The Sun. — London, England, 1833-12-07 00:00:00

7 t he r jt . e. tio Boggg„ wag ioion Ib q b-lieved there was sae foundation of truth in that Which they had asserted , that thei r onl y desire and anxiet y "ad been the benefit of the ne wspaper? How c mid they l ali to benefit the newspape r when this took place ? Mr. Young offered 7,5001. for it, and to pay 2001. down. It appeared that at the banking-house of Mr. Thornton, !bank e r in London, t) ere was an offer made of 13,0001.. 3 ,000/. being actually deposited i n his (the banker's) 4 ands, 3,0 00 /. mo re to be p aid in fourteen days, and , die remainder to be given in short bills at different apes ; or, if they preferred it, thirteen thousand pounds Partly in bills and partly in cash, and 10,0001. was offered dawn on the spot. What 1 . could the Jury believe that those persons were desirous of making the most of the Paper, who refused this money when it was offered to be Paid down? Mr. Winchester would wish them to believe that it was a mere fictitious offer, but he (the Learned Counsel) knew he need not ask them whether they deter ,o 0 believed 3,000/. being in the banker's hands, himself e xce j e d d r ?stif the i assign , e, and offering to purchase the paper for i'ressiog t he 1 3,0001., 3,000/., and to pay the money down, whether se sever e "I they believed that was a bona fide offer or not ? n v edifo o . t t ire Briggs bad said that he recommended his client not ni hiai et -0 take hills from any man. Why had there not been an 'owl,'" equal objection to take bills from one man as well as ~sisl l,' ' from another ? How was Mr. Young to pay for it ? He Or ea t vats to pay 2001. down and the remainder in bills. Mr. libel • to il Briggs hod also stated that a person of the name of Lomax ,p,P1,,,,d, bait wished to purchase the paper. It was proved that He COn ri• Young had made an offe r of 12,5001. Why had not that very te rms been taken ? For this reason , that at that very meeting ight eVI at which Mr. Lomax offered the 13,000/. Mr. Youn g . elf; e , os t. effered 12,500/. Mr. L omax, therefore, exceeded Mr. 1i ,P 3 Z ich Sir Young in his offer by 5001. How was it that Mr. Young tvu if tiled his bill in Chancery against the assignees, that they roseeu if had filed their bill in Chancery against Mr. Young, ,dour:cuyi and that the property had been sold so as to Par t ' w eir deprive Messrs. Grant and Bell, who bad laid Verit;ro out a large sum of money, of any benefit t o be i the i to derived from it . He would ask the jury whether they ! fact' . ° i , beli e ved that at the time these state ments were male, the . 0 ,00 o , Parties knew them to be false ? The y had Messir. Briggs d was iis and Winchester coming forward a nd sa y in g the y had done Im pre; 6 ; be all th e y could for the benefit of the creditors. But why ng "• se bad they not called o ther persons? Ide, the Learned Coun r. 1 4 r i g b ° 0 *el, did not like to hear people corning forward, as Messrs. 6001; a l. Briggs and Winchester had done, to he their own judges (trea s ;: r e t bf , an d t. witnesses in their own cau se. There were others whom 0 o) hey might have called if they had thou g ht proper. Why 'ra id' irf had they not called Mr. Thornton the co-assignee ?He would p 0 ti j u rg . o call their attention to this circumstance. Messrs. Win not ' w e, Chester and Briggs bad the management of the paper in th e r ;:teet their own hands. Nothing was more desirable, Mr. ri t e . f' sd ee Winchester being a stationer and Mr. Briggs an attorney, 0 i 4 , 0 to than that they should get into their possession the manage- P;_ t ho pea rnent of a newspaper; because they were at no risk ; lr _ ro w th e assignee conducted it at the expense of the estate. the e rette. The libels charged the prosecutors, and now they charged u t e b sii ::.. iit them wit h having used their power for the purpose of ia i e of, k e ep i ng th e ne w spaper in their own hands, anti not for the 'n i l' t • s s benefit of the estate. This fact, at all events, was in evi ture 0 r, e i dente, viz., that Mr. Thornton, a gentleman well known el:,,,° . ! ri ' e e) no doubt to the Jury, a banker in the City of London, 1 . T . ',, 00 0 of high respectability, had said he had 3,000/. lodged in A .„ ' f " i ' ggs his hands as a deposit. Yet Mr. Alderman Winchester y e w e ot ' would have the Jury believe that he never knew until w ou ld this moment that that money had been so lodged, and he he therd would also have them believe that he never knew that he etyma' all and Mr. Thornton bad e ver disa g reed. It was, hovever, , bees' el proved in evidence that ween the meeting took place at re Int ;be Mr. Thornton's house, Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs et . ritig g ell made an objection to the sale of the p aper to Mr. Lomax, d.a.04 sibs to which Mr. Thornton said the 3,000/. was deposited in w g ifi t. c oo ,fi his hands for the purpose. " Oh," sa y s Mr. Briggs, "but S I did not see the bank notes." If Mr. Briggs had F r ie aed wh ich met Mr. Lomax in the street, and the latter had ag e e pa elf add he bad 3,0001. read y to pay down, and did not Pr" — b e n produce the mo ne y , Mr. Brigge observations might lant''l s ies have held good, but when a banker of the city of London ' e'i" P r e a d k kid, that 3,000/. had been lodged with him as a banker fsen ioi t "be for a specific purpose, would any person doubt him and :him Of require the production of the money? The idea • n"'' o ge of attributing importance to that fact was the most n° P i r ' e ed. absurd that could be imagined. However, because the 3,000/. t wa s hi r e. Was not produced, Mr. Briggs would have the Jury believe e inst e• te : I to eases that Mr. Th ornton had not got the money. But it was . 0 , se not true that Mr. Wi nchester was ignorant of the fact, that le"2"oi ; be Mr. Thornton disagree d with him, icesfor he was told by b; be Mr. Thornton that h e (the latter) had the 3,000/. de rig but !b ol e posit, that 3,0001. more was to be paid in fourteen b y t be e days, and the r emainder by bills. Did a man de es of ,01 posit such a sum as 3,000/. unless he meant to act intout 10 bona fide, and to become the purchaser? Was d if ._ t __ e at i o o the 2001. to be paid down an equivalent o ff er to " 1 ll° t er • that I But if the prosec utor's case were true, and they proseen 0 were not afraid of inquiry , they mi g ht have p ut Mr. re was r i ienied die Thornton in the wi t n ess box to prove that he coincided With Mr. Alderman Winchester, and that be did not die , this fo o agree with him, nor wi th Mr. Bri gg s, the solicitor. Did Do rd. not the absence of that evidence, even according to the • the 01 ;i j little light that had been thrown on the case, show that which e ; e V they were afraid of inquiry ? The offer made for the ;ed, s'e e r see paper by Mr. Young was 12,500/., and by Mr. c har ~ s Lomax 13,000/. What was the amount of debts actually :tack 014 proved under the Commission? Only about 6,1001. m eeeren u aM c So here was a clear surplus to a considerable amount, ente 4 and such as would pay 10s. in the pound on the partner i tin t . 