The Sun. — London, England, 1822-12-14 00:00:00

~!~~~~~ SS' Of ISt ; novr X 0 Nrx: 4 Irro WON qs A4l 4-- SUN. .hen did, be AT. .I Th / , , _._ ~,. . i t n E ) ( „/ i/7 q /,/ ,A/37, , Pzi-717 L.,./ ft #(..-4 3 /1,6,_, / / /z If , NuMBER 9456. .WIDOWS' PENSIONS. ADMIRALTY OFFICE, Drc. 12, 1822. OTICE is hereby Eiven . ,T hat all WiI) , OWS Who receive Pensions from the Charity for the itefief of the Widows of CommiSsion and Warrant Of tters of the Royal Navy, must send or b rin g to this, Office, "weeo the 20th and asst of this MOntli, the Affidavit re tll44-4, by the Rules of the Charity, in order to their being : sa ted on the Pension List, which will be prepared- next 14 ", and paid on thy 10th of February next. 41 1 Letters from Widows, respecting their Pensions, or Nnesting Supplies of Blank Affidavits, must statellie Hank their Husbands held in the Navy. .1. W. CROK1:11. A'LBIOS: FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE . COMPANY. NEW BRIDGE-STREET, 131,ACFRIARS, EMPOWERED BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT. CAPITAL—ONE MILLION. INSURANCES falling due at CHRIST MAS will expire, unless renewed within Fifteen Days ft() lti that period. The Company's Rates and Conditions are of the most rea- N4able description:--no Charge is made for Fire Policies, l ' h en the Premium exceeds 55. no Admission Fine is Barg e d on Life Insurance :—a liberal'commission is allowed t 0 Solicitors, and others, who effect Life Insitrances;--and °3'ery facility is afforded by. which the interest and cotive illence of the Public may be promoted. WARNER PHIPPS, Secretary. LAST DAY BUT ONE. and J.SIVEWRIGHT remind their Friends to - • and the Public, that the Present L o tt er y is drawin g w i a close and that ALL the 91 CAPITALS now in the "'eel MUST he decided on TUESDAY NEXT, And the follow DECEMBER 17, ing Monday. Lot Wheel is uncommonly rich, as will be seen b y the 111 of,Capital Prizes, all to be drawn in Two Days, viz. 2....0f.... £.t0,000 . 7.... of ....Xl,ooo 2 lO.OOO 15..., 5OO • 2 5,000 15 3OO 1 2,000 47 .., . 200 - - 'rickets and Shares are Selling at J. and J. SIVENVIIIGHrS Ott 37, Cornhill ; I 38, Haymarket, 14 II , Holborn Corner of Coventry-street ; 11:! I 'l'e. they Sold and Shared, in the Present Lathy, 2,612, a 'lt of £4,000. • TO' MESSRS. BROWELL . AND CO.' . London, Dec. 3, 182-2. 4ENTLEMEN, I have the pleasure to in form you, that I hare had in constant use for Twelve oritlis for the Brig THAIS, of London, myself Master, in F.Coasting and Foreign Trade, to the Mediterranean, a Q i4 esail, Topsail, and Trysail, made of Scotch - and Reading prepated by you, and that there is not the least ap. I)::`,krige of Mildew on any of them ; the Sails made of unpre 't't Canvas, are considerably so. JOHN MILLS. PUBLICATIONS. This Day was published, • Its. 12mo. Rrice.3s.. in boards, THE DIVINE ECONOMY of HUMAN ri LIFE: or , Christian Duties in Scriptural Language; - - i , ed from the New Testament, and artanged, in the r ril of. Sections or Lessons, under their distinct heads, 4 Naining 1, The Duties which we owe to God. 2. The Ditties which we owe to oar Neighbour. 3, The Duties which we owe to Ourselves. By MARY ANNE DAVIS, I Ltlaor o f Helps to Devotion, in the entire Language of the Holy Scriptures." b it* 'tans St Plars Church-yard, and Waterloo y , . c c and Manners and Miller, Edinburgh. te• n 4 •4LIAmENTARit REGISTER OF THE PROVINCE OF LOWER CANADA. 1 1 ] is, proposed to publish by Subscription, lin er "et" the above title, the PROCEEDINGS of the HOUSE iSSEMBLY, to be continued annually. fle importance and propriety of their Constituents being ac leeltated with the nature and result of their deliberations, ap el'trs to have been felt by the Members • as, early in the last I) 3si en (26th December), the House of :Assembly appointed a 1. 4 e eial ' ComMittee " to inquire into the most Parliamentary i t tlner of making_known the proceedings of thii House to the ° s itants of this Province." litgeferenee to the House of ssembly induced the Subscrier, " ); e e these circumstances, to A postpone the publication oft he ion " of which he had issued a Prospectus,) under the tioteetation of an early Report from the Committee. The Ses he;l.,,, it is well known, terminated without any communication . k r , mi g made by the Committee to the House, and, as in the Pa till Country, this mode is adopted to disseminate the proceed_ both Houses of Parliament, it is presumed it cannot be tt l r a rliamentary or unconstitutional. The following Prospec -1,4,s the re f ore res p ec tf u lly su bmitted to the public. hi 4 e Subscriber will constantly attend the House of Assem .o4 durink the Whole Session, from the moment the doors are 4 4 4 to the public till they are closed, or the House adjourns ; sti„ninfluenced by prejudice against or partiality for any party, thi,"'t, to the utmost of his abilities, faithfully report every ( i t ::g interesting or important which may occur. As to cepa tit: for executing the task he proposes to undertake, he refrains 1)41, / i• S liesking, for, standing already before the tribunal of the to tt .'e as a Stenographer, they are fully competent to pass a th a t et ,Judgment; but he may be permitted to assure them totally exempt.from political bias, the little talent he is 414 P of exercising shall be strenuously exerted to render. ar lia:mentary Register worthy of the patronage which he petfully an d "e Register will be published in royal fivo. upon fine paper, the be delivered to Subscribers as early after the close of 4 1e,` e asfori as the IndeX.and Appendix (which will contain all tt es :,ages from his. Excellency the Governor in Chief, such th e itttions of the Legislative Council as may tend to elucidate (: a P r oceedings of the LoWer,House, important Reports of 1 , 4 1 1 71, itteeS, and whatever else can contribute to its utility and Jo earl. be prepared. In the interim, extended Reports of &c. shall i be regularly furnished to the Public tho'''"'published at Quebec and Montreal, so that the Public of tht!Kiiout the Priyirince will be early and constantly informed h e Z state of ParliaMentary Business, and the opinions ofTheir "eaehtatives. 