Star.
London, England, 1821-03-09 00:00:00

tUMBERLANb LENT ASSIZES:

'THE KING, ON THE PRO CUTION OF CHARLES MAR-
QUIS OP QUEENS s'.ltRY, O. F. AND J. JOLLIE.
This was an indict nent for libel, instituted by the
Noble plaintiff against the defendants, who are the
Proprietors of the Carlisle Journal.
Mr. Aor.roxiv statzd the case to the Jury, and
was followed by •
Mr. COURTENAY, who observed that the Noble
Marquis was the proprietor of several estates in a
neighbouring county, and he was also the Colonel
of the Dumfries-shire Militia. Now, the libel in
question applied to him in both instances. The Jury
would know that all Papers published in the conti-
guity of Scotland have a sort of leading article com-
prising Scotch news. In such an article the libel in
question appeared, as they would see by the Carlisk
Journal of the 17th of June last. It war preluded
by a sort of paragraph of the most mischievous in-
genuity, which, however, was not made the subject
of indictment:
" The Dumfries-shire Yeomanry Cavalry assembled at Dum-
fries on Monday last, in order to be under training for twelve
days ; and on Thursday the Dumfries-shire Militia assembled
for twenty-eight days' drill."
Afterwards came a pretended essay on political
economy:
" It has been generally allowed that of' the three grand divi-
sions into which our European dominions arc divided, the Scotch I
are the most provident, and the most averse to applying for pa-
rochial relief. This results from an honest feeling of independ-
ence, which would submit to many privations before it could
humble itself to obtain that sustenance which its owo labour
did not provide for. The pressure of distress, therefore, must
have been extreme, when, in spite of all these laudable preju-
dicelboth of education and habit, in many of the parishes in
the County of Dumfries, the number of paupers has within
these few years been considerably increased. One reason as-
signed for this lamentable change is the throwing into one large
farm several small tenements, which respectably maintained four
or five families in decent comfort ; the inmates of wnich, being
thrust out in order to make way for the opulent holders are
obliged to become servants or cotters to the latter. Thus a
grade to pauperism is formed, that continually slopes in geome-
trical descension, until that living grave of independence ,a parish
workhouse, closes upon them, and swallows up all self-respect,
and that pride and nobility of heart which is the best assu-
rance for moral and political virtue.
" —The man of wealth and pride
" Takes up a space that many poor supplied.
• • • • •
" Good Illurverrs ! what sorrows gleom'd that parting day
" That call'd them from their native walks away !
" When the poor exiles, ev'ry pleasure past,
" Hung round the bowers, and fondly louk'd their last !"
" This pathetic description by the patriotic Goldsmith parti-
cularly applies to what has just occurred in the Parish of Cum-
mertrees, Dumfries-shire, by order of a certain Noble Marquis,
who, deter mined to expel the small farmer from one of his es-
tates, which forms the greatest part of the Parish, last week
ejected five or six families from their domiciles, which he burned
to the ground. The poor tenants next day obtained shelter in
Annan.
The Marquis of Queensberry (continued the
Learned Counsel) put an end to the existence of
these beggars on his estate; and had he not a
right to do so ? Do Messrs. Jollie presume to in-
terfere with a man's property? What would they
think, were a King or any other Potentate to dictate
to them what quantity of paper they should sell at
once; and has not the Noble Marquis a right to do
what he pleases with his own property, without being
