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

THE ATLAS LIBEL CASE. paragraph, he must beg leaVe to remind the Jury, that they must consider it by itself abstractedly, and without the slightest regard to what had appeared in other newspapers, with which it neither had, nor purported to have, the slightest 'reane:';.ion. They ,oust not look at the etertiirient which prevailed, aid visibly ri - ettaiied, in other portions of the Press, —they must look to what the paragraph contained, and to that only. He disclaimed all connexion with any of 'the newspapers which had peted ii course of violence and inveetive a 110 he had nothing whatever to do with ttnj . 67 the foul and malicious Slanders which. Might have emanated frOM . Other . ;quarters against the character of the Y,o•(.1 thancellor. He would beg the :Tory "re, observe that the Attorney- Genera!, in opening this case against him, had used the name of the Lord Chancellor all through his ad dress, instead of that of " the Noble Lord," which was all that MII mentioned its the paragraph. Now it appeared to him that the're wa). caineiderable in justice in trying hihe this species of what he must call aftereknOwledge. After this paragraph, which spoke only of a Noble Lord, had appeared in the newspaper, the Lord Chancellor made an affidavit denying the truth of the imputation contained in the paragraph ; and thus, by the Lord Chancellor's taking it to himself, he was to be tried on a species of afrereknowledgee Which he had not acquired when he permitted the paragraph to go before the public. Until he had received notice of the paragraph's having given offence to the Lord Chancellor, he did not know that eny persons had attributed the charge which it contained to the Lord Chancellor. It therefore struck him that it would have been a wiser course if the Lord. Chancellor had let it alone altow ther; for if his Lordship had not denied the justice of the charge, as applied against him, nobody would ever have attnibuted it to him. Indeed, he could say, from his own knowledge, that the majority of opinions attributed it to another Noble Lord. It appeared, as with some high authorities, it was a settled principle that newspapers ought not to publish any articles about the conduct ofpublic men, no matter whether those articles were true or false. With all due deference to such persons, he would observe, that such a doctrine was not quite agreeable to the spirit of the British' Constitution ; for if the editors of newspapers were to be prevented from publishing any remarks on the conduct of public lmen, then public men would be placed above the • reach of public opinion. It had likewise been said, that the higher the situation of the public man was, the worse offence was it to publish any thing to-his disadvantage. Now that doctrine implied another, which was, that the greater the trust, the greater was the irresponsibility of the Minister to whom it was confided ; for, beyond all question, if there was to be no means of exciting public opinion, the higher we placed any public man, the greater would be the irresponsibility Nv hich we should give him. This be mentioned to the Jury in the abstract, not wish ing them to believe that in so doing he wished to throw any imputation upon the Lord Chancellor. The Jury would, he trusted, recollect that Painter, the first witness who had been called before them, had told them that he (Mr. Bell) had given instruc tions to him to place this paragraph before that which followed it. That paragraph, as they would perhaps recollect, had reference to the different rumours with which the political world was then rife. His reason for giving Painter tech instruetions was, that us the two paragraphs were on the same subject, they should be kept as closely as possible together. From no fault, save that of not understanding in structions which perhaps were not given with suffi• dent clearness, Painter put a line between them, thus separating into two paragraphs that which was intended as one connected and integral paragraph. lie ITOUII read both the paragraphs, and then they would see that the caseagainst him was by no means so bad as it had been represented. (Here Mr. Bell read the paragraph charged as libehous, and that which immediately followed it.) The Jury would see from this latter paragraph, the spirit which in fluenced the Proprietor and Editor of the Atlas. The rumours of the day were given with the true spirit of a newspaper, but independently of any per sonal feeling whatever. After what he had already stud of the character of the paper, and of his own anxiety to avoid doing any thing which could detract from its general fairness and impartiality, he trusted that it would not be necessary for him to address them any longer on that part of the case. There were, however, one or two observations to which he roust venture to call their attention as regarded the legal view of it. In the case of Lord Abingdon, who was tried for publishinga speech which he delivered in he House of Lords, and which contained expres sions wounding the feelings and character of a soli citor, Lord Kenyon had said that to constitute a libel the mind must be in fault, and must show a malicious intentions; fur if it were published inad vertently, it might not be a libel. lie thought that he had already shown that there was no improper motive on his part in the puldieation of this para. eraph ; for he hail endeavoured to lay before the Jury as clearly as he could the way by which it had got into the Paper. The intelligence en which it was founded was received at the latest hour at which it could be received consistently with t he 'salting up of the Paper. He had neither time to consider the hearing of the article, nor to re-fashion it in point of construction. • It was therefore viable to the charge of want of style as well us to the other charges which had been made against it. It there fore came strictly under the definition which Lord Kenyon had given in Lord Abingdon's case, of what was arid what was not a libel. It was published in haste and inadvertently. The information came to him when he had not time to give it the considera tion which it deserved ; for if he had given it that consideration he should never have inserted it, not because lie feared the responsibility which necessa rily attached to such an act, but because he should have been unwilling to wound the feelings of the Lord Chancellor by it. The paragraph, he repeated, was written in the utmost haste, and sent,he believed,in scraps to the printer. Lord Kenyon had said, that " if a libel was published