The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-22 00:00:00

Lord DENMANNOW, I suppose, you want the
passages that are marked in these papers read.
Mr. THESIGER—I think, my Lord, that it will be
necessary that we should have rather more than those
read. But those parts can be read first.
The Clerk then read the following part of the speech
of the Chairman :—" He stood there as the organ of the
Company, and it was with the greatest reluctance he
interfered. He felt, however, that the moment was
arrived when it was strictly within the line of his duty
to ask whether a Proprietor, standing in the position
of Mr. Richards, would be permitted to proceed in
such a strain.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Richards had
complained of the little work that had been done (al-
though he would observe that they had hundreds of
men employed), but he did not pay his fair proportion
of the expenses to which he was legally liable.'
Lord DENMAN—Then, does it appear that Mr.
Richards had been speaking before?
Mr. THESIGER—Yes, my Lord, it implies that.
Lord DENMAN—Oh, I was not aware of that.
The Clerk then proceeded with the reading of the
Chairman's speech :—" He would observe further that
Mr. Richards was one of the originators of the Com-
pany, his name being embodied in the Act of Incorpo-
poration, and notwithstanding that fact, Mr. Richards
bad himself coolly gone into a Court of Law, and stated
in his affidavit that he had reason to believe (he!being
one of the originators of the Company) that such Com-
pany was a bubble Company, and that the Act was ob-
tained by gross fraud and misrepresentation, and that
there never existed any fair or reasonable intention of
carrying the projected object to any useful purpose, or
for the benefit of the Subscribers.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, bear.") Now Mr. Richards was a party to
the application to Parliament for the Act of Incorpora-
tion, and it was to be presumed that be was well ac-
quainted with all that had taken place, and it would be
for them to determine whether they would receive these
statements from an individual who had gone into a
Court of Law, swearing that to be true which he well
knew to be false."
The ATTORNEY-GENERALWeII, then, there is the
paper of the 2d of March ; what do you wish to read
from that?
Mr. THESIGER—Mr. Richards says immediately
following that, that if he had made any such statement
the Chairman would have been the first to stop him.
" It was stated that he believed there was fraud—that
be admitted to be a strong term, but he did not wish to
be personal in the slightest degree. It was stated that
he was privy to all the introductory arrangements, but
that he must beg leave to deny ; he was merely asked in
the street to become a subscriber."" The Chairman said
they had nothing to do with what took place between
Mr. Richards and his friend in the streets. They must
take the facts as they stood, and, to use a legal phrase,
he must say that Mr. Richards was out of Court." Then
Mr. Richards immediately followed ; but I think if
Mr. Richards' speech before that of the Chairman's is
read, I shall not have occasion to trouble the Court
further.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That is at the bottom
of the 4th column.
The Clerk then proceeded to read the following :
" Mr. Richards would urge upon the Proprietors pre-
sent to take into consideration, before they passed the
Report, the difference between a Report in writing and
that which they could see with their own eyes, if they
went down to the town of Southampton. They would
see a certain number of piles driven, but as to any
thing approaching the shape of a Dock, he certainly
could not see it. If there was a Dock about to be es-
tablished at Gosport, with a railroad to it Joining the
Southampton Railway, why should not the people of
Gosport be sharers i❑ the great advantages which their
Chairman held out to them ? He believed be was ad-
dressing men of business, and he called upon them to
do what they would do in their own own private affairs
viz., to go and judge with their own eyes. When they
had returned from Southampton, let them go and exa-
mine the share list, and ascertain how many of them
acre likely to he paid up. The argument of the Di-
rectors was that because so many shares bad been
paid up to the present time, that they would be paid
up in future. The Directors had given them she
stote of the balance sheet up to the 31st of December,
but he (Mr. R.) could give it them up to three days
ago, and he could tell them that although very c
derable sunis had been received since that Report, the
balance in hand did not exceed 4,000/. With respect
to what he had said of the state of the works, it ap-
peared to him, although he admitted that he was not a
scientific man, that nothing approaching the shape of a
Dock had yet been marked out, and, he would add, that
the opinion of the geode of Southampton was, that it ;
would require an enormous sum to complete the works.
He understood further, that had the original plan been
adhered to, instead of 350,000/. being required, persons
who had a knowledge of the matter stated to nun that
if the immense quantity of mud land which had been
taken was to be covered with buildings and docks, the
sum would be really enormous, and far exceeding any
thing which they could raise. Piles had originally been
driven out in the mud at such a distance that it was
dangerous for the shipping, and an accident had occurred
in consequence ; however, these piles had been removed,
and the Docks were now being made on a much smaller
scale. He had before cautioned them to look well to
the share list before they placed credit on the statement
that the calls would be regularly paid up. He held in
his hand a letter from a shareholder in Liverpool, show-
ing that a very strong feeling on the subject existed in
that town. The writer had had communications with
other shareholders there, who were of the same opinion
as himself. (•Mr. Richards was proceeding to read a
paragraph in the letter, when he was met by loud
cries of " Order, order," and " Chair, chair.")"
Mr. Lowless sworn and examined by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL.

