The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

In last Thursday's .1 lines we ni vie a few
,hservations upon the existing. libel law, as it
—lards the press, and on the offensive and per-
licions spirit of certain portions of the press
self, in connexion with proceedings which have
teen resorted to by Lord Durham, as th'
neans of obtaining satisfaction for slanders
mblishecl against his private character by a New-
astle journatr. Three things, we hone, were
Jwious to any pet44olT who read our remarks on
hat occasion,-1, our Othl conviction that the
tw of libel required amendment, because of the
inreasonableness of some of its provisions, the
-xtreme uncertainty of its operation, awl the
'-equent injustice of which it might thence be
,tade the instrument; 2, our vadiness to se,
knowledge that the section of the press alluded
to was an intolerable nuisance, and, if not to he
-Plf-corrected, must eventually be chastsed into
',irbearance (if nothing better), either by the
visitations of law or by those of personal vio-
ence on the part of individuals whom iis
nalignity hid wounded. But mow feelings on
":e subject would have been ill-expressed h
id
ye given room to he suspected of a desire,
on one side, to paralyse or debilitate the law of
libel, so as to impair, to any def-nsive or who
tome end, the protection due by society to the
oeace and reputation of its members, or of a
wish to contract, on the other hand, the fair

held of resolute and unsparing censure, no leis
upon such notorious wickedness or indecency
►n any man as would make him a flagrant and
dangerous example to public morals, than upon
uolitical misconduct in a public functionary,
whether of high or subordinate station, so
indefensible as to render him unworthy to enjoy
the confidence of his fellow subjects, or to
exercise anv office in the state. Our bias is

strongly against a frequent, or, indeed, any but
an unavoidable recourse to law for redress against
he dealers in calumny, and by that we mean
that it ought not to be resorted to where any
other peaceable method of self defence presents
the least hope of being successful. A solemn
denial of the facts alleged against a man of good
general reputation would, we believe, in the
Zreat majority of instances, prove an ample
vindication of his fame, and cover his accusers
with disgrace or ridicule. Everything—and
He speak now purely for the sake of the ag-
grieved party himself—everything ought to be
vied before the doubtful experiment of either
action or prosecution, which, if it failed, might
.4ive powerful effect to an otherwise feeble
calumny, and, when it prospered in the shape
of damages or penalties, might pass for an invi-
dious and oppressive species of revenge. It is
strictly true that the " liberty of the press" by
no means implies a privilege to circulate false-
hoods of any human being, or through mdlics
or unfeeling negligence to traduce and blacken
his reputation ; still further, we are far from
insisting that it is within the legitimate pro-
lince of the press to intrude upon the recesses
of private life, and drag forth infirmities or vices
.vhich might otherwise have been, from their
,bscurity, innoxious to all but those individuals
whose good name would suffer from the pub-
licity thus annexed to them. If cases of wan-
on malice should arise, where no regard is had

by an unprincipled journalist to the truth or
falsehood of any of his allegations, or to aught
but to the amount of pain and wrong which
hrough them he may cause to the party se-
ected for his victim—if, when one calumny has
teen refuted, a second, and a third, and an end-
ess series shall he risked, each lie ov,:rwrned
'eing but the preface to some more daring and
outrageous slander—ii, in short, systematic,
ienake, and inexorable villany, be apparent on
;le face of the whole procedure, and the 1 trgest
neasure of human patience in the sufferer be
.vermalehed by the ferocity of the ye UnpU-
listied aggressor,—why, we say, it becomes a
question, not of liberality, not of equity, not of
itimane or charitable feeling, but of downright
orudence and sagacity, whether the injured
citizen had better submit in silence, or how he
may best cru.h the scoundrel, and possess his
future life in peace, whether by law or by per-
.onal castigation, or by what form of either of
these dissimilar remedies. Extracted from the
Newcastle Chronicle, will he found some well-
writzen passages, which have doubtless been
suggested by the scandalous attacks on Lori
Durham and others, an] by their consequences.
The Tory faction are well sun vn up for their
one-sided sensibility to the rights of English-
men, and to the freedom of the press. All for
abstinence and magnanimity when Lord Durham
is assailed,—all fire and fury and mercilesss per-
secution when the libel law is appealed to on
behalf of Lord Lonsdale. The arrest of Mrs.