inadvert ently, it was not punishable as a libel." Now, if those words were to be taken in their plain and na tural eignitication,—if there was no meaning in them outside of the popular meaning attributed to them,—if there was not a legal interpretation of ' diem quite distinct from their ordinary imputation, then this paragraph was published inadvertently, and, according to the dictum of Lord Kenyori, was no libel. But Lord Kenyon had also said, that to constitute a libel, the mind must be in fault, and must show a malicious intention. Therefore, it was possible that, although the libel had been published inadvertently, he might have had some malice against the Lord Chancellor.. lie was therefore anxious to convince the Jury that he had none. He considered it to be quite unnecessary for him to enter into the history of the events from which the agitation arose, of which the Attorney-General had spoken so feel ingly, for they must all be well acquainted with the history of the Catholic Relief Bill. They must all of them be aware, that daring the Session of Parliament in which Mr. Canning was Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, who was then Sir John Copley, Master of the Rolls, made a speech, and a strong speech, agaiast it. They must all likewise be aware, that when the same Bill was brought into Parliament in the course of the last session by the Duke of Wellington, Sir John Cop ley, then Lord Chancellor, took a different view of it, and in the exercise of a sound and manly, and he had no doubt honest discretion, thought that he should be furthering the interests of his country by voting in favour of it. Upon this circumstance were founded all the evil imputations against the Lord Chancellor which had been so sedulously propa gated by his enemies. Of course those enemies must be found among those who were of opinion that Catholic emancipation would be destructive to the British Constitution. For his own part, he (Mr. Bell) could distinctly say that he had never at any time entertained such . an opinion. Ever since he had been able to think, he had never been accus tomed to think that the principle of exclusion was the principle OR whieh the British Constitution rested COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dec. 21. THE KING v. BELL. The following was Mr. Bell's defence : Mr. Bell observed that it was very natural he should address the Jury under some feelings of em barrasement ; but he trusted that they would not attribute any feeling he might evince to fear, but to the novelty of his situation. He felt the greatest anxiety to vindicate himself from the charge of being a scandalous libeller. The question with him was more a question of 'character than any thing else; he had no political or personal object to answerte-the character of the paper he had the honour to conduct was distinguished for its neutrality hi political mat ters. He was anxious also to say that he had no intention whatever to wound either 'die feelings of Lord or Lady Lyndhurst-. Is thanked the At torney-Genera', for the temperance and moderation with which he had eeled towards him, and with not having mixed up his case with that of others recently before the Court, with whom he did not wish to be associated. The learned Attorney-General had spoken of the offer made, if he should give up the author, the party by whom the substance of this article was communicated to Mtn. But he begged the Jury to consider the chcumstances in which he was placed. It must be well known to all that the editor of a newspaper stood in a peculiar situation—he stood between the public and the proprietors whose. interest he represented, It was necessary for him te obtain such amusement- and instruction as would please all ; being placed in such a situation, he was above all liable to the risk of prosecution. The matter complained of was furnished to hirn by a confidential correspondent, and sooner than barter the trust reposed in him be those who gaee him the information, he would eller all the inconvenience of the present prosecution; he never would be de nounced to the public a 3 a man who would barter a trust reposed in him. The Atlas Newspaper was, perhaps, one of the most ambitious attempts ever known on the pert or one publication to give mat ter generally rOntaieed in many publications: it en tertainer:l, no hostilities to any man, or any body of men, It had occurred merely from mistake—mis tekee occurred everywhere, even in this Court. Not keg since a Learned Gentleman argued a case most strenuously, and shortly after discovered, on looking at his brief, that he wits for the other side. A News paper might be considered a-mirror which reflected Massing events, and in a moral point of view could only be considered responsible for the shadow, and not the substance. The alleged libel stated nothing definitive, it merely dealt in rumours, and if turnouts were not the legitimate property of newspapers, and taken up by them, they would go ca from mouth to mouth exaggerated at. every stage of their progress, late the story of the three crows told by Mrs.Piozzi. There were three reasons which induced him, tinder the eirtumstances of this case, to take any eonse neentes rather than give up his informant. The first was, that the information was given tinder a seal of secrecy which it would be dishonourable to • break, In the text place, when information of this kind was given, it was given to be used at the dis cretion of the party to whom it was communicated, anti having, iii the exercise of that discretion, used it, he con-idered himself as doing so wholly on his own responsibility. In the third place, he would ask the jury, with what feelings could I.e stand before theta after havieg broken the confidence which Was reposed in him ? For these maser's it was that h thought it better to observe silence, and, as he had used the information he received, to take till the consequences to himself; at the same time solemnly (lettering that he had no wish whatever to injure or wound the feelings of Lord or Lady Lyndhurst.— He now came to the libel itself. y It stated that there were rumours in the highest political circles. He had not the vanity to pretend that he moved in stub circles. Those which he moved in '.:ere very humble, but he had many friends who geve him information, on the accuracy of which he had good reason to rely, of what was passing those circles. lint he did , not give what he heard as facts—he gave them merely as rumours. A news- paper was a mirror in which what was passing in society might lie reflected, and rumours could not he excluded from them. Besides the insertion in a riper of a rumour which was vague before, gave it a specific character, and frequently led to their total destruction if unfounded; and he believed that one morning paper had stated that that was one good result of his insertion of the rumour in this instance. Ile was glad of it, and if it had that effect, he should submit with more pleasure to whatever might be the conssquence to himself. The Attorney- Gemmel had told thern that no person could go into society at that period without hearing those rumours.