The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-22 00:00:00

LONDON, sArrwz DAY EVENING, FE BRUA RY '22, 1834.

as Aide-de-Camp to the King, and return from India, be
Lord Hill.
Captain Hay, R.N., on promotion, by the Earl of Errol.
Mr. Home Purves, on his being appointed to the First Gre-
nadier Guards, by the Earl of Rosslyn.
Mr. W. Hughes Hughes, M.P., to present a copy of his
new edition, dedicated to the King, of " De Lolme, on the
Constitution of England."
Lieut.-Col. H. Bulteel Harris, Deputy Adjutant-Genera,
Nova Scotia, on his return from America, ald on receiving the
2d class of the Moyal Guelphic Order, by the Master-General
of the Ordnance.
Ensign Troubridge, on his appointment to the 13th Regi-
ment, by Sir Thomas Troubridge.
Lieut.-Col. Power, C.8.R.A., on receiving the 3d class of
the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order.
Capt. Sir John Franklin, on his return from the Mediterra-
nean, by Sir James Graham.
Capt. Hamilton, on his marriage, by hia father, Lieut.-
General Sir John Hamilton, Bart.

Commander Joseph C. Woolnough, R. N., on being ho.
floured with the 3d class of the Royal Hanoverian • Order of
Guelph, by Sir Herbert Taylor.
Capt. Hon. Henry Duncan, on being granted the precedence
of the son of an EarL

Mr. F. Alleyne M`Geachy, by General Frederick Maitland.
Major Joshua Smith, on promotion, by Captain Woolmore.
Lieut.-Colonel Commandant Robert Henry Clive, by Lord
Littleton.

Commander Fair, R.N., on receiving the 3d class of the,
Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order, by Lieut.-General Sir
Herbert Taylor, G. C.H.
Commander the Honourable Henry Keppel, on promotion,
by the Earl of Albemarle.

Mr. Bankhead, his Majesty's. Secretary of Legation to the
United States, by Lord Palmerston.
Lieutenant C. Curtis, on his return from foreign service, by
his Grace the Duke of Gordon.

Rev. Joseph Jackson, M.A., on his appointment as Chaplain
at the King's Palace, Kensington, by Lieut.-Gen. Sir P.A.
Wetherell, G. C. H.
Captain Blacklin, on his return from foreign service,*by his
Grace the Duke of Gordon.

Captain Charles Hotham, R.N., on promotion and return from
foreign service, by Lord Hotham.
The Rev. William John Hall, on his appointment as Priest in
Ordinary of his Majesty's Chapels Royal, by the Lord Bishop
of London.

The Rev. John V. Povah, on his appointment as Priest in
Ordinary at his Majesty's Chapels Royal, by the Lord Bishop
of London.

Sir Robert Kennedy, on being appointed a Military Knight
Commander of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order, by Gen.
Sir J. Champagne.

Major-General Sir Patoick Ross, on being appointed Military
Knight Commander of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order,
by his Grace the Duke of Wellington.
Mr. Hansler, on being appointed Deputy-Lieutenant for the
county of Essex, by Lord Melbourne.
Lieut. Col. Alexander Findlay, late Lieut.-Governor of
Sierra Leone, on his return from Africa, by the Right Hon.
E. G. Stanley.
Mr. George Boughton Kingdon, on his appointment as one
of the Gentlemen of his Majesty's Most Honourable Privy
Chamber, by the Earl of Belfast.
Major-General Sir Hugh Fraser, on his return from India,
and being appointed a Knight Commander of the Bath, by the
Right Hon. Charles Grant.

Goldie, on appointment to the 35th Regiment, by
Lord Hill.

Lieut.-Col. Todd, on promotion, by Lord Hill.

Mr. E. B. Grant, by Gen. Sir L. Grant.
Lieutenant and Adjutant Hill, by Col. Sir G. Teesdale.
Lieutenant-Colonel Power, C. 8., on receiving the 3d class
of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order.
Major Bayly, by Colonel Rice, C.B.

