The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-07 00:00:00

7 the r
jt.e.tio
Boggg„
wag
ioion

Ibq b-lieved there was sae foundation of truth in that
Which they had asserted, that their only desire and anxiety
"ad been the benefit of the newspaper? How c mid they
lali to benefit the newspaper when this took place ? Mr.
Young offered 7,5001. for it, and to pay 2001. down.
It appeared that at the banking-house of Mr. Thornton,
!banker in London, t) ere was an offer made of 13,0001..
3,000/. being actually deposited in his (the banker's)
4 ands, 3,000/. more to be paid in fourteen days, and
,die remainder to be given in short bills at different
apes ; or, if they preferred it, thirteen thousand pounds
Partly in bills and partly in cash, and 10,0001. was offered
dawn on the spot. What 1. could the Jury believe that
those persons were desirous of making the most of the
Paper, who refused this money when it was offered to be
Paid down? Mr. Winchester would wish them to believe
that it was a mere fictitious offer, but he (the Learned
Counsel) knew he need not ask them whether they
deter
,o 0 believed 3,000/. being in the banker's hands, himself
excejeddr?stif thei assign, e, and offering to purchase the paper for
i'ressiog the 13,0001., 3,000/., and to pay the money down, whether
se severe "I
they
believed that was a bona fide offer or not ?
n vedifoo.t
tire Briggs bad said that he recommended his client not
ni hiai et -0 take hills from any man. Why had there not been an
'owl,'" equal objection to take bills from one man as well as
~sisll,' ' from another ? How was Mr. Young to pay for it ? He
Or eat vats to pay 2001. down and the remainder in bills. Mr.
libel
• toil Briggs hod also stated that a person of the name of Lomax
,p,P1,,,,d, bait wished to purchase the paper. It was proved that
He COnri• Young had made an offer of 12,5001. Why had not that
very terms been taken ? For this reason, that at that very meeting
ight eVI at which Mr. Lomax offered the 13,000/. Mr. Young.
elf; e,ost. effered 12,500/. Mr. Lomax, therefore, exceeded Mr.
1i ,P 3
Zich Sir Young in his offer by 5001. How was it that Mr. Young
tvu
if tiled his bill in Chancery against the assignees, that they
roseeu if
had filed their bill in Chancery against Mr. Young,
,dour:cuyi and that the property had been sold so as to
Part' weir deprive Messrs. Grant and Bell, who bad laid
Verit;ro out a large sum of money, of any benefit to be
i the i
to
derived from it. He would ask the jury whether they
! fact' .°i, believed that at the time these statements were male, the
.0,00 o, Parties knew them to be false ? They had Messir. Briggs
d
was iis and Winchester coming forward and saying they had done
Impre;6 ;be all they could for the benefit of the creditors. But why
ng "• se bad they not called other persons? Ide, the Learned Coun-
r. 14rigb°0 *el, did not like to hear people corning forward, as Messrs.
6001; al. Briggs and Winchester had done, to he their own judges
(treas;:retbf, and
t. witnesses in their own cause. There were others whom
0o) hey might have called if they had thought proper. Why
'raid' irf had they not called Mr. Thornton the co-assignee ?He would
p 0 tijurg.o call their attention to this circumstance. Messrs. Win-
not 'we, Chester and Briggs bad the management of the paper in
ther;:teet their own hands. Nothing was more desirable, Mr.
rite. f'sd ee Winchester being a stationer and Mr. Briggs an attorney,
0 i 4,0 to than that they should get into their possession the manage-
P;_thopea rnent of a newspaper; because they were at no risk ;
lr
_row the assignee conducted it at the expense of the estate.
thee rette. The libels charged the prosecutors, and now they charged
utebsii::.. iit them with having used their power for the purpose of
iaie of, keeping the newspaper in their own hands, anti not for the
'nil' t• ss benefit of the estate. This fact, at all events, was in evi-
ture 0 r,
ei dente, viz., that Mr. Thornton, a gentleman well known
el:,,,°.!ri'ee) no doubt to the Jury, a banker in the City of London,
1.T.',,000 of high respectability, had said he had 3,000/. lodged in
A.„'f"i'ggs his hands as a deposit. Yet Mr. Alderman Winchester
yew eot ' would have the Jury believe that he never knew until
would this moment that that money had been so lodged, and he
he therd would also have them believe that he never knew that he
etyma' all
and Mr. Thornton bad ever disagreed. It was, hovever,
, bees'
el proved in evidence that ween the meeting took place at
re Int;be Mr. Thornton's house, Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs
et.ritiggell made an objection to the sale of the paper to Mr. Lomax,
d.a.04 sibs to which Mr. Thornton said the 3,000/. was deposited in
wgifit. coo,fi his hands for the purpose. " Oh," says Mr. Briggs, "but
S I did not see the bank notes." If Mr. Briggs had
Frie
aed
which met Mr. Lomax in the street, and the latter had
age epa elf add he bad 3,0001. ready to pay down, and did not
Pr"— ben produce the money, Mr. Brigge observations might
lant''lsies have held good, but when a banker of the city of London
' e'i"P read k kid, that 3,000/. had been lodged with him as a banker
fsenioit"be for a specific purpose, would any person doubt him and
:him Of require the production of the money? The idea
• n"'' oge of attributing importance to that fact was the most
n° Pir'eed. absurd that could be imagined. However, because the 3,000/.