Are you the attorney for Mr. Richards 2—l am.
Is he a merchant in the city ?—He is.
Did you write a letter to Mr. Young respecting the
publication of this libel?—l did.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—We have given you
notice to produce Mr. Lowless's letter of the 28th
March, 1840.
Mr. THESIGER—Perhaps you have a copy of it.
The Attorney-General can read a copy. (The officer
then read the copy of a letter which was banded in by
the witness.)
Was a writ sued out at that time:?—No.
Was any answer received to that letter ?:---None.
After that letter had been sent, did Mr. Young call
upon you ?—He did.
On what day P—On March 31.
Mr. THESIGER—When was the letter written ?—lt
was written on the 28th and sent on the 30th.
And on the 31st he called ?—Yes.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—State any conversation
that passed between you and Mr. Young on that occa-
sion. Witness—He said it was very bard for him to
be sued—that he was a perfee4 stranger to the plaintiff
—that he could not by possibility bear malice against
him, and that it had not been intentionally done—that
the paragraph had been overlooked. I then remarked
that it appeared he had been paid for the publication ;
he said be had not been paid exactly for publishing it,
but that he had sent a reporter to the meeting at the
request of the Directors ; that they had paid him for
the attendance of the reporter and the reporting, and
had taken 300 or 400 copies of the newspaper containing
it ; and he remarked it was not to be expected that he
could afford so much space in his paper to such a sub-
ject unless he was remunerated for it in some way or
other. I told him if he would give up—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did he say anything
more about the Directors P—He said it had been pub-
lished at the request of the Directors, and I said that if
he would give me the means of proving the publication
against the parties who had really published it, so that
proceedings might be had against them
Lord DENMAN—That is, against the Directors ?
Witness—Yes. The action against him should be stayed,
as there was no wish on the part of the plaintiff to put
him to expense or trouble. He said he would consider
of it, and call or give me an answer in a fortnight, and
begged that no proceedings might be taken in the
meantime.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did you suspend the
proceedings for a fortnight ?—I did ; and for a much
longer time.
Lord DENMAN—Did he call ?—He did not call.
[Mr. L. owless is in error, no doubt from a
defect 01 memory. Mr. Young did call a second
and third time. Bat that was not all. Mr.
young stated that whatever he had said must be
considered to be without PREJUDICE, to which
Lowless assented. It is absurd to suppose
Jlk. Young could have acted otherwise; but Mr.
as defendant, could not be a witness in
GENERAL—He did not call at all ?
You
Tiluifl
la)nt ehel n person.]
The
filedol
..17Nan;d]eclaration ?—Yes.
plea of justification upon the record?—
Yee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I believe the paper of
tb,. 2d March, containing the same report, has been
put .in
DENMAN-.—YeS, it has.
Cros.,-examined by Mr. THESIGEP.----I suppose you
were aware that Mr. Richards attended the meeting . .
Only from the newspapers ; I was oat concerned for Mr.
,Richards at that time.
You are now aware of it P—Certa inly.
From Mr. Richards ?—Yes.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—.DO you know anything
et this transaction, except what has come to your knaw-
a(t, 'ze as the solicitor of Mr. Richards ?—No.
Tr. THESIGER—Have you commenced any other
accts;, is on account of this publication—any action
ags atisc Mr. Liggins ?—Yes, against Mr. Liggins.
For t be statement lie made at that meeting ?—Yes.
And, t;or the publishing it ?—Yes, and for publish-,
4:k ;it.

When was that action commenced ?—At the same
tit ne with the present one. I told Mr. Young so at
j at time.

Did you at any time see Mr. Bartrum, and was any-
thing said about dropping both the actions if the Cona-
Pa n), would take Mr. Itiebardb's shares off his buds?
--, Not distinctly_