Star.
London, England, 1822-08-10 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES

CIVIL SIM—DURHAM, AUGUST 6.
LIBEL. —THE KING V. JOHN AMBROSE WILLIAMS.
Mr Sea HI.ETT stated that this was a criminal in-
formation granted by the Judges of the Court of
Kiar•-s 13 •nch for a libel on the Established Church
of England and Clergy of Durham, by the defendant,
who is printer and publisher of a newspaper entitled
the Durham Chronicle. The occasion of the libel in
question arose out of the Queen's death, which the
defen lant laid hold for the purpose of dealing out
slander aapon the Established Church, and particu-
larly Against the Bishop and other Dignitaries of the
Cathedral Church of Durham. The mischief such
slander was calculated to product was considerably
increased by the defendant's choosing such an occa-
sion to vilify the Established Religion and Clergy.—
The libel appeared in the Durham Chronicle of Au-
gust IS, 1821, and charged the Bishop and Clergy
with brutal enmity to—and as being among the per-
secut .1, of that " illustrious Princess," because, for-
sooth, they had, it seems, neglected to toll the bells
of the Cathedral on the occasion of her Majesty's
death. The Learned Counsel, after commenting with
great .everity upon the scandalous, wanton, and ma-
licious motives of the defendant, called
John Sutherland, clerk to Mr. Griffiths, who proved that he
purchased of the defendant the paper in question.
Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM, for the defendant.Do
you recollect the accounts coming down from Lsndou of her late
lamented Majesty's persecution, which caused ber death ?—Yes.
I presume, that on the occasion of her death, you heard the
bells toll in the usual way ?—No.
You arc not deaf?—No.
On his late Majesty's death you beard them toll, and on his
present 3lajesty'. birth-day you heard them ring ?—Yes.
At the late Coronation all the bells, and even extra bells, were
set a ringing ?—Yes.
Pray, on the death of the old Queen, the present King's mo-
ther, was the usual custom observed on that occasion ?—Yes, I
believe they tolled.
Mr: BROUGHAM'S speech on the defence was pecu-
liarly energetic, and received with repeated bursts of
applause from the audience. The Learned Gentle.
man concluded with the following words :—" If,
Gentlemen of the Jury, the Liberty of the Press, and
all we enjoy under it, is to be sacrificed, at least let
it not be this day. Leave it to be destroyed by arbi-
trary Princes—by bartered corrupt Parliaments—by
an Army degraded by the lash, and employed to en-
slave—by a pampered House of Lords—by a venal
Ilouse of Commons—by a soldier uniting the talents
of an usurper with those of a Captain—to these tools,
to these legitimate hands, if the Press must be de-
stroyed, leave the deed to be done; but let it not
wife• with you, whose office and existence would be
nothing without its vigorous alliance. For the sake
of that hierarchy against whom a fatal blow is now
aimed, proclaim that light must continue to visit
every recess of That hierarchy, and by that light that
its abuses must be destroyed."
Mr. Baron WooD repeatedly called out to reprtss
the manifestations of applause so often elicited in
the Court during Mr. BROUGHAm's address; and de-
sired that whoever might be detected beating with
their feet, or clapping of hands, might be taken into
custody, and he would commit them.
His Lordship, in his charge to the Jury, observed,
if a man was at liberty to write and print whatever
he pleased against the Church and State, this Go-
vernment could not last. "lam by law directed,"
continued Ns Lordship, " to give you my opinion,
which is, that this is a libel, and a very gross libel!"
Mr. BaouGHAm—Your Lordship will find, on re-
ference to the Act of Parliament, you are not directed,
but only empowered to decla• e your opinion to the Jury.
Mr. Baron WOOD—If this was a question whether a
burglary had been committed or not, the Judge must
refer the Jury to the evidence; but whether I am
bound or not to deliver my opinion in this, as differing
from other criminal cases, I certainly shall inform you,
that in my opinion this is unquestionably a libel!
The Jury gave a written verdict at half-past five
id the afternoon—" Guilty of Libel against the Clergy
residing in and near the city of Durham and the
suburbs thereof." This is not a distinct count in the
information, but only an addition in the form—" and
particulaily the Clergy," &c. in the two first counts.
two last charged bringing into contempt the
Established Church separately.
Much chagrin was expressed by the multitude, who
anxiously expected an unqualified acquittal.