Lieutenant Abbott, by Colonel Fox.
Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholls, on promotion, br Sir J. Kempt.
Cornet Kenyon, by Lord Kenyon.
Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Hopkinson, C. 8., by Major-
General Sir P. Ross.

Captain Gambier, on promotion, by Colonel Bowater.
Captain Temple, on his return from Canada, by Lord Harris.
Captain Strong, on his appointment to his Majesty's ship
Belvidera, by Sir J. Graham.
Captain Henry Wilson, by Col. Sir G. Teesdale.

Captain G. W. D. O'Hara, on promotion, by Lieut.-Colonel
Wodehouse.

Gaptain Williams, by Sir A. Dickson.
[We are compelled to omit the company present, and many
of the presentations.]

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 21.

(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)

LIBEL.—♦LLPORT V. BALDWIN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff; Mr. Allport, a
highly respectable tanner, residing at Bewdley, against the de-
fendant, the editor of the " Standard" newspaper, for the inser-
tion of a letter, written by a person signing himselt " A Lover
of Truth," reflecting greatly upon the character of the plaintiff.
Mr. GODSON opened the pleadings, in the course of which he
stated that the libel imputed to the plaintiff want of credit and
respectability. To that libel the defendant had put in several
pleas—first the general issue, and then a justification.
Sir J. ScanLETT--The defendant has obtained an order with-
drawing his plea of justification; there is, therefore, no necessity
to open the pleadings on that point.
Mr. GODSON-The plea of justification is still existing on the
record.
Sir J. Scaaturr—The defendant has obtained an order for
striking out his plea of justification from the record, and if
that has not been done it is the neglect of the plaintiff.
Mr. PotLocx—We have had no notice of this ; the plea of
justification still forms part of the record, and it therefore
remains with the Court to say whether it is to be struck out
or not.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—As an order has been obtained
for the purpose of removing that plea, perhaps it will be the
better way to strike it out of the record.
Mr. Pouocir would bow to the decision of the Court. The
justification was now struck out, but he begged the Jury to
recollect that up to the present moment it did exist. The order
upon which the Court had directed its officer to erase that plea
was dated on the 17th of February, only four days ago, the
present cause only being on the paper yesterday. That plea
had therefore been withdrawn at the eleventh hour, after the
cause had been set down for hearing, when all the briefs had
been delivered, and when Counsel had made themselves mas-
ters of all the facts contained in those briefs. The effect of the
adoption of such a course on the part of the defendants was to
lead the plaintiff to the belief that he was to be held up as the
proper object of the calumnious remarks that had been put forth
by the defendants with respect to him. This was a great
grievance, and the withdrawing of the plea at the eleventh
hour was, in the opinion of the Learned Counsel, a con-
siderable aggravation of the original calumny, the object
of putting a justification on the record clearly being
to frighten the plaintiff out of Court and to prevent him from
prosecuting his action for fear of a painful and disagreeable
inquiry into his circumstances. That end, however, had hap-
pily been frustrated : the plaintiff, notwithstanding all that had
taken place, had proceeded with his action, and the Jury would
have to say what damages he was entitled to for the injury that
had been inflicted by the adoption of the course pursued by the
defendant in addition to the publication of the libel. He would
now state to the Court and Jury what the libel, of which the
plaintiff complained, was. Had not the plea of justification
been withdrawn he should have clearly shown them that the
whole of the statements in the libel were totally false, and have
called upon the Jury on that ground for commensurate da-
mages. Now, who were the parties to this suit ? The plaintiff
was a respectable tradesman residing in the town of Bewdley,
and the defendant was the Editor of the" Standard" newspaper,
who had inserted in his journal the letter of an anonymous
correspondent. He did not ask to fix this slanderous paragraph
upon the editor of the " Standard" newspaper, except so far as he
was responsible for publishing the communications of correspon-
dents, whose names he would not disclose. He had no doubt
at all that the paragraph was founded upon a communication
that was sent to the editor. He would not for one moment im.
pute to the editor of the " Standard," or any other newspaper,
the fabrication of a paragraph, of the description of the libel, for
the mere purpose of personal annoyance, slander, and libel He
had no doubt that the editor had received his communication
from some person who signed himself " A Lover of Truth,"
whose name he would not give up, doubtless on the ground
that a Jury would give much more severe damages against
an individual who resided in the same town where the plaintiff
resided, than against the editor of the " Standard" newspaper.
The " Lover of Truth" had, no doubt, indemnified the
editor of the " Standard" for any damages that might
be given against him, being convinced that a jury of
Englishmen would give more temperate damages against
the editor of a newspaper, who must be supposed
to have no personal feelings to induce him to give insertion to
a libel, than they would against a party who had some personal,
disgraceful, and hateful motive. In his address to another
jury in a libel case that day, he felt himself called upon to do jus-
tice to the manliness of the defendant, who had had the courage
to put his name to the letter he had written; and, in the same
proportion as he had borne witness to the manliness of the de-
fendant, he complained of the meanness and cowardice of a
person coming forward and, under the appellation of" A Lover
of Truth," publishing that which was calculated to injure the
credit and character of the plaintiff in the cause. The libel
in question arose out of a dinner that took place shortly after
the election in the latter end of 1832. Sir Thomas Winning-
ton was returned at that election as the Member for Bewdiey,
and the Reform Bill having taken away the elective franchise
from the Corporation of Bewdley,and given it to the inhabitants of
the town, they were determined to commemorate the event of