1 1 1,_ TERMS. 1 0 1 ,1" durat . n ß o e f Ih t e er Session and the degree of patronage af kesettcl. to the-regulate its price. It is, Wecl fs .: 4 l l,! that 12s. 6sl. will greatlyb ibut the Reporter 4 u6 -; , _tnielf it slialf.not exceed Iri)se. cost, . c, Doc, 5, 1821. W. S. SIMPSON. 't h .4 1 . 1 . 1 :_., 5 8. 5 intimates , that he has in MSS. the entire pr0',_,;411,4!...?.1 ' , _,; 4 1 1 , 4 ! ... ? . I the last Seaton, being the first under the•Relgn , of '.'ll ene ffY.,Oeorge IV z , and of the Administration of his, hx t,ittiteliß Earl of Dallionsie. If adequate th e e ncipragement is g4 ter . Y : svill be yu . blished. as Vol. I. of, the work, 1 , 1 i : ,, 1 ,,,, , _ and , as it • is.. proposed to continu4 i it willn jil il t xc la e i? .. t_ l ll - 9, thp commencement of-hi s .."ll a; 't al e ,, t, cucY s Adminlitration, and-also of thjee'pryessentePlarr: PUBLICATIONS. This Day were published, Handsomely printed in Four Volumes, Bvo. with a Portrait, Klee 21. 25., T HE POEMS of the Right lion. • LORD BYRON. At the same time, a New Edition also, in 5 Vols.. small Sro. price 355. * * *The Tragedies to complete the above, may be bad se parately. Printed for John Murray, Albemarle-street. This Day was published, A Ness Edition, in Two Volumes, Post Bro. price 1 65 . of B RACEBIUDGE HALL ; or, the Hu ' mourists. By the Author of the Sketch Book. Another Edition,..2 Vols. Bro, price 445. SKE rex BOOK, 2 Vols. post Oro. price Ws. Ditto Voig. EMI: price 245. KNICKERBOCKER'S NEW YORK, s Vols. post ssu. price 14s. Printed for John Murray, Albemarle-street. This Day was published, in svo. price ss. 611. THE STORY of OUR FIRST PARENTS, in one connected Narrative, selected' from MILTON'S PARADISE LOST, for the Use of Young Persons. By Mrs. SIDDONS. This immortal Poem is seldom appreciated by the Young; and its perusal is, perhaps, very generally regarded rather as a duty than - a pleasure. This has been attributed by Dr. Johnson, to the want of human interest. In those passages, therefore, which I selected for our evening readings, my pur pose was to obviate this objection, by bringing before my mily, in uninterrupted connexion, tho'separts which relate to the fate of our First. Parents; and by omitting every thing, however exquisite in its - kind, which did not immediately hear upon their affecting and important story. Such was the origin of the present Volume. 'Some friends lately suggested to me, that the Abstract, which had been found interesting; and instructive to my own Children, might not he wholly un profitable to those of others; and, in that hope, I have been persuaded to the present publication ---,(Preface.) Printed fur John Murray, Albemarle-street. On Wednesday next will be published, In 8v0:, the Fifth Edition, RUITZNE R.-A TALE,- By HARRIET LEE. The following Drama is taken entirely from. Kruitzner, a. Tale, by Miss Lee.. When I was young (about 14, I think), I first read this Tale, which made a deep impression upon , me and may, indeed, be said to contain the germ of much that I have since written. I have generally found, that' those who had read this Tale agreed. with me in their. estimate of,the singular power of mind and conception which it developes. Among those whose opinions. agreed with mine upon this story, I could mention some very high names ; but it is not necessary, nor indeed of any use, for every One must lodge according to their own feelings. I merely refer the reader t►o the original story, that he may see to what extent I have bor rowed from it ; and ant nut unwilling that be should find much greater pleasure it) perusing it than the Drain's, which isi founded upon its contents --(Lord BilioN's Preface to Werner.) Printing for Johu Murray, Albemarle•strret. THE COTTAGER'S MONTHLY VI SITOR, Volume the Second (for the Year UM), is this day published, price 6s. boards, or EN : 6d. half-bound. The Second Part of Volume the Second, may also be bad, p r i ce 3 s , 6d, half-bound ; and any Single Number at 6d. Printed for F. C. and,J. Rivington, Saint Paul's Church yard, and Waterloo -place, Pall-Mall. (To be continued Monthly.) " The Volume before us is a very useful and well-managed publication, 611e4 with a variety. of information more .or, less. valuable,discussing subjects that come closely home to the con cents, thoughts, and anxieties of the labouring classes ; sup Besting plans of economy, and directing how to turn to the best account the opportunities and small advantages of their sta tion. It is a Publication that was much`wanted, We recall - mend it heartily, 'and exhort. our benevolent Friends to pro mote its circulation in the Country_ to the utmost of their power."