The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-26 00:00:00

THE ATLAS LIBEL CASE.

paragraph, he must beg leaVe to remind the Jury,
that they must consider it by itself abstractedly, and
without the slightest regard to what had appeared
in other newspapers, with which it neither had, nor
purported to have, the slightest 'reane:';.ion. They
,oust not look at the etertiirient which prevailed,
aid visibly ri-ettaiied, in other portions of the Press,
—they must look to what the paragraph contained,
and to that only. He disclaimed all connexion with
any of 'the newspapers which had peted ii course of
violence and inveetivea 110 he had nothing whatever
to do with ttnj .67 the foul and malicious Slanders
which. Might have emanated frOM
.Other. ;quarters
against the character of the Y,o•(.1 thancellor. He
would beg the :Tory "re, observe that the Attorney-
Genera!, in opening this case against him, had used
the name of the Lord Chancellor all through his ad-
dress, instead of that of " the Noble Lord," which
was all that MII mentioned its the paragraph. Now
it appeared to him that the're wa). caineiderable in-
justice in trying hihe this species of what he must
call aftereknOwledge. After this paragraph, which
spoke only of a Noble Lord, had appeared in the
newspaper, the Lord Chancellor made an affidavit
denying the truth of the imputation contained in the
paragraph ; and thus, by the Lord Chancellor's
taking it to himself, he was to be tried on a species
of afrereknowledgee Which he had not acquired when
he permitted the paragraph to go before the public.
Until he had received notice of the paragraph's
having given offence to the Lord Chancellor, he did
not know that eny persons had attributed the charge
which it contained to the Lord Chancellor. It
therefore struck him that it would have been a
wiser course if the Lord. Chancellor had let it
alone altow ther; for if his Lordship had not
denied the justice of the charge, as applied against
him, nobody would ever have attnibuted it to him.
Indeed, he could say, from his own knowledge, that the
majority of opinions attributed it to another Noble
Lord. It appeared, as with some high authorities, it
was a settled principle that newspapers ought not to
publish any articles about the conduct ofpublic men,
no matter whether those articles were true or false.
With all due deference to such persons, he would
observe, that such a doctrine was not quite agreeable
to the spirit of the British' Constitution ; for if the
editors of newspapers were to be prevented from
publishing any remarks on the conduct of public
lmen, then public men would be placed above the •
reach of public opinion. It had likewise been said,
that the higher the situation of the public man was,
the worse offence was it to publish any thing to-his
disadvantage. Now that doctrine implied another,
which was, that the greater the trust, the greater
was the irresponsibility of the Minister to whom it
was confided ; for, beyond all question, if there was
to be no means of exciting public opinion, the higher
we placed any public man, the greater would be the
irresponsibility Nv hich we should give him. This
be mentioned to the Jury in the abstract, not wish-
ing them to believe that in so doing he wished to
throw any imputation upon the Lord Chancellor.
The Jury would, he trusted, recollect that Painter,
the first witness who had been called before them,
had told them that he (Mr. Bell) had given instruc-
tions to him to place this paragraph before that which
followed it. That paragraph, as they would perhaps
recollect, had reference to the different rumours with
which the political world was then rife. His reason
for giving Painter tech instruetions was, that us the
two paragraphs were on the same subject, they
should be kept as closely as possible together.
From no fault, save that of not understanding in-
structions which perhaps were not given with suffi•
dent clearness, Painter put a line between them,
thus separating into two paragraphs that which was
intended as one connected and integral paragraph.
lie ITOUII read both the paragraphs, and then they
would see that the caseagainst him was by no means
so bad as it had been represented. (Here Mr. Bell
read the paragraph charged as libehous, and that
which immediately followed it.) The Jury would
see from this latter paragraph, the spirit which in-
fluenced the Proprietor and Editor of the Atlas.
The rumours of the day were given with the true
spirit of a newspaper, but independently of any per-
sonal feeling whatever. After what he had already
stud of the character of the paper, and of his own
anxiety to avoid doing any thing which could detract
from its general fairness and impartiality, he trusted
that it would not be necessary for him to address
them any longer on that part of the case. There
were, however, one or two observations to which he
roust venture to call their attention as regarded the
legal view of it. In the case of Lord Abingdon, who
was tried for publishinga speech which he delivered in
he House of Lords, and which contained expres-
sions wounding the feelings and character of a soli-
citor, Lord Kenyon had said that to constitute a
libel the mind must be in fault, and must show a
malicious intentions; fur if it were published inad-
vertently, it might not be a libel. lie thought that
he had already shown that there was no improper
motive on his part in the puldieation of this para.
eraph ; for he hail endeavoured to lay before the
Jury as clearly as he could the way by which it had
got into the Paper. The intelligence en which it
was founded was received at the latest hour at
which it could be received consistently with t he
'salting up of the Paper. He had neither time to
consider the hearing of the article, nor to re-fashion
it in point of construction. • It was therefore viable
to the charge of want of style as well us to the other
charges which had been made against it. It there-
fore came strictly under the definition which Lord
Kenyon had given in Lord Abingdon's case, of what
was arid what was not a libel. It was published in
haste and inadvertently. The information came to
him when he had not time to give it the considera-
tion which it deserved ; for if he had given it that
consideration he should never have inserted it, not
because lie feared the responsibility which necessa-
rily attached to such an act, but because he should
have been unwilling to wound the feelings of
the Lord Chancellor by it. The paragraph,
he repeated, was written in the utmost haste, and
sent,he believed,in scraps to the printer. Lord Kenyon
had said, that " if a libel was published inadvert-
ently, it was not punishable as a libel." Now, if
those words were to be taken in their plain and na-
tural eignitication,—if there was no meaning in
them outside of the popular meaning attributed to
them,—if there was not a legal interpretation of '
diem quite distinct from their ordinary imputation,
then this paragraph was published inadvertently,
and, according to the dictum of Lord Kenyori, was
no libel. But Lord Kenyon had also said, that to
constitute a libel, the mind must be in fault, and
must show a malicious intention. Therefore, it was
possible that, although the libel had been published
inadvertently, he might have had some malice against
the Lord Chancellor.. lie was therefore anxious to
convince the Jury that he had none. He considered
it to be quite unnecessary for him to enter into the
history of the events from which the agitation arose,
of which the Attorney-General had spoken so feel-
ingly, for they must all be well acquainted with the
history of the Catholic Relief Bill. They must all
of them be aware, that daring the Session of
Parliament in which Mr. Canning was Prime
Minister, the Lord Chancellor, who was then
Sir John Copley, Master of the Rolls, made a
speech, and a strong speech, agaiast it. They must
all likewise be aware, that when the same Bill was
brought into Parliament in the course of the last
session by the Duke of Wellington, Sir John Cop-
ley, then Lord Chancellor, took a different view of
it, and in the exercise of a sound and manly, and
he had no doubt honest discretion, thought that he
should be furthering the interests of his country by
voting in favour of it. Upon this circumstance were
founded all the evil imputations against the Lord
Chancellor which had been so sedulously propa-
gated by his enemies. Of course those enemies
must be found among those who were of opinion
that Catholic emancipation would be destructive to
the British Constitution. For his own part, he (Mr.
Bell) could distinctly say that he had never at any
time entertained such . an opinion. Ever since he
had been able to think, he had never been accus-
tomed to think that the principle of exclusion was
the principle OR whieh the British Constitution rested