called to the tribunal of Messrs. Jollie? Again—
.. We make no comment upon this. We merely give it as
an article of intelligence : the Noble Nlarquis or his agents may
possibly be enabled to justify this course of proceeding; but in
the meanwhile we suspend our opinion. It may be proper to
add, that an aged tenant and his wife were so affected at the
sudden change of their prospects, at being driven from the place
to which their heart-strings were attached, that nature gave way,
and the hollow grave, more compassionate than man, received
below what was ejected from above."
Then comes the last extract from Goldsmith
" Yes, brother, curse with me that baleful hour
" When first ambition struck at regal power ;
" And thus polluting honour at its source,
" Gave wealth, to sway the mind with double force.
" Have we not seen, round Britain's peopled shore,
" Her useful sons exchang'd for useless ore?
" Seen all her triumphs but destruction haste,
" Like flaring tapers, brigbt'ning as they waste—
" Seen opulence, her grandeur to maiznain,
" Lead stern depopulation in her train,
" And over fields, where scatter'd hamlets rose,
" In barren solitary pomp repose?
" Have we not seen, at pleasure's lordly call,
" The smiling, long-frequented village fall?
" Beheld the duteous son, the sire decay'd,
" The modest matron, and the blushing maid,
" Forc'd from their homes, a melancholy train,
" To traverse climes beyond the western main r
This, then, was the libel. Could anything be more
mischievous? He called
W. NANSON, Solicitor, who proved that he ob-
tained the Paper on the 22d of June, from Thomas
Waugh. The publication and proprietorship were
admitted. The alleged libel was put in and read, and
James Birrell was called, who deposed that he
knew the Marquis of Queensberry ; that his Lordship
was the proprietor of several estates in Cummertrees,
in Dumfries-shire ; that he had read the Paper in
question, and believed the Noble Marquis alluded to
was the Marquis of Queensberry.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. ALDERSON, for the defendants, submitted that
the case had not been proved, as no evidence was
offered to skew that the Marquis had small estates in
Cummertrees.
His Lordship obviated this objection, by calling
back (which Mr. ALDERSON opposed as irregular) the
last witness, who, in his re-examination, deposed that
the Marquis had several small farms in June last, the
tenants of which were removed about that period.
Mr. ALDERSON, after an eloquent and ingenious
exordium, proceeded to analyse the alleged libel,
which he allowed, had an indictment been preferred
against them for want of taste, would have fully
borne it out. There was some beautiful poetry from
Goldsmith ; but he gave it as his humble opinion—
which, however, might be controverted by his Learned
Friend—that beautiful poetry was not libellous, at
least he never heard of Goldsmith having been pro-
secuted for a libel. Having proceeded " thus far into
the bowels of the case," he should look a little at its
probabilities. He thought it would be allowed by his
Learned Friend, that the defendants could not for a
moment insinuate that the Noble Marquis himself
had set fire to these houses, and ejected their tenants.
it could hardly be supposed that, when lie ought to
be drilling his regiment, he could be, not sword in
hand, but torch in hand, consuming petty dwelling-
houses !—no ; he could only be mentioned as having
ordered a simple ejectment. His (sir. Alderson s)
Learned Friend had exclaimed, in the fulness of his
indignation at this part of the case, where the defend-
ants say, 44 they make no comment upon
Where do we •five, Gentlemen? Do we live in
England ?" Why, be found we did ; and he thought

