The Sun. — London, England, 1825-07-30 00:00:00

I i ~/' '' ~C~L7 Nr: , l itr R 10,26). - / k SI ÜBSCRI I'll ON for the VAUDOIS, or WALDESS. At a MEETING of some of the N principal SUBSCRIBERS N to ERthe' FUND, w hi c h i s now raising in Enzland, for the GE AL RELIEF of the DISTRESSED VAUDOIS ‘,Protestant Subjects of his Alajesty the Kiug of Sardinia, wh ose Present state of extreme poverty creates a new and powerful claito upon the benevolence of their fellow Protestants) and es- Pecially for the purpose of enabling l eis), to the Erection and Foundation of an Hospital, in aid of them to proceed, without which they have received the permission of their Sovereign to Solicit foreign Contributions —held at the house of the Right r noti• air George H. Rose, AI.P., Al ay 26, 1825. Tlis Right lion. and Rigtt Reverend the LORD 11151101' of LONDON in the tlt was unanimo us l y Resolved._ —Tha Chair ;t the • be r equested to for a Committefollowinge, for t h e mariagement o f t h e said fund, an d for taking into c onsideration the best means of applying it, in aid of the Establishment of an Hospital, in the commune of La Tour, in the valley of Lucerne and province of Pignerol, Piedmont ; and for su c h other purposes as may he objects thought expedient by the Committee, consistently with the expressed i n the Royal Letters Patent of his late Ma c'sty king G eorge 111., bearing date 1768, viz.:-- " To ca cheable Vaudois to maintain their Ministers, Churches, Scools, and Poor, which they are not able to support in any rlolerabie wanner." ,Ibe Earl of Clarendon lhe Earl of St. Germains I lre Lord Bishop. of London Th e l'he Rig ht II Bishopof Winchester on. Sir G. 11. Rose, Al. P. it T M . D. A c l and, Bart. M.P. Sir Thos. B ar i ng, Bart. M.P. bir Robert Inglis, Bart. M.P. •I'"Ptr Atkinson, Esq. 8 1 °its. F a . Barnwall ' E'sq. w in' Cotto usan n quet, Esq. W. R. Hamilton, Esti. With th e power of adding to l oss' require. . That George Harrison, Es, Samuel Bosanquet, Esq., and the Rev. Anthony Hamilton who a v e hitherto acted as Trus tees to the Vaudois Fund, be requested to continue their ser vices in that capacity. That the Rev. Bewick B r id ge b e requested to undertake the office of T:ea , :urer to the Fund. . That th e Rev. W. S. (idl y h e requested to act as Honorary ccretary to th e C omm i ttee; and that the Rev. .1. S. P ons b e rsvierted sp ondence. to assist him in cond uct i ng t h e Foreign Corre- That the 'following Bankers be requested to receive Sub scriptiona, viz. lie essrs. Glyn, Mills, Hallifax, and Co. t Lombard . uts- Bosanqu e t, Pitt, Andel-don Franks & Co. I street. Zess'f! N'Ts. Ala sterrnan, Peters, Al ildre ' d, and Co. Nicholas lanc. rs. Hoare and Co. Fleet -street. ""X• lierries, Farqhar, anti Co. L James's-sreet. Comm unication s are u to be addressed to the Rev. t W. S. Gilly, 1 - 2$ lavistock-place, Russell-square. LIST OF SUI3SCRIBERS. Ai ll- . . I , Majesty the King 10' 0 , ._,, ~1 e 4 ," ii•ui Canterbury 25 0 AA c?thtsitop of York 10 0 ; u e ' i ' bi3l ' o l) of Dublin 10 0 k .. t ,""s of Buccleugh 10 0 y r °f Clarendonof . l 0 0 Earlu" l? Clarendon 5 0 or Liverpool - Eurl of 20 St• Gerniain'' 0 r..arl Rock s 6 watt'„ . . "age 1 3 0 0 4,,,, Gic, ot lionte - 1 0 n"L untess Poulett 5 0 ° of London flies-- di . w . n - 20 0 rii,,l7) of Buttliester 10 0 kt'lhol, of Saheb:: - 52 10 Bi,1101) of Oxford Y - I° 0 Bishop of Ely -5 4 Bishop of Llandaff - 10 ° Bishop of Litchfield and 10 LI Coventry Ilisho 8 - * 5 5 It' h P Barg - 10 0 t s °P of Carlisle . 10 0 11,4,44110.p,0f Hereford . 10 0 it.o4 Ileignmouth - 3 0 tvd xrv uxle y,_ - - 20 0 ~,. Y iiingoatri 'ligh t H on. F. - 5 0 bin 4, It°- %on, Chancello rr of the txcli n Itt. H on. ~.e r g .u. _ - 20 0 It i v hi t a oni. Sirw. ti_ra ti l t 10 10 l'hose 5 1 pu . ' • • - - 10 'lit liOn, Rd. Ryder, - 0 AL I ,. It t. ' Li - - . a o "• VI • Sturge s 1105 u. 1. - ie _ G. Harrison, Esq. A rzlideacun Nrringliarn The Rev. I)r. Richards The Rev. Dr. Phillpotts The Rev. Dr. flurrow hey. I)r. Schwabe The Rev. I)r. Sumner The Rev. Anthony Hamilton The Rev. Joseph Wigram The Rev. Bewick Bridge. The Rev. Thomas Sims The 1t v. 1. S. Pons The Rev. NVin. S. (}illy their number, a, circumstances .r.. i Butterworth, J. EA. M.P. - - ll Campbell, Rev. A.M. .1 Chambers, Robe r t, Esq. 1 Cambridge, Mrs. - I Chapman, David, Esq. I Chapman, Miss - 1 Charrington, B. Esq. 5 I Clarke, Miss - - I I Chalon, J. Esq. - 1 Cool( worthy, Mrs. - 2 I Cotton, Mrs. Wanstcad 20 I Cotton, Joseph, Esq. 20 I ' Cotton, William, Esq. 10 I Courtenay, Rev. J. 1 I Currey, 11. Esq. - 2 t Cunningham, Rev. F. ~ ( Cage, Mrs. - - I I Cage, Miss S. - - 1 1 Casenove, J. Esq. - 5 ( Casenove, IL Esq. - I 1 Chute, Mrs. - - 3 ( I Cordes, C. A. Esq. - 1 ( Clements, Miss - 10 C Croydon, Mr. H. - 1 C Collection at the Swiss Church, Soho, by Rev. Messrs. Sterky and Berger, Minis. ters - 34/. 14s. Bd. Collection at Providence Chapel, Gray's Inn lane, 1271. Bs. ; Do. at Salem Gaspe', Lei. center, 311. 3s. 6d. : Do. at _______ Chapel Grantham, 311. after Sermons, by Rev. J. Chamberlayne. To cal - 11301. lie. GI IL-, Al ims - 5 5 Danvers, Charles, Esq. 5 0 Danvers, Mrs. . 2 2 Danvers, C. jun. Esq. 1 1 Danvers, Henry, Esq. 1 1 Dautotz, Mrs. M. - 10 0 Daubuz, Mrs... - 10 0 I Dare, hall, It. W. Esq. 1 0 Dodd, R ev , p , S. _ 3 0 Doxat, Alexis, Esq. 10 0 Ditto, F r i en d s !cv 42 12 Du Boulay, Miss - 1 I Du Boulay, Thus. Ev.i. 1 If Day, Rev. J. _ - 1 0 f>arupier, Mrs. 0 9 - . . Duncombe, Esq. - Itl 0 Etonian, An Etonian L 0 Friend, A - - 1 1 Finch, G. Esq. .21 0 Finch, .1I iss - . 1 1 Frew,ms, 'Miss . 