The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-16 00:00:00

C.

r 00'

Per°°'

s
~q•, ~~

,c 1 sretf;
zdow,
igtiburi

of erg,
nd,
-- At
4fei.
As
f.
f i
dOre

4 9 t
: •
•
•,x.
PItIEN be liindCorequest their
Servants and Cat tiers to ask for
ICHARI) TURNER'S BLACKING
Fa>iti, let thy glad trumpet raise
r.,-tiest note.s.to To RN ER'S praise;
. r ;r,,veeleoso,
Till the echoing world Tr-bi:inf.
Who Upon our hoots or Owen
811C11 brit:ill lustre (loth diffuse ?
Who a.l3laching can prepay.,
That such lovely bloom duth bear ;
Or such gloss and richness yield,
Az 'ltraNtm's of St. George's Fields
O'er the wide At 'antic deep,
Whet:- the surgeless billows sleep:
O'er the distant southern main;
On the Continental plain—
RNElt's worth and fame resound,
For his Blacking sheds around
On each polisli'd hoot a ray
()f beauty nought can melt away.
Ott I've seen the polish'il gem .
Glitter in the diadem:
liow ninth brighter are the rays
Tulin:Kies brilliant black displays?
rapt in wonder, when in view,
The lustre of that jetty hue,
Call I tilt n forbear to raise
, 'cuRN en's worth my song of praise?
leroes, bluets, all will fade—
')oarclis' glories sink in shade:
but then shall TURNER'S faille be o'er?
Not till time shall be no inure? • -
E'en While mouldering in the tomb,
Fanie Shittl hid his memory blooms
.And posterity shall wave
s„l242rs af r ade.less laurels o'er his grave.
(7 "'till this brilliant and easy shining
orl; informed „ iso
N Gll., 'Towns.
x,urth- Edirrhnigh, and all the Country owns. in
"`uneand South Wales and England, sell this Blacking in
ottles at 6d., Is., and Hid. each.
(>1()", N• F irreign Trade supplied.
Y all the principal Shopkeepers within the circulation
L,,.. paper.
t sues.
o '',t re particu'rrirly invited to recommendrecommendtheir Servants
Iris
'Y thet h "ghly esteemed Liquid Blacking, heing sanctioned
f Families in the Isnigdoin.
''r their stirs may observe, that this Composition, when used
ht Gil
it, or Carr Urge Harness, will produce a brilliant,
~ei.et glossy luer tie, and at the same time acts as a Pre-
Leath
.

USE TURNER'S BLACKING.

y,st ----_____
tile st i'clay was the First Day of Drawing of
Priz Ilt Loitery, when No. 1483 was dram a a
roalclier," 18,0001. Consols, and 2000/. Money,
It ~--g a prize of Twenty Thousand Pounds.—
Offic,,4°l(l in 9 Shares by BISII, at -his fortunate
by Ili-A4) Cornhill' and 0, Charing-Cross, and
gents in tlili Country, viz. :
- '''illartvr LoNDwg
1 Eitchth
1 Eighth
I Eighth scAßBnßoucut
I Eighth
1 Sixtevlith
3 Sixteenth
1 Sixtreitlh
v. 1 Sixtermh WsntIINGToN•
213. h 15R also sold No. IQBB 5001. and No. 1567
uu, 1., both drawn yesterday ' '.---
ev _
28th /nstarntttiery finishes Next Tuesday-week,
on whiebday
am , T 'r- o Prizes 0f‘20,000/.
fir." eral other Capitals must be dra,vvn.—. lin-
via Tickets and Shares are now on Sale. .

ry -
piac regret to learn, that a serious affray took
hp ti ThUrsday afternoon at Sandgate, between
w h4rtY of the coast blockade and some smugglers,
at Were attempting to land the cargo of a vessel
last lat Place, in which twelve or thirteen of the
tub" were wounded, and their vessel with 600
s of spirits taken.
Thell,.. diving-hell) under the superintendance' of
lay ',I‘"TH, recommenced its operations on Mon-
list, for the purpose of continuing the lIQW
a-W4ll from the south jetty in Plymouth Dock-
Sard.

