The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-11 00:00:00

trees is again the man who is taxed by the Govern-
ment. But tis is not all ; the landlord has to bear,
besides, all the risk, and this has been great during
the last few years. For what happens? says my in-
formant, a simple-minded but intelligent parochial
priest, The partner comes to the landlord and says
Padrone (or, as he pronounces it, parron') I want
some polenta to feed my family.' There,' says the
landlord, is your polenta.' Another comes, and
says, Parron, I want some wood, for it is cold, and
the worms will die unless I keep them warm.'
There is the wood,' says the landlord. Again
another wants money to pay those who strip the
leaves from the trees and bring them, and gets a
copper or two from the landlord. And so it goes
on, the landlord having to supply all preliminary
expenses. Then comes the time of the galette,' or
cocoons, and, lo ! it is a failure ; not only does the
landlord get no silk, but he has to pay the taxes
and loses into the bargain polenta, wood, and
money,
" This expose will throw some light on the dispo-
sition of the Lombard peasantry, and show why it
has hitherto remained tolerably indifferent in the
plains. It pays nothing except for salt and tobacco,
and has to give recruits. Like most peasantries in
the world, it has not raised itself to any other
ideas except to eat, drink, worship its favourite
saint, propagate the species and die. It would be
ridiculous to expect enthusiasm unless some mate-
rial advantage is offered. It is with this view that
the new Government has decided on a great reduc-
tion in the price of salt, with which it hopes, and
perhaps not without reason, to catch the peasantry
in the plains. In the mountains, there are more
small properties, and where consequently the poc-
ket is emptied by the heavy land-tax imposed by
the Austrian Government, the peasant is just as
much for the overthrow of the Austrian rule as the
upper classes and towns are everywhere in Lom-
bardy."

LA JV INTELLIGENCE-July 9.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

'Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
JONES V. REYNOLDS-LIBEL.

Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Karslake conducted
the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Shee,
Mr. Hawkins, the Hon. George Denman and Mr.
Prentice that of the defendant.

