The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-10-31 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN

eceornieg to the King's friends. it was slander, it was sneer, it
was libel, to mention his Majesty's " benevolent" mind. And
the loss of a dloghter, she who was to continue the Royal Sue-
eesaioo fu a direct line, was it a li •el to rosy that the King was
afflicted with mat excellent lady's loss? The loss—R ought to
have been aid 1 the death—of a eonaort was also mentioned as
having been the subject of affliction; and yet that mention
wee milled libel. sneer, and malice. 11 it were so. the late
Marquess of Londonderry had bees equally guilty of libel.—
That Noble Lord hid &elated is Me Hone of COaiIIIODS, that
when on his way to Dublin, his Majesty. on bearing of the
death of his royal consort, was moue affected. He had no
doubt that such wits the fact. The King, under all the circum-
stances. must have been greatly affected with that event. Next
it was said to be sneer and libel to represent the King as af-
flicted with the mem of the proud Bourbons in Spanish atal's
—with that contest in which this country most ultimately be
involved, only under disadvantageous cireentstanees. Was it
to libel the King to say that he was *Meted by that momen-
tous transaction notch deeply interested all his subjects ?
Sorely it was a most extraordinary way to show reward end
friendship for the King's character, thus to Goateed that
it was a libel and sneer to allude to his undoubtedly bene-
volent mind, and to those unquestionable talents which. par-
ticularly in his early years, made him collect around his Court
some of the *blest men of the age. In conclusion the Learned
Gentleman lamented, that where the public mind was com-
pletely tranquil on the painful topics which formed the subject
of the article complained of in the newspaper; when all these
serious rumours, which his Majesty's illness had unfortunately
riven rise to, had subsided, It should have been deemed a ju-
dicious discharge of duty to institute the present criminal pro-
ceeding. Within a week of the publicitlon, in February last,
the Attorney General, in the exercise of his sound diseretioa
filed the criminal information; had he paused a " little feet:
night." he mach questioned whether that Learned Gentleman
would not have been dissuaded Rom adopting the Momeding. '
The Jory now, looking to all the circumstances of the came,
anti reading the publication with the eyes of common sense,
must be satisfied that there was no pretence for charging this;
as a libel. All the circumstances alluded to in the Paper, wen,
explained by others. The reports which had prevailed, bed
proved groundless. There was no reason whatever to betherill
that hii Majesty had ever laboured seder any mental infirmity.
The Jury would rejoice with him and the rest of has fellow
subjects, that such a calamity bad never visited him, and join
in a prayer for his Majesty's long and happy reign, and that
his tranquillity might never be disturbed by prosecutions of
this nature.
Mr. BROUGRAN then addressed the Jery on behalf of
Mr. Harvey, and regretted his sorrow, that in defending
his client, he should have to go over nearly the same
grounds which hail been taken by his Learned Friend, Mr.
Deowass, in defence of Mr. Chapman. It was bit mis-
fortune to follow his Learned Friend, because he was per-
snarled that in treading the same ground he must weaken
the impression which his Learned Friend had made on the
minds of the Jury ; but still there were some circumstances
peculiar to his client's case, which could not have been so
well alluded to by his Learned Friend, thongh they seemed
embarked in the same rinse together. The Jury bad seen
that one ground of defence taken for the other defendant.
was by separating: his cause in soul* uwasnre from that of
the gentleman for whom lie (Mr. B.) was now to appear.
A distinction had been drawn in the degree of guilt, if any
between the person who actually wrote the article in goes-
tier, and the person who was only the instrument for
inri-himirally putting it into a state of publication, and
who possibly might have been totally ignorant of its con-
teats. With this distinction —he was not now going to
quarrel—he only wished that his Learned Friend had not
emanated his client's cause with fir. Harvey's; for in
t. Mr. Harvey claimed for himself the protection which
his Learned Friend claimed for his client. If the charge
had been, that Mr. Harvey himself had written the article
in question, then the distinction might be correct; but
what reason was there to assume that this gentleman, who
was the proprietor, and for aught it appeared. a mere
machine, had any knowledge of the import of the libel;
or, suppose Mr. Harvey, as the proprietor. had seen this
piece of writing. who would say that it would appear to
him libellous? Let it be remembered, that tbere was here
• no charge that the libel contained matter in itself so ob-
viously' •ffeesive to the good sense of mankind, that
its evil tendency must be instantly recognised. The
guilt was to be ascertained by the Interpretation
which the Attorney General pleased to pat upon it.