—(Extract from "The Enquirer," for April, 1822 ) THE BEACON NEWSPAPER. EDINBURGH, MONDAY, DEC. 9. TRIAL BY A JURY :of an ACTION of DAMAGES. Present the Lord Chief Commissioner, and Lord Gillies. JAMES GIBSON, OF INGLISTON, CLERK TO THY. SIGNET, AGAINST DUNCAN STEVENSON, PRINTER IN EDIN. BURGH. In order that our Readers may distinctly corn prehetid- the facts of this important question, it may not be improper, before detailing the Trial, to give copies of the Issues settled and adjusted, for investigation. 'lssues in Causa, JAMES Ginsox, Pursuer, v. Duxcwar STE VENSON, Defender. It being admitted that the pursuer is, and has for many years been a riter to the Signet, and has been agent and attorney for the Bank of England since the 26th day of December 1811, and has brought prosecutions for forgery on their account, and' was employed as agent in the trial of Frances Mackay, which took place before the High Court of Justiciary, at Edinburgh, on the Ist day of February 1819: It being 'also admitted, that in the month of June and July 1821, the defender Duncan Ste venson, was printer, publisher, and proprietor of a certain news paper, called the Beacon : —Whether, on or about the, 23d day of July 1821, the defender, in the 25th number of the said-news paper' did print acrd publish, or cause to be printed and pub lished, the following words, or words of the following tenor or effect :—" To the Editor of The Beacon.—Sir,-,ln your, last number I osserved an article, which, although it discovered, on the part .of its author, some disappointment and, peevishness, yet contained some sensible enough remarks on the prevention of forgery. There is one mistake, however, into which the writer of it has fallol which ought to be corrected, because otherwiseyour Widely circulatedi paper may be the means of creating, in the minds of the ignorant and misinformed, :erroneous ideas as to the state of our criminal - law, and of the mode in which it is administered. The author of : that article says, It is, well known that as the forms of law stand at present, it is better for a Scotch bank to pay. a thousand forged one pound notes, than to prosecute a forger ; at least it has been stated by the best authority, that before a forger was-executed, it. cost a Scotch bank twelve hundred pounds.' Now, every per son who is at all informed on the subject knows ; that in order to obtain, the conviction or execution of a : forger of. its notes, no bank in this country ever necessarily expended twelve hundred pence. As soon asa forgery is discovered to ; have: been com mitted, a bank has only to give information to the public pro secutor—the Procurator Fiscal, and the. crime- will:then be investigated, and the criminal brought to justice at the-public expence, in the same way , that- any other criminal would be disposed, of who had, : committed_ any. other, crime to the.we judice of , an individual. When, however, this course is not followed, and banks, or their legal advisers, frony too keen an attention to their own interest, instead of leaving matters to be conducted in the ordinary way by the official persons appointed fur that purpose by the public, officiously volunteer to assist in the investigation ; and where, imagining that their-affairs are of WO great importance to be entrusted to the : counsel .and agent whom Government has been so credulous as to entrust with the management of the.criminal business of the country, they.are not satisfied unless they have also the benefit of the eminent talents of- the great agent of Whiggism, and • halt: a.. dozen Whig'd Counsel, I am not prepared to deny that a bank may be forced to disburse even a greater-sum-than 1,2001. Before, however I' can speak decisively as to. this, I must first know from,Mr. Jas. : Gibson, W.S: how much the conviction of a forger- here used to cost the Bank of England. Banks have lately been obliged, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1822. whether they or their agents liked it or not, to submit to have forgers of their notes tried and convicted like other al mina's, at the public expence ' • for so much inconvenience, ir regularity, and'hijustice, was found to arise from the officious interference of persons who possessed none of the requisite qualifications of public prosecutors, in the administration of criminal justice, that since the case of Frances Mackay or. Car rick, which occurred within the last two or three years, no bank or bank agent has been permitted to interfere in the prose cution and conviction of - forgers. In this ease, the agent of the Bank of England induced a young woman, by a promise that she would be taken as a witness against others, to make a de claration admitting her guilt, and giving full information at to the way in which the crime was committed ; he after wards thought proper to haveher tried, end by concealing from the Lord Advocate the way in which her confession had. been obtained, induced him to give his instance to an in dictment against her. She was accordingly brought to trial, and, after the confession and information which had been elicited from her, in her declaration, she had but one course left—to plead . guilty. She was found guilty, in terms of her own confession. The Lord Advocate had moved fin.- sentence, which the Court were pronouncing, when the Sheriff (the present Lord Advocate), in whose presence - the declaration had been emitted, happening to come into Court, expressed to' his predecessor his surprise that he should have brought.to trial any person whose confession was obtained in the way the pannel's had been. It was by this time too late to prevent sentence from being passed ; but the Court, on being informed ;of the circum stances of the case, expressed their high disapprobation of what had taken place, and the Lord Advocate immediately procured a free pardon for the prisoner. After this, I ask, whether the Whig or the 'Tory mode of administering justice deserves the . preference ?