COURT OF KIM:4' • ..r,ENOtit; Nov: 1S:
13LASPUIV0913S LI BF,L._
THE KING, V. TrIOMAS DAVISON.
This defendant, it will be recollected, was
convicted at Guildhall, before Mr.. Justice BEST
and a Special J ury, on the 23d ult., upon an in-
dictrnent charging him with publishing a blasphe-
mous libel concerning,. the ChriStian Religion,
contained in Mr. Carlile's Republican. •
Mr. COOPER, before judcrment was pronounced,
• n
moved for a rule to sheW cause why the verdict
Should not be set aside, and a new trial.granted.
The Learned Counsel observed, that it was a
singular and novel case, and the circumstances
induced him to regret that the task of supporting
this application had not fallen to, a person of
more experience. On the trial of this prosecu-
tion, which came on at Guildhall on the 23d of
October last, the defendant stated, that being
unable to fee Counsel, he was obliged to plead
his own cause. He proceeded to read a written
defence, and- the observations he made gave of-
fence to the Learned Judge, who imposed fines
upon him.to the amount of five hundred pounds.
The defendant being intimidated by ;the appre-
hension of irretrievable ruin, was disabled_from
proceeding with his defence. He omitted. many
facts and statements which might have been be-
neficial to his cause. The Learned Counsel then
observed he should make no comments of his
own, but discharge the s.;‘..aty reposed in him by
reading the defendant's' affidavit of -facts. He
accordingly read the affidavit. The defendant
deposed, that having stated that it was a noto-
rious fact that no Gentleman at the Bar would
undertake his defence, the Judge fined him
twenty pounds.
Judge 13E T.----,L do not know what security
we have that this affidavit is true. This man
avows himself a Deist.
Mr. CoopEtt•said, he had never heard it 'de-
cided that the affidavit of a Deist, who swore
according to his belief, was not to be received.
Judge BAILEvile swears on a book which
he does not believe. -
Judge BEsT.---Ilow can you believe the affi-
davit of a man who swears by the Holy Evan-
gelist, and at
,the same time avows he does not
believe it
Mr; COOPER was, however, directed to go on
with the affidavit, which further stated, that the
defendant was fined .401.' for stating that the
higher orders of society were sceptics, and the
Bishops infidels. Having enumerated the other
fines imposed, it concluded by saying the 'Learn-
ed Judge, in his charge to the Jury, remitted 1
the fines on the ground that the object for which
he imposed the fines was accomplished. The
Learned Counsel contended that the injury don.
the plaintiff was,not lessened by the remission of
the fines. The injury was clone; And the Jury
acting upon the impression which the defendant
had no power to remove, found him guilty. It
was a question still to be determined, whether a
Judge had power to fine for contempt. The re-
medy in case of obstruction of the jurisdiction of
the Court was of another description. The
offender might be committed. The defendant
had only made a statement of causes w''hich
brought the Deist info disrepute with Christians.
He merely attributed an excess of opinion upon
religious points, and ho-w a Judge could fine for
such a statement he was at a loss to imagine. He
(Mr. C.) could scarcely take up any book writ-
ten by religious authors in which he did not fiud
censure cast upon the upper orders of society
for the examples they held forth. He was not
aware of any authority for fining a person who
mentioned such things in his defence. Lord El-
lenborough, that venerable Constitutional Judge,
at the trial of Isaac Eaton, endeavoured to re-
strain that defendant, and finding his defence a
repetition of the offence with which he was charg-
ed, he repeated his order to desist from the line
of argument taken ; but lecollecting himself, he
said On mature consideration, I am inclined
to think the ends of justice will be better serval
by allowing the defendant to begin again and
read his paper. The matter is too gross to in-
jure for one moment the cause of Christianity.
Mr. Eaton, ge on again reading your defence, if
you desire to proceed." The Lord Chief Justice
of the present day, in the trial Of.Carlile, never
thought proper to impose a fine. In the case of
the King v. Wedderburne, no fine was imposed ;
in short, the proceeding in the present case was
unsupported by the usual practice of Judges.
He could prove that a more dangerous proceed-
ing never existed. " Suppose (said the Learned
Counsel) a man presents himself to make his de-
fence, who has a wife and children. A good man
will feel nothing operate more forcibly on his
mind than the consideration of his wife and
children, and if when he- undertakes his defence
he meets with a heavy fine imposed by the

