The Sun. — London, England, 1834-09-02 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF T . JOURNALS. The death-of one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland opportunely affords to the Government a desirable occasion of proving to the people of that country, by the appointment which they will now make, their desire that the administration of justice should be not only pure, but above the suspicion of impurity. The decease of this func tionary has been for • some days the subject of varied commentary in the Irish papers. By one party . his death in " these perilous times " is de scribed as a national calamity ; whilst the popular journals generally, with a tenderness that is not customary with the organs of the Orange faction, speak of him as a man who, in private life, was possessed of good .qualities ; but, on the Bench, was - distinguished • for:- the exhibition of strong political. feelings. --The editor of the Pilot, with ,the recollection, we suppose, of a sentence some months since pronounced upon himself by this same Judge,' utters an emphatic prayer on his behalf, which is certainly pregnant witTi meanin g, ". May he never be j u d ge d as h e h as judged. " Making all possible allowance for the hypereulogy on the one band, and the questionable benediction on the other, we understand .from impartial quarters that the deceased Judge, like most Irish judges, owed his elevation more to his politics than to his merits. 'We can conceive no greater national evil than that springing out of the .want of confidence in the. administration of justice. The fact of this lamentable distrust is clearly beneficial to the progress of crime, and fatal to the influence of law. The sentences of Courts of Justice are designed to be an example to society, to warn evil doers from their offences : but if society have no confidence -in the tribunals Of 'public opinion do not ratify the law, the judgments of the Courts produce no moral effect ; in too many instances the offender is regarded as a victim, and the just penalty of his crime is converted into the first 'fruits of hippaitolom. - We therefore can sym pathise with the_peepte,,ofireland in their hope that the appointment of the new Irish judge will be distinguished by the selection of some man in whom_ the Govern ment and the people can alike place confidence. If 'there be tendencies in a judge they should be popular, and:'even if they extended themselves into errors, the errors _would be on the side of virtue. The circumstances-of a judge must naturally be at all times a control on the too free indulgence of a popular dispo sition. Selected in the first instance on account of his learning, his integrity, his calmness--with the impres sion on his mind that although irresponsible to the Crown, he owes his station to the favour of the Crown—with the feeling inseparable from the possession of his office, that the honours of himself and his order, and of all orders, depend upon the maintenance of just law —we repeat that, with such correctives, it is desirable, especially in a country like Ireland, that the mind of a judge should be imbued with kindly sympathies with the people, and that the public voice should concur in the nomination of the Government. We understand that there are many such men at the Irish bar. We are assured that there are many men at the Irish bar who have been the victims of their liberal opinions in times gone by. The Government will, - of course, look to such men in this contingency ; and, without ven turing to dictate, we ask could there be a better appoint ment than that of' the present member for Monaghan county, Mr. Perrin ?—Morning Chronicle. Of all the barefaced avowals of plunder with which civilised society has ever been disgraced,. not omitting even the unbridled acts of avowed banditti, the threat ened " extinction of tithes " in Ireland is one of the most remarkable. We speak of the extinction of tithes without any,equivalent, for that is the..undisguised object of the present scheme put forth by Mr. O'Connell. To their commutation both in Ireland and England, upon just and reasonable grounds, there neither is nor ever has been any great objection. Taking it then in the light in which it is now presented to us, let us deal with it in the way of comparison. Let us imagine, for instance, the gentlemen of the Swell Mob, with some leader at their head, openly announcing , to the goldsmiths and jewellers of London their deter mination to confiscate the plate and jewels which the latter display for sale in their windows and warerooms, and to boast; moreover, that they were in close league with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and Sir Frederick Roe, who were apprised of, and parties to, their project. The parallel may sound very offensive in some ears ; yet the two projects bear a much nearer analogy than such persons may be inclined to admit ; the injustice and atrocity being, however, on the side of the tithe extinctor, who has his eye not only on the property of the Church, which he purposes to use as a means to an end, that being the extinction of the Protestant religion in Ireland. They are both then specimens of avowed and barefaced robbery—the pro jector of the one claiming to be a Ministerialist, and basting the King's Ministers for his allies and abettors; while the alliance boasted of by the latter would scarcely serve to save them from the gallows. But let us put the subject upon another, and still more appo site analogy. Let us imagine—(and many of the most warm and honest friends of that country do not dis claim the sentiment) —let us imagine, we say, that the idea was entertained and avowed, that the only effectual panacea for the ills of Ireland was the extinction of the Roman Catholic religion. That such would have been, in effect, the case long since, had the means pos sessed by its Protestant Government been faithfully and honestly applied, there are many who entertain no doubt. But having failed in bringing about that spread of Protestantism which a series of good, instead of misgovernment, would have produced, let us sup pose the friends of the reformed religion noW proposing to go a shorter way to work, by confiscating the pro perty, imprisoning the persons—in- short, by renewing all the hateful persecutions which Catholicy heretofore was exposed to. Is there any reasonable or enlightened man, be he of what religion he may, who would not look with horror at such a proposal, and blush with shame for ,its projectors, and with redoubled shame if he heard it avowed and uncontradicted, that these persons were acting in concert, or at least with the approbation of the Government for the time being of the country ? Engagement makes men bold, and the country has to thank Mr. O'Connell - for the candour with which he avows his object, about which there can be now " no mistake." But what will the King's Ministers say ? What will they do ? They probably may wish that their new ally had not been quite so communicative ; that is, supposing they are in anywise parties to his projects, which we would fain hope they are not. If they are not, Mr. O'Connell has left them no choice, no time for deliberation. They must either disavow is ,projects and disclaim his alliance, or must submit to the ignominy. which the consent implied ..by their silence must inevitably bring upon them. For the country in general--.-fogy as well as Ireland, it is fortunate that the irtat t tpkis brought to this crisis. We would rather it, shOuld turn out that Ministers have been the betrayers and not the betrayed, though in either case the honour would not be very great. They have now, however, no alternative but to take their side. May that side be such as becomes British States men, the servants of a Protestant King. We will not flatter them by telling them that their alternative lies between glory and disgrace. Glory, we fear, is, in their case, out of the question; they must be satisfied if they can avoid disgrace. At present they are within an ace of being overwhelmed by it. A short time must rescue or engulf them.