The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-25 00:00:00

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov• 42. LIBEL.—IN BANCO. TUE KING V. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. Mr. BIACKIIURN this morning resumed his argument, and said that when he last had the honour of addressing the 'Court, he endeavoured to sliew their Lordships, that the three rropositions laid down on the other silt/ wet e`not founded in. laae... As to the first proposition, that the writing andcorn rising a libel was an offence by the law of Englaniteaffhough it were not published ; he conceived it to be mat irresistibly answered in the preceding part of the argument. Upon the second proposition, namely, that the defendant could not be tried in the Comity of Leicester, unless there was a in that County, he submitted that it had received nn answer, becAu.e there was 110 pretence for presuming that the puhlicalion had taken place where the supposed crime of writing was committed. In support of this latter proposi tion, thearned Crionsel quoted various anthorities which COOCCed were analogues, 'and contended that ,in this Ciis4 . the Court could not pronounce judgment without de- Taiving the defendant of his tight to bting a Writ of Error; ;which' in R. v the Dean of St. Asaph's, was declared to be he birthright of the defendant, and would be utterly shut out frOM taking the opinion of a higher Tribunal, whether the writing with an intent to publish was an offence. No such - offence was charged, and it appeared to him, that as ti iting alone was not an offence, neither was writing with intent to publish. Having, therefore, said all that appear ed to hint to be necessary to urge, in this part of the-case, be.thortiernoW call the attention of the Court to another irre sistible ground for a new trial, and that was that the Learn ed Judge at the trial refused to admit evidence which ought to have been received on behalf of the defendant. He was not guilts to contend that evidence of the truth of a libel might be admitted, for however consentaneous to sound reason that allotment might be, still by the frequent decisions that had -occurred its the-Courtv of Law, he was not at liberty to argue that truth could be given in evidence ,t ~irroof of a libel ; but inasmuch as the allegedi 111, se was nothing noire than a commentary: , e submitted that it was absolutely necessary . iifiable on the part of thede fetidant. to shew that thefacts had existed; because the "Jury, without this evidence, could not form a judgment - whe -4 her the commentaries were inflammable, exaggerated, or in vented without foundation. In the Seven Bishops' case, evi dence of this description was admitted, to negative• the mali cious intention, and it was not doubted that such evidence was receivable, and this for the most obvious reasons. It could be shewn, as it might be, that a person by reason of a public ottice, cast upon kiln, or any other state of circumstances, had Made strong commentaries under au impression that he had a sight to do so,' with respect to the conduct of particular per sons, then be might shew that there were such facts in ex istence, in order to justify his observations, and that he was not guilty of the offence imputed, to him. In no case could any man show his innocence unless he were permitted to prove the facts upon which he had commented, and that the tran;actions which were the subject of this commentary had some foundation. For instance, if any mars had stated in the public papers, when the murder of the family of the Marrs took place some years since, that such a transaction was dis graceful to the name and country of Englishmen, and were precluded from skewing that that sanguinary citcusustance had in fact occurred, he might be found guilty anti punished as a libeller„ and yet, would there be any. thing more unjust than a conviction in such a case ? Would any man say, that if that circumstance did take place, the proof .of it would not negative the malicious intention, of saying that it was a dis grace to the name and country of Englishmen ? But, how ever, there was an express authority upon this point, to thew that evidence of the truth might he received to negative the malice - of the intention. Its the case of K. v. Horne, evidence Of the truth of the facts 'upon which the commentaries were made was admitted. The information in that case charged the de fendant with publishing a libel concerning the King's Go vernment, imputin g that divers of his Majesty's innocent 'dud deserting'subjects had been inhumanly murdered by his - Najeaty's troop's th e Province of Massachusetts Bar, in 4 kaicrica, and the libel set forth was, " That at a Special "Meeting of the Members of the Constitutional Society, during an adjournment, a Gentleman proposed that a subscviptium Should be immediately entered into for raising the sum of 4001. to be applied to the relief -of the widows, orphans, and and parents of our beloved American fell Ow-subjects, who, faithful to the character of Englishmen, preferring death to slavery, were for that reason only inhumanly murdered by the King's , troops at or near Lexin,;ton and Coticard, in the Province of Massachusetts, on the 19th day of last April."