The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-18 00:00:00

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Derby, March 17.

The Right lion. Sir N. C. Tindal and the lion. Sir
Thomas Coltman arrived in this town about two o'clock, and
opened the commission for this county with the usual for-
malities, after which their Lordships proceeded to attend
divine service at St. Mary's Church.
The Lord Chief Justice took his seat in the Nisi Prius
Court, at ten o'clock this morning; and Mr. Justice Coltman
at eleven, in the Crown Court.
The list presented fourteen causes for trial, of which four
were marked for special juries; but of these three are by the
same plaintiffs, and one only, if any, of them will be tried.
They are said to be in respect to the right to hold races here.
The other is an action of ejectment—Doe, deco. Thornhill r.
Thornhill—by the devisee against the heir-at-law, to recover
possession of a very valuable property on the ground of the
insanity of the testator, in which Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., is
coming down specially, and which will be commenced to-
morrow morning, and will probably last two long days.
Of the common jury cases, four are cross actions, two only
of which will therefore be tried. The list was thus reduced
to 10, of which five were at 4 o'clock disposed of, and the
remaining three will be, probably, in the course of the day.
The calendar is numerically, but not otherwise, heavy, there
being 59 prisoners and 45 cases for trial ; of which two are light
cases of burglary, two, also light, cases of robbery, one of
breaking and entering a dwelling-house, three of breaking
and entering warehouses, one of forgery (no evidence offered),
two of stabbing and wounding, one of a felonious assault upon
a woman, one of horse-stealing, and two of riot and assault
upon peace-officers.
Down to 4 o'clock to-day nothing had occured in either
court justifying any report.
In consequence of the anticipated duration of the great
special jury cause above referred to, for three days at least, the
commission day at Leicester has been postponed from Friday
till Saturday, on which latter day only the borough business
will be taken. The county business will, therefore, commence
there on Monday morning next.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT'.—Cambridge, March 16.

NISI PRIGS COURT.—(Before Mr. Baru Paititti and a
Special Jury.)

3LICITAEL AUGUSTUS GATIIERCOLK, CLERK, V. MTALL.
Mr. GUXNIXG (with whom was Mr. Sanders) stated, that
this was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover
damages from the defendant for the publication of a libel of
and concerning him in the character of vicar of Chatteris,
in the Isle of Ely, to which the defendant had pleaded only
the general issue. The plaintiff was a clergyman of the
Established Church, and had lately been presented to the
vicarage of Chatteris, a parish situate in the fans of Cam-
bridge, and containing a population of 5,000 souls. In early
life he had by great assiduity attained to great learning, and,
though i ss
Establishedente r, had
Church.
floe a gel
no ft
this
embraced
character he had obtained the high opinion of all who knew
theD
born
the and educated a
had set about the discharge of his high duties with great zeal
fleiirnmi,eannt,d
whhavicihngwraescesnatidly
tboeben
e presentedwotth2,oooto
It.hpis pieraeocoettomf rbee-
and industry. This was a most difficult task, and he had not
been so fortunate as to escape the attacks of the press; fur
on the 7th of January in the present year there appeared in
the Nonconformist, a weekly dissenting journal, an article
which formed the groundwork of the present action. That
publication was the sole property of the defendant, who was
a well-known Dissenter, a man of talent and wealth, and who
had recently contested the borough of Southwark, in opposi-
tion to Sir W. Molesworth. When the article in question
appeared, the plaintiff applied to the defendant for the name
of the author, and that being refused, he had no alternative
left but to appeal to a jury for protection from what he could
not but feel to be a most wanton, naprovoked, and malicious
attack upon him in his sacred character, and one which
could only have proceeded from the worst personal motives,
though the writer professed to aim at the Church rather than
its unworthy minister. In that article the plaintiff was
spoken of as " the notorious Gathercole," " the apostate
Gathercole," and a " twice-convicted libeller." But, though
true it was that Mr. Gathercole had, whilst engaged in con-
ducting a periodical, been indicted and made criminally re-
sponsible 'or the contents of an article, yet the defendant
could not be therefore justified in styling him "twice-con
victed," or in charging him, as he did in one part of his
libel, with obtaining his living by simony. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to read and comment en the libel,
and contended that his client was justly entitled to substan-
tial damages at the hauls of the jury for this outrageous at-
tack on him.

The libel was then put in and read, of which the following
are extracts :

" Prior to the unexpected accession of Gathercole to this
living, the inhabitants, of all religious denominations, had
amicably co-operated for charitable purposes. One of these
associations was a clothing society for the sick poor, under
the sole management of the ladies. But a few weeks, how-
ever, after his arrival, he intruded himself, with characteristic
impudence, into a meeting of the committee, were, after a
tirade against Dissent and Dissenters, of a most furious and
insulting character, he virtually dissolved the society. by
declaring that he should have nothing to do' with Dis-
senters, and he should expect his congregation to follow his
example. Upon the ruins of this liberal society arose ano-
ther, with the title of the Chatteris Church Clothing Club,
Patron, the Rev. the Vicar.'
"
cols; but what are we to say of the system under which a
characterl t would
andbe vain to
twuafsatoe
degraded
esgernatdeendc ea
personin rep raoabGb
a taitone of
ther
man, whose writings proclaim him at once imbecile, ignorant,
humbleupon
pietyh o s
and malignant, can be thus paid from the plunder of the
ywtheeek,
of his neighbours, and, in the licensed security of his pulpit.
of
f people,
whom t o
tisipeu world
hisrld filthyiis
uut venom,
worthy—to ee k
revile by
to hold up, with an air of smug vulgarity, their works of
faith and labours of love to the derision of his hearers."
"But, singularly enough, the same district which is suf-
fering under the ecclesiastical marauding of Gathercole, is at
this moment affording as interesting an illustration of the
benign moral effects of the voluntary principle as this clerical
nuisance affords of the pernicious tendency of the compulsory
system. Hard by the town of Chatteris is the village of
Doddington, the richest living in Great Britain, affording to
the Rev. Algernon Peyton, the rector, upwards of 10,0001.
a year. Almost under the shadow of Doddington steeple is
the village of :Hansa, the curate of which, remunerated for
his labours with 100/. a year, died some few weeks ago, as
we learn from the local papers, leaving
.a widow and three
adult children with resources barely sufficient to pay the ex-
penses of his funeral. The wealthy and respected rector of
Doddington at once took into his hands this truly pitiable
case, and, by the joint exertions of all the religious denomi-
nations in the neighbourhood, upwards of 500/. has been
raised for the benefit of this afflicted and destitute lady, to
which fund the Dissenters of Chatteris, who had scarcely
even heard the name of the deceased clergymen, subscribed
their money with the most eheerffil liborUlity. Tot these
are the men against whom Gathercole raves as' blasphemous
heretics,' with ' dangerous impostors' for their teachers."

