Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-15 00:00:00

LANCASHIRE WINTER ASSIZES. MONDAY. RErORIC MR. JUS !ICE WiCTITMAN. His Lordship entered the court at ten o'clock v j est er d ay morning, and proceeded to pass sentence upon follow ing prisoners. David Furlong, who pleaded guilty c.,t lourglarr, at Manchester. was sentenced to bur years' penal servitude. Robert Hart, barglary, two years' implisonment with hard labour. William Fox, burglary, fifteen. talvader months' im prisonment hard labour. Thomas Curley, cutting and wounding, four calendar months' imprisonment with hard tabour. John Haigh, horse stealing, six months' end hard labour. John Henry Harwood, uttering a f.n.pd rJeeipt, six months' wi7h hard labour. William Love, robbery, twelve months' with ha. d labour. Denis Desmond, bureary, four years' penal servitude. John Nei:sail, man laughter, by carelessly driving over a person in the street, six weeks imprioonment without hard labour. Thomas Eerier, - convicted of dischargirg at his Rife pistol which he believed to be loaded with hull, but from which the ball had escaped previously by accident; fourteen years' penal servitude. Richard Haigh, forging a receipt for roods ; eighteen months' imprisonment with haat labour. • Caroline Dempsey, a girl sixteen years of ago, who pleaded gulley of rob eery, was sentenced to be imprisoned for one month, acid then sent to the Arno's Court Refor matory. William Davis, robbery with violence. fear years' penal servitude. James Smith, wounding, four calendar months' imprison. ment, with hard labour. Joseph Hill, manslaughter, three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. James Egen, unlawfully wounding, three months, with ird labour. George Gerard, unlawfully wounding, four months, with hard lahour- Ellen Harding, uttering counterfeit coin, six months, with hard labour. Ralph Green'oaigh, robbery, twelve months, with hard labour. Thomas Brown, robbery, one week's imprisoningnt. TIIE Boasts Menem —Aaron Miller, convicted and sentenced to dea h for the murder at Bolton, was then placed in the dock. His Lordship, addressing the prisoner, said he had caused him to be sent for, that he might be informed, that in consequence of a point of law, as to an irregularity in the proceschngs during hi 3 trial, and which was net discovered until a day or two after the trial, the sentence upon him had been respited, until the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal might be known. His Lordship, however, urged upon the prisoner not to postpone or suspend the preparations wh ch he trusted he was making to meet the sentence, and cautioned him nuttiest indulging in any h o p e f oun d e d on th e d e l ay. against indulging in any hope founded on the delay. Ills Lordship added that it was only because in a case where the life of a man was concerned he was unwilling to leave any doubt as to the perfect regularity of the pro ceedings unsettled, that he had respited the sentence. GAROTTE ROBBERY.—John Oakes and Mary Jones were charged with having, at Manchester, on the 'and of Decem ber, assaulted and rotbed Joseph Bury. The prosecutor was a farm servant, living in Cheshire, and on the day in question happened to b 3 in Manchester Between nine and ten o'clock in the evening he met the female prisoner, and went with her to a house in Seinningfields, and while there ho saw the male prisoner. When he left the house the prisoners accompanied him. They led him a wrong way, through several streets, until at last h said that was not the way. They then said they would go back, and they took him a few yards down the street. when the man knocked him down, and, with the assistance of the woman, rifled his pockets. The jury found the prisoners Guilty. A previous conviction was proved against Oakes of robbery at Manchester. His Lorcl,hip sentenced Jdm Oakes to be kept in penal servitude for six years, and Mary Jones to be kept in penal servitude for four years. THE CHARGE OF LIBEL UPJN MR. ROBERTSON G LADS TONE. The next case called on was the prosecution at the suit of Mr. Robertson (il4datone, against Mr. Thomas John Ouseley, propriet3r of the Liverpool Herald for libel. The court was very much crowded during the hearing of this case. Mr. Brett and Mr. Lushington appeared for the prose cution ; Mr. &eviler and Mr. Wheeler appeared for the ilefendant. The following jury were sworn : —Thomas Armstrong, Ardwick, agent ; Joseph Buxton, Ardwick grocer ; Daniel Boyle, Manchester, manufacturer ; Isaac Cleworth, Great Bolton. tea dealer; Robert Glover, Great Bolton. deeper ; Jahn Holden, Hulme, stationer ; Richard Lalor, Manches ter, hosier ; Thomas Lamb, Warrington, shoemaker ; Henry Mather, Warrington, glasa maker; Henry Poole, Great Bolton, cotton spinner ; George Stead, Ashton under-Lyne, corn merchant; Joseph Henry Thorne, West Derby, wine merchant. Mr. Lushington opened the pleadings. The indictment set out that, at tho time of the publishing of the alleged libel the prosecutor was ono of the justices of the peace for the borough of Liverpool, and a town councillor for the said borough ; arid that at a time a mutiny had broken out in India, and divers atrocities had been committed by certain &poys against liege subjects of her Majesty there, and that the defendant, well knowing this, did, neverthe less, maliciously publish of and concerning the said prosecutor a defamatory libel. The defendant had pleaded the general issue. Mr. Brett said : My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury,— I have th honour of appeering, with my friend Mr. Lash in:ton, in this case, on the pat of the prosecution. Gentlemen, the prosecutor in this case, I should think, must be known, by character, at least, to all of you. You must be aware that Mr. Robertson Gladstone is a gentleman of high station and fortune in this town, that he has bean for many years a magistrato of this borough, and that he has been also for many years a member of the Town Connell of the borough. Gentlemen, I think you cannot but be aware, also, that Mr Robertson Gladstone is a g entleman who has taken a ver y earnest part in :he public business of this town, and I should have thought that any body who was acquainted with the town of Liverpool, knowifg the earnestness and sincerity with which Mr. Gladston e 'hes for many years taken upon himself an interest in all persons liviar , in this large town, would have believed him also to be the last person whom any ono living in the town of Liverpool would have !bought of libelling and insulting, Gentlemen, you cannot but be aware tha iu the course of the present year there happened in India as unprovoked and bloody a rebellion as ever took place in the world ; you cannot but recollect the atrocities which made the blood of every person, I venture to say, in the civilized world, run cold, which were committed by the mutineers, and I am sure there is not one of you who, if he had been charged for a moment with being in any way resembling one of the atrocious miscreants who have committed those crimes to which I have referred, would not have considered himself as insulted in the most deadly manner. Now, gentlemen, you Eve called upon to say whether what has been written in this newspaper, which was printed by the defendant in this town, was not iu your judgment calculated to bring Mr. Robertson Gladstone into the hatred and odium of everybody in the community. Gentle men, you are, perhaps, aware, that in the curse of the present year it was thought advisable by those who advise the Queen in ecclesiastical matters, that a fast-day should he appointed and observed by all persons in this kingdom, e account of the state of affairs in India. Gentlemen, r anybody to attempt to fix this upon the Queen herself, and to say that because another person may have a