The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-22 00:00:00

fabled that where his horse placed his foot, grass never grew ;
of one-- • -
The Lon]) CHIEF JUSTICE.—You had better say nothing
of this.

Mr. WILLIAMS proceeded.—lt was not necessary to his
case to animadvert on the conduct of any one, when his
client stood under so many favourable circumstances before
the Court. For that public to whom he had been a men. ,
torious subject—whose mind must now be disabused of those
prejudices which had long been working—he might venture to
assert that no further punishment would be regarded with com-
placency ; and when the infliction of punishment was not at-
tended by general sympathy, it was worse than useless. The
Jury who found him guilty, and who so earnestly recom-
mended him to mercy, had refused to receive any thing if it
came from the defendant. In the name of hundreds of persons
whom, in the depth of wretchedness, that defendant had con-
soled—in the name of those dying men who had blessed him
for the last consolations they enjoyed—in the name of those
Magistrates who had long witnessed his exertions for the re-
formation of the erring—in the name of all who had borne
testimony to his life of humble but exemplary virtue, he called
on the Court to regard him with mercy, and to pass such sen-
tence as they would desire to find registered in the great book
of account in that day when all would need the compassion of
a merciful Judge.
Mr. ERSKINE and Mr. MANNING shortly addressed the
Court on the same side.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it was neither his
duty nor his wish to withdraw from the consideration of the
Court any of those topics of mitigation which the affidavits
suggested. Let the defendant have the full benefit of his good
character—of his dismissal from his office, which however was
not only on this but on other charges—of all the expence which
he had incurred, and of all the distress which he had suffered;
but still the offence was one of a serious nature, calling for the
animadversion of the Court. A gaoler was in a situation of
grave responsibility and trust, and ought to be watched with
jealous care. It was not because a man had been convicted of a
capital offence—not even because he was stained with the most
atrocious crimes—that he was to be consigned to the caprices
of a gaoler, and visited with new and strange punishment at
his will. An attempt was •now made, which lie was sorry to
observe, to throw the suggestion of the blister on the surgeon ;
but that surgeon was examined on the trial, and swore that the
suggestion came from Bridle, and no question was put to him
by the able Counsel for the defendant to shake his testimony.
Even now it was admitted that Bridle suggested the adminis-
tration of medicine; and was it to. be endured that a gaoler
should trifle with the health of prisoners under his care, by giv-
ing them medicine as a punishment ? The infliction of the
strait waistcoat had been kept out of sight : but this proved that
the painful operation of the blister was contemplated, and, in-
deed, so painful did it prove, that the sufferer rubbed it off
against the wall, desirous, by so rude a process, of getting
rid of the cause of his agony. Besides, how was it that this
punishment, if there was no consciousness of its impro-
priety, never appeared at all in the book of occurrences sub-
mitted to the Justices ? How was it that it was never en.
tered even in the surgeon's book, till six weeks after the
event, and then appeared, not as a penal infliction on the
obstinate, but a medical application to the sick ? If ever there
was a case which called for investigation, it was this ; and pu-
nishment was necessary, not so much for the particular conduct
of the individual as for public example. It must not go forth
to the world that any man, of however high a character, (and
the higher his character the more dangerous his conduct),
should with impunity devise and put in execution new modes
of punishment unknown to the English law. He did not wish
to press for a vindictive punishment, but for such a punish-
ment as might express the sense of the Court on the offence,,
and afford protection to the prisoner. He had now discharged
his painful duty ; he left the case with their Lordships, and
he felt assured that the public, with himself, would feel satis-
fied with such sentence as they, under all the circumstances,
should deem just.
The Judges consulted together for a few minutes, and then
directed the defendant to attend again to-morrow and receive
judgment. As he was under recognizance, they suggested that
he should not be committed, to which assent was given on the
part of the Attorney-General. Mr. Bridle bowed low to the
Court, and withdrew.
LIBEL UPON THE CLERGY OF DURHAM.