'lonic, a widow with five children, morally
guiltless, as everybody knew, of the libel of
which Lord Lonsdale's law advisers, on his
Lordship's behalf, complained, hut, as having
a share in the property of the Car/isle Journal,
found guilty formally, though recommended to
mercy in the most forcible and earnest terms by
the Jury—this poor woman, whom no one sup-
posed likely to be called up for judgment, in the
teeth of her counsel's opinion, was arrested by
a sheriff's officer under a description of writ
which is not bailable, and must lie in gaol until
the &h of January next. This is a specimen
of Tory forbearance—of the forbearance of that
faction which has raised such a yell against
Lord Durham, for his harshness against his
own real and incorrigible persecutor. With
regard to Lord Lonsdale, personally, we
acquit him of any blame belonging to the
above transaction. It is the work of his
agents. We have always heard him de-
scribed as a good-natured man, but liberalism is
a monster, and the reform press must, at all
events, be extinguished. God help the poor
fools who flatter themselves with such a result
As for the business relating to Lord Durham,
we repeat our concern that he should have
troubled himself with legal measures for the
vindication of a character which no man thinks
in danger from such assailants as those who
have waged war against him. We do not
attempt to question the justice of the prosecu-
tion, nor the solid provocation which was offered
by the same party against whom Lord Durham
violenceseerer
proceeds to those persons who have inflicted
summary vengeance upon him with their horse-
whips ; but that is not the point. Lord Dur-
ham could afford to abandon the prosecution;
in a dif-
ferent he will probably gain nothing from it
which he has not secured already, and the indi-
i‘,nidi
punishment,s,sto perhaps,il a‘tiewhraeovstreoertti
administered cnd toei
srtnieraednduiatl,a
form.— Times.
We copy from the Carlisle Journal a very
apposite coint
nent on the recent horror wh,ch
Lhe Tories have manifested for pro-ecutions for
libel. Lord Lonsdale, as is well known, pos-
sessed, during the Tory rule, absolute sway
throughout a great part of the north of Scot-

land. From Liverpool to the Solway Frith,
his recernmel•datiwp, were considered necessary
passports to all'Tpf)ointitnentsunder Government.
He was, perhaps,- the most influential of the
whole Tory oligarchy. We find this Tory Chief
prosecuting a provincial Journal for a libel upon
his character, in his capacity of Governor of the
St. Bees School Charity. The writer of the
libel was in error, but the error was a very ge-
neral one, and it afforded Lord Loma. ile In
opportunity of setting the public right, with
respect to his conduct in connection with the
St. Bees estate. There was here no invasion of
private life—no system of petty annoyance by
malevolent inuendos—nothing, in short, to
justify a display of vindictive feeling on the part of
his Lordship; yet we find, when,through the blun-
der of the prosecutor, Mr. Steel, one of the two
proprietors of the paper,t.he author of the libel(who
did not seek to take advantage of the technical
error), was acquitted, the other proprietor, Alr.
Jollie, a w idow with five children, was pro-
ceeded against. The Jury, after remaining out
three quarters of an hour, found (reluctanth
enough, no doubt) a verdict of guilty, but
" recommended her in the strongest terms to
mercy." And how has this recommendation
been received ? The effect of the recommenda-
tion on the Court remains to be seen ; perhaps
the Court may not, under the circumstances,
subject her to an hour's imprisonment ; but
Lord Lonsdale has determined, it would seem.
that she should be punished by anticipation ;
for, having two courses open to him—one to
obtain a Judge's warrant to secure the ap•
pearance of Mrs. Jollie on the Bth of Ja-
nuary next, to receive judgment ; the other
to arrest her on a writ, which admits of no
bail—he has chosen the latter course, and
on Wednesday last the Noble Earl actually
tore this mother from her children, and lodged
her in Carlisle gaol, where she must remain till
the Bth of January next. A son of the Noble
Earl, Lord Lowther, receives credit for a more
than usual sympathy with a certain class of
writers, who have liberally availed themselves of
the liberty of the press. Under such circum-
stances, one might have expected that Lord
Lowther would have used what influence he
possesses with his father to prevent this legal.
