The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-15 00:00:00

should not please" army in the niomenf of
triumph ; and hee-trusted that those who knew him
would be sAisfied that the prohibition whit:h he was
compelled to pronounce was in violation of his feel-
ings, anti resulted solely- from his sense of duty, and
his conviction at that moment, that under all the
circumstances of the case, the advance of the'British
troops could have produced but little advantages
and might have involved them in inextricable diffi-
culties. He lamented the absence of the whole of
his Staff, who might otherwise have assisted Linn in
his exculpation, and have corroborated his state-
ments ; and he was sure that the Court would sym-
pathise with an Officer placed in such an unusual
predicament. If he had erred, was error of judg-
ment alone. He •had decided upon .what he had
seen and heard, and took upon himself the whole
responsibility of what had happened ; but he trust-
ed.;_that after a deliberate examination of the evi-
dence that had been given before them, the Court -
would.be of opinion that the line of condud_which
he had pursued had" been dictated -by a due regard,
to the safety of The army entrusted to his command. ,
(During the latter part of these observations Sir H.
Burrar'il,was visibly much cllebled.)
Sir NAVRLLESLEY.—" Although I did and do
differ from Sir H Bullard withrespen to the expe-
di'ency or inexpediency of alloy.ing the British army
to pursue the advantages they had gained on the
21 st of August, I hope I may be allowed to take this
opportunity of declaring to the Court and to the
Public,' that I am convinced Sir H. Burrarci, in the
,determination which he adopted, was
_influenced by
such motives alone as'an Officer ought to feel, and
that he had solely in view the safety of the army and
the advantage of the country. •
After an uninteresting. examination of Sir H.
,Burrard by SiF Hew DalrymPle and Sir Arthur
Wellesley,
L Sir H. DALRYMPLE read, and submitted. to the
consideration of the Court, several explanatory ob-
servations. If, on any former ,occasion he had stated
his military opinions in too decided a tone, he trusted
that .that would be attributed merely to the impres-
sion made on his own mind, that he had aCled to the
best of his judgment, . and not to any dispoSition to
• impugn the judgment of another. He was glad that
the.general orders which he had caused to 'be issued .
in Portugal, bore ample testimony to his sentiments
of she valour of the British troops, and the skill of
their leader, in the in:..;.ions that had there been
.I fought. After the evidence that had been brought
forward in the Court, he could re-assert with con-
fidence, that his landing and assuming the command
in Portugal had no preponderating influence on the
evacuation of that country by the French ; an event
with the expediency that led to which he was wholly
unconnected. With respect to the Convention it-
self, 'he had the concurring opinion of the General
Officers who surrounded him in its favour; and lie
solemnly asserted, that he still, thought it thd best
measure that could have been adopted ; an opinion
in which ii ihe Court should do him the honour
coincide, he should cheerfully submit to the disad-
vantages and mortification which it had in other re-
speCts occasioned hint. -

The PRESIDENT'IeII observed, that the Court had
finished the examination of eidence, and that all the
ulterior proceedings ,aud arrangements would take
o:tee with closed•dcors.—At fitie o'clock the Court
adjourned.

L .r 1 1) (MT.

COURT ONib F KING'S BENCH, DEC. 13.
• CRIM CON. IN LOW LIFE.

LONGHURST V. PEACHEY.

*Mr. GAt:noW stated, that 'this was an anion
brought against - the Defendant, for Criminal conver-
sation with .the.Piaintiirs wife. Many of these ac-
tions had occurred in our days, and it would not be
nt-c-.essary on . the present occasion to make any, ob-
serva:inns, The, parties were not in a very high-
situation 'in life, as they commonly .were in cases of
tins description, but dire4-aly the reverse ; for the
Plaintiff was a .I,:urneyman Carpenter, and the De-
fendant was.a Painter and. Glazier. - The Plaintiff
and his wife were lodgers in the, house of tbe.Deten-
dant ; -havlng lived there for some time in
great comfort and happiness, the Plaintiff found
his wife's affections 'anating apace, and he conjec-
tured-that all was not "tight between her and the De-
febdant. He- found atterw'ards, that the Detendan t
had taken her to a bagnio. The Jury, on hearing a I
thesejads proved, would give their verdict for th e
Pl,iintitf, with such damages as the justice of the case
required. _ _ _

. „
The first witniss proved that the Plaintiff, and a
woman whose name he did not know, were married
at St. Mary, Lambeth, in February 1803, but could
trot tell whet her they had cohabited together in con-
sequence of that marriage: .
Tire Plaitnifis wife's brother proved, that, on the
Ist of November last, he called on the Defendant at
his house,, for. the purpose of talking over this buSi-
tress, when the DefendanCs wile was present, and
therefore be desired the Defendant to withdraw with
him, for that he had, something particular .to cons-
muuicate to-him, without mentioning it in the hear-
ing of the wife, who .was then present, who becarne
immediately eager, of course, to hear what it was.
The witness told her she would ;war it time enough.
Then said the Defendant, " I have been connected
with L,...Orurst'S •wife !"—" 0 very well ! that is
all I want to, know," said the witness: he then
made•the Defendant a bow, and went off.
Mrs. Crook said, she lived in St: George's Fields,
at a place called " Pleasant Retreat ;" was a grezn
groCer, 'and let bed-rooms for lodgings (a brothel,
in short, though she did not say so ;) the Defendant
had called 'several' times at her house with two dif-
ferent women, and went up into a bed-room with
them ; it was made when he went up, and wanted
making when he came down ; but this wimess could
not,prove that either ()fare's° women was the
wife, althocsll there was not much doubt of the
'fad ; but it did not come-out by legal evidence. The
Defendant had paid toe witness each time he had
been there.