The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-01 00:00:00

y.
‘.

sworn a falsehood, b,'cause they stated that they ha
offered 10,000/. before they offered 11,000/. ; that sum was
to be paid by a deposit of 3,000/. down, 3,0001. in 14 days,
,nd the rest by their acceptances within s.x months, or a
hurter period if required. Now it is a most singular
•lung, that Mr. Thornton j dns these gentlemen in
imputing to Mr. Winchester and to Mr. Brigg.,
he cause of the non-acceptance of their bills; whereas
\lr. Thornton himself was the person who prevented
either bills being taken at long dates, or a sum of 10,000/.
being taken as a discount for cash. My Lords,
Mr. Briggs states " that at the meeting in the count-
ing-house of the said Mr. Thornton, which was held
in Birchin-lane, the said Mr. Young insisted on his right
of pre-ernp•ion, as to such purchase, according to the
proviso conta;md in his partnership deed." I beg your
Lordships' particular attention to this, for it is not denied,
and that he therefore offered a like sum of
11,000/. for such share and interest, and en the said
Samuel Lomax offering to advance an additional sum
of 1,000/. for the purchase thereof, the said Mr. Young
and the said Samuel Lomax, continued to bid several large
additional sums for the said share and interest, until the
sum finally offered by Lomax amounted to 13,000/., by
which time, Mr. Ramon), solicitor of Mr. Young, had
arrived, and immediately protested against what bad been
done in his absence, and insisted upon the said Mr. Young
withdrawing from such meeting, having first offered to
execute the said agreement, which had been prepared and
approved of by him. Now the affi lavits on the other side
stated that a long transaction took place, that Briggs came
into the room and said Mr. Young would give 500/. more;
that might be true, but they go through all the details of
that which appears to me to t e totally unnecessary ; they
do not, however, deny that Bartrum came, and
that Mr. Young offered the sum of nine thousand
pounds ; they do not deny th,t Mr. Bartrum imme-
diately came and protested against Mr. Young's being
treated in this way, that he admitted that he was bound to
give a reasonable price for the paper, but that he sliculd
rive no more ; and that he should advise him to file a bill
in equity to compel the assignees specifically to per-
form the agreement ; they stated that Mr. Young
had tiled a bill in equity, but they do not say that Mr.
Briggs advised him, as his solicitor, to go no farther, and
they do not deny that it was under Mr. Bartrum's dvice
that he so acted. Well. my Lords, what happened ?
Why, Mr. Young not going further, the as-
signees made a contract with Bell and Lomax, not
a final one, but subject to their right to do so, Mr-
Young having threatened to file a bill in equity. Now,
my Lords, Mr. Briggs was obliged to go to York.
Mr. Briggs said he should be absent for a week, but that
of course the contract would be sent by his clerk. I hope
your Lordships have looked at the contract, and that you
have remarked the observations which Mr. Briggs makes
on the contract. \Vhe❑ he came to town, my Lords, he
found this contract, and he was going with the most
perfect bona fide intention to have it executed, but objec-
tions occured to him, which he stated not in a spirit of un-
f►irnese.

Mr. CAMPBELL—These objections were never commu-
nicated to the other side.

Sir J. SCARLETT—h does not appearon the affidavit—
Mr. CAMPBELL—The objections were shown only to
Mr. Briggs's clerk, but to none else.

Sir J. SCARLETT—My affidavit does not state that they
were communicated to the other side, but I shall show
your Lordshii.s sufficient reason why they were not com-
municated to the other side. There were legal objections,
the existence of which rendered tire execution 01 that con-
tract impossible. " There are several objections," as Mr.
Briggs states in his affidavit, '6 to the form of this agree-
ment—first, the assignees can only agree to sell the share
and interest of the bankrupt of and in the newspaper ;
2oly, they cannot receive hills of exchange for the pur-
chase without the sanction of the creditors; 3rly, they
cannot give the actual possession of the property, it being
in Mr. Young, the resident partner, and so declared in
the partnership-deed ; and lastly, the assignees must not
agree to assign until the bills are paid." We cannot do
it; we cannot do as Mr. Grant's friends want us to do,
in consequence of the position which Mr. Young holds
under the terms of the partnership deed : and was that
not right, my Lards ? Was it not the duty of Mr. Briggs
to act as he had done ? What happened then, my Lords?
Why, Mr. Briggs was served wish notice of a bill in
equity, filed by Mr. Young, in order to insist on his rights
under the partnership de,d. N.,tv they say, on the other
side, by their affidavits, that Mr. Young filed his bill
or, the ground of the contract that -bad been made;
*hut this, my Lords, is most absurd on the face
of it, because the contract, my Lords, as admitted
on both sides, never was signed. The minutes had un-
doubtedly been prepared by Mr. Briggs on a stamp, but
the agreement had not been signed by the assignees or any
patty. It was natural enough, indeed, for Mr. Young to
say he was willing to give a certain sum, but the founda-
tion of his bill in Chancery was his own undoubted right
of pre-emption, contained in the deed of partnership. He
set forth his right to have the matter determined by arbi-
tration, and applied to the Court for a reference to the
Master, in order to ascertain a just and fair price. Mr.
Briggs says, that such being the case, and having made
inquiries into the respectability of Messrs. Lomax and
Bell, he advised the assignees net to sign the agreement,
and to make no sale until the right of pre-emption was de-
termined. He also explained the nature of his objec-
tions to the agreement, and assured them of the great
difficulty and litigation that would be occasioned if
they entered into it, because they would be unable to
to carry it into effect. Thereupon he advised them to
convene the creditors, in order to make known all that had
transpired, and accordingly a meeting was held on April
t 3, 1831. Now, my Lords, was there anything blameable
in this ? Could any man say that Mr. Briggs had done
anything but what his strict duty had imposed upon him?
Because, independently of the objections which he had
urged, he told the assignees, you cannot bind yourselves
while the bill in equity is not disposed of? Was
that a sufficient ground for charging a gentleman with
fraud arid swindling ? It would surely be a most unheard
of privileged claim of the editor of a newspaper ! We
come now, my Lords, to the following resolution, which
was passed at the meeting of creditors to which I have
just referred :
" We, the undersigned creditors of the estate and effects
of the said bankrupt, and who have roved our debts under
the said commission, and being the major part in value
who have so proved our debts under the said commission,
having taken into consideration the resolution entered into
by us on the 25th day of February last, and of all the cir-
cumstances attendant upon the negotiation for sale of the
share and interest of the said bankrupt to Mr. Murdo
Young, and of the bill in Chancery subsequently tiled by
him against the said assignees touching the same, and a
Mr. Hickman having offered to give 13,0001. for the bank-
rupt's share and interest in The Sun newspaper, to be
paid down ; it was resolved that the assignees be em-
powered and required to treat with the said Mr. Hickman
upon that basis. " (Signed)

" MARTIN FURNISS JOHN PETERKIN.
" THOS. MARSH. W.M. NEWMAN.
" ROBERT Locarr. T. A. HILL.
" HOPPE AND SON.
And in the event of the said treaty not being brought to a
conclusion, then that the said assignees be empowered to
accept the proposal as to Mr. Young, annexed hereto.
" (Signed) " (Dissent)
" MARTIN FURNISS. ROBERT LOGAN.
" T. A. HILL. JOHN PETERKIN.
JNO. STEAK. THOS. MARSH."