It was not denied that many of the allegations there
set forth were true; but it was said that they
were used by the writer as if he did not wish them to be in.
terpreted by the ordinary import of the words. But what
right hail the Attorney General to say, that the defendant
did not mean what he said? He hoped the Jury would
not put their thonghtsinto the Attorney General's training,
but would think for themselves. If, from reading the
article in question, they were satisfied that the defendant
bad no bad intentions, then they must acquit him. And
now lie was come to the consideraion of how far it was
politic in the Attorney General to have instituted this pro-
secution at all. He (Mr. B.) fully agreed with his Learned
Friend who preceded him, in censuring the prosecution as
ill-timed. and lie contended that the Attorney Hamral
could not have chosen a less fit subject for prosecution. In
all questions of libel, it was a consideration, whether the
dragging an obscure print into public notice hy a public
discussion, and giving it Importance by a public prosecu-
tion. nes not more dangerous than suffering it to remain
In a state of, perhaps, coMparative obscurity. Never was
the wisdom of abstaining from prosecution more strongly
made apparent than in the present case. Here was a Paper
almost unnoticed—little known but to the spies and faint.
liars of certain departments, and yet it was thought advise
*Me to drag it before the public, and by apprehending
from it danger, to give it an importance which, perhaps, it
would never otherwise attain. In this paper was found
contained a report of a circumstance which since turned
out to be untrue, anti the untruth of which no man more
rejoiced et than the defendant himself. It was not said
that the defendant was the fabricator of this report, or that
be was the only person who gave his authority to it. If
that hail been proved. it would go far to show the defend-
ant's intentions. But the Attorney General did not charge
that upon the defendant. and the Jury were still left in
ignorance as to the number of Newspapers by which this
report was circulated. He believed that in fact the circu-
lation of the report had not been confined to the defendant's
paper; and if the Attorney General undertook to punish
them all, he would hare his bands full of work. He (Mr.
B.) hail so much confidence, however, in the justice and
randoor of the Attorney General, that lie did not believe
he would be influenced by the part any particular Paper
which might be fermi to contain the report. took iu poll-
tics. He hoped the report would he as offensive in one
Pager as another. If the Attorney General then persist-
ed in prosecuting this Newspaper, he called rapes bum, in
vindication of his consistency, to institute proceedings
against all and several. the other Papers which might be
found offending. He hoped the Jury would not go along
with the Attorney-General, io adopting such oppressive pro-
e.ediries. Having stated thus much as to the impolicy of
inaltuting upon general principles, lie should now proceed
to sh.,w. fruits this article itself. that there was nothing
contained in it, which called for such severe reprobation --
In the first plies, he (Mr. B ) would not concede that by
the Co at tu•ton of England everyman had a right freely
to discuss and freely to give his opinion npun all public
measeree. And he would further contend with his Learned
Friend, the Common Sergeant, that the King's health was
it +object for discussion. In every country it was neces•l
air that she Executive shonld be sound and capble
charyging its functions ; and it was no less is this thou in
any ether. if the King had been really aMicted, in the
way in which it was stated in this article, and that the
~Government was still being carried on, something at
:preaching a great legal armee Would he committed. .ff
he %%Wen continued to carry on toe eaverntneot Merl
the *
Kann', i capacity. they weal', be platy of a cripr,,
•,..„0„,, •cf Li: to ra 9.1 es. IV MIA it h • Oita then. that
t.s• •.6 eet . t.. stzr.'whi4

rested the authority of almost every act of Government was
not a proper subject for political discussion. The Jury
were next to consider what grounds the defendant
had
laboured, for several years, under this dreadful malady.
