The Sun. — London, England, 1833-11-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The last intelligence from Van Diemen's Land affords striking evidence of the necessity of conducting emigration on s -me well-under stood principle. It appears from the Hobart Town papers that numerous emigrants had ar rived by the last two or three vessels, especially the Stralh/Iddsay from Dublin, who were crowding the streets of that place. The local Government is very much at a loss how to act under these distressing circumstances, and the Hobart Town paper suggests that it should, in the first place, " Send home a strong remonstrance to the Govern ment and those persona at home who are chiefly instru mental, from whatever moive, in inducing those poor persons to come out, no longer to tamper so with the i prosperity, the comforts, the existence, the fate of their fellow-creatures—to cease, in fact, altogether their liter. Terence with them, unless they can do so to benefit; secondly, to erect at the public expense—that is, from money in the Treasury—an allum for them on their ar. rival, where they may-at least be kept from starving in' the streets or the hush, until permanently and profitably employed ; and, thirdly, to employ one of the colonial or other vessels in carrying round a portion of them to Launceston, so as to equalize the influx with this side of the Wand." When we reflect that the whole system of in dustry of this great empire was for some time deranged at the termination of the war, by the discharge of so many soldiers and sailors, who could not be immediately absorbed in the diffe rent localities, are we to be astonished that a small society like that of Van Diemen's Land, of which the population is not yet equal to some of our market towns, should be distressed bs the arrival of successive cargoes of emigrants, landed in a state of destitution ? Even in the rich and flourishing city of New York, the dis tress of Irish emigrants was often so great from their glutting the market of labour, that a so ciety, of which the late Mr. Thomas Emmet was a distinguished member, was formed for the express purpose of relieving the necessities of those destitute Irish exiles. Looking as we do on emigration as a means of relieving our labouring population, and adding to the wealth of the community, we regret exceedingly that mismanagement of this kind should be allowed to interfere with its future success. The recital of these calamities must throw a damp over the mind of every labouring man in the country. The great emigration of last year was caused by the accounts transmitted by emigrants to their friends and relations at home. There requires no other persuasion than similar ac counts of the success of others. On the other hand, recitals of misery will equally discourage men from emigrating. We cannot expect that they should he able to examine the object in all its bearings, and to discover in the parti cular circumstances in the situation of the latest emigrants the cause of the evils that befel them. There are two classes of men desirous of emi grating—First, men possessed of a small capital, which might be more available in a new country than at home ; and next, men possessed of no property but their labour. These two classes may be made to assist each other. Let a Com pany be formed on the plan of the South Aus tralian Company, which Mr. Hay, the Under Secretary of State, was allowed to paralyse, governed by some well defined rules sanctioned by the home Government, which should purchase a large tract of country, the land of which would be systematically sold, and the produce applied to the conveyance of the necessitous class. Here then the capitalist and the labourer are brought into contact with each other. The emigration in such a case could never be exces sive; because the labour of former emigrants would always provide means for the employment of fresh cargoes. The labour market would never be overstocked, because the existence of the means of transport would be a proof of the existence of means for the employment of more labour. The Poor Law Commission, at the head of which is the Bishop of London, has, we under stand, procured a most valuable body of infor mation with regard to the state of the labouring population throughout the country. When this information is puhlished, we shall be in posses sion of the actual state of the country, and the extent of the necessity for endeavouring to re medy the evil by emigration. But it must always be kept in mind, that if the emigration is con ducted on a had principle, we not only throw away money, and, what is worse, throw away the happiness of our fellow creatures, but we also throw away the means of correcting the evil ; for the injudicious disposal of land, in a colony, prevents the recurrence to a better system in it. Land, it should always be borne in mind, is of no value without labour ; but land may be so disposed of that the profitable employment of labour may be impossible. It has been wittily said, with reference to the wisdom of our ancestors that we have more wisdom than our ancestors had, inasmuch as we have our own experience in addition to theirs. But this re mark notwithstanding, there were several points with respect to which our ancestors thought more correctly than we do. Without going back to the Greeks, who certainly understood colonization much better than we do, it is only necessary to turn to the very luminous account given of the Plantation of Ulster, by Carte, in his " History of the Duke of Ormond," and to the observations of Lord Bacon on the Planta tion in Ireland, to be sensible that the subject