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dec. 21.
THE KING v. BELL.
The following was Mr. Bell's defence :
Mr. Bell observed that it was very natural he
should address the Jury under some feelings of em-
barrasement ; but he trusted that they would not
attribute any feeling he might evince to fear, but to
the novelty of his situation. He felt the greatest
anxiety to vindicate himself from the charge of being
a scandalous libeller. The question with him was
more a question of 'character than any thing else; he
had no political or personal object to answerte-the
character of the paper he had the honour to conduct
was distinguished for its neutrality hi political mat-
ters. He was anxious also to say that he had no
intention whatever to wound either 'die feelings of
Lord or Lady Lyndhurst-. Is thanked the At-
torney-Genera', for the temperance and moderation
with which he had eeled towards him, and with not
having mixed up his case with that of others recently
before the Court, with whom he did not wish to be
associated. The learned Attorney-General had
spoken of the offer made, if he should give up the
author, the party by whom the substance of this article
was communicated to Mtn. But he begged the Jury
to consider the chcumstances in which he was
placed. It must be well known to all that the editor
of a newspaper stood in a peculiar situation—he
stood between the public and the proprietors whose.
interest he represented, It was necessary for him
te obtain such amusement- and instruction as would
please all ; being placed in such a situation, he was
above all liable to the risk of prosecution. The
matter complained of was furnished to hirn by a
confidential correspondent, and sooner than barter
the trust reposed in him be those who gaee him the
information, he would eller all the inconvenience
of the present prosecution; he never would be de-
nounced to the public a 3 a man who would barter a
trust reposed in him. The Atlas Newspaper was,
perhaps, one of the most ambitious attempts ever
known on the pert or one publication to give mat-
ter generally rOntaieed in many publications: it en-
tertainer:l, no hostilities to any man, or any body of
men, It had occurred merely from mistake—mis-
tekee occurred everywhere, even in this Court. Not
keg since a Learned Gentleman argued a case most
strenuously, and shortly after discovered, on looking
at his brief, that he wits for the other side. A News-
paper might be considered a-mirror which reflected
Massing events, and in a moral point of view could
only be considered responsible for the shadow, and
not the substance. The alleged libel stated nothing
definitive, it merely dealt in rumours, and if turnouts
were not the legitimate property of newspapers, and
taken up by them, they would go ca from mouth to
mouth exaggerated at. every stage of their progress,
late the story of the three crows told by Mrs.Piozzi.
There were three reasons which induced him, tinder
the eirtumstances of this case, to take any eonse-
neentes rather than give up his informant. The
first was, that the information was given tinder a
seal of secrecy which it would be dishonourable to •
break, In the text place, when information of this
kind was given, it was given to be used at the dis-
cretion of the party to whom it was communicated,
anti having, iii the exercise of that discretion, used
it, he con-idered himself as doing so wholly on his
own responsibility. In the third place, he would
ask the jury, with what feelings could I.e stand
before theta after havieg broken the confidence which
Was reposed in him ? For these maser's it was that
h thought it better to observe silence, and, as he
had used the information he received, to take till the
consequences to himself; at the same time solemnly
(lettering that he had no wish whatever to injure or
wound the feelings of Lord or Lady Lyndhurst.—
He now came to the libel itself. y It stated
that there were rumours in the highest political
circles. He had not the vanity to pretend that he
moved in stub circles. Those which he moved in
'.:ere very humble, but he had many friends who
geve him information, on the accuracy of which he
had good reason to rely, of what was passing those
circles. lint he did, not give what he heard as
facts—he gave them merely as rumours. A news-
paper was a mirror in which what was passing in
society might lie reflected, and rumours could not
he excluded from them. Besides the insertion in a
riper of a rumour which was vague before, gave it
a specific character, and frequently led to their total
destruction if unfounded; and he believed that one
morning paper had stated that that was one good
result of his insertion of the rumour in this instance.
Ile was glad of it, and if it had that effect, he
should submit with more pleasure to whatever might
be the conssquence to himself. The Attorney-
Gemmel had told thern that no person could go into
society at that period without hearing those rumours.-
Now, if that were so, he would ask wily was it un-
lawful to write that which it was lawful to speak in
public ! If those rionciers were so general, why were
they not checked ? why was not snane person who re-
peated thorn called to account ? er why should the
statement in writing that the rumours did exist subject
the party to punishment ? Bad as the law of libel
was, be hoped it was not yet so inconsistent as to
warrant this. The rumours which he had heard lie
gave as he bad heard them, without mentioning
names. At the time he received this informe.ion,
he was test informed of the amount of ecclesiastical
patronage which was in the gift of the Lord Chan-
cellor, nor of the amount of that which was in the
gift of the First Lord of the Treasury. Ile had
since trade many anxious inquiries as to the amount
in the hands of each ; but, unfortunately, his in-
(pities had been -made in vain, and :lie remained in
the same state of ignotaece in which he had been
before the appearance of this paragraph, and in
which a large majority of the,coMmunity were still
involved. It had been remarked by Helt, an au-
thority not at all favourable to the press, that if the
satire of any publication .Werenotcommonly under-
stood, it was not panishabl6 "by law as a libel.—
Now he contended that the paragraph charged
against him as libellous could riot be commonly un-
derstood; for the amount of ecclesiastical pa-
tronage in the gift of each Noble Lord in the Ca-
binet was by no means matter of general now-
riety. With regard to the evidence which had
been that day bought forward to prove the ap-
plicability of this paragraph to the'Lord Chancellor
and his lady, be must be permitted to say that it
was not exactly such as he had expected. He- had
expected to have found witnesses brought from dif-
ferent classes in society ; he had expected to have
seen in the witness-box members of the bar, mem-
, bers of the senate, and members of the high aristo-
cracy ; Jie had expected that by their united testi-
mony the inference that this paragraph was intended
to apply to the Lord Chancellor would have been
FO clearly proved that, no doubt could be left on the
mind of any Juryman. But when he came to look
at what actually had taken place, and to compare
the evidence which had been given with that which
lie had expected would be given, he found that there
was no other evidence tendered against him titan
that of Mr. Shepherd, who turned out oddly enough
to be himself a relation of Lady Lyndhurst. He
did not intend to question the evidence of Mr.
Shepherd ; but this much he thought that he might
fairly be permitted to say,—that it was not so strong
as he had expected. Mr. Shepherd was but one
individual, and, being connected by relationship
with Lady Lyndhurst, was not quite so strong
as the evidence of gentlemen would have been
who were unconnected with either the Lord
Chancellor or Lady Lyndhury. Mr. Shepherd
stated that his. only reason for believing -that
the paragraph applied to the Lord Chancellor
was, that he knew the Lord Chafe- ler pos-
sessed considerable ecclesiastical. patronag. That
reason was unsatisfactory to him—for he knew that
other Noble Lords possessed considerable ecclesiasti-
cal Patronage ; and if he had placed another gentle-
man in the witness box to prove that the First Lord
of the Treasury possessed considerable ecclesiasti-
cal patronage, the Jury would have conflicting evi-
dence on that point, and it would have been impos-
sible to assert that the imputation of this paragraph
win commonly -understood. In considering this •