and thereirere not wasting instances, in which this bad
proved hereditary in families. The King. himself, it
was known, had intend reach from the goat, and it was
'a fair WNW fogy discussion to state to what ;Went she
tiisaleiels of the disorder might caned. It was DOW
Impend the possibility of doubt, that never dude,
aorpossiest of Lis Majesty life, did the smallest dark
cloud pen ever the bright snieshine of his mind. This
fast was substantiated by evidence of the most unquestion-
able authority. Bet this was a fart, which, however, certain
aid undeniable. came wields the knowledge of a few
only. The defendant could not possibly be aware of it.
and it was not going beyond his limits when a public
journalist, is the exercise of his calling. ventured to
speculate and draw inferences from the facts before him. It
was net impossible that his Majesty had fallen seder that
dreadful malady to which his father bad been so long I victim,
and from which the strongest mad most powerful mind was not
always free. Whilst then tbete was a probability or possibi-
lity of such an stoat it could not be said that the discussion
of it was beside the provi-ice of the journalist. The machine
of the State could not certainly go on, if the moving hand ,
which should impel it was paralyzed. A reference to the
events of the tate ridge, his Majesty's indisposition In WM
the aon.appolotment of a Regent, and the great deliesey of I
the subject, would tend to show the very serious light la which I
thoEing's indisposition ought to be viewed. eau.n
which took place when the question of a Regency to be
discussed, could not be forgotten. This was a maledy.whigh
in many common cases was known to be hereditary. Under
all these circumstances. when it would be seen that the defend-
ant bad not travelled beyond the limits of fair discussion, but
that on the contrary, be had some grounds to draw his infer-
ences from, he trusted the Jury would join with him in cos-
denting the impolicy of this prosecution. The defendant was
charged with writing a libel which was criminal only from the
construction which the Attorney-General put upon it. He
(Mr. B.) challenged any man whose mind was not warped by
party bias, to lay his finger upon any part of this libel, and say
that it exceeded the limits of fair discussion. The Attorney-
General had in fact distorted the meaning of this article.—
The great defence then which Mr. Harvey set op Was, that he
was not charged with being the author of the libel in question.
There was nothing to show that he was cognoseest of the im-
port of the paragraph. And when the Jury recollected that it
was charged as a libel only by inference, he was sure they
would hesitate long before they convicted the defendant. It
was a wise and salutary rule le all eases which admitted of
,
doubt to give the defendant the benefit of it. This was one of
those cases. If the Jury convicted, a certain punishment of $
long confinement would follow in the first instance, and by the
new law CI libel, banishment from the kingdom In the second.
These remarks which were here so much dwelt upon. would
not be libellous if applied to another man. Every man might
be said to have his feelings oneo to all the tender emotions
arising from domestic calamities, except the King. and his
heart, it was said, was to be for ever closed. When the small-
est allusion was made to the King's feelings, up started his
Majesty's Attorney-General, and exclaimed that it was meant
as a sneer upon him. It would not be an offence to say of say
other man, that he was deeply affected at the loss of • wife or
daughter, bat the King was to have no feelings In cosmos'
with other men. He (Mr. B.) knew from his own experience
that his Majesty had a benevolent heart, and they who de-
nied him those kind feelings, which It was known be pos-
sessed is common with other men, libelled him. The para.
graph stated that his Majesty's mind was affected by the die.
tresses of his agricultural subjects. Was this untrue? Had
not his klajesty himself, by his speech. and his Minister. ads
=Wed the same, though not in the same words! The King bed
also given a strong opinion upon the affairs of Spain.--
Seventeen mi.lions of people were to be afflicted by the
most mumeotuus events, but the King was not to be me-
tated by them. To say, that the King was agitated by
them, was to be denounced as libel and sneer. He must
protest against the liberty and prooarty of any man being
put is jeopardy by such fanciful constructions of language
as those which• were attempted to be established by the
Attorney-General and his ex-officio information. Mr.
Harvey was the proprieter of the paper ; he was known
in that Court legally, and as nothing more; he was not
charged to be the author of the article; however, Mr.