THE SING V. JOHN AMBROSE WILLIAMS.
Mr. SeARLETT prayed the judgment of the Court on this
defendant, who had been convicted of publishing a libel on the
Clergy residing at Durham.
Mr. BROUGHAM rose to move an arrest of judgment. The
defendant, he observed, had been found guilty on part of the
first count of the indictment, and acquitted upon the rest. The
indictment charged him with printing and publishing a false and.
malicious libel " of and concerning the united Church of England
and Ireland, and of and concerning the Clergy of the said United
Church and the Clergy residing in and near the city or Durham
and its suburbs." The first ground which he intended to submit
to their Lordships in arrest of judgment was, that the offence
charged in the indictment against the defendant was different
from, and' other than the offence of which he had been found
guilty. The second ground on which he intended to offer a few
observations was, that the offence of which the verdict of the
Jury had declared the defendant guilty, was too uncertain for
judgment to be passed upon it. First, as to the description of
the offence, and its diversity from that of which tbe defendant
had been convicted. d.
It was clear that the indictment charge
, the offence by a certain description, as a libel of and con-
cerning the United Church, and of and concerning the Clergy
of that Church, and
,the Clergy residing at or near Dur-
ham. He contended that it would have been a more distinct de-
scription of the offence if the words " of and concerning" had
been repeated before the" Clergy residing at or near the city of
Durham ;" but the omission of those words aided his argument,
that no several offence, to wit, a libel on the Clergy of the
United Church, residing at Durham, had been specifically
charged, but that the offence charged was a libel on the Clergy
of the United Church, and the Clergy residing at Durham.
—They were both contained in one averment, and not only
was there no count in which the libel was charged as against
the Clergy of Durham generally, which it well might have
been, but in the only count on part of which the defendant
had been found guilty, there was one undivided averment, in
which one part of the Clergy was not distinguished from the
other. Supposing then that the libel charged had been " of
and concerning A, and of and concerning B," even then the
averments would not have been distinct, but that case would
have been less strong than the present. Supposing again that
the libel charged had been " of and concerning A and B,"
the description being one and entire, and A and B. being
different parties, then again that would be a fatal description
of the offence if the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against
A, and not guilty against B. On this point he would call
to the recollection of their Lordships a case which had been
argued a few terms since, he meant the case of Walker. In
that case the offence charged against the defendant had been
the publication of a libel upon the plaintiff; an attorney, and it
was laid as a libel " of and concerning the plaintiff; and of and
concerning the plaintiff in his capacity as an attorney." There
had been no evidence at the trial of the second part of the aver-
ment, viz, the description of the plaintiff as an attorney, and
the ground upon which the plaintiff had been nonsuited, and
the nonsuit had been supported in Court, that the description of
the libel had been of and concerning the plaintiff as an attor-
ney, and there being no evidence of the latter fact the libel was
not proved. That case had not, however, been so strong as the
present, because instead of A and B being here different per-
sons as in the supposititious case which he had raised, they
were here included in one another. And even if, for argu-
ment's sake, they were to suppose that it was meant that
the libel was against the• Clergy of the United Church, and
of and concerning the Clergy of Durham, other than of the
Established Church, then the whole meaning would be the
same as if he said " of and concerning a community, and
of and concerning A as a member of that community."—
But it had not been found by the Jury that the libel bad been
against the Established Church, and the Clergy of the Esta-
blished Church, for they had found Not Guilty on that part
of the count, but he had been found guilty of a libel on some
other parts. This led him to the second point which he wished
to submit to the Court, viz. the uncertainty of the offence of
which the defendant had been found guilty. It was one thing,
he submitted, to set forth the Clergy of Durham and its suburbs
after they had described the United Church, and the Clergy of
the Established Church, and another thing to strike out the
first part, or find the defendant not guilty as to it, and find him
guilty of the latter part. Now, under the description of
Clergy of Durham," not only Clergy of the Established
Church but Sectarians might be included.
Mr. Justice BEST—Are Sectarians denominated Clergy.?
Mr. BROUGHAM—He submitted that they were in different
Acts of Parliament ; and in particular he would refer the Court
to an Act passed in the 48th of the late King, intituled " An
Act touching and concerning the Clergy of the Church of
Scotland." But even if any, doubt could be entertained as
to the applicability of the word to Dissenting Ministers,
there could be no doubt that it strictly applied to Ca-
tholics, because a Clerk of the Catholic Church might be-
come a Clerk in the Established Church simply by taking
the oath of abjuration. .The next point that he would im-
press upon their Lordships was the uncertainty of the offence
of which the defendant had been found guilty.. It was a libel on
the Clergy residing in or near the City of Durham or its suburbs.
Now who was to determine what was to be considered near-the
City ? One man would fix it at one mile, another at ten, and
another at twenty. Different men had different ideas as to dis-
tance, according to their own notion. The term " suburbs" was
. also ambiguous, and this was not merely a libel on the Clergy in
or near the City, but in and near the suburbs, the next near the
suburbs, and last of all another approximation of near the city of