was much better understood more than two centuries ago than it is now. " When men," says Lord Bacon, "come into a country vast and void of all things necessary for the use of man's life, if they set up to gether in a place, one of them will the better supply the wants of the other ; work folks of all sorts will be the more continually on work without loss of time ; when if work fail in one place they may have it fast by ; the ways will be made more passable for carriages to those seats or towns, than they can be to a number of dispersed solitary places; and infinite other helps and easements, scarcely to be comprehended in cogi tation, will ensue in vicinity and society of peo ple ; whereas, if they build scattered (as is pro jected?, e ver y man mus t have a cornucopia in himse f, for all things he must use, which cannot but breed much difficulty, and no less waste."— " It will also (he adds) be a means to secure the country against fixture perils in case of any revolt and defection ; for, by a slight fortification of no great charge , the dan ger of any attempts of kierns and swordsmen may be prevented ; the omission of which point m the last plantation of Munster, made the work of years to be but th e spoil of days." These a re precisely the ideas which have been so ably developed by the acute author of " England and America." Dr. Johnson, who, more than any man of his time, perhaps, was able to apply) on the sudden, the powers of his mind successfully to subjects started in conversation, seems to have taken a much sounder view of emigration, as conducted in his: time, than Adam Smith. Johnson not haying made it the subject of re. flection like Lord Bacon, was not aware that the circumstances described by him were not essential, but accidental, and he does not seem to have been aware that the Greek colonies were conducted precisely on Lord Bacon's principle. Boswell informs us, in his most agreeable account of the " Tour to the Heb rides," that " Emigration was at this time a common topic of discussion. Dr. Johnson re gretted it as hurtful to human happiness ; , for (said he) it spreads mankind, which weakens the defence of a nation, and lessens the comfort of living. Men thinly scattered make a shift, but a bad shift, without many things--5 smith is ten miles off; they'll do without a nail or a staple. A tailor in far from them ; they'll botch their own clothes. It is being con centrated which produces high convenience.' The misery which has been caused to un fortunate settlers by the various Colonial Governments of this country, is hardly to be described, In Canada, for instance, one very intelligent Governor (Simcoe) very properly conceiving that without communication settlers could not turn their industry to account, caused lines of road through Upper Canada to be sur veyed, and he then offered grants along the line of a certain number of acres to individuals who should make the road through them gratis. Many a poor settler embraced the offer ; when lo I another Governor, on the Scotch maxim of " new lairds new laws," not only abandoned the plans of his predecessor, but gave to his crea tures grants of large tracts on the lines marked out, by which means many a poor devil found himself hundreds of miles from towns, in the woods, and cut off from all communication with civilized society. Against misfortunes of this kind there is no guarding, except by some such plan as that of the South Australian Company, which precludes all arbitrary interference of local governors and their creatures.—Morn. Chron. Mr. O'Connell has just added another to the numerous correspondences in which he had already been engaged. A letter of the learned gentleman to the Radicals of Hull, published in some contemporary journals, is in no small degree characteristic of the tastes and practices which distinguish him. Mr. Hill, it appears, one of the Members for that borough, had, in vindicating his general Parliamentary conduct throughout the last session, referred to the votes he gave on the Irish Coercion Bill; avowing, if the statement of a Mr. Jackson be correct, his approbation of the general principle of the Bill, but objecting to the creation of military tribunals. There must, we take for granted, be some misprint either in this representation of Mr. Hill's language, or in that of Mr. O'Connell's commentary, inasmuch as the learned gentleman is made to open with the following sentence :—" It is totally false that Mr. Hill opposed the principle of the Bill." Why, who said he ever did ? He himself pro fesses to have approved it. The rejoinder of the learned gentlemen, therefore, seems to have been a sort of gratuitous lie giving. With regard to that same Coercion Bill, it may not be amiss to observe the rancorous and revengeful terms in which Mr. O'Connell has never ceased to speak of its authors, terms nothing short of deadly, personal vindictiveness. Now, what was the declared object of the Coercion Bill, with some of the detailed provisions of which, as originally proposed to Parliament, we proved ourselves to be as little enamoured as Mr. Hill, or the Learned Member for Dublin ? The object of the Bill was, in one word, first, to enable the King's Government to protect the public peace, disturbed or threatened by incessant meetings for the undisguised purpose of agitating the whole community, and coercing the Government by a system of hourly intimidation ; second, to save the persons and properties of thousands of unoffending subjects, whose habitations were entered forcibly by night and day, and them selves and their families exposed to every out rage that the fury of unrelenting barbarians