no doubt, but certainly most harsh exercise of
power towards a poor widow. But if Lord
Lowther deem it fair to take every advantage
which the law allows, surely our Conservative
Journalists, who express so much hatred against
prosecutions for libel, that they contend in their
own cases for the most perfect impunity,
will raise their voices against the proceedings
of the Earl of Lonsdale. It is one thing to
seek reparation for admitted wrong under
a bad law, and another to select the most op-
pressive course which can be adopted under that
law, in preference to the ordinary mode of pro-
ceeding. It was a remark of Mr. Sheridan, that
the most expensive of all things was a high
character, for so much was constantly expected
from the possessor. On this principle, the
liberal press no doubt demand from Lord
Durham that he should bear patiently all the
abuse that falsehood and malignity can invent
against him. But the Tory press will not surely
contend that Lord Lonsdale has nothing in the
way of character to lose, and that therefore he
may indulge without fear in such harsh practices
as we have described. We are, on the contrary,
prepared to hear them extol Lord Lonsdale as
dignified by. the possession of every virtue
under Heaven, and that therefore he ought not
to exhibit himself openly in the face of the
country as the persecutor of the widow and
fatherless. We close our remarks with the fol-
lowing communication from a correspondent on
the subject of the libel law :
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir—Your earr-est and acute contemporary, the
Examiner, has, upon the occasion of Lord Durham's
prosecution of the newspapers, suffered his feelings to mis-
lead his understanding. His understanding is, however.
so vigorous, that I do not at all despair of seeing it yet
regain the mastery, when the excitement of his feelings
bas a little abated.
He is misled by the analogy (or, to speak more pre-
cisely, being misled by his hatred of the libel law, he takes
refuge in the supposed analogy) of this case to that of a
prosecution for forgery. But the cases are, as regards the
present question, essentially different. A just and humane
man would rather endure in silence a great pecuniary in-
jury than invoke the assistance of a too severe law. But
why ? Because having once invoked it, he can neither stop
its course nor mitigate its severity ; having once pulled the
trigger, he can neither arrest nor moderate the flight of
the linnet. The objections to the law of libel, as admi-
nistered in rriu inal informations, are of a quite different
kind, though perhaps they are not less in degrees. They
may be all included in this general description—the law
of libel permits the prosecutor, if so disposed, to perpe
trate gross injustice; but it does not, as the law of forgery
does, take the matter out of the prosecutor's hands, and
perpetrate the injustice, whether he be willing or not.
The question, then, whether Lord Durham can properly
we the libel law to punish his calumniators, is only one
case of the general question whether a man can properly
use, for a purpose he thinks just (I do not say which is
just, an instrument which may be used for unjust pur-
poses? If this question be answered in the negative, the
Examiner trust never again take up his powerful pen, or at
least trust fling away the acrid and caustic liquor in which
he is wont to dip it.
But I will furnish him with a better analogy than the
one he has selected. Suppose an action is brought against
me for a debt of seven years' standing, and that I, having
paid it, have lost my vouchers. May I not plead the
Statute of Limitations, because another man may, by the
same means, defeat a just creditor who has been negligent
or indulgent in the assertion of his rights?
This analogy is complete, as regards the present ques-
tion. The cases, indeed, differ widely in another respect,
viz., in tespect that the Statute of Limitations is, upon
the whole, a good law, the law of libel a very bad one.
But this difference can have no effect upon the question
before us, unless, indeed, Lord Durham eculd have altered
the law of libel, which the Examiner seemed to think.
some weeks ago, he might have done as easily as file a
criminal information. The libel law must, indeed, be
altered, but after calm and mature deliberation, not in
baste nor upon the spur of a particular occasion.
I am, Sir, yours, DICIEUS.
Chester-street, Nov. 25, 1833.
--Morning Chronicle.

The sensation—we had almost said the com-
motion—which has been produced in Ireland
by Mr. Hill's charge of foul and deliberate trea-
chery against one of the " forty patriots" who
vehemently opposed the Irish Coercion and
Martial Law Bill, is equal to anything in the
way of an episode to the great plot of national
agitation which has occurred within our remem-
brance. It must he admitted that a baser in-
stance. of political dishonesty could not be alleged
against any public man than that of which the
delinquent Irish Member has been guilty, if
Mr. Hill have not been misinformed by the un-
known personage to whose authority he has
darkly alluded. At the anxiety of the thirty-
nine who are innocent of the offence, but are,
nevertheless, all liable to the suspicion, more
especially those among them who took an active
and prominent part against the Coercion
Bill--
at their anxiety, we say, to relieve them-
selves from the odious imputation we cannot be
astonished ; but, in our opinion, they have not
taken the right way to convince the world of
their innocence. Why declamatory speeches on
this subject ? Why long and elaborate epistles,
to public Journals ? Is the purity of a man 'N

character to be estimated in proportion to the
quantity of noise he makes in attempting his
own vindication ? Is the fact of innocence best
established by substituting the tropes and figures
of rhetoric for the onlyinformation in the nature
of evidence that it is possible to adduce ?