particular opinion as to the propriety or not of the fast on the day appointed, he must therefore be a person disloyal to the Queen, would show the mo,t contemptible ignorance of the constitution and the polity of this country. There are ministers appointed to advise the Queen in ecclesiastical matters as well as in civil, and as you must be well aware, it is the privilege of every person in this country not only to have, but to express their opinions, as to the conduct of those who advise the Queen either in civil or in other matters. Now, gentlemen, you will recollect, and in fact you will find it stated in this report on which the libel is founded, that the Queen had been so advised that a fast day should be observed in the country. Now, Mr. Robert son Gladstone appears to have had certain opinions upon the propriety of that advice, and, as he had a perfect right to do, he expressed those opinions in the Town Council. I am confident that when you hear the manner in which Mr. Gladstone expressed his opinions iu the Town Council, you will say that ho expressed them in a manner with which nobody could find fault, and without disrespect to anybody, He may have expressed a strong opinion, but it was such an opinion as every man had a right to hold. Now, gentlemen, if that opinion was contrary to the opinion of auy other person, that other would have a perfect right to express his dissent from Mr. Gladetone's views. And if the article in this newspaper is in your opinion nothing more than a fair comment upon what Mr. Gladstone said in his public capacity in Vie Town Council, then it will be your duty to say that it is no I,bel, and I shall at -nee admit that it cannot be pretended to be a libel. But if that which was said in the newspaper by this person goes far beyond any fair comment, or even violent comment, upon the opinion which Mr Robertson Gladstone expressed in the Town Council, if it descends to rersonal abuse, and abuse, I will venture to say, of as insulting a kind as ever was put forward in a newapaler against the personal conduct and character of an individual, considering, too, the time,at which it was written, and the evident spirit in which it was written—why, then, I would say that it is your duty to say se, and if you do net say so, you—who are the guardians of the liberty of th e press, as it is celled—you will bring yourselves, and everybody who lives iu this town, into the danger of constant and recurring annoyance. Gentlemen, you must know from the opinions which Mr. Gladstone holds, that of nll men he would be the last to interfere with the liberty of the press. But to say thet, because a man thinks it his ditty to protect himself, and protect his neWebours, and protect everybody living here, by taking notice of that which is libellous, that such a step can be celled, in any sense, an attack upon the liberty of the press, is perfectly iele and monstrous. The next thief or criminal sent from this bar convicted of felony, may just as well say you have attacked the libeny of the subjett. The liberty of the press nobody in Engleud wild ever attack. The liberty of the press nobely in England will ever deny. But the only check upon the license of the press is an appeal to a jury, end you are now placed in the rEeTensible position of being guar dians oft the liberty of the press, to see that that liberty shall not be disgraced by license. Now, Gentlemen, I gall proceed to reed to you the libel of which we complain, which was rubliehed by the defeed3nt in hi 3 newspaper of the lOch of last October. I do not know whether any of you are acquainted with this newspe6er. It is a paper called the _Liverpool Ireia.V. I confess, foe coy own part, that long a time as I am acquainted with Liverpool, I never saw it before, but I believe it is a paper having a certain circulation, and I think, from what you will observe in the article I am now about to read to you, it will be quite deer that the circulation of this paper is confined to, or principally intended for, persons v 100 hold very strong opinions in pelitical matten, and who are popularly called " Oran,getnen," in politics and in religion. Mr. Brett then read the article in question, which was as follows 7 the time, by the men who were called Sepoys. I have already asked you whether any one of you would not have considered, that no more deadly insult could b 3 offered to him at the time, than to be likened to those people. I ask you whether if any man stood before you, and appl - ed that term to you, so insulting at that time, you would not have felled that man to the ground, and have been justified in the eyes of every one of your countrymen ? I ask you, therefore, to consider whether this was merely a fair com ment upon the public character of a man, or whether it was not as gross an insult ae ever was deliberately and calmly written by a man in his closet, without the smallest provocation, and whether it had not a tendency to bring Mr. Robertson Gladstone into the hatred and contempt of every one of his fello eatownsaten ? What was there in the conduct of Mr. Gladstone, or in the observations which he use I in the Town Colleen, that could justify any one in writing this article ? You will find that the article is headed —"Mr. Roberteon Glad.stene's religion and loyalty." Do not suppcso that the writer of the article was a person carried away by the excitement of passion. He is a man conducting a newspaper for a particular class of persons, and eciaing the opportunity of Mr. Gladstone having made a certain remark with regard to the Romer' Catholics, he wrote an article insulting to Mr. Robertson Gladstone, deliberately and calmly in his chamber, for the mere pur pose of panderiaa to the paesione, of the sect of persona to whom he sells his newspaper. I ask any one of you to think of it in his own mind, and say whether he could have any doubt that the defendant deliberately and dispassion ately wrote these insulting expres,ione for the mere purpose of increasing the circulation of his newspaper among the sect for whom he writes ? If you believe that the phrases to which I have called your attention passed every bound of fair comment upon the political or public acts and conduct of Mr. Gladstone—if you believe that they were designed as a personal insult —if you believe (and I think you cannot doubt) that they had a tendency to bring Mr. Robertson Gladstone into the contempt and hatred of his fellow-towns men, I ask you then whether it is not your plain and simple duty to say that, in your judgment, this is a gross and infamous libel ? Gentlemen, you are the guardians of the liberty of the press. The liberty of the press is not attacked here, but the gross and scandalous licence of the press is sought to ba brought under the control of a jury. I leave it, therefore, in your hands simply to say whether, in your judgment, this article was calculatel to bring Mr. Robertson Gladstone into hatred and contempt. Tae evidence in this case will be small indeed. By the Act of Parliament, it is now sufficient for me to put in a certificate, showing that the defendant is editor and publisher of this paper. Bar, gentlemen, I shall not stop at that. In the indictment, we have set forth that Mr. Gladstone was at the time a magistrate and a Town councillor. We en: ght have proved that fact by any policeman standing in the court. Bat Mr. Gladstone is not a parson to flinch from showing himself in public to support any complaint he thought it his duty to make ; and although it is wholey unnecessary for him to appear, yet Mr. Robertson Gladstone would not allow me to bring a case into court in which his name appears as prosecutor, without putting him into the box, to see if any question can be asked which could derogate from his right on this occasion. Mr. Gladstone will