could suggest to them—often to death itself, and in its most cruel forms. The Bill passed, its preventive powers were enforced in one county only of the entire kingdom—viz., the county of Kilkenny ; and unless the con curring testimony of all the letters and all the respectable journals which we have seen be false, the end of the coercive law has been effectually answered by the general pacification of the south of Ireland, with this additional, and to all humane minds most consolatory cir cumstance—that in no second county was any one provision of the Act enforced, and not even in Kilkenny were aught but its preventive means resorted to, —no person whatsoever (if we err, we are open to correction) having suffered even the slightest of its penalties. Mr. O'Connell, therefore, knows best why he will " never forget nor forgive" the Ministers who introduced that law, or the Parliament by which it was enacted, —he knows best why the tranquillization of Ireland should never move the never-sleeping devil within him, and should be declaimed against as a monstrous and irredeemable crime. If there be any British subject whose schemes the pacifying tendency of the Coercion Bill has thwarted, whose selfish and rapacious ambition it has rebuked, whose dictatorship over the action both of Government and people it has brought to an untimely and ignominious death, whose system of universal disturbance and terror it has para lyzed, we can imagine that such a man would na turally invoke all the powers of darkness to heap destruction on the advocates of such a measure, and we leave it to the discrimination and dex terity of lawyers to explain wherein would consist the substantial difference between him whom the law of England regards as a traitor, and the man whose possible existence we have sup posed. However, the pith of the epistle before us, and of the allegations, whether truly or falsely ascribed to Mr. Hill, is, that among those Irish Members who in public and in the House of Commons were most violently opponents of the Bill, there was one who went secretly to Minis ters, and urged them to pass it without bating any part of its provisions. Mr. O'Connell asserts the falsehood of such a charge on the ground that no Irish Member who professed to oppose the Bill, " could have been guilty of such vile duplicity" as that alleged against " some" individual of the Irish ultra-radical body. It then becomes a question, on one side of fact, and on the other of moral possibility ; nor do we see much to blame in a suggestion said to have proceeded from Mr. O'Connell, that all the Irish Members who opposed the Bill, should publicly purge themselves by a solemn declara tion from an offence against truth and manhood so foul as that which Mr. O'Connell, on their behalf, repudiates, and of which we will ac knowledge that the individual (if any) who com mitted it must be a sneakin g and despicable fellow. However, the case is different when it comes to a demand on Mr. Hill for the disclo sure of specific names. No man can shut his eyes to the certainty,.that if, through Mr. Hill or any other channel, the name of the Irish Member who in public voted with Mr. O'Con nell and his tail, while he privately encouraged the Ministers to an act which would eventually crush that demagogue and his faction, should happen to transpire, neither that member nor his family would be safe in their beds by night, or at their meals by day ; their murder would as surely follow, in Ireland, as contempt would be the portion of such miserable trickery here. Mr. Hill, therefore, would have at least one life to answer for, should he answer affirmatively the demand made upon him by Mr. O'Connell ; and, indeed, we acquit the demagogue himself of any wish to have the name of the culprit announced. For the rest, the tone of the letter is more worthy of him who wrote it than we hope of any English Radicals, however uncivi lized and conceited.—Tinzes. When we have alluded, as we have often done In terms of condemnation, to the " Brewers' monopoly," we have done so wholly in reference to their possession of, or interest in, public-houses, to the forced trade which is thereby imposed upon such houses, and the state of thraldom and dependance in which a large portion of an otherwise highly-respectable class of the com munity, the licensed victuallers, is thus retained. Their ability to manufacture the best article, and that at the cheapest rate, we never doubted. For these results the magnitude of their capital, the size of their " plants," and the skill which they are enabled to employ, arc sufficient gua rantees. For these reasons the public would have no cause to complain of the quality of this very essential, we may say national, beverage, beer, were the trade in its consumption really an open one, but which never can be the case while so large a proportion of the retailers are tied down to the particular brewery at which each must deal. But not only is this monopoly in appearance effectually insured by the owner ship acquired in public-houses, but, to make assurance doubly sure, the chain is, as it were, rivetted by a conspiracy among the principal houses not to allow any recreant tenant of one house to obtain a solitary butt from another. This combination very much re sembles what is called vulgarly " honour among thieves," and is much more worthy of resistance and of being broken down than the very minor evil, that of the prying annoyance of common informers, to meet which an association of pub licans has very lately been instituted. We wonder, indeed, that the great brewers themselves do not see the folly and the danger of