1 0 Fortescue, lion. Mat. IV 0 Fortescue, lion. Mrs. 19 0 Francis, C. F. Esq. 1 1 Frampton, T. E. 5 0 Freeling, T. Llay...on,Erq. 1 1 Friend. A - - 1 Gale, Alm. - - 1 Gale— 11 %9. - 0 tille. AINA - - 0 Gaskin, Res. Th. - 1 I iibertie, Mr/. 1 - I /iberne, Miss - : 10 Giberne, A/ iss Al. - L ) 1 ° Gilbert, Richard, L'cq, 2 0 ti illy, 11,v. William 5 0 Dilly, Rev. W. Stephen 5 0 Glover. Rev. W. 1.:)w der I 1 Glyn, Mes.trs. and Co. 5 5 ( lOdfrey, J. _ Gord on. M - 5 5 5 5 s 0 . Aon. :51-r-. Juttice Park 5 0 Lkir p„k 1101. :11r. .11tRtice Caßelee .5 0 The bean of lVinettester 10 0 I'llel)eari of Itoc'ester 5 0 A Piedinonte,e N'oblc. 1 0 to.tintess of ban Martin In Motta -2 o 1.14r(1. Charles .of lian .Nlar.raut ..: - Ilarqu it of P r i e Chevalier kial Pozzo 441arql, Sir 'l`. Dyke, Ilart. M.P. .20 0 -kadertlort, TL, E‘q. 1 1 Anonymous . . 20 0 liltto . 1 0 bitto - . 5 0 Atkintil, ‘1". T. Lie. 2 0 Autieron, 11Irt , l° 1) Aubertoo \ h‘m . - 1 0 Arrttvlrot, henry 4. 5 5 An,:zul.oti, Rev. 11. - 1 0 Anger 3on, Nlra. . 1 0 .kraorlyrnoLoi .l 0 !taring, Si, Thornna lO 0 llackbunt, : 1 1ra. So l) Heavan, Ittv. le. -20 0 Prowdler, Mra. Pratleia 0 Itelli, P.r.v. C.A. - 2 ° Iturton; Francis, f:sq. 10 0 M urto n, -• . 5 0 Iturtori Allss I. • 5 0 lirido, Ai ifts . . 1 1 littrkett, u . r . 1 6 Iltker; Ili, ''l. • 1 0 1,4'4,*, Illo:ItitA E. 1 I lainwall 1 I 1, 1' ~-41.nont, Lady . hi S) ~`ire. Stabscrip ,"(.44 froon, I.i. J. A t. .. l:aon, tl. for th e 11 4 pit; t l 7q 5 r.s., for talucatiun tISI in, rid. htut4l : 1.1.1 sti. Ga. :, , , 4 Y I Y. Ar I deL , r l 4 .. .2 !:"ur'le-tt,. Mr% '. . 'c° 4 0 te"'oo, ev, C. : 1 0 k , !, E. P. tmq. . 5 0 i;'''''",ltket S 411 1• tla 1 10 It,. *, ' " r it, 'Wet, Mr. Serjeant .5 ~ it,t''''quet. C. Esc]. . 10 10 ---141401 et, Irti. U. . 2 2 kittliqttt. C. H. E. 1 1 11o,trdill Aro 1 Nikl'l'S. Q-' . "r' G.4.' 20 0 t`tiiiir)kFte°' er'll. 5 g 1.1.-a,!,',a,,,,, Auc;. taq. 5 0 itri!it:!, Rev. It. . 5 0 tit.''4cae, Mra. - . 1 0 h,'"c'e, Ruht. Est. . 010 '''kk lit, Nl'. 10s. Ed. huticle, Mr . . 1 U ILke,:c)k. Slil4; - . 0 4 fi"kl"n4, Rev. Mr. 1 1 otrtll, Re Ai r I I It..qt v• . - ~, 4*,,ltev. I, . a 0 `40.4434, lita. 2 0 , rs. - - Goulding, Chris., I 1 Goulding, Mrs. Chris.. 1 I Guillelrand, lizv . 31r. 5 Gilpin, Mr. 5 Halfwit, lion. Lady I I Haliliinand, G. Esq. 5 0 \V. E qs. 5 Hall, rt. R- . 0 U Hamilton, W. R Esq. 10 0 0 Hamilton, Ititv. A. Harriw%, - 2 Hanky, Win. Alt-:s 0 6 Heath, So n , and Co. 5 0 0 Iltrries, Farquhar, & C 0.20 ll H. Mrs. and 'AI iss 2 2 Hai-weave, 0. Esq I 1 ifu inan, Jeremiall,Esq. 10 0 Hannan, Mrs. Harri son - 5 , George, 111 10 Harrison, T. H. Esq. 1 0 Harv e y - 2 0 liez vey. ~inrvc iss - 2 ss - 2 0 "'"""'"i7, - 1 1 f. s. Hathaway, Win. Esq. 1 0 Hesker, Teush, Esq. 2 0 Renshaw, Rev. IL - 1 0 Heron, Mrs. and Miss 2 2 Berries, I. C. Esq. M.P. 10 0 Hoare, Henry, Esq. 21 0 Hoare, Ch. Esq. - 10 0 Hoare, H. Merirk, Esq. 10 0 Hoare, Mrs. H. M. 5 0 Hodgson, Th. Esq. 5 0 Hudgkinson, Miss 1 0 Howard, Miss - 2 0 Inglehy, John, Esq. 5 5 Jones, Archdeacon 5 0 Inglis, Mrs. Thomas 1 1 Keene, B. Esq. - 5 0 Keene, Rev. C. - I 1 Keene, Mrs. C. - 1 1 Keene, Miss M. - 501 liempe„ !Hiss . 1 1 Kenrick, Mrs. . 1 I Kilner, Mrs. and Miss 3 3 Lamb, Rev. J. - 1 1 Ladies, Three - 11 0 Lady A - . - 1 1 Lane, Rev. C. 10s. 6d. Laprimatidaye, Re,. C. 5 5 Lawson, C. Esq. - 1 1 Leader, W, Esq. M.P. 1 1 Lee, Professor - 1 1 L:tnon, It. Esq. 0 10 Lewton, Rev. E. - 1 1 Lind, F. Esq. - '2 2 Lind, Mrs. - 1 1 Litt, W. P. Esq. 1 1 Lansdale, Rev. J. 1 1 Le Bas, Rev. C. B. 1 0 1,. A. - - 10 0 Lupton, Thos, Esq. 1 1 Mc. Nevan, C. Esq. 1 1 ascall, Sirs. - 1 0 Miss - 0 10 Moore, Rev. Dr. - 2 0 INlackworth, Sir D. Bt. to. 0 Mand,-1, Rev. William 1 0 111apletoft, Rt. Esq. 103. 6d. Maud, 'l'. Esq. - I 1 Middleton, B. Esq. 3 0 Mildred, Daniel, Esq. 5 0 Mildred, D. jun. Esq. 1 1 Mercer, Rev. T. Warren 1 1 31ercer, Sirs. . 1 1 Morris, C. jun. Esq. '5 0 Aloysey, Archdeacon 1 0 Newfield, Rev. W. 2 2 Newcume, Rev. Thos. 2 2 Nares, Archdeacon 5 5 Neave, Itev. 11. S. 2 0 Neyle, G. N. Esq. 5 0 Norris, Rev. A. H. 10 0 Okes, l(ev. Dr. . 1 1 Pace, Itev. 1 1 Parker, Rev. Win. - 1 1 Paris, the AI isses . G 0 l'earae, B. Esq. - 5 0 WILLIAM STE X. 3. Phillpotts, Rev. Dr. - 5 0 Pons, Rev. I. S. - 3 3 Powell, Rev. W. I 0 Pratt, Rev. .1. 1 1 Prevost, A. S. Esq. 5 0 Prince, Rev. I. - 1 1 Proctor, Rev. Dr. - 1 1 Powell, Rev. H. - 2 '2 Pusey, Hon. P. - 30 0 Richards, Rev. Dr. - 3 0 Rivington, Messrs. - 2 0 Rundall, Sirs. M. A. 1 0 Rushout, lion. Anne 5 0 Russell, J. Somerset, Esq.l 0 Russell, Mrs. - - 1 0 Richardson, Rev. Dr. 2 2 Shepherd, Miss M. A. 10 0 Sansom, Miss - 2 2 Saunders, John, Esq. 5 0 Saunders, J. Esq. jun. 1 1 Saunders, Miss - - 010 Scott, Rev. Mr. - 1 1 Scott, Sirs. - - 1 1 Sims, Rev. Thomas 10 0 Smith, Mrs. - 10 0 Shepherd, ltev. Dr. 2 I) Sleech, Mrs. - 2 2 Turner, Rev. Richard 2 0 Telford, G. Esq. 1 0 Trigge, Lady - 5 0 Toinlins, Sir 'l'. E. Knt. 1 0 Townsend, ltev. Geo. 1 1 Thrale, Miss - 2 0 Turton, Ito , . Professor 1 1 Turner, Frewen, Esq. 5 0 Turner, 3lrs. Richard 10 19 Vachcll, S. Esq. - 5 0 Vansittart, Miss - 10 0 Valpy, 11ev. 1)r. - 2 0 Vardon, 3liss 1 1 Vardon, W. Esq. 2 2 Vincent, Col. - 3 0 NValler, Sir W. Bart. 2 0 Watson, Joshua, Esq. 10 10 NVelstead, Ch. Esq. 1 0 Whennel, —, Esq. 1 0 White, .1. B. Esq. 1 1 Wigram, Sir It. Bart. 10 0 Wigram, Miss - 2 0 Wigram, Hey. Joseph 2 0 Rev. J. B. 1 1 Williams, Mrs. - 2 U Willis, A. Esq. - 2► Wilson, Nev. William l 0 Wilson, Itev. Daniel 5 Wilson, Rev. W. C. and Friends - - 50 0 Second Subscription from Friends, by for Schools - - 20 0 Wilson, J. EAq. - 1 1 Whitfield, Rev. W. B. 1 I Wilson, 'l'. B. Esq. 10 0 Wrangluun , A relldeason 1 1 PHEN GILLY, lion. Sec. ENGLISH and BRISTOL CHANNELS SHIP CANAL.