its foundation. tie was anxious to show the jury
that this had always been his opinion, in order that
he might show them that he had no political feeling
or malice against the Lord Chancellor. About three
years ago he had published a pamphltt upon the
Catholic question, and by reading an extract from.
it he would show the jury what hit orthdolit had
at that titre been ultidn the 6laimi,s of• the Catholics,
Mkis i were founded on What heMnderatood to be the
grounds of justice and of common sense: Here
Mr. Bell read the folios ing extract from his
pamphlet It is objected, emancipation would
not cure all the evils of Ireland, and would not,
therefore, produce the effect desired. True, eman-
cipation would not cure all the evils of Ireland, but
no evil can be cured without it. Though it leaves
much to be done; it must be (kne first itstifj it is
like a preparation of the physical system for a course
of medical treatment. It cannot be disguised, nor
is it sought to be evaded, that much would remain to
be satisfied, and mach to be corrected; but it would
not be solely Catholic. The policy that has hitherto
governed Ireland has not only been injurious, be-
cause it' demoralised and impoverished the people.
Withdraw invidious distinctions, and if further com-
plaints reach you, they will be the complaints of
freemen, which you, as freemen, will find your inte-
rests identified in redressing. All measures that pre-
cede emancipation, however beneficial in their ten-
dency, will be received with distrust by the excluded ;
a modification of tithes may relieve the landlord—a vi-
gilant police coerce the rebellious, anti afford dubious
security to the peaceable—a reduction of imposts
lighten the burdens of a trade, almost too exhausted to
be conscious of benefits; public works occasionally em-
ploy the idle or disaffected of a village, or a county,
and petty sessions inspire the peasant with a foreign
hope of justice,—but this is partial, not general
gocs4, affecting distinct and minor interests; still
leaving without a remedy the great national cala-
mity, to which the feelings and attachment of the
country are sacrificed. Such measures preceding
emancipation must be transitory and ineffectual,
since petty benefits cannot be felt by a people who
want freedom :—following emancipation, they would
complete the pacification, and decide the allegiance
of the country." From that extract the Jury would
be enabled to perceive what his opinions had been
on a question on which much political prejudice had
undoubtedly arisen. They would therefore perceive
that he could have no political antipathy against the
Lord Chancellor for his conduct on the Relief Bill.
As to any personal motives, it was almost unneces-
sary for him to state that he had none: be had no
wrongs to redress, no injury to resent, no motive
to do an act, which was riot only painful, but also
improper in itself. If he had a bias either way,
it would have been rather to do justice to the
Lord Chancellor against his calumniators, than
to have assisted them in their disgraceful slan-
ders. He had heard the proprietor of the Atlas,'
Mr Whiting, who was a man of informaton
and literature, and had great knowledge of
men and manners, speak upon all occasions in the
most favourable terms of the Lord Chancellor. Mr.
Whiting's knowledge of the Lord Chancellor
enabled that gentleman to inform him of that Noble
Lord's real character. He had always spoken of
him as an honourable and distinguished Nobleman,
who;c noble situation stooped even under his noble
character. If, therefore, he (Mr. Bell) had any bias
on the subject, it was, as he had before said, to do
justice to a character which, he was led to believe,
had been wickedly traduced and atrociously ma-
ligned. Having thus shown to the Jury that lie
had neither political nor personal malice to gratify,
he would now ask them to say in what part of this
paragraph was to be found that great element of
libel, malice ? He was well aware that it had been
said by some great law authorities that the act
itself was to be taken as a proof of the intention.
Such doctrine might he considered, and he
dared to say was considered, very good in law,
but could not stand examination for a moment .
if considered abstractedly. TO say that a mini
must have only one intention under all the
varying circumstances under which an action-
may be committed, is to put out of considera-
tion all the accidents to which man is liable. Why
in the case of libel must the law consider itself the
master of every man's secret intentions ? Why
must it force upon him his own imaginations as the
secret workings of his mind ? Such was not the
course which it was permitted to pursue on the
trial of other offences. Killing, he believed, was
divisible into two classes, murder and manslaughter.
Killing was the same in both ; but the absence of
ill-intention removed from the agent all the ill con-
sequences which followed his act when it was ac-
companied by malice. If- such a principle was ad-
mitted in such cases, it ought to be admitted in the
present case, where no malice had been proved, and
where the result of the act crenplained of was so
much less dangerous and pernicious. In their con-
sideration of the present paragraph it was neces-
sary that two things should be proved clearly to lie
their satisfaction. The first was, that the paragraph
was intended to apply to the Lord Chancell,r ; and
tl e second was, supposing them to he convinced of
its applicability to that Noble Personage, that it origi-
nated in malice. A, to its applicabiiity to the Lord
Chancellor, they had only the evidence of Mr. Shep-
herd. At the time w hen lie received the information
on which he had written this paragraph, he had noknowledge
of who " the Noble Lord" alluded' to
was. True he had his suspicions—and here let him
remind them that the evidence of Mr. Shepherd that
(lay was mere- suspicions too. Then, taking it to
proved that the paragraph was inteuded to apply
to the Lord Chancellor, he had endeavoured to show
that the great element of libel was wanting---he
meant malice, either personal or political. He would
here remind the Jury that the Attorney-General, in
the course of his speech, seemed to insinuate that
in inserting this paragraph he had departed from the
ordinary routine of the paper. On that point the
Attorney-General'laboured under great mistake. In
ordering that insertion, he had done nothing more
than was usual and ordinary. Nothing was struck
out of the leading article to make room for it. Some
trifling news of the day was only omitted. It would
I likewise seem, from what had fallen from the Learned
Attorney-General, that he considered this to have
been done surreptitiously. No such thing; for
what object could that have answered ? The
Proprietors of a Paper was not, as a matter of
necessity, its conductor; he entrusted that duty to his
Editor; and it was the duty of the Editor to conduct it,
not against the will of the Proprietor, but according
to the plan which had been previously settled between.
them. It was not the usual conduct of proprietors
of newspapers to read over every paragraph which
appeared in the previous publication ; for if it were,
they would have no occasion for editors, who were
generally employed to save them that trouble.
With those editors, a certain discretion must-neces-
sarily be left. In the exercise of that discretion, he
had inserted this paragraph ; and that explanation
would, he trusted, satisfy the Jury that though. it
was inserted unknown to Mr. Whiting, it was not
inserted surreptitiously. He trusted that he bad
now made clear to them the character.of this para-
graph, and of the evidence which had been adduced
to prove that it conveyed imputations unfaVourable
to the character of the Lord Chancellor. He would
now proceed to call their attention to a distinction
which had sometimes been drawn between the legal
responsibility and the moral. responsibility which at-
tached to the individual against whom a charge of
libel was adduced. In Mr. Pox's Libel Act,—and
to that Act the Press of this country owed all the
rights which it was permitted to enjoy,—it was
stated that the Jury were competent to try all the
merits of the case, or, to use the language of Junius,
that they were to be judges at once of the law and
of the fact. If therefore, there should be any thing
in the legal view of this case which is not con-
sistent with the common sense view of it, he
trusted that when that discrepancy should be
submitted to them, they would carry the moral
view of it along with them in their minds, and
would give to him the leefit of any doubts
which such a consideration might engender. It had.