— The defendant was permitted to call witnesses to prove that there was, in fact, a subscription entered into, and that the lOql. was pair; to one William Lacey, and by him remitted to Dr, Franklin. Lord Mansfield, who tried the case, said not a word against the admission of the evidence; it was received without a murmur. Why then should not the defendant in this case be at liberty to show that the facts upon which his commentaries were made really took place? Why should be net he permitted to negative malice, by proving the facts as they occurred ? Iu both cases it was imputed, that his Ma jesty's subjects had herd inhumanly murdered by the troops of his Majesty. In that case evidence was received.to show that the facts which were the subject of the !Piet were noto riausly true; and why simi!vr evidence should net be received in this case, lie was at a loss to imagine any satisfactory rea son. The last point which it was his lot to add rest to the Court, sVas one which he- felt some reluctance in suggesting ; butt, tot ,I.:ering the situation its which he stood, the anxiety he personally felt for the defendant as well as for the public, he could not forbear submitting it. Paissful and unpleasant as it was to him, who might very probably spend the remainder bf his life in that Court, to say any thing that was its the least degree offensive to. any Judge, the duty be owed to the defen daet, and that duty which he owed to every client, compelled V;la to shew, that somethieg transpired at the trial with re gard to the summing up of the Learned Judge, which ought :lei to have passed, and 'which he wished to have laid before *ll2 Court, in order that the Cou-t might see whether the conduct of the Learned Judge was proper, and whether the course taken by bins was that which he ought to have pur sued. He would simply state to the Court what took place; he wauld.malie no commentary upon it, but leave the matter entirely to their Lordships' judgment. When the case came to he put to the-Jury— . Mr. Justice 13AvLzY—You -were not personally present at the trial. Me. Bt actraußNE said lie was not personally present at the trial—and that circumstance wade it the more painful to him to acitipt the course he was now pursuing; but both his Leari.ed Friends, Mr. Denman and Mr Phillips, had seen what he shOuld recite, and he understood that it was a correct repseserstation of what , had taken place. If it were not so, ,(Mr. lii should say nothing about it ; but if i t were cor rect, and that'lre thought it mast lie, from what took place when his Learned Ffiend, Mr. Denman, first moved for a new trial,, because the statement of the Learned Judge's summing up was front the same report. He (Mr. B.) did not then understand the Learned Judge to have objected any thing against. its correctness. If he said any thing incorrect, the Learned Judge would stop him, and would prevent hint froar proceeding : and he trusted the Learned Judge would not suppose that be (Mr. B.) meant any thing offensive to 'his Lordship, because he was new merely in the performance of that. which he conceived to be an imperative duty. The Learned Counsel then read the summing up of Mr. Justice Best, and concluded by submitting to their Lordships, that the Learned Judge had, in his summing up to the Jury, put an unjust construction upon Ile words of Sir F. Burdett. Mr. Justice d - o not feel myself in the least offend ed. I frit it necessary to state that, whatever you may think of it.• Mr. ALACKBURNE-1 should be sorry to offend your Lord- Ship, hut I have done nothing more than what I conceive to be my duty. Mr. Evaaus,' on the same side, commenced by submitting, as a aroPoiltion unaswerable, that if the offence was commit % ted, part in one county and part in another, that offence, un less by-Act of Parliament, could not be tried in either. He knew that his assertion would be impturged—that it would be held . a strange declaration to say, that in such a case a man 'must escaee altogether ; but—and here he meant nothing like • personal , allusion—it was notorious, that those who had framed the law- as to political offences, had taken most especiat pains and caution to protect the subject from Mini sters and from Attorneys-General. Upon this attestiou of venue there was a most important decision recorded in the Year-hooks; id Henry VI. 4. b., and also in 2d Bolls' Abridge silent. A deed being forged in one county and published in another, it was - held that the trial must he by a Jury of both -counties. This case formed an answer to the arguments of the Learned Attot ney-General, as they