—The Act of Parliament having passed, constitutingtheSUßSCß MRS a CORPORATION, Notice is hereby given, that application for Shares, in lieu of those forfeited by the neglect of Holders thereof to execute he Deed, may be made to Messrs. King and Lukin, No. 5, Gray's Inn-square; and to Mr. Clarke, Chard, Somerset, the respective Solicitors to the Concern. NA 'FIONA I. STONE-WA COMPANY. T HECommittee of the NATIONAL STONE WA Y CO3l PA N Y announce to the Shareholders and the Public in general, that they are now occupied in securing a large and regular supply of the very best Granite on advan tageous terms; and that, as early as possible, ocular demon stration will be given in various parts of the Metropolis. of the utility and convenience of the Company's Plan. It appears by a communication from St. Petersburgh, of which a copy is subjoined, that this invention has been acted upon in that Capital with decided success. From the difficulty of obtaining stone at Petersburgh, the Ways have been con structed of timber; but whether formed of that material or of stone, it is obvious that a plane surfacs, must diminish the friction of wheels. The principle in both is equally obvious and useful ; but the durability of stone gives it a decided pre ference. In Naples, Milan, and other Cities of Italy, stone-ways have been adopted, and are found to answer the most sanguine ex. pectstions that had been formed of their utility. " PETEIISMURGit, JUN E 11. " lo the principal streets in our Capital, wooden-ways are being laid down on both aides, on which the carriages run sm ,, oth, and without noise. Such ways are now making in the Newsky Perspictine, and will be continued to Zarskojeselo.— Such roads were laid down last summer from this city to Kam meiioz Ostroff, and gave gentral satisfaction. The first ex. pence is paid by the Imperial treasury; the future repairs will be defrayed by the householders." ( Ily Order), THOS. PARKIN, Sec. THE GRAVEL AND STONE, LUMBAGO. Ste. HICKMAN'S PILLS are allowed to be the most successful Preparation for effectually removing awl preventing. the future recurrence of those Ditoidets which aris e fro n t an impei fret action of the Urinary Organs, Is (travel and Stone, Ltimbazo, Pains in the Back and Loins, • pr s.inn ($l . Urine,&c. Compoted of the must innocent inieredirnts, this truly valuable Medicine relieves the suffer in.e patient Iron) the excrticiatinic tortures of those diseases • th ut env •iul encr or injury to the C foittiiution. and re quire, no confinement or restraint of dirt iiitrinf its ose. It it any of the elclett Public Nledicines extant and its pecu liar vn tn.—, anti fficacy hare Uniform!, maintained the highest rcioitation. Sib! in Boxes. at 2s. 9d. and Hs. by Butler, Chemist. 4, lirapciee, St. l'Aurs : Savory and Co. I3q, New Bond-street, .00don: rind by the Princip.il Medicine Venders throughout he United Kin dote. of who'', nia ) bt had BUTLER'S CA.TEPUT OPODEL POC, strongly recommended in Chronic Itlienniatiwl, Sn.o.- modic Afrectiovs. Stiffness, and Enlargement of the Sprains, Bruises, &c. In Bottlts, at is. lid. and 211. 9(1. The throng of strangers who visit the Duke of A Titot.t.'s beautiful grounds at Dunkeld is now very great, and they are shown with a degree of liberality which every Thane in the country would do well to imitate. Any decently dressed person, on application to the gardener, receives permis sion to s,t_ every thing that is interesting, on condition of tak ing a guide with him, who receives a trifling gratuity for his trouble. About 600 persons had availed themselves of this privi lege between the Ist of May and the time when we called there, July 10 ; and the whole number who visited the grounds, in the course of last year. exceeded 2000. The book where the visi tors subscribe their names exhibits a medley of men of all tongues and nations Spaniards, Italian 4, Germans, Russians, with unpronounceable titles, strangers from " f arthest Inde, " and froru the shores of the Pacific Ocean. It is a curious fact, that the Duke had received proposals from three or four indi . vialla 1 • ( t a nts, probably, of the Children of th e to ac: she part of a hermit in his grounds ; though we must th e care which is allotted for the hermit's residence is one of the least attzsctive dwellings we have seta.—(E,Bo,4rsh 1 0 1 0 1 0 .~ Z . Aktkilik_ ----t- 4,k . ----) L SUN. SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 30, 1825. IS.IZE IN f ELLIGENGE. EXETER, JULY 27. Ctvli. SIDE.—( Before Mr. Justice LITT LE nAi.x.) LIBEL. THE SING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF LEY, CLEIII. v. POLLARD. Mr. ilaval , opened the pleadings- This was an indictment preferred against the defendant for having wilfully and onalici ously written a libel, of and concerning the prosecutor, in a cer tain letter addressed to the said prosecutor. In the second count it was charged that the defendant had written a second libel, reflecting on the character of the prosecutor, in another letter. The defendant pleaded " nut guilty," and on th plea issue was joined. Mr. C. F. WILLI A ers, who appeared as Counsel for the pro secution, stated the case. The prosecutor, he observed, had been obliged to resort to a Court of Justice for redress, in con sequence of the libellous aspersions which the defendant had maliciously cast upon him. The prosecutor was the father of a large family, consisting, he believed, of eight or nine child ren. He was a member of the Church of England, and offici ated as a minister of that church. Twa of his sons were at the • University, and, on consideration, it: appeared to him that his third son might be advantageously