What is that evidence ? It is what Mr. Hill
himself offers—an explicit answer to any Mem-
ber who addresses a private letter to himself,
stating whether he is or is not the individual to
whom he referred on the occasion which has
given rise to so much excitement in the sister
Isle. This is a direct and straightforward de-
claration. It invites the Irish Members, who
are innocent, to avail themselves of the readiest
and, at the same time, the quietest mode of
exculpating themselves in the eyes of their con-
stituents and of the public. If the charge be
negatived upon Mr. Hills's own avowal as to
thirty-nine out of the forty who voted in the
minority on the Coercion Bill, and should the
fortieth either abstain from writing or conceal
the answer %stile') he shall have received, he will
become known as inevitably by this process of
logical induction, as if he had confessed the fact
—always supposing that the authority on which
Mr. Hill relies has not led him into error.
It has been said, that if any Irish Member
has committed the act of baseness attri-
buted to one of " the forty"—that is, if
any one who spoke against the Bill, and
voted against it, in every stage, told the
Ministers at the same time not to abate
m atom of it, because without the whole Bill
there would be no such thing as living in Ire-
land—if any Irish Member has been guilty of
.uch baseness, it has been said that his life
would be no longer safe in his own country.
It is highly probable, but as the case stands at
present, the lives of innocent men may be sa-
crificed who happen to fall under popular
suspicion ; and we know that even among the
more cool and reflecting people of England,
when the imputation of some heinous crime
strongly excites the public mind, suspicion is
often tantamount to proof. The names of three
or four of the more active opponents of the Bill
have already been invidiously mentioned, some
suspecting one and some another. We abstain
from mentioning the names in the absence of
proof as to any one, feeling, as we do, that in such
a country as Ireland the openly-suspected are
hardly better off than the real delinquent would he,
if known. It is certainly better for a man to be
an absentee than suspected in Ireland of whis-
pering coercion to the Minister while he shouts
for liberty in the ears of the people. We re-
gret that the secret did not remain locked up
where it was deposited, for although such dis-
honesty deserves exposure, we would not wish to
see even a guilty man placed in a situation
where he is likely to become, not an example of
considerate justice, but a victim of revenge. We
presume that Mr. Hill, in the heat of public
speaking, did not calculate on the consequences
of half revealing this dangerous secret, which
exposed so many individuals to the worst sus-
picion. Having done so, however, and, as we
suppose, without premeditation, he now offers
the best reparation in his power to those Irish
Members to whom suspicion unjustly attaches,
and we hope this will put an end to the furious
war of speeches and epistles which keep up ex-
citement and decide nothing.—Morn. Herald.
An utter blindness to ascertained results, is
manifest in the whole course of the foreign and
domestic policy of the Whigs ; but in no part
of it is it so conspicuous as in the system upon
which they endeavour to govern Ireland. With
regard to many of the real or fancied evils of
that unhappy country, much difference of opi•
nion exists; and, however strong our own con-
victions may be, we are very sensible of the
difficulties with which the subject is surrounded,
and very willing to concede the praise of honest.
intention to those to whom we are opposed. The
denial of seats in Parliament to Roman Catho•
lies, the payment of tithe by the Catholic
occupier rather than the Protestant landlord, the
defects in the Jury Laws, the non-existence of
a compulsory provision for the poor, each of
these things has seemed to many wise and good
men largely contributory to the distresses of
Ireland. In the discussion of all these questions
we ought to respect the motives of many,
by whose arguments we are not convinced ;
and we are always sorry, if, in controversy
upon such points, we are betrayed into
unnecessary personality, or unjustifiable bit-
terness. But, when we find lessons
slighted which are legible to all alike, and prin-
ciples defined in conduct which are disputed in
argument by none, we give to our indignation a
readier expression, and even to our resentment a
somewhat wider license. There is one man in
Ireland whom neither Whig nor Tory loves, or
esteems, or trusts. Gifted with powerful talents,
he has almost made us forget his talents in the
profligacy with which they have been exerted.
