The Sun. — London, England, 1832-06-01 00:00:00

whatsoever, and that .he has not aided or assisted the said Mord() Young to secure the purchase of the said •hare in the said Sun newspaper, with a view to defraud his con stituents, meaning the other creditors, or with any corrup view or motive whatever, and that he hath sanctioned th• sale of the said newspaper to the slid Murdo Young, only because he believes it to be most for the advantage of the creditors at large, and without any view whatever tr• nny private interest, and without any personal motiv , wh itever. " Deponents Henry Winchester and Thomas Briggs say, that the docket was struck, and the commission sued out against the slid P. Grant, without any collusion with the said Murdo Young, and without his knowledge, so far as there deponents or either of them, know or believe, and that there was no understanding of any sort or kind between them in reference to the said commission, or to the sale of the bankrupt's share in the paper, and that the tole reason of the said Alderman Winchester's refusal to sign the certificate (as th's deponent Thomas Briggs be lieves, and as this deponent Henry Winchester saith) was the unsatisfactory conduct of the said bankrupt, in respect of the transactions aforesaid." I ask then, with these written documents before us, whe ther any lawyer would not have taken the precise course which Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs have adopted, yet for that course they have been attacked, their characters traduced, their motives impugned, repeated from week to week in newsp ipers and pamphlets, and when they come into Court, they arc met in the statements they make on oath, by a heap and tissue of conjectures, speakin , t only as to information and belief as to some rigmarole conversations. They only state generally that. Hickman was ready to give 13,0001., but he nev(r said he would make aay purchase unless he had exclusive pos session. If Mr. Grant wished that the assignees should use their influence to turn Mr. Young out of possession, and that he himself by corusive purchase should obtain exclusive pos session, he would have acted prudently for himself,no doubt; but the assignees could not, from the terms of the p at nership-deed, force Mr. Young out of possession.— Where is the ground for charting Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs with fraud, with swindling, or with any si nister motives? They could have no earthly motive in acting as they did, but the conviction that they were act ing justly and beneficial} , to the estate. Yet attacks are made, and imputations cast, upon the honour, integrity, and character of these men, because they had not agreed to what they could not, either in law or in fact, agree to. A word about Mr. Grant's certificate. Mr. Grant seems not to have been aware that his coadjutors had, in fact, on this point, made counter-affidavits. Mr. Winchester says that he had no other reason for not signing his certificate bnt that he had not been satisfied with his conduct ; but that he signed it because he understood, from the repre sentations of the bankrupt, that his friends would be in duced to come forward, and offer some effectual security for the purchase of the shares. Mr. Grant makes this case, that he had other creditors to sign his certificate ; but Mr. Bell and Mr. Lomax state that Mr. Winchester had been induced to withhold his signature, in order to prevent him from getting security. I stab d to your Lordship, that I would read Mr. Westley's affidavit ; we have it in his own hand-writing, and what does he say? AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK CRANWELL WESTLEY, OF NO. 165, STRAND, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, SWORN. SA That having, in or about February, 1831, been informed that three-fourth parts or shares of and in The Sun newspaper, types, printing-presses, machinery, and other articles belonging thereto, were about to be soli by the assignees of Mr. Patrick Grant, he, deponent, at the sug gestion of one Joh❑ Bell, made a propositio❑ in writing to Mr. Henry Briggs, the solicitor under the commission against the said Mr. Graat, in the words and figures and to the purport and effect set forth by the said Thomas Briggs in the affidavit sworn by him on the loth of April last. " Saith, that in consequence of such offer, and of another offer made by one Murdo Young, he, the depo nent, attended a meeting of the creditors of the said Patrick Grant, which had been convened by the assignees, at which meeting certain resolutions were passed by such creditors, authorizing the said assignees to treat with depo nent and the said Murdo Young upon the business of the proposals made by them. " Saith, That shortly after and in consequence of such meetin g and the resolution then passed, he, deponent, had an interview with the said Thomas Br iggs, when the said Thomas Briggs informed deponent that there were certain claims of the said MurdoYoung against the said newspaper, and also certain liabilities to which the said three-fourth parts or shares were subject, amounting to between 3 and 4 ,000/. ; and therefore he the said Thomas Briggs must decline treating with deponent upon the basis of his offer, and then stated that if he, deponent, wanted the said shares, he must be prepared to pay down a sum sufficient to cover such claims and liabilities. And deponent most positively denies the allegation of the said Thomas Briggs, as stated in his said affidavit, that he, the said Thomas Briggs, repeatedly applied to and urged deponent to carry into effect the proposal so made by him on the 24th February, 18 31,as aforesaid ; on the contrary, be was perfectly ready and willing to effect the same, but the said Thomas Briggs, for the reasons before set out, most positively refused to acced e to it. " Saith, that doubting the correctness of such claims and liabilities aforesaid, deponent felt anxious to ascertain the truth of the same, and with that view at his said be fore-mentioned interview with the said Thomas Briggs, he requested the said Thomas Briggs to furnish him with the particulars thereof, at the same time professing his, deponent's, willingness to incur all the responsibility which said three -fourth parts or shares were actually subject to, but the said Thomas Briggs declined furnishing such particulars, but mentioned in the course of conversation that Messrs. Crompton, of Manchester, had claims against the said newspaper to a large amount, and deponent was referred by the said Thomas Briggs for information to the said Messrs. Crompton and to the sail Murdo Young, al though the said Murdo Young was then actually in treaty for the purchase of the said three-fourth parts, or shares; and it was his, the said Murdo Young's, interest to mag nify such liabilities. " Saith, that at such interview as before mentioned With the said Thomas Briggs, he, the said Thomas Briggs desired deponent to send in further proposals if he wished to purcha se t h e sa i d three-fourth parts or shares, stipu lating to pay down the sum of 4,0001., and he appointed a certain time for deponent to send in the same. a " Saitb, that not being immediately prepared with a large sum of money as required by the said Thomas Briggs, he, deponent, did not send in such proposals by the time ap pointed; and the said Thomas Briggs then sent such letter as is set forth in his said affidavit, dated the Bth March, 1831 ; but deponent positively declares that such letter had no reference to the proposal , be had previously made in writing, and which had been submitted to the creditors of the said Patrick Grant, but to the said further pro- Primal so required