employed as a pro fessonof the medical art. In consequence of that view of the mode in which his family might best be provided for, he applied to the defendant, an extensive medical practi tioner living at Torquay, a negotiation ensued, and the pro. secutor's son was ultimately apprenticed to the defendant. A liberal education had been bestowed on the youth, and a liberal premium had accompanied him when he became the apprentice of the defendant, yet, within a fortnight, the de fendant had chosen to express his decided opinion —an opi nion which the Learned Counsel was confident would be found premature and illiberal —that the young man was unfit for the duties of the medical profession. The defendant represented to the father of tine young man that his sun was imbecile, that his conduct was foolish, and his understanding weak. The Jury might easily imagine how painful such a communi cation must he to a flutter, even supposing it to be conveyed in the mildest terms. But, he would ask them, what must the sensations of a father he, when information of that nature was conveyed to him in language which was not limited by the pain the intelligence was calculated to inflict on the parent,— which was not measured by any consideration of the circum stances in which the youth to whom it related was placed. [ Here the Learned Gentleman read several letters which had passed between the prosecutor and the defendant.] On two of these letters, the indictment, he observed, was founded. He then proceeded to argue, that there was nothing extraordinary in the backwardness of the father in refusing to give credit to the imputation of utter incapacity which had been cast upon his son by the defendant. So far front deserving the accusa tion of having imposed on the defendant, by sending his son to him, he considered that the prosecutor paid the defendant a compliment, when he offered to intrust one of his sons to that individual's care. Tine accusation was, in fact, against the other side. The accusation was against the defendant, who had wantonly outraged the feelings of a parent, by accusing his ion of incapacity ; and, not content with that, by charging the father with having attempted to impose that son on the de fendant as a clever youth, when, in fact, he was quite the con. tray. He could not imagine an imputation more gross, nor could he conceive language more offitnsive than that in which it had been conveyed ; and to whom ? To a clergyman of the Church of England, and --with shame be it spoken —to the father of a family. No terms that he could use were sufficiently strong to mark the impropriety of the expres sions which the defendant made use of in the two letters which formed the ground-work of the prosecution. The answers of the Rev. Gentleman, to whom these letters were ad dressed, breathed a very didlcrent spirit. They were written with the most gentlemanly feeling; and they proved,that, while the prosecutor did not, as lie ought not, forget the feelings of a parent, Inc knew how to express those feelings in a manner be fitting the sacred character belonging to his profession. The defendant's opinion, with respect to the incapacity of the pro secutor's son. was expressed after a fortnight's experience; but, notwithstanding this. the defendant talked of referring the amount of premium which ought to be returned ; and, because that proposition was refused, lied the boldness to accuse the prosecutor of meanness. If the jury were acquainted with the prosecutor, they would at ORCC decide that such a charge was wholly groundless. Leaving these considerations out of the question, how came it. he would ask, if the prosecutor's son were, as he had been described, " an incumbrance" to the de fendant, that the defendant, wino thus designated him, and who wished to be thought a man of generous spirit, could, on account of the trifling loss of a portion of the premium which he had received, abstain from getting rid of one who was, according to his account, any thing but useful to hint in his business ? The defendant had made a parade of his willingness to refer the whole matter, provided none of the facts were kept back or con cealed. This apparently candid proviso conveyed a gross im putation against the prosecutor. What concealment could the defendant allude to ? There was in fact, nothing to conceal ; end the artful proviso was in reality an insult, oared in a most malignant spirit, to the prosecutor. The letters to the prosecutor formed a powerful contrast to those lof the defendant. The language of the former, wounded and goaded as his feelings had been, was still the language of a gentleman. In the second libel, the defendant spoke of " the paths of feeling and honour" as being " against the usual mode" of the prosecutor's dealings. The jury, he conceived, would not form the beet opinion of a man who, without any just cause, accused a clergyman in this style of intemperance. The defendant had made allusions to tine Lord Chancellor, on which he would not crifer any comment. He would not stop to enquire whether the wretched attempt at wit which this part of tine defendant's correspondence displayed, was meant as a reflection on another character. All he had to do was to examine the libels as they related to the prosecutor, and he should confine himself strictly to that point. Ile be lieved there was not one heart in that Court that did not re spond to the feelings of the prosecutor; he believed there was no person present who did not think that the prosecutor acted most properly in making those letters the subject of an indict. ment. He was ignorant of the defence that would he set