Possessing extensive influence, he has employed
that influence in fomenting the mischief which
it ought to have been used to allay. He has
been successively the rancorous enemy of every
Administration, the slanderous reviler of every
public man. He has made the King and Par-
liament by turns odious and contemptible ; he
has defied their authority and derided their indul-
gence. He has invented a legal resistance to the
law, and organized a system of anarchy. From
him the noonday assassin and the midnight in-
cendiary derive, if not their guilt, at least their
impurity. Professing patriotism, lie has made
patriotism a profit to himself; professing re-
ligion, he has made religion a curse to his
country. To receive praise from him is degra-
dation ; to covet support from him is guilt.
Strongly as we express ourselves, we write
only what all honest men know and feel. Upon
the principles and the purposes of the person
we describe there is no difference of opinion.
Censure is unvaried by one phrase of apology :
detestation is unanimous. Lord Grey condemns
with the Duke of Wellington, and Mr. Stanley
denounces with Sir Rcbert Peel. This man,
who, if he cannot be visited with judicial ven-
geance, ought at least to be distinguished with
moral reprobation, the Whigs have courted ever
since their accession to office, with a laborious
sycophancy which would have been despicable
even if it bad not failed. Promotion is offered
to his ambition and pay to his cupidity ; the
loyal are affronted at his bidding, and the guilty
are pardoned at his intercession ; Lord Grey
sues for his assistance, and Mr. Littleton invite,
him to his table. When we see the offers made
which have been rejected, the compliments paid
which have been mocked, the favours granted
which have been scorned—when we find Noble
Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen labouring to
persuade into virtue, or to conciliate into for-
bearance, one of whose tried depravity they
judge as we judge, and speak as we speak—we
despair of experience, and think that history has
been written in vain.—Morning Post.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A Mrs. Curtis applied to decide in a case of
rather a curious kind which she had occasion to
state against a benefit society. The stewards and
other officers appeared to resist the application.
The complainant said that her relation, Mr.
Curtis, had put an end to his existence by poison ;
but a day or two before his death he made a will,
in which he bequeathed his pecuniary claim upon a
benefit society, to which the next of kin would be
otherwise entitled, to her, and she had accordingly
made application to the proper officers, but there
was a hesitation to pay the demand.
The solicitor to the benefit society stated that the
claim was made under circumstances of so singular a
character that the officers very reasonably demurred.
The testator had in a fit of derangement, produced
by hard drinking, to which he had been extremely
addicted, swallowed oil of vitriol on the 14th day of
September, and died on the 18th of the same
month. In the interval between the day he took
the poison and that on which he died he made the
will, leaving the property to the complainant ; but a
Coroner's Inquest sat upon the body, and delivered a
verdict of " Insanity," which he (the solicitor) sub-
mitted rendered null and void the will.
The LORD MAYOR—On what day did the de-
ceased sign the will which thus bequeathed his
property ?
The solicitor replied that the will was dated the
16th, but a codicil had been affixed to it subse-
quently.
The LORD MAYOR The Coroner's Inquest
found that the man had died in consequence of
poison, which he had taken while in a state of in.
sanity ; but the man might have recovered between
the day he swallowed the draught and that on
which he died. I don't see how you can invalidate
the will.
The solicitor declared that tl►e society would not
for a moment think of disputing the validity of the
instrument if it did not appear to his Lordship that
there were undeniable grounds for questioning its
genuineness. The Coroner's Inquest, in his (the
solicitor's) opinion, threw doubt enough upon the
matter to justify his Lordship in refusing to issue an
order for the payment of the money.
Mrs. Curtis said that the will was made when
the testator was of as sound mind as he had ever
been at any former period of his life. Mir. Holmes,
the surgeon who had attended him, declared such
to be the case, and therefore the society had no right
to hesitate.
The LORD AlATOR—Suppose the will be set
aside, will you, if she as next of kin takes out letters
of administration, pay her the money ?
Mrs. Curtis begged to inform his Lordship that
she was an illegitimate child, and
The solicitor expressed a doubt of the legal cha-
racter of the testament at all.
His Lordship really could not see what right the
benefit society had to dispute the validity of the will
except they could prove that the deceased was in-
sane when he made it. The evidence of the surgeon
should determine him as to the course he should
pursue.