by the said Thomas Briggs as last rnentioned. " Saith, that in consequence of such letter him,he waited n eon the said Thomas Briggs, and informedthe said Thoma s B r i ggs, t h at the reaso n n nt be im h m ad ed l i l a o t t ely s ent prep s a u r c e h d proposals, was because with the money required he by w t a h s esaid Thomas s, Briggs to be paid down ; that he had applied to his, deponent's father, who is a man of considerable property, for his a.. but had not received his answer, and therefore required fur ther time. A nd deponent also informed the said Thomas Briggs, a n d as the fact was, that the said Patrick Grant and other persons were to be interested in his said pur chase; and that the deponent had expected that the said Patrick Grant, and such other parties should have found part of the money so to be paid : down,but depo nent which they w ere not, however, prepared with• positivrly denies that he stated that be t . n o 'aa only acting for and on behalf of the said Patrick Gran , .n. the contrary he, deponent, always informed the said "elfhThomas Br iggs, and as the fact was, that he, deponent, was imsinterested in the purchase of the said shares. Sahli, that at such last mentioned interview with the said Thos. B riggs) he also informed the said Thos. Briggs that a letter would be also to him by deponent, or one of his friends, in the cours e of that or the following day, and such !eau. was accordingly written on the following day by the friend he alluded to, viz. John Bell, who wrote euch letter as is set forth in the said affidavit of the said Thomas Briggs ; but deponent positively states that the letter written by Thomas Kinnear, under date the 9th March, 1 831 f was such letter as he, deponent, was not then, and is not now acquainted with the said Thomas Kinnear, and deponent did not know that the said Thomas Kinnear bad vvritten any such letter as is tut forth in the said affidavit of the said Thomas Briggs, until lie, deponent, read the same in such affidavit, although the siiil Thomas Briggs has implied that connivance of de such l etter was written with the ponent. " Said], that the said Thomas Briggs having insisted Upon deponent's immediately complying with the terms stipulated by him of Paying 4,000/. down, and deponent's t said father having refosed to advanc e so large a sum, de ponent and the said Patrick Grant and such other intended able immediately as stipulated by Purchasers not being 44 id Thomas Briggs to raise the gaid money, deponent was u pabl e to comply with the same, and be at length with ‘4 from further treaty, feeling convinced, however, a, dervkstill is, that said Thomas Briggs had required suet. -44, to be paid down, thinking it would def eat d e r°nen' Saith, that th e p roposa l in writing ade by hpon ent. im, de t, was made in goo d f a i th, and with m a view to be car. ''etl into effect, and not to secure delay for the mid Patrick ;rant, and that had not said Thomas Briggs refu•ed to ntertain the same, and wl.ich he was Authorised to de y said creditors at the s i l meetinz of the 25th February. 531, he, deponent, would have been reit !y and 0 have completed the 83M, " Such is Mr. Westl-y's affidavit, hut it does not vary do ••ase at all as stated by Mr. Briggs, nor does it justif y toy part of those infamous libels now complained of. Mr. Kinnear begins by stating, that he proceeded on his own account; that he was a young man, and that he canted to invest his property ; and one-half of the state tient of Mr. Kinnear's affidavit goes to that, and he dare not deny the substance of Mr. Brigg's affidavit in the ;lightest degree. Thee be admits that he had a conversa ,;bn with Mr. Grant, and that Mr. Grant was to have had a share, but that share was not defined. It might have been 3-4ths or 5-6ths, or 7-Sths—it might have :wen anything—and it is quite elerr that he went there at the instigation of Mr. Grant. Now, it is very important that he does not deny that the letter he wrote was without the knowledge of Bell or of Grant. All he says is, that it w a s not, according to his belief, with the knowledge of Mr. Grant. That is to say, Bell might have told him to write it, and Bell might have told Grant of it, but that he Slid not know that Bell did tell Grant. He says he had no knowledge of the fact that Grant or Westley did know of it, but yet that Grant was to have part in the speculation. Now, all the rest of the affidavit resolves itself into this—to give a detailed statement of what took place in March, at Mr.. Thornton's chambers. They break that into parts—they say that when first they came to Mr. Thornton's, Mr. Briggs said, " Oh, you are too late—the thing is sold to Mr. Young," It is very possible that in the course t.f conversation stone such ob servation might have been made in the first instance, but was it fair in them to leave out what took pl ice in that way, when the fact is, that they were called in to bid against Mr. Young, and that they did actually bi l against him until the sum offered was raised considerably ? Is it a falsehood, then, that he was guilty of, when he expressed some surprise on seeing persons there whom he did not cx • pect to see, and who were afterwards let in to make what ever offer they thought right? Mr. KELLY—NO, IL g your pardon ; they insisted on going to Mr. Thornton. Sir J. SCARLETT—WeII, suppose they did—suppose Mr. Briggs had said at the moment he siw them that they were too late, that he went to Mr. Thornton, and then came back and said the thing was open for them—is it right to charge us upon that with a deliberate falsehood? Mr. Briggs in his affidavit states in substance what they themselves state. He states the proposal male by the one party, and the proposal made by the other, and they don't deny his statement ; therefore I say, my Lords, there is no substantial contradiction—still less a title in these persons to go and state publicly that my clients were guilty of falsehood. It might just as well be said, that if any gentleman had come here and said that there was a motion made to show cause against a rule, as I was told only yesterday by my Learned Friend Mr. Bayley, which had been disposed of in your absence, and I afterwards went and spoke to the clerk, and was informed by him that it had not been disposed of, because he knew I was in it, and therefore did not draw up the order—it might just as well be said that that was a deliberate falsehood on the part of Mr. Btyley. Then, my Lords, with respect to Mr. Montagu's opinion—if Mr. Alontagu's opinion had been supposed by Mr. Briggs to have been of the least importance, he would have had too much pleasure in putting it on the files of this Court to have withheld it. It was stated that the sale had been made to Mr. Young. Now, if you state one-half of a propo sition and leave out the other half, you may state that which is true, omitting to state that which is not true. Suppose they had stated there was a contract agreed to to sell to Mr. Young, why these mioht be just grounds enough to swear by. Now, I cannot offer to your Lordships that case, though it has been commented on. I believe Mr. Briggs will not be ashamed, however, of having that case made public ; and as to the opinion, ac cording to my view, it is a very sound one. All that Mr. Briggs was endeavouring to show was the folly of going into Court upon a fruitless% litigation—end that in going to Mr. Young, and negotiating with hint, they were doing that which was most likely to benefit the estate. Mr. Lords, I am unwilling to go into a more mi nute detail. I have stated the facts which my Learned Friend, Mr. Campbell, studiously kept hack; and have endeavoured to put Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Win chester's conduct in a clear and proper light. They have denied all improper motive—the other side don't swear to any ; they have denied all interest—the other side don't impute any. They don't swear to Mr. Briggs and Mr. Winchester's making a point of having a part of this News paper. They say the time may come when tigers and lambs may come together, but I do not think the time will ever come when either of these gentlemen will join either the one or the ether of these two Newspapers. I don't think they will ever either join Mr. Grant or Mr. Young, from the opinions which they have exhibited in their Papers to the public. Is it not hard, then, that from an eager anxiety to accomplish some particular end, people should come here and swear to a belief of things which they have no right to allege ? Mr. Briggs has solemnly denied on his oath, which is what the Court requires, that he either knew Mr. Young be fore this transaction,—than lie had any interest, or that he contemplated any interest, beyond the interests of the creditors, or was actuated by any personal motive what ever; Mr. Alderman Winchester does the same, except that he says he had the slightest knowledge of Mr. Young before. Well, then, is it possible that you will permit these gentlemen to he libelled as they have been, from the supposition that they had some interested mo tives, and because the persons making these affidavits merely say that they cannot account for the conduct of my clients in any other way? If they cannot account for their conduct in any other way, it is owing to their own ignorance of the case—it it owing to the darkness of their understandingsnot permitting them to perceive that which is as clear as the day, that an honest solicitor under commission Nßlrr.i g c g o As u Id ] t i edr n no o in t a ntandi occasion.sienca assignees Ani t cl o , L a s c oi t rrd t . s t , h u e i :or Briggs my a t o h p a i n ni on, have done their duty, and Mr. Thornton has been the main cause, by his good-nature, or by his friendship for Mr. Grant, o f t h us h azar di ng the safety of the estate, and, as it appears, of preventing it from making any dividend, ev en t o t hi s d ay . I d o not accuse Mr. Thornton of any thing wrong. It has been a mistake— those gentlemen have been desirona of getting hold of this paper—having failed in that object, they have set up another for the express purpose of destroying it; and they first begin by libelling these gentlemen, adopting that course, I suppose, as the best mode of beginning a new paper and of getting it brought into circulation. 1 do hope, therefore, that your Lordships will think this a justifiable case for calling for the protection of this Court to gentlemen who came forward doing their duty to a body of creditors, and doing exactly that duty which 1 will venture to say, if any of your Lordships had not been advanced to your present dignity, had been asked what ought to have been done, you would have advised to have been done. Notwithstanding all that they have done, they have been held up to the public us swindlers —liars—and the one as unfit for an attorney, and the other an Alderman of the city of London deserving only to be driven from all civic honours. My Lords, the libels are of a most flagrant nature, and I trust your Lordships will think that the conduct of these gentlemen, from be ginning to end, has been such as in no way to justify them. Mr. FOLLETT—My Lords, I am on the same side with Sir James Scarlett, and I believe both the alit davits, and all the facts are now so fully before your Lordships, that I need trouble you very shortly ; I shall merely call the attention of your Lordships to the nature of the libels, to the way in which they have been circulated, and to the mode in which the gentlemen have endeavoured to get rid of those libels. The main charge, my Lords, in the libels is, that Mr. Alderman Win chester, and Mr. Briggs, colluding with Mr. Young, for some purpose of their own, stied out this corn • mission against Mr. Grant ; that for some swin dling purpose—that is their own language—that for some swindling purpose, either to put money into their pockets or into the pocket of Mr. Young, in connexion with Mr. Young, they sued out the commission : that is the first and main charge. The words of the libel are— " the whole scheme of the commission which Mr. Win chester sued out against Mr. Grant was a swindle, and the same spirit which led to the suing out of the commission, marred Mr. Grant's attempts to repurchase his property." Then a little lower down he goes on to say, if it was the pleasure of the creditors to permit a trio of swindlers to stand between them and their property, the fault certainly was not his. If they chose to allow Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs to cheat them out of their interest in The Sun, Mr. Grant, surely, was not, in consequence, bonnd to forego his interest in that property. Now that was the 'barge contained in the newspaper and also in the libel. Loan Came' JUSTICE—In the pamphlet, you mean. Mr. FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord, in the pamphlet and also in the newspaper. The parties against whom this in formation is sought to be filed, do not in any part of their affidavits from beginning to end attempt to say they be lieve the commission was sued out by Mr. Young. LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE—By Mr. Alderman Winchester. Mr. FOLLEET—By Mr. Young, my Lord, in conjunc tion with Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winchester. except that Mr. Grant has the hart ilood to swear in this way. Grant himself states, af.er admitting, that 'rom 1829 to 1830, he was absent in France for he purpose of avoiding his creditors, • that he pro iosed that a deed of assignment should be made to its creditors, which they refused ; then, that in th. nonth of October, 1830, he came home, and was informed -hat a docket had been struck against him. Then in dates that, after he had been so informed, Mr. Young toot bin] to see Mr. Briggs ; and he states this Thai `laving consented to accompany the said M. Young he. leponent, discovered that said M. Young and T. 13rigg• were not only known to each other, but apparently on very friendly terms; and deponent has since been inrormed nd verily believes that said M. Young and T. Briggs rere for some time previously often in consultation to. (ether, and, as deponent has been informed and verily be lies', s, arranging a commission against him." Now that s the only part in all these affidavits which applies to , oat charge in the libel. Then Mr. Briggs states in his ffidavit that he had no knowleLe of Mr. Young, that he ad no desire to serve him, that he never saw Mr. Young ill after the issuing of the commission; that he has not , low, nor ever had any sort of friendship for him, nor any desire that he should have the paper; but that, on the con trary, after the issuing of the commission he acted for the interests of the creditors to the utmost of his power. Then Mr. Alderman Winchester, the assignee, and Mr. lidega, the solicitor tinier the commisssion, state,— " That the docket was struck and the commission sued out against the said P. Grant, without any collusion with the said Murdo Young, and without his kowledge, so far 49 these deponents or either of them know or believe ; and that there W:151 no understanding of any sort or kind between them in reference to the slid commission, or to the sale of the bankrupt's share in the paper ; and that the sole reason of the said Alderman Winchester's refusal to sign the certificate (as this deponent Thomas Briggs believes, and as this