Mr. Young had made a further proposal to pay down at
once into the hands of the assignees 5,0001. for the pur-
pose of immediate distribution, the accounts were to be in-
aestigatedassigneesaln)yd ttie'ooatchceorunotfani‘tisr,. oyneououng, tohre
tbheehiralforoofpirtehe;
and any excess or difference in favour of the estate was to
be paid at once to the assignees for the purpose of a fur-
ther dividend. Mr. Young was also to withdraw
his proceedings in Chancery and pay the costs al-
ready incurred, and indemnify the assignees against
;ill proceedings at law or in equity. Mr. Briggs
-iays that several interviews took place between the
said Mr. Hickman and himself and the assignees,
with the intention of prevailing upon Mr. Young to wave
his claim of pre-emption, and to allow Mr. Hickman to
become the purchaser of the shares, but Mr. Hickman
said that he only intended to became the purchaser of a
small part of such shares on his own account, and the re-
mainder on account of other persons whom he would not
name. I call upon your Lordships to mark that expres-
sion, and that the right claimed by Mr. Young under the
deed of copartnership to be editor and manager of the news-
paper should be relinquished, which the assignees could
not induce Mr. Young to do. Mr. Hickman, however,
refused to purchase, and sent the following letter to Mr.
Thornton :

" London, April 27, 1831.
41 sm—Finding so much trouble is likely to arise in the
completion of a purchase of two-thirds of the Sun news-
paper, I feel indisposed to proceed further, and take the
earliest moment of informing you that I decline contract-
ing for it.
" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" WILLIAM HICKNIAN.

" To - Thornton, Esq., Birchin-lane."
Sow here let us pause a moment ; one cause of the thun-
der on the other side is, that we did not accept Mr. Hitk-
man's proposal, while he was ready to pay down 13,0001.
Mr. Hickman makes no affidavit, and there is no denial of

,

.he facts and letters here stated ; but that offer had obvi-
ou sly been conditional—it was not absolute. One of the
conditions was, that Mr. Young should relinquish the
,ditorship and management of the paper, which the as-
signees could not persuade him to give up. Anoth' r im-
portant fact is, that a small part only of the shares was
on his (Mr. Hickman's) own account, and " the remainder
on account of other persons whom he would not name."
Mr. Briggs, in consequence of Mr. Hickman's declining
to purchase, again applied to Mr. Young, when he ex-
pressed his willingness to folloiv up his proposal made at a
former meeting of the creditors, to purchase the shares at
11,0001., and to pay down 5,0001. for the purpose of
immediate distribution. Mr. Winchester was willing to
accede to this, hut Mr. Thornton ajected. And here I
cannot help speaking of the conduct which Mr. Thornton
has pursued. Mr. Thornton seems to me to have been
playing a game in the bankruptcy himself, and the affi-
davit he has made confirms the in that conjecture. And
if the law would allow me, if I should advise the estate,
I should say that Mr. Thornton ought to bear much of the
costs which have been incurred. , Mr. Briggs, on the 6th
May, received the following letter, having communicated
the circumstances to the creditors who bad applied to him
to know the reason of the delay that had taken place in
the completion of the purchase. The letter is from the
solicitor of a Mr. Hill, who is a principal creditor.
" Lincoln's Inn-fields, May 6, 1831,
_ .

. .
DEAR. Ste—Mr. Hickman having, as I understand,
declined completing the negotiation enterer' into between
the assignees of the bankrupt and himself for the purchase
of the bankrupt's share and interest in the Sun newspa-
per, and my client being extremely anxious that some-
thing should be done in order to enable the assignees to
declare a dividend with as little delay as possible, 1 brg to
forward you for your consideration on behalf of the assig-
nees the accompanying suggestions of some of the bank-
rupt's creditors. I shou'd esteem it a favour if you would
make me acquainted with the decision of the assignee-4 to
soon as they shall have form d their determination, in or-
der that I may in some measure relieve the anxiety of my
client, who with many other creditors of the bankrupt, I
believe, is naturally desirous to avoid the solicitude and
t xpense occasioned by the delay of protracted proceedings.
" I remain, dear Sir, yours truly,

" WALTER JERRY.

" To T. Briggs, Esq. "
Your Lordships now see that up to this time no impu-
tation was cast on Mr. Briggs, and there was the fol-
lowing resolu'ion, passed by the undersigned creditors,
with the amount of debts proved by each.
" To Messrs. Henry Sykes Thornton and Henry 'Win-
chester, Assignees of Patrick Grant, a bankrupt,
" We, the undersigned creditors of Patrick Grant, pre-
sent at the meeting of creditors held on the 23d of April
inst., pursuant to notice for that purpose advertised i❑ the
London Gazette, having been informed that Mr. Wi liam
Hickman has declined contracting for the purchase of the
bankrupt's shares, interest, and property in The Sun
newspaper, do hereby authorize and request you to accept
the offer made by Mr. Murdo Young, and to sell and con-
vey all the shares, interest, and property of the said bank-
rupt, or of you, his assignees, therein to birn, for the sum
of 11,0001., he paying a deposit of 5,0001., and agreeing
to refer his demand on the said newspaper to a reference,
pursuant to the resolutions passed at the said meeting
Dated this 30th day of April, 1831.

NAMES OF CREDITORS.
Amount of debts proved
by them.
T. S. Hill £1,131 5 0
Divie, Robertson, and Son ass 19 0
James Turner lOO 10 0
Martin Furniss
Thomas Bar ram
Trevv
John Sharp
Jos. Saunders 4B 7 S
Win. and T. Nicholls
W. Toomes 65 '2 6
Mr. Briggs presented this request of these creditors, being
a majority in number and value, independently of the
assignees, to Mr. Thornton, to sell the shares to Mr.
Young. But he objected, and insisted on having a suit
instituted in the name of the assignees, for the purpose
of having a sale under the authority of the Court of
Chancery, and in the meantime for the appointment of a
manager in the room of Mr. Young, which, when Mr.
Briggs obj,cted to as unnecessary, Mr. Thornton
threatened to do, by filing a bill in his own name, and
the following letter was received from Mr. Thornton's
solietor :
"DEAR hive seen Mr. Thornton, who is very
anxious that a cross-bill should be filed, and an application
made to the Court before the holydays, which can only be
effected by the bill being filed to-day, that he has in-
structed us to proceed with a Bill separately on his behalf,
fearing that it will be impossible that a joint bill could be
adopted in time. I regret that a joint application could
not be made. I am, your most obedient servant,