Harvey's politics were well known, in that place as well
as elsewhere. But the Jury had to look at Mr. Harvey as
the proprietor of the paper only. The article asserted the
King to have been afflicted at the loss of his Royal Cun-
sort. He (Mr. Brougham) believed that his Majesty was
much affected by that event; to believe the contrary was
to suppose that the King had not ordinary feelings of
our nature. After all that happened, after all the per-
secutions to which that illustrious lady bad been exposed
—persecutions, about the origin of which there were per-
sons in that place who knew snore than he was
impossible not to believe the representation of Lord Lon-
dooderry, that the news of such an event had filled his
Majesty with sincere grief. The Jury, in considering the
article charged to be a libel, would examine the whole of
it; they would not allow their minds to be diverted
towards any particular paragraphs, separated from the
general context, by any efforts made by the Law Officers
of the Crown. Mr. Harvey had come into the proprietor-
ship of this paper only four nombers before the publication
of that now complained of. He hoped the prosecution of
Mr. Harvey did not arise from any conduct pursued by him
whilst in Parliament, but was confined wholly to the
connection which he was supposed to have with this libel.
It was true that Mr. Harvey had given offence in a certain
quarter, by breaking in upon the Attorney-General's profits
in Exchequer prosecutions. It could not be denied. boo -
ever, that the great sin committed by the defendant, was
the allusion which he made to the Queen's case. He (Mr.
B.) did not wish to put this case upon the old hackneyed
ground of the " Liberty of the Press." He had an
objection to the use of the words, as whenever he heard
them in this Court, they were but a preface to a call for
severe punishment, and in another place was geerally
followed by some belf dozen severe and g
rinding
enactments. This, however, he should say, that unless
the freedom of the press of this country *as upheld by
spirited and honest Juries, we soan descend from that
high ground which we flattered ourselves we held among
the nations of Europe. The Attorney-General -might
have spared himself the trouble of warning him off this
topic, for it was one which he approached with the greatest
reluctance. He hoped be should never see the press
made the tool of those in power. The Learned Counsel
then appealed to the Jury to throw themselves between the
Crown and the defendant, calling upon them as citizens
of London, to show upon this occasion that independent
spirit which had procured for their City the title lof
the cradle of the liberties of the country. and not to
give their sanction to proceedings which would eventu-
ally sap all the foundations upon which British freedom
was placed.—At the conclusion of the Learned °rage-
man's address, the Chief Justice retired for a moonlit,
when the occasion was seized upon by the audience
in the Court to express their applause by clapping of
hands.
Tne ATTORNEY-01INER1L rose to reply. He believed Mr.
nave.), to be the author. and es such he charged toe individeal
with the publication. Till Mr. H.'s article appeared, it was
admitted that there were only rumours: they were acknow-
ledged to be such, and roomers which there was a (Jadeite
conceal ; let in this article they were proclaimed to be fact,
and such declaration professed to be made on authority. Only
a few days before the publication of this libel, the Parliament
had been opened with a speech fawn the King; yet, at such a
time, this man had the impudence to declare that the Ministers
were base enough to carry on the Government at a time when
the King, from mental derangement, coos. incapable of a/tenti-
ng to the duties of the Kingly office. Let the Joey recollect,
that the paper did not chide to the reamers es such, but the
paper after noticing the. declared the reasonred mental de-
rangesoent to be fact. if ;hat were to be sedated. If the King
might be so libelled with impunity, be trusted that it alOald,
not be adduced as Front of the " Liberty" of tue Press. The
d'stlnction endeavoured to be set up between the Pauler and
t le ?rally i•tor, was weak, and mats Alliy of answer; Muse who

pocketed the profits, were not to escape with saying, that they
were not the authors of the libel. If the Jury were of opinion
that the public mind ought not to be disturbed by such hiss
and seeedeloss remoras and statements, they would retain a
verdict of •• Guilty."