deponent Henry Winchester saith), was the unsatisfactory conduct of the said bankrupt." Your Lordships will see, therefore, that this charge, put forth day after day in a newspaper, of these gentlemen having, with Mr. Young, entered into a swindling , greement to sue out a commission against Mr. Giant, the bankrupt, they do not attempt to substantiate; and that that charge is totally denied. Well, now with respect to the other part of the charge which my Learned Friend Mr. Campbell has gone into. Mr. Campbell, several times in the course of his address to your Lord ships, spoke of the scheme and the plot which Mr. Briggs, Mr. Alderman Winchester, and Mr. Young were concocting together, but he did not state what that scheme or plot was, nor could it be collected from his ob• eel vations. I thought my Learned Friend meant, and I presume he did mean, that the scheme and plot was to sue out this commission ; but then that is totally denied by us, and not stated in the affidavits by the other side. Well, then, the scheme or plot was, that the commission bad been sued outfor a swindling purpose—what that swindling pur po•e was we do not know—probably it was to prevent the selling of this paper to any other person. Now your Lordships will see by the affidavits that the impression on the minds of Mr. Alderman Winchester, and Mr. Briggs was this—that the persons who were offering to purchase this paper were young men put forward on the part of Grant, and that they were not fit to carry into effect the propositions they were making ; that they were, in truth, persona put forward by the bankrupt, in order that the bankrupt might himself become the purchaser on such terms as they might be able to induce the assignees to permit him to become the purchaser upon. They say the first proposition of Hickman was to let him into pos sessiom of the paper, on paying the amount to be agreed upon. Now, there is no such statement in the affidavits. There is no statement of any such proposal, except the one of 10,0001. which Thornton himself refused ; all the other propositions that were made were propositions which at no time could be considered substantial or banafide propositions. My Lord, there is not throughout the whole of these affidavits, from beginning to end, a denial that the whole of the offers were made on behalf of the bankrupt, he being in truth the party putting those persons forward ostensibly al the purchasers, but that he himself might continue to he the proprietor of the paper ; on the contrary, they admit that Grant was the person who was seeking to make the purchase. Well, now, if that be so, and even if Mr. Young, who was the person who had the right, by the copartnership deed, of pre-emption—if he was the person who always offered, as he did, to pay down the money, and to give the sum which had been offered by the others, how can it be said that Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winchester, for some swindling purpose, refused to let the others have the paper, preferr ing Mr. Young to any other person who had come for ward ? My Lords, there is only the other charge made by my Learned Friend Mr. Kelly, of Mr. Alderman Win chester refusing to sign the bankrupt's certificate. Now, I am not aware that that would have been libellous, if it had been so ; but 'Mr. Alderman Winchester states, that lie refused to sign it, because lie disapproved of the bank rupt's conduct; anti this, my Lords, is in the affidavit. After he had signed it, Mr. Grant expressed his gratitude to him for having signed it—said he was exceedingly obliged to him, and Mr. Grant never denies that to this hour. He says, indeed, that he used civil language; but he does not deny the fact as we state it. But, my Lords, the main charge in these libels, that Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winchester, in collusion with Mr. Young, were swindling Grant out of this property, i s never set up by these affidavits; nor is there any thing in them to show, after the commission was sued out, every thing was not d .ne with perfect bona fides. I do sub. mit, therefore, to the Court, that there is not the slightest ground for refusing to make this rule absolute. My Lords, the case is long—we were obliged to go into it—in doing so, much time has been oc cupied, for the affidavits are long ; and now that they are before you, 1 think your Lordships will be dis posed to say it is a case entirely stripped of all ground on the other side ; that there was nothing at all to justify, nor even to account for these libels, except the disappoint. ment of Mr. Grant ; that he was not able to go on with the same Paper, but obliged to set up another, and not now with the speedy chance which perhaps he might have had of a sale of his share in the other. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said,—We are of opinion that we must make this rule absolute. The substance of these libels is to charge Mr. Alder man Winchester, who, I suppose, was one of the petitioning creditors—to a certainty was one of the assignees under the commission—and Mr. Briggs, who was the solicitor to that commission, with having sued out and conducted that commission for the fraudulent purpose of cheating Mr. Grant, or at least cheating his creditors. From the affidavits on the one side and on the other, there does not appear to us to he any reasonable foun dation for such an imputation on either of these gentlemen. If they doubted, and they honestly might have doubted, from the facts disclosed to us by the affidavits, the real abi lities of the persons who made the offers to carry their offers into effect, they did right nut to carry them into effect. if the offers were made, as some of them undoubtedly were, with a view, and on the supposition, that the persons making those offers were to have the conduct of the newspaper, and that Mr. Young, who, by the terms of the partnership deed was to have the conduct of the paper, was to be ousted out of it, an offer made with that view was such as they could not accept, because they could not carry it into effect. Yet there are terms of the grossest imputation cast upon both of these gentlemen—the term swindling, and so on, being applied to both. "As to Mr. Briggs we decline saying any thing more at present. We understand that a motion will be made in a few days, at the instance of some of the creditors, to have him struck off the rolls." Now we cannot see what the reason could have been why any such application should be made, or that there was any foundation for it. Now with regard to Mr. Alderman Winchester, it is stated, "An application for Mr. Winchester's removal from the assigneeship 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 waiting fur further evidence than was supplied at the meeting on Saturday, vindicate the cha racter of civic dignitaries, and show their respect for public decency, by expelling Mr. Winchester from their body." — Now really, if publications of this kind are to be put forth to the world, and if the persons who are the objects of them are not to be vindicated in this Court, there is at once an end to all attempts to protect the character either of publi c or pr i vate men. With that view, and having said so much, we think it is the duty of this Court to de clare that the rule shall be MADE ABSOLUTE. RULE MADE ABSOLUTE. The adventures of Mr. Ross Cox on the Colombia River, have been pronounced to form one of the most surprising books in the whole circle of volumes of Voyages and Travels. The country he penetrated was, until his footsteps traced it, almost unexplored, and the inhabitants were unknown to the great family of man.