0 0 ship of the newspaper alone. There was something about irk i be e n a 4,000!. or 5,000/. due to Mr. Young ; but even on pay. hit L.n es went of that, the surplus would be very large, after pay tbe aw os ins 20'. in the pound. Why, therefore, were these gen ha're e s da tlemen to be deprived of their property, in order jay e o ti... to keep it in the han ds of Mr. Winchester, as the paper , a nd Pi r , m er chant, and Mr. Brigg s, as the attorne y ? There was " % join' c, cid another thing of which he (Mr. Humfrey) complained, and very 1 ,3 b that was, that the prosecutors had not thought proper to TeeY been call a single creditor to show that their purposes had been h a ve e hoth fair and bona fide, and in order to benefit the estate cf !suer, the Mr. Grant. It was proved that so far from the estate pu t I 10 being lienefitted, it bad been injured. Was it injured by ogee e a ' Mr. Grant? It was p roved that at a meeting of creditors have bee i l at which Mr. Winchester presided (though he said lie did Id 0° " 1 We et t accede to it), a vo t e of thanks was passed to Mr. Giant is for his exertions in ende avourin g to benefit the estate. If it r r° t" were a question who had injured the estate, did the Jury to of th e believe it W th as Messrs. Winchester a nd Bri gg s or the de ideavoured fendants? He cou ld not hel p thinking that that question ie fit of e did come under consideration, for one was at a loss to van, l'' tir 0- understand bow a verdict could pass by which the libel your ere' . t w a s to be declared to be false, which, from all that had via , n o been permitted to be given in evidence, showed that that rigg P r "' s part of the libel char g in g mismanagement of the estate not !dol t to be tr u e . It was true that very strong lan nabled th guage had been use d, and words had been used which then he would would not be the case in cooler moments, but some al -3 evidence lowance must be ma d e for the feelin g s of human nature. r as serte d The property of Mr. Grant was more than doubly suffi ious state cient to pay all demands upon it : it appeared that a corn- I3ut o n e s mission of bankruptcy was concocted in Mr. Grant's ab le, store from London, which was put in force the moment he naive fdr .of arrived ; his property wa s then taken out of his possession, : c ourt. , and, instead of its being productive, he was wholly de 'Jere Wall prived of it , and Mr. Young got it for the value of his in yeb ieh debt upon it. Who was it that male it unproductive? 'one int o ' : it excep t , who filed the bill, and took the offer of Mr. Young of 12,500/. ? and why was the property thrown into Chan- Counsel, eery? The question s which the Jury would have to de 'ere Pe"' termine were these :—first, whether the publications fired into. in question were libellous. Upon that point he would rhe libe l ' offer no comment, because the Jury would hear rcise their the state of the l a w. The ail, t hey , t ' from his Lurdahip b e fihels• 1 s eco nd question for the conside ration of the Jury was, te whether, assuming the pub licavon to be a libel, it was 0 o r no false, for it was so called by the p r, aecutors on their re rip wou ld 'or them , cord. - They bad chosen in their record to call it a to false libel , and the Ju r y must come to a conclu. e tune cou ld lay eion on that head. It was for them to say whether it was a false libel, or they must consider the evi. , e , winsnng o fleece, iriand say if the prosecutors had convinced them that the publication , a ss umi n g it, as he had before observed, to own ac be a libel, was a false libel. lie would ask the Jury, had r. Grant, ter ; and i the prosecutors so convinced them of the truth of the allegation in their record on this head ? lie would invite the endeman Jury to lay their fingers upon any one part of the evidence per—erel that went in th e least de g ree the len g th of convincing entiousl y them that the publication teas false ; but he maintained so much that, on the contrary, the greater portion of the evidence Imola of for the prosecution had shown it to be true. With these tel them observations, he should now leave the case of his client in n• gross the hands of the Jury, reminding them that, if the here was whole evidence did not satisfy them that the publication appeared was false, the defendant Bell would ba entitled to :cased of their verdict. come out 51r. FrTaaor KELLY then proceeded to address the f• for it, Jury on behalf of the defendant Ager. Ile said that ?•001. !---e it had already appeared to the Jury, in the progress this fact of this prosecution, that Ise appeared on behalf of teeing of the defendant Ager only, who was undoubtedly the 13,000/. printer of the paper, and who, so far as he could be 10/. for made liable on the evidence adduced in support of the lu g into ,j'' allegations contained iu the record upon this case, was so letting e liable as printer for whatever might be contained in the io that paper in question, and was consequently subject not only nd, with to the verdict of the Jury, but also to all the consequences is paper which might follow that verdict. It was for nted the bins (Mr. Kelly), as briefly and distinctly as Cy fell to he could to call the attention of the Jury to getting the terms in which he should seek, on behalf of his client, gs and 'heir verdict (under the direction of the Court), or ac- Whethe (primal. He could not but:a:wove, that it was singular Pr ta a ed v .J• WI" 31)Ur t ' be ta t not eb. Bee ° t he " d s o CO' enough that when his Learned Friend (Sir Jas. Scarlett) should have found it ;necessary, for present purposes, to have opened a case involving many matters of com plicated facts—of embarrassing transactions—and the conduct of parties who must abide the result of this prosecution, that those parties should not be permitted to examine into those matters of fact and transactions. It was also singular that the prosecutor in this case, Mr. Alderman Winchester, who was called as a witness on his own behalf, and Mr. Brigs, the attor ney, who was a witness on behalf of Mr. Al Lerman Win chester, should have freely confessed that they had no per sonal complaint to make as against the rd fendant Ager —nay that they did not knowhim—never communicated with him, and never saw him, should have been brought before the court with the wrong doers, (if wrong has been done) —lre meant Mr. Grant and Mr. Bell, who, from flit beginning, had awowed themselves the authors and pro rtaeators of the publications out of which this prosecution has arisen, and hove claimed to themselves the responsi bility that those publications might involve. If he (Mr. Kelly) had any complaint to make on the conduct of the prosecutors it was in this respect, and otherwise he had nothing to say against either Mr. Alderman Winchester or Mr. Briggs of whom he knew nothing. It should not be his purpose, availing himself of the privileges of the situation in which he stood as Counsel for Mr. Aker, to utter reproaches or even to insinuate any thing against the character of either of those two gentlemen. He must, however, be allowed to say that he knew the de fendant Mr. Grant to be a gentleman of education and talent, nearly connected with some of the most dis tinguished persons high in the Administration of public affairs, and was himself in every respect de serving and worthy of those high connections. Dis missing this point, he roust say it appeared to him (Mr. Kelly) very hard that the defendant, Ager, who was certainly legally answerable, as printer, should have been brought into Court upon this criminal charge, and that he should he bound to fight the question of guilty or not guilty, when there might have been fol lowed a course that was clearly open to the pro secutors to seek a vindication of the characters, and not damages or money—a course by which the parties by whom their characters had teen assailed, could have proved the truth of the allegations by which the injury inflicted had been occasioned. That would at least have been a more worthy course of proceeding than to bring the two defendants, for whom he (Mr. Kelly) did not appear, and his cheap, criminally before the Court. He would, how ever, now proceed to examine the record, and see how it was affected by the law, as now established, in order to ascertain how for the defendants might be liable under the record. The Jury might perhaps be aware, that, in former times, it appeared in the history of the law of libel, that the law watt considerably worse, and was dealt out with an injustice