The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-25 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD, Nov. 24.—1 n a Convocation holden
yesterday, the names of the following Gentlemen,
who had been respectively nominated to succeed
to the office of Select Preacher at Michaelmas
next, were approved by the House, viz.—The
Rev. Richard Jenkyns, D. D. Master of Bal-
liol College; the Rev. Peter Elmsey, M.A.
Christ Church ; the Rev. Philip Nicholas
Shuttleworth, M. A., Fellow of New College ;
the Rev. Edw. Hawkins, M. A. Fellow of Oriel
College ; the Rev. Henry Hart Milman, M. A.
of Brasenose College.—The same day in a Con-
gregation the following Degrees were conferred :

MASTERS OF ARTS.
Rev. Philip lAurent. St. Alban Hall.
Rev. George Evans, Christ Church.

BACHELORS OF ARTS.

Thomas Stretton Codrington, Esq. Brazeocee College, Grand
Compounder.
William Holied Hughes, Lincoln College.
William Sibthorpe Cole, Worcester College.
Theodore Bouwens, Merton College.
Robert /lustier, Wadham College.
Nichtind Douglas Gough, Exeter College.

P4ainuel Ernely Day, St. Edmund Hall.
James Hardwicke Dyer, Scholar of Trinity College.
John William Bowden, Trinity College.

Gabriel Edward Gillett, }Oriel College.
John Gillard,
}Bank] College.
Arthur Drummond,
John Glanville,
\Valium Sherlock Carey,
}Students of Christ Church,
Robert Spencer Glyn, ff
John Roger Kynaston', Christ Church.
Ecci.xstasTicm. PaostonoNs.—The Rev. John Maddy,
D.D. one of his Majesty's Chaplains in Ordinary, to the Liv-
ing of Stonssfield, Suffolk. The Rev. Stephen Crofts, M.A.
to the ReCtory of St. Mary Stoke, Ipswich ; Patrons, the Dean
and Chapter of Ely.
CAM II RID6Z, Nov. 42.—The subject of the Norrisian prize
Essay for the present year is "The Connexion between the
Jewish and Christian Dispensation."

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.—(Tuis DAY.)

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. S CAR ZETT moved for a Rule to shew cause,
why a Criminal Information should not be filed
against the Earl of Westmeath. The Learned
Counsel stated, that he made his application on
the affidavit of a Gentleman named Wood, a
trustee of Lady Westmeath's, who, having some
transactions with his Lordship which rendered it
necessary to be decided by the Court of Chancery,
Mr. Wetherall, in his address to the Lord.
Chancellor, as Counsel for Mr. Wood, made a
statement, which afterwards appeared in a News-
paper, and which Lord Westmeath requested by
letter that Mr. Wood would have contradicted ;
on Mr. Wood refusing to do this, his Lordship
sent a message to Mr. Wood, first ordering it to
be committed to writing, to the followi effect
—" That Mr. Wood was a liar, and threatest
rascal that ever lived." The Learned Counsel
said, that Mr. Wood believed this message was
intended to provoke him to fight a duel; this
Gentleman is nearly sixty years old.
The COURT, under all the circumstances of the
case, granted the Rule.

Yesterday their Serene Highnesses Prince and.
Princess ESTERIIAZY entertained Prince Sapieha,
Prince Louis Lichtenstein, Count Flahanit, and.
a select party of Foreigners of distinction, with
a dinner at Chandos House.

Yesterday the Earl and Countess of HARROW-
By entertained the Earl and Countess Bathurst,
Lady Georgiana Bathurst, Duke and Duchess
Cazes, Countess Lieven, Count de Souza, Mr.
Edward Montague, and a select party of distin-
guished personages, at their house in Grosvenor-
square.

At the set-out yesterday morning, of the
Procession from Freemason's Tavern, with the
Address of the United Parishes of St. Giles's
and St. George's, Bloomsbury, to the Queen,
the cavalcade was preceded by the Beadles or
horseback, probably for the first time in their
lives, and two Trumpeters similarly mounted ;
one of the animals on which the former rode,
happened unfortunately for him to be an old
cast cavalry horse, and the moment he heard
44 the brazen trumpet sound" be became eager for
the charge, reared up and pawed the pavement-
in grand military style to the great alarm of the
poor Beadle, who to secure his seat was obliged
to clasp the spirited veteran close round the neck
to the great amusement of the spectators, until
the 64 men of music" ceased to " blow a blast."