— Marvellous as were the incidents which befel him, the authenticity of the narrative, and the high character of the author, are every where unquestioned. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA I- 30. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the Clergy .1 Rochester, auainst the Irish Education system ; also pe. itions to the same effect from parishes in Kent and Essex. Lord MORPETH had also to present a petition on 64 object of Irish Education ; but it took a different view .f it from that taken by those presented by the Member ur the University of Oxford. The petition was from the society of Protestant Dissenters meeting at Queen-stree , Thapel, Leeds, and they prayed that the system might be ~ r severed in. The NOBLE Loan then pres?nted a petition from S td• ll. ? worth and Thorn, praying the House not to grant any eipplies till the Reform Bill was passed. Mr. O'CONNELL took that opportunity of stating qat the Irish Reform 13ill was so deficient, that unless ';overnment gave way, he would oppose every part of tht Irish Supplies, vote by vote. Lord MORPETH then presented several petitions .gaiust the punishment of death for minor offences. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Learning. ~ 11 in favour of the Boundary Bill ; also, one from the .nliabitants of the neighbourhood of Leamington, out of the limits of the boundary, to the same effect. Sir R. BATESON presented a petition from Belfast in favour of the Factory Bill. —Referred to the Committee. The Hort. BARONET then presented a petition from a parish in Londonderry, against the new system of educa ,ion in Ireland. The petitioners objected to the proposed system, because it was likely to continue that wide breach which unfortunately existed at present between the Ca. tholics and the Protestants of Ireland.—Also, a petition from the Sunday School Teachers of Belfast, to the same effect. Major M'NAMARA said he could say that the whole of the disturbances that had occurred in the County Clare had arisen from the compulsory efforts that had been made to for ce the children of Catholics to attend Protestant schools. Mr. 'CONNELL was sure that his Hon. and Gallant ~friend, the Member for Clare, being a resident landlord, a magistrate, and a grand juryman of that country, must be better acquainted with the causes of the disturbances which took piece there than any other gentleman, English man or Scotchman,—(A laugh,) in that House. The lion. Gentleman who so flatly contradicted his Hon. and Gallant Friend, had attempted to show that persecution was not the cause of distubances in 1529, because in 1825 there was no persecution, and the people where not com pelled to receive a scriptual iddication,—(Much laughter.) But he (Mr. O'Connell) would remind thejlon. Gentle men of many instances of persecution, and, amongst others, of one, for which a magistrate was prosecuted and punished. Mr. GORDON wondered that the lion. Member for Kerry would dare to rni. , repre,ent his phraseology, and to make that misrepresentation the means of turning him into ridicule, with the vulgarism, of a pauper (as we un derstood,) and the insolence of a demagogue.—(Loud cries of order, order.) The SPEAKER was sure that, in the phraseology which he had just used, he had been guilty of a gross violation of order. The Honourable Gentleman would see the necessisty of making some explanation to the House for the error into which he had been betrayed. Mr. GORDON was sorry if he had been guilty of any breach of decorum; but lie trusted that the House would take into consideration that his phraseology had been more than once or twice misrepresented by the Hon. Member fur Kerry, for the purpose of turning him into ridicule. Mr. O'CONNELL was understood to say, No. Mr. GORDON proceeded to explain that the Hon. Member for Kerry had just now represented him to say iddicntion, when he had, in fact, pronounced the word properly. Mr. O'CONNELL—How? Mr. GORDON—I did not say iddication : I said eedi• cation. —(lmmense laughter.) Sir R. BATESON then presented a petition from a Presbyterian Congregation at Garvah ; also against the new system of Public Education. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSON presented a petition frem Hamilton in favour of the Scotch Reform Bill—also one from Kircuilbright to the same effect; and one from some natives in India, complaining that the introduction of Europeans into that country would destroy them. Colonel EVANS said if there were any complaints to be made against the introduction of the Courts of Law into India it would be a good ground for an investigation, but the one brought forward was not one entitled to con sideration. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. STANLEY movel that the Dublin Evening Mail be read, in which the report of the Irish Committee appeared. The Clerk having read the report, Mr. Sheehan was called to the bar. In answer to the SPEAKER, he said he was proprietor of the Dublin Evening Mail. He sent the report complained of to Dublin in his own name. Ile would not state from what source he got the copy. In answer to Mr. O'CONNELL be declined to answer whether the usual ciution was on the back of the paper or not, or whether the paper was printed or in manu script. lie was then ordered to withdraw. Mr. STANLEY then said, that he was obliged to move that Mr. Sheehan be either committed to Newgate or into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. He felt bound to state that he saw from another number of the Dublin Evening Mad that the proprietors were de termined to set the House and Committee at defiance. The Hon. Gentleman then read the passage be complained of. On the motion that Mr. Sheehan be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. HUNT said he could not see how the House could punish the present defendant for a breach of privilege, when they allowed Peers to break some of their most important ones at every election. Colonel PERCEVAL and Mr. A. LEFROY opposed the motion. They thought that the Right Hon. Secretary ought not to have acted so harshly and unjustifiably to a Paper because it was opposed to the Government in politics. Mr. STANLEY hoped to be allowed to explain. He had not been, and he hoped the House would believe that he was not, actuated by political motives.—(Hear.) He had only done his duty—a duty imposed upon him by the unanimous vote of the Committee with only one exception, and that vote was of a gentleman of quite op posite politics to that of the Paper whose conduct was under discussion. Mr. GOULBURN said this was a most important question. The person who gave such information must have been guilty of a gross breach of trust, for only a cer tain number of copies were printed, and so carefully were those distributed, that every one was enclosed in a wrap-. per, and sealed, so that the person must have broken the seal of a letter addressed to an individual Member. He thought that it was absolutely necessary that the House should pursue the inquiry farther, in order to find out who had so broken the confidence reposed in him. Mr. LITTLETON entirely agreed with the Hon. Member. He was sorry that Mr. Sheehan would not answer the questions from the House ; he must not only receive a heavy sentence, but be punished till he revealed from what source he got his information. He was one of the Members of the Committee, but owing to circum stances had only attended once or twice, but he had re ceived all the papers connected with the proceedings of the Committee except the draught in question, that he had not received. Captain GORDON sa id i t was customary w i t h t h e Press--in fact, they made it a point of honour, never to give up the names of soy one who gave them