been asserted by Holt, that-in cases of libel a man
might be legally guilty Mel morally innocent. This
assertion, though strange to an unlearned, might ap-
pear perfectly intelligible to a learned ear, for he was
well aware that words, taken in a legal sense, had
often a different sense from that which they bore in
ordleary parlance. He recollected a very curious in-
stance of it, Which occurred a few years ago in Ire-
land. In that country it happened that the law-
offieers of the Crown had at long controversy with
sonic or the leading members of the Catholic Board
on the meaning of the word " pretence." They in-
sisted that " pretence," meant " purpose." The
Members of the Catholic Board contended that it
had no such meaning, and in support of their point
referred to Dr. Johnson and other great lexicogra-
phers, to prove that " pretence" did not mean
" purpose." The law officers of the Crown were
not convinced by these authorities, and they referred
the determination of the question to the Cow t of
King's Bench. A solemn investigation into the mean-
ing of the word took place before the Learned Judges
of that Court. Dr. Johnson and the rest of the lexi-
cographers were thrown overboard, and it was held
that pretence was purpose. Retaining this circum-
stance in his mind, he was satisfied dint Holt, in
stating that a man might, in cases of libel, be le-
gally guilty and morally innocent, had not stepped
out of the ordinary language of the law. The doc-
trine, however, was so opposite to all the usually
received notions of right and wrong, that he trusted
that they would set against any legal wrong which
he might have committed his moral innocence : and
if they did, he was certain that the scale would soon
predominate in his favour. Mr. Bell then proceeded
in a tone of voice, which was at times so low as to
render him almost entirely inaudible to the reporters,
who were placed immediately in his rear, to regiet
the malignity which of late had been only too pre-
valent in the publications which had emanated from
a part of the Press. He pointed out to the Jury
how dangerous it was, in endeavouring to check
that malignity, to lay down precedents, which,
though useful in particular cases, might ultimately
prove most prejudicial to the liberty of the Press.
He looked upon the liberty of the Press as a natu-
ral right, and contended that it was in that light
that it had always been considered by the best
writers of our constitutional history. He directed
the attention of the Jury to the difficulties by
which 'writers in newspapers were environed, in con-
sequence of the undefined state of the law of libel.
He declared that the maxims of the law were so
indistinct that you might snatch from them, as
from the books of the Magi, a leaf to suit
every man's purpose. Though such were his opi-
nions, he declared that he would no more seek the
unqualified Liberty of the Press than he would seek
to establish the absolute impunity of Ministers. To
say that the power of the Press should be uncondi-
tional, would be to invest it with an unconditional
power of insult,—a quality, which would not only
make ir,what the Attorney-General had been pleased-
to call it, a monstrous evil, but which would make
a curse to every country, and to no county more than
this. When he said that certain bounds ought to be
set out for the Liberty of the Press, he might per-
haps be permitted to ask, where should we find such
bounds ? Not in legal restrictions, for they cannot
correct the present evil, but in the force and soundness
of public opinion, in which, and in which alone, you
find its proper limits. But it was said that the
Press was free, because there was no previous hin-
drance to any thing which a public writer was in-
clined to publish. But if there was no previous
hindrance, there were certain consequences, from
which no man, however prudent, can escape. At
present those who had any thing to do with the
maeagement of the Press were in a situation similar
to that of a man who was allowed to walk on a
drawbridge; without let or hindrance, until he had
reached the centre, and who, as soon as he arrived
there, was plunged into the stream which rolled be-
neath his feet, without any note being given ()limy in-
tention to withdraw the planks on which he trod.
True it was, that the Editors of Newspapers might
publish what they liked, but where was time advantage
of thapermissiote if they could not learn, by any ex- .
excise of their feculties, whether they were safe from
prosecution ireso doing ? They had no light to
guide them,—they were compelled to perform all
their business in the dark ; aud when it was per-
formed, they were still in uheertainty whether, in
performing it, they, had not exposed themselves to
the lash of the law. Thus the facility of printing
was a fatal facility,—a dangerous:pivrogative. Mr.
Bell here became so inaudible, that we.foued it im-
possible to follow him for some time. We under-
stood him to state that the anomalous state of the
libel new of England reminded him of an oriental
story, in which a tnan was represented as bound to a
revolving wheel, which brought him ever and anon
within the reach of a bright gem of inestimable
value. Every time he approached it he stretched
forth his hand to grasp it, and every time he came
near it he was carried away from it with incredible
velocity by the revolving power of the wheel. The
liberty of the Press was to the public writer that in-
valuable gem ; but, unfortunately, every time that
he attempted to reach it, he was struck back by
some dogma of law, and was carried away from it
with inconceivable rapidity. He then proceeded to
tell the Jury that there were two or three points
which he wished them to consider fully in deciding
on this case. By their decision against him they
would fix the responsibility of art Editor of a news-
paper-for publishing a rumour notoriously iii circu-
lation. It was denied that rumours on the subject
of this paragraph existed at the time of its publica-
tion, and therefore the whole crime,of which he had
been guilty, was simply that of having put them
into a newspaper,which was the hest and most certain
way of obtaining for them a speedy refutation.
They would therefore have to decide how far as
newspaper was correct in stating the existence of a
rumour as a matter of public information. They
would have to decide that important ques-
tion, which would go far- to settle the ill-understood
regulations which governed the Press. If the Jury
should think it advisable for is moral good, that a
loose rumour should be inserted in a newspaper,
there to meet its refutation, then upon that ground
he would rest, and upon that ground he would say
that they could not find him guilty. If the Jury
should be of a contrary opinion, then they must con-
sider whether the paragraph be applicable to the
Lord Chancellor, and if it be, whether it be libel-
lous? Here let him be permitted to observe that
the Press was to every sensible man a subject of the
deepest interest. There had gone abroad lately a
great prejudice against it, ill conseenence of the
liberties taken with private character by some male-
volent writers. It appeared that a series of calum-
nies had been poured. forth against the ministers of
the day, for which there was no shadow of pretence.
lie entreated the jury to recollect that this paragraph
was disconnected with any of the articles which had
given such just and such general
.offence. He desired
them to forget the excitement which had given rise
to those articles, and which those articles had in
their turn prolonged : he entreated them to discon-
nect him from the authors of such writings, and he
implored them to judge of him by this paragraph,
and by this paragraph alone. Ile likewise trusted,
, that the jury would take into their consideration,
that if one part of the Press had lent itself most
shamefully to the diffusion of slander and calumny,
' another part y
theolgait had nobly redeemedliatitstandwbicit its
it
thad made
cha-
He believed that the Press of
ar agcati enrs t
yt
England had never been conducted with so much
talent and ability as that with which it was
conducted at this moment. He believed that the
characters of those connected with it had never been
morepure and irreproachable than at present. Ile
would vindicate it from the aspersions Which had re-
cently been cast upon it, aid he would say ut once,
that he (lid not believe that the . Press was half so
pure and half so irreproachable in the Augustan days
of Queen Anne as it was in the present days of
George IV. Your wits of that day were coffee-
house wits, mere brawlers in the street, who came
into society at intervals to illuminate it, and then