At the breaking up of a tavern dinner party,
two of the company fell down stairs, the one
tumbling to the first landing-place, the other
rolling to the bottom. It was observed the first
seemed dead drunk. " Yes," said a wag, " but
he's not so far gone as the gentleman below."
A publican blowing the froth from a pot of
porter which he was bringing to a customer, the
gentleman struck him. l3oniface eagerly asked
him why he struck him ?—" 'Why," replied the
gentleman, " I returned blow for blow."
Wednesday morning the first division of the
rifle brigade marched from Glasgow garrison on
their route to Ireland. They were preceded out
of town by the baud of the Glasgow sharp-
shooters, as a testimony of that cordial friendship
whieh has always subsisted between these corps.
We have read with disgust in the Old Times
of the 23J inst. a gross misrepresentation of the
feelings which the Members of the University
and Inhabitants of Oxford are said lately to have
shown upon the termination of the Bill of Pains
and Penalties. So far is it from the truth, as
the Times asserts, that the Gown and Town were
emulous of each other in testifying attachment to
her Majesty, that the Authorities of the Uni-
versity and Town proceeded hand in hand in
putting forth every endeavour to repress the
licentious and disorderly conduct of the lower
classes at their late vain attempt to make the re-
spectable inhabitants illuminate. Wu cannot
suffer the character of this loyal City to remain
under the foul stigma inflicted upon it by the
deceitful Correspondent of the Old Times. W e
hope, therefore, that our distant readers and
friends will consider the account we complain of
as utterly false. It is not true that laurels and
white favours were worn by any one respectable
Member of the University or of the City ; and
as for the falsehood about the occurrences in the
Music Room, at the late Concerts, we have only
to assure the public, upon the part of the Nobi-
lity, Gentlemen, and Gownsmen, who attended
the meetings,that both Concerts concluded with
loyal pieces; and that, moreover, the national
air of" God save the King" was unanimously
called for each evening, and sung by the whole
company with the warmest enthusiasm.—(ox-
ford Journal. Nov. 24.)
DISTRESSING CIRCUMSTANCE.--The sloop or
vessel, the Heart of Oak, of Baltimore, in this
county, Denis Daly master, sailed from Wa-
terford on the 12th instant, with a cargo of
wheat and flour on board, shipped by Messrs.
Moore and Consadine of that city, for Liver-
pool. She had proceeded nearly half across the
channel, when the wind changed • and com-
menced blowing extremely hard at twelve o'clock
at night. At 8 o'clock the next morning, as she
neared the shore, the crew finding her making
water fast, all hands went to the pumps—but
after every exertion they perceived they could
not succeed in saving her. In consequence of
this they pat out the boat, and witnessed the
heart-rending sight of the vessel in which every
they possessed was, go down, within four
five leagues south-west of Waterford Tower.
orthirlg
Their misfortunes did not end here—a heavy
gale took them from the shore, and they conti-
nued driving to sea, when providentially they
were met at 11 or le twelve leagues from land,
at about 3 o'clock in the morning, by the brig
Reefly, of London, late from the Brazils, bound
for Liverpool, MICHAEL WARD, Master, who
humanely took them on board, and tasking back
from his destined port, put them on board a pilot-
boat belonging to this harbour, by which means
they were rescued from a miserable death.—
, (Cork Chronicle, Nor. 20.)

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov• 42.