informa tion ; therefore, Mr. Sheehan had only done that which any one else would have done in the some circumstances. Mr. PORTMAN was of opinion that the better course would he to commit the gentleman to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, b ecause th a t course wou ld g i ve hi m an opportunity of repenting, and by to-morrow, perhaps, he ought have some communications to make to the House. After a few words from Mr. StrAW, the question was put and agreed to, that Mr. Sheehan had been guilty of a gross breach of privilege. Mr. STANLEY then said that under the circumstances be could not do less than move that Mr. Sbeeehan be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. It that gentleman persisted in not giving satisfaction to the House, which he hoped he would not do, he (Mr. S.) would feel it his duty to call upon the House to have the officers in attendan ce to - morrow, w h ose d uty i t was to circulate the Papers to the Committee. The further consideration of the case was then post poned till to-morrow. Mr. EDWARD L Y TTON B ULWER rose , pursuant to notice, t o move for a Select C omm i ttee f or the pill , pose of inquiring into the State of the Laws affecting Dramatic Literatur e , an d th e P er f orma nce of the Drama. They all kne w t h at there was a patent ;rante d to t h e two great theatres, for the performance of the drama. The extent and power of these patents, with the laws by which they are strengthened, have long been a matter of dispute; hut by the late decision of a high judicial authority, it seemed that all performances worthy of the attendance of persons pretending to a reasonable degree of education—all performances, except those of the most mountebank and trumpery description, fit only for th stages of Bartholomew Fair, were to be considered as is fritieineots of the law. and as suhiee.tino those who a.ci 'n them to serious penalties. The minor theatres were, Serthre, at this moment—with their many thousand per ' Tillers, who depend for support on their existence— oithout the pale of the law ; asd the question is, therefore. ()reed before the puhFc in the fallowing shape :—" How tr is it expsdient for the tit it privileges and en etments of this mono/el zing d. set ; l ei at should be con inued how fir is it expedient that the minor theatres hould be suppressed, and the exclusive patents of the two treat theatres should be continued ?" In the first place. to contended, that the original reason for suppressing the ninor theatres has long since ceased to exist ; and in the econd place, he contended, that the only possible ground non which these patents were given in trust to the metro olitan theatres, had not been fulfilled. Now, the reason or suppressing the minor theatres appeared both by tct of Parliament and in the Lterary history of these lines. In the licentious period in which the first atents were granted, viz.—the time of Chatles the S-cond, in all the unbridled re action and intoxicated 'erment of the Restoration—it seemed that the minor theatres were the scene of very disorderly and improper exhibitions ; and it became necessary to suppress them— lot so much for the sake of preserving decency as of pro tecting the drama.__( Hear, hear.) But did that reason :xist at present? Could any who had ever by accident mended the smaller houses, assert that the performance old the audience were not of the most decorous and orderly description? So far as that consideration went, the minor theatres are fully as entitled to a license as the two great theatres themselves ; and the original reason, therefore, for suppressing the minor theatres has, ,midst the growing good taste and civilization of the age, entirely ceased to exist. On the other hand, why was a patent granted to two theatres alone? There was hut one possible ground—there was hut one allege'] ground— for the preservation of the dignity of the national drama. Now, how had the patents obtained that object? It happened curiously enough, that no sooner were the two great theatres in possession of this patent, than the national drama began to deteriorate, and a love fur scenic effect to supersede it. It was reproached to Sir William Davenant, it was reproached to all the stage ma nagers under the new patents, that they made their chief object in theatrical decoration a mechanical improvement. This reproach, with more or less justice, had constantly existed—this reproach, with peculiar justice, existed at the present time. Indeed it was impossible to look back to the last fourteen or fifteen years without being struck with the extraordinary poverty of intellect which had been displayed in the legitimate drama, compared with that which any other department of literature had called forth. There had been exceptions, very honourable ex ceptions ; but, if there are exceptions, never had any ge neral rule fewer exceptions; and we are tempted to ask with the Lord Chancellor, not how many plays have been produced of our literature, but rather how many pl .ys had been produced fit for grownup men and women to go anti see ? When we had given so vast a privilege to two theatres solely fur one object, viz. the preservation of the dignity of the national drama, we were bound, in jus tice, to see if that object had been effected. We are bound in justice to say where are the plays, to produce and en courage which we gave you this exclusive privilege? Where are the immortal tragedies, where are the chaste and brilliant comedies.—(Cheers.) You were to preserve the dig nity of the drama from being corrupted by mountebank ac tors and absurd performances ; you have therefore, we trust, driven jugglers and harlequins from the national stage; you have admitted no wild beasts; you have introduced no fire eaters and sword-swallowers ; you have preserved the dignity of tho national drama inviolate ; you hive left it such as it was when you took it from the hinds of Ben Jonson or Shakspeare : for, if you have not dune this, then you have not fulfilled that object for which we took from your brethren those privileges we have intrusted to you. When they looked round and saw the dioramas, and the cosmoramas, and the jugglers, and the horses, and the elephants, and the lions, which have been poured forth upon the stage, they could not but feel that the dignity of the drama had not been preset ved, and the object of these patents bad not been fulfilled. Seeing then that the reason for suppressing the minor theatres no longer existed, seeing that the object of these patents had not been real zed, they were enabled to take a broader view of the question, and to recognise the tnonstrous injustice that the law would inflict on the public; for was it not absurdly unjust to say to the immense and scattered population of this metropolis, you shall go only to two theatres for the harmless recreation of a play—no matter how remote the habitation of the play-goer—no matter how incon venient for the purposes of hearing and seeing the arrangement of the Theatre. Paddington and Pim lico, Westminster and the Tower Hamlets, Mary !shone and Shoreditch, were all to disgorge their play-going population in the direction of Covent-garden or Drury-lane, where, when they had at last arrived, they would find not perhaps a tragedy, not perhaps a comedy, but a very fine scene in a very bail melo-drame_or, perhaps, if they were in eminent luck, a couple of lions and a diorama, by way of keeping up, lie supposed, the dignity of the national drama.