" Freeman's-court, May 11, 1831. FRED. LOCK.
"T. Briggs, Esq."
To which Mr. Briggs returned the following answer,
" Sta,—Re-Grant. I cannot but feel surprised at the
communication this instant made to me on the part of
Mr. Thornton, and must protest, on the part of Mr. Win-
chester, against any such separate proceeding. The bill
I herewith send has been drawn by counsel, with more
than usual despatch, and I was engaged in reading it over
when your note reached me.
"I now send it to you fur the same purpose, and shall
be prepared to file it as soon as it can be engrossed.
" I am, Dear Sir, your most obedient servant,
" F. K. Lock, Esq. T. BRIGGS.
" May 11, 1831, half-past two."
Here, then, the creditors had actually desired the as-
aigßees to conclude the contract with Mr. Young, if Mr.
Hickman did not persevere in his bargain. And in the
meantime a motion was made to the Lord Chancellor to
appoint a fit person to manage the newspaper in place of
Mr. Young, in which Mr. Briggs hid acted entirely under
the direction of Mr. Thornton and his solicitor, Mr.
Lock, who perused and approved all the pleadings, sup-
plied the necessary affidavits to be made in support of the
motion, and had the nomination and approval of some
of the counsel who were engaged in the same ; but after
an argument which occupied the whole day, his
Lordship was pleased to dismiss the said motion.
Now is Mr. Briggs to blame in this ? Why, Mr. Thorn-
ton's indiscretion, or ignorance, or good nature, call it
what you please, has involved this estate in an inextricable
labyrinth of litigation and expense. In April an opportu-
nity was offered for selling the shares for 11,000/. to Mr.
Young, deducting, of course, what was found justly due to
him. Mr. Thornton takes on himself to reject the offer,
and files a cross-bill in Chancery—an absurd, a pre-
posterous bill ! But what did Mr. Thornton do?
He thought, of cour,e, the best way would be to
procure the concurrence of the creditors to his Bill, and
accordingly, in the month of December, 1831, there
was a meeting called, of which the following is the mi-
nute :—" We, the undersigned creditors of the estate and
effects of the bankrupt, and who have proved our debts
under the commission, and being the major part in value,
of one-third in value." Air. Campbell calls it the major
part in value—it happened not to be so—
" We, the undersigned creditors of the estate and effects
of the said bankrupt, and who have proved our debts
under the said commission, and being the major part in
in value, of one-third in value, who have so proved
our debts under the said commission, having taken into
our consideration the resolution passed by us at the respec-
tive meetings of the 25th day of February and the 23d day
of April last, and the state of the proceedings in the suit
in equity therein mentioned, instituted by one hlurd.
Young against the assignees of the said bankrupt's estate
and effects relative to the share and interest of the said
bankrupt in The Sun newspaper, and also the proceed-
ings in a suit instituted by the said assignees against the
said Alurdo Young, in relation to the said newspaper, do
resolve that the defence of the said assignees to the said
first-mentioned suit was properly made by the said as-
signees, for the benefit of the said bankrupt's estate,
pursuant to our former resolution to that effect. And
further, that it was necessary and expedient that the
second-mentioned suit should have been commenced by
the said assignees against the said Alurdo Young, and
that the same should be prosecuted for the benefit of the
creditors seeking relief under this Commission."
Now it may be said that the creditors had approved of
this proceeding ; for Mr. Tlaor n ton' s(nri
egsbea,irki ethhl
teloen ardti.Anegiphrgrt.il
deprive
edf
opthuhrineemg):
claimeded
ndpst ojo;nt:i unt thtasevtr aitnshseiyt
of
sal
,tnho expedienteuafir
tl
file
eaanother
oh
tti
partnership
ld
of the management of which under the deed he could not
be deprived? Yet, my Lords, that was the course which
they adopted ; thus the newspaper would have been de-
prived of that credit which is necessary to its successful
management, and which
;c_ionuivrtelti,ehsbaeuvittei misteeewsnalisn theathy
eolifieprea:tcaqtiiunmi
recent
eeedc thatebnyt
writingthe ffe
cot on
ofa certain
„spi daep.e r
being
cannote
r tellt h
ew
surveillance
liagnhete hot;
tttihree;CshmaudratnhaogefaeCdrdhia)oynfet;:aY.tnewspaper being actually put under
the superintendenee,of, the Lord Chancellor. At all events,
the Lord Chancellor: refused to take
,it upon him, and
dismissed the motion. Mr. Briggs goes on to state dila
having submitted a case to Counsel for his opinion as to
the rights and interests of the said bankrupt under his mar-
riage settlement, he, deponent did, with the sanction
of the said assignees of the said bankrupt, convene a
meeting of the creditors by advertisement in the London
Gazette, to be held on the 7th day of April last, for the

i

,~~

purpose of taking into consideration the life interest of the
said bankrupt under that settlement, and to authorise the
said assignees to file a bill in equity against the trustees of
that settlement to secure the funds therei.i mentioned,
and to ascertain the share and interest of the said btok-
rnpt under the same ; at which meeting the said bankrupt
attended and charged the said Aiderman Winchester and
Mr. Briggs with having. fraudulently attempted to sell
the said share and interest in the said Newspaper to the
s iid Murdo Young with a corrupt motive, and much
noise and tumult arose in consequence of such accusation ;
and it was suggested by some of the creditors present,
that it would be adviseahle to our to sell the same life
interest under the settlement of the said bankrupt at a
valuation ; but at let glt the following resolution was ,
entered into by the creditors then present, viz.
" At the Court of Commissioners of Bankrupt, Basing-
hall-street, London, 7th April, 1832.

. -
'' Be it remembered, that pursu tnt to notice in the
London Gazette of the 16 th March last, for the credi-
tors who have proved their debts under a commission of
'bankrupt awarded and issued forth against Pattick Grant,
late of The Sun Office, Strand, newsvender, dealer, and
chapman, were requested to meet the assignees of the
said bankrupt's estate and effects, on this day, at this place,
for the purpose of taking into consideration the life inte-
rest of the bankrupt under the settlement made upon his
marriage, and to authorize the assignees to file a bill in
equity against the trustees of that settlement, to secure
the funds therein mentioned, and to ascertain the share
and interest of the said bankrupt under the same. We,
the undersigned creditors of the estate and effects of the
said bankrupt, and who have proved our debts under the
said commission, having taken into consideration the life
interest of the said bankrupt under the settlement made
upon his marriage, and the steps that have been taken by
the assignees to secure such life interest for the benefit of
the creditors seeking relief under the said commission,
do, acting under the resolution passed at certain meetings
held on the 15th December and 27th December, 1831,
decline taking into consideration the question of the bank-
rupt's marriage settlement, and do therefore adjourn this
meeting sine die, not, however, wishing to charge the as-
signees with any lathes i❑ consequence of such adjourn-
ment."

This is the resolution which had been passed after the
period when Mr. Grant had established the True Sun,
and commenced these libels. Now Mr. Briggs states
that this resolution was passed, not at a meting of
creditors advertised in the London Gazrtte, or any other
paper, but was called by the bankrupt himself privately,
no assignee being present, and only signed by five credi•
tors, whose debts proved amounted only to what was due
to Alderman Winchester.

Mr. CAMPBELL—The resolution was passed at a meet•
ing in 1.) eember.

Sir JAMES SCARLEIT-Mr. Briggs says in his affida-
vit that the meeting was called together by the bankrupt,
who communicated the intention of meeting by letters in
the most insulting language, but that meeting being held
wishout the assent of the assignees, Mr. Briggs did not
feel justified in attending it.
" The signatures of the creditors who purport to have
signed the said resolutions are not the majority in number,
and much less the majority in value of the creditors who
have so proved their debts under the said commission, and
deponent has been informed, and believes, that some of
the signatures of the said creditors were obtained to the
said resolutions after said meeting had been held, and
who were not present at such meeting, and in particular
the signature of a Mr. Hilt, whose d.bt in amount is
nearly equal to all the other creditors who purport to
have signed the same."
On the 6th of November last, Mr, Alderman Winchester
was persuaded by Mr. Briggs to sign the bankrupt's cer-
tificate, when the following, I must say insulting, letter
was received by Mr. Briggs from Mr. Grant :
" 25, Parliament-street, Dec. 14,
Wednesday Evening.