to a degree unparalleled is the history of the law of this country. It was then the law that if an individual published, even under the must justifiable circumstances, a fact or facts of another which were strictly true, and if that other chose to bring that publication before a Court of Justice as a criminal, he might and did call upon the jury to convict the offending party of the crime, upon the mere proof that he was the author of the publication in question, and on the Judge declaring that it amounted to a libel. lire LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Kelly, I do not accede to that proposition. Ido not believe that the law was so formerly. Mr. KELLY said that formerly two things were necessary to be proved for a conviction; the first was, that the defendant was the author of the libel; and, secondly, that the libel bore the sense imputed to it on the record. The latter proof be had omitted to mention when corrected by his Lordship. Such, however, was formerly the law ; and it only then remained for the Judge to tell the jury whether or not the matter was libellous in point of law, and if they thought the inuendoes alleged in the record were the true meaning of the words con tained in the libel, and the Jury were bound to convict the defendant. After the country haul long groaned under the infliction of this wicked law—wicked in its operation— at list an alteration in the law was made, for which the country was indebted to an illustrious individual—the late Mr. Fox—who introduced and passed a Bill known as" Mr. Fox's Libel Bill," which was well worthy his illustrious name, and which effected an alteration, that, though not reaching perfection, •yet had done more towards the amelioration of the law in this respect than was ever accomplished by any one statute. He would call the attention of the Jury, as well as that of his Lordship, to the terms of the statute which was now in force, by which it would be seen that the powers of the Jury were now very much enlarged. The Learned Gen tleman then read the Act be referred to, which was the Declaratory Act, brought in and passed by Mr. Fox, and upon it contended that the Jury were not now confined to the mere act of finding a verdict, but were to take into their consideration whether in fact they were false or not. They were to take the at.hole circumstances into considera tion, and judge of them as they stood. They were to say whether the matter complained of was libellous or not ; they were the judges of the case, and it was their province to say whether it was true or false. He trusted that be should be able to satisfy the Jury that they did not bear that character, and also that they could not find the de fendant Ager, for whom be appeared, guilty upon the record that was then before them. He would cite a high legal authority in support of the statement he had then made ; but the foundation of all that be did say was that it had not been proved that the libels were false. He did not mean to put that case upon the same footing as a seditious libel. He knew in a case of that kind it had been ruled that the de fendant was not at liberty to give in proof the truth of every word it contained—that had been ruled by tire Judge who tried a celebrated case in which Sir F. Bur dett was defendant ; that was a prosecution for a letter wrote by him in the country respecting the Manchester massacre as it was called ; there the Judge would not allow the truth of the libel to be given in evidence, and that was held by the Court to he the law when it was argued most learnedly by his Lordship and other eminent Counsel then at the Bar. Now it was impossible to read the decisions in that case without at once seeing that the case had been too largely stated—it was impossible now to hold that the Jury had nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the matter charged in the information. He would suppose a case--the case of the late Mr. Fauntleroy, who suffered for the immense forgeries of which he had been found guilty—suppose that alter his trial, and while some technical point was pending, the newspapers had alluded to the facts of the case, and had attempted to raise the sympathy of the country in behalf of the poor persons that had been ruined by his villanies. Suppose an action brought by him fit such a libel, was it possible for a moment to suppose that it would not be good evidence to offer on behalf of the defendant that what he had stated was truth? Was it possible that such evidence would be refused ? Under such circumstances, was it possible for the jury upon their oaths to say that thedefend ant Ager had published a false libel upon these prosecutors ? Then, after observing upon certain other passages of the case, and also observing in another particular case of the King v. Burdett, that attempts having been made to put the truth of the matter in issue, Mr. Justice Bayley held that it could not be put in evidence, but observed that in some cases the truth or falsehood were the very essence of the libel, he (Mr. Kelly) would apply that to the pre sent case, and if in doing so he made observations which seemed to involve more particularly questions of law, he begged the pardon of his Lordship ; but he did so only on the ground that the particular offence was distinguisthh able from every other know n to the law, by reason of e erroneouspractice which had prevailed with respect to libel, and p that practice having been co rrected by the statute to which he had referred. In all the re marks he should make, he begged to be understood as not insinuating that the libels were true ; lie knew nothing of the parties, and, therefore, 1 n all the remarks he should make he must be considered as supposing it might be true or it might be false. He would, how ever, suppose a case. Suppose an editor of a news paper, a man of character, fallen into misfortune, becoming a bankrupt, finding his name and re putation assailed, called into question because matters connected with himself were not sufficiently explained, and because it was supposed he had improperly made away with his property. Suppose him, together with others, on that ground, charged with impropriety of conduct ; suppose that m eeting alter meeting was held in which the mo st minute investigation took place. Suppose at those meetings he was charged with improper conduct, and he thought fi,, in his own vindication, to publish an account of all that took place at those meetings and the whole transaction ; in short, would he not be justified in so acting ? Suppose, further, that from what was stated in the libels that the commission was a collusive commission, supposing it to appear that various falsehoods had been uttered, and supposing further, that it ap. peored that a most fraudulent preference bad been given to an individual for improper purposes —supposing such to be ca'e, the Learned Counsel would ask, whether it was not the essence to see whether it was a fabrication, or strictly and perfectly true ? and whether he was not in a si tuation to prove it before the Court ? It was for the Jury to determine, if that was as, whether it did not come within the meaning of the principle adverted to by Mr. Justice Bayley, when a distinction Iva, drawn between a great public oNenoe and a private one. It would be for the Jury to determine whether the present case did not come within that distinction, the prosecutors having charged the whole of the libel to he false. Through the whole information the prosecutors treated the whole matter as false. They stated upon the information the whole circumstances of the case, and charged that the libel was published to injure and defame the character of Mr. Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs. He would ask the Jury if there was no imperative rule of law against them? and if theywere dealing with the parties in their private closets, whether they would not immediately say, you call upon us to punish these individuals for publishing a false. hood, without letting 113 see whether it is false or not ? He trusted the Learned Judge would be of opinion that, by The meaning of the statute, the Jury were enabled to !mil: to the whole information, and judge for themselves what was an essential part of this libel and what was imma terial. It could not be denied that the Jury were the sole judges, subject to the opinion of the Learned Indi vidual presiding, whether the matter was a libel or not, and in order to come to a conclusion upon that, you are to treat as mere nonsense and surplusage all that may be connected with the libel, and look only to the truth or falsehood of it. If, however, the Jury could not do that, if the Jury could only look at the character of the libel without taking into consideration whether it was true or false, if that was so in consequence of the pro secutors having availed themselves of that branch of the law they had done, it was hard upon his client. He would put it to the Jury, as a question for their good sense and justice, to try whether by any possi bility they could find the libels to be according to the fano' Tge used by the prosecutors a false and malicious libel, the prosecutors themselves having adopted that course of proceeding in bringing the matter before the Court, which deprives you of the means of ascertaining it. His client, Mr. Ager, only the printer, had been brought there he did not know how ; he did not intend to cast reflections upon any person ; he merely put himself upon the law of the case, and through him (Mr. K.) called upon the jury under his Lordship's directions to find, as re garded him upon the evidence that had been adduced, that the libel was not proved to be false or published by him. That was the principle on which he put it before the Court, and such was the ground upon which he left it to the Jury to pronounce, if they could, whether the libels were false or not, and upon that ground he could not entert in a doubt that his client would he found not guilty. Mr. Grant then rose to address the Jury, an , ' after apologizing for his deficiencies, and begging the indule gence of the Jury, he stated that it was his firm belief that the disaster which occurred to his friend and coadjutor Mr. Bell, had induced the prosecutors to press forward the case. It would be in the recollection of his Lord ship, that in Jane last both himself and Mr. Bell were in Court. Oa that occasion, upon some pretext or other, the trial was postponed, and it may be attempted to be said that that had been done through a spirit of gene rosity, in consequence of the absence of Mr, Kelly. That Learned Gentleman appeared only for the printer of the paper of which his friend and himself were the proprietors. If the prosecutor had really acted upon that occasion from motives of generosity, they could not have put their cha racters in greater jeopardy in extending it a little further. Their characters, such as they were, could not have suf ftreTl much from a short delay. But enough of that; he would now address himself to the facts of the case. He appeared in that Court charged with a criminal act, his crime being, having appealed to the public in consequence of the infliction of a grie vance as great as it was possible for any man to sustain. He would, with the permission of the Court, briefly state the circumstances of the case to the Jury. In April, 1826, he (Mr. Grant) acci dentally heard of The Sun newspaper being for sale, having some money in his possession, and being informed that by an outlay of about 5,0001., the speculation might be made an extremely profitable one, he laid out that sum. Having heard of an individual named Murdo Young, who hail exhibited on other establishments great activity, he employed him as the general conductor of the paper. That individual was pennyless, it might almost be said houseless; he advanced him to a situation of considerable eminence ; he gave him the whole administration and outlay of sums amounting to between 10 and 15,0001. For which kindness that individual bad requited him, by turning him out of the possession of property of which he (Mr. Grant) was then the sole proprietor, and the charges which he had ad vanced against Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winches ter, as aiding and abetting him in those purposes. Himself and his friend had been charged with having published a false, scandalous, and malicious libel, and the Jury were summoned whether it was so or not. We have accused them certainly in strong terms, and terms which would certainly not have been pacifiable, except in the beat of a contest which I was engaged in for nay character, I may say almost for my very exist ence. But we published a pamphlet, with a narrative of the facts of the case, and supported the allegations by affidavits of sundry respectable and uniumeach tile persons. If the object of the prosecutors had been to exculpate and vindicate their character there was a process by civil action by which they might have examined by evidence into the facts of the 'ease, but they had chosen to adopt a species of action by which all evidence of facts was excluded, and which, however well for those standing high in office or station, certainly did not very well comport with the character and pretensions of a mere stationer and attorney of the city of London. Mr. Kelly had drawn the attention of the gentlemen of the Jury to the present state of the law of libel, and having been excluded from alluding to the facts of the case, he would beg leave to advert shortly to that. By the Act of Mr. Fox, passed in the 93d year of George 111. the Jury were distinctly informed that they might give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter in issue. He presumed there was but one way of reading that Act ; and no mystification of the Judge, or perversity of counsel could deprive it of its plain, hone .t literal in terpretation. But excellent as was that bill, valuable as it was to the rights of his .Majesty's subjects, one unfor tunate clause had been introduced into it—the Judge was celled on to give his opinion as to the law. Was that necessary ? The Jury were told to listen to that opinion of the Le trned Judge ; but surely " listening " did not imply that th ey should follow it. if that was so, they were mere pupp e t s in the hands of the Learned Judge. They were placed in that box to vindicate the character of juries from the charge of subserviency, that too often disgraced juries. Excluded from all means of ascertaining the truth of the allegations, they were called upon to pronounce it a false libel, without knowing whether it was false or not. According to the construe ion put on the Act, it was not necessary that the Jury should follow the direction of the Judge. He did not apprehend any such direction from the Learned Judge now occupying the bench ; but he spoke generally, knowing the long history of judges of less liberal opinions than that Learned individual. Tbey were obliged to listen to the direction of the Learned Judge, so they were also in respect to Sir James Scarlett; but it did not arise that they should subsequently follow it. It had become almost a by-word that truth was a libel, and the greater the truth the greater the But it was impos sible to reconcile it with the most ordinary principles of common sense. It was a mere fiction of law. A libel was nothing—it was anything that might be con- strued into an offence a g ainst an y one. Mr. Grant then referred to the opinion of Mr. Bentham as to such fictions of law, and read an extract from his work. Many of the charges might be termed as they were in the declaration, but