—Morning Herald. As an elucidation of the benefits derived to the country from Whig Government, the Globe last even ing asserts " that Portugal is free„ Spai n regenerate , France liberal and our friend: , We leave it to the French Journals to answer that part of the above as sertion which concerns them, and make bold to ask our Contemporary what kind of freedom and regene ration Portugal and Spain are now enjoying? Is it freedom to,,adopt a , general system of spoliation, to •encourage the assassination of political opponents, and keep the prisons crowded with victims to whom the forms of a trial are refusal ? or is it regeneration to murder the inmates of a convent in their beds, and set fire to places venerated for having been asylums to the hungry and infirm ? Is it freeing a country to force upon it a Sovereign opposed to the choice of the inhabitants—a Sovereign having, n o other right than that derived from foreign aid and protection ? Or does it savour of v.-gene ration to establish martial law, and give every officer bearing a Christino commission unlimited power over the lives and property of his countrymen ? The se cond period of the Peninsular revolution has com menced, and the dominion of the mob is fairly esta blished. In Lisbon the first exercise of its power was marked by the assassination of persons whose names were furnished by the Clubs ;--in Madrid by the wholesale butchery of victims to whose memory and families justice was afterwards done by the government ordering an- expiatory Mass I If we mistake not Por tugal will yet have to wade through torrents of blood before she can be free ; and, as regards Spain, we see no reason to boast of the triumph of the new principles of regeneration over those which it has become fashion able to call ridiculous and antiquated. The govern ments of both countries are now pre-eminently revo lutionary, an d want not hi ng more t h an a Robes pierre for each to make them what France was in 1789.---Morning Post. A very interesting return, moved for by Mr. Hume, was recently laid before the House. It is an account of the amount of capital upon which legacy duty has been paid in each year from 1797. This return af fords us an opportunity of judging of the comparative wealth of any period since that time ; and also of watching the gradual increase which has taken place in the accumulated wealth of the country. Our read ers are of course aware, that the amount of capital we shall presently refer to, does not include real property. Every one must recollect how confidently a speedy na tional bankruptcy was predicted after the war—how the same result was anticipated after the passing of Mr. Peel's Bill for restoring to the country a metallic currency—and how constantly we have heard; both in and out of the House of Commons, of the increasing burden of taxation, and of the impossibility, under such disadvantageous circumstances, of the indus try of this country contending against foreign manufactures. Repeatedly also have we heard of the insolvency of th e sh o pk ee p ers of Lon don, and that they, as well as the fanners, were living upon their capital, instead of the profits arising from the employment of that capital. Our readers will, however, be surprised to find that the facts, - with regard to the personal propeity of the country, are totally at variance with these assertions and predictions. 'We are surprised that a return similar to that now before us has not been obtained before ; it is impossi ble, in any way, to exhibit, so accurately, the varying degrees of prosperity to which this country is liable as by showing the fluctuations in the amount of the accu mulated wealth of the country. In 1805 the rates of legacy duties were altered, and made more comprehen sive, and therefore we cannot arrive at accurate com parative results previous to that time. In the twenty eight years from 1805 to 1833, there have been greater- changes . in the political and commer cial relations of this country than in any former j period of its history. The ten years to 1814 include a period of uninterrupted war, supported by an expen diture unparalleled in the annals of any country in the world. It was followed to 1819, by a period of great stagnation and distress in the commercial world. This was succeeded by the return to a metallic currency, which accelerated the then falling price of commodities, and produced a period of extreme commercial as well as agricultural distress. - The country was, however, rapidly recovering from the combined effects of the re turn to peace and to a metallic currency, when a spirit of speculation arose, and was carried to such an extent that in 1825 and 1826 the commercial world was shaken to its very foundation, and for time all confi dence appeared to be lost. But again the industry of the country triumphed, and is now, apparently, strengthened by its previous reverses, accumulating wealth with astonishing rapidity. We find by the returns before us that the average annual amount of property subject to legacy duty, 'during the five years from 1805 to 1809, was X 9,527,879 During the five years, 1810 to 1814, was 18,619,976 In the first period the average annual expenditure was 58,000,000 Second period was 68,000,000 The average price of wheat was in th e fi rs t period 82s. Second period 99s. By this statement it appears that th e annua l amoun 0 . _ property subject to legacy duty, was nearly doubled the last five years ; but if we estimate the value of this property by the quantity of wheat it would have purchased, we shall find, that in consequence of the advance in the price of corn from 82s. to 995. per quar ter,' the corn value of the property annually bequeathed in the former period as compared with the latter, is as 9 to 15, instead of 9 to 18 as appears by, the account in money. The next period is the five years after the termination of the war, and here we may trace the effect of the diminished expenditure, as well in the rapid in crease of property, as in the return of the price of wheat to a more natural state, thus— The annual average capital paying legacy duty, from 1815 to 1819, was £28,996,601 The annual average expenditure 58,000,000 The annual average price of wheat 775. 11d., say 78s. In this period we have an increase of 10,376,6251. in the property annually subject to duty, and if we compare these amounts with the quantity of corn they would have purchased in, their respective periods, we shall find that the real wealth of the country increased, not only in the proportion indicated by the figures, viz., from 18i millions to nearly 29 millions,, but from 18i. to 36 millions, using round numbers. This it must also be recollected took place in the five years after the cessation of the war. The next period is the five years immediately succeeding the passing of Mr. Peel s Bill and the return to a metallic currency. The public has been deluged with pamphlets upon the efF.....ct produced by this measure. That the fall in prices which commenced upon the return to peace, was by it more speedily brought to its lowest limit, there can be but little doubt ; but what proportion was directly caused by the Bill, and what by the increased stimulus given to commerce by the removal of restric tions, and by abundant harvests, is yet doubtful. The fact of a general fall in the money value of commo dities, is all we wish to be acknowledged, and that we shall prove to-morrow to have taken place.