The case for the plaintiff having closed by proof of the
circulation of the newspaper is question among several mem-
bers of his congregation at Chatteris, some of whom admitted
that he was " very severe on Dissenters."

„..
Mr. Sergeant Bvt.Es (with whom was Mr. O'Malley) ad-
dressed the jury for the defendant, contending that he was
entitled to a verdict, as the article inserted in his paper was
not a libel, or that the verdict ought to be for nominal
damages. Every one acquainted with the history of the
plaintiff well knew him to be a ” notorious" man, and his
own counsel had admitted him to be a "convicted libeller."
Such a man could not therefore come into Court to claim
damages for a libel on him with " clean hands," and it was
for the jury to say whether the article complained of was not
justifiable as an attack on a public man, in dealing with
whom great latitude of Criticism ought to be allowed in this
country, which was the temple of liberty, both civil and reli-
gious. Statesmen and Churchmen were alike exposed to such
observations on their conduct, and when we saw the Ministry
of the day and even the prelates attacked without any re-
mark or notice on their part,he (Mr. Sergeant Kyles) could
not help thinking that the plaintiff would have dose well to
pass by this article without notice, as one which his public
conduct, as the vicar of Chatteris, had exposed him to.
The judges themselves and the bar were all liable to censure.
One great man, G. Fox, had written thus:—" We have an
army of lawyers, with tough consciences, and tough parch.
ments, and interminable tongues—an army of soldiers to
fight the French, an arm- of doctors to fight Death, and we
have an army of parsons to fight the Devil, of whom he
standeth not much in awe "—(Laughter)—and it was Rot to
be expected that a man who had attacked the Dissenters
himself so violently should not rouse them into something
like a kindred feeling. If such a man, continued the
Learned Sergeant, reading from a book before him, which he
covertly insinuated to be the letters of " L. S. E." alluded to
in the libel, said that " the religion of Dissenting preachers
was merely a cloak for everything that was bad ;" that
"deceit and hypocrisy were the commodities in which they
dealt ;" that their principle-is were "infernal," and that they
were "an ungodly set of atheists and infidels;" it could not
be contended that this retort was wanton and unprovoked ;
and if in the rules of his " Church Clothing Club " he had
excluded all Dissenters from participation in common
with thieves, drunkards, robbers, and persons guilty
of " other deadly sins," it was not to be con•
ceived but that he should be met with abuse
and cutting criticism in the discharge of his public
duties as vicar of Chatterie. As far, therefore, as the gene-
ral scope of this article went, it was submitted that it was
not libellous, while as regarded its " sting," which consisted
in the imputation of simony," the article did not bear any
such construction, for it spoke of his having obtained his
preferment as " the wages of his treachery," which implied
that the living had been given 'o, and not bought by, him in
an illegal manner. If, however, the jury should think the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, the Learned Counsel con-
cluded by asserting that the smallest coin in the realm would
be an ample measure of damages to which the plaintiff was
entitled,in such a case.

Mr. Baron PARKE, in summing up the case to the jury,
left it to them to say whether this was a libel, in the first
place ; and, if so, whether there was any occasion to justify
or excuse its publication of the plaintiff as the vicar of
Chatteris. He (Mr. Baron Parke) apprehended that no
reasonable man could doubt that such an attack on a
man as this was a libel, which in law was the writing
anything of a man which was calculated to bring him into
discredit and odium. Was there, then, any ground for jus-
tification or excuse for its publication? It had been con-
tended by the Learned Sergeant that it was open to the de-
fendant to observe on the plaintiff's conduct as vicar of Chat-
teris, on the ground that the office of a clergyman was a
public one, and that, like statesmen, commanders, and
judges, the public had a right to criticise their conduct.
He, however, did not go along with the Learned Sergeant to
that extent, for he had yet to learn that there was any right
in the press to publish an opinion of the conduct of a clergy-
man in his parish and the method in which he might see tit
to administer its charities. If, indeed, a clergyman pub-
lished a sermon which he delivered to his parish he made it
public property, and conferred thereby on the public the
right of observing on it and criticising it, if done fairly and
without malicious motives. Short of this there was nothing
is the conduct of a clergyman which could confer on the
press any ground for commenting on him. As for the impu-
tation of simony, lie certainly thought that the context did
not warrant the construction put on that branch of the
article by the plaintiff; for it did not impute that he had
obtained the living by simony, for it spoke of his getting
it as the wages of his treachery. Under these circum-
stances, it was for the jury to say what fair amount of com-
pensation they would award to the plaintiff for the article
complained of by him.
The jury, having retired to consider their verdict, returned
into Court after an absence of half an hour with a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.