the first election by giving a dinner to the newly _elected Mem-
ber. A short paragraph of the proceedings at that dinner was
inserted in the " Worcester Herald," stating that everything
passed off' in the most cheerful and pleasant manner. In an
swer to that paragraph, the present libel was sent to the
" Standard" newspaper, by a person residing at Bewdley, who
did not choose to let so flattering a statement pass without
contradiction. The letter was as follows :—" A false report
having been circulated in the " Worcester Herald" paper, a
regards the Bewdley election, I beg the favoUr of your giving
publicity to the following statement, by inserting it in your
valuable paper. An attempt was made by a Mr. Crudgington
and Mr. Allport to get up a dinner in this town on Wednesday
last, to celebrate the return of Sir Thomas Edward Winning-
ton. Everything was done by them that could be done, but
it was a miserable failure." There would be no objection to
this if it had gone no further, as it was natural, if a Whig
dinner took place, and a disappointed Tory was not
a partaker of it, that he should proclaim it a "miserable
failure." But the letter went on—" The facts are these,"
—he (Mr. Pollock) begged the Jury to recollect that
this letter came from an inhabitant of Bewdley, who
signed himself " A Lover of Truth"—" the corpora-
tion of Bewdley are individually a most respectable set
of men, and, with the exception of one or two, are decidedly
opposed to the Reform Bill, but rather than a contest should
take place for the borough, would not oppose Sir Thomas's elec-
tion. I may also add, that independently of the corporation,
many of the respectable inhabitants of this place arc opposed to
reform." That might be so, but that was a subject about
which in this Court he should say nothing. This Court had
nothing on earth to do with politics, and he would not pollute
its walls by stating any opinion he might entertain upon the
subject. The letter went on to state—" Well, a dinner was
get up, and the chair taken by a Mr. Skry, a perfect igno-
ramus, and no voter." That was Mr. Skry's business.
" About eighty persons attended the dinner."—A most
respectable number, in his opinion, for he had seen din-
ners got up to celebrate much more important events
than the return of a candidate, at which a much smaller
number attended. The letter, however, went on to say, that
" that number was composed principally of the tenants of Sir
Thomas, and a number of gentry hunted up from all parts of
the country (and it is a hard case if a candidate cannot supply a
few friends), and a very few respectable inhabitants ; but it is a
fact that not half a dozen gentlemen of the town attended, and,
I by the bye, one that did attend, a pragmatical little upstart
M.P., was no elector, and had, a few weeks previous to the elec-
tion, denounced Sir Thomas as a most unfit representative for
this borough. For this I don't quarrel with him ; but mark
his consistency. It must not be forgotten, Ask that to obtain
what inhabitants did attend at the dinner, the most earnest en-
treaties were made, and a list handed round the town to obtain
signatures ; and this, Mr. Editor, is a dinner to celebrate the return
of a Whig Member." Now if t his had been all, Mr. Allport would
have had nothing to complain of; but the letter went on—" And
any body not connected with Bewdley reading the account of
this mock dinner, as given in the " Worcester Herald," would
fancy Mr. Crudgington and Mr..Allport to be the leading
characters of the town. Of the latter I have only to say, he
is one of those who have nothing to lose, of no note or respect-
ability." Now he would stop here merely for the purpose of
stating, that it was a common topic with those who opposed the
Reform Bill, that its advocates were persons who had nothing
to lose; in the present instance, however, the writer was very
much mistaken, for Mr. Allport if he lost his character and
credit would lose his all. Mr. Allport, as he had before stated,
was a respectable tradesman at Bewdley, and whether he occu-
pied a house of one value or another was quite immaterial, it
was, quite enough that he occupied a house that gave him
a right of voting, and the fact of his having assembled
with other gentlemen to meet the candidate whom they
had chosen, and who had been elected, had given rise to
those ill feelings under which the libel was put forth. What
right, he would ask, had any party, from the mere fact of Mr.
Allport having attended such a dinner, for party or private
purposes, to represent Mr. Allport as being a person of no note
or respectability, and having nothing to lose? But the writer,
not content with this, went on to sap—" By the bye, I have
heard he was likely to lose his lite, in consequence of a fight he
had with one of the constables of the night." Now, with re-
spect to that, he (Mr. Pollock) believed that statement was ut-
terly devoid of any foundation ; it was only thrown in as a cir-
cumstance to disparage and disgrace Mr. Allport. Then the
letter contained some observations on Mr. Crudgington—" Of
the former gentleman—for a gentleman he has always hitherto
been considered—quantum mutatus ab Ulm But when I say
he is a disappointed young man, perhaps I say enough."
Mr. Crudginton, in this instance, seemed to be introduced
more for the purpose of abusing Mr. Allport than for any
thing else. The letter went on—" He is, however, a man of
no weight or influence in the borough, though of a small yet
independent fortune. That he should have contracted so un_
natural an alliance as the society of Mr. Allport, and let him-
self down so low on the stage of society in which he before
moved, is in him the height of folly and infatuation. I would
just quote to him a few words from Virgil—Dryden will give
him a good English translation—