LIBEL.—IN BANCO.
TUE KING V. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.
Mr. BIACKIIURN this morning resumed his argument, and
said that when he last had the honour of addressing the
'Court, he endeavoured to sliew their Lordships, that the three
rropositions laid down on the other silt/ wet e`not founded in.
laae... As to the first proposition, that the writing andcorn-
rising a libel was an offence by the law of Englaniteaffhough
it were not published ; he conceived it to be mat irresistibly
answered in the preceding part of the argument. Upon the
second proposition, namely, that the defendant could not be
tried in the Comity of Leicester, unless there was a
in that County, he submitted that it had received
nn answer, becAu.e there was 110 pretence for presuming that
the puhlicalion had taken place where the supposed crime
of writing was committed. In support of this latter proposi-
tion, thearned Crionsel quoted various anthorities which
COOCCed were analogues, 'and contended that ,in this
Ciis4. the Court could not pronounce judgment without de-
Taiving the defendant of his tight to bting a Writ of Error;
;which' in R. v the Dean of St. Asaph's, was declared to be
he birthright of the defendant, and would be utterly shut
out frOM taking the opinion of a higher Tribunal, whether
the writing with an intent to publish was an offence. No
such-offence was charged, and it appeared to him, that as
ti iting alone was not an offence, neither was writing with
intent to publish. Having, therefore, said all that appear-
ed to hint to be necessary to urge, in this part of the-case,
be.thortiernoW call the attention of the Court to another irre-
sistible ground for a new trial, and that was that the Learn-
ed Judge at the trial refused to admit evidence which ought to
have been received on behalf of the defendant. He was not
guilts to contend that evidence of the truth of a libel might
be admitted, for however consentaneous to sound reason that
allotment might be, still by the frequent decisions that had
-occurred its the-Courtv of Law, he was not at liberty to argue
that truth could be given in evidence ,t ~irroof of a libel ;
but inasmuch as the allegedi 111, se was nothing
noire than a commentary: , e submitted that it
was absolutely necessary . iifiable on the part of thede-
fetidant. to shew that thefacts had existed; because the
"Jury, without this evidence, could not form a judgment- whe-
-4 her the commentaries were inflammable, exaggerated, or in-
vented without foundation. In the Seven Bishops' case, evi-
dence of this description was admitted, to negative• the mali-
cious intention, and it was not doubted that such evidence
was receivable, and this for the most obvious reasons. It could
be shewn, as it might be, that a person by reason of a public
ottice, cast upon kiln, or any other state of circumstances, had
Made strong commentaries under au impression that he had a
sight to do so,' with respect to the conduct of particular per-
sons, then be might shew that there were such facts in ex-
istence, in order to justify his observations, and that he was
not guilty of the offence imputed, to him. In no case could
any man show his innocence unless he were permitted to
prove the facts upon which he had commented, and that the
tran;actions which were the subject of this commentary had
some foundation. For instance, if any mars had stated in the
public papers, when the murder of the family of the Marrs
took place some years since, that such a transaction was dis-
graceful to the name and country of Englishmen, and were
precluded from skewing that that sanguinary citcusustance
had in fact occurred, he might be found guilty anti punished
as a libeller„ and yet, would there be any. thing more unjust
than a conviction in such a case ? Would any man say, that
if that circumstance did take place, the proof
.of it would not
negative the malicious intention, of saying that it was a dis-
grace to the name and country of Englishmen ? But, how-
ever, there was an express authority upon this point, to thew
that evidence of the truth might he received to negative the
malice -of the intention. Its the case of K. v. Horne, evidence
Of the truth of the facts 'upon which the commentaries were made
was admitted. The information in that case charged the de-
fendant with publishing a libel concerning the King's Go-
vernment, imputing that divers of his Majesty's innocent
'dud deserting'subjects had been inhumanly murdered by his
-Najeaty's troop's the Province of Massachusetts Bar, in
4kaicrica, and the libel set forth was, " That at a Special
"Meeting of the Members of the Constitutional Society, during
an adjournment, a Gentleman proposed that a subscviptium
Should be immediately entered into for raising the sum of
4001. to be applied to the relief -of the widows, orphans, and
and parents of our beloved American fell Ow-subjects, who,
faithful to the character of Englishmen, preferring death to
slavery, were for that reason only inhumanly murdered by
the King's, troops at or near Lexin,;ton and Coticard, in the
Province of Massachusetts, on the 19th day of last April."—
The defendant was permitted to call witnesses to prove that