therefore stand in the witness-box, and you will see whether anything can be said to his dishonour, or which can in any way derogate from his right to ask at your hands protection from a gross and infamous libel. The certificate setting forth that Mr. Onsley was the proprietor and publisher of the Herald, was then put in, and after some objection on the part of counsel for defen dant, admitted. Mr. Robertson Gladstone s eorn and examined by Mr. Lushingeon : You are a justice of peace for the borough? I am. MR. ROLZRTSON GLADSTONE'S RELIGION (?) AND L')Y.ILTY ! Some people cannot exist without a grievance, like the hyena in his den, they are constantly moving about, and uttering discordant sounds Mr. Robertson Gladstone is one of those grumblers ; no one can satisfy him. At a Meeting of the Town Council, on Saturday last, the monthly meeting, which should have taken place on Wednesday last, was postponed, owing to that day being set.apart, by the Queen's proclamation, tbr a general fast and humiliation. This did not meet the approval of the ever discontented member of the Abercromby Ward, who observed that : He could not discover, really what the Council had to do with the ord.!, fir hrtmiliat ion and prayer. Of the necessity for humiliation and prayer, and the duty which was i,cumbeat upon each of them in re-pect of tho•e two objects, he did not ;I*(37end to hold any question for a mo,nent. But, consider:, g that the parties really in tanl7 were the East India Company, who nad hat golden opportuni ties of doing good, but had negl,cted and abused the trust reposed in them, why otter parties were to ba held responsible in the sight of God for ti:e acts of that company, was ready a matter which he for one could not co,,prehend. He did n)t purpose upon that occa s.on gong into the sulject. Ile felt very strongly upon it, and perhaps upon no point more than this did he enter his protest against it than because a day in the week was selected, a day of labour, when the p , !crer classes must of necessity be the suffzierers by the loss of that day's work. Nt'hy t.,ey could not have imitated their trethrel of tire Rona Au Catholic C: , urch, and fixed Sunday as a day of humiliation, ha could Lot comprehend. Mr. Gladstone questions the neeessity of praying to God to protect our fellow-ciuntrymen, women, and child ren from the merciless Sepoys, because the East India Company have neglected their duties We ask this brutal specimen of humanity. whether the soldiers, their wives, and children, are to blame for the conduct of the Government in laths ? " 0 her parties " are not held responsible in the sight of God, for the acts of the Com pany, but it is our duty, as Christians, to implore the Divine Mercy upon these who are surrounded with peril. He objects to a week-day being fixed upon. Had Sunday been selected, there would have been no sacrifice of selfish interests, and bat few would have recognised the day more than the usual sabbath. As for imitating the Pope's Sepoys. as proposed by Mr. Gladstone, that would only be exhibiting a disloyal: spirit. Why could not the Papists, as well as the Jews, and all other sects, obey the Q ieen's mandate 2 And what benefit do the poor Papists derive from having Sunday set apart for their day of humiliation, when their chief sacerdotal ruffian well knew that all work would be stopped on Wednesday. We are not surprised at anything emanating from Mr. Gladstone. A man who can jump from Toryism to extreme Radical ism may, if it suits him, rush from Christianity to infidelity, or, if it suits hi - n, Popery, of which latter creed he now appears to be the champion. According to the theory or Mr. Gladstone, as the East India Company are in fault, we have no right to attempt to relieve Luekno;v, bat leave nearly one thousand of our fellow-emu:try - men, women, and children, to be butchered. The power of British Troops, we admit, is:great, but the:!power of God can evert all evils; therefore to him we pray, for His strength is not as the strength of mortal man. The Town Council of Liverpool is disgraced so ling as this Eng,ish Sepoy has a place at its table; and we hope the electors of Abercromby Wart], of all political opinions, will com bine to oust hire. when his term of office expires. We had thought he had reached the lowest depths, but we are sorry to find there is a lower still—one that smacks strongly of blasphemy as well as disloyalty. Now, gentlemee, the observations of Mr. Gladstone you may agree with or not. I have not asked what your feelings may be in political of in religious matters. I have been too bag in Liverpool to think of asking such a question of a Liverpool jury, because I can say to you, in all truth and sincerity, that I would trust any case I conduct, without any challenge, to the honour ofa Liverpool jury, in the fall conviction that whatever may be your political or religious opinions, after having heard the law which the learned Judge will lay down, you will only endeavour, honestly and sincerely, to give a verdict accord irg to the law. But I cacnot help observing that whatever may be your opinions, and whether you agree with Mr- Gladstone or not, the whole of his observations do seem to breathe that regard for the poorer inhabitants of the town for which he has long been eminently distinguished. His principal objection to the fast day was that it was fixed upon a week day, and that thereby the poorer people would lose their wages for the day. But, gentlemen, it must be perfectly elevJoue to you, as you will see from some of the expressions of the article, what the real grievance on the pert of the newspaper was. Mr Gladstone never questioned the propriety of public humiliation and prayer ; you must have observed, from one of the paragraphs I read to you, that he distinctly guarded himself against anything of the kind. You cannot, any one of you, suppose, for a moment, that Mr. Gladstone was not as much grieved and horrified as any parson in the country by the calamities which had occurred in India. Now, recollect, you are to turn your attention to this, whether there are not expressions and statements in this article which go beyond fair, or even, as I have said, violent comment, and whethee it does not descend in.° personal abuse and personal insult, tending to bring Mr. Gladstone into the hatred and contempt of his fellow townsmen. i. Ws ask this brutal specimen of humanity." Is this the language of fair comment upon a gentleman like Mr. Gladstone who never did any harm to any mortal ? What does the writer 1110311 by saying that Mr. Gladstone was only actuated by selfish interests ? If he meant that Mr. Gladstone feared, by the appointment of a public fast, to lose the profits of one single day on the mart of Liverpool, then again I say that that is a grievous, a deliberate, and an indefensible insult. The writer asks, "What benefit do the door Papists derive from having Sunday set apart f r their day of humiliation, when their chief sacerdotal ruffian well knew the; all work would be stopped on Wednesday?" Whom does this person mean by "chief sacerdotal ruf fian?" I hear my friend say "he did not mean Mr. Gladstone ;" bat I shall, nevertheless, take notice of the phrase, because it will show you the spirit in which the article was written ; and if you find that this geneeman applies this sort of abuse to persons who could have had nothing whatever to do wi'h questions of the kind which were being raised and discussed in the Town Council, it will help to show you the spirit in which the article was written against Mr. Geadstone. Does ho mean by that phrase the Pope of Rome? Gentlemen, you may agree or not in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church You may hold, as most of us do, that the discipline of the Church of Rome is not suited to a