up—perhaps he ought rather to say, of what would be offered in extenuation—for, in the strict sense of the word, defence, he believed, there would be none. If his Learned Friend, (Mr. Sergeant Pell) who appeared for the defendant, was instructed, to heap more insult and contumely on the prosecutor, in stead of endeavouring to extenuate the original injury, the jury would know how to Beal with such a course of proceeding. He should call the father ; and he should also place in the wit ness-box the much-calumniated son ; and if the party on the other side could elicit from either of them any thing favour able to his cause, he was welcome to it. Ile, however, war perfectly convinced, that the evidence of those individuals would prove, in the clearest manner, the injury which had been sustained by the prosecutor; and he wits equally well con vinced, that the Jury would perceive. after hearing all the facts, that they had no other course to pursue, but that of find. ing the defendant guilty of the publication of a group and un werrantable libel on the prosecutor. The Learned Counsel then called the following witnesses : Mr. W. Lev—l am the son of the Rev. Jacob Ley, when is a clergyman of the Church of England, residing at Ashpring. ton, in this county. My father has four eons, of whom I am the third. In January, 11124, I went apprentice to the de fendant. I left him some time afterwards, and reside at pre sent with a gesoleman named M'and, at Cirencester. Ile is a surgeon inn considerable practice. Sortie of these letters (allud ing to letters which were shown to the witness) are in the hand writing of Pollr.e in O racy the hisantthl-ewir'iatnindg owfrtiltniengd d efendant. nt . - An altercation, carried on with sol-9e degree of rharpneas, at to the particular nature of the lett er s to he prod uce d, i n con formity wit h uotic..!, here occurred between Coun se l. Thi s having sithsided, the following letters were put in and read .-- have made ' " Asbprington, June 8, 182.1. " T. w. Polhird, E,q. genera l assertions, reproachful aripital:Egeneuieandigtitelto.. nor is p i e t ar a,4 S r i , r- ea - i l )i t ,:. tl t ( o )er l i n n e o t t o b b e e co t t i l e e o r , b ie ,c t t o o u f w i e t. co-s la, rs ont( e : an - abund:!nce of ligible; but have not stated one tact to which I might apply them. Ylti have praised yourself. and have abused me. IV, b is u lo n t e v s, c . ry li tle o c u or , ou y s. my l s l o o l t i v e d N o T e r ,, , n l cit pk , s; ;. t i y t .o b u y ; , =.l I now per. ceive that you 110 not suit my son. lOn say you do not wish to injure him. Certainly, I shall he sorry even to inconvenienc e you. Y.>u wish to settle the buaiuin tetween us amicably. In this we agree. Under these circumsta:; , :es returu roe th e premium v , u. has: received, and enrage to sign over the inden ture to any perton I may hereafter tow% who may suit viy son, tusa whore my son tray init. I make dill proposal, bv•. cause it leads directly w a conelu:itm ; and becau,:, it I un derstand your proposal right, I could not accede to it. When all is settled, I shall esteem it a favour if you will explain on what grounds you have founded your obj,!.ctions and reproaches, for to this moment 1 am perfectly ignorant of their specific nature.---I am, dear Sir, your most obedient servant, " J. Ley." • " Torquay, June 23, 11324. " To the Rev. Jacob Ley, Ashprington. " receiving your letter a fortnight since, I felt such contempt for a person who could be capable (in the first in stance) of practising such a gross imposition on me, and then have the effrontery to endeavour to persevere in the imposition tlae expence of honour and every good feeling ~ hat might have been expected, that I did not choose to answer it. The general expression of your letter was insolent, to say the best of it. It evidently shewed you would sacrifice your son as well as myself to an ungovernable obstinacy, and a mean unmanly spirit, or you would not leave him with me. You are affecting ignorance on some points, and asserting others not true. Your son is a useless incumbrance to me, and after your conduct, naturally it's extremely disagreeable both to Mrs. Pollard a nd myself to have him in the house, and do what you can, ;le must leave at last, anti all your stratagems, all your evasions can avail nothing as affecting the main point; hence you had better take him away without further delay. question as to whether any or what part of the premium shall be returned to you, is a very proper one to be submitted to a reference, be cause a manifest difference of opinion exists between us on the. subject; and as all declarations of desire to settle this mat ter amicably must be at variance with truth, when accompanied by a refusal to leave the question to an honourable reference, it will be quite useless, unless this method be adopted, to h o p e for a fair and honourable termination of a business, which, in justice to your son, you ought never to have allowed of its being mentioned to any indifferent persons. I shall have no objection to assign over the indenture to another person, pro. vided there is nu concealment of circumstances. I had hoped my interview with Mr. James Cornish would have had the effect of diverting your mind from persevering in a course which cannot possibly answer any good purpose ; but hearing nothing front him since, has caused me to write to you, and earnestly as I wish to have it settled, yet, if you are still indisposed to do Po, you will find me as determined ; and whilst I exist and pos sess a shilling, I will not submit to such a gross imposition, which at first might have admitted of