t was hire. Was not produced, Mr. Briggs would have the Jury believe
einst e•te
:I to eases that Mr. Thornton had not got the money. But it was
.0, se not true that Mr. Winchester was ignorant of the fact, that
le"2"oi ;be Mr. Thornton disagreed with him,
icesfor he was told by
b;be Mr. Thornton that he (the latter) had the 3,000/. de-
rig but
!bole posit, that 3,0001. more was to be paid in fourteen
by tbee days, and the remainder by bills. Did a man de-
es of
,01 posit such a sum as 3,000/. unless he meant to act
intout
10 bona fide, and to become the purchaser? Was
d
if._t__eatioo the 2001. to be paid down an equivalent offer to
"1 ll° ter • that I But if the prosecutor's case were true, and they
proseen 0
were
not afraid of inquiry, they might have put Mr.
re was ri
ienied die Thornton in the witness box to prove that he coincided
With Mr. Alderman Winchester, and that be did not die-
, this foo
agree with him, nor with Mr. Briggs, the solicitor. Did
Do
rd. not the absence of that evidence, even according to the
• the 01;ij little light that had been thrown on the case, show that
which e
;eV they were afraid of inquiry ? The offer made for the
;ed, s'eer
see paper by Mr. Young was 12,500/., and by Mr.
char
~s Lomax 13,000/. What was the amount of debts actually
:tack 014
proved under the Commission? Only about 6,1001.
meeerenu
aMc So here was a clear surplus to a considerable amount,
ente 4 and such as would pay 10s. in the pound on the partner-
i tint .00 ship of the newspaper alone. There was something about
irk i been
a 4,000!. or 5,000/. due to Mr. Young ; but even on pay.
hit L.nes went of that, the surplus would be very large, after pay-
tbe aw-
os ins 20'. in the pound. Why, therefore, were these gen-
ha're esda tlemen to be deprived of their property, in order
jay eo
ti...
to keep it in the hands of Mr. Winchester, as the paper
, and Pir, merchant, and Mr. Briggs, as the attorney ? There was
"%join'c,
cid another thing of which he (Mr. Humfrey) complained, and
very 1,3
b that was, that the prosecutors had not thought proper to
TeeY
been call a single creditor to show that their purposes had been
have
ehoth fair and bona fide, and in order to benefit the estate cf
!suer, the Mr. Grant. It was proved that so far from the estate
put
I 10 being lienefitted, it bad been injured. Was it injured by
ogee ea ' Mr. Grant? It was proved that at a meeting of creditors
have bee il at which Mr. Winchester presided (though he said lie did
Id 0°"1
We et t accede to it), a vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Giant
is for his exertions in endeavouring to benefit the estate. If it
r r° t" were a question who had injured the estate, did the Jury
to of the believe it W
th as Messrs. Winchester and Briggs or the de-
ideavoured
fendants? He could not help thinking that that question
iefit of e
did come under consideration, for one was at a loss to
van, l''
tir 0- understand bow a verdict could pass by which the libel
your ere'.
t was to be declared to be false, which, from all that had
via, no
been permitted to be given in evidence, showed that that
rigg Pr"'
s part of the libel charging mismanagement of the estate
not !dolt
to be true. It was true that very strong lan-
nabled th
guage had been used, and words had been used which
then he would would not be the case in cooler moments, but some al-
-3 evidence
lowance must be made for the feelings of human nature.
r asserted
The property of Mr. Grant was more than doubly suffi-
ious state-
cient to pay all demands upon it : it appeared that a corn-
I3ut ones
mission of bankruptcy was concocted in Mr. Grant's ab-
le, store from London, which was put in force the moment he
naive fdr
.of arrived ; his property was then taken out of his possession,
:court.,
and, instead of its being productive, he was wholly de-
'Jere Wall
prived of it, and Mr. Young got it for the value of his
in yebieh
debt upon it. Who was it that male it unproductive?
'one into'
:it except , who filed the bill, and took the offer of Mr. Young of
12,500/. ? and why was the property thrown into Chan-
Counsel,
eery? The questions which the Jury would have to de-
'ere Pe"' termine were these :—first, whether the publications
fired into.
in question were libellous. Upon that point he would
rhe libel' offer no comment, because the Jury would hear
rcise their the state of the law. The
ail, they ,t' from his Lurdahip
be fihels• 1 second question for the consideration of the Jury was,
te whether, assuming the publicavon to be a libel, it was
0 or no
false, for it was so called by the pr, aecutors on their re-
rip would
'or them, cord. - They bad chosen in their record to call it a
to false libel, and the Jury must come to a conclu.
e tune
could lay eion on that head. It was for them to say whether
it was a false libel, or they must consider the evi.