free country, but I think you will agree with me, that when the doctrines and discipline of that church have engaged the minds of some of the most intellectual men of our day, they ought to be spoken of at least with respect. Yeu must all know that the P . ope of R ome i s a sort o f pr i nce—that he is an an nointed High Priest ; an d if you know anything of the history of your own tim e , y ou must know, if one may speak thus without irreverence of a high personage, that the present Pope of Rome is as mild and gentle a gentleman, and as holy and virtuous a clergymen as ever graced the position he now occupies. Can it be tolerated, then, that where there was really nothing whatever referring to the Roman Catholic Church, except the expressions the Gladstone used, that this person is to cast abroad in every direction insulting expressions of this kind, to which I have now called your attention ? Gentlemen, it ought to to recollec ed that there are, I believe, in this town of Liverpool, so many as 30,000 Roman Catholics, who look upon the Pope as their father, and a person whom they are bound to regard with the greatoe t reverence. Mr. fowler : But we really are not now trying a libel upon the Pope of Rome, or the 30,000 Roman Catholics of Liverpool. Me. B re t : It i s t rue we are not, b ut t hi s t h rows a light upon the reckless way in which this person wrote the article—if we find him thus describing a prince and a gentleman, as a sacer d ota l ru ffi an, i t will show you t h e spirit in which h e compose d t h e art i cle of w h ich I com plain. I have al rea d y d rawn year attention to the time at which this article was written. I have already asked you to recollect the atrocities which had been committed at How long have you filled that office? Ten or twelve years —more, perhaps. And you are also a member of the Town Council ? I am. lam one of the members for Abercrom')y Ward. Cross examined by Mr. Sowler : You say you have been a rnagistra'e fir ten or tweive years ? Yes. And I suppose, whilst sitting in that capacity, you are in the habit of herring complaints against publicans ? YO3. Was there a complaint before you of certain publicans who kept open their hou3es on this day of humiliation ? His Lordship : What has that to do with this matter ? Mr. Sowler : It goes to show that his mind W%4 still the same when he was acting as a justice of the peace. Hl3 Lordship: Tao question is whether there is a libel or not. Mr. Sowler : Yes, but the jury must take all the circum stances into consideration. ' Mr. Gladstone: I have no objection to state what took place, if your lordship wish it, His Lordship : It would be irrelevant. Cross. examination continued by Mc. Sowler : May I a , k you who was the good natured friend that pointed this matter out to you in the newspapers ? I read the news paper in the Palatine Club. it pviuluti vitt to you? No. It was not ? It was net. Were yon acquainted by any parties in reference to it? I saw my name in large letters on the placard as I drove into town. I ask you, hal any person drawn your attention to the article contained in this paper ? Not before I had read it. Did any person afterwards ? I cannot recollect any particular person, but I was spoken to on the subject. You c-nnot recollect any particular person ? No. Well, have you strong opinions as to the impropriety of days of humiliation? No, none whatever. Then the opinion you expressed in the Town Council was really not a very serious opinion on your part, after all ? It was perfectly serious. Was it, indeed ? It was. You still think it was wrong to appoint a day in the middle of the week ? I do. Then, notwithstanding that her Majesty, by an order in Council, had set apart that particular day as a day of humiliation, you were desirous that the Council meeting should be held on that day ? Clearly ; bat that was not my ooject in making the remark. Did you complain that the meeting of the Town Council was not held on the Wednesday as usual, and that it was inteerupted by the appointment of this day of humiliation ? I complained that that day of appointment caused an interruption. On that particular thy, to the holding of the Town Council meeting—is that what you mean to say ? It is. You felt yourself to be quite at liberty to state this publicly in your place in the Town Council ? I did. You thought, also, that it was clearly your duty as a magistrate, flaying the custody of the peace here in Liver pool, and representing her Majesty, to make that state ment in the Town Coancil of Liverpoel ? I made that statement in the chamber of the Town Council as a town councillor. I believe you are also a magistrate of the county ? I am Aud accustomed to act as such ? Not very frequently— my duties in the borough prevent it. But you do act as a magistrate for the county ? Occa sionally. _ _ And for the borough frequently ? I take my regular routine of duty, and sometimes something more. I believe you have taken rather a prominent part in political pr.iceedings in the borough of Liverpool ? I have. And have been in the habit of expressing yourself strongly on various matters that occupied public attentioo I expressed myself according to what I conscientiously believed to be just and right. No doub ; and you are rather a zealous politician ? I am. Did you state "you hoped we could get rid of this ob servance on this day of humiliation ? No. You never stated that ? No ; I never did. Nor anything like it ? I have no recollection whatever of having said anything like it. You did not say, " For my part, I hope we shall soon get rid of such observances ?" No, it would not accord with my opinions. What I complained of was the appoint ment of the fast day on a work day. But you said the East India Company were to blame, and you did not see what the nation generally had to do with it ? I did so. And because you thought the Company were to blame, you also thought that the nation generally had no occasion whatever to humiliate itself? I thought I had none. r the Towa Council of Liverpool? I spoke for myself. No 77, did it so happen that any persons were brought before you for breaches of the law on that day ? There were, certainly. And you dismissed the summonses ? Mr. Brett objected. Mr. Gladstone had no objection to answer the question, but he (Mr. Brett) apprehended his Lordship would not go into such a matter. His Lordship asked if it was before or after the pobli cation ? Mr. Bowler replied that it wag 'before publication. Mr. Lushington replied that such was not the case. It was five days after. His Lordship observed that, that being so, it would not justify the libel. - Mr - . Sowler did not say that it would—they had not pleaded justification. His Lordship observed that he might ask 3[r. Gladstone as to his opinion. Mr. Sower : Was it right for you, as a magistrate, to dismiss the summonses that had been broaght before you, of publicans, for breaches of the law in keeping their houses open on the day of humiliaticn ? I ask you a simple abstract question—whether it was right, in your opinion, as a magistrate, to dismiss the summonses because they had lept.oien their houses on thAtda.ynfhuntilisitiou THE N ORTIIERN TIIVIES.-LIVERPOOL, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1857. et_ I think it was wrong to dismiss them on such a ground. statesman, Mr. Robertson gladstone'a brother, the Member reported to have expressed. He had a perfect right ; 0 5 Did you dismiss them ? I did dismiss cases, but not en for Oxford, and late Chancellor of the Exchequer. H e (M r . express that sentiment—a perfect right. Mr. Ousley, b i g that ground. Sowler) said all honour to that man, and he could forgive the editor of a newspaper, had a perfect right to mime o , On what grounds? That was not the grounds on Mr. Robertson Gladstone a gre a t d ea l because of the high comments, and to criticise that sentiment, and, which I dismissed them. . 