still they might be true, to the know ledge of the parties. He repeated again and again, that the jury would do violence to their consciences, and to their duty, to pronounce that to be false which they did not know by evidence to be false. If the punishment of libel were necessary for the preser vation of the glorious institutions of this country, or for the main tenance of things as they were, let his Lordship at once pronounce sentence ; it the libel were in itself a crime, let him say so at once. He admitted the publication in question, but what lie said was, that it was true. The Jury were called upon to say whether it was true or false. There was another thing which should not be lot secution,t sight of, and that wa s that, in this form of pro f c a h l e s e v h e n r o d d i c t o , f a t frti h o el o ib r e i would n o \ t v i c n a e r ti r e y s t c e o r n v w ic a t s ion of first the in rotation for the office of Lord Mayor of London. Would this verdict of the Jury raise him in the estimation of his fellow .citizens? Would not his conduct be scrutinized by them, and would his being the assignee of a bankrupt's estate forward him in the eyes of the citizens of London ? Not all the sophistry, or all the:Courts of law, could shake the fact, that Mr. Alderman Winchester had shrunk from bringing a civil action, by which his character might be justified, or the truth proved, and resorted to another f orm, b y which be sought to screen himself. This was more particularly to b e .called t . he age of libel, for the papers of t h e p resent da y teemed with it ; Tories, blacking-men, and Whigs—all in one holy week had been against them (the defendants), in perse cuting them for what was considered by l aw to be libel lous. It was in the power of the Jury to offer up his friend, Mr. Bell and himself on the altar of injured chit erecter and so forth, but he trusted fur another results t their hands from the great atten tion which they had paid to the case. Would they on their oaths say that truth had nothing wh atever to do with the question, but that the libel was false and calculated to excite sedition, and he knew not what ? It way the impression of a great many of the inh tbitants this country that they would be about one of the last juries who would have the power of doing so. The public voice, the base and villanons part of the press, were united, and the law must shortly be altered. Much as individuals laughed at the press, the press, when united in a righteous cause, was omnipotent; it spoke the sen timents of the country ; and that the law would he altered was as certain as that the Jury were sitting there. Excluded as they were from all evidence and all legal investigation into the matter, there were however certain presumptions which presented themselves to their view. How did the case stand? lie havine once had a property in which he had embarked nearly 20,000/. was turned out of it by a person whom he employed, and who was now revelling in the possession of it. He would not excite the conapassioa of the Jury by touch allusion to those circumstances, the transition from wealth and the distinguished station which he bad held' in the country with which he was connected to a situation of abject poverty he would not enter upon. But that was how the case stood. Mr. Young also had been admitted by him to a situation, anti was now in the possession of the property, while he had frequently walked the streets of London not knowing where to get food. The jury had it in evidence that Mr. Alderman Winchester and Mr. Attorney Briggs bad been dismissed by their constituents. In originally selecting them, the one as assignee, and the other as solicitor, to the com mission, the creditors had confidence in them. The creditors were at first prejudiced against him(Mr. Grant)as all other creditors naturally are, whether the bankruptcy was caused by carelessness or fraud. How did the case now stand? The creditors had turned them out, and according to a paper which had been produced, but judiciously with held front being read, had refused to acknowledge them, while he receited a vote of thanks from the creditor,. The assignee and the solicitor were turned nut with dis grace, and Mr. Thornton the co-assignee, than whom there was not a more respectable person in the city of Lon don, from what be discovered in the conduct of Mr. Briggs, employed his own solicitor to watch the procee lings. It was palpable, therefore, that the conduct of Mr. Winchester and Mr. Thornton was opposed to each other. That Court was crowded, almost, by individuals who were ready to come forward to establish every allegation in the libel ; but the Learned Judge was induced by the existing state of the law, and no doubt p ro p erl y , to prevent his pro ducing them. Regretting that he had occupied so touch of the valuable time of the Jury, he implored them to con sider their duties to themselves and their country. They were required by the law to be judges of the whole matter in issue ; would they then delegate to a Judge or Chancellor those powers with which they were invested? Would they, because the law said they were bound to listen to the Ceief Justice or any other Judge, return a verdict of guiAy, and say on their solemn oaths that they declared that to be false which by the form of proceeding adopted by the prosecution it was impossible they could declare to be false or true, particularly with all the presumptions in his fa vour ? He was prepared to prove their truth. He wou.d not allude to the evidence of the candidate for the Mayoralty, nor to the non mi ricordo style which he had pursued. If the jury could make up their minds that he had provocated a false and malicious libel to the detri ment of character, they would have no hesitation in giving a verdict against him ; be would never hold up his hand or his voice against a proper and just retri bution for scandalous publications ; but if they admitted the statements, though strong, they were precluded from ascertaining the truth of, they would not hesitate to give a verdict of acquittal. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up. Having stated the contents of the information, and read the libels in the True Sun of the 9th and 16th of April, his Lordship said that before entering into what had been proved before them to-day he would say a few words upon the subject of a prejudice which he thought it had been attempted rather studiously to instil into their minds. It had been almost urged that because the truth of the libellous matter could not be entered into, therefore it must be taken fur granted that it was true. But that by no means followed. There were three modes of pro ceeding in cases of libel. An aggrieved party might proceed by way of indictment against a libeller in order to have him punished for doing that which tended to a breach of the peace. Or he might proceed by thi civ l action i might for a• mages done to his charac ter. Or, rdly, he proceed by criminal information filed by leave of the Court. Now the Court never granted leave to file a criminal information, except on a full examination of the ease. It was not, simply enough, to show the Court of King's Bench that a libel was published, but that the party against whom the liba was published, must satisfy the Court, on oath, of his innocence of the charges of which he complained. This oath, and the evidence brought in support of it,;the publisher of the libel had the liberty of contesting. It was hardly fair to assume, there fore, that if the inquiry had been gone into here, any different result would have been arrived at by the Jury, than the defendants themselves, swearing last, had an oppor tunity of persuading the Court of King's Bench to arrive at. The question was then,whether these parties were guilty or not guilty