—Morning Advertiser. COMMITTEE ON LAW OF LIBEL. (Continued from our Paper of Saturday.) MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMIT TEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER THE PRESENT STATE OF TIIE LAW AS REGARDS LIBEL AND SLANDER, AND TO REPORT THEIR OBSERVATIONS THEREUPON TO THE HOUSE. —MOs- DAY, JUNE 9. (The SOLICITOR-GENERAL in the Chair.) EVIDENCE OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR. Is there any thing that your Lordship wishes to state to the committee with reference to the subjects upon which you expressed an opinion upon the former days :—I ob serve, in looking over the evidence which I gave upon the three last days, that I omitted to state two. particulars one respecting the propOsed alteration in the law of libel, by allowing the truth to be given in evidence, and the other respectinc, the kind of obstructi ons w hi c h are t h rown i n the way of publishers by the Act passed in the year 1799, the 39th of George 111. With respect to the first matter, I omitted to mention a remarkable instance of the great absurdity of the present law, and the great injustice which arises from the practice under it. A very short time before I left the bar I had occasion to see a case of libel tried in the Court of King's Bench—l was indeed of counsel for the defendant. The publisher of a newspaper was prose cuted by indictment for having stated &fact, namely, that a person teaching in a public institution had been convicted of forgery in France, and sentenced to work in irons. As leading for the defendant, I either admitted the publication or saw it easily proved, and then rested my case on nega tiving malice ; and for this purpose I offered to prove that the statement was merely a reference to a known fact. I produced with that view the most satisfactory evidence that could possibly be given, for it was an office copy, or rather exemplification, for it was under the seal of the Court, of th e recor d o f the conviction, by - which it ap peared that the individual had been tried for forgery, con victed, thid sentenced to work in the gallies or on the streets, with a chain round his leg—for forgery. Mr. Jus tice Littledale, who then sat for the Lord Chief Justice, rejected the evidence, which he was, by the undoubted law, bound to do, and the defendant was convicted, just as if he had been the author of a false, scandalous, and malicious libel. The prosecutor, however, did not choose to run the , risk of having this given in evidence in mitigation of punish ment, and he never, as far as I know, brought up the de fendant for judgment. The other circumstance I wish to mention regards the provision of the law which obliges the editors of newspa pers to furnish evidence against themselves, and of which I expressed upon the whole a favourable opinion. I omitted to mention that provision of that description is highly ap p:' o%ed by a very great advocate of the freest pos s ibl e dis cussion, a very illustrious opponent of all : unnecessary re. striction upon publication—l mean. no less a man than Milton. In his Areopagitica, or a " Discourse of the Li berty of Unlicensed Printing," he mentions that there had been a very great improvement in the law introduced, I think he says, by the Long Parliament, and lie mentions -it in terms of unqualified praise—namely, requiring the regis try of the names of publishers and authors, or at least, he says, the publishers ; from which I conclude that he had a lean. ing towards making authors register, though he doubted on this , —but at all events' publishers. It must be observed that this illustrious friend of liberty and enemy of previous restrictions on the press, never dreamt of a state of things in which men should be exempt from legal responsibility for what they published. The case which I have just mentioned was one of the strongest I ever saw, and one which made everybody feel the absurdity of that part of the law of libel. There was another instance in which I was consulted some years before ; it was a prosecution ex-officio of a respectable pro vincial paper, called the Nottingham Review, for strong observations upon the conduct of the King's Government, and particularly the King's troops in North America the year before ; and we had there, as in the late case, a very compendious and easy mode of giving the matter in evi dence, because we bad the Gazette account of the military operations, and that would-have proved that the Govern ment had published a certain account of the affair. It was, I believe, tendered in evidence, and refused, but having been prevented by accident from going special to the trial, I cannot speak with confidence further. In point of fact, as the law now stands, is not the prose cuting by indictment almost cons t ruc ti ve ev id en ce of th e truth of a libel ?—lt is almost supposed to admit that. Does not it strike your Lordship that the present mode of proceeding by information is still more objectionable than by indictment, inasmuch as if the affidavits upon which you ground your information are contradicted you cannot re ply ?—There is no doubt that this occasions hardship ; nevertheless, 'it is a hardship that is not confined to cases of criminal information ; it is the consequence of the uni versal rule. If I move on affidavit for a new trial in any common case, in an action upon a bill of exchange, upon the ground of the verdict being contrary to evidence, and get a rule to show cause ; when my adversary produces affidavits against the rule lie has the advantage of swearing last, and I have no means of answering him. I have rea son to believe, from what I heard here stated the other day, that it is not so.in Ireland, but in England it is uni versally the rule, so much so, .that there is a common ex pression, "You are believed because you swear last ;" therefore it is not peculiar to cases of libel ; but it is no doubt a rule which often gives rise to great inconvenience, and it does to a certain degree detract from the advantages with which the proceeding by criminal information is attended. But still I am perfectly clear that the proceeding by criminal information is justly an ob ject of great commendation on the part of all those who have seen its practical operation. It may be liable to some speculative objections, but in practice it affords a very substantial relief to a person who has been injured by a libel, of the falsehood of which he is conscious, and from which he instantly proceeds to purge himself upon oath, and to obtain the sanction of the Court to his innocence by the granting of a rule. He then to a certain degree de fies his adversary to prove the truth against him, pretty much in the same manner as in an action, but in one re spect less satisfactorily, because there is no cross-examina tion of his witnesses, though in another respect it is a greater defiance, because the informant or the slanderer will often venture to swear a thing upon affidavit which he would be unwilling to swear in the witness-box ;so that in this respect it is a greater defiance than an action. Would not many of the incpnveniences which may now result from the proceedings upon a criminal information be done away with if the truth were admitted upon the trial, so that this should only be a preliminary examination upon that point?—Many would, because the truth is now only in issue in the preliminary stage of grantinc , the inform a ti on . Would it not make th e proceeding by b indictment much more effectual for the purpose of clearing the character of the prosecutor if he were obliged to deny the charge in the libel upon oath ?