applied,. Mr. Evans 'thought, to the case of forgery. . . Pita Loran ents.F Jusztee—ls that the judgment of the Court, Mr. Evans, or the argument of Counsel ? for, in the Year-books, it is difficult to distinguish one front the other. Mr. Evates could not pledge himself.; but thought. from appearance of the dictum in Hulls' Abridgement, that it must have been tbiliadlng'of the CoUrt. The case was also quot ed in a subsequent case of ." the• King and Queen Thorpe," reported in the 3d•Modern. tie thought it distinctly proved, the Leaned Counsel continued, that the writiog andthe pub / lication could not be connected; and upon that ground only a new trial must be had, for the for Mer trial had been a mis trial. Mr. Evans then procaukd to combat the proposition of the other side, that writing alone amounted to an offence. lie contended that the fate of the case, " the King v. Wood fall," completely destroyed . all the effect of " the King v. Bere;" quoted the dictum of the House of Lords upon the Libel Bill, to spew that the crime•consisted in the publica tion; and referred to the several cases of the King v. Stock dale, Easton, Lambert, Franklin, Reeves, Finnerty, Peltier, Wakefield, and Withers, as cases in which nothing but the fact of publication had been left to the Jury; whereas, had ' the writing been an act any way punishable, the Jury would certainly have been directed to find that fact one way or the other. • Then what was publication ? As described in the dic tionaries of Johnson and of Bailer, it was the act of publish ing the world 7 —divulgation. there was a clear distinction between publication in a criminal case, and publication in a civil case. In the first case, the delivery of a libellous letter to the party, whom it assailed would amount to publication, because , it might tempt the person libelled to a breach of thy Peace; but in a civil action, such a delivery would not amount to publication, because the Slander•would nut have been tit tered to the world, so as to prejudice the party, . but would, except by his own subsequent act,, be confined to his own knowledge. The Learned Counsel, however, would at once submit to the Court an argument * which he took to be con clusive: - .Admitting. for the. purpose of discussion, that writ ing with intent to publish was an offence, even then, in the present,case, a new trial must be granted ; because the in for illation charged that the defendant wrote and published, and • the verdict had been given for writing and publishing. Now, if the. Court proceeded to pass sentence upon the defendant for writing only, they would deprive him of his motion in ar rest of judgment, and of the advantage of the writ of error in the House. of Lords. A second point equally conclusive: — admitting what, from the bottom of his heart, the Learned • Couniel abjured ; admitting that delivery from thedefendant's baud, or putting into the post by him, would amount to pub lication, still there must be a new trial, for there was nothing but•presumption of even such a publication in Leicestershire: and in no cise, he contended, could crime be presumed. Mr. Justice BasT—This is to say, you cannot presume, unless there are facts to warrant the presumption, • Mr. EVANS meant to carry his proposition further; • Mr. Justice BEsT—Then some thousands of persons have been-improperly executed ; because, where there is' not di rect evidence of a crime, crime always has been, and always . ' must be presumed. . Mr. EvAxs submitted that. the fact that a crime (say mur der) bad been committed must first be proved. Mr. Justice I.IAYLE.Y.—And here the publication is fully proved. •• Mr. Eyass.—Yes, but in Middlesex, which is a differen crime from the crime charged. Mr. Justice BesT.—The law is this :—You must have po sitive proof that a crime has been committed, and- then you may take presumptive proof as to the party who committed it. Mr. Ey/ties referred to the instance of offences committed upon canals, or in stage-coaches, as to which there was a par ticular AO of Parliament, making them triable in any county. Mi. Justice Besr.—Because there would frequently be no thing from which to draw an inference that they were..com mitted in one county' rather than iu another. Mr. Evarqs.