committing these acts of tyranny, which are almost sure in the end to get wind, and load the actors in the scene with no very gratifying share of public notice. We long since recommended, and are quite sure that, in the end it would be the best thing for all parties, after a reasonable time being given to get rid of existing interests, brewers should be prevented by law, under severe pe nalties, from being owners or otherwise interested in public-houses. Do not let the advocates of free trade take offence at this as an encroachment upon the unrestrained use of capital. It is in the very spirit of free trade that we make it ; for how can that be a legitimate or desirable use of capital which ties down the capital, the industry, and the very personal free agency of hundreds of persons—to say nothing of the still greater evil it inflicts in helping to poison a large portion of the community? From the Magis trates, unfortunately, there seems to be nothing to hope. They might, years ago, have broken down this monopoly if they would ; but, as far as I all evidence goes, they appear rather to have fostered and cherished it. The press, however, we are well entitled to say, has done its duty, and in the publicity which it has given to the case which recently occurred at the east end of the metropolis, and which has been the imme diate cause of our present reference to the sub ject, has, we have no doubt, made an additional and effective move towards a reconsideration and reform of an evil of great extent and importance. Nor would the brewer himself, in the end, be otherwise than benefited by the change. By opening a door to competition he would take pains to excel in the quality of the commodity of which a known forced sale now renders him comparatively indifferent ; and we need not add that increased consumption would soon reward improved quality. To the publican the eman cipation would be everything. No longer the slave or mortgagee of the brewer, persons of capital and character alone would embark in the business; while to the public in general, but especially the lower and middle classes, a boon would be extended most essential to their health, their comfort, and social propensities. —Morning Herald. The liberality of the Government of the Queen Regent of Spain may be understood from the suppression of a journal, without any process of law, because it had given some offence to her Minister Zea Bermudez, by venturing a jest or two on that high functionary and absolute politician. M. Zea is one of those nice critics upon public discussion, who thinks that a bad joke may be very good constructive treason—at least so far as to incur a forfeiture of the property of the unfortunate literary wit ,ling who indulges in such a mode of conveying political feeling on the wrong side of the question. The editor of the Madrid Courier somewhat emboldened by an intimation that the press was to be allowed greater freedom of discussion than before, which was none at all, ventured, it appears, to try the extent of the amount of liberty that might be taken, by stroking the lion's beard, and soon found himself pinned to the ground by his paw ! The aristocratic spouter of democratic speeches in the north of England could not have re sented an insult to his dignity, in the shape of a newspaper squib, with more lordly indigna tion. But Zea Bermudez, if he have not a better inclination to construe the freedom of the press h only into the freedom of flattering him, a power to act upon his i ntent i ons th a n smore the English reformer, and so h e f ort h w i t h p ro . ceeds to silence the facetious journalist, and confiscate his offending types. The best of the matter was that the censor had, as he imagined, cut all point out of the jokes; but it is possible the intention to be jocular was still evident ; and as it was not known what dangerous effects this might have on the gravity of the loyal Spaniards, —the exterminating decree of the Government went forth, and El Correo Literario ceased to e xist. Such a proceedi ng i s wort h y o f a Governmentin which Louis Philip has a sort of family interest, for a more bitter and un wearied persecutor of the press than the King of the Barricades does not exist—witness the 400 or 500 State prosecutions which have been car ried on during his hitherto short re i gn aga i ns t those very Journals which were instrumental in raising him to the throne. There is no doubt that if it were not for what is called the Liberal Press, the result of the sanguinary struggle of the " three days of July" would not have been the placing of the Duke of Orleans on the throne, who had hid his face until the peril was over, and then came forward to gather the spoils of a victory to which he did not contribute, at least by any act of personal valour, or by taking any share in the dangers of a revolution. Every where, in short, in every Government of Europe, there appears to be a combination to destroy the liberty of the press. Even the three Northern Powers, as they are called, within whose dominions such a thing as the liberty of the press is not known, have con • sputpd to crush what freedom does exist in the smail and once independent States of Germany. They who Wish to rule by the strong hand of despotism naturally hate and persecute the press as the watchman of the people's liberties. Mock patriots, who toast that liberty at their political banquets, who flatter the press as if it were an idol, while it feeds their vanity by emblazoning their hollow speeches, and recommending them for the honours of poPolar fame, become its most virulent persecutors when it takes liberties with themselves. Louis Philip has not evinced a better inclination to destroy the power that raised him than his friend Lord Durham, hot from the fumes of patriotic dinners and the froth of democratic speeches.