there was, in fact, a subscription entered into, and that the
lOql. was pair; to one William Lacey, and by him remitted to
Dr, Franklin. Lord Mansfield, who tried the case, said not
a word against the admission of the evidence; it was received
without a murmur. Why then should not the defendant in
this case be at liberty to show that the facts upon which his
commentaries were made really took place? Why should be
net he permitted to negative malice, by proving the facts as
they occurred ? Iu both cases it was imputed, that his Ma-
jesty's subjects had herd inhumanly murdered by the troops
of his Majesty. In that case evidence was received.to show
that the facts which were the subject of the !Piet were noto-
riausly true; and why simi!vr evidence should net be received
in this case, lie was at a loss to imagine any satisfactory rea-
son. The last point which it was his lot to add rest to the Court,
sVas one which he- felt some reluctance in suggesting ; butt,
tot ,I.:ering the situation its which he stood, the anxiety he
personally felt for the defendant as well as for the public, he
could not forbear submitting it. Paissful and unpleasant as
it was to him, who might very probably spend the remainder
bf his life in that Court, to say any thing that was its the least
degree offensive to. any Judge, the duty be owed to the defen-
daet, and that duty which he owed to every client, compelled
V;la to shew, that somethieg transpired at the trial with re-
gard to the summing up of the Learned Judge, which ought
:lei to have passed, and 'which he wished to have laid before
*ll2 Court, in order that the Cou-t might see whether the
conduct of the Learned Judge was proper, and whether the
course taken by bins was that which he ought to have pur-
sued. He would simply state to the Court what took place;
he wauld.malie no commentary upon it, but leave the matter
entirely to their Lordships' judgment. When the case came
to he put to the-Jury—
. Mr. Justice 13AvLzY—You -were not personally present at
the trial.
Me. Bt actraußNE said lie was not personally present at the
trial—and that circumstance wade it the more painful to him
to acitipt the course he was now pursuing; but both his
Leari.ed Friends, Mr. Denman and Mr Phillips, had seen
what he shOuld recite, and he understood that it was a correct
repseserstation of what, had taken place. If it were not so,
,(Mr. lii should say nothing about it ; but if it were cor-
rect, and that'lre thought it mast lie, from what took place
when his Learned Ffiend, Mr. Denman, first moved for a
new trial,, because the statement of the Learned Judge's
summing up was front the same report. He (Mr. B.) did
not then understand the Learned Judge to have objected any
thing against. its correctness. If he said any thing incorrect,
the Learned Judge would stop him, and would prevent hint
froar proceeding : and he trusted the Learned Judge would
not suppose that be (Mr. B.) meant any thing offensive to
'his Lordship, because he was new merely in the performance
of that. which he conceived to be an imperative duty. The
Learned Counsel then read the summing up of Mr. Justice
Best, and concluded by submitting to their Lordships, that
the Learned Judge had, in his summing up to the Jury, put
an unjust construction upon Ile words of Sir F. Burdett.
Mr. Justice d-o not feel myself in the least offend-
ed. I frit it necessary to state that, whatever you may think
of it.•
Mr. ALACKBURNE-1 should be sorry to offend your Lord-
Ship, hut I have done nothing more than what I conceive to
be my duty.
Mr. Evaaus,' on the same side, commenced by submitting,
as a aroPoiltion unaswerable, that if the offence was commit-
%
ted, part in one county and part in another, that offence, un-
less by-Act of Parliament, could not be tried in either. He
knew that his assertion would be impturged—that it would be
held. a strange declaration to say, that in such a case a man
'must escaee altogether ; but—and here he meant nothing
like • personal, allusion—it was notorious, that those who
had framed the law- as to political offences, had taken most
especiat pains and caution to protect the subject from Mini-
sters and from Attorneys-General. Upon this attestiou of
venue there was a most important decision recorded in the
Year-hooks; id Henry VI. 4. b., and also in 2d Bolls' Abridge-
silent. A deed being forged in one county and published in
another, it was-held that the trial must he by a Jury of both
-counties. This case formed an answer to the arguments of
the Learned Attot ney-General, as they applied,. Mr. Evans
'thought, to the case of forgery. . .
Pita Loran ents.F Jusztee—ls that the judgment of the
Court, Mr. Evans, or the argument of Counsel ? for, in the
Year-books, it is difficult to distinguish one front the other.
Mr. Evates could not pledge himself.; but thought. from
appearance of the dictum in Hulls' Abridgement, that it must
have been tbiliadlng'of the CoUrt. The case was also quot-
ed in a subsequent case of ." the• King and Queen Thorpe,"
reported in the 3d•Modern. tie thought it distinctly proved,
the Leaned Counsel continued, that the writiog andthe pub-
/