" Facilis descensus averni ;
" Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auras—
" Hic labor, hoc opus est."
" I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
" A LOVER OF TRUTH."
He (Mr. Pollock) would not insult the Jury by giving them a
translation of those words, neither would he refer them to
Dryden, feeling confident• they were too good Latinists to re-
quire it ; but this he would say, that the present, of all libels in
'•' " •

the world, was one of which an individual in the situation of
Mr Allport was most justified in complaining. Persons stand-
ing in a public situation of life might allow such calumnious
expressions to be used with impunity ; but a gentleman in Mr.
A.'s sphere could not afford it. The Duke of Wellington,when he
was in office, and Lurd Grey, now Premier, had allowed
such aspersions to pass by them without notice, but Mr. Allport
could not do so. He could not allow it to be said of him that he
was an individual who had no character to lose ; and that Mr.
Crudgington had disgraced himself by an unnatural alliance
with him. With respect to the various pleas that had been put
in by thedefendant, the first was the general issue, and the se-
cond that the plaintiff carried on a small and inconsiderable
trade as a tanner, and was in bad circumstances, and incapable
of paying his just debts, to wit, the sum of 1001. to a person
named Samuel Rawlings, and a like sum to the person named
Shaw. That statement was untrue; those two gentlemen
being in town for the purpose of denying it. In another place