—Every body knows that a man by an ac tion or by an indictment does not in reality defy his adver sary. An action is a great defiance in respect of such charges as are from their nature likely to have witnesses ; but it is no defiance with respect to charges which are in their nature secret : for example, in the case I put the other day of a person who is charged with having com mitted adultery with a married woman ; if that is the charge against him, what possible defiance is it for him to bring his action, or what defiance would it be to prefer his bill of indictment? It may be just as true after the ver dict as before ; he only defies the party to prove it, but he may be perfectly satisfied that nobody but himself and his paramour is aware of the truth, and therefore he may most safely bring an action or prefer an indictment. But sup posing the law were changed, and he had to swear that it was not true, and if his paramour also had to swear the same (which would be required), the probability is, that he would not prosecute ; yet I am clear that the swearing to this effect before a grand jury would have an infinitely less beneficial effect. I have often thought it might be a l ti improvement in the proceeding by criminal information, If the Court in its discretion were to allow the prosecutor who moves for a criminal information to reply upon affi davit, or, if that should be thought to be breaking in upon too important a rule of proceeding, that the Court should not be tied down against allowing him to reiterate his mo tion (when he had mended his hand) by moving for a new information after his first rule is discharged. At present they hold it to be almost conclusive, and it is very often positively conclusive, by the circuit having intervened. When the knowledge of a fact is in the breast of a de fendant, does not it follow, that even admitting the truth upon the present rules of evidence would hardly be a defi ance, because the defendant would be shut out at nisi pries from giving that evidence, subject to the cross-examination which he may giVe upon affidavit, without cross-examina tion, and does y our L or d s hi p think that to be a good rule of law ?—Those are rare cases ; it does not often happen that the only persons cognizant of a fact of a criminal na ture should be the prosecutor of the information and -the libeller. Often no one but the prosecutor knows it, but seldom he and the libeller, and none besides. But the cir cumstance alluded to is by no means peculiar to the case of libel : it is emphatically the case with respect to charges of rape ; it is the case with charges of unnatural crime ; it is the case with many thefts, and robberies, and assaults, where the prosecutor is heard upon oath and the prisoner is not heard upon oath. The law of England is anomalous upon that subject, bolding the party really interested in the prosecution to be no party at all, but only the Crown's witness, and hearing him on oath, as if he were without any interest. There is another anomaly, of a somewhat similar kind, in the courts of equity, where one party states his case upon assertion, and the other party is bound to answer upon oath : but then no one can read his own an swer in evidence for himself. • Does not your Lordship think that the benefit of a cri minal information, which consists chiefly in the vindication of the plaintiff's character upon his own oath, might be ob tained by obliging him to accompany his indictment by affidavits to the same effect :—lt is not merely obliging him to clear his character by oath that aids him, but the manner in which he does it. He moves first upon his affi davit ; notice is thereby given to the defendant, who has time to get counter-affidavits, and then, upon those coun ter-affidavits being filed, the Court discusses the whole matter, weighs one swearing against the other, and pro nounces an opinion upon the whole subject. Does not your Lordship think that that discussion upon affidavits is about as bad a mode of discussing the question as can be ?—I do not think it is ; I do not think it is so bad as a grand jury ; the grand jury at present is bad enough, but this would be ten times worse, because here you would have an affidavit without examining the person. The grand jury can always examine the prosecutor, if they choose to put the question whether the charge is true or not ; but theri this is behind the back of the other party. Does your Lordship think that the improvement which has been made in the Court of Review in bankruptcy, by giving to the Court the power of calling up persons who have made affidavits and examining them viva - Voce, might be usefully introduced into informations in cases of libel ? I have some difficulty in saying positively that it would, be cause many of those persons who are most likely to be libelled are of a feeble, nervous description, and they would not like to come before a court to be examined and cross examined. Would it be desirable to give that power to the Court as matter of discretion ?—I have not sufficiently considered that subject to give a confident opinion upon it ; I am not prepared to say that such a discretion might not with ad vantage be introduced. I understand that the Court of Review has not often availed itself of the power. 1 I n your Lordship's evidence on the last day, you stated" that you thought that no practical evil had arisen in thel law of England from the want of a better definition of libel ; i do not you think that great practical evil has arisen from. the want of better classification of offences of the press I will not take upon me to deny that it might be more ad-, vantageous to have such a classification of offences and of punishments as should award more definite amounts of punishment to particular species of offence, though I see very great difficulty in making that classification in the case of libels, for the reasons I have before stated against deg .fining. This, in fact, is another form of the same question. I think that the different species of libels run into each other in a way which makes it very difficult to say that and class of libel shall have this degree of punishment, a second class shall have a second degree of punishment, and a third class a third degree of punishment. I can easily understand that great difficulty may arise, even after you. have over come the first difficulty, of dividing theta 'into different classes, and agpointing different degrees of puni s h men t to each. I are almost certain that you could not describe THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 18,34 - - three kinds of libel, and award three kinds of punishment to them severally, in such a manner that I should not be able to put a case of an offence falling within the lowest description of the scale, which should be more aggravated, and require a greater punishment, than another offence which fell within the highest description of the scale. Would not that apply equally to cases of embezzlement and larceny ?—And accordingly that consequence is only avoided in cases of embezzlement and larceny by giving to the judges a power of punishing- a person for the smaller offence of the higher order by a month's imprisonment, or fOr the graver offence of the lower order by transportation Oar life, imprisoning for the felony of theft; and transporting Air the misdemeanour of perjury. Has not it occurred, that owing the vagueness of the English law of libel, persons have been convicted of libel for acts which ought not, under any good system of law, to have been punished at all ?—Either this question relates to d classification of the crime, with a view to apportion a dif ferent punishment to different classes of the crime, or it does not ; if it relates to that, I have answered it to-day ; if it does not relate to that, it is merely a repetition of the in (Wiry as to definition, and I have answered it on the former day when I stated the difficulty of framing a definition. If it is not meant to classify for the purpose of making a cor elative scale of punishment, then the only use of classifica tion is for the purpose of definition. May not cases occur in which, from the want of a defini tion, persons that ought not to have been the subject of any Punishment at all have been punished in particular instances in consequence of the vague sort of feeling which has gone abroad upon the subject of libel ?