" Sic,---A private meeting of my creditors called by one
of the number, is to be held to-morrow at twelve o'clock,
at the ' George and Vulture,' St. 'Michael's-alley, Cornhill.
" I have b en requ,sted to furnish to the meeting my
explanations of some of the occurrences under the com-
mission. As these explanations may involve an impeach-
ment of your conduct, I think it fair to apprise you of
the fact. If you shall feel disposed to confront me there,
I take it for granted that the meeting will he glad to hear
your statements.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.
" T. Briggs, Esq. P. GRANT "
You see, then, my Lords, in what situation these gentle-
men stood. Mr. Grant calls together a number of private
gentlemen, whom he himself selected, for the purpose of
casting a stigma on those who conducted his affairs.—
Now, Mr. Briggs says that meeting was not attended by
the major part in number, much less the majority in
amount of those who had proved their debts, and in parti-
cular the signature of sir. Hill, a principal creditor, was
subsequently obtained. The other side, indeed, do not
deny that other creditors signed it afterwards, they
went to private houses—they represented a strong
case, and it was thus that they got these signatures.
" The bankrupt represented that if he had his certificate
granted to him, his friends would then come forward and
citable him to make some proposal to the assignees for the
purchase of the said share and interest in the said news-
paper, and deponent said), that the said Alderman Win-
chester, acting under such advice, did sign the certificate
of the said bankrupt accordingly, and deponent has been
informed, by the said Murdo Young, and which he be-
lieves to be true, that some proposals in writing were made
by the said bankrupt to the said Murdo Young, but which
the said Murcia Young declined."
The fact is not denied by Mr. Grant that after he had
got his certificate he had made a proposal to Mr. Young.
Mr. Briggs rays—and this, my Lords, is the statement
which all these affidavits are intended to belie—that " he
hod not any knowledge of, or ever saw, the said Murdo
Young until after the said commission of bankruptcy is-
sued against the said Patrick Grant, that be has not now
or ever had any sort of intimacy or friendship with him,
sad that he never had any collusion with him to defeat the
interests of the said creditors, but, on the contrary thereof,
this deponent on Isis oath with, that from the issuing of
the said commission to the present time his utmost exer-
tion, advice, and abilities having been solely directed to
increase the value of the share and interest of the said
bankrupt of and in the said Sun newspaper, that it might
sell fur the largest possible price for the benefit of the said
bankrupt's estate, and to enable thereby the said Alder-
man Winchester, and the other creditors, to get paid their
debts, and that he was solely actuated in advising the said
assignees to conclude with the proposal of the: said Murdo
Young to purchase the same, from a firm belief that the
same was the only real and bona
_fide offer to purchase, and
that the several offers made by the other persons before
stated were not so, but only intended to mislead and im-
pose on the said assignees.
" Saith that he, this deponent, bath never betrayed the
interests of said creditors, but, on the contrary, done his
utmost to uphold and protect the same to the utmost of
his ability ; and lastly, upon his oath eaith, that he is
not directly or indirectly interested in any manner what-
ever, in the share of the said P. Grant in the said news-
paper being sold to the said Murdo Young, but that be
advised the sale to the said Murdo Young as above stated,
because he believed it to be to the benefit of the estates
and would put an end to litigation if he became such pur-
chaser thereof.

‘ Sea afterwards
w eodi
ni di t not at anyuhg t said
statement
h
o newspaper,
be
tal
a false-
hood
l ege n
t h o
t
d h s
t Athe h
1 rut r daa otr dhY g hand y e
s
wum
; and that he bath not at any time in the course of
these proceedings been guilty of a deliberate falsehood,
saidand that he never did submit .any falsehood or false state-
ment to Counsel touching these proceedings.
" Deponent Henry Winchester said), that he bath read
over all that part of this affidavit, in which the other
deponent,Tl,omas Briggs, mentions acts dune by or in the
presence of him this deponent, and that the same and
every part thereof is true in substance and in fact, and
that he bath not at any time, in the exercise of his func-
tions as assignee of The Sun newspaper, been guilty Of
fraud or falsehood ; that he bath not at any time, or in
any way, betrayed the interests of the creditors of the
said P. Grant ; that he bath never in any instance, or on
any occasion, endeavoured to defraud the said creditors,
or to enable the said Murdo Young to secure The Sun
on his own terms ; and that he hath not at any time in
the course of these proceedings asserted any falsehood
whatever in reference thereto ; that he hath in all respecter
as far as his judgment and ability allowed, discharged his
duty as assignee to the estate of the said P. Grant, from
the issuing of this commission to the present time, with-
out favour or affection to any one, and with the sole vied
of promoting the general interests of the creditors under
the same; that he never colluded with the said Murd°
Young to de'eat the interests of the said creditors'
but, on the contrary thereof, used his utmost exer-
tions to promote the same ; that he has no 04
of intimacy or connexion with the said Murdo
Young in business or otherwise; and that since the
contracting of the said debt of 12281. lO with this
deponent he has not had any dealings or transaction°
whatever with the proprit tors of the said Sun NewspaPer",
or the said Murdo Young, individully, save and except
that he has purchased of this deponent and his said
partner, stationery goods to a trifling amount; that 1.1 e:
deponent, is not interested therein, or expects to be Or
terested therein, directly or indirectly, in any waggle

whatsoever, and that .he has not aided or assisted the said
Mord() Young to secure the purchase of the said •hare in
the said Sun newspaper, with a view to defraud his con-
stituents, meaning the other creditors, or with any corrup
view or motive whatever, and that he hath sanctioned th•
sale of the said newspaper to the slid Murdo Young, only
because he believes it to be most for the advantage of
the creditors at large, and without any view whatever tr•
nny private interest, and without any personal motiv,
wh itever.

" Deponents Henry Winchester and Thomas Briggs
say, that the docket was struck, and the commission sued
out against the slid P. Grant, without any collusion with
the said Murdo Young, and without his knowledge, so
far as there deponents or either of them, know or believe,
and that there was no understanding of any sort or kind
between them in reference to the said commission, or to
the sale of the bankrupt's share in the paper, and that the
tole reason of the said Alderman Winchester's refusal to
sign the certificate (as th's deponent Thomas Briggs be-
lieves, and as this deponent Henry Winchester saith) was
the unsatisfactory conduct of the said bankrupt, in respect
of the transactions aforesaid."