excuse. " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, " Foi.r.a a D." " Ashprington, July 1, 1824. " To W. Pollard, Esq. " Sir—l am greatly at loss to understand, whether the abu sive language with which you honour me, be natural to you, or whether it be forced and got up for the occasion, to accomplish some particular object which you have in view. For certain, my letter lays no foundation for it. In that letter, to which I still adhere, I express my disapprobation of coarse language, decline your proposed reference, and consent to transfer my son to another master on certain stated terms. I have now to add, that I have no desire for concealment, but will readily agree with you, whether I ant in treaty for a master, or you in treaty for an apprentice, to lay our correspondence before the party with whom we treat. This will be reciprocally candid. On this ground I have acted in forwarding copies of our letters to Mr. Kitson, to whom you had mentioned our disagreement.— You shall meet with nothing but candour front me. If you desire explanation, inform me in what, and you shall have it. If you are sincere in believing that I have used finesse, or have treated you unfairly, let me know when, how, and in what, I shall think it my duty to show you that you are mistaken. " I um, Sir, " Your very humble servant, " J. LEY." _ _ " To the Rev. J. Ley, Ashprington. " That ! still pursuing the deep game, and no advancement in doing me further injury—only adding additional insult to the injury already done. - The correspondence between you and myself has been shown to the parents of the young gentlemen whom I have recently engaged as an apprentice—but I do not believe you have laid the whole of it before 111 r. Kitson, or any honourable impartial person. Such a step would be at variance with your proceedings. Well for the public you arc not Lord Chancellor, or one cause might be sufficient to occupy the at tention of a lifetime, and still be left undecided ; you m us t b e more clever than I take you to be, if, with all your deceit, you can make any one long believe natural deficiencies of intellect to be perfections, or that they are compensated for by insensi bility. I return you this, to show you that I'll receive no more of your jargon — no more of your insolence ; that 1 want no further proos of your deep, mean-spirited, and dishonourable conduct; or perhaps, if it is possible, I may think worse of you than I do at present. " W. Por.i.An The Rev. Jacob Ley.—l am a clergyman of the Establish ed Church, and Rector or Ashprington, in this county. I wrote And sent these letters, and these are the answers I received (pointing to the letters which had been produced.) One of the answers, the last which had been read, was written on the back of a letter of mine, and returned to me in that manner. The • last witness, Alr. W. Ley, is my third son. I have four sons and four daughters My son William left me on the 13th of January, 1824, to go to Nlr. Pollard, the defendant in this case. My son left Dr. Warren's school at Midsummer. He then went to another school. Cross-exantined.—When the arrangement with hl r. Pollard was made, I and the defendant were acquainted. Ile was in very respectable practice. Indeed, he was in practice of the very first class. I never heard Dr. Warren make a complaint of my son's inability. Dr. Warren did not say it was neces sary that my son should leave school on that account. I heard no complaints of my con's general ability. There were some complaints with respect to his slowness in learning languages. His quitting school was not occasioned altogether, or in part, by that communication. 3ly son, at the end of every half year, brought a letter. The Counsel for the defendant objected to the statement of the contents of those letters. Witness continued.—My son did not leave that school on account of any dissatisfaction I felt with the master. Ile went to another seminary immediately. My son's progress was slow at each school. He was not placed with Mr. Pollard upon trial. lie had not resided in Mr. Pollard's house until he was apprenticed. The defendant knew him. I resided ten miles ' from defendant's residence. My son resided three months with the defendant, before I received any intimation as to his want of capacity. When he expressed his doubts of my son's suffi ' ciency, I did not desire him to retain the young man. There was a difference of opinion between us respecting my son's abi lities. I thought the defendant had formed a premature judg ment, and I wished my son to have a fair trial. Mr. Pollard • offered no objection to my son's remaining with hint. In about a month he made a communication to me respecting ray son. Ile tent me a message. It was sent by my brother, and was in these words—" Desire your brother to take away his son ; he does not suit me." M brother did not represent to :re. that that desire was founded on Mr. Pollard's opinion of rily son's inability. Some hours afterwards I pressed my brother to tell me if he could conceive any reason sby Mr. Pollard had sent sue that message. My brother, who seemed to have r, horror to express what I afterwards had a horror, tohear, said, " he thinks him a fool." I never had any conversation with rie defendant sine I received that message. I never bad more then one con versation before with him on the subject of my son. betters had trequently passed between us on the subject. knew, in the month of Nay, of Mr. Pollard's intention to send home my win. The young man remained with him until the defendant turned him out of his house. That was in January, 1825 I Itsve received back all the premium. I did