—That . , my - Lord,ls exactly what I want; for I contend that it is impossible to draw an inference to the pre jadice of a defendant. The Learned Counsel then repeated the positions which , he thought he had established, and aro creded to advert to the refusal of evidence offered upon. the trial. The first point to which be should address himself upon this part of his subject was, that, as a principle recog nised by the: late Lord Ellenborough, and by all the most eminent Judges of the land, the right to discuss political questions was the birth right of an Englishman. The second point—an instance of the care taken to protect defendants from Attorneys-General—was,ahat the jury were sole judges of the whole offence of libel ; sole judges butts of the law and of the facts. Now'be submitted it was 'impossible for the jury to form acorrect judgment unless they had all the eir cumstandes of the case before them. Then let their Lord ships suppose a meeting. of 80,000 persons, men, woinen, and children, :assembled by public advertisement to discuss — whether wisely or foolishly, it mattered not—some political measure. Let them suppose. a body of men, armed and clothed' to red, breaking, without provocation, upon the de fenceless multitude, killing 11, wounding 164, and trampling upon and kpjoring 400 persons. What were those men in red ? ,and could any words in the English tanguage Sarffici ently,express abhorrence of such a deed ? Mt. Justice DaYeF.Y.s—The libel did not profess to ttroceed upon the fact, but - only upon inforuiatiuu gathered from a newspaper. Mr. Evass,—That, my Lord, can make no difference: if it was shown that the defendant acted upon the information of a newspaper, he bad a right to show that the information con tained in that newspaper was true. -He gut his information from a newspaper; and if be had received it directly by ex press, would trot the Attorney-General have relied upon that tact as proof of a malignant intent? My Lords, I du assert that the defendant could have roved the truth of every word contained i s this publication, miscalled a libel ; every word of that which 1 have no , / been' stating to your Lordships. How contd:4ft Jury judge whether the comments were or were not liner, when they had not the facts before them ? Supposing those facts to have been true, and I think there will be no Man at this time of day sufficiently hardy to deny * Mr. Justice BAYLEY. thought that Mr. Evans was 'ping too far. The LORD Cuter JUSTICK was of the same opinion. Mr. EVANS must submit that, if it had been proved at the trial that the statements were cult+ ue, that proof would have been evidence of malicious 'Mention ; and, by the same rule, if it had been shewn that the Statements were true, that showing would have negatived malice ; and, in the ease of the King v.. Horne, such proof had been received : whatever might hare been its effs:et m that case, whether favourable or prejudicial to the defeedant, in that case it had been receiv ed. The - last point upon which Mr. Evans would detain, the Court was upon the samming tip of the Learned Judge before e hoot the cause had been - tried. First, he should contend that no Judge at Nisi: Prins was - entitled to direct a Jury to presume any thing as to which there was not an in tondo in the indictment. Phis was a most important point, because it might frequently happen that a Judge, hill of zeal for his King and for his country, 'night get a verdict of guilty against a defendant by imputing a meaning to the Words of that person, which even the Attorney-General bad not dared to apply tatkem. In the present case, 'alluding to the words " a reign of terror and of blood," the Learned Judge had this does not apply to Government, to what does it apply ? The-I.°Rn CittliF .TUsTICE—And the form of the itiforina tion is, that the tierel is of and concerning the Government ; and the Judge desires the Jury to consider a !tether those words coo relate to-any thing-but the Government. Mr. EVANS..--I submit, my Lord, the in order to connect those words with the Government, they should have.put as an inuendo" - hleaning the:Gurerrouent-" Reign is a wand of idiom, used not merely with respect •to Government ; we speak of the reign of beauty, of fashion, or of folly. And I submit, my Lord, with respect to the averment, That the libel was t , of and concerning the Government"—that those who introduced that averment were bound to prove it. - The Loan Cures- Juan ce—That. must be proved by the contents of the paper ;'and, upon that proof, it becomes a question for the Jury. Mr, EVANS—My Lord, in order to prove that this was " of and concerning the Government," it would be necessary to sinew that this business at Manchester was done by the order of Government ; and would the Attorney-General dare to say that Government did wrot? Would any man dare to say so ? Would it not be a gross libel to say so?—My Lord, I do again submit that, •if it were permitted to suggest a meaning at pleasure to the Jury,- it would frequently happen that a Judge desiring-to get a verdict— The Loan ClllO ,- JUSTICE objected to that mode of ex pressing.). His Lordship was sure that Mr. Evans did not mean to speak offensively, and therefore he mentioned his objection ; desiring to get a verdict was not quite a correct phrase Mr. EVANS had used the words with any offensive mean ing ; but he stil submitted that evidence had been impro perly rejected. Justice BEST...