I ask then, with these written documents before us, whe-
ther any lawyer would not have taken the precise course
which Mr. Winchester and Mr. Briggs have adopted, yet
for that course they have been attacked, their characters
traduced, their motives impugned, repeated from week to
week in newsp ipers and pamphlets, and when they
come into Court, they arc met in the statements they
make on oath, by a heap and tissue of conjectures,
speakin,t only as to information and belief as to some
rigmarole conversations. They only state generally that.
Hickman was ready to give 13,0001., but he nev(r said
he would make aay purchase unless he had exclusive pos-
session. If Mr. Grant wished that the assignees should use
their influence to turn Mr. Young out of possession, and that
he himself by corusive purchase should obtain exclusive pos-
session, he would have acted prudently for himself,no doubt;
but the assignees could not, from the terms of the p at-
nership-deed, force Mr. Young out of possession.—
Where is the ground for charting Mr. Winchester and
Mr. Briggs with fraud, with swindling, or with any si-
nister motives? They could have no earthly motive in
acting as they did, but the conviction that they were act-
ing justly and beneficial}, to the estate. Yet attacks are
made, and imputations cast, upon the honour, integrity,
and character of these men, because they had not agreed
to what they could not, either in law or in fact, agree to.
A word about Mr. Grant's certificate. Mr. Grant seems
not to have been aware that his coadjutors had, in fact, on
this point, made counter-affidavits. Mr. Winchester says
that he had no other reason for not signing his certificate
bnt that he had not been satisfied with his conduct ; but
that he signed it because he understood, from the repre-
sentations of the bankrupt, that his friends would be in-
duced to come forward, and offer some effectual security
for the purchase of the shares. Mr. Grant makes this
case, that he had other creditors to sign his certificate ;
but Mr. Bell and Mr. Lomax state that Mr. Winchester
had been induced to withhold his signature, in order to
prevent him from getting security. I stab d to your
Lordship, that I would read Mr. Westley's affidavit ; we
have it in his own hand-writing, and what does he say?
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK CRANWELL WESTLEY, OF NO.
165, STRAND, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, SWORN.

SA That having, in or about February, 1831, been
informed that three-fourth parts or shares of and in The Sun
newspaper, types, printing-presses, machinery, and other
articles belonging thereto, were about to be soli by the
assignees of Mr. Patrick Grant, he, deponent, at the sug-
gestion of one Joh❑ Bell, made a propositio❑ in writing to
Mr. Henry Briggs, the solicitor under the commission
against the said Mr. Graat, in the words and figures and
to the purport and effect set forth by the said Thomas
Briggs in the affidavit sworn by him on the loth of
April last.
" Saith, that in consequence of such offer, and of
another offer made by one Murdo Young, he, the depo-
nent, attended a meeting of the creditors of the said
Patrick Grant, which had been convened by the assignees,
at which meeting certain resolutions were passed by such
creditors, authorizing the said assignees to treat with depo-
nent and the said Murdo Young upon the business of the
proposals made by them.
" Saith, That shortly after and in consequence of such
meeting and the resolution then passed, he, deponent, had
an interview with the said Thomas Briggs, when the said
Thomas Briggs informed deponent that there were certain
claims of the said MurdoYoung against the said newspaper,
and also certain liabilities to which the said three-fourth
parts or shares were subject, amounting to between 3 and
4,000/. ; and therefore he the said Thomas Briggs must
decline treating with deponent upon the basis of his
offer, and then stated that if he, deponent, wanted the said
shares, he must be prepared to pay down a sum sufficient
to cover such claims and liabilities. And deponent most
positively denies the allegation of the said Thomas Briggs, as
stated in his said affidavit, that he, the said Thomas Briggs,
repeatedly applied to and urged deponent to carry into
effect the proposal so made by him on the 24th February,
1831,as aforesaid ; on the contrary, be was perfectly ready
and willing to effect the same, but the said Thomas Briggs,
for the reasons before set out, most positively refused to
accede to it.
" Saith, that doubting the correctness of such claims
and liabilities aforesaid, deponent felt anxious to ascertain
the truth of the same, and with that view at his said be-
fore-mentioned interview with the said Thomas Briggs, he
requested the said Thomas Briggs to furnish him with
the particulars thereof, at the same time professing his,
deponent's, willingness to incur all the responsibility which
said three-fourth parts or shares were actually subject to,
but the said Thomas Briggs declined furnishing such
particulars, but mentioned in the course of conversation
that Messrs. Crompton, of Manchester, had claims against
the said newspaper to a large amount, and deponent was
referred by the said Thomas Briggs for information to the
said Messrs. Crompton and to the sail Murdo Young, al-
though the said Murdo Young was then actually in treaty
for the purchase of the said three-fourth parts, or shares;
and it was his, the said Murdo Young's, interest to mag-
nify such liabilities.

" Saith, that at such interview as before mentioned
With the said Thomas Briggs, he, the said Thomas Briggs
desired deponent to send in further proposals if he wished
to purchase the said three-fourth parts or shares, stipu-
lating to pay down the sum of 4,0001., and he appointed
a certain time for deponent to send in the same. a
" Saitb, that not being immediately prepared with a large
sum of money as required by the said Thomas Briggs, he,
deponent, did not send in such proposals by the time ap-
pointed; and the said Thomas Briggs then sent such letter
as is set forth in his said affidavit, dated the Bth March,
1831 ; but deponent positively declares that such letter
had no reference to the proposal ,be had previously made
in writing, and which had been submitted to the creditors
of the said Patrick Grant, but to the said further pro-
Primal so required by the said Thomas Briggs as last
rnentioned.

" Saith, that in consequence of such letter
him,he waited
neon the said Thomas Briggs, and informedthe said
Thomas Briggs, that the reasonnntbeimhmadedlilaottely sentprepsaurcehd
proposals, was because
with the money requiredhebywtahsesaid Thomass, Briggs to be
paid down ; that he had applied to his, deponent's father,
who is a man of considerable property, for his a.. but had not received his answer, and therefore required fur-
ther time. And deponent also informed the said Thomas
Briggs, and as the fact was, that the said Patrick Grant
and other persons were to be interested in his said pur-
chase; and that the deponent had expected that the said
Patrick Grant, and such other parties should have found
part of the money so to be paid :
down,but depo-
nent which
they were not, however, prepared with•
positivrly denies that he stated that be t
.no'aa
only acting for and on behalf of the said Patrick Gran ,
.n.
the contrary he, deponent, always informed the said
"elfhThomas Briggs, and as the fact was, that he, deponent, was
imsinterested in the purchase of the said shares.
Sahli, that at such last mentioned interview with the
said Thos. Briggs) he also informed the said Thos. Briggs
that a letter would be also to him by deponent, or one
of his friends, in the course of that or the following day,
and such !eau. was accordingly written on the following
day by the friend he alluded to, viz. John Bell, who wrote
euch letter as is set forth in the said affidavit of the said
Thomas Briggs ; but deponent positively states that the
letter written by Thomas Kinnear, under date the 9th
March, 1831
f was such letter as he, deponent, was not
then, and is not now acquainted with the said Thomas
Kinnear, and deponent did not know that the said Thomas
Kinnear bad vvritten any such letter as is tut forth in the
said affidavit of the said Thomas Briggs, until lie, deponent,
read the same in such affidavit, although the siiil Thomas
Briggs has implied that connivance of de such letter was written with the
ponent.
" Said], that the said Thomas Briggs having insisted
Upon deponent's immediately complying with the terms
stipulated by him of Paying 4,000/. down, and deponent's
t said father having refosed to advance so large a sum, de-
ponent and the said Patrick Grant and such other intended
able immediately as stipulated by
Purchasers not being
44id Thomas Briggs to raise the gaid money, deponent was
upable to comply with the same, and be at length with
‘4 from further treaty, feeling convinced, however, a,
dervkstill is, that said Thomas Briggs had required suet.
-44, to be paid down, thinking it would defeat de
r°nen' Saith, that the proposal in writing ade by hponent.im, de-
t, was made in good faith, and with m a
view to be car.
''etl into effect, and not to secure delay for the mid Patrick