—That comes within the answer which I gave upon the first day of my examination as to defining libel : there is no difference between classify ing and defining in this sense of the word. I have no he sitation in saying that it would be a very great advantage if you could so define a libel as to make it quite clear, the moment a certain publication was laid before a court and jury, so that they could say at once, by referring to the de finition, " This comes within it, or this does not come within it." But I before stated that it would be exceedingly diffi cult, and I also added, and further reflection has confirmed me in the opinion, that, practically speaking, I have not found this to be the point in which the law of libel is defi cient ; that I have fonnd many other and grave defects in it, but that this is a defect which in practice is not seen to produce any material disadvantage. I do not remember a case where the jury has been bewildered by not knowing the proper definition of a libel : they have often been bewildered by not knowing whether the thing was libel or not but that is quit 6 another matter ; they might just as well have been bewildered if they had had the most logical definition that could be -devised, because still the question would be of ap plying the general rule to the particular case. Is there not also under the law of England, from the ex treme vagueness, this great evil,—that persons have often been convicted of libel for acts which ought not to have been been punishable ?—My belief is, that persons have frequently been convicted of libel who ought not to have been convicted, but I am not of opinion that this was owing to the want of a definition ; and I have no hope of ever seeing any definition which would make libel a more pre cise and definite offence than assaults and other offences which are defined more or less vaguely, and where yet the vagueness of the definition is never supposed to give rise to any injustice in practice. People talk of libel as if it were the only thing not defined ; but I should like to know what definition can be given of assault, or cheat, or conspiracy, that is not vague ? What would be your Lordship's opinion of a definition of libel, describing it as that which tends reasonably and pro perly to excite and wound the feelings of living persons ? That is liable to many observations. In the first place, the words " reasonably or p ro p er l y " wou ld i n every case g i ve rise to just as much discussion as the word " libel" now does ; tnd we should feel the want of a definition of what ought reasonably and what ought properly to give offence, just as much as we now do of a definition of the word " libel." But, secondly and chiefly, I do not think the having that test would: carry You a step on your way, be cause you do not want a test to show what is a libel. Now, it is impossible to say that that only is libel which reason ably affects the feelings of living persons, because it is pos sible to conceive many libels which do not affect the feelings of living persons. Does your Lordship think that a writer ought to be pu nished:Or commenting upon the public functionaries ?.—That is, I say it with all respect, one of the most vague questions I ever heard put. Under the description of commentary upon tie conduct of public functionaries may come every species of publication, the most innocent, the most laudable, the mast doubtful, and the most wicked. A comment upol the conduct of a public functionary may be perfectly justifiable, but it may be the very reverse. I will put at .once a case :—Mr. So-and-so, or Lord So-and-so, First Lord of the Admiralty, is grievously to blame . for sending a fine regiment of his Majesty's best soldiers to sea in an unseaworthy ship : this shall be published, and it shall risk a mutiny, and it shall be such a libel that the Attorney- General shall be really compelled to prosecute it ; yet would it come within the definition of a commentary by a public writer upon the conduct of a public man ? In Ttae qUestion the word " comment" was used in order to exclude false imputation of fact ?—Comment consists of imputation ; if it is not favourable, it means imputation, or it means nothing. The question of false or true does not depend upon using the word " comment ;" it depends upon what the nature of the comment is ; but I am supposing the case of no direct statement of fact, but saying, " What a grievous evil, in a country like this, for our fine soldiers to be subject to such a pernicious and cruel Administra tion ; here is "the Secretary at War starves the troops by the effects of the order of such a date ; and here the First Lord of the .Admiralty has thrown away their lives by the contracts made with bad shipbuilders." It is impossible to deny that this is a comment. A comment may be an im putation, and an imputation must be a comment. A com ment is a remark, and an imputation is an unfavourable re mark. If a composition does not contain the imputation of a fact which is false, should the writer be prosecuted 2—We are not now upon the question of false or not—this has been discussed before ; we are now upon the question of defining a libel. If it i s mean t t o say th a t no pu bli c wr i ter s h a ll be prosecuted for any comment which he makes upon a public man's public conduct, provided he imputes nothing to that public man, I believe Sir Vicary Gibbs himself would have agreed with this. Nobody objects to comment if it does not impute anything. There is no definition of libel that can be conceived that would make a comment libellous unless it contained imputation : no public writer was ever punished for a comment that imputed nothing ; it is for an injurious comment. This is exactly the old mistake of saying that libel means a little book : it does not mean a little book ; it means a slanderous or defamatory little book. Might not the distinction be drawn between merely ex pressing an unfavourable opinion of the conduct of a public functionary, and imputing to him all kinds of bad conduct in general terms, and imputing to him some distinct and specific offence ?—Then that would lead to this distinction —that you could not with impunity ascribe a specific charge to a public officer, but that you might with perfect impu nity make all manner of injurious remarks, provided you confined yourself to imputation in general terms. Now, as one public functionary, I freely confess that I most decidedly should prefer to be libelled in the way whiCh it is now sug gested ought to be punishable, rather than in the way which it is said ought to go unpunished ; I would infinitely rather have a specific charge brought against me than a general vague charge, which it is impossible to meet. I moreover consider that those vaiue charges may be as damnatory to the character of a man as anY specific charge that can be imagined. To say of a person that he is cor rupt, that he is oppressive, that he is cruel, that he his tyrannical, that he is blood-thirsty, that he is cowardly, that be is impotent as a minister, that his understanding is emasculated, that he has not the nerves of an old woman, but is as bloody-minded as a tiger—all this is vague general abuse, and yet it is impossible to deny that it is exceedingly injurious to the character of a person, and painful to his feelings and those of his family. Some of these words are such as I believe no person who holds that any specific charge ought to be made the subject of prosecution would deny ought to be made the subject of prosecution. Suppose a person were to use the expressions, a scoundrelly, a cow ardly, incapable, blood-thirsty, villain of a minister ; I would only ask, would much good be done to the public by discussions carried on in that spirit, and ought it not to be visited by punishment ? Does your Lordship think that such expressions on the Ministers any harm in public estimation ?