—Would you have offered evidence that a reign of lgood and terror had begun ? Mr. EVA'NS never meant to say more than that the acts spoken of by his client bad, in truth, been committed; and he still objected that the Learned Judge, after refusing evi dence of the truth of the statements, bad assumed, throughout his summing up,that those statements were untrue. After for bidding the . defendant to prove facts, he had assnaard that the defendant could - not prose them.. Again, the Learned Judge had . presumed the fact of the letter having been delivered open to :some person in Leicestershire. The point had not even been left to the Jury; the Learned Judge had broadly stated, it as a fact. The 1.03 D CHIEF JUSTICE—But a Jury are always supposed to use their own understandings. Mr. Etrass—My Lords, we can have affidavits from the Jury that they — The LORD CLIME' JUSTICE--,7011 know, Mr. Evans, that the Court cannot receive such altidavits, and, therefore, you ought not to offer them. • Mr. EVANS—Your Lordship is aware oldie impression made by a statement front the Judge. Ihe I.oallCif SusTice—Was not the evidence read ? Mr. EVANS conlesled that it had been read.. The whole course of the indictment had, itowever, appeared to him to amount to little else than a bill of discovery in a criMinal case. 1.1; , charge was laid in Leicestershire, without any care or con sideration whether it was there that the act had taken place; but the defendant was accused of having committed the of fence in Leicestershire, in order that he might state where it was that he bad cmumitted it. In conclusion Mr. E►ans could not but recollect that this was a case which would carry down to peisterity; in a greater or lesser degree, every person connected-with it. Of the impartial and unbiassed judgment of their Litrdships he had no doubt. He trusted that be had, • as far as was possible, avoided any offensive course of pro ceeding ; and having, at least he hoped so, thine his duty, he should sit down with the fullest confidence as to the success of his motion. M. ScARLETT briefly argued, that the case of the Seven Bit:bops was analogous to that before the Court, and that, therefOre, the deciiion in the one case should•goveru that in the other. The LORD Crater J.usvce said that the case of the Seven Bishops• was- perfectly distinguishable from the present — there having been no proof in the one case that the libel was written in Surrey, or. published in Middlesex or elsewhere, whereas in the other there was proof, that the libel was written in Leicestershire, and that. Sir Franeis Burdett was there at the time, while there was proof of publication, upon the very envelope of the letter, which directed that it should be passed on to Brooks. Mr. SCARLETT again rose to address the Court, and The. AritaiNKY-“ENFRAL said, that he had no objection, although the argument was closed, to allow his Learned Friend to adopt the unusual course of making - sonic ad dition to it, if he were not satisfied with the argument as it stood. The CHIEF JUSTICE skewed that it was not inadmissible in Counsel to make sonic addition to an argument after it was closed ; but then it was material that such addition should be must correct. Mr. SCARIETT said, that he was only anxious to submit the impression upon his mind, to the consideration of-the Court, which be felt to he his duty. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—MS case has occupied much time in discussion, and a great many authorities have been quoted. Before I deliver my opinion, therefore, I should wish to have a little time to look into those authorities, par ticularly into those which have been quoted on this day, lest I should be - subjected to the imputation. of having delivered that opinion without sufficient attention and research, — Whatever view may be taken of my conduct, either by those who'are now to judge of it, or by those who may judge of it hereafter, I take leave to say, that if, in the result, I should think that no new trial ought to be granted, that conclusion will arise out of a conscientious belief that nothing was done at the trial which was contrary to law. Mr. Justice BAYLEY would only say at present, that, at tending to the comments made by the Learned Judge upon the trial, as those comments had been repeated _by Mr. Black burn, he thought that, in almost every word of that part of the summing up, he Should have gone along with that Learned Judge.: At the same time he would add, for the sake of the bar, that he believed that Learned Judge would never wish the time to come when any Counsel should feel the least degree Of fear in canvassing his opinions to the ut most ; and, in the present instance, from what he knew of Mr. Blackburn priyately, lie believed that that gentleman Inid done his duty manfully and fearlessly, and without the slightest . personal animosity towards that Learned Judge. His Lordship had attended to. Mr. Blackburn's repetition of what his Learned Brother (Best) had said at the trial; and he did nut think that the Learned Judge had