your Lordship has the dungeon' ready, allow' me
to furnish you with the keys."
Judge BEST continued. I told him, if he in-
sulted my situation, or attacked. the established
religion of the Country, under which I was a
Minister of Justice, I should impose the punish-
ment I did impose. Immediately after, he made
that -which I .considered an attack on the
Christian Religion. I thought it my duty then
to fine him 401. I told him to make his ob-
servations on the case, and not to go out of the
way to attack persons out of Court. Ile very
soon after attacked the Nobility, by calling
them " Blacklegs," and the Bishops " Infidels."
I then fined him 40/., and told him peremptorily
the fines must be paid. At the time I in-
flicted these fines, I begged the defendant to state
all that was material to his defence. I would
hear it, I told him, -with patience, provided he
did not offer insult to the religion under
which I sat there. - If he did not do that which
he ought not to do, God forbid the defendant
should not have a patient, hearing ; but I thought
it was my duty to do what I did, and I never had
any doubt of my power to fine, for in law and
justice it was right. I had the apology of the
defendant for remitting the fines. I did not wisli
that perpetual imprisonment should follow the aci
after the object for 'which the fines were imposed
had been accomplished."
The CHIEF jusTicE, after some consideration
with Judges Bailey awl Llolroyd, said, " I have
not the sti;,-,htest,doubt or the power of a Judge
sitting at Nisi Prius to fine for contempt of Court
in his presence, nor have any doubt it was com-
petent for a Judge in some cases to remit the
tine, and ltow*'v xipainful it may be to impose
fines on a defendant, yet if he cannot restrain
him from conducting his defence without
defaming morals and religion, he has the power
to impose fines. The ropriety of the act Ido
not call in question. It is stated to have had the
effect of intimidation, bytt we cannot judge of
that unless we have before us the indictment on
which the defendant took his trial, the-evidence
given against him, and other circumstances. For
the purpose of having all the facts before us, and
of giving full consideration to the question, we
are disposed to allow the party a Rule to shew
cause, in order that the discussion may come on
(luring the present Term. I thought it right
to say thus much and no more on the present

occasion.
Judge BAILEY stated that a Judge at Nis,

This was a singular case, the Insolvent being a•
married woman in custody at the suit of a Mr.
Vincent, an attorney, for costs due to him. The
insolvent was formerly married to a Mr. Sharp,
who was a glass and china-seller, and who died
in January 181-9, upon which she took out
letters of administration to his effects, and
was sued by Mr. Vincent as such, which.
action she defended, and pleaded plene admi,
nistra-oit, and - for the costs of which suit she is
now in custody. In March 1819, an execution.
was put into her house, when Mr. Draper, who
resided in her house, purchased the things, and
paid-4001. far thorn. In June she married Mr.
Draper, and about three weeks after was arrest•
ed and sent to prison. She was opposed by Mr.
A notenus, on behalf of Mr. Vincent, and sup-
ported by Messrs. POLLOCK and HEATIIi MT:
AnoLenus opposed her on two grounds, first, for
having omitted to state in her schedule some free-
hold property which her former husband was in his
life time possessed of, and which, whilst a widow,
she was entitled to dower, and which would re-i
vert to her in case she survived her present husband,
an,: also for having put the plaintiff to frivolous
and vexatious expense, by pleading a false plea ;
the latter ground was abandoned, the proceed-
ings not being in Court,• and the schedule was
amended on the former, when she was declared
entitled.
In the Matter of JOHN BOTIIAM, an Insolvent...
The :insolvent in this case was opposed by
Mr. BARILY, for Mr. James How ; by MessrS.
ADOLTHUS and TURTON, for Messrs.-Baker; and
by Mr. Ttlt-TON, for Messrs. Hogg, Webb, and
Brown ; and supported by Mr.Potr.ocx.
Mr. finny first opposed upon the ground.,
that this man had been discharged under the In-
solvent Act about two years ago, and then con-
tended that the onus of proof lay with him to
brin, himself under the 43d Section of the-Act. •
INfr. PoLLOcK contended, that the. Insolvent
was within the meaning of the Act, his present
insolvency arising from his having given fresh
security for debts he ()Mated to insert in his for-
mer schedule.
The CUIEF COMMISSIONER remarked that the
Insolvent's petition did not bring him within the
43d Section.
Mr. BARRY said, he • had no less than seven
creditors in attendance; who the Insolvent had
omitted now to state in his schedule, amounting
to upwards of 3001.- and alt contracted within the
dismissedlast 1.8
Cumoonrl.ths
the Insoivent's petition.