of the offence charged against them in the information. An action for damages and a criminal in formation had two distinct objects. In an action for damages, a party sued for compensation for injury done to his character. But he was not bound to stop there, or even to adopt that mode of proceeding at all. Every man had a right, by penal measures, to protect himself against the possibility of being made the object of daily attack. What a s ituation would society be in if this right did not exist ? Whatever might be thought of the form of law by which that right wes enforced, it must strike every one that if there were not a penal mode of proceeding against libellers, patties, rather than submit to an attack upon their characters by publications like these, would commit some personal violence. The law under which they were bound to proceed, was a statute brought in by Mr. Fox in 1792, similar to one prepared by Mr. Burke twenty years before. He conceived that Act to be a mere de. claration of the old law, which had, however, certainly been departed from in Courts of Justice. That statute ' took even a wider range than was assigned to it by Mr. Kelly, for you are not oily to find the facts anti the ten dency of the publication, but that the party accused, is personally liable for it—whether an individual has a d last guil y mind in. publica tion. The defendant who ha ad ' dressed them had very properly told them that they were not to surrender their own judgment to the Judge, or any other person whatever, and they had been told the Judges were but too apt to act on the second clause of the Sta ' totes. By that second clause, the presiding Judge or Judges were authorised to give their opinion to the Jury on the matters at issue between the King and the defen dants. Not from anything which had °courted to-day, but front a long course of observation, he had thought it much better that Judges should abstain from any opi nion at all upon the facts brought before the Court. Their opinion was not binding on juries, and unless the Jury entirely coincided in it, they were bound to find a verdict according to their conscience—to put what con struction they pleased upon the libel, without regard to the opinion of the Judge. It so happened that in the only former case of the kind he bad yet tried, he had ' abstained from expressing any opinion, and should " do so, not, as he said before, in consequence of An opinion formed that day, but in consequence of conclusions long since arrived at. They were sworn to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole issue. Time question was, what was the matter at issue? and he would state what be conceived to be clear law upon this point. The question was, whether the matters complained of in the information were malicious and defamatory. The word " false" was introduced in the setting forth of the libel, but he did not think that the Jury would therefore be justified in entering into an in quiry of whether every particuliar matter set forth in the libel was false or true. There were many truths, the publication of which might be libel low, and the question was, whether this publica tion bore up on the face of it, and deserved the character of a malicious end scandalous libel. He should only call the attention of the Jury to the language contained in the publication, which was made the subject matter of the present prosecution :-- " We have repeatedly stated to the public that Mr. Alder man Winchester has, in the exercise of his functions as assignee of The Sun newspaper, been guilty of FRAUD and FALSEHOOD. " Winchester and his solicitor afterwards admitted it to be a FALSEHOOD. Upon that FALSEHOOD, however, alurdo Young has traded in Chancery for twelve months. Yet even Murdo Young, as appeared at the meeting on Saturday, has abandoned his plea of having bought The Sun—and has, by doing so, joined all the rest of the world, in giving the lie to his accomplices, Winchester and Briggs. " We cann o t ven t ure , at a moment like the present, when political matters of such infinite importance engross public at. tention, to enlarge farther upon this subject. We trust, how ever, that it will not be denied that the public is most deeply interested In the investigation of a case so atrocious as this of Mr. Alderman Winchester. " As to Mr. Briggs, we decline saying anything more at pre. sent. We under s t an d that a motion will be made in a few days, at the instance of som e of the credit ors, to have hint struck oft' the rolls. " An application for Mr. Winchester's removal from the as. signeeship, is also about to be made. " When the result of that application shall be known, it will remain for the Honourable Court of Aldermen to pronounce an opinion on the conduct of this Aspirant to the Mayoralty. We trust, however, that they will, without welting for further rid- Bence than was supplied at the meeting on Saturday, vindicate the character of Civic dignitaries, and show their respect f r public decency, by expelling Mr. Winchester from their body." In the other publication the same language was repeated, though not of the :same strength, but manifesting the same intention ; and it was for the Jury to say heir any one of themselves, having been so dealt with, and treated in such a way, ion a trial .1 of the proceed inns instituted under the authority of the Court, and 0, which no question could be raised of truth or falsehood , bet the mere quest ion o f scandalous, defamatory, and malicicus libel, would feel if they were t be told that the truth could not he permitted to he entered into? The Jury would, therefore, be so good as to fo:m an opinion of this matter, and Fay whether or not far publication in question was scandalous, defamatory, earl libellous against the characters of the prosecutors. Two of the defendants, Mr. Grant and Mr. Bell, had been proved to he the proprietors of the newspinet in which this publication appeared ; and as such Writ answerable to all purposes civil and criminal. With re spect to the other defendant, the printer, observations hail been made on his conduct in the transaction. H e certainly was liable in law, for if he chose to plat e himself in the hands of another party, and deliberately print and publish whatever that party thought fit to write, though it might in this instance have been desirahe not to have proceeded against bim, yet he was in the first instance liable to answer for it. It might he a (pee tion under the particular circumstances of this case. whether the prosecutors might think fit to bring him up to receive judgment. The question substantially for the Jury to determine was, whether or not the publication was a de famatory libel ; for whatever view Mr. Grant might take of the facts of his own case (and that view was not likely to be an impartial one) he was not at liberty under his excited feelings, and possessing that power over the press in his own hand, to make severe attacks on the character of individuals. That would be a power conferred on a printing establishment that would be most alarming. The Jury would be kind enough to form and pronounce a judgment on the charac ter and tendency of the publication, and say whether nr not it was a malicious, defamatory, and scandalous pub lication by the three defendants. The Jury, after consulting for a few moments, returned an unanimous verdict of GUILTY AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS. We have given above as correct and full a report of the proceedings in this case as pos sible, suppressing nothirg ; but on Monday we shall give a distinct contradiction to many parts of Mr. P. GRANT'S calumnious and most false assertions. BRIGHTON, DEc. 6, Their Majesties continue well at their Marine Palace. Yesterday they were in public for some time, his Majesty in his carriage and four, accompanied