- Now, if that were so, he would ask wily was it un lawful to write that which it was lawful to speak in public ! If those rionciers were so general, why were they not checked ? why was not snane person who re peated thorn called to account ? er why should the statement in writing that the rumours did exist subject the party to punishment ? Bad as the law of libel was, be hoped it was not yet so inconsistent as to warrant this. The rumours which he had heard lie gave as he bad heard them, without mentioning names. At the time he received this informe.ion, he was test informed of the amount of ecclesiastical patronage which was in the gift of the Lord Chan cellor, nor of the amount of that which was in the gift of the First Lord of the Treasury. Ile had since trade many anxious inquiries as to the amount in the hands of each ; but, unfortunately, his in (pities had been -made in vain, and : lie remained in the same state of ignotaece in which he had been before the appearance of this paragraph, and in which a large majority of the,coMmunity were still involved. It had been remarked by Helt, an au thority not at all favourable to the press, that if the satire of any publication . Werenotcommonly under stood, it was not panishabl6 "by law as a libel.— Now he contended that the paragraph charged against him as libellous could riot be commonly un derstood; for the amount of ecclesiastical pa tronage in the gift of each Noble Lord in the Ca binet was by no means matter of general now riety. With regard to the evidence which had been that day bought forward to prove the ap plicability of this paragraph to the'Lord Chancellor and his lady, be must be permitted to say that it was not exactly such as he had expected. He- had expected to have found witnesses brought from dif ferent classes in society ; he had expected to have seen in the witness-box members of the bar, mem , bers of the senate, and members of the high aristo cracy ; Jie had expected that by their united testi mony the inference that this paragraph was intended to apply to the Lord Chancellor would have been FO clearly proved that, no doubt could be left on the mind of any Juryman. But when he came to look at what actually had taken place, and to compare the evidence which had been given with that which lie had expected would be given, he found that there was no other evidence tendered against him titan that of Mr. Shepherd, who turned out oddly enough to be himself a relation of Lady Lyndhurst. He did not intend to question the evidence of Mr. Shepherd ; but this much he thought that he might fairly be permitted to say,—that it was not so strong as he had expected. Mr. Shepherd was but one individual, and, being connected by relationship with Lady Lyndhurst, was not quite so strong as the evidence of gentlemen would have been who were unconnected with either the Lord Chancellor or Lady Lyndhury. Mr. Shepherd stated that his. only reason for believing -that the paragraph applied to the Lord Chancellor was, that he knew the Lord Chafe- ler pos sessed considerable ecclesiastical. patronag. That reason was unsatisfactory to him—for he knew that other Noble Lords possessed considerable ecclesiasti cal Patronage ; and if he had placed another gentle man in the witness box to prove that the First Lord of the Treasury possessed considerable ecclesiasti cal patronage, the Jury would have conflicting evi dence on that point, and it would have been impos sible to assert that the imputation of this paragraph win commonly - understood. In considering this • its foundation. tie was anxious to show the jury that this had always been his opinion, in order that he might show them that he had no political feeling or malice against the Lord Chancellor. About three years ago he had published a pamphltt upon the Catholic question, and by reading an extract from . it he would show the jury what hit orthdolit had at that titre been ultidn the 6laimi,s of• the Catholics, Mkis i were founded on What heMnderatood to be the grounds of justice and of common sense: Here Mr. Bell read the folios ing extract from his pamphlet It is objected, emancipation would not cure all the evils of Ireland, and would not, therefore, produce the effect desired. True, eman cipation would not cure all the evils of Ireland, but no evil can be cured without it. Though it leaves much to be done ; it must be (kne first itstifj it is like a preparation of the physical system for a course of medical treatment. It cannot be disguised, nor is it sought to be evaded, that much would remain to be satisfied, and mach to be corrected; but it would not be solely Catholic. The policy that has hitherto governed Ireland has not only been injurious, be cause it' demoralised and impoverished the people. Withdraw invidious distinctions, and if further com plaints reach you, they will be the complaints of freemen, which you, as freemen, will find your inte rests identified in redressing. All measures that pre cede emancipation, however beneficial in their ten dency, will be received with distrust by the excluded ; a modification of tithes may relieve the landlord—a vi gilant police coerce the rebellious, anti afford dubious security to the peaceable—a reduction of imposts lighten the burdens of a trade, almost too exhausted to be conscious of benefits; public works occasionally em ploy the idle or disaffected of a village, or a county, and petty sessions inspire the peasant with a foreign hope of justice,—but this is partial, not general goc s 4, affecting distinct and minor interests; still leaving without a remedy the great national cala mity, to which the feelings and attachment of the country are sacrificed. Such measures preceding emancipation must be transitory and ineffectual, since petty benefits cannot be felt by a people who want freedom :—following emancipation, they would complete the pacification, and decide the allegiance of the country." From that extract the Jury would be enabled to perceive what his opinions had been on a question on which much political prejudice had undoubtedly