tlepartd bad, into obscurity, to indulge in secret in
their loose anti depraved habits. The individuals
Connected with the Reset at this day generally keep
good society, have the demeanour and habits of gen-
tlemen, and are received as such in all societies.
This was not the ease formerly-a fact, which he
stated for the mere purpose of reecuing the l'ress
generally from the imputation which woo Id other-
wise rest upon it from the irregularity of some of its
degraded members. lie would not detain them
longer with his observations. He had stated ail
that had occurred to him,-he would not say in jus-
tific.ttion of the libel, for if it were a libel he would
Wedeln to justify it,-but he had stated, he trusted,
enough to shove that it was not a libel upon the
Lord Chancellor, and least of all a malicious libel.
On these grounds he asked for their verdict. He felt
that the character of the Lord Chancellor stood too
high in the opinion of his country and of colleagues
to stand in need of being purified by a verdict of a
British Jury. It was not necessary to the vindication
of his Lordship's fame for the Jury to give a verdict
against him ; for until his Lordship had made all ilirl•
davit denying the imputation said to be contained in
this paragraph, there was not a man in the country
who thought the paragraph applied to him. His
Lordship had taken the propel course to refute
the rumours which had been industriously propa-
gated against him. lie had refuted them to the
conviction and satisfaction of every human being;
and it was not necessary, he repeated, to his Lord-
ship's justification that the jury should return a ver-
dict of guilty against so humble an individual as
himself. If, however, it should be supposed that
their finding a verdict for him would throw a stigma
upon the character of that noble personage, he would
entreat them Hot to return a verdict in his favour.
He did not seek a verdict at the expense of the re-
putation of the Lord Chancellor, which was trot
less his property that; that of his country. He would
rather starer himself than allow the character of so
useful a personage to suffer. Ile trusted that the
jury would apprrcia'e this conduct on his part as it
deserved, and that they would judge him by his
motives as much as by the evidence produced against
him. lie now reposed his case in their hands.
He entertained no doubt that their verdict would
be a just one. Their verdict in his favour Would
cast no imputation on the Lord Chancellor ; ;f it
woeld, he would prefer hearing the word guilty
issue froM their box to seeing that nettle personage
at all injured in the opinion of the country.
Lord TENTERDEN, after reading an abstract of the
pleading:, and also the libel and the paragraph an-
nexed to it, proceeded to inform the Jury, that the
defendant had told them that the paragraph alleged
to be libellous ought to be considered in connexion
with that which followed it. If that were so, it
would be their duty to consider whether the sen-
tence in the subservient paragraph, stating in dis-
tinct terms that a difference of opinion had arisen
between the Lord Chancellor and some of the Mi-
nisters in the House of Commons, owing to the tut•
courteous withdrawal of his Equity Bill, and that
which followed, stating that Mr. Peel wits to retire,
to keep Lord Copley in countenance, did not serve
to explain who the person was described in the pre-
vious; paragraph, as " the Noble Lor.l holding a
station of vast responsibility, who was said to be
on terms of disagreement with another of his Ma-
jesty's advisers." If, upon comparing those passages
together, they should be of opinion that the Lord
Chancellor was the individual to whom that para-
graph was intended to refer, then two questions
would arise for their consideration. lie did not
think that it would be con'ended, that to barter
ecclesiastical livings for money was not a serious and
criminal act in any person who committed it ; and
if it were, then ne did not expect to hear it con-
tended, that to east such an imputation upon any
noble lord or lady, or upon any person whatsoever,
was not a libel. The defendant, however, said that
he had no intention to defame the Lord Chan-
BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED.
cellor by this paragph; aud furthermore, that ,
the Lord Chancellor was not the certain noble lord
Wellclose-squ.tre, soap-manufacturer, from Jan. 1 t "
to whom this paragraph alluded. Now as to the
5, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners.
latter part of this defence, the Jury had had the gene-
fit of the testimony of Mr. Shepherd. They would . BANKRUPTCIES sUPII.IISEDBI).
Charles Thomas Ignatius Mawbood,
, esekere
Richard Woodward, Great St. Thomas Apes", •
therefore take that gentleman's opinion into their con- l
'Thomas Newcombe, York, common-earriata
sideration, and would then judge fur themselves whe- '
ther this paragraph was or was not intended to ap- I BANKRUPTS. er, to
ply to the Lord Chancellor. The natural aPelica. I James Bowles, &Islam, Cimlaidgeshiree gtocr coot
surrender Jan. ft, 12, an Fob. b, at we, a". th ddso :
tion of it was to the Lord Chancellor, as he (Lord ti 111 '
of Commissioners. Gatty, Holdall', Getty, a
Tcnterden) thought. Then some statement havingI
' Angel-court, Throemorton-street lf,'
been made, that die Lord Chancellor would rather , - •
Charles Price, Strand aMbre-Pl-laallaraCtaref, Jan.
na
prosecute the person who gave the defendant the at ten, 8, and Feb. 5, at eleven,' at the Court Of CO--
information on which this paragraph is founded than missinners. Humphreys,Ernai.ay Ludgate-hill.
the defendant himself, the defendant offered reasons j, - broker'
James Nevett, George-yard Lombard-street, ,s
of Weliffes4.o.;
to the Jury, perhaps sufficient reasons,. why he Jan. 1, at eleven, 8, at one, 'and Feb. 5, -itr-tvralre,, ~,
could not do that which he had been challenged by the Court of Cemmitsiontrs. Keeney and 11"0-''
the Attorney-General to do. If, therefore, he would Lothhury.
not give up the person from whom lie received his Edward Rix, Brighthelmstone,: Sussex, lines-drePer'
information,- he must be content to be considered as Jan. 12, at twelve, 19, at eleven, and fib. , attGwaelefste:
lit
author of it, and must incur the author's
sponsibility. It was then contended by the defend-
i,„t re- iawthreenCneelto,ofcCmn
heo,,pii
.i.ls:ioneis. Hardwick :and
i old,
ant, that as the rumours to which allusion is made"
Isiifilzaxs,
plasterer,Vanderco mianC.
in the libel, actually preva,led, it was lawful in him
at the Court of Commissioners. Farden, Great 1 In'
to print them. lie (Lord 'I ets terden) must sa •
) street, Bedford-row.
that he was surprised at hearing a gentleman :who
