The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-11 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.

THE DUKE OF YORK'S AFFAIRS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR sat in Westminster at half-
past one o'clock.
Sir EDWARD SucnEN reminded his Lordship that this
was the day on which Mr. Farquharson was to be com-
mitted to the Fleet Prison, for contempt in the reports he
had made to the Times newspaper respecting the Duke of
York's affairs. Mr. Farquharson had made an affidavit,
in which he expressed himself determined not to disclose
the name of the party from whom he had received his in-
formation. In that affidavit he stated that it was not
from Mr. Amory, Mr. A'Reckett, or any other
professional gentlemen, but an intimate acquaintance
of his own, and who he hed now learnt was not
a member of the Committee of the Duke's creditors,
as ho had formerly supposed, and stated he was. The
learned Counsel contended that he was entitled now to
have the order of committal, as his clients were not at
all satisfied with any thing further that the reporter had

stated.
Mr. WIORAIK was about to follow on the same side, but
his Lon:ship refused to hear more than one on a side.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the issuing of the
order to council. Mr. Farquharson had given all the ex-
planation in his power, and if he were even now to name
the person from whom be received his information, it
would be impossible for the Court to commit that indivi-
dual. Ile hoped the Court would not be misled by any
misrepresentations, but would, at any rate, take further
time to look into the whole of the proceedings, the autho-
rities, and to consider them before it proceeded to commit.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that his judgment com-
mitted this day unless he made a satisfactory disclosure had
already been pronounced that the reporter should be com-
mitted this day unless he made a satisfactory disclosure ; and
it was only in mercy to him that the time had been
given from the pronouncing of that judgment to the pre-
sent hour, to have made the disclosure in, because, not-
withstanding the party who might have communicated the
circumstances to him might be more guilty than him, and
the Court might lay hold of him and release the Reporter,
yet still, in the eye of the law, the Reporter was guilty, a,
the party who had sent forth the publication to the world.
Mr. BETHELL submitted that he had a right to be heard
with the Attorney-General in arrest of judgment, accord-
ing to his Lordship's permission, Mr. Farquharson, as it
were, having been now called up for judgment.
The Loan CHANCELLOR avid be would hear the
Learned Counsel.
Mr. BETHELL then contended that the Court ought not
to commit—that the thumb-screws were not now to be
used for the purpose of extorting information from the re•
porter which, upon principle, he could not give, and when,
in point of fact, the reporter was not the party offending.
Ihe LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no applying
of the thumb-screws in the present case, the proceeding
was in penam—a punishment for what had been done, in
order to deter others from so doing.
Mr. Brrimr, argued that the reporter sold the infor-
mation he communicated to the editor of the newspaper—
that it was left to the editor to publish it or not, and to