,e, winsnng o fleece,
iriand say if the prosecutors had convinced them that
the publication, assuming it, as he had before observed, to
own ac-
be a libel, was a false libel. lie would ask the Jury, had
r. Grant,
ter ; and i the prosecutors so convinced them of the truth of the
allegation in their record on this head ? lie would invite the
endeman
Jury to lay their fingers upon any one part of the evidence
per—erel
that went in the least degree the length of convincing
entiousl y
them that the publication teas false ; but he maintained
so much
that, on the contrary, the greater portion of the evidence
Imola of
for the prosecution had shown it to be true. With these
tel them
observations, he should now leave the case of his client in
n• gross
the hands of the Jury, reminding them that, if the
here was
whole evidence did not satisfy them that the publication
appeared was false, the defendant Bell would ba entitled to
:cased of
their verdict.
come out 51r. FrTaaor KELLY then proceeded to address the
f• for it,
Jury on behalf of the defendant Ager. Ile said that
?•001. !---e
it had already appeared to the Jury, in the progress
this fact
of this prosecution, that Ise appeared on behalf of
teeing of
the defendant Ager only, who was undoubtedly the
13,000/.
printer of the paper, and who, so far as he could be
10/. for made liable on the evidence adduced in support of the
lug into ,j''
allegations contained iu the record upon this case, was so
letting e
liable as printer for whatever might be contained in the
io that
paper in question, and was consequently subject not only
nd, with
to the verdict of the Jury, but also to all the consequences
is paper
which might follow that verdict. It was for
nted the
bins (Mr. Kelly), as briefly and distinctly as
Cy fell to
he could to call the attention of the Jury to
getting
the terms in which he should seek, on behalf of his client,
gs and 'heir verdict (under the direction of the Court), or ac-
Whethe (primal. He could not but:a:wove, that it was singular

Prta
aedv
.J•
WI"
31)Urt'be ta
t not
eb.
Bee
°
the "

d s
oCO'

enough that when his Learned Friend (Sir Jas. Scarlett)
should have found it ;necessary, for present purposes, to
have opened a case involving many matters of com-
plicated facts—of embarrassing transactions—and the
conduct of parties who must abide the result of
this prosecution, that those parties should not be
permitted to examine into those matters of fact and
transactions. It was also singular that the prosecutor
in this case, Mr. Alderman Winchester, who was called
as a witness on his own behalf, and Mr. Brigs, the attor-
ney, who was a witness on behalf of Mr. Al Lerman Win-
chester, should have freely confessed that they had no per-
sonal complaint to make as against the rd fendant Ager —nay
that they did not knowhim—never communicated with him,
and never saw him, should have been brought before
the court with the wrong doers, (if wrong has been done)
—lre meant Mr. Grant and Mr. Bell, who, from flit
beginning, had awowed themselves the authors and pro-
rtaeators of the publications out of which this prosecution
has arisen, and hove claimed to themselves the responsi-
bility that those publications might involve. If he (Mr.
Kelly) had any complaint to make on the conduct of the
prosecutors it was in this respect, and otherwise
he had nothing to say against either Mr. Alderman
Winchester or Mr. Briggs of whom he knew nothing. It
should not be his purpose, availing himself of the privileges
of the situation in which he stood as Counsel for Mr.
Aker, to utter reproaches or even to insinuate any thing
against the character of either of those two gentlemen. He
must, however, be allowed to say that he knew the de-
fendant Mr. Grant to be a gentleman of education and
talent, nearly connected with some of the most dis-
tinguished persons high in the Administration of
public affairs, and was himself in every respect de-
serving and worthy of those high connections. Dis-
missing this point, he roust say it appeared to him
(Mr. Kelly) very hard that the defendant, Ager,
who was certainly legally answerable, as printer, should
have been brought into Court upon this criminal charge,
and that he should he bound to fight the question of
guilty or not guilty, when there might have been fol-
lowed a course that was clearly open to the pro-
secutors to seek a vindication of the characters, and not
damages or money—a course by which the parties by
whom their characters had teen assailed, could have proved
the truth of the allegations by which the injury inflicted
had been occasioned. That would at least have been a
more worthy course of proceeding than to bring the two
defendants, for whom he (Mr. Kelly) did not appear, and
his cheap, criminally before the Court. He would, how-
ever, now proceed to examine the record, and see how it
was affected by the law, as now established, in order
to ascertain how for the defendants might
be liable under the record. The Jury might perhaps be
aware, that, in former times, it appeared in the history of
the law of libel, that the law watt considerably worse, and
was dealt out with an injustice to a degree unparalleled is
the history of the law of this country. It was then the
law that if an individual published, even under
the must justifiable circumstances, a fact or facts
of another which were strictly true, and if that
other chose to bring that publication before a
Court of Justice as a criminal, he might and did call
upon the jury to convict the offending party of the
crime, upon the mere proof that he was the author of
the publication in question, and on the Judge declaring
that it amounted to a libel.
lire LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Kelly, I do not accede
to that proposition. Ido not believe that the law was
so formerly.