a proof of it was in this very paSsige, which was a
strong circumstance in favour of the defendants, that
they refused to thake any tonitutirit until they had
heard bdth sides, thinking that the Marquis might be
right; but let them (the Jury) make the connection
between this and the next sentence—" The Noble
Marquis or his Agents may possibly justify h."-
015 Agents? He would ask again—Why Agents?
Why, but because the defendants thought, as he
thought, as they, and everybody must think, that the
cruelty attending the execution of this ejectment, if'
there was any, was the fault of the Agents, and not
of the Marquis—that he could not he supposed to
know anything about the circumstances until they
had occurred, and that he did nothing more than ,
simply what he had a legal right to do, and which
it could be no libel to say he had done—ordered the
proper ejectment or his own tenants. This might
certainly be construed into a libel upon those agents ;
but no man could say, possessing common sense, that
it libelled the Marquis in the least. The Nlarquis
could not be supposed to have done more than merely
give orders for the ejectment: any cruelty or impro-
priety in the mode of executing it, must, of course, be
attributable, and was then attributed, to the agents
who did so execute it. Had the defendants charged
the Marquis himself with setting fire to the houses,
and by a forcible expulsion causing the death cd an
old woman, it might be a libel; but it decidedly
stated the reverse by calling upon the agents to jus-
tify it, inasmuch as they (the defendants) very well
knew the agents alone could have carried this or-
der (a proper and legal one) into execution. Wai
it not the height of madness, therefore, to prefer
art indictment on the part of the Marquis against
the defendants, for their having simply stated, if
they stated anything about him, that he had exer-
cised his legal privilege of ejecting his tenants?—
That alone (Mr. Alderson contended) was the fair
and proper construction to be put upon the language,
after divesting it of the tinsel of eloquence and the
flowers of poesy. But as there was no count charging
the defendants with libelling the agents, he trusted
the Jury would immediately give a verdict of acquit-
tal. " Gentlemen," said the Learned Counsel, in a
strain of impassioned eloquence, " if you had a dear,
a bosom friend, a friend whose existence was almost
identified with your own—a friend who had che-
rished, delighted, and ennobled you—for the sake
of a hasty word, said at an unguarded time—for an
intemperate expression, the offspring of momentary
thoughtlessness, would you visit that friend with the
severest sentence and the heaviest punishment ? Or
rather would you not kindly forgive him, and, in
the language of gentle reproof, teach him to be more
circumspect in his conduct? Such a friend, Gentle-
men, is the Liberty of the Press: by it you have po-
litical existence and intellectual enjoyments ; without
it, you would be miserable slaves or ignorant sa-
vages : and should this be an error, why it is one of
those venial, those momentary faults, which require,
reproof, but not punishment—kind rebuke, not un-
merciful castigation." They would, he was sure,
construe the language of the alleged libel candidly,
charitably, and kindly ; and as there was every rea-
son to believe that it referred to the acts of the
agents, rather than to • those of the Noble Marquis,
they would acquit the defendants of any intention to
libel the latter. As to the last paragraph, relating to
the " grave being more compassionate than man," it
could not refer to the dignified prosecutor, man being
a generic term which cannot be applied individually.
But supposing it could, still the reference must be to
the improper and cruel conduct of the agents, and
not to the Marquis, unless he is supposed to be the
representative of the whole species. The last passage
quoted from Goldsmith's Traveller, was not at all ap-
plicable to the case : it had nothing to do with the
subject ; referring solely to the factions which dis-
tracted England, and to those individuals, who,
having obtained fortunes in India, as the Poet insi-
nuated, by pillaging the unfortunate and helpless in-
liabitants, returned home to lord it as petty, and
overbearing, and unprincipled tyrants.
The Learned Judge (BasT) commenced his address
to the Jury, by observing that the defendants suf-
fered nothing by their cause having been advocated
by Mr. Alderson ; that no Counsel at the Bar could.
possibly have said more for them ; that his eloquence
was so great and perfect, that everything that could
be said had been said, and yet nothing was said that
ought to have been omitted. He then read the in-
dictment, and explained its nature. There were two
questions for the Jury's consideration : first, Was it
proved that the words referred to the Noble Mar-
quis ? and secondly, If so, were they libellous ? It
they thought the libel applied alone to his agents,
without the Marquis being at all referred to in any
way, they would acquit the defendants: but he would
read it to them. His Lordship then read the libel ;
said the Marquis mentioned must mean the Marquis
of Queensberry ; and also, by the generic term man,
it was evident he was alluded to. Now, by Mr. Fox's
Bill, the principles of which were opposed by many
learned and high authorities before it was framed,
the Jury were empowered to determine whether it
was a libel or not ; his business was merely to state
the law to them, and give them his directions. It
they believed the paper calculated to vilify the Mar-
quis in any way, or to induce persons to think he had
acted improperly, it was a libel. His Lordship eulo-
gized the Liberty of the Press, but said it had li-
mits which must not be overstepped : no writer had
a right to trench upon private character, .or to set
himself up as a censor, as the Courts of Justice,
where both parties may meet, and at the same mo-
ment decide the guilt or innocence of either, were the
only legal tribunals of character. If the defendants
imputed cruelty or impropeiety to the Noble Mar-
quis, the Liberty of the Press could not justify them.
His Lordship contrasted the state of freedom in this
country and what existed at Rome when Galileo was
imprisoned in the Inquisition for stating a great phi-
losophical truth. Now, in this country, any philoso-
' ()Weal truth or opinion might be stated and sup-
ported without its being considered as libellous.—
Sometimes too, in discussing political economy, a
little latitude might bet allowed for occasional in-
temperance of expression, when there appeared to
be an intention of instructing. On this case, he must
again ask them----was the paper a libel or not ? The
verses of Goldsmith, although absurd, inasmuch as
they expressed opinions without having any reference
to individuals, were certainly not libellous. if small
farms existed, as he seemed to wish, it would destroy
one third of the produce of the country. His Lord-