arisen. They would therefore perceive that he could have no political antipathy against the Lord Chancellor for his conduct on the Relief Bill. As to any personal motives, it was almost unneces sary for him to state that he had none: be had no wrongs to redress, no injury to resent, no motive to do an act, which was riot only painful, but also improper in itself. If he had a bias either way, it would have been rather to do justice to the Lord Chancellor against his calumniators, than to have assisted them in their disgraceful slan ders. He had heard the proprietor of the Atlas,' Mr Whiting, who was a man of informaton and literature, and had great knowledge of men and manners, speak upon all occasions in the most favourable terms of the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Whiting's knowledge of the Lord Chancellor enabled that gentleman to inform him of that Noble Lord's real character. He had always spoken of him as an honourable and distinguished Nobleman, who;c noble situation stooped even under his noble character. If, therefore, he (Mr. Bell) had any bias on the subject, it was, as he had before said, to do justice to a character which, he was led to believe, had been wickedly traduced and atrociously ma ligned. Having thus shown to the Jury that lie had neither political nor personal malice to gratify, he would now ask them to say in what part of this paragraph was to be found that great element of libel, malice ? He was well aware that it had been said by some great law authorities that the act itself was to be taken as a proof of the intention. Such doctrine might he considered, and he dared to say was considered, very good in law, but could not stand examination for a moment . if considered abstractedly. TO say that a mini must have only one intention under all the varying circumstances under which an action may be committed, is to put out of considera tion all the accidents to which man is liable. Why in the case of libel must the law consider itself the master of every man's secret intentions ? Why must it force upon him his own imaginations as the secret workings of his mind ? Such was not the course which it was permitted to pursue on the trial of other offences. Killing, he believed, was divisible into two classes, murder and manslaughter. Killing was the same in both ; but the absence of ill-intention removed from the agent all the ill con sequences which followed his act when it was ac companied by malice. If- such a principle was ad mitted in such cases, it ought to be admitted in the present case, where no malice had been proved, and where the result of the act crenplained of was so much less dangerous and pernicious. In their con sideration of the present paragraph it was neces sary that two things should be proved clearly to lie their satisfaction. The first was, that the paragraph was intended to apply to the Lord Chancell,r ; and tl e second was, supposing them to he convinced of its applicability to that Noble Personage, that it origi nated in malice. A, to its applicabiiity to the Lord Chancellor, they had only the evidence of Mr. Shep herd. At the time w hen lie received the information on which he had written this paragraph, he had noknowledge of who " the Noble Lord" alluded ' to was. True he had his suspicions—and here let him remind them that the evidence of Mr. Shepherd that (lay was mere - suspicions too. Then, taking it to proved that the paragraph was inteuded to apply to the Lord Chancellor, he had endeavoured to show that the great element of libel was wanting---he meant malice, either personal or political. He would here remind the Jury that the Attorney-General, in the course of his speech, seemed to insinuate that in inserting this paragraph he had departed from the ordinary routine of the paper. On that point the Attorney-General'laboured under great mistake. In ordering that insertion, he had done nothing more than was usual and ordinary. Nothing was struck out of the leading article to make room for it. Some trifling news of the day was only omitted. It would I likewise seem, from what had fallen from the Learned Attorney-General, that he considered this to have been done surreptitiously. No such thing; for what object could that have answered ? The Proprietors of a Paper was not, as a matter of necessity, its conductor; he entrusted that duty to his Editor; and it was the duty of the Editor to conduct it, not against the will of the Proprietor, but according to the plan which had been previously settled between . them. It was not the usual conduct of proprietors of newspapers to read over every paragraph which appeared in the previous publication ; for if it were, they would have no occasion for editors, who were generally employed to save them that trouble. With those editors, a certain discretion must-neces sarily be left. In the exercise of that discretion, he had inserted this paragraph ; and that explanation would, he trusted, satisfy the Jury that though. it was inserted unknown to Mr. Whiting, it was not inserted surreptitiously. He trusted that he bad now made clear to them the character.of this para graph, and of the evidence which had been adduced to prove that it conveyed imputations unfaVourable to the character of the Lord Chancellor. He would now proceed to call their attention to a distinction which had sometimes been drawn between the legal responsibility and the moral. responsibility which at tached to the individual against whom a charge of libel was adduced. In Mr. Pox's Libel Act,—and to that Act the Press of this country owed all the rights which it was permitted to enjoy,—it was stated that the Jury were competent to try all the merits of the case, or, to use the language of Junius, that they were to be judges at once of the law and of the fact. If therefore, there should be any thing in the legal view of this case which is not con sistent with the common sense view of it, he trusted that when that discrepancy should be submitted to them, they would carry the moral view of it along with them in their minds, and would give to him the leefit of any doubts which such a consideration might engender. It had. been asserted by Holt, that-in cases of libel a man might be legally guilty Mel morally innocent. This assertion, though strange to an unlearned, might ap pear perfectly intelligible to a learned ear, for he was well aware that words, taken in a legal sense, had often a different sense from that which they bore in ordleary parlance. He recollected a very curious in stance of it, Which occurred a few years ago in Ire land. In that country it happened