;rant, and that had not said Thomas Briggs refu•ed to
ntertain the same, and wl.ich he was Authorised to de
y said creditors at the s i l meetinz of the 25th February.
531, he, deponent, would have been reit !y and
0 have completed the 83M,"
Such is Mr. Westl-y's affidavit, hut it does not vary do
••ase at all as stated by Mr. Briggs, nor does it justify
toy part of those infamous libels now complained of.
Mr. Kinnear begins by stating, that he proceeded on his
own account; that he was a young man, and that he
canted to invest his property ; and one-half of the state-
tient of Mr. Kinnear's affidavit goes to that, and he dare
not deny the substance of Mr. Brigg's affidavit in the
;lightest degree. Thee be admits that he had a conversa
,;bn with Mr. Grant, and that Mr. Grant was to have
had a share, but that share was not defined. It might
have been 3-4ths or 5-6ths, or 7-Sths—it might have
:wen anything—and it is quite elerr that he went there at
the instigation of Mr. Grant. Now, it is very important
that he does not deny that the letter he wrote was without
the knowledge of Bell or of Grant. All he says is, that it
was not, according to his belief, with the knowledge of
Mr. Grant. That is to say, Bell might have told him to
write it, and Bell might have told Grant of it, but that he
Slid not know that Bell did tell Grant. He says he had no
knowledge of the fact that Grant or Westley did know of
it, but yet that Grant was to have part in the
speculation. Now, all the rest of the affidavit
resolves itself into this—to give a detailed statement of
what took place in March, at Mr.. Thornton's chambers.
They break that into parts—they say that when first they
came to Mr. Thornton's, Mr. Briggs said, " Oh, you are
too late—the thing is sold to Mr. Young," It is very
possible that in the course t.f conversation stone such ob-
servation might have been made in the first instance, but
was it fair in them to leave out what took pl ice in that way,
when the fact is, that they were called in to bid against
Mr. Young, and that they did actually bi l against him
until the sum offered was raised considerably ? Is it a
falsehood, then, that he was guilty of, when he expressed
some surprise on seeing persons there whom he did not cx •
pect to see, and who were afterwards let in to make what-
ever offer they thought right?

Mr. KELLY—NO, ILg your pardon ; they insisted on
going to Mr. Thornton.

Sir J. SCARLETT—WeII, suppose they did—suppose Mr.
Briggs had said at the moment he siw them that they
were too late, that he went to Mr. Thornton, and then
came back and said the thing was open for them—is it
right to charge us upon that with a deliberate falsehood?
Mr. Briggs in his affidavit states in substance what they
themselves state. He states the proposal male by the
one party, and the proposal made by the other, and they
don't deny his statement ; therefore I say, my Lords, there
is no substantial contradiction—still less a title in these
persons to go and state publicly that my clients were
guilty of falsehood. It might just as well be said, that if
any gentleman had come here and said that there was a
motion made to show cause against a rule, as I was told
only yesterday by my Learned Friend Mr. Bayley, which
had been disposed of in your absence, and I afterwards
went and spoke to the clerk, and was informed by him
that it had not been disposed of, because he knew I was
in it, and therefore did not draw up the order—it
might just as well be said that that was a deliberate
falsehood on the part of Mr. Btyley. Then, my Lords,
with respect to Mr. Montagu's opinion—if Mr. Alontagu's
opinion had been supposed by Mr. Briggs to have been
of the least importance, he would have had too much
pleasure in putting it on the files of this Court to have
withheld it. It was stated that the sale had been made
to Mr. Young. Now, if you state one-half of a propo-
sition and leave out the other half, you may state that
which is true, omitting to state that which is not true.
Suppose they had stated there was a contract agreed to
to sell to Mr. Young, why these mioht be just grounds
enough to swear by. Now, I cannot offer to your
Lordships that case, though it has been commented on.
I believe Mr. Briggs will not be ashamed, however, of
having that case made public ; and as to the opinion, ac-
cording to my view, it is a very sound one. All that Mr.
Briggs was endeavouring to show was the folly of going
into Court upon a fruitless% litigation—end that in going
to Mr. Young, and negotiating with hint, they were
doing that which was most likely to benefit the
estate. Mr. Lords, I am unwilling to go into a more mi-
nute detail. I have stated the facts which my Learned
Friend, Mr. Campbell, studiously kept hack; and have
endeavoured to put Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Win-
chester's conduct in a clear and proper light. They
have denied all improper motive—the other side don't
swear to any ; they have denied all interest—the other side
don't impute any. They don't swear to Mr. Briggs and Mr.
Winchester's making a point of having a part of this News-
paper. They say the time may come when tigers and
lambs may come together, but I do not think the time
will ever come when either of these gentlemen will join
either the one or the ether of these two Newspapers. I
don't think they will ever either join Mr. Grant or Mr.
Young, from the opinions which they have exhibited in
their Papers to the public. Is it not hard, then, that
from an eager anxiety to accomplish some particular
end, people should come here and swear to a belief of
things which they have no right to allege ? Mr. Briggs
has solemnly denied on his oath, which is what
the Court requires, that he either knew Mr. Young be-
fore this transaction,—than lie had any interest, or that
he contemplated any interest, beyond the interests of the
creditors, or was actuated by any personal motive what-
ever; Mr. Alderman Winchester does the same, except
that he says he had the slightest knowledge of Mr. Young
before. Well, then, is it possible that you will
permit these gentlemen to he libelled as they have been,
from the supposition that they had some interested mo-
tives, and because the persons making these affidavits
merely say that they cannot account for the conduct of
my clients in any other way? If they cannot account
for their conduct in any other way, it is owing to their
own ignorance of the case—it it owing to the darkness
of their understandingsnot permitting them to perceive that
which is as clear as the day, that an honest solicitor under
commissionNßlrr.i
gcgoAsu
Id]
ti
edrnnoointa
ntandi
occasion.sienca assignees
Anitclo,
La
scoitrrdt.
st,huei :or
Briggs
my
atohpainni
on,
have done their duty, and Mr. Thornton has been the
main cause, by his good-nature, or by his friendship for
Mr. Grant, of thus hazarding the safety of the estate,
and, as it appears, of preventing it from making any
dividend, even to this day. I do not accuse Mr.
Thornton of any thing wrong. It has been a mistake—
those gentlemen have been desirona of getting hold of this
paper—having failed in that object, they have set up
another for the express purpose of destroying it; and
they first begin by libelling these gentlemen, adopting that
course, I suppose, as the best mode of beginning a new
paper and of getting it brought into circulation. 1 do
hope, therefore, that your Lordships will think this a
justifiable case for calling for the protection of this Court
to gentlemen who came forward doing their duty to a
body of creditors, and doing exactly that duty which 1
will venture to say, if any of your Lordships had
not been advanced to your present dignity, had been asked
what ought to have been done, you would have advised
to have been done. Notwithstanding all that they have
done, they have been held up to the public us swindlers
—liars—and the one as unfit for an attorney, and the
other an Alderman of the city of London deserving only
to be driven from all civic honours. My Lords, the libels
are of a most flagrant nature, and I trust your Lordships
will think that the conduct of these gentlemen, from be-
ginning to end, has been such as in no way to justify them.
Mr. FOLLETT—My Lords, I am on the same side
with Sir James Scarlett, and I believe both the alit
davits, and all the facts are now so fully before your
Lordships, that I need trouble you very shortly ; I
shall merely call the attention of your Lordships to the
nature of the libels, to the way in which they have been
circulated, and to the mode in which the gentlemen have
endeavoured to get rid of those libels. The main charge,
my Lords, in the libels is, that Mr. Alderman Win-
chester, and Mr. Briggs, colluding with Mr. Young,
for some purpose of their own, stied out this corn •
mission against Mr. Grant ; that for some swin-
dling purpose—that is their own language—that for
some swindling purpose, either to put money into their
pockets or into the pocket of Mr. Young, in connexion
with Mr. Young, they sued out the commission : that is
the first and main charge. The words of the libel are—
" the whole scheme of the commission which Mr. Win-
chester sued out against Mr. Grant was a swindle, and the
same spirit which led to the suing out of the commission,
marred Mr. Grant's attempts to repurchase his property."
Then a little lower down he goes on to say, if it was the
pleasure of the creditors to permit a trio of swindlers to
stand between them and their property, the fault certainly
was not his. If they chose to allow Mr. Winchester and
Mr. Briggs to cheat them out of their interest in The
Sun, Mr. Grant, surely, was not, in consequence, bonnd
to forego his interest in that property. Now that was the
'barge contained in the newspaper and also in the libel.
Loan Came' JUSTICE—In the pamphlet, you mean.
Mr. FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord, in the pamphlet and also
in the newspaper. The parties against whom this in-
formation is sought to be filed, do not in any part of their
affidavits from beginning to end attempt to say they be-
lieve the commission was sued out by Mr. Young.
LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE—By Mr. Alderman Winchester.
Mr. FOLLEET—By Mr. Young, my Lord, in conjunc
tion with Mr. Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winchester.
except that Mr. Grant has the hart ilood to swear in
this way. Grant himself states, af.er admitting, that