said any thing which he (Mr. Justice Bayley), if he had possessed equal ta lent, would not have said himself. Mr. Justice should be one of the last men in the world to prejudice the•right of the bar to discuss freely and fearlessly. The right of the bar is, like the . tight. of the press, to say any thing fearlessly which may be said with propriety and decency ; but.l du not think that the Court should be addressed in language such as ought nut to be ad dressed to gentlemen, and such , has been the language in which I have been addressed thiS'elay. Mr. BLACKBURNE rose and said, if the allusion .was meant to be applied to him by the Learned Judge, he was perfectly unconscious of having said any thing that could have called forth the observation made by the Learned Judge. If the remarks he had made could he considered of offensive ten dency, he must then say he was heartily sorry for it; but he had hoped he was the last man likely to have made use of arguments of any such tendency. There was no.man at the bar less likely to take such a course. Mr. Juitice BEs . r, as it appeared to us, intimated by mo tion that he had not addressed his observation to Mr. Black- burne. qv We gave an abstract of these proceedings on the day when they occurred, but as the .subject is important, we have taken the above account, "which appears to be accurate, from a Morning Paper., PROVINCIAL JOURNALS. (From "The Bath Herald," received this morning.) During the progress of the late. momentous in quiry we abstained from admitting into our co lumns what might irritate the passions, or preju dice the public mind against the object of that solemn investigation ; so fastidious were we, that several communications from writers, whose-ele gance of diction and force of argument might do honour to any paper, were then placed on our condemned file. At the present moment the bu siness appears to have taken a•different bias, the " Queen's Case "'is merely used as a screen, behind which the disaffected and malignant hurl their bolts of vengeance against the throne of this kingd-om,and all constituted authorities acting for the promotion of peace and the security of the realm. The effusions of our correspondents during - the latter part of this week, have not been less able than numer ous ; and we have to lament that our fourth page, particularly, was occupied when those cer tainly more pressing favours reached our of fice. Our limits will not allow us to insert a twentieth part of what we have received—and some in a hand-writing, and a train of senti ments, which we recognize with: pleasure, and to which we have heretofore paid the profoundest reverence ; but the authors may be assured that whenever we hive room, such zealous, constitutional, and moral precepts shall not be thrown aside. During the wild in- fatuation of the present hour, we are aware that we must not expect 'to meet with what is termed popular approbation for the line of conduct we mean to pursue ; there is however a large portion of readers, of , a solid, quiet, reflect ing class, whose good opinion we are ambitious of cultivating. We shall have also the consoling applause of our own conscience, for fearlessly adhering, through these disjointed times, to those good old-fashioned maxims—steadily to support with our humble but best efforts the administra tors of our Laws ; and defend from the inveterate shafts of Anarchy, the seats of Justice, the Altar, and the Throne. Two sisters of the name of Heath have died within the, course of a few days in Davy's Alms houses in Exeter, the eldest in tiae hundred -and third year of her age, and the youngest in her one hundred and first year. _ _ The workmen employed in sinking a, well in Lincoln's-inn-fields, have at length found a spring of • fine water, after excavating to the depth of full one hundred and fifty feet. The seed of the meadow saffron has very re cently been found to be an effectual remedy for the cure of asthma, winter and consumptive coughs. This is said to be produced by the lig neous acid IMpregnated with the - virtues of the seed. AUDACITY of the LONDON THIEVES. DARING ATTACK. BY A NUMEROUS GANG OP THIEVES.-RESCUE Uk FO.UR NOTORIOUS ROUSE' BREAKERS. . It is a notorious fact that the formidable gang s of thieves, which at present infest the Pub streets, to the terror of passengers, are unprece dented,.anel that from their force they have 00 to select their object and plunder follows, eve' at nooti,day. Four reputed thieves, of the naives of Jones, Dram, and Gadley, were flail ( committed' for trial, for robbing the house' Mrs. Watkins, in Mavfa r,, and another W ail (William Paddock) was handcuffed with the° and fastened to the chain, ta. be taken to New' gate.