The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-25 00:00:00

'0 3iCZCS.

WALTER=

Dividend
Name of Company. ' per

East London... ...... .

Annum.

Grand Junction .•• • • • 3/. 10s.
• • • • • • 21. 10s.
Vauxhall ••••• • • • • • 5/. per cent.
West Middlese . . . 51.58. pr cnt.

Amount
of Paid.
Share.

X s. d.

100 0 0
41 13 4
100 0 0 i -
100 0 0 -
G 3 12 9

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 24.

Price

THE QUEEN V. MR. BUSFEILD FERRAND, M.P.-CRIMINAL

INFORMATION.'
Sir F. THESIGER (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition of yesterday) said—Then the letters
referred to of Mr. Lewis's, and of which it was
urged, copies should have been kept, partake more of the
nature of private and confidential than of public
documents. It was not a letter from the Poor-
law Commissioners, although the report which
arose out of it was -ultimately presented to them.
What had been the conduct of Mr. Ferrand during the
whole of the years over which these transactions were
spread? Had he come forward and said, " I believed
at the time that there was a conspiracy, but, as I find I
am incorrect, I feel happy in making all the atone-
ment in my power for the charges I have made?"
No ; he bad persevered in his gross imputations ; he
now persisted in them, and came forward to maintain
them, saying that he bore no malice to Mr. Lewis. Oh!
no ; but if his gentle nature could not be roused to any
violence, how could he so grossly libel Mr. Lewis so late as
August last, so grossly asperse his character, that if there
were any truth in the charges therein made, he would be
wholly unfit to occupy his position, or to fulfil the duties
of private life ? The mistake of Mr. Lewis, in
substituting Sir John Walshani for Mr. Mott
in his examination before the Committee, was
most excusable, as it was nothing more than a mis-
take, for it was notorious that Mr. Mott performed the
first examination, yet Mr. Ferrand, in his letter,
referred to Mr. Mott's report of the 30th of
April, showing that he knew his was the first
report, and that Mr. . Lewis, being confused by
dates, made a mistake. Was there, then, not much
boldness in Mr. Ferrand seeking to discharge
the rule? If they did discharge it, Mr. Mott could
not fulfil the duties of his office, because
he was charged with conspiring with a great
public officer to suborn a subordinate official,
and an adverse decision wouldigmatise him as guilty
of the charge, as unfit to hold IlEy public office. What-
ever might be the feelings lurking in Mr. Ferrand's
breast, it was impossible, judging from his past conduct,
to avoid the inference that he was a malicious libeller.
Mr. PEACOCK was about to follow on the same side,
but he was stopped by
Lord DENMAN, who said, we are called upon for leave
to grant a criminal information in respect of two letters
containing charges conveyed in the very grossest lan-
guage. The excuse set up is that the gentleman who
issued those publications was to a great degree inflamed
by circumstances, which, although they might not
justify the imputations which he has cast, yet might
show him to be in a state of mind to which some
reasonable indulgence ought to be extended ; and I own
that there is such a complication of circumstances that
I was very desirous to hear the statements on the other
side, and of looking at the affidavits, before I came
to a conviction, in order that I might see
whether the defendant might not feel himself in some
degree justified in the course he has pursued; but, after
hearing the explanatiolna,
manpder-faefettelry
ethonevfiunleleddinscoutsosniolyn
which has taken place,
that there is nothing—not only no foundation for this
conspiracy which the letters set forth, but also that
there is nothing that has since occurred to give a
reasonable ground for Mr. Ferrand to suppose that
those imputations are just. Under these circum-
stances, it appears' to me—notwithstanding some
matters showing, a degree of negligence perhaps,
and some misfortune in not keeping copies of
documents which it may be possible to refer to,
has led to a degree of confusion in the opinions formed
by the defendant in the proceedings of the Committee—
that he stands without any excuse whatever for uttering
such publication. It is nut, in my opinion, necessary to
say more on the present occasion than that there i,
nothing to show or raiseithe least reasonable ground for
saying that Mr. Lewis employed Mr. Mutt, fur
the purpose of doing any injury to Mr.
.lerrand,
or that Mr. Mott made any charge against Mr.
Ferrand which called for those strong sentiments which
appear to have been excited In his mind, or that Sir
James Graham, or Mr. Mott, or any of them, have been
engaged in any improper proceedings for the purpose
of injuring Mr. Ferrand; and therefore I think it is
quite imperative on the Court to say that this gentleman
stands completely without justification for what he has
done, and that this rule must be made absolute.
Mr. Ferrand then left the court.