- Subsequently the solicitor waited upon the Lord
Mayor, and told him that he had seen Mr. Holmes,
who represented the condition of the mind of the
deceased to be such that the society resolved no
longer to resist the demand.
The complainant was then paid the amount
claimed.
Messrs. Gould, Wells, and Co., merchants, Sal-
ford, transmitted to the Lord Mayor a printed letter,
which had been addressed to them by a person who
called himself " W. King and Co., 25, Wellclose.
square, London." The correspondents of his Lord-
ship suspected that the letter was meant to entrap,
and therefore requested that for the benefit of the
commercial world the Chief Magistrate would give
directions to some of his officers to make the ne-
cessary inquiries.
Mr. Hobler informed his Lordship that copies of
the letter had been sent to several commercial
houses, and that no doubt it was the project of some
of the struggling pupils of the notorious Coster,
who had done an infinity of mischief by inspiring
people with a confidence in many of his numerous
firms.

The LORD MAYOR desired Daniel Forrester, the
officer, who is particularly skilful in laying traps for
swindlers of all descriptions, to call upon Messrs.
King and Co. with his Lordship's compliments.
Daniel Forrester yesterday reported to his Lord•
ship that he had called at the house in Wellelose•
square, with a bundle of bills in his hand, and aQked
for Mr. King. The servant girl said that Mr. King
received parcels and other things at the house, but
did not reside there. The officer told her that he
was most anxious to see the gentleman, as he had
just come from Reading, in Beikshire, with some
bills of consequence. The girl then said that King
was not the gentleman's real name, but Rutledge,
and that he and his wife and child called occasion-
ally. It was perfectly evident that the letter was
sent about to accomplish some swindling villany,
and, as some enclosures had been received, there
was no doubt of the occasional success of the hum-
bug. Forrester added that he had frequently gone
in search of Messrs. King and Co., which he sup-
posed comprehended the writer of the letter, and his
wife and child, but he could not meet with any of
the firm.
The LORD MAYOR said that probably more ser-
vice would be done to commercial men by an ex.
posure of the system than could be obtained by any
other course which would in such a case be adopted.
His Lordship, at the same time, expressed surprise
at the idea of being plundered by means of such
clumsy work.
MARLBORO U G H-STREET.
WHOLESALE ROBBERY.— George Lawrence, a
man about thirty years of age, was placed at the bar,
charged with stealing a writing-desk from a person
named Strickland, in Crown-court, St. James's,
also a ladder from one Jem Burns, and a plane from
:
a journeyman carpenter.
Mr. CHAMBERS committed him for stealing the
steps, arid also the desk.
MAR YLEB ONE.
THE PICKLE TRAVELLER AGAIN.— Thomas Ridge,
a man of vinegar aspect, was placed at the bar be-
fore Mr. Rawlinson, charged as follows
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Edward
Martin, pork-butcher and sausage-manufacturer,
No. 36, Great James-street, Lisson-grove, that about
ten o'clock on Saturday night the prisoner, who
appeared to have imbibed a more than sufficient
quantity of the doctor, alias gin, came up to the
stall-board of his shop, and, after asking the price of
some pork chops, desired to be furnished with a!
couple of pounds. Witness took them in doors for
the purpose of having them weighed, when the
Prisoner followed, but in going in at the door he
staggered, arid fell with his arm through a pane of
glass.
Refusing to make good the damage he had
done, be (witness) gave him in charge,
Mr. RAWLINSON (to the prisoner)—What are
you ? I've a confused notion that we've met
before. Prisoner—l'm a traveller in the pickle
line, your Lordship.

RAWLINSON—I think you travelled here last
Monday, for bilking a cabman of his fare ? Pri-
soner—Exactly so.
Mr. RAWLINsON—What have you to say to the
charge ? Prisoner—l deny it. I'm very fond of
pork chops, and seeing some very nice ones lying
on the outside board of the complainant's shop I
thought I'd treat myself to some; I accordingly
gave an order, when the complainant in taking them
in doors ran the dish in were placed
against
lapliN
anLeosto.gsl, disbelieving and i
broke
31r. tAv sbelieving his assertion, and
hinking that the tricks of the pickle traveller should
receive a check, ordered him to pay for the value of
the glass, and five shillings for being drunk, or find
bail. The man of " divers pickles" nut having the
" needful" at the moment chose the dernier resort,
and was conveyed to the lock-up.
WORKING OF TILE SPIRIT.—Sarah Stevens, s