—Morn. Herald. The Corporation Commission is now, on all hands, admitted to be illegal, and those who have been most strenuously supporting that Commission are at length driven to The dis graceful necessity of saying that they supported it, knowing it to be illegal. But, of course, nobody believes them. It is a fact that the whole periodical press, with a few exceptions, took the legality of the Commission for granted. It is a fact that the Corporations throughout the country generally took the legality of the Com. mission as a matter not to he disputed. And, although we and a few other journals, who did not see the matter in the same light, may won der at and deplore the general infatuation, we cannot condemn it with much severity. That the Ministers of the Crown, acting under the guidance of the legal advisers of the Crown, should issue an illegal and invalid Commission, was a supposition so monstrous that the rejec tion of it, even without inquiry, can scarcely afford ground for censure. It is now, how ever, admitted, that the Ministers of the Crown have issued a Commission which is illegal and invalid ; that by overstraining the prerogative they have exposed it to defiance and contempt ; that, by an impotent invasion of the rights of the subject, they have shown an enmity, at once virulent and feeble, to liberty, law, and justice. This is the plain import of the daily language of the Ministerial Journals. The Corporations of England have generally manifested some weakness in submitting to the illegal inquisition sent among them by the tyran nical Ministers of the Crown. In any other respect their character has sustained no injury. The inquiry, such as it has been, has produced perhaps some instances of corrupt or equivocal conduct ; but, in proportion to the number of Corporations whose conduct has been scruti nized, these instances have been few, fewer, we venture to say, than a similar scrutiny would elicit, if such a scrutiny could be instituted, with reference to the personal and social conduct of individuals in any class of society. But be the results of the inquiry still in progress what they may, they are plainly worth nothing, now that the illegality of the inquiry itself is universally admitted. The records of an illegal Commission can only be so much waste paper. The only use for which this inquiry could have been intended was to serve as a foundation for some legislative enactment. And what delibe rative assembly worthy of the name will permit the records of lawless itinerants to lay upon their table or be quoted in their debates ? There is at least one branch of the British Legislature to the table of which, it may fairly be expected, that evidence taken illegally will never be per mitted to approach. And if the records of these Commissioners be merely waste paper, what an unprincipled robbery will have been perpetrated upon the community ? Their salaries are not waste paper. The expense to which, in their roving inquiries, the have sub jected corporations and individuals cannot be de frayed by waste paper. The public will have had real value extorted from them in exchange for something which is of no value whatever. There is undoubtedly great merit in having successfully withstood, by means of passive resistance, a proceeding so nefarious as that which we have imperfectly described. But, if passive resist ance be thus meritorious and successful, how glorious a field must remain for active hostility. The Merchant Tailors' Company have no ma gisterial power. It is no province of theirs to say that an illegal commission shall not be per mittei to commence its operations in the city of London. They have shown that the commis sion is illegal 11 setting authority at defiance, and it now remains for those who exercise ma gisterial powers in the city of London to do the rest. Would the Magistracy of the city of London permit mountebanks or strolling players to exhibit their antics in the Guildhall appropri ated to municipal proceedings ? Would they permit such disorderly and unauthorised itinerants to erect a stage for tumbling and rope-dancing within atiy part of the limits of their jurisdiction ? The grave and sober Aldermen of London would no doubt promptly issue their interdict against any such preposterous undertaking. And will they then permit a mock tribunal to be established in their city, founded upon no law, authorised by no competent authority, a focus for the concen tration of all imaginable falsehoods, slanders, and perjuries? Will they tolerate men invested with no public character of any kind presuming to administer oaths within their jurisdiction ? Will they endure that their fellow citizens, whose rights and characters it is their duty to protect, " shall be unjustly accused by perjury and not have any remedy ; shall be defamed and not have any traverse to it ?" We have no wish to his speak m ai e d s t i y s s e s p m e c h t i f i u s l t l e y r of s h t a h v e e g em s e e n l t e l cted e n whom for orthe discharge of an illegal function. They are to be paid for what they do, or rather for what they have done, and it was not for themto question the legality of their own appointment. But we do venture to say, that if they continue to act under a Commission which is now confessed on all hands to confer no authority they will richly deserve whatever mortification and whatever punishment may befal them. Magis trates, while they punish mountebanks and