Mr. KELLY said that formerly two things were
necessary to be proved for a conviction; the first was,
that the defendant was the author of the libel; and,
secondly, that the libel bore the sense imputed to it on
the record. The latter proof be had omitted to mention
when corrected by his Lordship. Such, however, was
formerly the law ; and it only then remained for the Judge
to tell the jury whether or not the matter was libellous in
point of law, and if they thought the inuendoes alleged
in the record were the true meaning of the words con-
tained in the libel, and the Jury were bound to convict the
defendant. After the country haul long groaned under the
infliction of this wicked law—wicked in its operation—
at list an alteration in the law was made, for which the
country was indebted to an illustrious individual—the late
Mr. Fox—who introduced and passed a Bill known as" Mr.
Fox's Libel Bill," which was well worthy his illustrious
name, and which effected an alteration, that, though not
reaching perfection, •yet had done more towards the
amelioration of the law in this respect than was
ever accomplished by any one statute. He would
call the attention of the Jury, as well as that of his
Lordship, to the terms of the statute which was now
in force, by which it would be seen that the powers of the
Jury were now very much enlarged. The Learned Gen-
tleman then read the Act be referred to, which was the
Declaratory Act, brought in and passed by Mr. Fox, and
upon it contended that the Jury were not now confined to
the mere act of finding a verdict, but were to take into
their consideration whether in fact they were false or not.
They were to take the at.hole circumstances into considera-
tion, and judge of them as they stood. They were to say
whether the matter complained of was libellous or not ;
they were the judges of the case, and it was their province
to say whether it was true or false. He trusted that be
should be able to satisfy the Jury that they did not bear
that character, and also that they could not find the de-
fendant Ager, for whom be appeared, guilty upon the
record that was then before them. He would cite a high
legal authority in support of the statement he had then
made ; but the foundation of all that be did say
was that it had not been proved that the libels
were false. He did not mean to put that case
upon the same footing as a seditious libel. He knew
in a case of that kind it had been ruled that the de-
fendant was not at liberty to give in proof the truth of
every word it contained—that had been ruled by tire
Judge who tried a celebrated case in which Sir F. Bur-
dett was defendant ; that was a prosecution for a letter
wrote by him in the country respecting the Manchester
massacre as it was called ; there the Judge would not
allow the truth of the libel to be given in evidence, and
that was held by the Court to he the law when it was
argued most learnedly by his Lordship and other eminent
Counsel then at the Bar. Now it was impossible to read
the decisions in that case without at once seeing
that the case had been too largely stated—it was
impossible now to hold that the Jury had nothing
to do with the truth or falsehood of the matter charged
in the information. He would suppose a case--the case
of the late Mr. Fauntleroy, who suffered for the immense
forgeries of which he had been found guilty—suppose that
alter his trial, and while some technical point was pending,
the newspapers had alluded to the facts of the case, and
had attempted to raise the sympathy of the country in behalf
of the poor persons that had been ruined by his villanies.
Suppose an action brought by him fit such a libel, was it
possible for a moment to suppose that it would not be good
evidence to offer on behalf of the defendant that what he
had stated was truth? Was it possible that such evidence
would be refused ? Under such circumstances, was it
possible for the jury upon their oaths to say that thedefend-
ant Ager had published a false libel upon these prosecutors ?
Then, after observing upon certain other passages of the
case, and also observing in another particular case of the
King v. Burdett, that attempts having been made to put
the truth of the matter in issue, Mr. Justice Bayley held
that it could not be put in evidence, but observed that in
some cases the truth or falsehood were the very essence of
the libel, he (Mr. Kelly) would apply that to the pre-
sent case, and if in doing so he made observations which
seemed to involve more particularly questions of law, he
begged the pardon of his Lordship ; but he did so only on
the ground that the particular offence was distinguisthh-
able from every other known to the law, by reason of e
erroneouspractice which had prevailed with respect to
libel, and p
that practice having been corrected by the
statute to which he had referred. In all the re-
marks he should make, he begged to be understood
as not insinuating that the libels were true ; lie knew
nothing of the parties, and, therefore, 1 n all the remarks
he should make he must be considered as supposing it
might be true or it might be false. He would, how-
ever, suppose a case. Suppose an editor of a news-
paper, a man of character, fallen into misfortune,
becoming a bankrupt, finding his name and re-
putation assailed, called into question because matters
connected with himself were not sufficiently explained,
and because it was supposed he had improperly made away
with his property. Suppose him, together with others,
on that ground, charged with impropriety of conduct ;
suppose that meeting alter meeting was held in which the
most minute investigation took place. Suppose at
those meetings he was charged with improper conduct,
and he thought fi,, in his own vindication, to publish an
account of all that took place at those meetings and
the whole transaction ; in short, would he not be justified
in so acting ? Suppose, further, that from what was
stated in the libels that the commission was a collusive
commission, supposing it to appear that various falsehoods
had been uttered, and supposing further, that it ap.
peored that a most fraudulent preference bad been given
to an individual for improper purposes—supposing such to
be ca'e, the Learned Counsel would ask, whether it was
not the essence to see whether it was a fabrication, or
strictly and perfectly true ? and whether he was not in a si-
tuation to prove it before the Court ? It was for the Jury to
determine, if that was as, whether it did not come within
the meaning of the principle adverted to by Mr. Justice
Bayley, when a distinction Iva, drawn between a

great public oNenoe and a private one. It would be for
the Jury to determine whether the present case did
not come within that distinction, the prosecutors
having charged the whole of the libel to he false.