—X." Whether the whole or any part of the words areoland corncerning the pursuer, and were 'published with the maliciqus purpose and intention of injuring, and do injure the pursuer in his private and professional character, and do falsely and injuriously hold forth the pursuer, in capacity of agent,ifor the Bank of England, as' having unnecessarily brought prosecutions for forgery, for his own private advan tage, and having - unnecessarily expended large sums of Mo ney in conducting the same ; or of officiously interfering in re gard to the said forgeries, and of conducting trials and proiee cntions for the same, injuriously to the interest of the Bank and of the public, andunfairly to the person accused ; or of• having induced the Lord Advocate to give his instance against the said Frances Mackay, by concealing the promise: and whether the said words do falsely and injuriously set forth, 'that the Court. of Justiciary, on. being informed by Sir William Rae, Baronet, the former Sheriff of the County, of the circum stances set forth in the said newspaper relative to the said F. Mackay, expressed its high disapprobation of the pursuer's con duct, to the damage and injury of the said pursuer : whether the 26th number of thesaid newspaper was printed 'anti pub lished on or about the 30th day of June 1821, and contained the following words, or words of the following tenor and effect, viz. " We beg leave to assure our friend in Forth-street, that we should not have inserted X.'s letter, had we not previously ascertained all his statements to be correct, especially that re specting Mr. James Gibson ; which, indeed, could otherwise never have remained unnoticed by a person whose character is so deeply involved in it." Whether the said words are - of and con cerning the purauer, and are false and injurious, and to the damage and, injury of the pursuer,: whether the 27th numberof the said Newspaper was printed and published' On or about ,the 7th day of July 1821, and contains the following words, or words of the. following tenor and effeet, viz.—.,"• In a late num ber, and as one of a series of discussions concerning the law re specting forgery, we inserted, not without inquiring as to its ac curacy, a communication in which the name of Mr. James Gibson (meaning the pursuer) was introduced." And the fol lowing words—" Edinburgh, 3d July, 1821."—Sir I am fa voured with your (meaning the pursuer's) letter of this date, and in consequence of its unsatisfactory terms, beg leave to de- cline your (meaning the pursuer's) proposal of examining the author of any article in The Beacon. I have, as yet, no reason to think that any passage in The Beacon concerning you (mean ing the pursuer) is false, _calumnious and malicious.' I am not aware of having asserted any right to dictate to you (mean ing the pursuer) against whom you (again meaning the pur suer) should proceed.—l am &c. To James Gibson, Esq. W. S. (Signed) .Totiv NiM MO." Whether the said words are of and concerning the pursuer, and .are false and injurious to the damage and injury of the pur suer: Or, whether the pursuer did induce the said Frances 1. Mackay, by a promise that she would be admitted as a witness against others, to make a .declaration or declarations, admitting .her guilt, andilid afterwards, notwithstanding said promise e arid by concealing the same, and the way in which her confes ision had been obtained, induce Or prevail upon die Lord Advo , cate to give his instance against her, and did afterwards bring her to trial, upon the first day of February 1819 ?—Damages laid at 5,000/. On Frances Mackay being called, Mr. ROBERTSON, for theldefendant, said, he did not mean to object to the admissibility of this witness, but only to state that she had been convicted of an offal.: which would' have dis abled her from appearing here as a witness, if it lied not been • for a pardon subsequently obtained from the Crown. She now, however, appeared here as a witness de novo ; and all that lie wished to remark was, that although she was legally competent as a witness, the moral stain had not been removed. Frances Mackay examined by Mr. MONCRIFF.—WaS ac cused of uttering forged notes in the year 1818, Jou. , 4 1 ' i a per son of the name of Cook ; was first examined by &Tn. Brown, Superintendent of Police, Edinburgh, and afterwards by Mr. Wm. Rae, the Sheriff; her declarations were taken dbwn in writing, and signed by her. When first taken before Captain Brown, she told the truth—she could not do otherwise, being apprehended with two forged notes - in her possession without a. , lawful excuse. The determination to tell the truth arose from a desire to avoid capital punishment. Witness made the' same statement to Sir William Rae as she had previously done to Captain Brown; but she does not recollect- if the Sheriff gave her any warning as to how she should answer the questions put :to her. Witness never spoke to Mr. Gibson, until last week, in.her life; he never made any promise to her of not- bringing 'her to trial if she confessed, and she never looked for any thing 'else but a trial, although she always expected the capital charge would be passed from ; Witness did not recollect how - many charges there were against. her at the time, and she !thought herself well treated indeed. Cross-examined - by Mr. ROBERTSON—Both the names of Cook .and Houston were mentioned; the latter confessed. the , whole himself'; witness was more teased by Captain Brown than by: Sir William Rae ; she had no Counsel or Agent • some of her relations wished her to employ 'Counsel, but her father said .it was of no use ; both Mr. Aitken,. keeper of the Canongate ' 'gaol, and her father, advised her to ,throw herself on the mercy of the Court. [On:Mr. RoBERTSoI; putting the question, if.she had-given. a written promise to plead guilty, the witness was withdrawn.] Mrs JEFFRY objected to it: , He understood that e his Learn. 