not make any com munication to the defendant respecting my son's slowness in the acquirement of classical knowledge, bet Ore my son went ap prentice to him. I thought they knew each other sufficiently Some letters were written before, and some after, those which have been read. At the time of this correspondence, Mr. Pollard charged mg with having suppressed my Son's inca pacity. Re-examined--I had my son from school during the vaca tion, and I have watched him very anxiously. The legaliv of a question pot by Mr. WILLIA?I9, on re examination, by which the capacity of the prosecutor's son was brought into question, here became tlw.i subject of dig- C 13106011. The defendant's Counsel argued, that as they had not Cr(Mil, examintd the witness to that point, which was really foreign to the issue before the Court, the question put On re- , :talnitlatkis could not be permitted. • \lr. L I.IA If 8, contra, asserted, that the crona-exarninatitm in fact, though not in form, went to show that the son wm in capable of acquiring a knowledge of surgery t.and that, there fore, the question was proper. Alt, Justice LI T TIXDALL deeded against the opiaion o f !.Zr. William* Re-c-sashinatieo coatinsed--Tb• 06, /7 ibliznation 1 Neeived PRIM?. SEVENPENCIZ. from school of my son's want of ability was that he was slow ils acquiring classical knowledge. In rnathematik's be was report ed to excel. Mr. Serjeant PELT., who, with Mr. Serjeant Vt . is.r.te, ap peared for the defendant, said that the addresa which had been' delivered by his Learned Friend on the other aide Oak not war ranted by the evidence which he had subsequently adduced:— It was said, in the outset, that in the course of a fortr4keht - tive defendant had expressed " a premature and an illiberal oinsiews" relative to the want of capacity which was manifeseesl- by the prosecutor's son. So far was this from being the fact„ that the young man remained in the defendant's ho u s e fo r the space of a whole year ; and the first complaint made to the prosecutor was not until three months after the apprenticeship had takers place. It was next asserted that the intimation was not cyan , ailed to the prosecutor in a decorous manner. The Jury were assembled to pursue a painful and delic a te -investigation, The defendant was admitted to be a man in high practice, and he was charged with having grossly and waronnly insulted the feelings of a clergyman of the Church of England, and of the father of a family, by the manner in which he had men timed the prosecutor's son. In order to ascertain whether that charge was or was not justified, it was necessary to examine the entire correspondence between the parties. But the jury could not do this. And why ? Because, while the prosecutor admitted that many letters had passed between eiders and the defendant, on the subject of his son, botls before and after the writing of those letters which were se• lected as the ground of this indictment, yet none a them had Seen produced. This proved, he thought, that the whole case was not brought before the Jury for their consider. ation. This had been rendered a peculiarly painfut investi gation by the prosecutor, because he had chosen to place himself and his son in a situation, as if to offer the defendant • the opportunity of proving that in fact the young now was wholly unfit for the business ,to which he had been siren • ticed. The defendant disdained to availhitrixelf of sunn an , opportunity ; though, even it' he had been inclined to use ir, he could not, since that was not the issue to be tried, under the course of proceeding adopted by the prosecutor. _Suppos ing that the defendant had used the word "fool" in conver sation with the prosecutor's brother, there was no proof that he had given that brother any authority to repeat the word to the prosecutor. Was this prosecution instituted to get the" young man away front the defendant and to article him to another surgeon ? That could not be the object, for that had been effected already. Was this proceeding resorted to, in order to get back the premium which had beetie . puid to the defendant ? Certainly not ; for that premium the defend ant had scorned to retain. Let the Jury look a little at the conduct of the prosecutor. Ile had actually compelled the defendant to retain the young man in his employment 'luring twelve months, and when that period had expired, and the defendant, thinking he had a right to he relieved front what he deemed to he an incumbrance, insisted on his being re moved, how dill the prosecutor meet him ? IVhy, with an indictment for libel. The defendant had been justly described as a medical practitioner in high and extensive business ; and it was necessary for his interest that his apprentice slonad pos sess an active an intelligent mind, not a slow and sluggish one. He had, therefore, as he honestly might do, declined the her_ vice of a young man whom he believed to he unfit for the busing's-4' of a surgeon. The Jury would have to decide whether the de fendant really entertained the opinion expressed in his !enters and if he did entertain it, no matter whether it was or was not a correct opinion, he was justified in stating it to the father.