The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

;sittings at Nisi Prius, before Chief Justice Earle and a
Common Jury.)
:THOMPSON V. KING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. George
Thompson, formerly M.P. for the Tower Hamlets, and one
of the candidates at the last election for Southampton,
against the defendant, the publisher and proprietor of the
Hampshire Adeerttser, for a libel inserted in that news-
paper during the course of the election at Southampton, im-
puting to the plaintiff that he was the hired advocate of
Captain Mangles.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Beasley were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Archibald for the
defendant.

Mr. Sergeant Parry having opened the case for the
plaintiff, called

Mr. George Thompson, who said—l have for many
years been engaged in public questions of the day. I for-
merly represented the Tower Hamlets in Parliament. In
1842 I wont with Mr. Cobden and others to Southampton
to deliver addresses upon the repeal of the corn laws, by
which I became well acquainted with the borough, and re-
ceived a testimonial. In 1812 I was asked to contest the
borough and became a candidate wirh Lord Nugent, I was
bE.aten by a small majority. About this time I went to the
United .States, and also visited India. I returned from
India in 1858. I was a candidate in last November for
Southampton. I was invited to go down on the Bth of
November, as representing the ;interests of the United
Kingdom Alliance, of which lam a vice-president. Mr.
Harper Twelvetrees was first asked to stand, but was un-
able to do so. My expenses were to be guaranteed. I went
down on the 10th, in company with Mr. Horner and Mr.
Twelvetrees, and addressed a meeting, and then issued a
printed address on the following morning. A committee
was formed of Southampton gentlemen. I found my friends
very doubtful as to my chances of success, in consequence
of a coalition of the Liberal party. I told my committee
that if they wished me to fight the battle, I would fight it ;
if they wished me to withdraw, I would withdraw ; and I
suggested that a deputation should wait upon Captain
Mangles, and see if he would support the Permissive Bill
in Parliament, in which event I would retire in his favour.
It was agreed that I sh uld be thanked for resigning; se-
condly, that Captain Mangles would support the Permis-
sive Bill; and, thirdly, that Captain Mangles would, with
the consent of his committee, pay all the expenses to which
my committee were put. I then said that, being desirous of
obtaining the Liberal success, I offered to address the elec•
tors, which was more necessary as I was the only candidate
in the field who could obtain a hearing. I then crossed to
the Isle of Wight to rest myself, and returnedlto Portsmouth
on Friday morning, when I delivered my first address, and
again addressed the electors in the evening. I never myself
had any personal interview with Capt. Mangles or his com-
mittee. I never received one farthing from Capt. Mangles
or his committee for those services. In the course
of my address I referred to the Lord Mayor, and said he
would do excellently well when reviewing a body of feather-
bed soldiers. Some hisses followed, and I stated that I had
no disrespect to the Volunteers, who would themselves
acknowledge there was great difference between them and
the men who had gono through the wars in the Crimea and
in India. After the publication of the first article I wrote
to the editor, but it was not, inserted in the defendant's
newspaper, but the second article complained of was pub-
lished in the following week.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Shee—When not in
Parliament I have been a lecturer upon the principles I
advocated, but not for remuneration, but I have received a
stipulated pecuniary acknowledgment. Captain Mangles
was a supporter of principles similar to my own. I was
unaer no engagement to fight a hopeless battle. I thought
it hopeful from the beginning. I met my committee at the
Flowers Hotel. Mr. Horner was agent to my election ex-
penses. I discussed the chances of my success, and there
was a great diversity of opinion among the committee. We
were of opinion that if both the Liberal candidates stood we
must both go to the wall. It came to my knowledge that an
expense had been incurred of about £lOO. Mr. Horner had
a general authority to act for me. At the meeting at the
Flowers it was proposed that a deputation should wait upon
Capt. Mangles, I let them go without objecting. Nothing
was said about the terms to be proposed to him, in my pre •
sence. The agreement about the Permissive Bill was that
we should vote for the first reading. That is the ear lana-
tion put upon it by those making the pledge. (Laughter.)
I sought no explanation from Capt. Mangles as to what he
meant. I was not so impertinent. The deputation went,
and with it Mr. Horner. I was in the room when they re-
turned. They told me that they had seen Capt. Mangles,
and that he was willing to pay 100 guineas for the expenses of
the committee. I was at the Flowers Hotel on the following
Tuesday. I did not say that,if Mr. Tucker didn't agree to my
terms, I would be at the dockyard gates at a quarter to one,
to address the workmen on my own behalf as they came
out—as you put the question, I deny I used those words,
or words to that effect. The words "my terms" never came
out of my lips. I told Budden that Clark and Horner had
gone to see Tucker. They knew what he had gone for.
I knew of the terms proposed to Mangles at that time, I
said I believed I could carry the election, and drive Captain
Mangles from the field ; and that if they didn't agree to the
terms of my committee I should consider myself absolved.
On the evening of Tuesday the committee met again, and I
was present. Mr. Horner was there. I will undertake to
say that I neither saw nor beard of a cheque on that occa-
sion. I had heard that an account had been made out for
£ll7, and that some members had demurred to give a larger
sum than that which was first asked, 100 guineas. I have
never had to pay any bills, nor, as far as I know, has the
United Kingdom Alliance. It was not said on the Tuesday
that when Captain Mangles objected to go beyond the ori-
ginal sum mentioned, the deputation had said that if Cap-
tain Mangles would go as far as £ll7, I would address the
electors twice, This is the first time I ever heard it hinted.
The contest between Mangles and Rose was very severe. I
said at the meeting I was not there to advocate the cause of
any particular person, but I spoke my mind very freely and
not very sparingly of the Lord Mayor.
Re-examined—l never authorised any one to offer to
Captain Mangles that if he would pay the election ex-
penses I would address the electors ; and if such an offer
had been made I should, on that account, have declined
to address them. I believe that if I had remained the
single candidate instead of Captain Mangles I should have
succeeded.

Mr. Horner, secretary of the United Kingdom Alliance,
was next called to corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff,
and stated that the only condition insisted upon by Mr,
Thompson was that Captain Mangles should vote for the
Permi:sive Bill. The balance over the hundred guineas
was paid by Mr. Harper Twelvetrees.
Several other gentlemen were called to give evidence in
collaboration of Mr. Thompson, but added nothing beyond
what is contained in plaintiff's evidence.
Mr. Sergeant Shoe having intimated that it was not his
intention to call witnesses, the learned counsel having ad-

dressed the jury for their respective clients, and his lord-
ship having carefully summed up the evidence,
The jury found their verdict for the plaintiff; damages