by the Duchess of Gloticecter, and the Qaeen on horseback, attende 1 by the Earl of Errol, Viscount and Viscountess Falkland, Lady 1. Cornwallis, Hon. Miss Eden, Colonel Seymour, and Colonel Thornton. The dinner party last evening at the Palace comprised the following personages :—The Princess Augusta, Mar chioness of Westmeath, General Sir George Anson, Earl and Countess of 'Errol, Colonel Wynyard, General Mac donald, General Phipps, and the Suite and Household. The Queen's band attended, as on the previous evening, and played with their usual ability. COURT CIRCULAR. if is 111,jesty, it is expected, will hold a Council on Mon day, at the Palace at Brighton. Monsieur Van de Weyer (the Belgic Minister), and the French Charge d'Affaires, had interviews with Viscount Palmerston yesterday, at the Foreign-office. Despatches from the Governors of the Canad la, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, were received yestetday at the Colonial-office. Viscount Palmerston and Sir J. Graham bad interview , yesterday with Earl Grey, at the Treasury. The Earl of Essex entertained a select party at dinner last eveninz, at his residence in Beigrave•square. The Right Hon. Charles Grant had an interview last evening with Viscount Palmerston, at the Foreign-office. FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. ARRIVALS. LENDING OF NEWSPAPERS.—The Comp, troller-General of the Stamp-office in Dublin has issued a printed circular, intimating that in future, when news papers shall be returned to the Stamp-office to be cancelled, in order that the value of the stamps may be returned, newspaper proprietors will be required to make oath that the returned papers h eve not been lent to advertisers, nor to any other person whatsoever. The new novel by the popular witer of " Bram bletye House," called "Gale Middleton," has far its subject the bringing into whimsical juxta position the humours of city life and the affectations of fashionable society. The numerous admirers of " Rejected Addresses," and of " Ho• race in London," will know what to expect in a design so congenial to the peculiar wit and genius of Mr. Horace Smith. Captain Ross is staying at Tunbridge Wells, on a visit to the Vice-Admiral of England, Lord de Sau marez, ac Clarence Villa. We understood these two distinguished individues were formerly shipmates. The Worcestershire Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry have eontributed upwards of 5001. towards the monument to the memory of their late Colonel, the deceased Earl of Plymouth. Sir Edward Disbrowe, on his way from statgard to this country, to make arrangements for his departure on the embassy to the Court of Sweden, has been det lined at Carlsruhe by the death of one of his daughters, Albina. This melancholy occurrence will re tard the arrival of Sir Edward and his family in town. The Hon. Henry Wellesley will remain as Charge d'Affaires at the Wirternberg Court until the arrival of Lord Wil liam Russell, who is not expected to proceed to Germany until the spring, Charles 111. of Spain, who was more favour able to the introduction of reforms tkan the people them selves, used to say, " My subjects are like babies, who cry when they are washed." ROMAN ANTIQUITIES IN LONDON. —ln flishopsgate.street, but a short time since, twenty fret below the surface, a gravel way was found, from which were thrown up fragments of amphora, &c. ; and within these few (lays, in lowering the road for the new street to be formed from the north end of London Bridge, in the direction of St. Mary Woolnoth church, a second line of Roman wall has been discovered running parallel with the northern flanking wall of the Roman way at Eastcheap. The two walls are distant four feet asunder. In the fourth century the whole of the Celtic colony war surrounded by a somewhat irregular wall.— Gentleman's Magazine. A gentleman of great notoriety, and one who possessed great wealth, is now and has been for four months confined in our city gaol upon a debt of 80,000 dollars, and depends upon charity for subsistence. A part of the time his only subsistence has been daily a quart of soup furnished by the Humane Society. It is a coinci dente of some interest that his creditor, who is a man of still greater notoriety . , is confined upon sundry great debts in the next room of the same prison.—American Sentinel. ACCIDENT TO THE HOLYHEAD MAIL. — On Wednesdiy night, about ten o'clock, on the other side of Daventry, as the Holyhead and rfirmingham mail was proceeding to London, it was completely blown over by a sudden and violent gust of wind. We are happy to add that the passengers, as well as the coachman and guard, escaped without any serious injury. The bags were brought to London by post-chaise cenveyance. At Ferrara, on the 17th ultimo, the statue of Ariosto was inaugurate , l with great pomp in the square of that town, which has for a long time been called the Piazza Ariostea.—French Paper. THE BEARSTED OUTRAGE.—On Tuesday Richard Knox was committed, by a full bench of magic mates, on suspicion of attempting the murder of Mrs. Whatley, at Bearsted, on the 30th October last. The prisoner was apprehended at Stroud on the 9th November by J. Tuff, high-constable of Rochester, and was taken before the Mayor of Rochester, by whom he was sent to Maidstone, and on the 12th was examined by the magis trates there. He was then taken to Bearsted, and identi fied by Mrs. Whatley as the man who attempted her life. The prisoner underwent other examinations, when he was again taken to Bearsted, his identity sworn to by Mrs. Whatley, and her depositions were taken. Five other witnesses also gave corroboratory evidence, and he was committed for trial. When Tuff apprehended him he gave different and confused accounts of himself, but finally said, " I suppose you want me respecting the old lady at Bearstead."—Kentish Paper. Camporese was a gentlewoman in mind and in manner, but still unable to resist at all times the insolence to which her situation exposed her. At a rehearsal of Pietro l'Eremito, she commenced the exquisite quartett Me maraca la voce (my voice fails me). " E vero" (it is true), whispered Madame Ronal, but loud enough for the hy-standers to hear, which Camp orese instantly chastised by is box on the ear.—New Monthly Magazine. (In order to show her gentility of mind, or of manner?) Colonel Peel has taken the residence of the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, at Marble Hill, Twickenham where he has arrived with Lady Alice and the family, from Brandon, in Norfolk, the estate he tenants from Mr. Baring. Colonel Peel resided at Marble Hill before it was occupied by the Marquis and Marchioness Wellesley. Saturday Lord Massereene, eldest son oh Viscount Ferrard, having attained his majority, the town of Colton was brilliantly illuminated and studded with bonfires on the occasion. In the course of the day his Lordship, accompanied by his fattier, rode through the town, and they were g reeted at every step by the hearty gratulations of the inhabitants. In the evening a plentiful supply of ale was distributed, when Lis Lordship's health and that of the various members of his family was toasted amidst the deafening cheers of time multitude. —Drogheda Journal. Since the tops of the mountains have been covered with snow, the environs of the commune of Bedous, near Oieron, in the Basses• Pyrenees, have been ravaged by an enormous bear, which was, a few days ago, discovered by a shepherd on the banks of the river Gave. The shepherd armed himself with a stout stick shod with iron, and his knife, and proceeded alone to attack the ferocious destroyer of his flock, whom, after a long and desperate struggle, in which lie received many severe wounds, he at length killed, when nearly exhausted himself from loss of blood.