that the law offieers of the Crown had at long controversy with sonic or the leading members of the Catholic Board on the meaning of the word " pretence." They in sisted that " pretence," meant " purpose." The Members of the Catholic Board contended that it had no such meaning, and in support of their point referred to Dr. Johnson and other great lexicogra phers, to prove that " pretence" did not mean " purpose." The law officers of the Crown were not convinced by these authorities, and they referred the determination of the question to the Cow t of King's Bench. A solemn investigation into the mean ing of the word took place before the Learned Judges of that Court. Dr. Johnson and the rest of the lexi cographers were thrown overboard, and it was held that pretence was purpose. Retaining this circum stance in his mind, he was satisfied dint Holt, in stating that a man might, in cases of libel, be le gally guilty and morally innocent, had not stepped out of the ordinary language of the law. The doc trine, however, was so opposite to all the usually received notions of right and wrong, that he trusted that they would set against any legal wrong which he might have committed his moral innocence : and if they did, he was certain that the scale would soon predominate in his favour. Mr. Bell then proceeded in a tone of voice, which was at times so low as to render him almost entirely inaudible to the reporters, who were placed immediately in his rear, to regiet the malignity which of late had been only too pre valent in the publications which had emanated from a part of the Press. He pointed out to the Jury how dangerous it was, in endeavouring to check that malignity, to lay down precedents, which, though useful in particular cases, might ultimately prove most prejudicial to the liberty of the Press. He looked upon the liberty of the Press as a natu ral right, and contended that it was in that light that it had always been considered by the best writers of our constitutional history. He directed the attention of the Jury to the difficulties by which 'writers in newspapers were environed, in con sequence of the undefined state of the law of libel. He declared that the maxims of the law were so indistinct that you might snatch from them, as from the books of the Magi, a leaf to suit every man's purpose. Though such were his opi nions, he declared that he would no more seek the unqualified Liberty of the Press than he would seek to establish the absolute impunity of Ministers. To say that the power of the Press should be uncondi tional, would be to invest it with an unconditional power of insult,—a quality, which would not only make ir,what the Attorney-General had been pleased to call it, a monstrous evil, but which would make a curse to every country, and to no county more than this. When he said that certain bounds ought to be set out for the Liberty of the Press, he might per haps be permitted to ask, where should we find such bounds ? Not in legal restrictions, for they cannot correct the present evil, but in the force and soundness of public opinion, in which, and in which alone, you find its proper limits. But it was said that the Press was free, because there was no previous hin drance to any thing which a public writer was in clined to publish. But if there was no previous hindrance, there were certain consequences, from which no man, however prudent, can escape. At present those who had any thing to do with the m aeagement of the Press were in a situation similar to that of a man who was allowed to walk on a drawbridge; without let or hindrance, until he had reached the centre, and who, as soon as he arrived there, was plunged into the stream which rolled be neath his feet, without any note being given ()limy in- tention to withdraw the planks on which he trod. True it was, that the Editors of Newspapers might publish what they liked, but where was time advantage of thapermissiote if they could not learn, by any ex- . excise of their feculties, whether they were safe from prosecution ireso doing ? They had no light to guide them,—they were compelled to perform all their business in the dark ; aud when it was per formed, they were still in uheertainty whether, in performing it, they, had not exposed themselves to the lash of the law. Thus the facility of printing was a fatal facility,—a dangerous:pivrogative. Mr. Bell here became so inaudible, that we . foued it im possible to follow him for some time. We under stood him to state that the anomalous state of the libel new of England reminded him of an oriental story, in which a tnan was represented as bound to a revolving wheel, which brought him ever and anon within the reach of a bright gem of inestimable value. Every time he approached it he stretched forth his hand to grasp it, and every time he came near it he was carried away from it with incredible velocity by the revolving power of the wheel. The liberty of the Press was to the public writer that in valuable gem ; but, unfortunately, every time that he attempted to reach it, he was struck back by some dogma of law, and was carried away from it with inconceivable rapidity. He then proceeded to tell the Jury that there were two or three points which he wished them to consider fully in deciding on this case. By their decision against him they would fix the responsibility of art Editor of a news paper-for publishing a rumour notoriously iii circu lation. It was denied that rumours on the subject of this paragraph existed at the time of its publica tion, and therefore the whole crime,of which he had been guilty, was simply that of having put them into a newspaper,which was the hest and most certain way of obtaining for them a speedy refutation. They would therefore have to decide how far as newspaper was correct in stating the existence of a rumour as a matter of public information. They would have to decide that important ques tion, which would go far- to settle the ill-understood regulations which governed the Press. If the Jury should think it advisable for is moral good, that a loose rumour should be inserted in a newspaper, there to meet its refutation, then upon that ground he would rest, and upon that ground he would say that they could not find him guilty. If the Jury should be of a contrary opinion, then they must con sider whether the paragraph be applicable to the Lord Chancellor, and if it be, whether it be libel lous? Here let him be permitted to observe that the Press was to every sensible man a subject of the deepest interest. There had gone abroad lately a great prejudice against it, ill conseenence of