The Lord Chief Justice Assam, in addressing the Jury,
detailed the nature of the case. According to the law of
the lands he printers and publishers, as well as the pro•
pricier., were liable for the contents in their paper. As
to the matter that was charged to be libel, be bad no bad.
ratios, whatever, in distinctly awning, that if it were
falsely stated of the King—or of any subject in the realm—
that he was afflicted with mental insanity, the party pub.
lisbing each entreat would be acting criminally. Os
this point be had no doubt. The question thee was, bad
the paper in question promulgated such a statement raw
gardiog his Majesty ; and that was the question of fast
which the law very properly left to the Jury. But be
would observe, if it were a libel to make any such stave
went falsely against any private individual, that it was •
still greater libel to publish such a statement against the
highest executive authority in the country. In cases a
libel, in particular, it was the custom of the Judge to es-
press to the Jury his opinion of the publication. He bad
ever done so since he was a Judge—be would do so new
and he therefore bed no hesitation in declaring his °pipit*
to be, Bindle publication was a criminal libel.
The Jury. after • very short consultation among each
other in the box, retired, at 'a quarter past use o'clock to
consider of their verdict. The Court still remained awe
crowded. At three the Jury returned to the Court. and by
their Foreman, B. Hanson. Esq. asked. whether it wool
requisite for the Jury to be satisfied of the " maliciessi
intention" of the Publication?
The Clll2O JUSTICt —OentIODIOD, when a man publishes)
matter which openly slanders and vilifies another, the pre.
sunration is that the act is intentional, unless be show to
the contrary. -
The Jury again retired, and at a quarter to six returned
a verdict of Guilty against both defendants.
The Foreman—My Lord, we recommend the defendants
to mercy,—The Chief Justice-1 shall take a note of it,
Gentlemen.
BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL.
TOD 11010 r. TRUST.
This was an ex-offiiitio information, filed by the Attorney
General against J. J. Trust, for having. published a blas-
phemous libel against the Christian religion. The libel in
question was published in Palmer'sl Principles of Nature.
When the case was called on, the defendant, a respectable
looking lad, apparently about 18 years of age, addressed
the Court. He said he intended to defend himself, and
before the Solicitor General stated his case. ire wished to
offer a few words.—The Lord Chief Justice—Upon what
subject?—Defendant—Jay bard, against the Competency
of the Court to try this case.—Chief Justice--We can't
hear you; the Court is perfectly competent.
Defendant-31y Lord, in the case of the King and Carlile
your Lordship—
CHM JUSTICII-1 cannot hear you ; I tell you the
Court is perfectly competent to try the case, and it is very
improper of you to adopt such a course.
u. fendant—l hope, my Lird, you Will hen me speak.
CHM/ JvBTICS -1 cannot bear any argument against
the competency of this Court it is perfectly competent to
try a blasphemous libel —Deeendant—it 116 e hot yet been
su declared, my Lord' Chief J ustice—l cannot hear you,
Sir.
The SOLICITOR-GRNERAL proceeded shortly to state the
ease. The libel in question, lie observed, was contained
iu " Palmer's Principles of Nature." It was not his wish;
Nor was it nee sssss y, that he should detain the Jury at
any length, nor would he offend their ears by reading morel
than a passage or two. In one passage it stated that Moses,
blabomet, and Jesus, can lay little claim to merit, or to
having beoetitted society. They were all impostors; the
two first were notorious murderers in practice, and the last
In principle. There were other passages of an equally
offensive nature with respect to the Bible, the Birth of
Christ, &c. but we forbear to quote them. The Learned
Gentleman said, lie should be fully able to bring the sale
of the book home to defendant.
Bond, jun. and J. Parton, Bow Street officers, were
then called. They proved the purchase of the book from
the defendant, who keeps a shop at the corner of Ncwgate
Street, 126. It appeared that the defendant had resorted
to the recently invented mode of evading the law, namely,
having the money put into a crevice in the wainscot, after
which the book called for is thrust to the purchaser either
through a hole in the wainscot, or from the ceiling.
