The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-11-25 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-..TIIURIDAY.

THY KING V. THE PROPRIETORS OP THE MANCHESTER
GUARDIAN.

Mr. Cresswell (with whom was Mr. Peel) said that be bad
been instructed, on behalf of Mr. Royds, to apply to their
lordships for a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against the defendants, for a libel published
by them upon the character and conduct of Mr. Royds. It
would be in the recollection of Lord Denman that two persons
had been tried before him upon the charge of having committed
a highway robbery on the person of a young gentleman named
Royds, who was the son of the gentleman now complaining of
the libel in the newspaper. The two prisoners had been con-
victed and sentenced to death, but that sentence had been
changed to transportation. Some persons had interested them-
selves in procuring a commutation of the punishment, and
among other grounds upon which it was supposed the mercy of
the Crown ought to be extended to the prisoners, was one
founded upon the alleged confession of some men who had been
tried and convicted at Shrewsbury upon a different charge. It
was said that the confession of these men clearly exculpated
the mete who had been convicted before Lord Denman. As the
royal mercy was not at once extended to these prisoners, the
defendants chose to alts ibute the circumstance to the improper
interference of Mr. Royds, and on the 19th of October there
appeared in their paper an article relating to the matter, and
reflecting upon his character and conduct in a manner which,
if true, would chow kill; to be unworthy of any longer holding
the commission of the pence. fbe learned gentleman then re-
ferred to an article contained in the Manchester Guardian, which
at great length went into the question of the guilt or innocence
_of the „,„ who who had been convicted of tile robbery upon
the younger Mr. Royds, assumed that they were innocent, im-
peached the justice of the sentence against them, and accused
Mr. Royds of having improperly interposed between them and
the mercy of the Crown. It niserted, " Mr. Royds is a person
of wealth and influence, and Ire has used both without hesita-
tion and without stint." This assertion be most positively
denied. The paper tl err attributed to his influence the delay or
the refusal of mercy to these prisoners, and said, " It is easy
for a man introduced by an influential member of parliament
to influence ale mind of Mr. Capper, and to persuade him that
there was no around f r the application for the royal mercy ; "
and it then went on to attribute the opposition to party motives,
which Mr. Royds also denied. The article then attributed to
me. Royds some notice of the matter which hail appeared in
Wheeler's .11anchester Chronicle, and, assuming hint to be the
author of that notice, criticieed him ,and it very severely. Mr.
R„rds also denied that he sent Anything to Wheeler's Manches-
ter Chronicle on this subject, except the correction respecting
the number 'of a watch, a part of the property stolen. The or-
tide then went on to say OW the ears of the Home-office, and
of the learned judge who tried the prisoners, had been poisoned
by statements which no one had lese right to make than Mr.
Royds. That gentleman utterly denied the truth of this he
cusation, and felt that as to one part of it he might with confi-
dence appeal to Lord Denman himself. There had been no ex-
arninntion of the prisoners convicted at Shrewsbury. This ex•
aminat ion was conducted without the presence of Mr. Royds or
his son, and had for its object to ascertain how f -tr the confes-
siuns of those prisoners were to be reli:!d on, That examina-
tion had been made the subject of misrepresentation by Lilo de-
fendants, and Mr. Royds was equally accused of " gettitax up "
evidence out of this examination not conformable to the facts
as proved at the trial before Lord Denman. After going
through many statements in the paper of the 19th of October,
and in another of the 2titii of that month, the learned counsel
pressed for his rule, and asked whether it uvula to be tolerated
ttiat matters of this kind were thus to he made the subjects of
discuetsion in newspapers, and whether the conduct of prosecu-
ge
judges were thus to be arraigned by
virs and the writers in
them ? _

Lord Demean.—We think, Mr. Cresswell, that v,ui brive made
chit a ease of imputation being cast on Mr. Royds sufficient to
„wide you in ti rule on Iris beirdif, hut without 2oing along with
you in the latter part of %''ur obaervatioils, fur there may be
many cAses in which such discussion would be both proper and
rieresso ry.
Mr. Cressivell did not mean to deny that.—Rule granted.

The operatives engaged in the silk manufactories of Lyons
are, it appears, reduced to ”treine mistress frOM want of em-
ployment, caused by the aimust total cessation of orders for
goods, either for borne consumption, or exportation.
Prince Louis Bonaparte was to have married in the month
of May, next year, his cousin, tio:j';i:~ec•ss mathilde de mont.
daughter of Jerome.

In the elitn. con., case, Alellin v. Taylor, the Court of Con -
mon Nip as granted a tuie niii, fur a uew trim, but the rule has
been since s,.._?encied.