'rom 1829 to 1830, he was absent in France for
he purpose of avoiding his creditors, • that he pro-
iosed that a deed of assignment should be made to
its creditors, which they refused ; then, that in th.
nonth of October, 1830, he came home, and was informed
-hat a docket had been struck against him. Then in
dates that, after he had been so informed, Mr. Young toot
bin] to see Mr. Briggs ; and he states this Thai
`laving consented to accompany the said M. Young he.
leponent, discovered that said M. Young and T. 13rigg•
were not only known to each other, but apparently on
very friendly terms; and deponent has since been inrormed
nd verily believes that said M. Young and T. Briggs
rere for some time previously often in consultation to.
(ether, and, as deponent has been informed and verily be-
lies', s, arranging a commission against him." Now that
s the only part in all these affidavits which applies to
,oat charge in the libel. Then Mr. Briggs states in his
ffidavit that he had no knowleLe of Mr. Young, that he
ad no desire to serve him, that he never saw Mr. Young
ill after the issuing of the commission; that he has not
,low, nor ever had any sort of friendship for him, nor any
desire that he should have the paper; but that, on the con
trary, after the issuing of the commission he acted for the
interests of the creditors to the utmost of his power.
Then Mr. Alderman Winchester, the assignee, and Mr.
lidega, the solicitor tinier the commisssion, state,—
" That the docket was struck and the commission sued
out against the said P. Grant, without any collusion with
the said Murdo Young, and without his kowledge, so far
49 these deponents or either of them know or believe ;
and that there W:151 no understanding of any sort or kind
between them in reference to the slid commission, or to
the sale of the bankrupt's share in the paper ; and that
the sole reason of the said Alderman Winchester's refusal
to sign the certificate (as this deponent Thomas Briggs
believes, and as this deponent Henry Winchester saith),
was the unsatisfactory conduct of the said bankrupt."
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that this charge, put
forth day after day in a newspaper, of these gentlemen
having, with Mr. Young, entered into a swindling
,greement to sue out a commission against Mr. Giant,
the bankrupt, they do not attempt to substantiate; and
that that charge is totally denied. Well, now with
respect to the other part of the charge which my Learned
Friend Mr. Campbell has gone into. Mr. Campbell,
several times in the course of his address to your Lord-
ships, spoke of the scheme and the plot which Mr.
Briggs, Mr. Alderman Winchester, and Mr. Young were
concocting together, but he did not state what that
scheme or plot was, nor could it be collected from his ob•
eel vations. I thought my Learned Friend meant, and I
presume he did mean, that the scheme and plot was to sue
out this commission ; but then that is totally denied by us,
and not stated in the affidavits by the other side. Well,
then, the scheme or plot was, that the commission bad been
sued outfor a swindling purpose—what that swindling pur-
po•e was we do not know—probably it was to prevent the
selling of this paper to any other person. Now your
Lordships will see by the affidavits that the impression
on the minds of Mr. Alderman Winchester, and Mr.
Briggs was this—that the persons who were offering to
purchase this paper were young men put forward on the
part of Grant, and that they were not fit to carry into
effect the propositions they were making ; that they were,
in truth, persona put forward by the bankrupt, in order
that the bankrupt might himself become the purchaser on
such terms as they might be able to induce the assignees
to permit him to become the purchaser upon. They say
the first proposition of Hickman was to let him into pos-
sessiom of the paper, on paying the amount to be agreed
upon. Now, there is no such statement in the affidavits.
There is no statement of any such proposal, except the one
of 10,0001. which Thornton himself refused ; all the other
propositions that were made were propositions which at no
time could be considered substantial or banafide propositions.
My Lord, there is not throughout the whole of these
affidavits, from beginning to end, a denial that the whole
of the offers were made on behalf of the bankrupt, he being
in truth the party putting those persons forward ostensibly
al the purchasers, but that he himself might continue to
he the proprietor of the paper ; on the contrary, they
admit that Grant was the person who was seeking to
make the purchase. Well, now, if that be so, and even
if Mr. Young, who was the person who had the right,
by the copartnership deed, of pre-emption—if he was
the person who always offered, as he did, to pay
down the money, and to give the sum which had been
offered by the others, how can it be said that Mr. Briggs
and Mr. Alderman Winchester, for some swindling
purpose, refused to let the others have the paper, preferr-
ing Mr. Young to any other person who had come for-
ward ? My Lords, there is only the other charge made
by my Learned Friend Mr. Kelly, of Mr. Alderman Win-
chester refusing to sign the bankrupt's certificate. Now, I
am not aware that that would have been libellous, if it
had been so ; but 'Mr. Alderman Winchester states, that
lie refused to sign it, because lie disapproved of the bank-
rupt's conduct; anti this, my Lords, is in the affidavit.
After he had signed it, Mr. Grant expressed his gratitude
to him for having signed it—said he was exceedingly
obliged to him, and Mr. Grant never denies that to
this hour. He says, indeed, that he used civil
language; but he does not deny the fact as we state it.
But, my Lords, the main charge in these libels, that Mr.
Briggs and Mr. Alderman Winchester, in collusion with
Mr. Young, were swindling Grant out of this property, is
never set up by these affidavits; nor is there any thing
in them to show, after the commission was sued out, every
thing was not d .ne with perfect bona fides. I do sub.
mit, therefore, to the Court, that there is not the slightest
ground for refusing to make this rule absolute. My
Lords, the case is long—we were obliged to go
into it—in doing so, much time has been oc-
cupied, for the affidavits are long ; and now that
they are before you, 1 think your Lordships will be dis-
posed to say it is a case entirely stripped of all ground on
the other side ; that there was nothing at all to justify,
nor even to account for these libels, except the disappoint.
ment of Mr. Grant ; that he was not able to go on with
the same Paper, but obliged to set up another, and
not now with the speedy chance which perhaps he might
have had of a sale of his share in the other.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said,—We are of
opinion that we must make this rule absolute. The
substance of these libels is to charge Mr. Alder-
man Winchester, who, I suppose, was one of the
petitioning creditors—to a certainty was one of the
assignees under the commission—and Mr. Briggs, who was
the solicitor to that commission, with having sued out and
conducted that commission for the fraudulent purpose of
cheating Mr. Grant, or at least cheating his creditors.
From the affidavits on the one side and on the other,
there does not appear to us to he any reasonable foun-
dation for such an imputation on either of these gentlemen.
If they doubted, and they honestly might have doubted,
from the facts disclosed to us by the affidavits, the real abi-
lities of the persons who made the offers to carry their offers
into effect, they did right nut to carry them into effect. if
the offers were made, as some of them undoubtedly
were, with a view, and on the supposition, that
the persons making those offers were to have the
conduct of the newspaper, and that Mr. Young, who,
by the terms of the partnership deed was to have the
conduct of the paper, was to be ousted out of it, an offer
made with that view was such as they could not accept,
because they could not carry it into effect. Yet there are
terms of the grossest imputation cast upon both of these
gentlemen—the term swindling, and so on, being applied
to both. "As to Mr. Briggs we decline saying any thing
more at present. We understand that a motion will be
made in a few days, at the instance of some of the
creditors, to have him struck off the rolls." Now
we cannot see what the reason could have been why any
such application should be made, or that there was any
foundation for it. Now with regard to Mr. Alderman
Winchester, it is stated, "An application for Mr.
Winchester's removal from the assigneeship 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 waiting fur further evidence than was
supplied at the meeting on Saturday, vindicate the cha-
racter of civic dignitaries, and show their respect for public
decency, by expelling Mr. Winchester from their body."—
Now really, if publications of this kind are to be put forth
to the world, and if the persons who are the objects of
them are not to be vindicated in this Court, there is at
once an end to all attempts to protect the character either
of public or private men. With that view, and having
said so much, we think it is the duty of this Court to de-
clare that the rule shall be MADE ABSOLUTE.
RULE MADE ABSOLUTE.