The owner of the shop proved having let it to the de
fondant at a weekly rent ; and the beadle of the parish
proved the nuisance caused by
.the crowds attracted to
defendant's shop. The beadle seised some placards, and
on being brought before the sitting Alderman at Guildhall
by defendant, he (the defendant) admitted that he was a
supporter of Air. Carlile's principles, and an active ages*
of his.
This statement was corroborated by Mr. Derision), clerk
to the sitting Magistrates at Guildhall. The witnesses
were severally cross-examined by defendant, but notbiog
material was elicited from them.—The case for the prose.
cation having closed, the defendant retired for a few mi.
notes ; on his return.
Several passages alleged to be of a blasphemous nature
were read from pages 16, 18, 72, 79. and 143, of " Palmer's
Principles of Nature ;" they.were principally attacks upon
the Scriptures, upon the Divinity of Christ. who was called
au illegitimate Jew, upon the Christian Religion, 6w.
Defendant.-1 wish to have the information read.
Cuter JUSTICg: It is not necessary. but yon may have
it read if you wish.
Defendant-1 wished to analyse it; but no matter. The
defendant proceeded to read to the Court a statement,
which be originally intended to urge as an argument, or a
series of argansents, against the competency of the Court
it was rather on this document, which occupied much of
the time of the Court, and consisted mainly of assertions
of its incapacity to try en offence where no party was stated
to be offended. save Almighty God—a fact which, the
defendant observed, it would be difficult for Mr. Attorney
General to prove. He next proceeded to read "Palmer's
Priaziples of Nature," commencing with the title page.
and proposing tu go through the book(some 130 pages).
Having at length got to a passage, in wnich it was avowed
that the work was in opposition to the Christian religion,
the Chief Justice objected to his going on.-1 cannot read I
any thing worse than what has been selected by, the Attor.
ne General.—A Juryman: can you read any thng betterl
—The Chief Justice : If there be any passage or passages
in the book which will have the effect of explaining away
those in the information, you have a right to read them ;
but I will not. I cannot allow you to go on reading a
blasphemous book in a Court of Justice ; you injure,iostead
of serving your cause by it.
Defendant—'lhe objectionable passages, you will find,
arc directed against matters contained in the Old Testa-
ment.
The CHM JUSTICZ said be could allow of no attack
upon religion.—Defendant—lt is not an attack, it is only all
comment.
The Cam Males repeated his objection.
The Defendant here put it to the Jury if the nature of
what he had read was such as to induce them to prevent
his going on ?
A Juryman: Yes, certainly (an end Jurymen called out
" Shocking," as the defendant proceeded)
Defendant: Oh then you condemn me; you find me guilty
already?—A Juryman: If there be any part of that book
which will explain what is charged against you, read it; if
not, you had better nut proceed.
Defentlent—Oh no, I find I have but a poor chance
bore!—Can a man be punished for saying the Christian
Religion Is not true lalef Justice:--Certainly, it is
so declared ley the law of the land.
The Defendant:—

My Lord, witchcraft was once held to be a crime, but it is
not so new.
CM/ Jurrtcs.—Do yen wish to speak to the evidence?
Defendant said, that be must respectfully protest against
being prevented from going on to read. lie then pro-
ceeded to enter into various objections to the evidence, the
mode of impanelling the Jury, the iolleence of Crowe
Lawyers, &e., through which details we have not space to
follow him.
At length the Cuter Jusvcs summed up, and the Jury
instantly returned a verdict of—Guilty.
The CUM JusTice observed, that there could not, per'
bas be found a stronger instance of the evil tendency of
sucph, writino than that furnished by the misled young
man before them.

OLD BAlLEY—Trwasear.
semvel 311 Won was found guilty of stealing* sofa, the pro-
perty of Lek° Farrell.
Samuel Blackman was charged with secreting and stealing
one sovereign entrusted to him, it being the property of Wil-
liam Grilliths, his master. on the trith of April, 1822. Tne
fact was proved, and the Jury returned a verdict of—Guilty.