'ed Friend intended to argue that this had been obtained after the indictment had been served. The grounds of his objection were :—first, that the defender had taken no issue on this point ; and, secondly, as no issue bed been claimed, the de fender was barred putting such a question. The Learned Gentleman argued on these points at considerable length. Mr. ROBERTSON, in reply, said it was the wish of his, side of the bar to have this matter set at rest as soon as possible.— Every thing contained in the issues for.the pursuer, the de fendant was entitled to prove as facts, relative td what took place with respect to this woman. Mr. R. argued that he was entitled to prove every circumstance connected, with the trial and - conviction of this woman, though they were tied down to a particular issue. Was the fact, that a written promise had been given, to be shut out from the Jury ? Mr. JEFFREY said a few words in answer to Mr. Robertson. The LORD CHIEF COMMISSIONER --The question was, did you give any written promise subsequent to the receipt of the indictment? This was a question in cross-examination.; and it-was not for the Court to interfere, or to point out what (INCR. • tiens 'should be- put•by Counsel. The firstcherge in thisdibel was for professional extortion. The second, inducing a party to , confessi , with a promise of not bringing her to trial. This - might go in confirmation of the truth of the last issue. The Lord Chief Commissioner thought the question could 'notthen be asked. Lord , GILLIES conceived• she pleaded - guilty in consequence of a-prornise e rnade at the time of giving. her declaration*: This was what the libel contained; she was therefore under the neces , sity of pleading guilty,- when brought to trial, from what. had previously taken place. And the accusation against Mr. Gibson was his having concealed this pledge from the Lord Advocate, and having induced his Lordship to give his instance. • A.notetf,this-nuestion, and arguments-on it, was required to be taken, as it-might be,the grounds of a bill of objections here after . • - Lord Pitmilly sworn on the J3encb...-Examined by Mr. JEF- FRET--Witness was one of the Judges in the Court of Justi ciary in 1819 ; recollected being present at the trial of Frances Mackay, on the Ist February; 1819 ; he had no recollectien of that, except by a reference to the marking whiCh he had then . made on the copy of an indictment ; 'did net seeellect of any particular circumstance, such as that mentiosed having been stated either by the Lord Advocate or the, Sheriff; but some con versation passed in the robing-rooM ; could not say, although such a conversation had taken place in the Court, that he should have recollected it, nor did he recollect any third; having been said at the time relative to the conduct of Mr. Gibson. On the question being put, That were the observations. made in the robing-room, soon after sentence was passed • and whether the bord Advocate and the Sheriff' were. present ;hen those oberva were made— Mr. JEFFREY said, if they would betaken as questions. by consent he had no objection, but it must not be admitted as a precedent.—The objection was allowed to pass sub silentio.—l - 4s Lordship recollected that the Sheriff', Sir William Rae, was present, and it was from what Si' 'William then said that the case was so. much impressed on his memory. The Sheriff stated, that " if he had any idea that this woman was to have been brought to the bar as a party, he would not have allowed her to have undergone so many examinations," His Lordship did not remember having given an opinion as to procuring a pardon for this woman, or if he was consulted on that point. There was no expres :on of disapprobation at the conduct of Mr. Gib son, in bringing this woman to trial, ma,de.at that time, as he recollected. Robert Mackay, examined by Mr. Cu ratio RAKE —Was fa ther of Frances Mackay, who was apprehended some time in 1818, on a charge of uttering forged notes. Frances confessed her guilt from the first, he always advised her to. do so. Wit ness was never spoke to by any person as to whether any pro mise was made, or to be made, of not bringing her to*trial. Ile . did not remember of having called on Mr. Gibson. .His dough : ter,upon the whole, had been well used.. . Robert Aitken e keeper of the Canongate Gaol, was next sworn and examined ; but his testimony contained nothing beyond the fact of Frances Mackay's having been confined. under his charge in 1818 and 1819. - Mr. Charles Ross, Advocate—by Mr.' .TEFFREY—Recol lected some proceedings relative to the trial of Frances Mackay. Witness was employed in preparing and. revising, an indict ment against a man of the name of Cook; but the precognition of Frances Mackay was sent him. Witness was present at a consultation on the case, at which Mr. IL Drummond and. the. Lord Advocate were present. Mr. Gibson. was particularly anxious to bring Cook to trial, and not Mackay. The Lord Advocate doubted' the propriety of bringing Cook fiffward.