Through the whole information the prosecutors treated the
whole matter as false. They stated upon the information
the whole circumstances of the case, and charged that the
libel was published to injure and defame the character of
Mr. Alderman Winchester and Mr. Briggs. He would
ask the Jury if there was no imperative rule of law against
them? and if theywere dealing with the parties in their private
closets, whether they would not immediately say, you call
upon us to punish these individuals for publishing a false.
hood, without letting 113 see whether it is false or not ? He
trusted the Learned Judge would be of opinion that, by
The meaning of the statute, the Jury were enabled to !mil:
to the whole information, and judge for themselves what
was an essential part of this libel and what was imma-
terial. It could not be denied that the Jury were the
sole judges, subject to the opinion of the Learned Indi-
vidual presiding, whether the matter was a libel or not,
and in order to come to a conclusion upon that, you are
to treat as mere nonsense and surplusage all that may be
connected with the libel, and look only to the truth or
falsehood of it. If, however, the Jury could not do that,
if the Jury could only look at the character of the libel
without taking into consideration whether it was true or
false, if that was so in consequence of the pro-
secutors having availed themselves of that branch
of the law they had done, it was hard upon his
client. He would put it to the Jury, as a question for
their good sense and justice, to try whether by any possi-
bility they could find the libels to be according to the
fano' Tge used by the prosecutors a false and malicious
libel, the prosecutors themselves having adopted that
course of proceeding in bringing the matter before the
Court, which deprives you of the means of ascertaining it.
His client, Mr. Ager, only the printer, had been brought
there he did not know how ; he did not intend to
cast reflections upon any person ; he merely put himself
upon the law of the case, and through him (Mr. K.) called
upon the jury under his Lordship's directions to find, as re-
garded him upon the evidence that had been adduced, that
the libel was not proved to be false or published by him.
That was the principle on which he put it before the
Court, and such was the ground upon which he left it to
the Jury to pronounce, if they could, whether the libels
were false or not, and upon that ground he could not
entert in a doubt that his client would he found not guilty.
Mr. Grant then rose to address the Jury, an,' after
apologizing for his deficiencies, and begging the indule
gence of the Jury, he stated that it was his firm belief that
the disaster which occurred to his friend and coadjutor
Mr. Bell, had induced the prosecutors to press forward
the case. It would be in the recollection of his Lord-
ship, that in Jane last both himself and Mr. Bell were
in Court. Oa that occasion, upon some pretext or other,
the trial was postponed, and it may be attempted to be
said that that had been done through a spirit of gene-
rosity, in consequence of the absence of Mr, Kelly. That
Learned Gentleman appeared only for the printer of the
paper of which his friend and himself were the proprietors.
If the prosecutor had really acted upon that occasion from
motives of generosity, they could not have put their cha-
racters in greater jeopardy in extending it a little further.
Their characters, such as they were, could not have suf-
ftreTl much from a short delay. But enough of that;
he would now address himself to the facts of the
case. He appeared in that Court charged with
a criminal act, his crime being, having appealed to
the public in consequence of the infliction of a grie-
vance as great as it was possible for any man to
sustain. He would, with the permission of the
Court, briefly state the circumstances of the case to
the Jury. In April, 1826, he (Mr. Grant) acci-
dentally heard of The Sun newspaper being for sale,
having some money in his possession, and being informed
that by an outlay of about 5,0001., the speculation might
be made an extremely profitable one, he laid out that sum.
Having heard of an individual named Murdo Young, who
hail exhibited on other establishments great activity, he
employed him as the general conductor of the paper. That
individual was pennyless, it might almost be said houseless;
he advanced him to a situation of considerable eminence ;
he gave him the whole administration and outlay of sums
amounting to between 10 and 15,0001. For which kindness
that individual bad requited him, by turning him out of the
possession of property of which he (Mr. Grant) was then
the sole proprietor, and the charges which he had ad-
vanced against Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winches-
ter, as aiding and abetting him in those purposes. Himself
and his friend had been charged with having published a
false, scandalous, and malicious libel, and the Jury
were summoned whether it was so or not. We
have accused them certainly in strong terms, and
terms which would certainly not have been pacifiable,
except in the beat of a contest which I was engaged in
for nay character, I may say almost for my very exist-
ence. But we published a pamphlet, with a narrative of
the facts of the case, and supported the allegations
by affidavits of sundry respectable and uniumeach-
tile persons. If the object of the prosecutors
had been to exculpate and vindicate their character there
was a process by civil action by which they might have
examined by evidence into the facts of the 'ease, but they
had chosen to adopt a species of action by which all
evidence of facts was excluded, and which, however well
for those standing high in office or station, certainly did
not very well comport with the character and pretensions
of a mere stationer and attorney of the city of London.