008 0 respect he had for the statesman-like quali des and the to express his entire dissent from those opinions _, l Well, we should like to know the grounds ? I dismissed upright course which the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone. He was entitled to criticise and discuss all the summonses bought before me—eight or ten—on the Gladstone had pursued as a publi c ma n in that country— that fell from Mr. Gladstone on that occasien, but b e jog ground—first of all, it was not proved to my satisfaction not more distinguished too as a public man than for his not warranted in mingling personal abuse by the o ccn ot that the parties had an accurate knowledge that they were blameless private life—a man who would be a honour to It would be for them to say, whether what the defers by doing wrong; and th e seco n d reaso n was , that it was a any nation. But it was a piece of almost unheard-of published as comment was in their judgment warranted by first offence. On those grounds I allowed them to go audacity for Mr: Robertson Gladstone to get up in the the occasion, and whether the limit of that fair , wel l away, cautioning them, that if they were brought before Town Council of Liverpool and dare to dictate to the reasonable discussion which all journalists, as upon me again, they would be punished, and that the law, people of that country what was right and what was as the public generally, had a right to make, ti P neg whether right or wrong, was to be respected as long as it proper. He thought it extremely probable that Mr. the conduct of all public men, had been in this ins i t a or g, was the law. Gladstone could not comprehend the propriety of the overstepped by him. This was the comment :—[ads -1- .' i t libwrs Were you not assured by the police that they had proclamation of her Majesty's ordering a day of humili- ship here rad the passages forming the subject of the tr. cautioned them ? That assurance was given by soma— ation and prayer. If everybody else agreed with Mr. There could be no question that the defendant had a per not not in every case. , Gladstone upon that subject what a pretty spectacle the feet right to say that, to complain that Mr. Glaris on But you dismissed all ? I did. country would have presented upon the memorable day of should question the necessity of prayer and humiliali t r os mor f eo llir r ; Although the police stated that they had warned all the public humiliation. So far from being a spectacle calculated the occasion by the whole country, but there followed ants parties ? The police stated that they did not warn all. to shed honour in the pa mof the history of the country, of those passages which it was said overstepped the' Atic t Still you dismissed those , summonses ? In ovary case it it w o uld h ave b een a spectacle for demons to have rejoiced o f a ll reasona bl e cr i t i c i sm an d comment upon the e oll .' i was the first offer ce. a t. - Without enterin g i n t o a di scusu i on as t o t h e gent l eman - of pu b lic men, and which was charged as one of the 11bes Then you did not express any opinion at all with refer- ly charact er o f th e P ope o f Rome, he thought the Roman in the case—" We ask this brutal specimen of huraanity , once to the propriety of keeping th e houses closed on that Catholics would have done better if they had followed the &e., &c. Now, was Mr. Ouseley justified by the occal st day ? I did not. exam pl e o f a ll other sects, than by opnesine the proclanit- or warranted in fai r di scuss i on an d f a i r cr i t i c i sm , 00 'm g I suppose you are aware, as a magistrate. that it is ti o n o f th e Q ueen, and wh i c h even t h e Jews, who were which might be taken to to an objection on the part of Tx obligatory on keepers of public houses to close their houses not Christians, had obeyed. It was well for Mr. Gladstone Gladstrne to have a day o f h um ili at i on an d pra yer a tec i upon any day appointed for a public fast or thanks g iving, that he had net li ve d and expressed the opinions he die or at all events to have it o n a wor k-d ay — was h e warren°, to just the same as on Sundaes, Christmas Day, or Geed some reigns back. H a d h e d one so , hi s l anguage woo l! in using this expression in regard to Me. Gladstone, an eg se Friday ? I believe that is the law. probably have been ce ll e d se diti on , an d he m•ght find call him " a brutal specimen o f h uman i t y ?" I t t r s as ht It is stated here that you jumped from Toryism to himself awaiting his trial in prison. It would seem that that, in the heat of discussion, a phrase of that kind 1121 f0 extreme Radicalism ? I once was a Tory lam sorry to the gravemen of the present libel was in the fact that Mr. be used, but there was a difference between verbal o f say. (Laughter.) l Gladstone was called a '- brutal specimen of humanity." written expressions. A man in the heat or the hur 1, r d fo r suppose is a very candid avowal on your part, Now, I Now, on the manner in which an expression was used speech - might use a phrase which he would regret, an se , suppsse you are a very entitles member of the opposite depended very. much whether it was offensive or no'. which he would be sorry ; but this was written—it fia's party ? Well, whatever Ido I endeavour not to do by Suppose, instead of calling him a brutal specimen of the deliberately expressed opinion of the writer. It 7 1 , 6 halves humanity, Mr. Ouseley had called him an ass. (Laughter) for them to say whether it exceeded or was within th e That what I believe is y our re p u t a ti on — you never m i nce Wh at was an a=s b ut a brutal spec i men of humanity when limits of fair and geasonable criticism? Whe her ass i g ni n g od matters ? No applied to a man ? He did not know whether Mr. Glad- liberal and fair allowance for criticism and discussion up. Mr. B re tt : Did you state to the Council something to stone would have been better pleated if Mr nuseleY had the conduct of public men, th e defe n d an t was werrentedL 2 this effect ? [The learned gentleman here read the written him down an ass ? (Laughter.) He would not using the expression, " brutal specimen of humanity ?" '7 6 remarks of Mr. Gladstone, the comment on Which was the have been singular even if he had been thus distiognished, to the rest of the paragraph, about imitating tse "Pop e alleged libel ] I spoke toe that effect substantially, but I for no doubt he . had all which Dogherry room- Sepoy s ," it might he considered a strong expression, b a s 0 cannot answer for the exat words. - seated himself to have, and yet Doyberry was no more. It might be very strong language in respect e You objected to the fast-day because it was held on the written down an ass. (Laughter.) No doubt the Pope, but the Pope was not now before thew, nor wef t , week-day ? I did. he was as pretty a piece of flesh as any in Messina, N ) they considering how far Mr. Oaseley would be justifiedli; You! have been asked as to your decision as a m a g i s . d ou bt he had, like Dogberry, two gowns—an aldermanic using such expressions in reference to him. The paragral ) . trate. lam afraid I almost insult you, but did you decide gown and a night-gown. (Laughter.) Mr. slimier, about " •jumping from Toryi s m," &c., thou g h strong It according to the best of your ability and jadgment as to howev er , h a d s ave d him that indignity, and not mute the guage, would not be beyond what might be said of t he the cases before you ? I did, they were not aggravated insinuation. (Laughter.) Mr. So vier contended that at conduct of a public man who rendered himself open to cases. . the time Mr. Ouseley wrote the article, the recent horrors criticism, but in the subsequent passage (and here '''; Do I understand you that you were not satisfied that in India were fresh in his mind, and that he conceived Mr. Lordship read it) Mr. Ousley seemed to treat the OPPc 5 i some of the parties had knowledge of the Fast-day? Gladstone's observations to have implied something like tion of Mr. Gladstone to any day of humiliation M i l t . There were some notices served by the police, but we en extenuation of those horrors which all in that country prayer, on the ground that the fault was that of the know how such notices are served, and the many accidents felt so intensely, and this feeling might accounkfer an Y company, and not of the nation generally, and I n which might prevent their being read in time. I took little intemperance which might appear in his lifituage. therefore the nation need not humiliate itself as it was not that into consideration, coupled with its being the first He did not mean to say that it was a judicious article, but its fault—he to to have treated that ex erosion c f offence. he denied that it bore the interpretatioa sought to be put Mr. Gladstone as if Mr. Gladstone was not that mistral ° hs This closed the case for the prosecution. upon it, or that it could be regarded, in fact, as anything the mutinous Sepoys that it was to be hoped all Engl is Mr. Sowler submitted that there was no evidence that more than a political squib. It was absurd to suppose men were. It was for the jury to say whether , 311 „: the libel was false to the knowledge of the defendant. that Mr. Ouseley was actuated by any malicious intention Gladstone, by his objection to the day of humiliarg,T, His Lordship: You say that Mr. Gladstone is a " brutal towards Mr. Gladstone. It might have been an injudicious sympathised with the Sepoys and the atrocities of wn t l i 2 , specimen of humanity." Is he to prove that he is not ? comment, but it was penned under the influence of excited they were guilty. But then came the passage—" 1 !, : h is (Laughter.) Or that he is not en "English Sepoy ?" Or feelings, when the memory of the Sepoy atrocities Council to be any longer disgraced by the presence or `," t that ho has not reached the lowest depth of " blasphemy were uppermost in the mind, not only of Mr. Egtsh Sopoy ? ' What was to be understood by tt! t a lt and disloyalty ? ' (Laughter.) Ouseley, but of every other man in the country and but that M Gladstone • idyll ~ r. adetone was a person who sympathise to The objection was not pressed. it was no t th e ma li c i ous and mal i gnant libel the Sepoys ? Now it was f or th em to j u d ge w h et h er what Mr. Sowler then addressed th e jury on behalf of the which was sought to be proved. The limits of tree die- said at the Council would w arran t t h e id ea t h at he ever i tg defence. He said, his learned frie n d, i n o p en i ng hi s case cussion mi g ht, p oss ibly, i n t h e h eat o f the moment, have entertained any sympathy with the Sepoys, or that ' g had stated that he had the honour to appear for Mr. been overstepped, but not overstepped in such a manner as Council was disgraced by his sitting amongst them, beau', Gladstone. He (Mr. Sowler) and Mr. Wheeler had the to render Mr. Ouseley liable to the consequences with of the views he had expressed ? And they should also Fop honour to appear for Mr. Ouseley. A great master of the which Mr. Gladstone would visit him. No attack was whether the defendant was warranted in staling that fir, was English language had said that the greatest curse of folly made upon the private character of Mr. Gladstone ;he was Gladstone had reached th© " lowest dew hof blasplieLld s simply dealt with as a public man, who, by means of his was that it could not hide itself ; and the present case was ;as well as of disloyalty," because of the opinions he l e e ono of the most singular instances of the truth of that say- public position, had become public property, and liable to I reported to have expressed on the occasion in queslic' n ' t comment. He denied that the tendency of the article was ins. • How any man occupying the position which his learnedi If they believed that he was, they would find him il 'g friend had ascribed to Mr. Gladstone, could have been so to bring Mr. Gladstone into contempt, or to disparage him 1 guilty ; but if they were of a contrary opinion, and believe foolish as to institute such proceedings against a respectable in the estimation of the public. Mr. Ouseley Lad d one that he overstepped all the bounds of reasonable criticise r ' member of society—a gentleman, he s h ou ld b e a ll owe d t o nothing to disparage Mr. Gladstone in the estimation of suck ns ranted in maleing o n th e con d uct o f pu bli c men, they well public journalists in this cou n t r y wou ld be w at i . c i say, quite as respectable as Mr. Glad s t one —h e cou ld no t the town. Mr. Gladstone had do n e thi s hi mse lf scores o f for the life of him understand, unle ss th ere h a d b een b e hi n d times. His public addressee, hi s d enunc i at i ons , his find him guilty. Tad Mr. Gladstone one of those good-natured friends spoken of declamations in Ahercromby ward and els . etv i here, Lad The Jury retired about a quarter past two o'clock, end by "Puff" in the Critic, who were continually occupying en 'bled the people of his native borough to eussm . of him remained in consultation for several hours. ma themselves by showing everything which chanced to be I Welged of hick, He for themselves, and no doubt they had t r „ About half-past six o'clock his Lordship said he feat, . offensive to their best friends. It seemed to him that Mr. (Mr. Sowler) had no doubt that, if Mr. Gladstone were to there would not be the slightest hope of the jury acsreeluw become a candidate for the representation of that borough Gladstone would have better consulted his dignity, his Mr. Lushington said if the opposite party wonld el; in Parliament, he would meet with a very warm reception in honour, and his character, if he had not taken that withdraw word of regret for the libel they were ready to proceeding, John's Market. (Laughter.) Mr. Our ley and his paper proceeding, than by endeavouring to persecute a respectabl© the prosecution. had nothing to do with this; they had dealt with him only asthe man, because, iu the conscientious and honest dischagge . Mr. Wheeler said is ha I' been already stated that a public man and not in his p r ivat e c h aracter . If M r , of a duty, he thought proper t o commen t on M r . Gl a d- defendant did not in the slightest degree intend to impair stone's speech in the Town Council. Hi s l earne d f r i en d h a d Gladstone thought proper to buy fish ch ea p er th an any the private honour or character of Mo. Gladst one , and, I ti one else, what had they to do with that ? (L aug h ter .) taken care to inform the jury, that M r . Gl a d s t one was a point effect, the strictures were upon his publi c c haracte r e Suppose Mr. Gladstone chose to pa t o n ly 6d a t a fi s h sta ll person of the highest station and f or t une . H e b e li eve d 1 altogether, Whether they were temperate or intempera j , for an article for which the poor man had to pay Bd, what that his learned friend had in no degree stated what was judicious or injudicious, right or wrong, they did not COn!, hard they to do with that ? (Laughter.) He (Mr. Sowler) beyond the tenth. He believed Mr. Gladstone to be a Mr. Gladstone's private character. That was all he w" . paid the 6d or the stsl. did not ask whether Mr.. Gladstones . . . person occupying the very highest position in the town of authorised to say in the matter. He had nothing to do with Mr. Gladstone's private affairs MO Liverpool; a gentleman who had a mighty large fortune, t ' Mr. Lushington said the prosecution decd fedi)" could and, d with - and contended that Mr. Onseley a only