— Witness took the liberty to differ front his Lordship, and gave it as his opinion that it ought to be Cook and not Mackay who .should be tried. The declaration of•Mockayformed part of the documents sent to him along with the cases of Cook' and lions- ton. Witness was not present at. thearial. The case, as submitted to Mr. Maconochie, then Lord Ad vocate, andhii opinion thereon, which had been put in writing • at the request of Mr. Gibson, was here read. to. the Jury. The declaration emitted by Frances Mackay were also put in. The last was taken on the morning of the very day on which the opi nion woO:given by. the Lord Advocate , It admitted having the forged notes in her possession, and uttering, the same knowing them to be forged... Mr. David Christie—by Mr. Moil itarvat , —"Was a .partner. of Mr. Gibson, and remembered, the charge being made. against Frances Mackay; witness was present at one of the examinations before the Sheritf, who cautioned the prisoner as to what she should say, as it might - be• used in - evidence against herself ; to which she answered; that her mind was made up to tell the truth, and the whole truth, and . the was determined to do so. No promise was made to his knowledge, and he understood that they were not at liberty. to. make any such. The exami nation was conducted.against her as an accused person. appre hended for uttering of forged Bank of England notes. In May or June 1821) 4 'a precognition was taken relative to the uttering of forged. notes in the neighbourhood of Ilawick, against a person of the name of Oliver, he believed ; no prose cution, however, followed on thine .preeognitions ; they were submitted to the Directors of the Bank.of England, who re turned them, saying they would not prosecute. Cross-examined—Theseprecogninons were submitted' to the Crown Agent after they liad7 been laid.before, the Directors of the Bank ;, there has been no prosecution since that of M‘Kay that he is aware of. •By Mr. JErritr.x.—Witness did not. recollect what fol lowed the, communication with the Crown. Agent; there was no prosecution at the instance of the public prosecutor that he recollected for any forged notes on the-Bank of England or any • bank since thataime. Mr. J. Balfour, W. S.—by Mr. MfolecarErF—Was a clerk with Mr. James Gibson in 11118; and remembered the case of Frances Mackay. Witness was occasionally present at her examinations, as was Mr. Gibson.; never knew of any promise being made to her if she would plead , guilty, nor ever heard any. thingsaid by the Sheriff as to what she should suy while giving her declarations. The Sheriff might. have done it, but he had no recollection of the circumstance ; was present on her trial bethre the High Court:of Justicary likewise, and did:not hear any disapprobation expressed. with respect, to the conduct -of Mr. Gibson. Sir W. Rae was present, and no remark was made by that Gentleman that the witness.reinemliN•ed recol-- leeted the case of Knox, and' settled with the witnesses in that case, with the assistance of Mr. Morison, one of the maters ; I they lwere all paid agreeably to the Exchequer regulations, land: were much disaatisfieth with the smallness of the sums paid h them. It was the practice, while he was in the office of Mr. Gibson, for the Bank of England to conduct pr4secutions by their own agent and - counsel. The deposition of Mr. Kay, Solicitor for the. Bank of Eng land, was next read. It stated that Mr. Uibson had been agent ffir the. Bank twelve years. That all prosecutions were con ; ducted•by hirn"for the Bank, in Scotland, during , that:period. ;'That the deponent had been. twenty-six years Solicitor for the. Bank, during which period prosecutions have been conducted' by the Bank's own Agents - and Counsel. In some instances private individuals had proSecuted, aud.had applied.to the Bank. to be reimbursed for the expellee theyhad been at. Mr. Gibson 'had conducted the trials or Knox, Campbell, and Watsons, in. 1817,.and.that of:Mackay in 1818. Some discussion here tooknlace as to the right.of the defender to have the whole or such parts of the deposition read - as would' 'amount.to a cross-examination. .. • The Loan CinEr ComanssloxEctsoid, there was a very. great difference between evidence on paler and evidence viva rocs; and.that the same questions. whieh would have been held as cross questions; bad-the witness , beenpresent; ought to be al lowed to be read; always-understanding - that they were proper questions. Lord (iit.tzs , observed, that ill e pursuer-had a right to read the whole or- whatever part of the issues he thought proper ; and the defender to move for• the other parts to he read as cross examinations. The reading of the deposition proceeded—He approved , of the conduct of Mr. Gibson, and never observed a desire earhis part-to increase the numberofprosccutions. - ' By 'Mr. Ronr, irrsoN, forthe defender,--The cased , Frances Mackay was submitted' , to him by Mt. Gibson. Sir It. Dundas, by- Mt. .LEFFREY—II ad - seen a paragraph of the libel in which Mr. Gibson,waspursuer: Was , asked; Whe , .ther the statements were likely to be inprious- to- a nianof but siness ?: This wasobjectedlo as being - . or the Jury to consider, and no opinion of Sir It. Dundas .could be received 'as-evidence on a matter of. fact. M. Jeffrey observed, that in the case of "General Kerr , v. the Duke of Roxburgh," such a, proceeding was held as legal; and admitted. On the suggestion of the bOan• CtztFF Commzserowzn, the