John Core was indicted for feloniously driving a certain
dray at and against the body of J. Tucker, and thereby causing
his death.—The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
George Evans, a silk dyer, stated, that he was stsading at
the corner of Worship street, on the 24th of September last.
when he saw two brewers' drays there ; the deceased was on
the same side as the driver should be; the Om dray bad
driver, and passed the deceased ; the prisoner was a eonelder*
able distance behind his dray; saw the deemed endeavour to
avoid the dray, by propping h emelt behind it ; had the driver
hese up with the dray, the accident would not have happened;
the fore pert of the dray passed over deceased's head end
crushed it to pieces, and Ws brains were mitered on the
ground • deceased died instantly.—Triree other witnesses gave
exactly the same testimony.—An officer from Worship street
proved that the width of the carriage way was near fourteen
feet. The drays were the property of Messrs. Danbury, Bei-
, ton, and Co.—The Jury, without hesotation. retailed a verdict
of Guilty.
The Reconnea having made several observations on the
scandalous neglect of draymes, ordered the prisoner to he
, kept to bard labour in the House of Correction for 6 months.

SI:NTENCES ON TUE PRISONERS.

- - -
All the business for both London and Middlesex being
finished, the Recorder proceeded to pass the following sea-
tepees :—John Scott, Charles Louis, Caroline Williams. Geo.
Thrush, and Isaac Barron, transportation for life.—James
Tibbs, Wm. Hunt, Geo. Glover. Charles Bear, and Thomas
craven, for fourteen years.—Benjamin Death, Thos. Seurrah.
Joshua Salentine, Wm, Daltry, Win. Ashley, Chas. Fisher.
James Harrison, John Mesh. Frederick Foster, Henry Mellor.
James Smith, John Wasey. John Miller, William Led, Joseph
Irwin, Midas Jounings. Richard Leeworthy, John Melville.
Abraham Alexander, John Collet. William Comities, Eliza-
beth Bevil, illiam Clerk, Johnones, Edward Dormidae.
James Allen,` Margaret Steward, Charles Evans, sod James
Fey, for seven years.
The following prisoners were sestencedao be imprisoned in
the Honse of ,Correction, and there kept to hard labour :—John
Hale, EdzabttliJeekson, Eleanor MTarthy, Thomas Maw-
ford, Jane Mathews, Mary Davies, Mary Smith, John Anne-
reau, Thomas Kelly, E izabeth Mills, Elizabeth' Parry, John
Ash, and Miry Jones, for one leer. Samtel Million, for the
same tern..nd whipped in the gaol. William Turner, who
was convicted of a misdemeanour, for a similar period, and to
find securities fur his good belie tiuur at the end of that time.
William Adams, for nine months. William Werner, George
M•Kilight, John Thomson, Peter Wil isms, William Lerida.
Thomas Buchitasn, Francis Sweney, and John Harris, fur Aix
months. William Lewis, blowy Woad, Henry Seers, Richard
Isieworthy. Samuel Fitch, William Paterson, NliehielSullivan,
Benjamin Ford, and Samuel Campbell, for three moral's.—
George Davies. Sarah Williams, Susannah Justice, Samuel
Blackman. Martin Brown, George Absolara, for two months.
Edward Haynes and M idiane Nash, for the same term, and
also publicly whipped. Anne Curtis, for silt weeks. Harriet
Cook. henry Morgan, Elizabeth Simpson, for cosi month:
and Richard Fowles. for the same period. in Relegate. Sarah
James, John Rowlands, for fourteen days, In Newgate. Thos.
Ratherford, John Wilson, Mary Tracey, and Daniel Wright,
Aged a shilling, and discharged. The sentences on lieury
Pitt, John Butler, Jose,.h Wright, and William DOM, were
respited.
His Lordship then paned sentence of death upon the follow-
ing criminals :—John Williams, John Young, Wm. Kitson,
and George Fletcher, for stealing in a dwelling-house ; James
Gregory, Win. Leddington, Joseph Farmer, and John Hide.
for housebreaking in the day time; Henry Thomson, James
Field, and Joseph Shepherd, for burglary ; and James Scott,
for timing and maiming his wife, with intent to do her some
grievous bodily harm. In reference to tile case of the last
prisoner, the Recorder remarked that whatever might be the
effect of the intercession of the Learned Judges who
the cases of some of the prisoners then before him, withtried his
Majesty, be must expect no such indulgesee.—The ad-
vice of the Court, therefore, was, that he should be as speedy
as possible in endeavouring to make his peace with the Al-
mighty.