the liberties taken with private character by some male volent writers. It appeared that a series of calum nies had been poured. forth against the ministers of the day, for which there was no shadow of pretence. lie entreated the jury to recollect that this paragraph was disconnected with any of the articles which had given such just and such general .offence. He desired them to forget the excitement which had given rise to those articles, and which those articles had in their turn prolonged : he entreated them to discon nect him from the authors of such writings, and he implored them to judge of him by this paragraph, and by this paragraph alone. Ile likewise trusted, , that the jury would take into their consideration, that if one part of the Press had lent itself most shamefully to the diffusion of slander and calumny, ' another part y the ol ga it had nobly redeemed liatitstandwbicit its it thad made cha- He believed t h at t h e P ress o f a r a g c a t i e n r s t yt England had never been conducted with so much t a l e nt and ability as that with which it was conducted at this moment. He believed that the characters of those connected with it had never been morepure and irreproachable than at present. Ile would vindicate it from the aspersions Which had re cently been cast upon it, aid he would say ut once, that he (lid not believe that the . Press was half so pure and half so irreproachable in the Augustan days of Queen Anne as it was in the present days of George IV. Your wits of that day were coffee house wits, mere brawlers in the street, who came into society at intervals to illuminate it, and then tlepartd bad , into obscurity, to indulge in secret in their loose anti depraved habits. The individuals Connected with the Reset at this day g enerally keep good society, have the demeanour and habits of gen tlemen, and are received as such in all societies. This was not the ease formerly-a fact, which he stated for the mere purpose of reecuing the l'ress generally from the imputation which woo Id other wise rest upon it from the irregularity of some of its degraded members. lie would not detain them longer with his observations. He had stated ail that had occurred to him,-he would not say in jus tific.ttion of the libel, for if it were a libel he would Wedeln to justify it,-but he had stated, he trusted, enough to shove that it was not a libel upon the Lord Chancellor, and least of all a malicious libel. On these grounds he asked for their verdict. He felt that the character of the Lord Chancellor stood too high in the opinion of his country and of colleagues to stand in need of being purified by a verdict of a British Jury. It was not necessary to the vindication of his Lordship's fame for the Jury to give a verdict against him ; for until his Lordship had made all ilirl• davit denying the imputation said to be contained in this paragraph, there was not a man in the country who thought the paragraph applied to him. His Lordship had taken the propel course to refute the rumours which had been industriously propa gated against him. lie had refuted them to the conviction and satisfaction of every human being; and it was not necessary, he repeated, to his Lord ship's justification that the jury should return a ver dict of guilty against so humble an individual as himself. If, however, it should be supposed that their finding a verdict for him would throw a stigma upon the character of that noble personage, he would entreat them Hot to return a verdict in his favour. He did not seek a verdict at the expense of the re putation of the Lord Chancellor, which was trot less his property that; that of his country. He would rather starer himself than allow the character of so useful a personage to suffer. Ile trusted that the jury would apprrcia'e this conduct on his part as it deserved, and that they would judge him by his motives as much as by the evidence produced against him. lie now reposed his case in their hands. He entertained no doubt that their verdict would be a just one. Their verdict in his favour Would cast no imputation on the Lord Chancellor ; ;f it woeld, he would prefer hearing the word guilty issue froM their box to seeing that nettle personage at all injured in the opinion of the country. Lord TENTERDEN, after reading an abstract of the pleading:, and also the libel and the paragraph an nexed to it, proceeded to inform the Jury, that the defendant had told them that the paragraph alleged to be libellous ought to be considered in connexion with that which followed it. If that were so, it would be their duty to consider whether the sen tence in the subservient paragraph, stating in dis tinct terms that a difference of opinion had arisen between the Lord Chancellor and some of the Mi nisters in the House of Commons, owing to the tut• courteous withdrawal of his Equity Bill, and that which followed, stating that Mr. Peel wits to retire, to keep Lord Copley in countenance, did not serve to explain who the person was described in the pre vious; paragraph, as " the Noble Lor.l holding a station of vast responsibility, who was said to be on terms of disagreement with another of his Ma jesty's advisers." If, upon comparing those passages together, they should be of opinion that the Lord Chancellor was the individual to whom that para graph was intended to refer, then two questions would arise for their consideration. lie did not think that it would be con'ended, that to barter ecclesiastical livings for money was not a serious and criminal act in any person who committed it ; and if it were, then ne did not expect to hear it con tended, that to east such an imputation upon any noble lord or lady, or upon any person whatsoever, was not a libel. The defendant, however, said that he had no intention to defame the Lord Chan- BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. cellor by this paragph; aud furthermore, that , the Lord Chancellor was not the certain noble lord Wellclose-squ.tre, soap-manufacturer, from Jan. 1 t " to whom this paragraph alluded. Now as to the 5, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. latter part of this defence, the Jury had had the gene- fit of the testimony of Mr. Shepherd. They would . BANKRUPTCIES sUPII.IISEDBI). Charles Thomas Ignatius Mawbood, , es ekere Richard Woodward, Great St. Thomas Apes" , • therefore take that gentleman's opinion into their con- l 'Thomas Newcombe, York, common-earriata sideration, and would then judge fur themselves whe- ' ther this paragraph was or was not intended to ap- I BANKRUPTS. er, to ply to the Lord Chancellor. The natural aPelica. I