— This was one of those privileged cases in which such communi cations were protected in law. Much stress bad been laid on the grossness of the defendant's language ; but, if he had used any gross language, the Jury might safely conclude that it had been produced by the letters of the plaintiff, which had pre ceded the alleged libels. But, even if those letters bad not been : the cause of the language complained of, still grossness of phrase would not warrent them in delaring that the letters were libellous. It' the prosecutor were firmly convinced of the justice of his cause, if submitted in the fullest manner to a Jury, shy had he withheld a number of the letters ? Why did he not bring them all forward ? The alleged libel was deficient in that evi dence of a malicious intent which was generally furnished by the mode of publication. The indictment did not pretend to state the publication, neither did it set forth that the libel had been written to provoke a breach of the peace. A fter commenr— ing at considerable length on the expressions used by the,pre , secutor in his letters (on the epigrammatic severity of which he dwelt with great force), the Learned Sergeant concluded, by again impressing the Jury with the idea, that the language used by the defendant had been called forth by the letters which had previously passed between the parties, and which the prosecu tor, for what reasons he best knew, did tint appear to think it prudent or proper to disclose. Mr. Justice LITTLEDA LE summed up, and the .lure. after a minute's consideration, returned a verdict of--Not CHOW); S 1 DE.—(Refire Jwtice atelr.t.t s.) HORSE STEALING. Henry Percival was indicted for having, on the Mb of April last, in the parish and borough of Totness, in this comity. feloniously stolen one mare, the property of Samuel Heath. )t appeared that the mare was hired out to ho ridden to Bury Po meroy, and ought to have returned within a reasonable time.— Instead, however, of being returned, it was found elsewhere : and notice having been given to the prosecutor, he rcelait ned. his property. As the case now stood, there was not the slightest evidence of the guilty intention of the prisoner at the time be borrowed the horse, and the Jury acquitted him. A few other cases were gone through ; and Henry Percival was then again put to the bar, charged on another indictment with having feloniously stolen a hone, the property of Wilbarn 11lugford, on the 29th of April last. It appeared that the pri soner directed the hostler of the White Hart Inn, r,!:eter, loge: him a good looking horse to go eight miles and a quarter on the Honiton road ; the hone was procured from the prosecuter, but the prisoner, instead of driving him along the Honiton road, took him in a contrary direction, and sold him at Stratti Alolton for seven guineas. The prisoner, in his defence, said, that if he had wished to have availed himself of the many opportunities afforded him for his escape, he might safely have done so. fie declared that young Aftigford had repeatedly told him that he did ncst mean to prosecute, and indeed, said he would not prosecute, and he advised prisoner to write to his friends for assistance. Itlugford and the constable staid behind him drinking on the road several times while he was proceeding to Exeter; they get nearly intoxicated, and he might easily have eseaped, had .he thought proper to attempt it ; hut he relied on the promises of Alugford, and he had not, therefore, taken any advantare of the many opportunities of escape which had been afforded bin/- Mr. Justice (iazr errs, in summing up the case to the Jury. said that they must dismiss from their minds any circumstance's connected with the prisoner, which might have oceurral this morning, Dot which had no reference whatever to the yee sent inquiry. They were to try the present ease on the vi deuce adduced, and on that alone. The prisoner was cbargtil with having feloniously stolen a horse, and to find him gun; : e of that offence, the Jury must be fully satisfied that at then... rnent when the prisoner hired and rode away with the hOrme, contemplated committing the crime with which he was wow charged. If when the horse was delivered to him he did not har bour in his mind the guilty intention of stealing the animal, although he might have afterwards forgotten the trust that butt been reposed in him, and have absconded with the horse and sold it, still his doing so under such circumstances, wosid amount only to a breach of contract. His Lordship thee pro ceeded to recapitulate the evidence, making his observations upon it as he went on. He afterwards added, that the Jury looking at all the circumstances of the cane, were. to consider whether the prisoner hired the horse with the fair intention of proceeding on a journey which he really meant t a take, or whether. he only obtained possession sf the horse order to carry into effect a felonious design to steal it. Iry the former case, the offence would only amount too breach of con tract, while in the latter it would clearly be a capital felony.— The prisoner had spoken of some promises held out nithini ter young litugford; those promises, if they had been given, amounted to nothing. The horse was the property of the father, and the son had no right of his own flee will, and it. did not ap peaehe had authority from his father to make the pronniacw, independently of which, even had such promises been made, it would have been extremely illegal to carry them into execution. The Jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict of Cui/k. His LORDSHIP then proceeded to pass sentence upeis the prisoner. He observed that the evidence which had been.givert in this case could leave no doubt as to the guilt of thenori sorer, who had been convicted of an offence which unhar pily had of late increased to such an extent as to render absolutely necessary that the sentence of the law that .had for so. long remained without being. carried into effeet should now again be put in force. :It grieved hini mulla :0 see a p urs es of the prisoner's education and eta:lonia