This was an action for a libel, brought by Ernest
Jones, of Chartist celebrity, against the defendant
as the publisher of Reynolds' Newspaper, to re-
cover compensation in damages for a series of al-
leged libels, which the plaintiff contended reflected
on his character. The defendant to this action
pleaded not guilty, and he further pleaded a justi-
fication.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff, in opening
the case, observed that Mr. Ernest Jones was a
gentleman who was extensively known to the public
by reason of his having taken an active part in
political discussions. The defendant was the pub-
lisher arid proprietor of a weekly publication which
was called Reynolds' Weekly Newspaper, and also
of another publication, called Reynolds' Miscellany.
It was alleged by the defendant that his first
named newspaper had a weekly circulation of
150,000, and as to the second, it circulated half a mil-
lion copies, so that the jury would see that any libels
published in either of those papers must go from
one end of the world to the other, and therefore
the injury inflicted must be proportionably great.
He would now state to the jury who and what Mr.
Jones, the plaintiff, was. He was a gentleman by
birth and education, and was the only son of a
gentleman who was a colonel in the 15th Hussars,
and had been equerry to the Duke of Cumberland
when King of Hanover. In 1844 the plaintiff was
called to the bar. Mr. Jones, in early life, had ex-
pressed what in those days were considered to be
very strong opinions ; but he had every right to
express those opinions in a country like England,
where free discussions upon. all subjects were per-
mitted, provided the law was not infringed. Those
opinions were called Chartist ideas ; they insisted
on six points being granted—the ballot, registered
manhood suffrage, annual Parliaments, paid mem-
bers, no property qualification, and electoral dis-
tricts. At this moment one of those points, the
qualification, had been ceded. This question of the
charter had led Mr. Jones to use very strong lan-
guage. The defendant also was a strong advocate
for the charter. In 1848 Mr. Jones was prose-
cuted for his strong language upon this subject of
the charter used by him at a meeting in Bonner's
Fields, and, being convicted, was sentenced to two
years' imprisonment ; he underwent that imprison-
ment, accompanied by the silent system. Upon his
discharge, it struck Mr. Jones that the better way
to obtain the charter was to enlist the support of
the working classes. This gave umbrage to the
defendant, and in September, 1858, he com-
menced attacking Mr. Jones ; he continued his at-
tacks as far as January, 1859. In September, 1858,
Mr. Jones had offered himself to the electors of
Greenwich as a candidate for •their suffrages,
and in his addresses he advocated the union
of the middle classes with those who were called
Chartists. The defendant upon this charged the
plaintiff with having sold the People's Paper, and
defrauded those to whom it belonged; with having
sold himself to the Manchester Liberal party ; with
having obtained money from his dupes, and existing
upon the gullibility of those whom he had got into
his power. The language in which these libels
were couched was exceedingly strong, alleging
that the plaintiff was obliged to have recourse to
the begging box, with being a mendicant clap-trap
speaker, having recourse to the meanest shifts, and
the most mendacious means to keep the People's
Paper going, That the plaintiff was never at a loss
for an excuse for sending round the begging box,
and it was alleged that. his profession of a barrister
had never produced him a crust of bread. That he
was not only a contemptible but dangerous person,
determined to live on those who earned their bread
by the sweat of their brow. It said that he was
the most shameless of mendicants and illiterate of
beggars. That the People's Paper belonged to
them, and that the profits arising from it ought to
go to the advancement of their cause. The libels
alleged that the plaintiff had sold it without their
knowledge and had pocketed the money. They
spoke of the plaintiff's frothy vanity of having been
an honourable guest at the Queen's table, and of
being a relative of the Plantagenets. The plaintiff
could not submit to those continual attacks, and
was therefore obliged to bring this action, and ask
a jury of his country to give him such damages as
would reinstate him in society and place his charac-
ter in its proper light.
Mr. Ernest Jones—l am the plaintiff. I was
educated abroad. I came to England when I was
nineteen years of age. I entered myself for the bar,
and was called in April 1844. In 1845 I espoused
the Chartist cause. I became acquainted with the
leaders of that party. I becamejoint editor with Mr.
Feargus O'Connor of the Northern Star and The
Labourer. In 1848 I resigned my situation, worth
£250 or £3OO a year, and became an unpaid dele-
gate of the Chartist Assembly. I made a speech in
Bonner's-fields in that year,for which I was arrested
and imprisoned for two years under the silent sys-
tem. I took an interest in the Chartist cause after
my release. The Northern Star then ceased to be
published. I published in 1850 a new paper, called
the Notes of the People. It was issued weekly at
2d. It became the Chartist official organ. I wished
to establish a paper for the exclusive advocacy of
the Chartist movement. In every large town com-
mittees are elected to represent the Chartists.
They are to communicate with similar committees
in London. I suggested that the body should sup-
ply me with funds to support an organ in their be-
half ; half the profits to be paid to the treasurer of
the National Conservative Association, the other
half to myself. All loans, where demanded, had
been repaid. I had an audit committee appointed.
The details were published by Inc in the paper. I
purchased type in July, 1852. Then I went to
Halifax to contest that borough, when there was a
systematic attempt made to get the paper from me ;
but a vote of confidence was passed in my favour.
I brought the paper out, and it lived till the 26th
June, 1858. Subscriptions were paid in from time
to time, but the paper never paid. I appealed in my
own name several times for subscriptions at there-
quest of the committee. Every shilling that was
received was acknowledged as received, and applied
to the People's Paper. Its success was variable. I
had the London News, and contributed to other
publications. All the proceeds went into Mr.
M‘Go wan's hands. The printer and committee had
cognisance of all that was going on. There was a
weekly debt, and I was the responsible party, and
found money for bringing it out in addition to sub-
scriptions, receipts, and donations. I was from
£1,200 to £1,300 out of pocket. I had taken no-
thing fer my services; part was for cash advanced,
and part for debts for which I was responsible.
When I sold that paper there were three executions
in the office on account of the paper. The difficul-
ties were referred to in the People's Paper of the
13th of March, 1838. I stated that helps to the
amount of £BO must be given at once. Nearly £9O
was sent, but that did not prove to be sufficient to
save the paper. I was unable to go on with it, and
' received £2OO and £3O ; the latter sum was for the
People's Paper, but I was to retain two columns as
my copyright fur Chartist purposes, and I bound
myself not to write for any other paper for five
years. Mr. Baxter Langley' was associated with
me. He got the paper, and then commenced at-
tacks upon the Chartist party, and I replied to
them in my two columns.
A juror here begged to ask if they were to try
Mr, Jones's political consistency ?
The Lord Chief Justice said it was assailed, and
for corrupt motives.