lication could not be connected; and upon that ground only
a new trial must be had, for the for Mer trial had been a mis-
trial. Mr. Evans then procaukd to combat the proposition
of the other side, that writing alone amounted to an offence.
lie contended that the fate of the case, " the King v. Wood-
fall," completely destroyed. all the effect of " the King v.
Bere;" quoted the dictum of the House of Lords upon the
Libel Bill, to spew that the crime•consisted in the publica-
tion; and referred to the several cases of the King v. Stock-
dale, Easton, Lambert, Franklin, Reeves, Finnerty, Peltier,
Wakefield, and Withers, as cases in which nothing but the
fact of publication had been left to the Jury; whereas, had
' the writing been an act any way punishable, the Jury would
certainly have been directed to find that fact one way or the
other. • Then what was publication ? As described in the dic-
tionaries of Johnson and of Bailer, it was the act of publish-
ing the world7—divulgation. there was a clear distinction
between publication in a criminal case, and publication in a
civil case. In the first case, the delivery of a libellous letter
to the party, whom it assailed would amount to publication,
because, it might tempt the person libelled to a breach of thy
Peace; but in a civil action, such a delivery would not amount
to publication, because the Slander•would nut have been tit-
tered to the world, so as to prejudice the party, . but would,
except by his own subsequent act,, be confined to his own
knowledge. The Learned Counsel, however, would at once
submit to the Court an argument* which he took to be con-
clusive: - .Admitting. for the. purpose of discussion, that writ-
ing with intent to publish was an offence, even then, in the
present,case, a new trial must be granted ; because the in for-
illation charged that the defendant wrote and published, and •
the verdict had been given for writing and publishing. Now,
if the. Court proceeded to pass sentence upon the defendant
for writing only, they would deprive him of his motion in ar-
rest of judgment, and of the advantage of the writ of error in
the House. of Lords. A second point equally conclusive:—
admitting what, from the bottom of his heart, the Learned
• Couniel abjured ; admitting that delivery from thedefendant's
baud, or putting into the post by him, would amount to pub-
lication, still there must be a new trial, for there was nothing
but•presumption of even such a publication in Leicestershire:
and in no cise, he contended, could crime be presumed.
Mr. Justice BasT—This is to say, you cannot presume,
unless there are facts to warrant the presumption,
• Mr. EVANS meant to carry his proposition further;
• Mr. Justice BEsT—Then some thousands of persons have
been-improperly executed ; because, where there is' not di-
rect evidence of a crime, crime always has been, and always