ship then said, the defendants, in suppOrt of their
opinions, might have stated the facts, and said they
went sorry the Marquis had acted In that way; with=
out committing a Ii1;e1: But had they a right to gO
on as they did, saying—" can the Marquis justify
the act r The word "justify" was connected with
criminality, and an inference would be draWn that
the Marquis had committed a criminal act. To be
justified before whom? Not the Courts of Judica-
ture, but a self erected tribunal—themselves. Eng-
land, he hoped, would never submit to such tribunals.
'lt was impossible to say this Was not a libel, or that
the defendants did not mean to impute great crimi-
nality to the Noble Marquis. They had no right tci •
say the tenants were turned out and obliged to seek
shelter in Annan ; their stating that a tenant died is
consequence, implied'cruelty on the part of the Mar-
quis, which was completely proved by saying than :
was mot,: cruel than thz grave; evidersely meaning
by " man" the Marquis. The lines quoted from
Goldsmithoind the picture of desolation contained
in them, were clearly inserted to cause a belief that .
such horrors had been produced by the Noble Mar-
quis. His Lordship would he greatly mistaken i:
the Jury did not call this intemperate discussion; if
they did, they must give a verdict of guilty. He
was glad that the Noprietots of Newspapers were
subjected to prosecution instead of the actual writers;
for, if they would make themselves censors of others,
let them take care of themselves ; no inadvertence
should excuse them. Are the characters of indivi-
duals to be sported with in this way ? His Lordship
concluded by stating they had only two questions to
consider-Ist. Does this paper apply
.to the Marquis
of Queensberry ? 2d. Does it impute cruel or im-
proper conduct to him? An answer in the affirmative
would be a verdict of guilty.
The Jury retired for about half an hour, and re-
turned a verdict of—Guilty.