—lf there is_no thin& else against them th an thi s, I do not think it would do 6 them much harm : but Ministers are not the -only public functionaries ; the same law must apply to Mini sters as to any other class. Take the case of the parson of a parish, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, who have often a difficult duty to perform ; take the case of excise and custom-house officers, and of the returning officers at elections, and you will make their places too hot to hold them, if you allow the provincial papers to abuse them in the manner referred to. A Minister may afford to d esp i se them, but those person s cannot. Would not the feelings of society protect public officers against such language as that ?—The feelings of society at present would protect them, but what would -be the conse quence to the feelings of society, if society were to be put under a new and iron reign —namely, the reign of an un restrained and unlimited circulation of abuse and slander ? Would not the feelings of society be injured, if the whole atmosphere was impregnated with scurrility of every kind ? At any rate, those feelings would become callous to abuse which was daily poured forth in , all directions. How could the judges or the other magistrates execute justice, or even continue to sit on the,benoh, 'if every paper were allowed to say, " That scoupdrel, Ban S , o-and-ao " Tha' iillY ass, Justice So-and-so ." " That profligate villai n , L or d So-and-so ?" Th ey could not stand it a week. Does not your Lordship think that it is not right and advantageous —to the public-that the press should have the most perfect liberty of commenting upon the manner in which the magistrates of a county discharge their duty ? Certainly. Can your Lordship fix any definition of the proper kind of language in which those comments should be made ?—I think that question answers itself. The question is, can I fix any definition of the language in which editors of news papers shall speak of justices of the peace ? Now, that must mean —can I lay down a dictionary of all the parti lar words and phrases which editors of newspapers may safely use in discussing the character of magistrates ; how is it possible to do so ? But, on the other hand, I have no hesitation in saying that there ought to be the fullest dis cussion of the character and proceedings of magistrates. It should be attended by the salutary fear of prosecution, if it exceeds the limits of fair and reasonable discussion : for instance, that its authors should not give way to gross and general abuse. So far from saying that a line should be drawn, to leave on the unpunished side all general attacks, and on the punished side all specific charges, if I were to draw a line between the two classes, I would rather draw it the other way, and say, that they might bring any specific charge, so it were true, but that an y genera l an d vague abuse they should no t be allowed to pour out. I do not think even that would be a satisfactory line, but I Am quite sure it is much better than the other. May not the present law, which leaves it to the judge and jury to decide what is temperate and fair discussion, be productive of a great deal of abuse ?—lf any way could be shown of deciding what is temperate and legitimate, I should be glad to see it and consider it ; but I have never yet been able to devise any. It comes back to the question of the impossibility of defining a libel ; I certainly have seen no definition which at all satisfied me of the possibility. (Conclusion of the Lord Chancellor's evidence.) THE " CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT" ACT, TO REGULATE TRIALS AT THE OLD BAILEY, TO TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST OF NOVEMBER. PREAMBLE. Whereas it is expedient, for the more effective and uni form administration of justice in criminal cases, that offences committed in the metropolis, and certain parts adjoining thereto, should be tried by Justices and Judges of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery in the City of - London ; be it therefore enacted, that the Lord Mayor of the said City, the Lord Chancellor, all the Judges, for the time being, of the King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, the Chief Judge and the two other Judges in Bankruptcy, the Judge of the Admiralty, the Dean of the Arches, the Aldermen of the City of London, the Recorder, the Com mon Serjeant, the Judge of the Sheriffs' Court of the City of London, and any person or persons who may have been Lord Chancellor, or a Judge of the Superior Courts of Westminster, together with such others as the King shall from time to time appoint by a general Commission, shall be the Judges of a Court, to be called the " Central Cri minal Court." It is next enacted, that it shall be lawful for the King, from time to time, to issue Commissions of Oyer and Ter miner, to try all treasons, murders, felonies, and misde meanors, committed within London and Middlesex, and those parts of Essex, Kent, and Surt'ey, within the parishes of Barking, East Ham, West Ham, Little Ilford, Low Layton, Walthamstow, Wanstead St. Mary, Woodford and Chingford, in Essex ; Charlton, Lee, Lewisham, Green wich, Woolwich, Eltham, Plumstead, St. Nicholas (Dept ford), that part of St. Paul, Deptford, which is within Kent, the liberty of Kidbrook, and the hamlet of Motting ham, in Kent ; and the borough of Southwark, the parishes of Battersea, Bermondsey, Camberwell, Christchurch, Clap ham, Lambeth, St. Mary (Newington), Rotherhithe, Strea tham, Barnes, Putney, that part of St. Paul, Deptford, which is within Surrey ; Tooting Graveney, Wandsworth, Merton, Mortlake, Kew, Richmond, Wimbledon, the Clink Liberty, and the district of Lambeth, in Surrey ; and also Commissions of Gaol Delivery, to deliver the gaol of New gate. And it shall be lawful for any two or more of the Judges of the Central Criminal Court to try all offences committed within the aforesaid limits, at such times and places, in the City of London or the suburbs thereof, as shall be appointed by the said< Commissions. It is futher enacted, that the districts situated within the aforesaid limits shall, in all cases tried before the said Judge, be deemed one county for all purposes of venue, local description, trial, judgment, and execution ; and that in all indictments and presentments preferred before the said Judges, the venue laid in the margin shall be " Cen tral Criminal Court to wit," and all offences committed in the aforesaid limits shall be averred to have taken place " within the jurisdiction of the said Court." The fourth Clause enacts that the Sheriffs of London, Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Surrey, shall obey the Judges' precepts, directing them to return a competent number of persons qualified to act as Jurors ; such persons to he taken either from London or the counties, or from both indiscri minately; and every Juror who may be summoned from any part of the three counties within the limits of the Act, to be exempt for twelve calendar months after such• service, from attending any Jury in any Court (except the Sessions of the Peace) to be holden for the county in which Juror may reside. The fifth clause enacts, for the more convenient distri bution of prisoners, as well before trial as after, and for rendering more effectual the punishment of imprisonment, it shall be lawful for the King, in Privy Council, to direct in what prison, within the limits of the Act, any_ prisoner shall be imprisoned and that a ll J u d ges , J us ti ces o f t h e Peaee, Coroners, and other Magistrates,' acting within the limits of the Act, shall commit all prisoners brought before them to the gaols pointed out in the King's