other itinerant impostors as enemies to the public peace and welfare, are guilty of gross incon sistency if they tolerate pretenders of a far more mischievous description, who presume to ad minister oaths in the name of the King, for which the swearers can never be made respon sible on earth, and, by the aid of witnesses thus irresponsible,. to pass judgment upon the cha racter of ancient institutions and the conduct of respectable citizens. Lawless interlopers of this description should first be warned off, as poachers are warned off a manor, and, if they do not scamper with all proper celerity, they should be made personally familiar, like other disorderly individuals, with the common gaol, the *hipping-post, and the stocks. The Com missioners have generally, we suppose, law enough to avoid so disagreeable an extremity. But if they should in any instance think fit to measure their strength, or that of the trumpery Commission under which they pretend to act, with the legal and recognised authorities of the country, the latter may, we have no doubt, resort to this extremity with great safety, honour, and a dvantage.—Morning Post. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 21. THE KING V. BRIGSTOCKe John Lewis Brigstock of the Welehmart News , paper ; published in Carmarthen, appeared on the floor to receive the sentence of the Court, having been convicted upon a criminal information filed against him in this Court of publishing libels on Mr. Phillips and other Magistrates of the borough of Carmarthen. The charge was that the defend ant, intending to bring the Magistracy into con tempt, did vilify and impute to them crimes, by comparing their conduct to that which an eminent Advocate had described in the case of the Bristol rioters; in short, the libel was a commentary on the speech of the Attorney-General upon the pro secution at Bristol. The Magistrates of Carmar then were accused of drunkenness and neglect of duty during a riot which happened in that borough in October, 1832, after the election. The libel went on with the charges against the Magistracy in all parts of the country. The defendant handed in an affidavit stating he was but the printer of the Paper, and that he re ceived the libel from the editor, Mr. Palmer, a Dis senting Minister, who had not been prosecuted. Mr. EVANS was heard in mitigation. The de fendant, who had been charged with publishing the libel, was the person least guilty. He was a poor printer, who received a few shillings a week. It must have been known that Mr. Brigstock was no more than a servant, and that the editor was Mr. Palmer. To make an apology for such a man would be absurd. He had merely to ssy that the de fendant had done no more then put up the types. Mr. WHITCOMB, on the same side, a..ked, why had the defendant been selected ? Why was not the Reverend Dissenting Minister, Mr. Palmer, made the object of prosecution ? Mr. Brigstock stated that since the publication of the libel Mr. Palmer had ceased to have any connection with the paper. He had left the town of Carmarthen ; and it did not answer the object of this prosecution, which was directed against the paper, to pursue Mr. Palmer. It did not appear that the prosecution was set on foot by the magistrates, but by the poli tical party. Sir J. SCARLETT said if the defendant had been imposed on by his superiors, and was not the pro per person to be selected for punishment, that should have been made known when the rule for an infor mation was moved for.—(Sir James here read the libel, which reflected on the general conduct of the Magistracy.) He knew that an opinion was gain ing ground unfavourable to the Magistracy, but his hope was that the public at large would consider the exercise of magisterial authority at least salu-. tary and necessary for the safety of the public. Mr. Justice J. PARKE said the sentence of the Court was, that the defendant be imprisoned in the gaol of Carmarthen five months, and find sureties, himself in 1001., and two others in .50/. each, to keep the peace for three years. THE KING V. LADY BRISCO. Mr. KELLY moved for a new trial in the case of Lady Brisco, who attended in Court. It will be recollected that in a recent trial a person named Mary Quinan stated that Lady Brisco was living with a Mr. Wiley, in Lisson-grove, in April, 1827. The witness was indicted for perjury and acquitted. Subsequently Lady Brisco was indicted for perjury, in swearing she did not reside at Lisson-grove. According to the statement of the Learned Counsel, Lady Brisco was taken by surprise and deprived of several material witnesses, who could have proved that she was not in London at the time she was said to be living at Lisson•grove. She was found guilty. Lady Brisco now made affidavit that she never did reside in Lisson-grove, and that during the whole of April and until the beginning of May, 1827, when the witnesses swore they saw her at Lisbon grove, she was at Upton, Cheltenham, and Paris. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated that the Court thought there should be a rule to show cause THE KING V. JOS. RUSSELL. The defendant, a printer at Birmingham, ap peared to receive judgment, having been convicted by a special jury of the county of Warwick of printing and circulating a libellous and seditious handbill in the town of Birmingham of and con cerning the Commissioners of the New Street Act. Mr. Justice PARK sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for the county of Warwick three months, and find sureties for three years, himself in 501. and two others in 251. each. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2 STEVENS V. BARKER. (Sittings at Nisi Pries before Mr. Justice PARK.) This was an action for libel. Both parties were inhabitants of the parish of Mile-end Town, in which the most neighbourly feeling did not prevail. On the 23d of August, 1830, a vestry meeting was called, at which Mr. Michael Scales, the rejected candidate for the Aldermanic gown, presided. The plaintiff, Mr. Stevens, in the absence of the de fendant, accused him of brutal conduct towards the widow of one of the late churchwardens (Mrs. Orsen). The defendant, in answer to this accusa tion, published a handbill, in which he imputed to the plaintiff his having received the parochial funds to the amount of .5/. 4s. under false pretences. It appeared that a Mr. Hodgson, formerly a most re spectable shipowner, when the shipping interests de clined in this country, was obliged to yield to the pressure of the times and became a bankrupt; but such was the respect for his character that his friends made a subscription and purchased a house for him at Greenhithe, where their munificent charity afforded him a competence to cheer the evenings of his days. The plaintiff, being amongst his earliest friends, applied to the parish in Mr. Hodgson's name for relief, which was immediately granted to the amount of 4s. a week. On a visit to Green hithe the churchwardens ascertained Mr. Hodgson % dch v eei a sin s in vci eeoddn s eai tnl comfortable sltuw.krapnsrToi s e at c h i r i s c n a m e c s e t p a t t i i e n e g s , p a a n r o d on n i a th l eir lief f ex pressing t e w w h i l et e h d po g l au e itn o ht f iiff i s t , wk a an n so d wa s pl a ep i d d i e i ed f , s ta u on c , h d w w ahg a oa s in re s im mediately admitted that he did receive the parochial relief for Mr. Hodgson, but he kept the fact con cealed from him, lest it should hurt his feelings, and he (plaintiff) always advanced it in a couple of sovereigns at a time. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2001. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nor. 2 (Before Mr. Commissioner WILLIAMS.) ROBERT JOY'S BANKRUPTCY. A meeting of the creditors of Robert Joy, late of the Grand Hotel, Covent-garden, was held to day, for the further proof of debts, and the declara tion of a dividend. After several debts had been proved, the accounts were gone into for the purpose of declaring a fur ther dividend. It appeared by the balance-sheet that the total debts of the bankrupt are about 13,0001., and that the bankrupt had when the fist issued debts due to him amounting to 25,2301., of which onlywere good, and that 21,2164 w ere bad and doubtful. The list of debts * due t THEATRE. the bankrupt contained the names of p. residences were unknown, and many were ma The bankrupt estimated his profits while he bad been in the Grand Hotel at 31,5004 being at ' the rate of 15 per cent, on the returns, which were 115,3571. A dividend of ls. Bd. in the pound was declared r l to-day, and another dividehd will be forthcoming. A former dividend of ss. in the pound hal been declared. (Before Mr. Commissioner HoLRoTD.) JOHN DAVIS'S BANKRUPTCY. The creditors under a fiat issued against John , - Davis, of Fleet -street, auctioneer and dplitilste;er; r held their first meeting to-day, for the proof of debts I. and the choice of assignees. The Court-room was crowded with creditors and claimants, chiefly coma posed of persons of the Jewish persuasion. The debts of the bankrupt are, including his liabilities, estimated at above 5,0001. Mr. Henry :ilornan, formerly a performer at the • Coburg Theatre, appeared to prove for the amount of three bills of exchange alleged to have been dis counted by him; and accepted by the bankrupt. Mr. POLLOCK, for some or the eteditorsj put va rious questions to the claimant. He wished td know what the bills were for, and what discount had been paid ? Mr. Sloman—l discounted the bills, and I think it odd that such questions were put. They are irrelevant. Mr. POLLock—Was the discount of five per cent. per annum, or five per cent. for the three months the Bill had to run ? Mr. Sloman—Among . our people (Jews) we have no idea about discount. I don't see any reason why I should be asked such questions. The COMMISSIONER—They are proper. What evidence have you that you paid money for these bills ? Have you any books ? Mr. Sloman No, I never keep books, except an interest book. I have no other proof to give the Court than the bills. The COMMISSIONER—The proof cannot be al lowed till you produce better proof that you paid the money for the bills. Mr. Sloman—l am in the habit of discounting, and shall be ruined If I am to be so tricked. Several proofs of the same kind were rejected. Various proofs were taken, and assignees were ap pointed. The assets will be very small. THE MARKETS. GENERAL AVERAGE PRICE OF BRITISH CORN, For the Week ended Nov. 15, 1833, made up from the Returns of the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Wales, per Imperial Quarter. Wheat.-- 51s. 4d.1 Oats —.. 19s 9d.1 355. 5 1 : 1 ; Barley-4..31s 2d i Rye ....—. 355• 5d4 Pease.--- 425. IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGES OF THE SIX WEEKS PRECEDING. 51s. 7d.1 Oats 195. 355. Pd• 9d.1 Rye -- 355. 41s. sd• DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN. 355. Bd.l Oats -18 s. 3d.l Beans...—. 16s. 9f l . Barley 10d.1 Rye 16s. 9d.1 Pease...