Mr. Kelly had drawn the attention of the gentlemen of the
Jury to the present state of the law of libel, and having
been excluded from alluding to the facts of the case,
he would beg leave to advert shortly to that. By the
Act of Mr. Fox, passed in the 93d year of George 111.
the Jury were distinctly informed that they might give a
general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter
in issue. He presumed there was but one way of reading
that Act ; and no mystification of the Judge, or perversity
of counsel could deprive it of its plain, hone .t literal in-
terpretation. But excellent as was that bill, valuable as
it was to the rights of his .Majesty's subjects, one unfor-
tunate clause had been introduced into it—the Judge was
celled on to give his opinion as to the law. Was
that necessary ? The Jury were told to listen
to that opinion of the Le trned Judge ; but
surely " listening " did not imply that they
should follow it. if that was so, they were mere puppets
in the hands of the Learned Judge. They were placed in
that box to vindicate the character of juries from the
charge of subserviency, that too often disgraced juries.
Excluded from all means of ascertaining the truth of the
allegations, they were called upon to pronounce it a
false libel, without knowing whether it was false or not.
According to the construe ion put on the Act, it was not
necessary that the Jury should follow the direction of the
Judge. He did not apprehend any such direction from
the Learned Judge now occupying the bench ; but he spoke
generally, knowing the long history of judges of less liberal
opinions than that Learned individual. Tbey were obliged
to listen to the direction of the Learned Judge, so they
were also in respect to Sir James Scarlett; but it did
not arise that they should subsequently follow it. It had
become almost a by-word that truth was a libel, and the
greater the truth the greater the But it was impos-
sible to reconcile it with the most ordinary principles of
common sense. It was a mere fiction of law. A libel was
nothing—it was anything that might be con-
strued into an offence against any one. Mr.
Grant then referred to the opinion of Mr. Bentham as
to such fictions of law, and read an extract from his work.
Many of the charges might be termed as they were in the
declaration, but still they might be true, to the know-
ledge of the parties. He repeated again and again, that
the jury would do violence to their consciences, and to
their duty, to pronounce that to be false which they did
not know by evidence to be false. If the punishment of
libel were necessary for the preservation of the glorious
institutions of this country, or for the main-
tenance of things as they were, let his Lordship at once
pronounce sentence ; it the libel were in itself a crime,
let him say so at once. He admitted the publication in
question, but what lie said was, that it was true. The Jury
were called upon to say whether it was true or false.
There was another thing which should not be lot
secution,t sight
of, and that was that, in this form of pro
fcahles
evhenroddi c to,
fa
tfrtihoeloibr
ei would n o\tv
icnaertireys
tceorn vwicatsion of
firstthe
in
rotation for the office of Lord Mayor of London.
Would this verdict of the Jury raise him in the
estimation of his fellow .citizens? Would not his
conduct be scrutinized by them, and would his being the
assignee of a bankrupt's estate forward him in the eyes of
the citizens of London ? Not all the sophistry, or all
the:Courts of law, could shake the fact, that Mr. Alderman
Winchester had shrunk from bringing a civil action, by
which his character might be justified, or the truth proved,
and resorted to another form, by which be sought to
screen himself. This was more particularly to be.called t.he
age of libel, for the papers of the present day teemed with
it ; Tories, blacking-men, and Whigs—all in one holy
week had been against them (the defendants), in perse-
cuting them for what was considered by law to be libel-
lous. It was in the power of the Jury to offer up his
friend, Mr. Bell and himself on the altar of injured chit-
erecter and so forth, but he trusted fur another results t
their hands from the great attention which they had
paid to the case. Would they on their oaths say
that truth had nothing whatever to do with
the question, but that the libel was false and

calculated to excite sedition, and he knew not what ? It
way the impression of a great many of the inh tbitants
this country that they would be about one of the last
juries who would have the power of doing so. The
public voice, the base and villanons part of the press,
were united, and the law must shortly be altered. Much
as individuals laughed at the press, the press, when united
in a righteous cause, was omnipotent; it spoke the sen-
timents of the country ; and that the law would he altered
was as certain as that the Jury were sitting there. Excluded
as they were from all evidence and all legal investigation
into the matter, there were however certain presumptions
which presented themselves to their view. How did the
case stand? lie havine once had a property in which he
had embarked nearly 20,000/. was turned out of it by a
person whom he employed, and who was now revelling in
the possession of it. He would not excite the conapassioa
of the Jury by touch allusion to those circumstances,
the transition from wealth and the distinguished
station which he bad held' in the country with which
he was connected to a situation of abject poverty he
would not enter upon. But that was how the case stood.