directions, not withstanding any law or custom to the contrary ; provided that the county or place in which the offence was com mitted. shall be charged with the expense of maintaining the prisoner during his imprisonment at the rate which may be directed by his Majesty, to be paid by the Treasurer of the county or place ; Middlesex, Westminster, and the Liberty of the Tower of London not being liable for the support of any prisoner apprehended in these districts and committed to Newgate. The sixth Clause enacts that the General Penitentiary shall be one of the prisons in which the King may direct prisoners to be confined. The seventh Clause enacts that persons sentenced to im prisonment beyond the limits of this Act may be removed to the said Penitentiary: The eighth clause enacts that all regulations in the dif ferent Penitentiary Acts shall apply to prisoners confined there by the authority of this Act. The 9th clause enacts that persons convicted under this Act may be imprisoned either in the county gaol or in Newgate, when no Order in Council has been issued. The 10th clause enacts that, till the King in' Council direct in what prison offenders under the Act shall be im prisoned, Justices and Coroners in Essex and Kent shall commit offenders to Newgate, and in Surrey to Horse monger-lane. The 11th clause enacts that Justices and. Coroners shall specify in the commitment that the persons charged are committed under this Aet ; and the Sheriff of Surrey shall, six days before the sitting of the Central Criminal Court, cause the prisoners confined in the county gaol to be con veyed to Newgate. 'The 12th clause empowers the Judges to order payment of expenses to prosecutors and witnesses ; the Treasurer of the County, or his agent, to attend the Court to pay orders, The 13th clause enacts that no bill of indictment shall he presented to the Grand Jury summoned under authority of this Act, unless the prosecutor has been bound by recog nizance to prosecute at the Sessions held under this Act. The 14th clause empowers the Court of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London to contract with the Justices of Essex, Kent, and Surrey, for the support of their prisoners in Newgate ; but if they catmot come to any agreement, the Judges are to settle the amount. The 15th clause enacts that the Judges of the Central Criminal Court shall hold a Session at least twelve times in each and every year (and oftener, if need be) ; such times to be fixed by general orders of the said Court. The 16th clause enacts that indictments found at the Sessions of the Peace may be removed before the Judges of the Central Criminal Court. _ The 17th clause enacts, " That the Justices of the Peace for London and Westminster, the Liberty of the Tower of London, Southwark, and the counties of Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Surrey, shall not at their respective General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, or any adjournment thereof, try any person or persons charged with any capital offence, or with any of the following offences committed or alleged to be committed within the limits of this Act--that is to say, housebr6aking, stealing above the value of M. in a dwelling house, horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, cattle-stealing, mali ciously wounding cattle, bigamy, forgery, perjury, conspiracy, assault with intent to commit any felony, administering or 'attempting to administer poison with intent to kill or do some grievous bodily harm, .administering drugs or other things or doing anything with intent to cause or procure abortion, manslaughter, destroying or damaging ships or vessels, the breaking of shops, warehouses, counting-houses, and build ings within the curtilage .of, dwelling-houses, killing sheep with intent to steal the carcases, the uttering of all forged instruments and the various offences enumerated in the Act passed in the first year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled ' An Act for reducing into one Act all such for geries as shall henceforth be punished with death ; and for otherwise amending the laws relative to forgery,' forgigg the assay marks on gold or silver plate, and all the offences relating to coin enumerated in the Act passed in the second year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled An Act for consolidating and amending the ,Laws . against offences relating to Coin,' the abduction of women, binkrupts not , surrendering under their commission or concealing their effects, breaking down bridges and banks of rivers, takleea, rewards for helping to stolen goods, personating any fie seaman, or other persons .in order to. receive anY gay, allowance, or prize-money due or supposed to be or any out-pensioner of Greenwich Hospital in order !Y receive any out-pension allowance due or supposed totobr: due, sending threatening letters and using threats to e x ce money, larceny on navigable rivers and canals, and stole! and. destroying goods in progress of manufacture, nies after a previous conviction, embezzlement, lareencY,lc_Y., clerks and servants, and receivers of stolen goods, svh such person or persons shall be charged as principal ° ders, or as accessories before or after the fact. ed The 18th clause enacts, that Avery recognizance e. „its into before Sessions of the Peace is to be obligatorY ( j, e i of certiorari on parties bound to appear before the Ju be of the Central Criminal Court, and that notice le t° given to parties of change of Court. ing he ,19th, clause enacts, that Justices of the p e ace f deliver over indictments found at Sessions to inag e6° Central Criminal Court. f r t he The 20th clause enacts, that it shall be lawful n o , o f Judges of the Central Criminal Court to settle at, and ler. _ fees and allowances for the several officers of the said Co ` A) .,. to and from time to time to alter the same, as may app ear just and reasonable. The 21st clause enacts, th a t th e Ses s ions of the peace not to be affected by the S ess i ons h o ld e n in pursuance - this Act. z e cei The 22d clause authori zes th e C our t -to try (4- committed on the high seas. The 23d clause enacts that nothing in this Act obel i P re, judice the rights and privileges of London. tie . The 24th enacts, that the Act shall comme nce and effect from and after the 31st day of October, 1834. THE ARMY. (Circular,) - War Office, August , 185 0 1 4 evt SlR—The Secretary of State for the Colonial DePar,thst having noticed to me th a t it h as b een f oun d by experia ll ii , to the practice of making gratuitous grants of land is iniu rw ,ig the Colonies, and not beneficial to the individuals re el- g ee! them, when they are of that rank of life to which disc h l r i soldiers belong, and that consequently the practice vn, ave t, discontinued, I think it right to communicate this circurni` rv i i 4 to you, in order that it may b e no tifi e d t o the troop' s e t arl Under your command, in such a mann e r as will prey ° l e d, misunderstanding' on the subject, should they have bee' l lo de by the allustons to cases of men settling in the Colonie s , tjo g in the Pension Regulations, to entertain the mistaken' ftvivd, that they were entitled, on discharge, to free gran" ° t , —I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servo_ C k;. EDWARD ELL' Officer Commanding his Majesty's Forces. (From the Limerick Chronicle.) a 0" Major Lord Charles Well es l e y, sth reg i m ent, sec °ll „ from of the Duke of Wellington, is arr i ve d i n this gsTr l ,,, s° ";,gl3). Templemore, on a visit to Majo r -G enera l Si r James vr g utbe The officers of the 91st reg i men t, thi s wee k, t he new undress uniform with gold pl a t e d sca l es in plate ° late embroidered shoulder knot. f The 82nd regiment at Glasgow is the next corps '4/- the country. Bee' under 14th Dragoons have furnished a d e t a chment t° Liee' under Lieutenant Royds, and o n e t o B a lli nas l oe , under - to Stephens. •Cholera having wholly ceased at Gibraltar, the 47th, and 68th regiments will proce, d w i t h ou t f urt h e r delay , men Mediterranean, to relieve the 23d, 94th, and 95th Ng' whose period of foreign service has expired. h t he The following officers have di sem b ar k e d i n Dublin *,,. 