he was stated as being aperson unworthy of credit.
Mr; Sergeant STOCKS observed that the fifth count described
the plaintiff as a disreputable person.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said damages could not be obtained
for anything of that kind; it only showed that the defendant
persisted in the libel up to a late period.
Mr. POLLOCK resumed—He thought this was precisely that

kind of libel which did injury to a private person. The impu-
tation was, that he was a disreputable and indigent person, of
no weight, of no note, and not respectable, and any gentleman
who associated with him would descend to a low state of so-
ciety, and such an association would be unnatural. Was a
tradesman in town, having the good or ill fortune to return a
Member, to be made the object of libel by a slanderer who
skulks behind a newspaper? ,Of all cases, such as this deserved
punishment. The Duke of Devonshire or Mr. Rotch could
bear any slight attack upon their credit, but no man who used
credit, and lived by it, could do so. Was a private enemy or a
political enemy, in the same town, to take occasion of a dinner
to slander a man, under the signature of " A Lover of Truth,"
in the " Standard" newspaper ? But, forgetting the raper al-
together, what would they not do to the slanderer, if he could
be brought to light ? The " Standard" was indemnified, having
refused to give up the author; and he was quite sure the Jury
would give such damages as the cause of justice to personal
character demanded.
The admission was read, but there was no copy of the
" Standard" produced. A copy of the " Morning Post," of
Dec. 19, 1832, which also contained the alleged libel, was put
in, and it was read from that paper.
Edward Church is attorney for the plaintif, who is a
tanner at Bewdley. Has no knowledge of the defendant ; but
on the 21st of December, 1832, went to the " Standard"
newspaper office and saw Mr. Baldwin, and afterwards Dr.
Gifford, and then both together. Mr. Baldwin said he left

the matter entirely in the hands of Dr, Giffbrd. Ap-
plied for the name of the Bewdley correspondent, and
was referred to Dr. Gifford, who said he believed the

oliginal letter Was destroyed, and, therefore, he did not think
he could give the name. Witness then told him that unless the

author was given up the paper would be prosecuted for libel.
He replied, " We shall not suffer you to shoot at us, we shall
give up the author unless he holds us harmless." Witness
said, " You mean an indemnity P" Dr. Gifford replied
" Yes." Witness told him he had much rather proceed
against the real author. The next morning Dr. Gifford said
he had not found the letter, and could not give the name. A
letter dated the 21st Dec., 1632, was sent by witness to the
" Standard" office, directed "To the Editor of the Standard'
newspaper ; to be opened by the gentleman in the Editor's room
should he be absent."

" Sir—As I am waiting in London this evening expressly to
obtain your answer as to whether you will give up the name and
address of the person who wrote the letter in your paper of the
18th instant, signed A Loves of Truth,' have the goodness to
say, per bearer, if you have looked after the letter ; and I shall
be obliged if you will let me have the name and address of the
writer, as I am not authorised to stay proceedings against you,
unless that information is supplied betore I leave London. If it
be refused the bearer, I shall consider it a positive refusal on
your part to supply the information, and proceed accordingly.
(Signed) " E. CHURCH."
Witness received no answer to that letter, as Dr. Gifford
wished to have time allowed to consult his legal adviser, and to
write to the country. On the 27th of December, he received
a letter from Dr. Gifford, of which the following is a copy :
Sir,--I find nothing from my Bewdley correspondent this
morning among my letters; I call, however, the better under-
stand this, because I believe he is now in London, and very
near us."
Witness waited on Dr. Gifford after this, and he told wit-
ness he might do just whit lw pleased,