The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-25 00:00:00

not in strike out a punishment not prescribed by the laws of
the country. The prisoner Gardner had bees capitally con-
victed, and was to he imprisoned and kept to bard labour ; he
was only 19 years of age, and had bad sentence of death
passed upon him. Pardner represented himself to be ill, and
the Surgeon, Valentine, represented him to be in perfect health.
He bad inflicted a wound an inch deep above the knee of his
fellow-prisoner; and it appeared had been cursing and reviling
the magistrates of the county. The very characteristic of
Bridle's life was humanity and tentleruess. On hoard tine
bulks he could go down between decks among the . convicts,
without arms in his hands, when no other dared to venture
among such desperate characters. Sir Joints Ackland repre-
seated him as the frieud of the friendless, Ste.—The prisoners
%s 100 canoe forward had no interest iu speaking inn 6.3 favour,
but heartfelt gratitude.
Mr. Justice Bayley asked if the defendant was dismissed
from his situation in consequence of this and other charges.
Mr \Vilnius's said it was so—there were charges voluminous
enough to all the Court, They were produced by that man
wino never set his foot but where discord was—who was like
the horse of whom it was said, no grass ever grew where he
►at his foot.
Mr. Erskine, jun. likewise addressed the Court in mitiga-
tion. He trusted the Court would consider it their duty to
discharge him without any punishment at alt. The whole ob-
ject the defeodant aimed at was to repress insubordination in
tine gaol. ho other puaishineat hal been indicted on this man
that Mist his eonduct deserted.
Mr. *lnning followed on the same side.
The Attorney-General said, it was not his object to with-
drew from their Lordships consideration the topics of mitiga-
tion which had been urAed, nor the benefits which would fol-
low to the defendant. His dismissal from ollice was not upoa
this but various other charges. The question fu: their Lord-
ahips' consideration was, how far the detendant had committed'
a very ser ons offence, in overstepping the boundaries of the .
law—in the indicting capricious punishment at his will
pleasure. This he was not at liberty to do even in the case of
a person who had forfeited his life to the laws of his country.
It- was not to be tortured by his ;.aoler. De'endant alleged
that the blister was suggested by the surgeon.—Referring •to
the evidence of the surgeon, no such fact appeared, but on
defendant's own assertions. Was it to be endured (said Do
doomed gent.) that the gaoler should trifle with t hose commit-
ted to his care! It was stated, that the violent and unnatural
conduct of the man was the provocation. He stated in the
occurence book that be had sentenced this man to solitary con-
finenneat, bat does not enter either the blister applied or the
'trait-waistcoat. If ever there was a cause for public
invee-
tigatioa it was this; to hold example to others. However high
a man's character stood for benevolence, it would Dot sanction
misconduct like this. It most go forth to the public, under
their Lordships' authority, that such -conduct io gaolers was
against the law of the land, fer the protection of other pri-
soners. In his (the Attorney-General's) opinion this was not
a case of such trilling import as to go unpunished. An offence
of a very serious nature bad bora committed. He thonght lie
had only discharged his duty in bringing this case before their
Lordships, and of reminding them of their duty to the cousti-
tution of the country, which was, by their sentence on this
defeadsnt, to deter other gaolers from following the example
of this defendant, in overstepping the boundaries of the law—
on the pretence of iulicting punishments on unhappy prisoners,
fur tine support of has authority.
The Bench conferred together for some minutes.
The Lord Chief Justice said, the Court woule consider the
punishment to be awarded the defendant, and fur that purpose
let him attend again to-morrow.
THF. KING tr. WILLINMS.
Mr. Scarlett moved the judgment of the court on the de-
fondant.
The learned Judge then read the record of the trial. The
defendant was indicted for the publication of a libel on the
established clergy, and also the olergy of Durham and the vi-
einity. The libel appeared in the parkas, Chrouirld, of which
the defendant wins editor and proprietor. It related to the
death of tine late Queen, and contained a statement of voluntary
disrespect on the partuf the clergy of Durham, in omitting to
toll the hells.
Mr. Brougham, as counsel for the defendant, moved for a
rule to sinew cause why the judgment should not he arrested,
or a new trial bed. His applioation to arrest the judgment was
made no two grounds. First, there was an error in the decla-
ration with reepeat to tine clergy alleged to be libelled. The de.
fendent was charged with liltelling the clergy of the established
choral; Secondly, tile clergy of Durham ; and thirdly, the
clergy residing near Durham. These tilegstione were, aceov.l-
-ing to Mr. Brougham's argument, vague and indefinite. Tine
clergy of tine established church was too general. There was
taut ■ eitilie,ent designation of the parties to whom tine libel
was said 'to apply. ith respect to the clergy of Durham, the
allegation inlaid be supposed to apply to dissenting clergy, and
the terms in or near Dunham,' did not specify any precise
place or residence. Near Durham might mean three Indies or
I wenty miles from Durham ; in short, the allegations were im-
perfect, and the prosecution could not be sustained. The

lenrned counsel having disposed of Inc points far arresting the
judo:tent, stated the ground on which he expected a new trial,
an case his first objections should lie over-ruled by the °mut.
It appeared that Baron Wool, who tried the defendant, said, in
his charge to the Jury, "Gentlemen, I am required to state
whether thin in a lihel or tint, acd I must tell on that I think

it is a gross libel." The learned Judge. accoidiog to air.
hiroughoms arguniebt,in thus addressing the Jury, gore a mis-
direction, inasmuch as the Libel Act did not require him to give
any opinion whether it was a libel °root. The Jury were alai)
misdirected nyin another point. The learned Judge had told
them, this Cant had found it to be a libel, when they granted
the criminal Liforanation. The Court could nut decide upon the
question ; if they could, of whit use was •4 trial ! Limn these
aid other grounds Mr. Brougham contended there ought to be
• new trial.
The bond Chief Justice was of opinion the learned counsel
bail not produced any fact to induce the court to grout a now
1641. 'flue charge made by the learned Judge uai not ohyoc-
tisinahle. It ass not a misdirection. Telling the Jury that
tilt Court of Wm+ had considered it a libel, was no
more Om caking the recollection of Ilia Jury to the lindin4
of a true bill he the Grand Jury. On the other grOUII4I4 slated
by the learned his Lirdship thought there was sonie
weight, and the court granted a rule to skew cause why judg•
meet should uut be arrested. Rule Nisi talc& 11.
1141” IY, NOW. 22.
TIIE KING" I. 1111101. E.
The defendant being placed on the floor of the court,
Mr.Justiee Bayley proceeded to poor sentence Oil lion in the
folloniug terms :—" Yon Imvr been Anhui guilty by • Jury of
your country, nod are now to stand to receive thi. judgment of
this coeit, for unlawfully punishing a young Mall unmed Gard-
ner about 18 or IJ yeai sof ag::. Hr woo under sentence
but his sentence was CU.44l.luted to i 4144.41 Louse of