—(Cheers and laughter.) Was not this, indeed, unjust to the public, whom it de • prived of all the numberless advantages of competition? Was it not unjust to the author and the actor, whom it limits to so overstocked and narrow a market? But it might be said that the minor theatres, notwithsanding their illegality, continue to exist, and that this injustice to the public was not therefore committed. But would not that fact alone be sufficient ground for inquiry ? The small theatres were liable to serious penalties. They were told that those penalties would be enforced. If enforced, what injustice of the law ; if not enforced, what mockery of the law.—(Hear, hear.) In either case amendment was necessary. Laws that were iniquitous should be altered ; but so also should laws that were impracticable. Why expose the laws to be at once hated for their doctrine and laughed at for their impotence? Why have all sound and fury in the theory, signifying nothing in the practice ? Besides, if you cannot, in the teeth of public opinion, shut up the small theatres, why nut let them assume a re spectable, a lawful character? What encouragement do you give to the proprietors of the minor theatres for a re gular and continued spirit of enterprise while this uncer tainty hangs over their head? What unfair injustice this precarious uncertainty of the law causes ! One proprietor breaks the law with impunity. The Lord Chamberlain, however, honours the illegal theatre with his presence— sanctions the illegality by his patronage—and another proprietor, as at this moment is the case, may be suddenly prosecuted and cast into prison for the crime of earning his bread exactly in the same manner as his brethren, but not exactly with the same fortunate impunity. Let us then have these laws defined, and clear and uniform in their application. Let us know what theatres shall exist, and what performances they shall be allowed to act ; and do not let us keep up iniquitous uncertainty, which, while it renders the property of the minor theatres so precarious and illegal, fritters away by contraband far more than it would by open rivalry the property of the great theatres, involves them in constant prosecutions and constant litigations, and makes the public ridicule as impotent, or hate as tyrannical, those who enforce the laws, and sym pathise as martyrs or heroes with those who defy it.— (Hear, hear.) A great cause of the deterioration of the drama, it was universally acknowledged, was to be found in the size of the theatres. It was in vain to expect plays that should not depend upon show, in theatres where it was impossible to consult the ear. The enormous size of these houses rendered half the dialogue lost to half the audience, and thus the managers had been compelled to substitute noise and glitter, and spectacle, and the va rious ingenuities of foil and canvass, for wit which would be three parts inaudible and for pathos which would scarcely travel beyond the side-boxes. It was ab surd to hope that the drama can be restored until it was exhibited at houses of a convenient size. But what was the caue of the overgrown size of these theatres? Why, the patents; no sooner were the proprietors of the two great houses in possession of the exclusive right of enter taining the town, than they naturally enlarged their houses to take in as much of the town as possible. Ths patents encouraged them to hope for unreasonable profits, and their only care was to find room for all the new comers whom they supposed would be driven into their net—quite for getful, that though you may shut up a commodious theatre, you cannot fo tee the public to yawn and shiv, r in an in convenient one. But it was said that the proprietors of one or both of the large theatres intend to diminish the size of the theatres, and to make them reasonably less ; but while that would be a very fair arrangement for one part of the public, would it be fair to the other part ? while it would be very fair to those who were admitted, would it be fair to those who were excluded ?—( Hear.) Would it be fair to the public to say, " You shall go only to two theatres ;" anethen to reduce the size of those theatres, so that only a very small part of the public cool, be admitted ? So if you diminish the size of the house you will elevate the character of the drama—a nese impetus will be given to the stage, people will be able to hear and see better—many more persons than a present will be desirous of going—but where are they t. go ? Exactly at the time that you will increase the ' number of the frequenters of the theatre, you wil diminish the accommodation afforded them. Su ths the two houses are in this diletunia, either they tou• retain their present size and the legitimate drams must continue debased or .be banished, or they mu ' s'a;a size and commit a greater injustice to th °a -- 'ion to the greater improventes •.!ie theatres in order to restore the drama, you must in •.i+e the number of the theatres in order to receive the die.—(Hear, hear.) Now there was also another iint he should touch upon—viz., the authority of the ,rd Chamberlain, and more especddly that of the Dra itic Censor. It may be remembered, that when Sir tobert Walpole brought in the Bid commonly called the 'lay-house Bill, in :which the authority of the censor is .n• the first time settled and defined, Lord Chesterfield said, his celebrated speech on that Bill, that we were about give to the Lord Chamberlain, an officer of the House old, a power more absolute than that which we would \ tend to the Monarch himself.—(Hear.) lie was at a s to know what advantages they had gained by the rant of this almost unconstitutional power. Certainly, ith regard to a censor, a censor upon plays seemed to .tin as idle and unnecessary' as a censor upon Woks. Let ein look back for a moment. Although until Walpole'e :WI the powers of a censorship seem to have been onset 'esi and doubtful, it is certain, at least, that the Master f the revels at first, and the Lord Chamberlain after - cards, exercised a right similsr to that of a censor ; ehole passages in Davenant and in Mas,inger were ex ,unged by the Master of the Revels ; and now mark iow really useless, so far as morality was concerned, were he pains he took upon the subject; they knew what those ,iassages were ; they contained only some vague po litical allusion, and did not contain a line of the indecencies and immorality that might be found in those plays. And why ? Because a ,tensor sees only with the eyes of his contemporaries, and because the custom and temper of the times allowed the indecency and the immorality. The only true censor of the age was the spirit of the age.—(Cheers ) When inde cencies were allowed by the customs of real life, they would be allowed in the representation, and no censor would forbid them. When the age did not allow them, they would not be performed, and no censor need expunge them, Fist instance, while the licenser at this moment may strike out what lines he pleases in a new play, lie has no power by strict law to alter a line in an old play. The most inde licite plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, of Wyche! ly or Far quhar, may be acted unmutilated, without submitting them to the censor ; hut they are not so acted, because the good taste and refinement of the age would not allow tbeem....a because, instead of attracting, they would disgust an audience. The public taste, backed by the vigilant Am° , nition of the public press, may, perhaps, be more safely trusted for the preservation of theatrical indecorums than any ignorant or bungling censor, who (however well the office may be now fulfilled) may be appointed hereafter ; who, while he may strain at gnats and cavil at straws, will be without any other real power than that of preventing men of genius from submitting to the caprice of his opi. nions.