• • Paddcick's offence was simple larcenY' They left Marlborough-street Police-office about dusk, under escort of Marsden the gaoler, wh c ; took them his usual way for privacy along Gre a Russell-street, and in crossing Tottenham-evi rt : road, a woman of the town got into conversati on with them. In passing along Great Russel l street, some whistling was heard, and one of th e . burglars called out, " Now fur a rescue." 1°1 ( 7 mediately after, between twenty and thirty rill , fians sallied forth from George-street, St. Gile s / and the opposite side, and knocked Marsd ell down by a blow on the back with a bludge° l !: and they continued beating him until be IT, senseless, when on the ground. We scarc e, need state that the prisoners escaped. IVlarsde,: was taken into an apothecary's shop, and head, which was dreadfully cut in four differ places, was dressed. He is also much bruis e about the back, and hut faint hopes are ente r : tamed of his recovery. About half-past te; o'clock at night, Paddock, one of the prisoner( rescued, and who was a stranger to the f° ° burglars, gave himself up at the Marlboroug Head, opposite the Police-office, to Valentine the 4 officer, who was there, and he was conveyetr. L . St. Anne's watch-house. He was yesterday O a mined before Messrs. CONANT and FARO" and his deposition was as _follows : He was not aware of the rescue until - it bap ; pened. There were more than twenty pers 6l .! - came upon them, and suddenly hurried theini and in turning round he saw Marsden was-n ° , o with them. They ran down Museurrstreet in Charles-street, Drury-lane, when the party fic h s rescued .thein attempted in. vain to get the iron off. • They proceeded to Lincoln's Inn-fiel dif t where they again were attempted to be set 3 liberty, but it could not done. Here wit ness was exhausted with running, and being one of the two foremost on the chain, he was lifted on 1 1 the collar of his coat and the breech. Th e / proceeded through Clare-market and the Templ e} over Blackfriars Bridge, other attempts having been made to get off the irons. They were le down the first street on the left in Blackfriars-ro Of and proceeded by the back streets to the Obelislc: and from thence into - the' Kent-road, wher e supply of files, chisselsi hammers, &c. waste' tamed, and the prisoners were let loose. previously to this, some of the gang ask ' 4 " 3 ness if he knew either of the other four, and - e his answering in the negative, they took th e handkerchief from his neck, and placed it oc e his eyes whilst they released the whole of 0 1 and the fellow who untied the handkerchief kept , if. On separating, the burglars said, " Yo u 11 4 know where we-are to meet." Witness went il Lo ' the first public-house he came to, and related the whole fact, and then returned and gave him se l o up. He was re-committed to Cold-bath Fie l i ; ( as a witness, with an order to be lenien t 'Af treated. He would be able to identify some ° the gang. let John Hitchen, a Otter in the Inner Temp let stated that he Was struck by the gang as ° el . passed.through' the Temple ; and several per sen. were seriously injured, but particularly a lamp; lighter who was in their way. They were t .i t strong to be resisted, and the manner in o' lc they flourished their bludgeons was very int illl , dating. Witness would. be able to identify °il of them, and he came to the Office to see if ° • 11 f were apprehended. nt Mr. CONANT, at the close of the business, lc to the Secretary of State's Office to report t" affair, and no doubt a Proclamation wilt il Issued. Marden is worse and it is said cannot Survive COURSE OF EXC HANCE, Nov. 24. Amsterdam Ditto, at Sight - ".• l2 4 Rotterdam - l2 S Antwerp l2 8 , [if Hantburgh 37 7 2 T • Altona :2650; 7000 aoi 1,1 t):::,. Paris, 3 Day's sight Ditto Bourdeaux, ditto Franh fort on the 1%.,.ain .... 154! Eg•-,-.,0/ Madrid Cadiz - 6. f F:lf" 11 Bilboa 36 ' Effect+ Barcelona Seville Gibraltar. Leghorn . Genoa 44 -Venice, Ital. Liv. 51.7. SO• Malta 45 -Naples 39. Palermo . 115. d. per oiw Lisbon 51 . . Oporto Rio Janeiro Dublin 7 Cork 7 per Cent. 1 • BULLION, Portugal Gold, in Coin 1.0 0 0 P er Foreign Gold, in Bars s 17 / 0 i New Doubloons New Dollars 0 4 1 04 Silver in Bars, Standard 0 4 11 On the- 21st inst., at the BIRTHS Hague, the Countess o f Atbloat• of a son and heir. .4f 0. On the 13th inst., at La Tour, near Vivey, the .1.11. i ~. Baring, Esq. of a daughter. ------------"--1' DIED. Ole • On Thursday, the 23d inst., at Dorking, Surrey, I Nl' aY ' wife of Dedricit Smith, Esq., in the 77th year of brr age:ia,,,,, On the 17th inst., Mr. Thuns Lumley, leaving al' and numerous family to lament lf.s irreparable loss.. ---!..! LONDON: Printed hy.l. B. CARSTAIRS, .of No."' Ormorid-street, Queen'-square; and riublisbed hYCI SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Molton - str eet, at Tongrde Office, No. 114, Strand ; when Advertisement s, Letters, &c. (post -Patd) must be addiessed. N .. 0 ~........... ............ THE h, ntif, "if, LP ; Vllr st ; 1. jestys Si s„ r rr e & h T o 6 'lays 971 q~i1 q„. s4 1 ,° 0 ? I, a rt Peri( Ii ~. v, 1 ~d,{~ I)I:f