James Bowles, &Islam, Cimlaidgeshiree g to c r c o ot surrender Jan. ft, 12, an Fob. b, at we, a". t h dd s o : tion of it was to the Lord Chancellor, as he (Lord ti 11 1 ' of Commissioners. Gatty, Holdall', Getty, a Tcnterden) thought. Then some statement having I ' Angel-court, Throemorton-street lf,' been made, that die Lord Chancellor would rather , - • Charles Price, Strand aMbre-Pl-laallaraCtaref, Ja n. na prosecute the person who gave the defendant the at ten, 8, and Feb. 5, at eleven , ' at the Court Of C O-- information on which this paragraph is founded than missinners. Humphreys,Ernai.ay Ludgate-hill . the defendant himself, the defendant offered reasons j, - broker' James Nevett, George-yard Lombard-street , , s of Weliffes4.o.; to the Jury, perhaps su ffi cient reasons, . why he Jan. 1, at eleven, 8, at one, 'and Feb. 5, -itr - tvralre , , ~, could not do that which he had been challenged by the Court of Cemmitsiontrs. Keeney and 1 1 "0 - '' the Attorney-General to do. If, therefore, he would Lothhury. not give up the person from whom lie received his Edward Rix, Brighthelmstone,: Sussex , lines-drePer' information,- he must be content to be considered as Jan. 12, at twelve , 19, at eleven , and fib. , attGwaelefste: lit author of it, and must incur the author's sponsibility. It was then contended by the defend- i,„t re - i aw th r e en Cn ee lt o, of c Cmn he o ,,p ii .i.l s:ioneis. Hardwick :and i old, ant, that as the rumours to which allusion is made " Isiifilzaxs, plasterer,Vanderco m ian C . in the libel, actually preva , led, it was lawful in him at the Court of Commissioners. Farden, Great 1 In' to print them. lie (Lord 'I ets terden) must sa • ) street, Bedford-row. that he was surprised at hearing a gentleman :who had conducted his defence withso much tact, ability, ker, Dec. 29, at twelve, Jan. 8, and Feb. 5, at eleverr. 4, and talent, advance so untenable a proposition. No William Meares;Chapel-ereet, May-fair, Middlesl,_l:l; the; Court of Commissioners. Gri ffi th, G!ten s treet, man was at liberty to circulate rumours which are Grosvenor-square. 1 5 4 , 1.1'. 4 -' a tr n e d eti 'Fe ll b. l" s, P4 r e rt at e .leve l t injurious to the reputation of another, much lest ; Charles Judson jun , Ripon,Yorkshire, npho'sterer, Jen. can the editor of a newspaper give circulation to c o te, them by placing them in print ; for many persons Ripon. E I ' G d T , I Lou ' ever ey, ar en-court, emp e, on , on , - 8, 9, at eloven and ' Feb. 5, at one , at the Gnat linugfr who would otherwise not be acquainted with them, Ripon. would learn diem through the medium of his news- Anthony Guy, Chippenham,Wiltshire, paper. If an imputation be cast upon an individual Jan. 19,20, and Feb. 5, at eleven, at the White Li" 1 1 ', in a newspaper, it matters not whether the editor Bath. Pinnigcr, Gray's Inn-square; Pinniger, or learned that imputation from rumour or no, for he Penh"; Clarke and Son, Bristol.. i,hlela John Williamson and Thomas Rishworth, Re . la makes it Lie own by printing it, and so Yorkshire, worsted-spinners, Jan. 1, at five, 2, and get , ( naps the wings on which slander flies. 5, at ten, at the Talbot lan, Bradford: llawson . ,: i , , The defendant then said that he did not know ford, k y ins, k N i e . w Braswell-court, Carey-street; Weir, or • the extent of the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage, ru I that therefore the readers of his paper Joseph Mimes Bloxham , Halesowen Shrop shire , IlV t ,'" could not tell to whom the reragraph alluded. It ears , Jan. 7, at five, 8, and Feb. 5, '°t • -he at t welve, Ist., was immaterial what was the extent of the Lord Globe Tavern, Birmingham. Barber, • Fetter-lane ; : - Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage; for though lo Wet, Dudley. - aster few might know the extent, there were still fen e r Nicholas lhompson, Dartmouth, Devonshire, I °, -- A le that did not know that he had some. It had been .mariner, Jan. 4,5, and Feb. - 5, - - ar, eleven;' At - the "i' o ,, Inn, Dartmouth. Wolston, Furnival's Inn; , Waist '• contended that the defendant ought not to be 7M.. Brixitam, Devonshire. swerable for this libel, because he said he had no rksh ir ' Doroth Ilettersley, Bilton-with-Harrojate, Yo e s intention to defame th e Lord Chancellor. We have Finar innkeeper, Jan. i 7, a d t the Court-house of the...o Cas tle,o, no mode of judging of men's intentions except by their acts. If we find a man doing an act which is ton-with-Harr o g a te , ele v en.anFb s, and at p llattersley's ii i t o ; k ingo . calculated to produce certain effects, we must, till New Boswell- court, a t Lincoln's ""°ll d s°lll , lnn ; Powell an contrary evidence is produced, infer that he intends Knaresbrough. monsy-scriventart„ n sr to add that which be knows will follow from his act, Robert !!award, Highs Holborn, baker; Dec. Ew? f and we cannot take his meaning to be the contrary twelve, Jan. 5 , and Feb. 5, at eleven , at the COurS ° from his assertion alone. It has further been con- Commissioners. Turner, Clifford's Inn. n RN tended that as this was a hasty production, it is William Williams, Bristol, ironfonnder, Jan. ir',.,,,,,. and Feb. 5, at twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Biraling7, o ; therefore not punishable as a libel, and an opinion Austen and Hobson, Rey-mond-buildings, Gravy's' of Lord Kenyon had been quoted, in which that Arnold and Haines, Birmingham. n' Noble Lord is stated - to have declared, that any DIVIDENDS. ' • . 15' thing which is published inadvertently is not so . Is. E. Thompson, Kingston-upon - Hall, merchant, Jan. i f, punishable. lie dal not know what Lord Kenyon ait t, two, at the ;George Inn, -Kingston-upon-Hull tot meant by the word - inadvertently, for he had no u N r ewpo c rt, Isle a)! Wight, tailor, Jan. cs ls l , lt e: rbor ii means of judging of it from the context; but he had at t a h g e rr do heard Lord Kenyon o f ten d ec l are hi s opinion on ; bookseller, J t a i n i . 15 , °m n a l t " ttr u e n e e at the M * Con: o ta f n Commis siell l this subject, when seated on the beech where he . -T, Johnston, heapside, warehouseman, Jet,. 11i' :,,; had now the honour to preside, and he was twelve, at the Court of Commissioners W . • - ncil bitg quite certain that Lord Kenyon never intended Oxford, coachmaker, January 15, at three, a t 100'7 14 , to excuse any man from responsibility because of Commissioners--R. Wild, Craven-street, Strandll°o`f, he had committed an act hastily. Every Jan. 15, at three, at the Court of C om misaioner"r i iiri roan must take care -that any act committed by him B:adley, Legburn, Lincolnshire, silk-mercer, •is so itli in his haste duos riot injure another, either in for- 13, at eleven, at the Court of Commiss oners--S - e si and T. Hall, Wood-street, Chenpside, warehouser tune or character. As to the observations which January 15, at ten, at the Court of Commissitt 0 had been made respecting the liberty of the press, ' e a T. Towerson, To:tholes, Cumberland, miller, .1 , 1 . 