Examination continued—l issued a circular, and

the committee of the Tower Hamlets offered to '
repay Mr. Langley, and get the paper back. I
never received one farthing for serving the Char-
tist cause. I always regretted it. I have always
advocated the views of the working classss on the
fair and just basis set forth in the St. Martin's Hall
Conference. I had opposed several attempts at union
considering them to be mere traps, and they turned
out to he so. I joined Mr. Herbert Ingram 's move-
ment on the suggestion of the Chartist body. I saw
my uncle when I came out of prison ; he is now
dead. He was possessed of large estates. He told
me if I persisted in disgracing myself he would
have nothing to do with me. I, however, declined '
to accede to his request, and he has left his property
to an old gardener. I have no recollection of stating
that I was a guest of the Queen. I have been pre-
sented at the levees by the Duke of Beaufort (as was
understood). I have replied to questions of corres-
pondents that my wife was the last lineal descendant
of the Plantagenets, and I can prove such to be the
fact. The London News ceased, and I started the
Cabinet ; that circulates about 1,750. The London
News had a circulation of about 17,000. There is a
prejudice against my paper on account of the de-
fendant's articles. lam still the head of the Char-
tist movement, and the Cabinet is the organ of the
body. The defendant is an ultra-Chartist, and is
more violent and abusive than I am. I suffered from
defendant's attacks at the last Nottingham election.
I never wrote against Mr. Feargus O'Connor, but
have always deended his character. I asked for
an apology, but it was declined.

Cross-examined—l have never practised as a bar-
rister. I went circuit once with Mr. Tindal Atkin-
son. I was offered £2OO a-year if I would take the
sessions practice at Manchester, but I preferred
politics to law. In consequence of having put my
name to bills I petitioned the Court of Bankruptcy
in 1846. I had been swindled. I don't think my
debts were stated to be £6,000.
The jury said it was immaterial whether the
plaintiff was senior wrangler or a bankrupt.
The Chief Justice did not see that it was.

Cross-examination continued—l paid some small
debts in 1844 and 1846. I did not pass the Court in
1852, but I petitioned. I had from five guineas
to twenty guineas a-week from my literary labours.
I sacrificed all for the People's Paper. I had paid.
£1,300 on its account. I was not in extreme po-
verty when I first started that paper. I have had
to struggle against difficulties since I came out of
prison. I was then a poor man. All the means I
possessed I devoted to the paper.
Re-examined—My imprisonment ruined me. In
1841, I married. My wife has a settlement of an
estate in Cumberland and £5,000, in which I have
a life interest, but I gave it up to my creditors on
my insolvency.
By the Chief Justice—One year the subscription
amounted to £29, but in another it was only a few
shillings. The contributions amounted in six years
to about £4OO.

Several witnesses were examined, who stated
that the People's Paper was a losing concern. The
Peacock Committee had purloined the books, and
wished to get the paper from plaintiff. There had
been a meeting, but which had been put an end to
by one putting out the candle and another turning
off the gas.

The fury said it was unnecessary to give further
evidence Upon the audit.
The Chief Justice asked the learned sergeant if
he heard this.

Mr. Sergeant Shee did not dispute it.
The Chief Justice thought it went far to show
there had been no misapplication of the funds.

Mr. Sergeant Shee Ilia not charge the plaintiff
with personal pecuniary corruption.

The Chief Jiistice said it was for the jury.
?gr. Sergeant Shee said his client would be happy-
to withdraw all imputation of personal corrup-
tion. Although the defendant had used strong
language, he did not intend to give pain to the
plaintiff, and he wished it to be distinctly under-
stood that he did not believe, nor ever wished it to
be believed, that the plaintiff had been guilty of
personal pecuniary corruption•
The Chief Justice said the libels had conveyed
that impression to his mind.
The jurors said base imputations had been made
against the plaintiff, and without there being any
pretence for their being made.
The Chief Justice—However they might dis-
agree with the political opinions of these gentlemen,
and think them mistaken, yet there was not a sha-
dow of pretence for the imputations that had been
thrown out against the plaintiff's character.
The jury said they fully concurred in that opinion.
Mr. James said the only condition he should ask
was that the defendant should publish these remarks
in his paper. The plaintiff only wanted to vindi-
cate his character.
The Chief Justice—l think that will be fair. I
have no doubt the defendant will see the propriety
of it.