. '
must be presumed. .
Mr. EvAxs submitted that. the fact that a crime (say mur-
der) bad been committed must first be proved.
Mr. Justice I.IAYLE.Y.—And here the publication is fully

proved. ••
Mr. Eyass.—Yes, but in Middlesex, which is a differen
crime from the crime charged.
Mr. Justice BesT.—The law is this :—You must have po
sitive proof that a crime has been committed, and- then you
may take presumptive proof as to the party who committed it.
Mr. Ey/ties referred to the instance of offences committed
upon canals, or in stage-coaches, as to which there was a par-
ticular AO of Parliament, making them triable in any county.
Mi. Justice Besr.—Because there would frequently be no-
thing from which to draw an inference that they were..com-
mitted in one county' rather than iu another.
Mr. Evarqs.—That., my-Lord,ls exactly what I want; for I
contend that it is impossible to draw an inference to the pre-
jadice of a defendant. The Learned Counsel then repeated
the positions which, he thought he had established, and aro-
creded to advert to the refusal of evidence offered upon. the
trial. The first point to which be should address himself
upon this part of his subject was, that, as a principle recog-
nised by the: late Lord Ellenborough, and by all the most
eminent Judges of the land, the right to discuss political
questions was the birth right of an Englishman. The second
point—an instance of the care taken to protect defendants
from Attorneys-General—was,ahat the jury were sole judges
of the whole offence of libel ; sole judges butts of the law and
of the facts. Now'be submitted it was 'impossible for the
jury to form acorrect judgment unless they had all the eir-
cumstandes of the case before them. Then let their Lord-
ships suppose a meeting. of 80,000 persons, men, woinen, and
children, :assembled by public advertisement to discuss—
whether wisely or foolishly, it mattered not—some political
measure. Let them suppose. a body of men, armed and
clothed' to red, breaking, without provocation, upon the de-
fenceless multitude, killing 11, wounding 164, and trampling
upon and kpjoring 400 persons. What were those men in
red ?
,and could any words in the English tanguage Sarffici-
ently,express abhorrence of such a deed ?
Mt. Justice DaYeF.Y.s—The libel did not profess to ttroceed
upon the fact, but -only upon inforuiatiuu gathered from a
newspaper.
Mr. Evass,—That, my Lord, can make no difference: if it
was shown that the defendant acted upon the information of
a newspaper, he bad a right to show that the information con-
tained in that newspaper was true. -He gut his information
from a newspaper; and if be had received it directly by ex-
press, would trot the Attorney-General have relied upon that
tact as proof of a malignant intent? My Lords, I du assert
that the defendant could have roved the truth of every word
contained i s this publication, miscalled a libel ; every word
of that which 1 have no,/ been' stating to your Lordships.
How contd:4ft Jury judge whether the comments were or
were not liner, when they had not the facts before them ?
Supposing those facts to have been true, and I think there
will be no Man at this time of day sufficiently hardy to deny
*
Mr. Justice BAYLEY. thought that Mr. Evans was 'ping
too far.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICK was of the same opinion.
Mr. EVANS must submit that, if it had been proved at the
trial that the statements were cult+ ue, that proof would have
been evidence of malicious 'Mention ; and, by the same rule,
if it had been shewn that the Statements were true, that
showing would have negatived malice ; and, in the ease of
the King v.. Horne, such proof had been received : whatever
might hare been its effs:et m that case, whether favourable or
prejudicial to the defeedant, in that case it had been receiv-
ed. The-last point upon which Mr. Evans would detain, the
Court was upon the samming tip of the Learned Judge
before e hoot the cause had been -tried. First, he should
contend that no Judge at Nisi: Prins was -entitled to direct a
Jury to presume any thing as to which there was not an in-
tondo in the indictment. Phis was a most important point,
because it might frequently happen that a Judge, hill of
zeal for his King and for his country, 'night get a verdict of
guilty against a defendant by imputing a meaning to the Words
of that person, which even the Attorney-General bad not dared
to apply tatkem. In the present case, 'alluding to the words
" a reign of terror and of blood," the Learned Judge had
this does not apply to Government, to what does it
apply ?
The-I.°Rn CittliF .TUsTICE—And the form of the itiforina-
tion is, that the tierel is of and concerning the Government ;
and the Judge desires the Jury to consider a !tether those
words coo relate to-any thing-but the Government.
Mr. EVANS..--I submit, my Lord, the in order to connect
those words with the Government, they should have.put as
an inuendo"-hleaning the:Gurerrouent-" Reign is a wand
of idiom, used not merely with respect •to Government ; we
speak of the reign of beauty, of fashion, or of folly. And I
submit, my Lord, with respect to the averment, That the libel
was t, of and concerning the Government"—that those who
introduced that averment were bound to prove it. -
The Loan Cures- Juan ce—That. must be proved by the
contents of the paper ;'and, upon that proof, it becomes a
question for the Jury.
Mr, EVANS—My Lord, in order to prove that this was " of
and concerning the Government," it would be necessary to
sinew that this business at Manchester was done by the order
of Government ; and would the Attorney-General dare to
say that Government did wrot? Would any man dare to say
so ? Would it not be a gross libel to say so?—My Lord, I do
again submit that, •if it were permitted to suggest a meaning
at pleasure to the Jury,- it would frequently happen that a
Judge desiring-to get a verdict—
The Loan ClllO,- JUSTICE objected to that mode of ex-
pressing.). His Lordship was sure that Mr. Evans did not
mean to speak offensively, and therefore he mentioned his
objection ; desiring to get a verdict was not quite a correct
phrase
Mr. EVANS had used the words with any offensive mean-
ing ; but he stil submitted that evidence had been impro-
perly rejected.
Justice BEST...—Would you have offered evidence that a
reign of lgood and terror had begun ?
Mr. EVA'NS never meant to say more than that the acts
spoken of by his client bad, in truth, been committed; and
he still objected that the Learned Judge, after refusing evi-
dence of the truth of the statements, bad assumed, throughout
his summing up,that those statements were untrue. After for-
bidding the. defendant to prove facts, he had assnaard that the
defendant could- not prose them.. Again, the Learned Judge
had. presumed the fact of the letter having been delivered
open to :some person in Leicestershire. The point had not
even been left to the Jury; the Learned Judge had broadly
stated, it as a fact.
The 1.03 D CHIEF JUSTICE—But a Jury are always supposed
to use their own understandings.
Mr. Etrass—My Lords, we can have affidavits from the Jury
that they—
The LORD CLIME' JUSTICE--,7011 know, Mr. Evans, that
the Court cannot receive such altidavits, and, therefore, you
ought not to offer them.