The adventures of Mr. Ross Cox on the
Colombia River, have been pronounced to form one of the
most surprising books in the whole circle of volumes of
Voyages and Travels. The country he penetrated was,
until his footsteps traced it, almost unexplored, and the
inhabitants were unknown to the great family of man.—
Marvellous as were the incidents which befel him, the
authenticity of the narrative, and the high character of the
author, are every where unquestioned.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA I- 30.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the Clergy
.1 Rochester, auainst the Irish Education system ; also pe.
itions to the same effect from parishes in Kent and Essex.
Lord MORPETH had also to present a petition on 64
object of Irish Education ; but it took a different view
.f it from that taken by those presented by the Member
ur the University of Oxford. The petition was from the
society of Protestant Dissenters meeting at Queen-stree,
Thapel, Leeds, and they prayed that the system might be
~rsevered in.

The NOBLE Loan then pres?nted a petition from S td•
ll.?worth and Thorn, praying the House not to grant any
eipplies till the Reform Bill was passed.
Mr. O'CONNELL took that opportunity of stating
qat the Irish Reform 13ill was so deficient, that unless
';overnment gave way, he would oppose every part of tht
Irish Supplies, vote by vote.
Lord MORPETH then presented several petitions
.gaiust the punishment of death for minor offences.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Learning.
~11 in favour of the Boundary Bill ; also, one from the
.nliabitants of the neighbourhood of Leamington, out of the
limits of the boundary, to the same effect.

Sir R. BATESON presented a petition from Belfast in
favour of the Factory Bill. —Referred to the Committee.
The Hort. BARONET then presented a petition from a
parish in Londonderry, against the new system of educa-
,ion in Ireland. The petitioners objected to the proposed
system, because it was likely to continue that wide breach
which unfortunately existed at present between the Ca.
tholics and the Protestants of Ireland.—Also, a petition
from the Sunday School Teachers of Belfast, to the same
effect.

Major M'NAMARA said he could say that the whole of
the disturbances that had occurred in the County Clare
had arisen from the compulsory efforts that had been
made to force the children of Catholics to attend Protestant
schools.
Mr. 'CONNELL was sure that his Hon. and Gallant
~friend, the Member for Clare, being a resident landlord, a
magistrate, and a grand juryman of that country, must be
better acquainted with the causes of the disturbances
which took piece there than any other gentleman, English-
man or Scotchman,—(A laugh,) in that House. The
lion. Gentleman who so flatly contradicted his Hon. and
Gallant Friend, had attempted to show that persecution
was not the cause of distubances in 1529, because in 1825
there was no persecution, and the people where not com-
pelled to receive a scriptual iddication,—(Much laughter.)
But he (Mr. O'Connell) would remind thejlon. Gentle-
men of many instances of persecution, and, amongst
others, of one, for which a magistrate was prosecuted and
punished.
Mr. GORDON wondered that the lion. Member for
Kerry would dare to rni.,repre,ent his phraseology, and
to make that misrepresentation the means of turning him
into ridicule, with the vulgarism, of a pauper (as we un-
derstood,) and the insolence of a demagogue.—(Loud
cries of order, order.)
The SPEAKER was sure that, in the phraseology
which he had just used, he had been guilty of a gross
violation of order. The Honourable Gentleman would
see the necessisty of making some explanation to the
House for the error into which he had been betrayed.
Mr. GORDON was sorry if he had been guilty of any
breach of decorum; but lie trusted that the House would
take into consideration that his phraseology had been more
than once or twice misrepresented by the Hon. Member
fur Kerry, for the purpose of turning him into ridicule.
Mr. O'CONNELL was understood to say, No.
Mr. GORDON proceeded to explain that the Hon.
Member for Kerry had just now represented him to say
iddicntion, when he had, in fact, pronounced the word
properly.
Mr. O'CONNELL—How?
Mr. GORDON—I did not say iddication : I said eedi•
cation.—(lmmense laughter.)
Sir R. BATESON then presented a petition from a
Presbyterian Congregation at Garvah ; also against the
new system of Public Education.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSON presented a petition
frem Hamilton in favour of the Scotch Reform Bill—also
one from Kircuilbright to the same effect; and one from
some natives in India, complaining that the introduction
of Europeans into that country would destroy them.
Colonel EVANS said if there were any complaints to
be made against the introduction of the Courts of Law
into India it would be a good ground for an investigation,
but the one brought forward was not one entitled to con-
sideration.