Mr. James observed that the plaintiff had not
sought a money consideration, but a vindication of
character. He should only ask for a verdict for 40s.
with costs.
The jurors said it was a verdict for 40s. by con-
sent, and the costs ought to be on the higher scale.
The Chief Justice—Certainly.
The verdict was then entered for the plaintiff.
Damages 405., with the higher rate of costs by
consent.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

SIMMONS V. HALE AND ANOTIIER.-AN EXECUTION

AT THE LYCEUM.
The plaintiff in this case had obtained a judg-
ment against Mr. Faulkner, and during that gen-
tleman's connection with the Lyceum the plaintiff
issued an execution against him for £55 4s. The
writ was placed in the hands of a sheriff's officer
named Willis, who did not levy, but returned the
writ with the endorsement that there was no goods
or chattels of the defendant within the bailiwick
on which he could levy. The plaintiff now claimed
damages, on the ground that this was a false re-
turn.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Laxton appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Quain for the defendants.

The facts were that, on the 4th of April, the
plaintiff directed the officer to go the Lyceum with
the writ, and on the same evening he went, accom-
panied by Strong, his assistant, and by a gentle-
man, who represented the plaintiff. It was Mr.
Kingsbury's benefit. The officer declined to seize
the money which was taken at the doors ; and he
was then told that there were on the premises some
orchestra stools, seats, and music, which belonged
to Mr. Faulkner ; but he also declined to seize
them. He was told that Mr. Faulkner lodged in
Upper Wellingthn-street, and on the sth he went
'there, but did not levy, though, according to the
plaintiff's case, there were there tables, chairs, car-
pets, bedding, &c., and, in addition, some clothes,
all belonging to Mr. Faulkner. The clothes were
subsequently valued, under process from the Insol-
vent. Court, at £l9 17s. Of the clothes, however,
£3 worth were in wear at the time.
The case for the sheriffs was, that there was
nothing upon which they could have levied. The
money taken at the theatre on the 4th did not
belong to Mr. Faulkner but to Mr. Kingsbury,
who would have had a right of action if
the officer had touched it. Mr. Kingsbury's evi-
dence was, that the whole amount taken that night
was £26, and it all went to him. Further, it was
said that there was no duty imposed upon the offider
to stand at the door and take the money, and he had
not power to take the money away from the people
as they came to pay, nor had he power to take it
from the money-taker when it had got into his
hands. To take it from either party would haYe
been a trespass. Even if the £26 had belonged
to Mr. Faulkner, still there was £6l due for rent,
which would have absorbed it all. It was sworn
thiti Mr. Faulkner had no property at the theatre
at all. On the sth it was said that the money
taken at the theatre belonged to Mr. Arnold. As
to -the lodgings in Upper Wellington-street; the
furniture belonged to the landlady. As to the
clothes, they were only worth £9, and the fee for
seizing would have been 95., leaving the balance,
£8 1 ls. Three pounds' worth of the clothes, how-
ever, were in wear, leaving only the value of £1 lls.
that could be seized. It was provided by statute
that the sheriff might leave wearing apparel not
exceeding in value £5. Before the Sheriff could
remove the clothes he must have paid the rent 17
165., or at all events four weeks of it, which
amounted to £6. Under these circumstances it was
contended that there was no source from which the
plaintiff could have derived any benefit under the
execution.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
YATEMAN V. DEMPSEY.-AN UNFORTUNATE
MARRIAGE.
This was an action to recover damages, upon the
ground that the defendant had not performed his
promise to attend in the Divorce Court. as a wit-
ness"for the plaintiff, in a suit which he had insti•
tilted for the purpose of getting his marriage an-
nulled.

Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Fear appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Pigott for the de-
fendant.

It was stated by counsel that the plaintiff, who
was 29. years of age, was a barrister, and seven
years ago he and his brother, who was his junior by
one year, went to lodge in Berners-street, where
they intended to pursue their studies. ON the
opposite side 'of the way there lived a foreign
family, 'consisting of two elderly and two very
young ladies. There was something very fasoi-
nating in these young ladies, and ultimately the
plaintiff and his brother each married one of them.
The intercourse which the plaintiff had with the
lady whom he married was very slight, for they
„ „