00 e 1 right wing of the 3d battalion G rena di zr G u ards • i u ° ft asi Lambert, Major, Commanding ; Li cu t enan t-Colonel iioto n Captain Spottiswood ; Captain Compton, Captain i'.eute ( (Adjutant) ; Lieutenant Godrell, Lieutenant Purvis, nant Lord Cantalupe ; Quartermaster Lilley ; Assistant• geon Deacon. At the late inspection of the 74th regiment, by the L iai e ie lf nant- General commanding, he w as pl ease d t o express L" ne rs l highly gratified with their discipline, cleanliness, and g e management. Gore: 6 ' A company of the 60th Rifles have been sent to bridge under Captain Hamilton, an d a d e t ac hment te P be eP corthy, under Lieut. Woodgate. That at Callan hi s withdrawn. varquis of Lieutenant Lord Wm. Beresford, brother of the iat° Waterford, has exchanged from the 43rd Light Infant* ~ he Ist Life Guards. bog Major-General Sir Thomas Reynell, a Waterloo otu.,., eri el been transferred from the 99th, as successor t o the late al Irish Sir John Doyle, in the command of the 87th, or TOY Fusileers. The garrison at Cork are manceuvering under arin s f i ti ssei day, in expectation of a v i s it f rom Li eut .-G ener al Sir Vi The vian. 'r Is " officers of the 97th d e p o t h ave presented the' ssci Major, Lieut.-Colonel Tyler, with a handsome silver /d i d' cover, as a testimonial of thei r res p ec t an d esteem, and ° regret in losing him as their commanding officer. 0 ev Lieutenant-Colonel Greene, of th e R o yal Artillery , big ccedingly clever but eccentric man, has been deprive es°, commission for being absent without leave. About frl'rifea since he was ordered out to Malta; and not having ' s led there, or been heard of for eighteen months, it was P re '; that be had disappeared for ever. After tits treattrte ll 'ri l , cially gazetted, an d ano th er o ffi cer appointed in his 1 " ( "' I and was discovered in some v er y remo t e part of the Levni!st, non his commission was restored to him. We su ppose be. on an excursion of the same description. Od er The company of the Royal Artillery at Bermuda, left' Colonel N. W. Oliver, were all well when the Vole s ere, the Sappers and Mine rs , un d er M a j or T y ld e n, employed on the extensive public works going on in Isle and St George's. Captains . O'Neill, 44th regiment (brother of LadY r ti r i .s l4 a, Becher), and Hatton, 62 n d reg i ment , marc h e d on IP h oi , with detachments from th e p rov i s i ona l b a tt a li o n at Ch a " to embark in the ship M a lcol m , f or B enga l. eus fj .1 1 a . The Royal Admiral, Captain Fotheringham, t , s" of the 50th regiment, consi s ti ng o f 30 men , un der Li e Adjutant Tutor and Quartermaster Freer, d es tined for. rito th e town, to embark convicts for N ew S ou th ' Wales, put '' oe s ° Medway on Wednesday, i n consequence o f se veral c cer cholera having appe are d on b oar d— t h e me dical ( f e n n charge, Mr. B o yt er , S urgeon R oya l N avy, b e i ng of lac, bar sick. Two c o mp an i es yet rema i n at Chatham, WI"- mand of Major Ryan. TIMIDITY IN SI NGING .—Th ere is no s ort 01 ci , ! sons who become so absurdly alarmed, and get into ~- r a VY'v fever when requested to sing, as our countrymen ge ti l t P l 3 , s ' s and the men suffer from this sp ec i es o f i n fi rm ity, if 5° 0 0 be called, even m o r e th an th e women. O ur f r ienk h ol e t north of the Tweed and thos e on th e ot h er s id e o f the 4, is 11 0 have a less shar e o f thi s " mauva i se h onte; ” but it been bee n "mauvaise honte." A libra r i an a t B r i g ht on , w ho 113 10 05 cr in the habit of engaging persons to sing at his e vening ve coe' e the last fifteen years, asserts, that whilst the women I r k all t a moderate share of timidity, the men could not treln" e d. when they get up to sing if they were going to be o,lle seems that a debut there- is a greater trial to the ne " e s P'he at a theatre. Were these trembling gents. to ri, se l ito t e ' t earlier, and betake themselves to the ocean side, an Athenian of old, rehearse solfeggii—the roaring sl.a`,ing the audience—to get rid of their guttural tones, by brln& 00 0 voice more freely from the chest, this diffidence 'KO s o cti se ; overcome and subdued ; but an Englishman will not P o fte fr This species of fear, so peculiar to amateur singe rs, sa t begets a temporary loss of memory, and they frequerVe 0 1°, 0 stitute for the proper words of their songs languag e t t iv ille,;l outre, ridiculous, and ungrammatical. A friend °` bo Somersetshire relates an anecdote of a gentleman ' 1 0 0 5 " received a college education, and who, in ordinary hen pre; sion would never bet ra y th e l east stup idi ty ; yet , v ti ld df Wailed upon to give a specimen of his vocal powers , W ° re.a into so dreadful a heat, that his face assumed all th e _ os eir; appearance of the moon at her full, and the genius of :0 91 at the same time laid such f as t h o ld o f hi m , that be W O thus unwittingly : The hounds they comes in jovial cry, , And snuffs the flagrant breeze. And another timer. And my warm sighs decrease the wind Look'd on the moon and thought 'twas —Willtams's Treatise on Singing ; f BIR THS. l am. f o f On the 27th ult. at Cheltenham, the lady of Sir joribanks, Bart., of i a daughter. a he -e On the Ist inst., at Eaton-place, Belgrave-squar - ' yo n John Farquhar Fraser, Esq., of a daughter. ° fs 4 11 ' On the Ist inst., in Saville-row, Mrs. James Somerin h ' l e , 'On the 28th ult., at Edinburgh, the lady of Sir 1113- of struther, Bart., of a son an d h e i r . TO I On the 31st ult., Mrs. Win. Farlow, of Mitre-cour t, te r , a On daughter. g b of the 30th ult., at Winchmore-hill, Mrs. Frith, 0, 6 tp 1-e IP' • On the 26th ult., at Little Aston-hall, Staffordshire, William Leigh, Esq., of a daughter _-----" •or l'i% 0 MARIED. On the 28th ult., at the Parish Church of North rt e moll; rlilton, second son of the late James Hilton, Esq.! ef P r e the tv , and Read Hall, Lancashire, to Elizabeth, ony child 0' co ari,,,, Gilbert Ford, M. A., Rector of North Meols, in the sl e w, ri b s yt On the 28th ult., at Hanllam, Denbighshire, L. 1 1 . / 7 I d jeig M.B. of St. Peter's College, Cambridge, to Alicia, th' r A i $., of the late Joseph Peel, Esq., of Stapenhill, DerbYshi re :oo P n e o f On the 23th ult., at St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton , , Ae st eLO , Kinglake, Esq , barrister-at-law, of -Lincoln's Inn, el" ilep Robert K.nglake, Esq., _ M.D., of Taunton, to Lotus * only dattglier of John Liddon, Esq., of the same place' °' t be .DIED.a or On the 31st ult., at Greenwi c h Mj' James Fr klin, an o( , Ist Regiment of Bengal Light Cav a l r y, in his 52d Yea i r :,e, .f l ,,g t oi ')n the 30th ult., at Sandhurst, in his 18th year, James'. Ili' the late Major-General Hare, a Student in the R°Y OP College. Cle o a n v e t r h , e l l7 . tl D i . u , l t v . , i c ageds7 d , w at in K s t i o lte , , N Y o o tt r s k . shir a , Is On the 24th ult., at Lausanne n ee her 6th year, , in O . ' e gg child of Sir T. Charles Style, Bart. G ift ° • Marl the On the 28th ult., at Tunbridge Wells, Honora fart of wife of the Rev. E. P. Henslowe, and eldest daug ht a sbi 1! Lieutenant-Colonel Spence Thomas Vassal!. T homas t On the 31st ult.', Mrs. Rxid; widow of the late ebe r Reid, Esq., surgeon, Chelsea. dfriars, , 11.1 , I% On the 31st ult., in Jewry-street, Crutebe Seldon, in his 61st year. the; ' Oll if 'Jr 66) Landon : Priid and Published 101I13`. Jr attgoo Ofico, WIP. i Is, Streti. r't rai of p • Zei be or, b Jest, tnikd 4141