had conducted his defence withso much tact, ability, ker, Dec. 29, at twelve, Jan. 8, and Feb. 5, at eleverr.
4,
and talent, advance so untenable a proposition. No William Meares;Chapel-ereet, May-fair, Middlesl,_l:l;
the; Court of Commissioners. Griffith, G!ten street,
man was at liberty to circulate rumours which are Grosvenor-square. 154,1.1'.4-'atrnedeti'Fellb.l"s,P4rertate.levelt
injurious to the reputation of another, much lest ; Charles Judson jun , Ripon,Yorkshire, npho'sterer, Jen.
can the editor of a newspaper give circulation to
cote,
them by placing them in print ; for many persons Ripon. E I ' G d T,I
Lou '
ever ey, ar en-court, emp e, on, on ,
-8, 9, at eloven and' Feb. 5, at one, at the Gnat linugfr
who would otherwise not be acquainted with them, Ripon.
would learn diem through the medium of his news- Anthony Guy, Chippenham,Wiltshire,
paper. If an imputation be cast upon an individual Jan. 19,20, and Feb. 5, at eleven, at the White Li" 11 ',
in a newspaper, it matters not whether the editor Bath. Pinnigcr, Gray's Inn-square; Pinniger, or
learned that imputation from rumour or no, for he Penh"; Clarke and Son, Bristol.. i,hlela
John Williamson and Thomas Rishworth, Re. la
makes it Lie own by printing it, and so
Yorkshire, worsted-spinners, Jan. 1, at five, 2, and get,(
naps the wings on which slander flies.
5, at ten, at the Talbot lan, Bradford: llawson.,:i,,
The defendant then said that he did not know
ford,
k yins,kNie.w Braswell-court, Carey-street; Weir, or •
the extent of the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical
patronage, ru I that therefore the readers of his paper Joseph Mimes Bloxham, Halesowen Shropshire, IlVt,'"
could not tell to whom the reragraph alluded. It ears, Jan. 7, at five, 8, and Feb. 5,'°t•-he
at twelve, Ist.,
was immaterial what was the extent of the Lord Globe Tavern, Birmingham.
Barber, •Fetter-lane ; : -
Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage; for though lo Wet, Dudley. - aster
few might know the extent, there were still fen er Nicholas lhompson, Dartmouth, Devonshire, I°,-- Ale
that did not know that he had some. It had been .mariner, Jan. 4,5, and Feb.- 5,- -ar, eleven;' At - the "i'o,,
Inn, Dartmouth. Wolston, Furnival's Inn; , Waist '•
contended that the defendant ought not to be 7M..
Brixitam, Devonshire.
swerable for this libel, because he said he had no rkshir'
Doroth Ilettersley, Bilton-with-Harrojate, Yo es
intention to defame the Lord Chancellor. We have
Finarinnkeeper, Jan.
i 7, adt the Court-house of the...o Castle,o,
no mode of judging of men's intentions except by
their acts. If we find a man doing an act which is ton-with-Harrogate, eleven.anFbs,
andatpllattersley's iiito;kingo.
calculated to produce certain effects, we must, till New Boswell-court, at
Lincoln's""°ll d s°lll , lnn ; Powell an
contrary evidence is produced, infer that he intends Knaresbrough. monsy-scriventart„
n sr
to add that which be knows will follow from his act, Robert !!award, Highs Holborn, baker; Dec. Ew? f
and we cannot take his meaning to be the contrary twelve, Jan. 5, and Feb. 5, at eleven, at the COurS °
from his assertion alone. It has further been con- Commissioners. Turner, Clifford's Inn. n RN
tended that as this was a hasty production, it is William Williams, Bristol, ironfonnder, Jan. ir',.,,,,,.
and Feb. 5, at twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Biraling7,o;
therefore not punishable as a libel, and an opinion
Austen and Hobson, Rey-mond-buildings, Gravy's'
of Lord Kenyon had been quoted, in which that Arnold and Haines, Birmingham.
n'
Noble Lord is stated - to have declared, that any
DIVIDENDS. ' • . 15'
thing which is published inadvertently is not so . Is.
E. Thompson, Kingston-upon-Hall, merchant, Jan. if,
punishable. lie dal not know what Lord Kenyon
aitt, two, at the ;George Inn, -Kingston-upon-Hull
tot
meant by the word - inadvertently, for he had no
uNrewpocrt, Isle a)! Wight, tailor, Jan.
cslsl,lte:rborii
means of judging of it from the context; but he had at tahgerrdo
heard Lord Kenyon often declare his opinion on ;bookseller, Jtaini. 15,°m
nalt"ttruenee at theM *Con: otafnCommissielll
this subject, when seated on the beech where he
. -T, Johnston, heapside, warehouseman, Jet,. 11i':,,;
had now the honour to preside, and he was twelve, at the Court of Commissioners W.• - ncilbitg
quite certain that Lord Kenyon never intended Oxford, coachmaker, January 15, at three, at 100'714,
to excuse any man from responsibility because of Commissioners--R. Wild, Craven-street, Strandll°o`f,
he had committed an act hastily. Every Jan. 15, at three, at the Court of Commisaioner"riiiri
roan must take care -that any act committed by him B:adley, Legburn, Lincolnshire, silk-mercer, •issoitli
in his haste duos riot injure another, either in for- 13, at eleven, at the Court of Commiss oners--S -esi
and T. Hall, Wood-street, Chenpside, warehouser
tune or character. As to the observations which
January 15, at ten, at the Court of Commissitt 0
had been made respecting the liberty of the press, '
e aT. Towerson, To:tholes, Cumberland, miller, .1,1. 0,
he would merely observe, that they were complete!
out
of
place in
this
case. for it was not
consistent
sthfeoutro,n;a3titahveietGsnoldeenraLtaioho
elnn, Whitehajvaenn---2-21:30,00
with the interest of society that imputations of this at le C:ommercial mßoorms,"-B'rsto shopkeeper,iYates, sel;,;',;;I:
kind should be cast, even inadvertently, upon the Yeti's, W. Yates, jun. and B. Yates, Cleckheaton, 1""
motives and conduct of others. .It had been said shire, cloth-manufacturers, Jan. 25, at twelve,
that these rterours were in existence at the time of sions-house, Wakeield-C-Allerson, Lawrence Pau"teto
the publication of the libel. Other rumours might hill-place, Cannon-street, flour-factor, Jan. 15, at tw°'s,4o4,
have been in existence, but he did not know that Count of Commissioners-J. Barber, Cowper's-tourte
these were, and no evidence had been produced to hill, stock-hroker, Jan. 15, at three, at the Court of7i,
prove them. This was the substance of what he missioners-R. More, Schiedam Distillery, Shadwcilr
tiller, Jan. 15, at eleven, at the Court of Cognuissio trot,.
had to say to them. They would first consider G. Davis, Dover-place, carpenter, Jan. 15, ateleve°,!, pis
whether, in reading the paragraph, as men of plainr
understanding, they were satisfied that either the colnshire,Court of Commissioners-J. Barlow,.
theGain;tirsuouill moo
Lord Chancellor or Lady Lyndhurst were the
.. pet:- Inn Gein grocer, h ;ul6at seven,
B at L 1
eashire, IMP
Tudor Bolton, .ap , _
_;,..y.
son or perrona to whom the paragraph imputed it - ' Feb.""ug ** t e keeper, F 28, at ten, at the Bridge Inn, 11,4 to"
at the 1:

bartering of ecclesiastical preferments for money. If
'bey should be of opinion 'that they were not, the'
the defendant would be entitled to their.verdiet
but it they shobld be of npinion that they were'
:hey would consider whether the editor of a news"
paper could insert such paragraphs in haste, without
'wending to defame their character'. The PI
would exercise their own judgment on these pow"'
and would decide accordingly. The defendant had
disavowed all intention to defame those noble pet"
'onages, and had done it skilfully and dognently.
They would not forget that certainly. He then Zell
them to consider their verdict.
The Jury retired, and were absent about half an
hour. On their return, the foreman delivered the
verdict to this effect—" We find the defoliant
guilty of publishing ; but as we are not satisfied 0.0
lie had any malicious intention, we beg to recom-
mend hint to the merciful consideration of the
Court." [Surely this is no verdict at all ; or, if ant,
is one of Not Guilty.]
The ATTORNEY-GENElCAL—Gentlemen,--I beg
to assure you that I receive your verdict with veil
great swisfiatioo ; and I hare no doubt that the
Lord Chancellor, to whom I shall communicate
trill receive it with a similar feeling ; and that it
will be acted upon in favour of the defendant, tv"
conducted his case in a manner which I think Weatt
creditable to him, and, in my judgment, with gre
talent, discretion, and good taste.
The verdict was then recorded.
This was the last day of the sittings.

FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT

War-Office, Der. 24, 1829.
Royal Regiment of Horse Guards—Second Lieut. `net.
W. F. Cowper, from the Ceylon Regiment, to be Carnet,
by purchase, vice Richard Silver Gasceigne, who retires.
6th Regiment of Dragoons—Scrjeaut F. Nl'Dovrell to
he Qu trter-master, vice Dickson, deceased.
chase, •ice Tower; Serjeant-Major
7th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieutenant C. Tower'
to be Captain, by pureba,,, vice Sir S. H. Stuart, who
retires ; Cornet P. 'l'. Wykeham to be Lieut. by
toP" r
Adjutant. with the rank of Cornet, vice Tower. .
10th Light Dravons—Lirta. Ward, from the
12th Foot, to be Lieut., vice Vandeleur, who exchange,.
1:e tole_be
Ist Regiment of Foot—Ensign J. G.
Lieut without purchase, vice W. M. Mackenzie,
erased; F. A. Wetherell, Gent. to be Ensign, viee Wi!00"•
12th Foot—Lieut. G. Vandelettr, from the 10th Light
Dragoons, to be Lieut. vice Ward, who exchanges.
24th Foot—Assistant-Surgeon P. Fitzpatrick, fror
hslf-piylit Foot, to be Assistant •Surgenn, vice O'Towe'
retired upon half-pay. • of
25th Foot—Lieut, W. Dean, from the Retired List
the Ist Royal Veteran Battalion, to be Paymaster, lice
M. Macleod, who reverts to his former half-pay.
T.
Ceylon Regiment—W. Dickson, Gent. to be Seto,
Paterson
tre
Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Cowper, appointed to ill
Royal florre Gnarls.

MEMORANDUM.
The half-ply of the under-nscutioned Officers has been
cam:ell:A from the 25th instant inclusive, upon their re-
eciving a commuted allowance for their commissions
Ensign lion. G. F, R. Harris, half-pay unittielledi
Lieut. T. J. Neill, fialf-pay unattached ; Ensign O. IV'
Grey, half-pay 7th Garrison Battalion ; Lieut J. Atkin-
son,ll.lf-psy, 95th Foot; Lieut. 11. Bouthi3ier, half-PaY
ana,lian oltizcurs ; Ensign T. Leven, hair-Pay 30tla
Foot ; Cornet P. N. De Car±cret, half-pay 12th Lilt
C V
Dragoons ; Ensign N. Reid, half pay 3d Foot Ensign 11.
pay 71st Foot ; Ensign E. Nc4l, half-Pal
half-pay 87th Foot ; Lieut. B. C. Urquhart, hal-
Lieut. W. 11. Bourne, half-pay 21st Foot; Ensign C.
Williams, half-pay 92d Foot. uatchel;

C onmisions in the StafforOsldre Regiment of Yvonlikorr
Cavalry, signed by the Ltrd Lientenant Of the County
e.f Stafford.
I,ieut.-Cul. E. J. Littleton, Esq., to be Lieutenant-
Colonel Commandant, vice Itionekton, resigned ; Major
T. Viscount Anson to he Lieutenant-Colonel, rice Little-
ton, promoted ; Captain E. Itlonchton to be Major, vice
Vieconnt Anson, promoted.

Cociu
Feb.

Georg
War,
merci
currii
farnit

/nerd
manta
read,

-T.

Grier
ya,,in,

Jo

Sat
Inn,

Jan
Jan. i

Jan
Jan, i
blunt

Ac
19th
r!rnai

Siarys

their
that 1
°Ceitp

A
Cho,
that •
'Toad
M.
to be

M.
1-rn li
Otte
41 fa

1
that
'hilt

11)
13,

~Ms~
n

0
I)

v
I: I

To„
C4rntir
Th,
itn G!)

A
"14'0
14tisj,
Crap,

Ark
Chant

Ti,,
4t4tio
K.,

.-____
~_,_

SAI

1)141

their

It ap
tend

Iliac(
the

'Olll

'Rail
wool

or
long
Perf,

VI
Cent,

Part
the
mate
con),

Cocishott, Warrington, Lancashire, cotton-manufactul. s,
Feb. 23, at twel►e, at the Bridge Inn, Bolton.

CERTIFICATES—JAN. 15.
ZC. Clever, Walthamstow, Essex, lime-burner—E. Burn,
eorge-street, City, clothier—T. Freer, Birmingham.
arwickshire, druggist—VT. Kew, New Palace-yard, coal-
nlerc.luillt--W. M. Seammell, Warminster, Wiltshire,
Wheater, Greensted Lodge Farm, Surrey,
"Inaar--T. Grisdale, Whitehaven, Cumberland, timber
merchant—.W. Cockshott, Warrington, Lancashire, cot ton-
manufacturer—J. Brook, Shepperton-street, New North-
read, iron-founder—J. and F. Harris, Bristol, carpenters.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. 'Wright and J. Davies, Liverpool, wholesale grocer,
--T. sad W. Powell, Birmingham, brass-fwunders—J
Crier and J. Somervell, Bloomsbury-square, dealers—C.
Cr
and
and 11. Glynn, Liverpool, brokers—T. Parsons
tn., and D. B. Grove, Birmingham, paper-merchants—
' Wyman and J. Josolyne, Hertford, millers—M. and
P. Wilson, Ilexhani, Northumberland, saddlers—D.
flea
] Vass and I. Sampson, King's-Lynn. Norfolk, tea-
"--Ni. Goodall, and T. L. Alston, Wading-street,
-'l°l tole-warehousemen—P. Witherby and R. J. T. Per-
Akin' renchutch-street, brokers—E. J. Ward and S. Had-
-114:"a, Colchester, Essex, printers—T. K. Glazebrook, J.
,4ek'lr, J. U. West, W. A. A. West, and T. Holt.
Arrington, Lancashire, glass manufacturers—.T. Wales
1414
K. King, King's-Lynn, Norfolk, merchants.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
ajarnee Mitchell, Water of Leath, Edinburgh, grain-
ler, ee.and Jan. 12, at one, at the Royal
'llange C<lfee-house, Edinburgh.
Samuel Nicol, Herdhill, near Kerriematir, cattle-dealer,
22, 30 Ann,
and Jan. 13, at one, at Mrs. Ann Robb's
jazesertemuir.
Gourlay, Dundee, blacksmith, Dec. 22, 29, and
Jan. 12, at one, at Morren's Hotel, Dundee.
j4janiea Creighton, Dumfries, cabinet-maker, Dec. 21,
11 and 22, at twelve, at the office of James Broom,
butufries.