—,French Paper. The Earl of Kerry, at Lansdowne House, Berkeley-square, from Ireland ; the Bishop of Ely and Mrs. Sparke, in Dover street, from the Palace, Ely, Cambridgeshire; the Countess of Lindsay in Grosvenor-square, from Uffington, Lincoln shire ; Mr. and Mrs. C. K. Tynte, at Hastings, from Bath ; Viscount Chelsea, at Crawley's Hotel, Albemarle-street, from the Marquis of Londonderry's seat, Wynyard, Stockton.on- Tees, Durham ; Captain anl Mrs. I-I. Hughes. in Btook-street, from Cheltenham ; W. Austen, Esq., at Raggett's Hotel, Dover-street, from Oxford ; Urquhart, Esq., and Mrs. Urquhart, atiFladong's Hotel; Colonel Parker, at ditto, froni Oxford ; Major Macpherson, Esq., at ditto, from Scotlariri William Wells, Esq., at ditto, from Redleaf, near Tunbridge ; Captain Way, at ditto, from Denham; Colonel Bridges, at ditto, from Leamington; Edward Griffiths, Esq., at ditto ; Peter Purcell, Esq,, and Mrs. Purcell, at ditto, from Brighton ; Mrs. Lane Fox, in Curzon street, from a tour ; Hudson Gurney, Eli., in St. James's-square, from Norfolk ; Lord Gardiner, n George-street, Hanover.square, from Melton Mowbray; Colonel and Mrs. Dawson Darner, in Upper Grosvenor-street, from the Continent ; Viscount and Vis countess Boyle, at Lord George Seymour's, in St. George's place, from a tour ; Lord Albert Conyngham, in Mount-street, front the Earl of Chesterfield's Brett)) , Park; Henry Baring, Esq., in Carlton-gardens, from Brighton ; Miss Mitchel, in Charles-street, Berkeley-square, from ditto; Sir John anti Lady Pechell, at the Admiralty, from a tour ; the Right Hon. T. S. Rice, in Mansfield-street, from St. Alban's ; Captain Maurice Berkeley, at the Admiralty, from his seat. Fishbourne, Sussex; Lady Thorold, at Lyston Park, near Grantham, front a tour in Yorkshire; Lady Harriet Manners Sutton and son, in. Hyde Park-place, from Kelham Hall, Notts. DEPARTURES. The Duke of Richmond, for his seat, Goodwood, near Chichester; Lord Francis Egerton, for his seat, Oatlands ; Baron Stockmar, from Marlborough-house, for Claremont ; the Hon. C. C. Cavendish, from Burlington House, for ELst bourne ; General and Miss Calcraft, from Warren's Hotel, Regent-street, for Brighton ; Mr. and Mrs. Douglas, from the Brunswick Hotel, Jermyn-street, for their seat in Kent ; the Rev. James Hammond, from the St. James's Hotel, Jermyn. street, for Berks ; Mr. and Mrs. Riley, from Crawley's Hotel, Albemarle-street, for their seat, Forrest-hill, near Windsor ; the Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury, from Arlington.street, for Hatfield; H. Shirley, Esq., from Ellis's Hotel, St. James's_ street, for Jamaica ; Captain and Mrs. Long, from Raggett•s Hotel, I s )over-street, for Bath ; R. 0. Gascoyno, Esc., and family, from the Burlington Hotel, for I'arlington, Yorkshire; the Earl of Ashburnharn, from ditto, for Battle, Sussex; Sir F. Hopkins, Bart., from ditto, for the Continent ; William. Bragge, Esq , from ditto, for Oxford ; the Hon. Captain Greville, from ditto, for Brighton ; Dr. Pollock, from ditto, foe the North; Lord Ramsey, from ditto, for the Continent; Captain Ward, from ditto, for Brighton ; the Hon. Mr. Dutton, from Fladong's Hotel, for Henley ; Colonel Roll, from ditto, for Brighton; Captain Gore Brown, from ditto, for Morton House; Henry Higgenson, Esq., from ditto; Captain Richard son, from ditto; Young, Esq., and Miss Young, from ditto, for Glasgow; Arthur Coape, Esq., from ditto. HUNTING APPOINTMENTS. The King's Stag Hounds meet on Monday at Winkfield New Lodge ; Friday, at Two Mile Lodge. Mr. Osbalde4tone's Hounds meet on Monday at Fine don ; Wednesday, at Harrington ; Friday, at Jib Close ; Saturday, at Watford Gap—at a quarter before 11. Mr. Drake's Hounds meet on Monday at Stoke Village ; Tuesday, at Charndon Common ; Thursday, at Rycote Kennel; Saturday, at Farthinghoe Town—at half-past 10. The Duke of Grafton's Hounds meet on Monday at Tiffield Town ; Wednesday, at Furzen Field; Friday, at Whisky Wood—at half-past 10. Mr. Berkeley's Hounds meet on Monday at Risely Turnpike ; Tuesday, at Oilfield Windmill ; 'Thursday, at Cowper's Oak ; Saturday, at Shelton—at half-past 10. Mr. linlyoake's Hounds meet on Monday at Houghton on the Hill ; Tuesday, Bardon Hill ; Thursday, at Thrus sington Kennel—at a quarter before 11. The Atheratone Hounds meet on Tuesday at Gopsal ; Thursday, at Clifton ; Saturday, at Lindky—at 11. Sir T. Stanley's Hounds meet on Tuesday at Hooton Lode—at 10. Lord Radno 's Hounds meet on Monday at Tar Wood Friday, at Appleton. Mr. Moreton's Hounds meet on Tuesday at William. strop ; Thursday, at Stratton ; Saturday, at Litton. Mr. L. Stone's Hounds meet on Wednesday at Forest 11i11; Saturday, at Nettleby May Pole. Mr. Villebois's Harriers meet on Monday at Bradenham Green ; Wednesday, at the Kennel (a deer) ; Friday, at Pinebam Turnpike—at 11. The 11 olderne4s Hounds meet on M.,nday at the Kennel; Tuesday, at Lowthorpe Mill ; Thursday, at Bessingby ; Saturday, at Wandsford Bridge—at 11. The Suffolk and Es,ex Hounds meet en Monday at Thorpe-street ; Wednesday at the White Horse, Tatting stone ; Friday at Ardleigh-street—half-past 10. Mr. Dansey's Hounds meet on Monday at East Bridg. - ord ; Wednesday at the Hut; Friday at Gotham—half past 10. The Sandbeck Hounds meet on Monday at Streettborpe ; \Vedne•day at Aston ; Friday at Canklow Mill—half past 10. The Badsworth Hounds meet on Monday at Acton village; Thursday, at 0 tvtiton ; Saturday at Badsworth--• half-pa,t 10. . A report is prevalent that the King intends creating three Irish dukes, and that the following noblemen are to be raised in the peerage :—Marquis Wellesley, as Duke of Dublin ; the Marquis of Lansdowne, as Duke of Kerry ; and Earl Fitzwilliam, as Duke of Rockingham. The Duke of Gloucester proceeded on Thurs day from Hatfield House, where his Royal Highness h d been Ole guest, since Monday, of the Marquis and Marchioness of Salisbury, to Gorhambury, the seat of the Earl of Verulam, near St. Alban's. A large party was invitrd to meet the Royal Duke at dinner in the evening. He will return to Gloucester House this day, on his way to rejoin the Duchess at Brighton. Sir Josias Rowley is about to proceed to the Mediterranean as Commander-in-Chief of the British fhiet on that station, in the room of Sir Pulteney Malcolm, who is coming home.--Morning Paper. The case of Dicas v. Lord Brougham pre sented the very singular spectacle of one (the) Lord Chancellor as defendant, an Ex-Chancellor trying the case, and another Ex-Chancellor giving testimony as a witness. A Proclamation for the further prorogation of Parliament will appear in Tuesday night's Gazette and on the following Thursday it will be prorogued with the usual ceremony in the House of Lords, and a day ap pointed f ir its meeting for the despatch of business. We are happy to state that the electors of Huddersfield have sent a requisition to Mr. Blackhurne , the chief Corporation Commissioner, to allow himself to be nominated as a can didate in the p lace of the late Capt. Fenton: Mr. Blackhurne has accepted the invitation. Mr. James Brougham, who is represented in one of the Tory journals as dangerously ill, has had an att ick of jaundice, but neither is nor has been considered ro be in danger. The Adelphi has received a large share of aristocratic patronage this sewn ,: v During the week the following distinguiaied person a een among the nu --His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloti -Inee.rteorustvbiestivers : like of St. Albans, Lords W. Lennox, Al ,.,„jey, Girdraer, F. Lennox, Tenrerden ; her Royal Ifighatess the Ductless of Kent, Earl Grey and family, Duchess of St. Albans, Ladies Alittiorough, Tankerville, G:inroy, Marquis and Marchioness Chandos, Lord Btaui. hamp• )The only surviving son of the Viscountess Canning, the lion. Charle. John Canning, will come of dge on the 13th instant,