the defendant to day. Indeed, he was utterly at a loss to conceive what course the defendant meant to steer. He was aware of the unpleasant situation in which his learned friend (the Attorney General) must feel himself placed, in having this day to defend so infamous a libel, accustomed as he had lately been to carry on so many prosecutions against the diurnal press of this country. He was afraid his learned friend would feel himself as awkward in his present attempt to defend a libel as he had yesterday been in his attempt to play on the improved patent flageolet. That his learned friend, in the prosecutions he had carried on, had gone beyond the strict line of his duty, he (Mr. Topping) was far from supposing, He knew that his learned friend possessed a giant's strength; but of this he was also aware, that while his learned friend knew that to possess the strength of a giant was noble, he was not ignorant that it was cruel to use it as a giant.

Evidence was given of the fact of the defendant's being the sole proprietor of the Morning Post, and of the publication of the libel in that paper.

The Attorney General for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, it being charged that this was in a publication of and concerning the plaintiff, whereas it was given in a speech by the Attorney General of Ireland.

Lord Ellenborough put the party on his defence, reserving to the At torney General this point, if he wished it.

The Attorney General could not but express his regret and his surprise, that his learned friend (Mr. Topping) had lent himself to the slanderous and scandalous imputations attempted to be thrown on him. He appealed to every action of his life, from his boyhood up to the present moment, in contradic

tion of any imputation of improper dishonourable, or partial conduct observed by him, particularly in the discharge of his public duties. He then proceeded to argue, that the present publication, which his client was sorry had not been suppressed, so far as the name of the plaintiff was concerned, was not meant to apply to him, but to Sir F. Burdett and Mr. O'Connor, and to lift them down from the stilts on which they had presumed to elevate themselves. He should however shew, that, in point of fact, the present plaintiff had been apprehended, detained, and examined, on a charge of treason; which, he submitted, must justify the publication in question, there being a justification on the record.

Evidence was then adduced to prove that a warrant was issued against the plaintiff on the 5th of March, 1798, which was delivered to the officer on the 6th, and executed on the 7th of the same month. The prosecutor was carried to the secretary of state's office, where he was examined before the privy council, and was then discharged.

Mr. Topping, in reply, vindicated himself with considerable warmth and feeling, from the imputation attempted to be cast on him by the Attorney General. He had not lent himself to any man wishing to throw out scandalous or slanderous imputations against the Attorney Gene ral. He never had, and never should lend himself to any man. He had not imputed to the Attorney General any improper motives in the prose cutions which he had carried on, nor had he even insinuated, that, in any instance, the Attorney General, in carrying on those prosecutions, had exceeded his duty. The Attor ney General, however, seemed to have erected himself as a colussus, under whose great thigh every other person must creep to an ignominious grave. He (Mr. Topping) could never consent to such a degradation.

He should never consent to hold ex-
istence at the order of such a poor
thing as himself.

Lord Ellenborough begged that
gentlemen would, as much as pos-
sible, in the present irritated state
of their feelings, abstain from per-
sonalities.

Mr. Topping, after apologising to his lordship, proceeded to insist, that no justification, nor any thing, even amounting to an apology for the libellous publication in question had been alleged; he submitted, therefore, that the jury must feel themselves called on to give damages proportioned to the plaintiff's situation in life, and of such damages no gentlemen would be better judges than themselves.

Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that the justification did not apply, in as much as it amounted to this, that the plaintiff had been apprehended on a charge of treason; whereas, in fact, he had only been arrested on suspicion of treasonable practices, and had almost immediately afterwards been discharged. The jury would therefore give reasonable damages.

The jury found for the plaintiff, damages-Five hundred pounds.

THE KING V. CRADDOCK AND JOY.

This was a criminal information against the publishers of the Anti-Jacobin Magazine for a libel on the Rev. Dr. Hodgson, Principal of Brazen Nose College, Oxford. The libel arose in an article inserted in that work on the late clection of a Chancellor for that University, on which occasion Dr. Hodgson was one of the friends of Lord Grenville; and in speaking of him it stated in substance, that when the situation of Principal of Brazen Nose was lately vacant, the present principal (Dr. Hodgson) went to a senior fellow of the college then resident near London, and asked him if he intended to become a candidate for the vacant office. He was told by that reverend gentleman, that himself did not intend to become a candidate because he thought another member had better pretensions. Dr. H. asked if he would

VOL. VIII.

write to that gentleman, and offered to take charge of the letter. The gentleman did so, and gave the letter to Dr. nately it never reached its destination, H. who put it in the post, but unfortu and Dr. H. so far improced the golden opportunity of the others absence, that he secured the prize for himself, the prosecutor never having heard of the va cancy until he heard also of Dr. Il's election to the vacant office.