Mr. Young also had been admitted by him to a situation,
anti was now in the possession of the property, while he
had frequently walked the streets of London not knowing
where to get food. The jury had it in evidence that Mr.
Alderman Winchester and Mr. Attorney Briggs bad been
dismissed by their constituents. In originally selecting them,
the one as assignee, and the other as solicitor, to the com-
mission, the creditors had confidence in them. The creditors
were at first prejudiced against him(Mr. Grant)as all other
creditors naturally are, whether the bankruptcy was
caused by carelessness or fraud. How did the case now
stand? The creditors had turned them out, and according
to a paper which had been produced, but judiciously with-
held front being read, had refused to acknowledge them,
while he receited a vote of thanks from the creditor,.
The assignee and the solicitor were turned nut with dis-
grace, and Mr. Thornton the co-assignee, than whom
there was not a more respectable person in the city of Lon-
don, from what be discovered in the conduct of Mr. Briggs,
employed his own solicitor to watch the procee lings. It was
palpable, therefore, that the conduct of Mr. Winchester
and Mr. Thornton was opposed to each other. That
Court was crowded, almost, by individuals who were ready
to come forward to establish every allegation in the libel ;
but the Learned Judge was induced by the existing state
of the law, and no doubt properly, to prevent his pro-
ducing them. Regretting that he had occupied so touch
of the valuable time of the Jury, he implored them to con-
sider their duties to themselves and their country. They were
required by the law to be judges of the whole matter in
issue ; would they then delegate to a Judge or Chancellor
those powers with which they were invested? Would
they, because the law said they were bound to listen to the
Ceief Justice or any other Judge, return a verdict of guiAy,
and say on their solemn oaths that they declared that to
be false which by the form of proceeding adopted by the
prosecution it was impossible they could declare to be false
or true, particularly with all the presumptions in his fa-
vour ? He was prepared to prove their truth. He wou.d
not allude to the evidence of the candidate for the
Mayoralty, nor to the non mi ricordo style which he had
pursued. If the jury could make up their minds that he
had provocated a false and malicious libel to the detri-
ment of character, they would have no hesitation in
giving a verdict against him ; be would never hold
up his hand or his voice against a proper and just retri-
bution for scandalous publications ; but if they admitted
the statements, though strong, they were precluded from
ascertaining the truth of, they would not hesitate to give a
verdict of acquittal.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up. Having
stated the contents of the information, and read the libels
in the True Sun of the 9th and 16th of April, his
Lordship said that before entering into what had been
proved before them to-day he would say a few words upon
the subject of a prejudice which he thought it had been
attempted rather studiously to instil into their minds. It
had been almost urged that because the truth of the
libellous matter could not be entered into, therefore it
must be taken fur granted that it was true. But that
by no means followed. There were three modes of pro-
ceeding in cases of libel. An aggrieved party might proceed
by way of indictment against a libeller in order to have
him punished for doing that which tended to a breach of
the peace. Or he might proceed by
thi civ l action i
might
for a•
mages done to his character. Or, rdly, he
proceed by criminal information filed by leave of the
Court. Now the Court never granted leave to
file a criminal information, except on a full examination
of the ease. It was not, simply enough, to show the
Court of King's Bench that a libel was published, but that
the party against whom the liba was published, must
satisfy the Court, on oath, of his innocence of the charges
of which he complained. This oath, and the evidence
brought in support of it,;the publisher of the libel had the
liberty of contesting. It was hardly fair to assume, there-
fore, that if the inquiry had been gone into here, any
different result would have been arrived at by the Jury,
than the defendants themselves, swearing last, had an oppor-
tunity of persuading the Court of King's Bench to arrive at.
The question was then,whether these parties were guilty or
not guilty of the offence charged against them in the
information. An action for damages and a criminal in-
formation had two distinct objects. In an action for
damages, a party sued for compensation for injury done to
his character. But he was not bound to stop there, or
even to adopt that mode of proceeding at all. Every man
had a right, by penal measures, to protect himself against
the possibility of being made the object of daily attack.
What a situation would society be in if this right did not
exist ? Whatever might be thought of the form of law by
which that right wes enforced, it must strike every one
that if there were not a penal mode of proceeding against
libellers, patties, rather than submit to an attack upon their
characters by publications like these, would commit some
personal violence. The law under which they were
bound to proceed, was a statute brought in by Mr. Fox
in 1792, similar to one prepared by Mr. Burke twenty
years before. He conceived that Act to be a mere de.
claration of the old law, which had, however, certainly
been departed from in Courts of Justice. That statute
' took even a wider range than was assigned to it by Mr.
Kelly, for you are not oily to find the facts anti the ten-
dency of the publication, but that the party accused, is
personally liable for it—whether an individual has a d
last guil y
mind in. publication. The defendant who
ha ad-
' dressed them had very properly told them that they were
not to surrender their own judgment to the Judge, or any
other person whatever, and they had been told the Judges
were but too apt to act on the second clause of the Sta-
' totes. By that second clause, the presiding Judge or
Judges were authorised to give their opinion to the Jury
on the matters at issue between the King and the defen-
dants. Not from anything which had °courted to-day,
but front a long course of observation, he had thought it
much better that Judges should abstain from any opi-
nion at all upon the facts brought before the Court.