question was put in . an altered shape ; to which Sirlt. Dun. des replied, that, he had not read . the issue so roinutely:as to be aware that it applied to Mr. Gibson ; but • could' not speak. positively. On partof the issue being-read; Sir W. said ; that he thought .that -would •be highly injurious-to the pursuer •asa. man -of business. Mr. Guthrie Wright; auditor;X.Conrt, by Mr. MnwcniErr —ldentified , several' accounts , as , having pass d. throitgh.his hands, which had .been due by, the Bankelltglandtothepur, suer, Mr. Gibson. These accounts related to. certain proseeu, tions-for forgery. These-accounts- were moderately charged. • Many attendances , which. might. have been: made good; and would have been taken into account by reeNetaiilt agents( were not - noticeci ,-- the eirarg cs _might have. cdso•been Mr. David. Thomson, jun. %V. M. was acquainted' with Ihe. &tinder, andilad known , hicn since 1812;1 ws , also. aware , that he had been printer and publisher:ofC a NewsPay:.r.called!Vt Beacom. On being asked-if he >ever • had ti cad ;any nmieniea tionon with the defender.on any question i.elative tolibels ;which had-appeared; in-. that:publication. Alt: Thompson. Said, that his communications , had -ten. in•confiderres antlk he did , not know how .far he wasjustiable in divedginwtheroto;ttre Mori. But the Court on - being intinmedt thatthese - comusunicatiorcs were not made in a professional manner as agentfor the :le- PRICR SEVENPENCE. fender, over-ruled the objection of the witness.—Mr. Thomp son then proceeded :---" 'While speaking to Mr. Stevenson of the libels against Mr. Gibson, (he could not say, however, whether it was after the action had been raised or not that the conversation took place, it was about the time,) he said he ought to have some guarantee, or he should be ruined."— " Ruined," he replied, " he was backed by people who would steed for a million of daniaFes." Cross-examined—Thougnt that Mr. Stevenson was serious when he said so ; did not recollect any thing having been said about the IVlaigs of Fife ; witness understood by Mr. Steven son's declaration, that he was backed to a large amount; Te,a tioned this circumstance to Mr. Gibson, without thinking any notice would have been taken of it. The conversation took place with Mr. Gibson accidentally, a considerable time after the action had , been commenced, and the communication Was quite voluntary. The itstlictment against Frances Mackay, with the correction on the mhrgin in the hand-writing of Mr. 'Tonle Drummond, was submitted to the Jury, as were two letters of Mr. Scott, the Procurator-Fiscal. Here closed the evidence for the pursuer. Mr. Du NCAte M`NEIT. addressed the. Jury on the behalf of defender ; and called the following evidence : Win. Mitchell, Esq. sworn; examined by Mr. ROBERT.. SON— Witness is cashier of the Royal Bank ; he received a let ter this morning from the Bank of England, addressed to their cashier, from Lord Sidmouthe has no objection to produce-this letter.—[ Letter produced.] - Laid Meadowbank sworn; examined by Mr. ROBERSON . — "Witness being shewn Lord Sidmouth's letter, and desired to say if he knows his signature, depones—considers it to b his signature. Witness held the situation of Lord Advocate in 11319 ; recollects the trial of Frances Mackay ; he correspond ed with Mr. James Gibson,, W. S., regarding that trial; be communicated with him the evening of the trial, or next day thereafter. (Being shewn his letter to Mr. Gibson of Ist February'lBl9).—This letter was written by him, and he pre sumes it was sent on the day it bears date. Being asked to read the letter, Mr. JEFFREY rose—lle considered the.letter to be inadmis sible as evidence, as the writer of it was alive and present. The LORD CHIEF COMMISSIONER sustairecl the objection, but allowed the witness to read the letter that he might refresh his memory. Examination continued—Witness communicated with Mr. Gibson on the topics statedin his letter.—[After some little dis cussion part of the, letter was allowed to be read by the wit ness.]—Witness being shorn another letter, bearing date the 2d of February, also addressed to Mr. Gibson, said it was writ-. ten by him, and transmitted the day after.—[At the request of the defender's Counsel, Mr. Gibson's answer was read. It was dated the 2d of February 1819.]—Witness received a free pardon for Frances Mackay, for the reasons stated in his letters to Mt Gibson. His principal reason for apply ingfor the Royal mercy was from an idea that the prisoner understood she was not to be tried. The facts with regard to the implied promise were made known to witness in the Jus. ticiary Court, while Mackay's trial was going forward ; and after it was finished he retired to the robing room, where he found Sir 'Wm. Rae explaining the circumstances to the Lord Justice Clerk. Being asked if he recollected what Sir Wm. Rae stated to the Lord Justice Clerk, witness declined to answer this question without the authority of the. Court.—(Question dropped: Witness received a letter from Sir 'Wtn. Rae after the 2d of Fe bruary 1819, in which he (Sir William) stated, that although no express promise was given to Mackay, yet he understood, from the course of investigation pursued with respect to her, that a promise was implied. Cross-examined by Mr. JEFFnEr.