-. Bs. Odd SOUTI - lALL MARKEL—Nov. 20. This day's supply of Beasts and Porkers, was rather numerous. but the former chiefly of inferior quality; of Sheep and Calves but limited. The market was thinly attended by buyers, pa cularly from London, and the trade was dull, except with the best Beef and Mutton, at the following prices per stone of 81b. to sink the offals : Reef 3s. 2d. to 4s. 4d. I Vea1...v..... 4s. Od. to 4 14 1 9 4 Mutton 4 0 4 8 Pork 3 6 4 :igit In'hnelbir. Beasts,egolng q 3tB; tations Sheep, ar 2,615 are thesr Cealvaes 57;hoe poifgst,h4sl. daft se small portion of the stock left the market unsold. LEWIS MARKET.—Nov. 19. Oa Od Beef 35.6 d. to 45.4 d. Veal Os Od. to 4 I Mutton 4 2 5 0 Pork 4 0 41 _, moderately somewh anda g t ogd ris t k h , ro h u n g t h o o th u e t r ; w t i h se e d p u ri i i i n .______..... est Beef, vea • Muttonpy RUMFO RD MA It KET.—Nov. 20. ir. d. "'; s. d. to s. d. Beef 3 2 4 2 i Veal B Z 4 4 4 Mu: ton 3 6 4 6 Pork . Sucklingi,,Cliallevhesc,ol4wss.,two3iths.ihQeiurasrtmearllocldaSlft,orleolPl. to gs, l 2s. to W s. A moderate supply; trade rather dull. couNna CORN MARKETS DURING THE W, COUN rll.l 1.1/11.IN Wheat. Barley. I 001. . # • to ' 11 : Per Sluartet H. to s. s, 4. s. to 41 Blandford 53 28 35 40 58 36 40 15 22 30 03 Cambridge 51 30 17 40 Chard 48 56 24 28 1 8 20 o.l °, 94 Huntingd0n........... 58 63 21 23 14 20 a 99 Long Sutton...—... 56 64 17 22 32 42 48 61 28 32 18 22 40 Q 4 Lynn 5O 60 22 25 16 20 32 -4'o Newark 57 60 29 40 16 22 37 ;I Nottingham .48 58 29 38 20 23 37 ' 4 9 Peterborough —..... 48 60 30 36 14 22 30 Plymouth 50 64 30 34 20 23 "'"' -- 43 67 43 2 7 43 Sleaford 65 70 36 38 22 28 41 Uppingham 50 60 28 36 18 26 56 „,, 48 62 20 33 14. 22 LEEDS CORN MARKET. Wheat, Norfolk and Suffolk, 601 b. - York. and Lincoln. 601 b. Barley, Norfolk and Suffblk - Yorkshire and Lincolnshire - Grinding Beans 63lb. .—Nov. 19. 40s. to 575- n 1 355. to 540. Ess. to 400. ......... 275. to 345. 225. to 235. 230 to 350. 18s. to TA Intl. 9d to 10 )(0e t 1 per 0± 7 28. p... an..—l. to —,./.ji!„,j. Oats, Potatoe -Mealing, I or. I2d. to 13d Shelling Rapeseed, English. 25€. to 27t. Forei l HULL MARKET.—Nov. 19. An . 50' Wheat, Old --s. 525. 54s New .. . ... --s• --; ....s. -- Foreign —s. 50s. 545. In bond... .. 4 . - 7, .0 4 Oats, Poland ........ —s. 18s. 20s. 01d......... " 4 .---.. ... 0 ' ...4. --Small or Feed —a. 16s. 18s --6. ,S. Foreign —s. 16s. 113 s —e..— oge. Barley, Norf. & 5u1.... —s. 30s. 335. Line. & Wold --s• ''', ...- 0 . ' Foreign Beans —s. 365. 38s. Foreign ..—s. --.46 , 5 45. Pease, White —s. 425. 465. Grey --S. •';:...... ....s, fares s — s. --a. Foreign . . .... ... --O• 90/. OS' Rapeseed. in bond none. LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE.--Nov. ii• 9# ,04U WHEAT, English, White, per 701 b. 7 , ad. to 7 Red ----. Scotch, Welch, and Manx 6lO 7 -- Irish, White 7 0 7 0 ---- Red 6 0 9 3 --- Foreign 7 9 3 0 OATS, English, Welsh, anti Scotch, per 451 b 2 6 lg -- Irish -- Foreign 2 6 m 0 B ARL EY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter 34 0 1 5 --- Scotch and Irish, per 601bs. --- Feeding 3 7 0 4 4 0 ii 0 BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter 36 0 s - Irish, &c. '3O 0 5 in 0 - Foreign 40 i 0 PEASE, English, per Imperial quarter 42 2 -- Foreign FL English, per 2801 b. - Irish OATMEAL, English and Irish, per 2401h5. ..... 4 1 1 INDIAN CORN, per 4401 b. It rE, per Imperial quarter 32 0 tk 0 Nlai.T, per Imperial quarter I MPORT OF GRAIN for the Week ending Nov. It ) ...4. 9 . !ns. Wheal Oats. i B ar l e y Flour. Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. iForeign, Brls.llrish,&c. Scluil IVO 12,152 6,708 2,021 462 1 6,6'M MEETINGS OF CREDITORS 4 , AT THE COURT, BASINGHALL- STREE T.. (From the London Gazette.) TO-MORROW, Nov. 23. fl , DIVIDENDS. 0 1 a. J. M acna mara, merchant, London .................................. • BIRTHS. ~,• 1, , goe l On the 21st inst., at Brixton - hill , the lad y of J. B . Esq., of a daughter. 0; " On the 21st inst., at Hornsey, Mrs. R obert Frederic rn , . of a O s n on the 20th inst., Mrs. William Burbidge, of Al- t r o t it street, of a daughter. , 1 ,41 On the 16th inst., at Paradise, near Painswick, ....1...../...4 E. G. Hallewell, Esq., of a son. . MARRIED. r 10 . Of On the 21st inst., at St. Pancras New Church, Ric. „ e liston, Esq., of Heath House, Bushbury , near Wolverb 'pi to Elizabeth Mary, eldest daughter of the late Williams . 4 Esq., of Pinner. SIP' On the 21st inst., at St. George's , Hanover-square,ooo, eldest son of Edgell Wyatt Edgel l, Es q ., of Milv i-„' . Surrey, to Jane, eldest daughter of the late George S' '1 f „ ; Esq., of Marshal's Wick , Herts. On the 21st inst., at Streatham , Charles Timbrell,l;ii ' $l/Ift. field house , Wilts, Esq., to Susan, second da u g hter o ,t,O Flout!, of Upper Tooting, Esq. ..t, 1i,04 ,F On the 21st inst., at the Church of the Holy Trio.-•i'f ' of Chelsea, Alfred Lauriston, third son of Thomas 0e . t ,4 . Esq., of his Majesty's Customs, to Emily, only doe , late Rev. Edmund Watts. DIED. '" 00 On Tuesday evening last, in V erulam-buildings, t Christopher Beverley, Esq., solicitor. P .•eyni' On the 17th inst., at Sandg ate, in the 25th year o f , ' Catherine Emily, secon d daughter of Wm. Striae" 00 Ulcombe, Esq., deceased. On the 16th lust. , at his residence in the Ba l E ns s t q .., ' J a o g s e e d ph Ba Horsley, Esq., of Finesßallet', urr " :fr a N s H tih. a e r 1 1 a 3 n t d h , On 4 1 ;011 On the 10th inst., at her house, Prospec t-Pejes* k g wor th-road, Mrs. S. Waters, widow of Joshua "" late of Antigua. ;Sr / On the 21st inst., at his residency, lat e 6lst year of his age, Charles Waite, Esq., 31. 1,, Majesty's S3d Regiment. PRiNTIO AND PUBLIFMII. NT MU RDO Y0. , 7 I,uN OFILCB, 112, STRAriv.! 1 Ilailivi R' W e ; Pte genth 13 111ipl Editio Pocky nei s• litio '.ll oti PLAT Pdito itself, ba Quin PC AND .13( MET OPE 11 of th tad e *hie teik t 2. 2d. a li lc lioki b k N p. n :i ; .....-.1