• - , • • wbat
Durham. Surely the Court would allow him to refer to„pot
had passed when it first granted the Rule, because if the Co
had granted the, application for an information, on the‘rcht
that the publication had been a libel on the Established been
and if the only ground on which it had been granted hat.„tind
negatived by the verdict, then he contended that was pod-6" had,
for an application in arrest of judgment. Their Lordsllif
at the
over and over again, in the course of the argument,
publication was a libel against the Clergy of tile
B-t
fon of
ment, and that it was necessary to grant them the protee ,
the Court. On no less than three occasions in the course of tu!
argument had the Lord Chief Justice stated, that it vras,„%a,
libel against the Established Church ; and when lie (Mr. pi,.
had contended that the libel was not upon the Church,
.10 t
the Clergy of Durham, lie had been told, that the words 02:
ported a libel on the Established Church. Besides, in all.tn;
cases which had been cited when the criminal information rt,u.,
been applied for, the libels had been of and concerning deft'
nite and well known bodies of men. The first case referred
to had been that of the Justices of Suffolk ; but that west!
body of men very definite, viz. those in the Commission of R"
Peace. The next was a case of libel on the Justices of Middle'
sex ; and the objection, that the description was not suflicientlY
definite, had been got over by an affidavit distinguishing
saidstnanlisn.
who the particular Justices were. In the case of the PiJargs
v. Jenner, 7 Mod. 400, which was a case against the Direct° e
of the East India Company, it had been contended in favouray;
the rule, that to speak of the East India Company was 8 the
ferent thing from speaking of Counsellors generally, because ed
East India Company was a select body ; but it had been agre
on all sides, that the publication of a libel " ofand concerning, f
was not an averment sufficiently definitive to support a bead
r 1
libel. In the case of Serjeant Nott, a similar opinion had ad
held. In the case of the King v. Orme, 3 Salkeld, 234, it
been laid down, that a publication against a particular ofaeiLv..
of men, as men of the gown, was no libel, but that the illegbe
dual pointed at should he more particularly described.
King v. Osborne Was the last case to which he would refer'
The report of that case, as given in Swainson's RePu.'-ot
stated that it was an application for an information egaiatid
the publisher of an account of the murder of a Jewess° r.
her child by certain Jews, then lately arrived from
lately
eudselibagael ifinenlol
tugal. It had been set forth, that certain persons ut s
ttmhe
uoee slnet
gbetoaahtcraber a;dtrhoaoeuni
arrived from Portugal, had been attacked in the city it
t
b
case there had not only been a libel, but a notorious brea; the
barbarous
firnytehase
enut
reflections
objection
and
irntohoeprndeerai
nsthetnehweedi
an' wigiie
dt
averments.
aig death . ieh
of
general as to render it difficult to sawho was meant, ha" ;01/
briefly lay before the Court the grounds on which he thong eet
new trial ought to be granted, if the Court should not collie
to arrest judgment ; and he would but observe that even I
• 1 i °tiny
could shew no more than that the rule for a ermine 'lf er
tion had been granted on grounds which the jury by their viol
dict had negatived, still he thought that that was a Pod gl ar
of application for a new trial. But his principal ground o
plication was, that no evidence had been offered to prove ut:be
the defendant had printed the libel, of publishing which
Jury bad convicted him. e irss
JusticeittrLEY.—Do not the affidavit state WL'o
the printer and publisher ?
blieati°3
Mr. BROUGHAM.—The witness who proved the Pu-
swore that Williams was not the printer. t ti"
Mr. SCARLETT said that he held a paper (certainlY '1,1,°, de,
number in which the libel was contained) published hY 1";40ed,
fendant in his hand, and in it this intimation was enn„--crhollt
" Printed by and for the publisher, J. A. "-imams, •
all communications are requested to be addressed." 1014
Mr. BnouGuAm.—The last ground upon which beie
trouble the Court in his application for a new trial,,w`-"esuse
misdirection of the Learned Judge before whom ,tile; bid
had been tried. His Lordship, in addressing the Jur",i-'lone
told them that the Court of King's Bench had been of oPiisin)
that the publication was a libel. Now he (Mr. Brotert;
submitted that no such opinion had been given by. the,,, doter'.
they had merely directed it:to be submitted to a Jul "'judge
He would
ht
mine whether it was a libel or not; and it was not for the
exit it
to say, " the Court has found this to be libel, and has s
to CHIEF at onion." at s
TICE—TheJU Learned Judge did not saY
dare say. , gone
Mr. BROUGHAM.—The whole question ought tO nal-piving
to the Jury. He did not object to the Learned Judge he 0'
it as his opinion that the publication was a libel, but
le bed
jetted to the manner in which he had done so. hyy is
said, "By law I am compelled to tell you that utt only
libel." Now the law did not require that opinion, diet
permitted it ; and he (Mr. B.) recollected that, since Med,
point had been under discussion some years ago, a ea, a"
Judge had said, in charging the Jury, " I am requitoriieda
least I am expected, to give my opinion." The 1010'
Judge who had presided at the trial of the defendant,iy esta:
said, that any publication which tended to bring -0-0
blishment into contempt was a libel. Now surd,' or even
too large a definition, because it might be innoceni';ate
praiseworthy, to bring some public establishments •vibiet, -
tempt. Every thing depended upon the manner in d before
was done. He recollected a case which had been tri,e been for
the late Lord Ellenborough, in which the charge hau,s-th
a libel on the Small Pox Hospital—an institution viot-hdis:
originally been of great public use, but which, aftfir,:cbiet'
covery of vaccination, had been rendered useless. 1.1 he Chief'
•
Justice on that trial had said, that the Institution inb`Lefit.o-'
might be a pest-house and a nuisance, rather thenf:r instance'
Many other similar cases might he adduced ; as,. into eery
the third Secretary of State's Office, to bring which lic extra
tempt, and to represent it as a despicable piece puben in the
vagance,_had been the attempt of many of the best
iiicountry for the last ten years. •
Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY They have not done it by Publi-
cation. utile
oun ,
Mr. Bnotion ass agreed that every thing depended nP° as
manner in which it was done. He had now pointed tnee-eelieo
upon which his application for a new-trial rested ; but 1,1.1,
with great great confidence on the grounds of his. first object'
arrest of judgment. pa rule ti)
The COURT, after a short deliberation, grant— g
shew cause why judgment should not be arrested. COn)"
The defendant was not in Court when the preeee"i'ci"nee ou
menced. He had been, we understand, in close atten L time
the Court during the whole of this week, but retired sn un.
before the case came on with the sanction of his Coup ter'
der a thorough impression that it would not be heard_iresett
day, but he returned almost immediately, and 5va.7.1,100
during more than two-thirds of the time which the a46;-gitilO.
occupied. This explanation may not be unnecessarkpoi
lies
temporary absence, when according to practice he was
view to obviate any unfavourably construction drawn r,,,acted
to be present. r'2l
itif.
THE KING V. JAMES GRIFFIN AND GEORGE -
RLASSiiS
e
These defendants, who were convicted at the last Ken_ined in
of a riot, and burning of two effigies of witnesses, e!were
support of a proscution for smuggling, at Canter's.' !use 01
sentenced to six months imprisonment in Maidstone
Correction, and ordered to find security for five years.
THE KING V. WILLIAM GIBSON. CBObermu nd.
-
This defendant, who was convicted at the last .„,christ,
Assizes of an assault upin
on an Excisa Officer named" nis iln
in the execution of his duty, was sentenced to four o"`"
prisonment in the House of Correction at Carlisle.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N°lr'..?l:
The Court sat for a short time this morning at Ivio
but no case of importance came on.