•
Mr. EVANS—Your Lordship is aware oldie impression made
by a statement front the Judge.
Ihe I.oallCif SusTice—Was not the evidence read ?
Mr. EVANS conlesled that it had been read.. The whole
course of the indictment had, itowever, appeared to him to
amount to little else than a bill of discovery in a criMinal case.
1.1;, charge was laid in Leicestershire, without any care or con-
sideration whether it was there that the act had taken place;
but the defendant was accused of having committed the of-
fence in Leicestershire, in order that he might state where it
was that he bad cmumitted it. In conclusion Mr. E►ans
could not but recollect that this was a case which would carry
down to peisterity; in a greater or lesser degree, every person
connected-with it. Of the impartial and unbiassed judgment
of their Litrdships he had no doubt. He trusted that be had,
• as far as was possible, avoided any offensive course of pro-
ceeding ; and having, at least he hoped so, thine his duty, he
should sit down with the fullest confidence as to the success

of his motion.
M. ScARLETT briefly argued, that the case of the Seven
Bit:bops was analogous to that before the Court, and that,
therefOre, the deciiion in the one case should•goveru that in

the other.
The LORD Crater J.usvce said that the case of the Seven
Bishops• was- perfectly distinguishable from the present—
there having been no proof in the one case that the libel was
written in Surrey, or. published in Middlesex or elsewhere,
whereas in the other there was proof, that the libel was
written in Leicestershire, and that. Sir Franeis Burdett was
there at the time, while there was proof of publication, upon
the very envelope of the letter, which directed that it should
be passed on to Brooks.
Mr. SCARLETT again rose to address the Court, and
The. AritaiNKY-“ENFRAL said, that he had no objection,
although the argument was closed, to allow his Learned
Friend to adopt the unusual course of making- sonic ad-
dition to it, if he were not satisfied with the argument as it
stood.
The CHIEF JUSTICE skewed that it was not inadmissible in
Counsel to make sonic addition to an argument after it was
closed ; but then it was material that such addition should

be must correct.
Mr. SCARIETT said, that he was only anxious to submit the
impression upon his mind, to the consideration of-the Court,
which be felt to he his duty.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—MS case has occupied much
time in discussion, and a great many authorities have been
quoted. Before I deliver my opinion, therefore, I should
wish to have a little time to look into those authorities, par-
ticularly into those which have been quoted on this day, lest
I should be-subjected to the imputation. of having delivered
that opinion without sufficient attention and research,—
Whatever view may be taken of my conduct, either by those
who'are now to judge of it, or by those who may judge of it
hereafter, I take leave to say, that if, in the result, I should
think that no new trial ought to be granted, that conclusion
will arise out of a conscientious belief that nothing was done
at the trial which was contrary to law.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY would only say at present, that, at-
tending to the comments made by the Learned Judge upon
the trial, as those comments had been repeated _by Mr. Black-
burn, he thought that, in almost every word of that part of
the summing up, he Should have gone along with that
Learned Judge.: At the same time he would add, for the
sake of the bar, that he believed that Learned Judge would
never wish the time to come when any Counsel should feel
the least degree Of fear in canvassing his opinions to the ut-
most ; and, in the present instance, from what he knew of
Mr. Blackburn priyately, lie believed that that gentleman
Inid done his duty manfully and fearlessly, and without the
slightest
.personal animosity towards that Learned Judge.
His Lordship had attended to. Mr. Blackburn's repetition of
what his Learned Brother (Best) had said at the trial; and
he did nut think that the Learned Judge had said any thing
which he (Mr. Justice Bayley), if he had possessed equal ta-
lent, would not have said himself.
Mr. Justice should be one of the last men in the
world to prejudice the•right of the bar to discuss freely and
fearlessly. The right of the bar is, like the
.tight. of the
press, to say any thing fearlessly which may be said with
propriety and decency ; but.l du not think that the Court
should be addressed in language such as ought nut to be ad-
dressed to gentlemen, and such, has been the language in
which I have been addressed thiS'elay.
Mr. BLACKBURNE rose and said, if the allusion .was meant
to be applied to him by the Learned Judge, he was perfectly
unconscious of having said any thing that could have called
forth the observation made by the Learned Judge. If the
remarks he had made could he considered of offensive ten-
dency, he must then say he was heartily sorry for it; but he
had hoped he was the last man likely to have made use of
arguments of any such tendency. There was no.man at the
bar less likely to take such a course.
Mr. Juitice BEs.r, as it appeared to us, intimated by mo-
tion that he had not addressed his observation to Mr. Black-

burne.
qv We gave an abstract of these proceedings on the day
when they occurred, but as the .subject is important, we have
taken the above account, "which appears to be accurate, from
a Morning Paper.,