The following letter has been circulated from the
Auditors Office, AlnK•ick Cagle, amongst the dif-
ferent Bailiffs upon the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND'S
estate, being a copy of his Grace's instructions to his
Commissioners: St. James's-square, Feb. 24, 1112.1.
" GENTLZUVII regret to learn, frum a variety of sources,
the Increasing difficulties of the Agricultural Interest; but Ihave

derived my information more parncularlsCrom several Petitions
on this subject, which have been recentlf presented to the two
Houses of Parliament. With the tcnour of these Petitions I fl,rd

- -
it impossible to concur, because experience has proved the in-
efficacy of a Corn NU (the favourite object of these Petitioners);
add, above all, because I question the justice of an attempt to
exonerate ourselves at the probable expense of that large por-
tion of our fellow-subjects who are engaged in commercial, ma-

nufacturing, and trading concerns. -
a I should, however, be a landlord unworthy of that just and -
honourable body of men who occupy my estate in Northumber-
land, if I could hesitate as an individual to mitigate that distress
which, in my opinion, under the present circumstances of th:
country, no legislative enactment can with propriety diminish.
" I desire, therefore, that at the approaching audit, you will
return to.each of my agricultural tenants the sum of twenty per
cent. on their respective payments.
(Signed) " NORTHUMBERLAND."
This was communicated on Saturday last to the
farmers in Alnwick market, and received with loud
and hearty cheers.
SUPPOSED MURDER AT DEPTIFORD.—INQUEST.—
Monday evening, an Inquest was taken before Mr.
CARTER, Coroner for the County of Kent, at the
Evelyn Arms, Lower Deptford, on view of the body
of Mr. Samuel Richards, found floating in that part
of the Surrey Canal, near Windmill-lane. There not
being any medical man, or other evidence than the
person who took the deceased out of the Canal, the
Inquest was adjourned until Tuesday evening.—
The first witness examined was Thomas Jones, who
stated, that, between ten and eleven o'clock on Sun-
day morning, he was walking by the side of the Sur-
rey Canal, when he saw two boys looking at some-
thing in the water, which the/ considered to be a
large Fsh ; however, upon inspecting it more minutely,
it was discovered to be the body of a man. Ho im-
mediately stripped off his clothes, and brought out
the body, and, with assistance, conveyed it to the
nearest public-house, which was the Evelyn Arms.
It appeared to have lain some days in the water.
Deceased had no money about him, and his packets
were turned inside out. The head was much swollen.
—Mr. Smith, a surgeon, of Deptford, examined the
body, and found several contusions on the head; they
appeared to have been inflicted with a stick, or some
blunt weapon : would not say they were sufficient to
occasion death ; they were, however, certainly, in-
flicted before deceased had been in the water.—
Mr. Franklin, the landlord of the Sir John Falstaff
public-house, at Deptford, deposed, that deceased
lodged at his house; that he had formerly been Com-
mander of the Aurora transport, but for some time
past was out of employment. He was related to Mr.
Thompson, a merchant, of Rotherhithe ; recollects, a
few days before the deceased was taken out of the
water, his leaving the house of the witness, to join
one of the processions going to Brandenburgh-house ;
was much surprised at his not returning, but heard
,nothing further until the circumstance of a body hav-
ing been taken out of the water came to his know-
ledge; he went and recognised the deceased as for-
merly having teen his lodger.—No other circumstance
occurring from which it could be elicited by what
means the deceased came into the Canal, the Jury,
after an hour's consult:nit n, returned the following
verdict:—" Found dead in the tenter; but by what
means, or how he came there, is to the Jurors unknovn:'
Another Inquest was held, on Wednesday, before
the same Coroner, at Crayford; on the body of James
Millar, a highly respected servant in the family of the
Hon. Mr. FRAZER, at Bexley, in Kent. The deceased
had accompanied his mistress to town, and on his re-
turn, having left his Lady in London, he sat on the
coach-box, by the side of the coachman. When the
carriage arrived between Cfayford and Bexley, the
night being very dark, the horses went out of the
track, and the wheels struck against some posts; the
deceased was thrown off the box, and his head striking
against a block of stone, he was killed instanta-
neously. The deceased had been very recently mar-
ried, and on the morning of the day on which he was
killed, he took leave of his wife; saying, that he
thought his happiness was too great to last long !
Verdict—" Accidental death."
CORN EXCHANGE, MARL-LAYC, Mann 9--There have been
but few arrivals of any Brain since Monday, in ‘unsegiience of
which every article of.tine qurlity supports that day's prices, but
'the inferior descriptions met heavy sate, while prime samples of
Wheat and Barley were readily disposed of. In Beans, l'eas,
land Oats no alteration.
SMITH rims.o MARICIT, MARCH,.—Beef, 35.6 d. to 4s. 10d. per
stone of Nuttosu, 3s. 6d. to 4s. 841. Veal, ss. Od. to 65.4 d.
Pork, 4s. 6d. to Ss. 4,1. Lamb, Os. Od. to Os.od.—Cattleat Market
Beasts, 400; Calves, 00; Seep and 1amb5;3,950; Figs, 130 i

1