0, he would merely observe, that they were complete! out of place in this case. for it was not consistent s t h f e ou t r o , n ;a 3 t i t a h v e iet G s n o lde e n ra L ta io h o e lnn, Whiteha j v a e n n--- 2 - 2 1 : 30 ,00 with the interest of society that imputations of this at le C:ommercial mßoorms,"-B'rsto s ho p k eeper, iY a tes, sel;,;',;; I : kind should be cast, even inadvertently, upon the Yeti's, W. Yates, jun. and B. Yates, Cleckheaton , 1 "" motives and con duct o f o thers. .It had been said shire, cloth-manufacturers, Jan. 25, at twelve, that these rterours were in existence at the time of sions-house, Wakeield-C-Allerson, Lawrence Pau"teto the publication of the libel. Other rumours m i g h t hill-place, Cannon-street, flour-factor, Jan. 15, at tw°' s ,4o4 , have been in existence, but he did not know that Count of Commissioners-J. Barber, Cowper's- tour te these were, and no evidence had been produced to hill, stock -hroker, Jan. 15, at three, at the Court of7 i , prove them. This was the substance of what he missioners-R. More, Schiedam Distillery, Shadwcilr tiller, Jan. 15, at eleven, at the Court of Cognuissio trot,. had to say to them. They would fi rst consider G. Davis, Dover-place, carpenter, Jan. 15, ateleve ° ,! , pis whether, in reading the paragraph, as men of plain r understanding, they were satis fi ed that either the colnshire ,Court of Commissioners-J. Barlow,. theGain;tirsuouill moo Lord Chancellor or Lady Lyndhurst were the .. pet : - Inn Gein grocer, h ;u l6at seven, B at L 1 eashire, IMP Tudor Bolton, .ap , _ _ ; ,..y. son or perrona to whom the paragraph imputed it - ' Feb . ""ug ** t e keeper, F 28, at ten, at the Bridge Inn, 11 , 4 to" at the 1: bartering of ecclesiastical preferments for money. If 'bey should be of opinion 'that they were not, the' the defendant would be entitled to their . verdi et but it they shobld be of npinion that they wer e ' :hey would consider whether the editor of a news" paper could insert such paragraphs in haste, without 'wending to defame their character'. The PI would exercise their own judgment on these pow"' and would decide accordingly. The defendant had disavowed all intention to defame those noble pet" 'onages, and had done it skilfully and dognently. They would not forget that certainly. He then Zell them to consider their verdict. The Jury retired, and were absent abou t half an hour. On their return, the foreman delive red the verdict to this effect—" We find the defoliant guilty of publishing ; but as we are not satisfied 0. 0 lie had any malicious intention, we beg to recom mend hint to the merciful consideration of the Court." [Surely this is no verdict at all ; or, if ant, is one of Not Guilty.] The ATTORNEY-GENElCAL—Gentlemen,--I beg to assure you that I receive your verdict w ith veil great swisfiatioo ; and I hare no doubt th at the Lord Chancellor, to whom I shall commu nicate trill receive it with a similar feeling ; and that it will be acted upon in favour of the defendant, tv" conducted his case in a manner which I think Weatt creditable to him, and, in my judgment , with gre talent, discretion, and good taste. The verdict was then recorded. This was the last day of the sittings. FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT War-Office, Der. 24, 1829. Royal Regiment of Horse Guards—Second Lieut. `net. W. F. Cowper, from the Ceylon Regimen t, to be Carnet, by purchase, vice Richard Silver Gasceigne, who retires. 6th Regiment of Dragoons—Scrjeaut F. Nl'Dovrell to he Qu trter-master, vice Dickson, deceased. chase, •ice Tower; Serjeant-Major 7th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieutenant C. Tower' to be Captain, by p ure b a ,,, vice Sir S. H. Stuart, who retires ; Cornet P. 'l'. Wykeham to be Lieut. by toP" r Adjutant. with the rank of Cornet, vice Tower. . 10th Light Dravons—Lirta. Ward, from the 12th Foot, to be Lieut., vice Vandeleur, who exchange,. 1:e tole_be Ist Regiment of Foot—Ensign J. G. Lieut without purchase, vice W. M. Mackenzie, erased; F. A. Wetherell, Gent. to be Ensign, viee Wi!00"• 12th Foot—Lieut. G. Vandelettr, from the 10th Lig ht Dragoons, to be Lieut. vice Ward, who exchanges. 24th F o ot—Assistant-Surgeon P. Fitzpatrick , fr o r hslf-piylit Foot, to be Assistant •Surgenn, vice O'Towe' retired upon half-pay. • of 25th Foot—Lieut, W. Dean, from the Retired List the Ist Royal Veteran Battalion, to be Paymaster , li ce M. Macleod, who reverts to his former half-pay. T. Ceylon Regiment—W. Dickson, Gent. to be Seto , Paterson tre Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Cowper, appointed to ill Royal florre Gnarls. MEMORANDUM. The half-ply of the under-nscutioned Officers has been cam:ell:A from the 25th instant inclusive, upon their re eciving a commuted allowance for their commissions Ensign lion. G. F, R. Harris, half-pay unittielledi Lieut. T. J. Neill, fialf-pay unattached ; Ensign O. I V' Grey, half-pay 7th Garrison B a ttalion ; Lieut J. Atkin son,ll.lf-psy, 95th Foot; Lieut. 11. Bouthi3ier, half-PaY ana , lian oltizcurs ; Ensign T. Leven , hair-Pay 30tla Foot ; Cornet P. N. De Car±cret, half-pay 12th Lilt C V Dragoons ; Ensign N. Reid, half pay 3d Foot Ensign 11. pay 71st Foot ; Ensign E. Nc4l, half-Pal half-pay 87th Foot ; Lieut. B. C. Urquhart, hal- Lieut. W. 11. Bourne, half-pay 21st Foot; Ensign C. Williams, half-pay 92d Foot. uatchel; C onmisions in the StafforOsldre Regim ent of Yvonlikorr Cavalry, signed by the Ltrd Lientenant Of the Cou nt y e.f Stafford. I,ieut.-Cul. E. J. Littleton, Esq., to be Lieutenant- Colonel Commandant, vice Itionekton, resigned ; Major T. Viscount Anson to he Lieutenant-Colonel, rice Little ton, promoted ; Captain E. Itlonchton to be Major, vic e Vieconnt Anson, promoted. Cociu Feb. Georg Wa r , merci currii farnit /nerd manta read, -T. Grier ya,,in, J o Sat Inn, Ja n J an. i Jan Ja n , i blunt Ac 1 9th r!rnai Siary s their t hat 1 °Ceitp A C ho , that • 'Toad M. to be M. 1 -rn li Ott e 4 1 fa 1 th at 'hilt 11) 13, ~Ms~ n 0 I) v I: I To„ C4 rntir Th, i t n G!) A "1 4 '0 14 tisj, Crap, Ar k Chant Ti,, 4 t 4 tio K., .-____ ~_,_ SAI 1)1 41 th eir It ap tend Iliac ( the ' O lll 'Rail wool or l ong Perf, V I Cent, Part the mat e con),