d ealt him and, what was more. who know very well how to take care not be satisfied with such an apology. fir' article Of it. (Laughter.) Now, was it allowable to him to tell as a public uaau ; and- that Mr. Gladstone, having had His Lordship intimated a concurrence in ner• w ime thorn who Mr. Ouseley was ? Was it allowable for him to experience of piablic life, should not have been so thin- ington's remark, and added, that if the words in the c 't n tell them that this libeller, this false malicious libeller, was skinned with regard to comment.. Finally, Mr. Sowler were hastily used he could not see the least diffioullY submitted the question to the jury, urging them, as a gentleman, the son of a general officer, who fought in the withdrawing them. H e o b serve d t h at t h ere were decided l y i Peninsula, who was deco r ated by hi s sovere i gn, an d b y t h e Englishmen, not to forget, when th e y came to d e lib erate to one of some expressions in it w hi c h ou ght not to h ave been 1115 , g e g upon their verdict, that the libe r ty of th e su bj ec t wou ld b e sovereigns cf foreign states ? W ou ld h e b e permitted to such as " brutal specimen of h uman i t y, the most ancient, respectable, an d h onoura bl e b aronets i n Beg - tell them that Mr. Ou se l e y was a near relative' crembling in the Ealance, and r e mindi ng th em t h at, when s epnyd , a l ower g etbd , &p. üblic discutsion was stifled, and the p ress p u t d own, t h ey P Mr. Wheeler said the last was a Miltonian express i°°. might depend upon it the liberti es o f th e pu bli c would the country, Sir Willi a m O use l ey , an d was very c l ose l y His Lordship said it was not the less too forcible. b not be long secure. sue connected with Sir Robert Gore Ouseley, who had been Mr. Lushington said if the defendant would make we ' employed in the diplomatic re l a ti ons o f t h e country Tile L or d s hip th en p rocee d e d to c h arge the jury. He an apology as his Lordship w o u ld sugges t, t h e presecutm* abroad with great benefit to the country, and said that the defendant wss indicted for publishing that would accept it. no less honour to himself ? Might he, since Mr. which was stated to be a defamatory libel on Mr. Roberson His Lordship :I do not understand, as yet, that he P r°' Gladstone had been trumpeted forth as a person Gladstone, and it was stated that what had been so poses to make any apology at all. el I of such high distinction and great f o rt une , b e p erm i tte d , i n pu bli s h e d was calculated to vilify and bring lairn into Some c onsu lt at i on h ere took puce between Mr. Oase -e o these few words, to t e ll t h em w h at M r. Ouse l ey was? It hatred and contempt with the public generally. They and his counsel, and after much evident urgency on th was Mr. Ouseley's misfortune, not his fault, he pre- had heard many strong remarks on the great advantages t part of the latter, to sutued, not to be blessed with such extensive means as tho se i n a f re e country of having a free press. He quite con- ; Mr. Wheeler said that the defendant had consente d of which Mr. Gladstone was possessed. Ho was a gentle. cursed in all such remarks. Thee had also been warned ' place himself in his Lordship's hands. r' mau in moderate circumst an c es . H e f e lt earnest l y an d to beware of the effects which would f o ll ow th e stifflerag of Aft er some conversat i on, i t was suggeste d by ? J o f zealously for the cause which he supported, and which Mr. discussion upon the merits of public men. Undoubtedl y, Lushington that his Lordship should draw up a f c rra o s Gladstone had deserted. He felt as strongly in the interest all those who filled public situations should consider them- apology to be signed on behalf of each party. This b y of that cause as Mr. Glad s t one f e l t i n th e i nterest o f hi s selves (men to have their public conduct comm en t e d on, agreed to, and the following apology, drawn up by 14, new political friends ; and no doubt it was quite as much reviewed . , and criticised, and that, no doubt, might be lnc Lordship, was accepted on either sides, and signe d to the credit of Mr. Ouseley to espouse the cause which he in strong terms and strong language ; but care should be counsel : conscientiously believed to be right as to the credit of t .ken not to overstep the bounds of decency or prop ic f .l l , Mr. Ouseley regrets that, under the influence of stro ve ,,,, Mr. Gladstone to espouse the cause of his new friends, or to use such language, under the pretence of criticising .4'oe - feelings upon the subject cf Mr. Robertson Glad-- , who were his former enernicp. Mr. Ouseley was one of pnblic conduct, which tended to vilify and bring into- 3rd c ' those who endeavoured to maintain the Constitution of contempt the person to whom it was applied. Ther., observations at the Town Council on Saturday, tae he England, and to preserve it against the encroachments of should be such care, otherwise, that which was a October, relative to the day of humiliation and praie r ' those foreign tyrants of whose actions they h a d h a d many b less i ng wou l d b ecome a c urse , and opportunity would should have used expressions calculated to weeded the 6 examples during late years. Mr. Gladstme washed it to be offered, under the pretence of free critichm of the feelings of Mr. Robertson Gladstone, i thd l ' avi and he ws go forth that the setting apart of a day of conduct of men holding public situations, to vilify them humiliation and prayer was an idle ceremony. by personal abuse. The question on the present occasion such expressions, and regrets that he has used them , Did he mesn to tell his fellow-townsmen that it I which they had to try was, whether the defendant had Dimes NYBEI LER, of counsel for defendant. was not right for • them to humiliate themselves overstepped the limits of fres and of reasonable criticism VERNON LUSEIIN GTON, of counsel for froeecutio n, before Almighty God as an occasion, when as much as at allowed to persons in his position. It was said that, at m, a any time in the history of a n y coun t r y, th e mer ci es o f the tim e th e d e f en d an t pu bli s h e d t h e alleged libel, his jury ne were than sent for, an d came i nto co urt. a v e Providence were imperati v ely ca ll e d fo r ? Did he moan feelings were excited, but no man should allow his feel- His Lordship intimated that the jury had been relic .tos s that the Queen was wrong in issuing her order in council ings to be excited to the prejudice of another person. H e from the necessity of further considering a verdict , ' w e that that particular day should be of apart as a day of might have his own feelings, but there was no reason much as, the prosecution being a private one. it haa, ti humiliation and of fast, Th e pretence was that a day of why he should bring into contempt those who entertained withdrawn on an apology being tendered. He addea c ie labour and wages would be takes away from the working opinions different from himself, though he might comm e nt there were unquestionably some expressions in the amen' clauses. Was not the poor man entitled to make his in strong language on the views of his opponents. At which exceeded any reasonable limit, and which one ts sacrifice as well as the rich? Was the poor man to be the period in question, no doubt a great na ti ona l calamity tlem an must, regret having applied t o ano th er . e el a - deprived of the advantage of making his sacrifice of a day had befallen this country ; for, f rom w h atever cause i t had The Jury were then discharged, and the court stele urII of labour for such a purpose? His learn° I friend had arisen, there was no doubt that it had been, and was at to half past nine this morning. e 'yea endeavoured to argue that no disloyalty was