 0 01 :• only object to call the attention of his Majesty's Miniter_ to the real state of the country , i n the ho p e that and effectual measures may be taken to alleviate distresses which press so severely on the serval classes society. Marsham (Foreman) George Gipps, DI- I Hon. J. W. Stratford J. B Wildman, Est Sir E. Knatchhull, Bt. Isa ac Minot, ; Sir B. W. Bridges, Bt. C. Milner, Esq. Sir W. Cosway, Knt. W. G. D. Tyersen, rot . Jos. Berens, E.g. R. W. Forbes, El. W. Bridge, Esq. Edward Rice, Doi, 3. K. Shaw, Esq. T. Fairfax Best, Esq . Edw. Darell, Esq. M. D. D. Didion, Egileal T. L Bodges, Esq. T. A. Douce, Esq. N. R. Toke, Esq._ J. P. Plurntre, GRAND JURY OF KENT. , W. A. 31orliand, Eqq, HORRID OUTRAG (From the Care Journal.) EXTRACT OP A LETTER FROM KILRUSII, DATED Tag " One of the most atrocious and savage outrasl4 ever recorded was committed at about two o'clockf this morning, at Dromelihy, within four miles o_, this town, upon two men (brothers) ' of the name of Dayle, who were recently appointed drivers to the N st : hiit ' e,t e Gl sanittrri:ootstrpwhriel;noyupwe,wruhteciyeerheeiteltdditelilesdi they this apncreoegrineg,dodhun,besolttelobrdifleolt itholeedlimei,inifaol:rvehroe: ci01i....1), conduct, by Mr. Westropp. - This appoim... ...pat, 0. 'a it, brought upon the unfortunate Doyles the ben vengeance of Terry Alt's boys, who attack tIv Iel " * house, which tiny broke into, and brought out this two poor brothers one at a time , and—Oh! 1101,ibei e d I —cut out their tongues ! Another br other ay a similar fate, by hiding under a bed. This is e" can just now communicate of this horrible transac - tioa, but you shall have the pa r t iculars when I cell c 'fleet them." SECOND LETTER, DATED THE 20TH INSTOrr. o " Ihe following diabolical o utra g e occurred e the lands of Dromelihr, on Saturday morning, ill: h nt with this 19th instant, between two and three o'clock. vv,- obirio their r s ibiaemuieedc,Da:litehlevnerseettakfierne to;o of their bel and dogged most unmercifully, powder was Os° throats, until they forced their tongues out, ske then cut them off. On hearing of the outrage, • Lieutenant Carey, C.C.P., proceeded to the plac e ! and succeeded, I am happy to say, in apprehending two of the principals concerned in this unprece dented outrage. " The unfortunate sufferers serewe brought here PuniAment, they took them blit "htyc(lllli under an escort of the police, and R Wilier the care of Dr. Elliott. The two tongues are in th . Police-office." 19TII INST. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. effect relative to the stamping of paper for nesll o , months 1110 at ago,of our an read importante rs are alteration wa r e t pers in Scotland. Prior to that (late the steollo°,. was performed in London, but the Board of co & missilners of Stamp Duties having been lb, aware of the great inconvenience of sendi"g o re t paper; te aa thither privilege considerately ,.hi(.h granted tilthe L o ntdootnh tiorsowaraifice ye h otmi a ffi.:l d ne b ei;it e etr f ies o liy r n e colov : fi x hd e itet l ihe t l i te s e , t e ffect a nti official regulations issued for its manage nets These regulations, which some recent circur34$ fd have called us to consider, appear tO ° t hairt the least of them, much more rigoroo4 arbitrary Yboni : e e r y rnaoj rofy,3; e e t p h ad a r e ; rdtlemlxl irheeaanncwtaitti Pv c ae rocas ot : s ted .t ‘da fa l t ei hp :tg: d . , htl there is. any occasion for ; and the sooner I:ing. are dispensed with the better. They , for one tPnipg provide, that the duties upon newspaper 'll/ shall be paid