—The communication from Sir Win. Rae , induced the witness to suppose that the prisoner expected to receive the Royal mercy. Being asked to mention the grounds on which he preferred his application to the Secretary of State, witness declined to answer this interro . gatory without the authority of the Court, as it was contrary to his oath of office to divulge his confidential communications with the confidential servants of the Crown ; but thus far wit ness might state, that copies of the correspondence between hint and Gibson were transmitted to Lord Sulmouth. ..... , Sir Wm. Rae, Lord Advocate, examined by Mr. ROBERTI SON.—Witness was Sheriff of the County of Edinburgh in Feb. 1819. Recollects of the trial of' Frances Mackay for uttering forged notes. She was examined before him, and emitted about sor 6 declarations. He came into the Justichtry Court when the trial of Mackay was nearly finished, and sentence about to be pronounced. Lord Meadowbank, at that time Lord Advo cate, was then in Court. Witness expressed his surprise to his Lordship that Mackay should have been brought to trial, as, from the way in which she was dealt with, he understood she was to he a witness against Cook. Witness's impression was de cidedly to this purpose He does not think he Would have al lowed so ninny declarations if she were to have been brought to trial. Witness is not aware that any questions put to her were different from those commonly asked of a party who is supposed to be accessary to a crime.. The Lord Advocate's ex-- pression of surprise seemed to originate from the facts witness communicated being new to him, ; witness complained to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Counsel for indicting Mackay •' he went into the robing room after the trial ; does not, at this dis tance of time, recollect what passed on that occasion ; Mr_ Gib son was then agent for the Bank of England, and in that capa city was present at all the examinations of Mackay, and on all other occasions when the matter was investigated; Mr. Gibson wrote witness a letter on the subject to which an answer was returned ; identifies his letter. There had been no trial con ducted by the Bank of" England, for forgeries in their notes; but there have been several trials at the instance of Scotc hanks since witness has been. Lord Advocate, although not before the Supreme Criminal Court; A short time before: the death of Mr. Warrender, W.S. (the late Crown Agent), a. rule was fixed between him and his late lamented friend the Solicitor General, in which witness concurred, that all trials fur forgeries shouldhe conductetl by the public prosecutor at• the public expense. Mr. Warrender died early in the year 1820. Witness identified Lord Simaith's signature to the letter formerly . alluded to: Cross-examined by Mr. JEFFREY —Witness does not recol lect any case, while he was Sheriff, where the prisoner made more than two declarations. In Mackay'S case there were re peated declarations. The circumstances which induced. wit;. ness to think that that woman. would not he tried was, partly from the number of declarations, and partly because the pantiel stated what other witnesses had. said to. her. In the firstciri mination, Mackay-was warned-of the consequences of admitting her guilt; and notwithstanding this caution ' she persistedin repeating, it. Beibre• the rule was established; the Bank de frayed the expences of the prosecution. Re-examined—Witness understood . that the declarations of Mackay were for the purpose of bringing Cook to trial; never saw so many declarations milt, similar case during the time he was Sheriff. Witness wrote a letter to Mr. Gibson, fully ex plaining his ideas regarding thatrial ; and'as the circumstances were then fresh in.his (witness's) memory, they will show his sentiments better than any thing he. has. already deponed,to.— (The letter was accordingly read.) Adam Rolland, Esq. Agent for the Crown, was called,' but not sworn. The pursuer's Counsel then replied at considerable length ; after-which The LORD CIIIEF • COM/41631011ER proseedectio sum up the evidence. He said, that in every case, bearing the aspect of the -present, there were certain leading principles which ought to be strongly imprinted' on the mind .of every Juryman. These he would.give in.the words of two of the ablest: Judges that ever satin Westminster Hall. (He alluded, we presume, to Lord Mansfteld'and Lord,Chief.Justice de (hay ' - who, in the rnemorablepersecution of Horne Tooke, delivered, this opinion —" It is the duty : of the Jury, to construe plain words and clear allusions to matters , of universal notoriety, according to their obviaus-meaning; and 'aritvery.botly else who reads must un derstand them." Holt. on Libels, p. 220. His Lordship then commented at some length on the evidence, and applied it, with 'a skilful . hand, to the libellous matter-contained:in the , issues:— He followed the example of the pursuers Counsel, in.the reply, in dividing the case into two branches; and after a short.but 'luminous. survey of the features -of, the whole case, he gave it as the decided opinion of the Court, thatin both branches the paa:. ragraphs.in the newspaper. libelled. on the cond'uct atiLcha 'ratter cf Gibson. _ _ • 'The Jury, after. retiring about ten, minutes; delivered their :verdict by/the mouthof.Sir Jamerli. BAUM., their chancellur, unanimously finding for the pursuer on all the issuei-1.4- wages; . 5001. 'llie-trinflasted frorn,ten , o'clock in the morning till t• n at !night: The Court:was crowded; ausi.the.dernand far admission ~so loud and, elt.mLrous as often, to. interrupt the protcteditre within Abors. Shortly beftire the verdict:was given the doors ,orttlt, JUstice were beserwith v pcironveht :awaited:43k I issue.