Their opinion was not binding on juries, and unless the
Jury entirely coincided in it, they were bound to find a
verdict according to their conscience—to put what con-
struction they pleased upon the libel, without regard to
the opinion of the Judge. It so happened that in the
only former case of the kind he bad yet tried, he had '
abstained from expressing any opinion, and should "
do so, not, as he said before, in consequence of
An opinion formed that day, but in consequence of
conclusions long since arrived at. They were
sworn to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the
whole issue. Time question was, what was the matter at
issue? and he would state what be conceived to be clear
law upon this point. The question was, whether the
matters complained of in the information were malicious
and defamatory. The word " false" was introduced in the
setting forth of the libel, but he did not think that the
Jury would therefore be justified in entering into an in-
quiry of whether every particuliar matter set forth
in the libel was false or true. There were
many truths, the publication of which might be libel-
low, and the question was, whether this publica-
tion bore upon the face of it, and deserved the character
of a malicious end scandalous libel. He should only call
the attention of the Jury to the language contained in the
publication, which was made the subject matter of the
present prosecution :--
" We have repeatedly stated to the public that Mr. Alder-
man Winchester has, in the exercise of his functions as assignee
of The Sun newspaper, been guilty of FRAUD and FALSEHOOD.
" Winchester and his solicitor afterwards admitted it to be a
FALSEHOOD. Upon that FALSEHOOD, however, alurdo Young
has traded in Chancery for twelve months. Yet even Murdo
Young, as appeared at the meeting on Saturday, has abandoned
his plea of having bought The Sun—and has, by doing so, joined
all the rest of the world, in giving the lie to his accomplices,
Winchester and Briggs.
" We cannot venture, at a moment like the present, when
political matters of such infinite importance engross public at.
tention, to enlarge farther upon this subject. We trust, how-
ever, that it will not be denied that the public is most deeply
interested In the investigation of a case so atrocious as this of
Mr. Alderman Winchester.
" As to Mr. Briggs, we decline saying anything more at pre.
sent. We understand that a motion will be made in a few days,
at the instance of some of the creditors, to have hint struck oft'
the rolls.
" An application for Mr. Winchester's removal from the as.
signeeship, is also about to be made.
" When the result of that application shall be known, it will
remain for the Honourable Court of Aldermen to pronounce an
opinion on the conduct of this Aspirant to the Mayoralty. We
trust, however, that they will, without welting for further rid-

Bence than was supplied at the meeting on Saturday, vindicate
the character of Civic dignitaries, and show their respect f r
public decency, by expelling Mr. Winchester from their body."
In the other publication the same language was repeated,
though not of the :same strength, but manifesting the
same intention ; and it was for the Jury to say heir
any one of themselves, having been so dealt with, and
treated in such a way, ion a trial .1 of the proceed
inns instituted under the authority of the Court, and 0,
which no question could be raised of truth or falsehood,
bet the mere question of scandalous, defamatory, and
malicicus libel, would feel if they were t be
told that the truth could not he permitted to he entered
into? The Jury would, therefore, be so good as to fo:m
an opinion of this matter, and Fay whether or not far
publication in question was scandalous, defamatory, earl
libellous against the characters of the prosecutors.
Two of the defendants, Mr. Grant and Mr. Bell,
had been proved to he the proprietors of the newspinet
in which this publication appeared ; and as such Writ
answerable to all purposes civil and criminal. With re
spect to the other defendant, the printer, observations hail
been made on his conduct in the transaction. He
certainly was liable in law, for if he chose to plat e
himself in the hands of another party, and deliberately
print and publish whatever that party thought fit to write,
though it might in this instance have been desirahe
not to have proceeded against bim, yet he was in the
first instance liable to answer for it. It might he a (pee-
tion under the particular circumstances of this case. whether
the prosecutors might think fit to bring him up to receive
judgment. The question substantially for the Jury to
determine was, whether or not the publication was a de-
famatory libel ; for whatever view Mr. Grant might take
of the facts of his own case (and that view was
not likely to be an impartial one) he was not
at liberty under his excited feelings, and possessing that
power over the press in his own hand, to make severe
attacks on the character of individuals. That would
be a power conferred on a printing establishment that
would be most alarming. The Jury would be kind
enough to form and pronounce a judgment on the charac-
ter and tendency of the publication, and say whether nr
not it was a malicious, defamatory, and scandalous pub-
lication by the three defendants.
The Jury, after consulting for a few moments, returned
an unanimous verdict of GUILTY AGAINST ALL
THE DEFENDANTS.

We have given above as correct and full a
report of the proceedings in this case as pos-
sible, suppressing nothirg ; but on Monday we
shall give a distinct contradiction to many parts
of Mr. P. GRANT'S calumnious and most
false assertions.