—( Hear, hear.) Now there were two other polnte for the Committee to consider, viz.. the number of theatres that should be allowed, and the performances they shall be permitted to exhibit. With respect to the first, he would read a short passage from Sir W. Scott's Life of Dryden, which was applicable in itself, and emanated from no common authority : "I do not pretend," says Sir W. Scott, " to enter into the question of the effect of the drama upon morals ; if this shall be found prejudicial, then two theatres are too many ; but in the present woful de cline of theatricrl exhibition, we may be permitted to re member that the gardener who wishes to have a rare diver sity of a certain plant, sows whole beds with the species ; and that the monopoly granted to two huge theatres must necessarily diminish, in a complicated ratio, both the num ber of play-writers and the chance of anything very excel lent being brought forward."—(Cheeis.) Now, he must confess, for his own part, that he thought the public likely to be the best judges as to the number of theatres. On the one haud, he did not think there would t e more theatres than could find audiences to fill them ; on the other hand, he thought there ought to be as many the itres as the public were willing to support. Now with regard to the performances, he did not think it would In wise to lay any restrictions on the legitimate drama; for, putting out of the question the difficulty of defining what tire legitimate drama really was—a difficulty that would alien the door to new disputes and new litigations— lie thought it was absurd to allow what was frivo lous and to forbid what was great : to allow vaude villes from the French, and not to allow tragedies from Shakepeare. It was unjust to the public to suffer what was indifferent of its kind, and to forbid what was best of its kind—to allow what might lower and enervate the public taste, and not to allow what might reline and exalt it. He would wish them to leave the stage free from such restrictions; and in so doing lie did not ask them to tty any novel experiment, he only asked them to leave it such as it was in the days of 'Messinger, and Beaumont, and Fletcher, and Jonson, and Shakspeare, when seventeen theatres were constantly open to a metropolis a tenth part of the size of London at present, and a population by it hundred degrees less wealthy and intellectual.—(flear- He now came to the last point he should touch upon, viz., the state of the laws regarding dramatic copyright. As they had heard a great deal in that House of the advantage of the close boroughs, in returning to Parliament men of intellectual habits, whom some Hon. Members declared were the representatives of literature—(Hear, hear) —what had they done for the literature they represented ? The whole state of their laws regarding literary property was infinitely more harsh and inconsistent than that existing in France ; but the state of the laws regarding drarnalic copyright alone would long be a proof how indifferent this House had. been to the general claims of that property, which ought to be the most sacred of all, because it en. courages all—because it ennobles all—because it produces all—the property that is derived from intellectual exertion. —(Cheers.) The instant an author published a play, any manager might seize it—mangle it—act it—without the consent of the author—and without giving him one six pence of remuneration. If the play was damned, the author incurred all the disgrace—if the play succeeded, he shared not a farthing of the reward. His reputa tion lay at the mercy of any ignorant and selfish ma nagerial experiment ; he might have published a play that he never meant to be acted, that lie knew would not bear to be acted ; but if, as in the case of Lord Byron, Ms name alone would attract an audience, he was dragged on the stage to be disgraced against his will, and was damned for the satisfaction of the manager and the dignity of the national drama. He had no power—no interest in the results of his own labour—a labour, often more in tense and exhausting than the severest machanical toil. Was this a just state of things The commonest inven tion in a calico—a new pattern in the most trumpery article of dress—a new bit to our bridles—a new wheel to our carriages—may make the fortune of the inventor ; but may the i notrelieve ia invention groat o the f the p ofivneersttyof h drama t e inventor.in the world i If Shakspeare himself were now living—if Shakspeare him self were to publish a volume of plays, they might be icted every night all over the kingdom—they might bring thousands to actors, and ten thousands to managers—and Shakspeare himself, the producer of all, might be starving in a garret.—(Hear, hear.) In france, the state of our laws in this respect was scarcely believed. There no work of a living author could be performed at any theatre, provincial or metropolitan,. without his formal consent, on the penalty of forfeiting the whole profits to the author. In Belgium, the same law existed, and in both countries the author's family, his widow, his children suc ceeded to his intellectual property, and for a certain number of years shared in its profits.—(Hear, hear.) By this a two-fold purpose was served—justice is done on the one hand, and emulation excited on the other. Should they, than, be more backward—more unjust than our neigh bours—(Hear)—and should these poor authors who had le much to struggle against—in the common literary ca lamities of a slender income and a diseased frame—be the only man in the whole community literally denied that necessary blessing pledged by every free State to its sub jects, viz. the security of property? He trusted he had established sufficient ground for the appointment of a Committee, but as one of the English public, and as a Member of that house, he was desirous that the age— the nation—and the Legislature should be freed from the disgrace of these laws on the' one hand, and the want of law on the other, which were so glaringly unjust in them selves, and so pernicious to one of the loftiest branches of intellectual labour.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion. Sir CHARLES WETIIERELL thought many of the obser vations of the Hon. Member for St. Ives were a sort of side scene slap at Lord Brougham. He had, after an elaborate in quiry —having called the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice James Parke to his assistance—given his judg ment and advice to the Crown, that the Crown, though it might allow the minor theatres to keep open for a longer time than at present, ought not to allow them to keep open all the year. That was saying, by implication, that the Crown ought not to consent to the establishment of additional theatres. Lord Brougham had then, by implication, decided that the inu:tipli he cmiia,otteitoirotftcnroifft.,sgrma,ap,leplrotyhineutaintnr.geescaewsascasornmiloyint i a itc d tie : eh is , a ht b ho le ew . evvrleeirre,oobgbaejcteiacyuteesedoitfto was e Crown. If a case of abuse were established, he would then support the Hon. Member; but to hear what was said on the subject, it might be supposed that the liberty of the people was invaded—that the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, so much was made of dramatic liberty being infringed and violated. He admitted that the stage was deteriorated—that lions and tig rs had taken the place of actors—that camels and eameio , now walked over the boards, and that the whole theatre parted from the classic models of Shakspeare and I Admitting this, however, what was the reined multiply the theatres. Then we should have m the Tower Hamlets and ia the Finsbury have lions and leopards in Lambeth,