the prosecution, stated that this was the Mr. Attorney-General, who led for libel complained of, which imputed to Dr. H. most base conduct in suppressing a letter which he undertook to forward, and thereby availing himself of an op portunity of the absence of another gentleman, whose absence was procured by that suppression, to secure to himself impute this to a man, he supposed no the election of the vacant office. To man in his senses would contend was not a libel, and indeed the Court of King's Bench before whom the rule was moved, had already given judgment ou criminal information. that point, by granting the rule for the

The publication of the Magazine was proved, and the libel read.

fendants, addressed the jury at cousiMr. Curwood, as counsel for the de derable length, and contended that the paper did not amount to a libel. Before he went to the consideration of the paper understand the occasion on which it was itself, it was fit, he said, the jury should published. They could not but know that there was now pending a mighty po nious of our wisest statesmen and most litical question, which divided the opi profound politicians; he alluded to the question of catholic emancipation. It was in discussing this question as con nected with the election of a late Chaucellor of Oxford, that the alleged libel took place. It could not be unknown to the jury that the University of Oxford had presented no less than three addresses against granting the proposed indulgence to the catholics, and yet they afterwards elected as the head of their university the man who was considered the champion of the catholic, in parliament. How this could be reconciled to their former recorded opinions, was difficult to solve. It was impossible to suppose that a wise, learned, and virtuous body looked merely to the man power and influence for the disposal of who it was supposed would succeed to

3 M

witres and benefices, and that solution being rejected, the thing remained in explicable. The Anti-Jacobin, as the warm defender of the protestant interest, could not pass by this momentous question, and collaterally the prosecutor's name was introduced. That the author had a right to discuss it, no one would deny. The Attorney-General but the day before yesterday had said, he was a friend to moral, political, and religious discussion, to the extremest point, for the safety of the public peace. Here, then, he had the Attorney-General's opinion that he would not have voluntarily prosecuted in the present case, at least it was fair inference, for it never could be doubted but that Dr. H. the principal of a leading college, the director and governor of the ingenious youth of the empire, whom he formed both by his precept and example, had the turbulent and vindictive passions so far in controul, that there was no danger of his being provoked to a breach of the peace, even though his feelings were wounded by the publication. With respect to the libel, he willingly admitted it charged Dr. H. with an ungentlemanly finesse, as a gentleman he was intitled to have it retracted, and an apology made to his injured sensibility. This, the learned gentleman said he was ready to do, and spoke in handsome terms of Dr. H.; but having conceded thus much as a lawyer, it became him to contend publication was not a libel. Dr. H. now demanded legal judgment, and upon that question the jury would not consider him entitled to a verdict, because by etiquette he was entitled to an apology. As he appealed to law, the jury would decide according to law. Examining the present case by those principles, he contended it was impossible to pronounce it a libel without cutting up the freedom of the press by the very roots.

Lord Ellenborough said, it was certainly the province of the jury to determine if libel or not. His lordship then read the paragraph, and stated it to be his opinion that it was a calumnious Fibel.

The Jury hesitated for some time, but. at length found the defendants-Guilty.

Important Information to Parish Of ficers.--Upon a case reserved for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench, arising out of an appeal between the parish of All Saints, Derby, and the pa

rish of Lambeth, in Surrey, and argued last term, it has been determined, that no person can serve the offices of Churchwarden and Overseer at the same time; and of course, that all the acts of a person so appointed, are illegal and void.— The appointment to these two offices must necessarily be of separate and distinct persons.

Dreadful Accidents.-On Friday evening, about 6 o'clock, a house in White-Hart-Court, Strand, occupied by Mrs. Grant, tallow-chandler, fell down with a dreadful crash. W. Andrews, of the 2d. foot guards, and his wife (lodgers), were both killed on the spot; their bodies are now lying at a neighbouring public-house for a coroner's inquest.-Their child was saved by being thrown out of the window; it received se veral contusions, but every hope is entertained of its recovery.

A most melancholy accident happened at Dover on Friday morning the 15th. instaut, when an immense quantity of the cliff adjoining the castle, leading to the moats bulwark, fell with a dreadful crash into the ordnance timber-yard underneath, in which was situated the house of Mr. Poole, the foreman of the carpenters, which was entirely destroyed, and his wife, five children, and neice, buried in the ruins. Mr. Poole, at the time the cliff fell, had arisen to see to the workmen, and had, only just passed the threshold of his door when he was buried breast deep, and though he survives is very much bruised. The cliff, which was hi therto considered as one hard rock, is supposed to have cracked and gi ven way in consequence of the late heavy rains. It is supposed, upwards of 2000 cart loads of chalk have been precipitated from the cliff.

On Saturday night another large portion of the cliff fell down, as appears by the following letter:

"Dover, Dec. 16.

"The recent fall of the cliff, and the calamity it occasioned, has spread great alarm about Dover, which was

5 per Cent Navy, Shut
Long Ann. 17
India Stock, Shut
India Bonds 17s. p.
Excheq. Bills 5s. p.
Omnium 54dis.
Lottery Tickets 21l. 88.

END OF VOLUME THE EIGHTH.

B. Flower, Printer, Harlow.}