shown i n this moment, a g reat n a ti ona l m i s f ortune. A t the time of The announcement of the result of the trial was reel . et , opposing the appointment of the special day of h um ili a ti on, the p u bli ca ti on o f w h a t was a ll ege d to ho a libel, in the with loud applause by the parties who filled the bo YtoDe on the ground that it was not the act of the m um up h erse lf . mo n th o f O cto b er , t h e most di sastrous excesses of cruelties the court. A faint effort was also made to get Bat he disputed the interpretation thus sought to be given had been perpetrated by the insurgent Sepoys, and " Keatish Fire," but it was at once suppressed. to the meaning of a proclamation issued by the Queen's the calamity was considered such, that her Majes'y express authority. His learned friend had said it was the thought fit to appoint a day for humiliation and prayer. act of those who advised her Majesty in ecclesiastical That day was fixed for Wednesday the 7th of October. affairs. In this view of the proclamation he contended Now, whatever opinion men might entertain as to the cause that his learned friend was under an entire misapprehension. of the revolt, all would agree that the calamity was such It was the act of the Privy .council. Although his learned that there might well be appointed a day for public humi friend would have th , rn believe they had come to such a liation. That day was appointed, as he before observed, fer state of things in England, they-had not Set done so. Her the 7th of October, and on the 3rd of October, which was Majesty had still a voice in the Government of the country. Saturday, there was a meeting of the Town Council ; and His learned friend surely did not w ant th e m t o b a lky ° at that meetin g it w a s p ro p ose d no t t o h o ld t h e meeting of that they had dropped down altogether to Gladstone's the Town Council that would, in the usual course, take method of political philceophy, or th a t they were living place en the Wednesday, but to postpone ir, en account of in the midst of a Republic, which was really the effect of that day being fixed as the day of pub'ic humiliation. It what his learned friend had pet to th -m. 'the Queen had, seemed that at meeting Mr. Gladstone appeared to have so long as the Constitution of the country was maintained made some objection generally to the day of humiliation and ever must have, a power and authority independe n t being fixed at all, but more particularly to that day being of all Ecclesiastical authorities. The speech of his learned fixed on a week day, rather than on Sunday. What he was friend seemed intended to rival the violence and unreason- reported to have said on the occasion was— ablcness of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone set himself ue [His Lordship here quoted Mr. Gladstone's speech, and as an arbitrator and an instructor, as if he were the only continued: —] true prophet, !and every ono else was false and fallible. Of the general duty of humiliation and' prayer upon every Why, who was Mr. Gladstone ? Who cored about the one at all times, Mr. Gladstone, as might have been sup opinion of Mr. Robertson Gladstone ? (Laughter.) No posed, seemed to have entertained no doubt whatever. doubt he was a great roan among the Towns Ceuncil of What he seemed to have doubted was the necessity Liverpool, which conuted its debates ith uch infinite for public humiliation and prayer on a particul ar propriety—although he thought it was oily the other day occasion ; and the reason assigned for his opinion was that some of them were reading its proceedings in an ad- that the public generally were not in fault—that they had joining room, and thought them not very gentlem inly. nothing to do with the mutiny of the Fiepoys, or with the No doubt Mr. Robertson Gladstone was a very great man, cause of it, or were at all to be considered as the mum of the member for Abmwromby Ward, w ho set himself up in it—that the nation had nothing to do with it, but that it the Town Council of Liverpool to dictate whether a day was the peculiar fault of the East India Company, and that of humiliation was right and proper. He could tell Mr. therefore the nation generally had no cause for humilia- Robertion Gladstone that, with all his wealth, his voice tion and prayer. Mr. Gladstone had a perfect right to was not potential in the country. He did not wish to be have his opinioa upon that, or upon any other matter--he supposed to cast any personal reflections upon Mr. Glad- had as much right as any man in England to have his stone. He was dealing now w i t h hi m as a political and a opinion upon that subject-, and he bad a perfect right to public man, who had mad e hi mse lf a mar k for the arrows express his opinion. There was within in that which he of criticism. It was Mr. Gladstone's own Melt if his con- was reported to have said, which he might not very well duct w.s criticised. He had chosen his position, and, having have stated as bring his opinion, whether others agreed done so, and having taken so prominent and zealous a part with him or not. Many might think that it was a wrong as he had done, ha ought not to complain because his public opinion, but he hail a right to entertain that opinion, acts were canvassed by the editor of a newspaper. All just as the defendant had a right to make comments on honour to the name of Gladstone. All honour to the name any statement of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. G. was a public of Mr. Robertson Gladstone's father, a man who, by a man. He was a magistrate of the borough and the county course of honest industry and integrity, built up for him- He was also a member of the Town Council, and it was in self a large fortune. Alt honour to the family whom he that character of a public man, as a member of the Town had introduced into society. All honour to that gifted ' Council, Clint he expressed the sentiment which he was THE BOROUGH BANK AND MR. -D003113 CASE. To J. P. G. Smith, Sir,—Your lett er on ly reac h e d me t hi s morn ing. 1 2: solicitor conducting the pro secu ti on o f J o h n Dohertl , the Town Clerk of Liverpool, who managed it in th e ti v sil s way by the official prosecutor, t o w h om I mus t refe r 1() y for information. I made no st a t emen t exce pt f r(fira ji ° so instructions. I may say, however, that Ido not 'r e " 0 0 how Mr. Walter, could have sul:pcened you beM:ed of sth December. The charges upon which your °° "ate was material, were not those upon which the os ' sl i str 'llg committed: Inasmuch, however, as some evidenc e feistl e:e to them appeared on the depositions, and as ti le C i r ge, introductory to, and tended to explain the principsl it was advised by counsel, on drawing the indiJnistitAt ne e they should be inner ed, and that the additional e ciu h e- ti ld requirel to support them, including your ow°' s-° , 9 0rl s f, : ero to be procured. That advice was only given on the of the 4th December. Mr. Walter will be be st ti , b te le d yo ur A': explain to you what steps he took to procure ance upon receiving the advice, and also What fa were given to him, or withheld from him, at the 1 3 ° r° to Bank for ascertaining your address.--I am, dear sir, 9° truly, J. B. AsPINAI'I. St. George's Hall, Dec. 14, 1857. As I observe that y ou h ave pu bli s hed you r lector I take the same course with regard to this. NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS. ts, biERSONS seeking Employment, Seer::est Assistants, Clerks, Apartments, or Lodging' . oilf r,i l3 bri ~,_ntr, their wants under the Nutice of the Public bY 'dy t l a blica ! ,,, oirlitTllEßN TIMES, which Is the most efficient m eoiniu t iL v „ id ati in this district. The cash price for this special c ass of a dver ,"- Is reduced to THREEPENCE for TWENTY WORDS'