Immediately after the prisoners had been removed from the
Bar, a female in one of the Galleries was taken out of Court
shrieking violently, and exclaiming " Oh, my William."

The Board of Trade, it is understood, is occupied
with the consideration of the intricate state of the Fishery
Laws, witb the design of simplifying and restoring them to
efficiency; but there are many difficulties to be overcome,
not generally known on the coasts.
SUICIDE.—On Tuesday John Sparkes, jun. Esq., of the
firm of Sparkes and Co., 4listillerA. in St. John-street,
Smithfield, in a fit of despondency, oc4 asioned, as it is re•
ported. by losses io hie speculations in the Funds, par-
ticularly in Spanish Bonds, put an end to his existence, by
shooting himself through the head with a pistol, by which
the greater part of his countenance was dreadfully lacerated.
He fell on Isis face, and the report of the pistol not being
heard by the family, the body was not discovered till tau
hours afterwards, when a surgeon was called in, who stated
that the unfortunate young gentleman moat have died in.
stantly. A Jury has since sat on the body, at the Windmill.
St. Jobn's-street, and returned a verdict of insanity. The
deceased has left a wife and four children. The meiancboly
intelligence was conveyed to her at the country residestet
near Edmonton.

MARRIED.—Yesterday, at St. George s Church, Hanorerirquare,L‘ret•
General Sir Thomas Miami, Bart. 0.C.8. to EMUS, daughter of the R
04
ed
Hosoarable Hugh Elliott; and at the same time, Captain Million. eldest
of the Right Honourable Hugh Elliott.to Margaret Seymour. onlyda4l6
of James Masterton, Esq. of Brew Cattle, Perthshire.
Yesteray. at Wandsworth, A. M. Maxwell, Ca, t. in the Bost Ail
d es
to Marc. third daughter of John Falconer Mice, Esq. of West ilill
Wandsworth.
Ou Thursday, atSl James Jame Church, J. S. Oasicniii. Ems. of Clargerstl4
to Mary, seignid daughter of J. A. Hermon, I:•sq Of Whetstone.
Oct. 9. at Albion Villa, near Gothenburg, the Rev. Morgan Horgars,eb*„.
thin of the British Factory at Gothenburg.nbur. to Fanny, eldest daughter
Monsen, Esq. late of Jaraesotreet. fflattli-itaiLLOA4 of •
On the 2ith instant, at Stoke Newington.Hart, Esq•
terrace, to Mary, the eldest daughter of Mr. .Maltby. of Barret resit
On Wednesday tut, Oct. 29, at Islington Church. 0. C. OrrecoMil;
Lieut. R. A., to Martha Elizabeth, third daughter of the late J. 4;n4,4
ol'Highbure Park. Mt l•
EID.-1/n the tXh Inetant. Mrs. Ann Barnard
79 d, relict of the late •
Barnard, of College-unreel, Westusiniter,sge.

DR. EADY respectfully 41
care, end
afflicted, to Ins peculiar and effectual meth Pd
calls the attention of 00
although he will not presume to pledge infallibilr
in every description of case, yet as Ser as hum'n .id, sass
ad by medical and surgical experience can be
1iP14.41;, I:
promises a speedy and permaneut r,stomtion.--Dr. I-. ,
consulted daily at No. SS, Deati-curet, Soho. and I,ll.ta'
street, Stamford-street, Block:liias and Waterloo-I.oc if
patients of both sexes. Country letters, (post PlilLel
closing a fee, Wee respeetsbk ay.cation by rears of '.-
post.—Upper Ground street,surrey side of Illaclariars 0,1"-
leads directly to I, Hatfield street
.---
London : Printed and Published at the Office, No. VA Irsili°
by R. WARDELL, LLD. Proprietor.