seven days before the stamp" t d to livered out of the of fi ce. We sbould rd bl know what is the object of such a provision, 3 ' l is whom it was enacted. Fs effect, at all eventliel to burthen publishers with nn addition to the thi.ire, imposed by the legislature ; and this, We cords ne public officer has a right to do without the : 0 c apectfic authority. It may be said that to P ubli in Edinburch, who can get their stamps in fu way as only to pay for one publication at owes jt may not be a very serious inconvenience; butt eft plain, that to provincial publishers, wilt l A 'Artt always have a stock of stamps on hand , it 01t1:4, a matter of some consequence. Take, for i10t7, - ,0 merely for the sake of illustration , the 1 atl n , Herald. Mr. Hunter, we believe, sends for W og ply 0f.12,000 stamps at a time ; therefore either -opt or his agents must pay into the Stamp- 00 0st sum of 160/., the amount of duty payable utt quantity, seven (lays before the stamps eallSar got out of the o ffi ce to be packed 5 0 , il l s spatched to Glasgow. And even althour dei stamping may have been executed on t he reti,i,je on w hick the duties are paid the stamp s must the office, charged with duty, till the se ven dsie expired, unless he begs them as special farol,.i the inferior officers. Before this alteration wap' for public accommodation Mr. Hunter or 3 3 / a d tt else could have sent to the stamp-o ffi ce , paid th e o t/ and got the stamps packed and sent offal ] on th Li e day. We know how our brother of the Herilwool.t his agents arrange with regard to the supplyof or how le relishes the change, but were We `fitioi situation we would be much inclined to doubt „ er far we were benefited by it. Why shoul d th e prietors prietors of newspapers be subjected to the 'll-110P seven days' interest which it involves hie amount is certainly not great, but we have o °,,,Ft of being mulcted even of a farthing without 'l"lo. cause being shown why we should submit tothe.llo post. We are at all times averse to questir . . wisdom or conduct of public functionaries /1.._,.4.'"1 a ,‘,l r .ue e t shall aware,int h is probably hcaas.vee parties ; but we feel ourselves called upon to W o e it ill Out additional information. —Edinbure - Obe r) " MARRIED. go tf,g to no rtefcatrirdtirdt 111.1,1 r On the 24th inst. at Sloe Farm, near Haletead v „. 4 * Mrs. Russell, relict of the late Chad Russell, Binfield, Berks. aaltidadikinteieloeuelttcimacsaeirdoinsto play to'pree-vigov DIED. ..l On the 19th inst. at llorselydown, Mr. E. llitl'ilet Queen's College, Cambrbhte, to Elizabeth, eldest di"' of G. Emer.on, Esq. of New Brentford. g 01l .01114 On the 25th inst. Arthur Tegart, Esq. o f - aged 69. th ft' On the 25th inst. in Ctuzon-street, Sarah Wil.°V, lief of the late D. Wil.on, Esq. of Dalland Towe r ' inorelan , l, in lice 67th year. tb ViSa lle _de On the 25th in s t. at London Wall, MOT - sow- Pliene, Peeond daughter of the late N. Payne , E l/ t gate, Aliddlesez. On the 21st inst. in Deverell- street , Igent.roo4 on te IL Peach, in his 21st year. On the 24th inst. Sophia Mary Anne, eldest 411041411 of Mr. Charles Hertslot, rf Norfolk-etre" St' her llth year. es Pn the 10th ult. at Madeira, Frederick, Of'Mr. T. Smith, of the Customs, London. A Pints/6) AND PiriSLISIIED sr muswo_ ,1 011 7 was weft Oniuz, 111, s itovw-wt . AL Iv x ,;, trigt b/c, A Mr.) 04 t 4 Pu °PE CH MI U s 81,d'• Thi s d li 4 ND] CII On IN Th, utyt iri ,i g biten TH Iv)), St t, , th e ki Code 6, , l'ult ( *urn, Lich', . .' it, cal (1,143 Lei r`,U,r C V4ri a i t) N, P %%t; tu h i Iliv v , Ni Lk, -..,_