A. letter Naples (in the Journal des
Debats), dated Oct. 31, states that Vesuvius ctn.;
tinued to throw out smoke and ashes up to
tva'r
day, when the sky began to look once filoreicieur,
and serene. Ottaiano and its environs had s.O
fered most. In addition to the damage done
_la
the soil, it is estimated that 50 acres of vitw
had been destroyed.

coPnnshillrel
BIRTH. House, Ling
daughter.
,ontidiaeycloasunt,tetshsei3lrBotwhiainoswtanwt,asatslatr
f get`
On Wednesday last, the Lady of Thomas J. Plat 4. °
ton-crescent, Esq., of a daughter.

onday, the 18th
George Gilbert' Currey, M.D. and F.R.S., of Balfls ton,
lk
instant,A R R laEt
ilji. .
ir• la 1,
On Mtreet,
to Mary, only child of the late John Dennis, of A Y
Penzance. E Dal"
On the 21st instant, Wm. Rowl , Esq.•,
On the 21st instant, at Allhallows, Bread-street, E. —' of 13.
son,ll of Birthorpe, Lincolnshire, to Diary,
daughter
Fli tham, Esq., of Ingthorpe, near Stamford.
adron Church, C°rl)*
DIED. oate
street, Lincoln's-Inn-fields; andeY-Green-street, Gr°s7
square, aged 58. min goy'
On Sunda the 10th inst., at Chelsea College, call the iv,ll
craft
_ ,Adjutant of that Institution, and late CaPtaul '
Dragoons.
the 61131 e
Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS, al _.
CASSTAIRD
Office, No, 112, Strand, by J. 13' of Great -4- o.