deration of the whole matter, and having maturely deliberated thereupon, beg leave humbly to submit to your majesty their opinion upon the charge of Mr. Sergeant Rough against lieutenant-governor Murray, as exhibited in the proceedings before them, which charge was as follows:

"Your lordships' petitioner complains of the illegal and unwarrantable outrage by which, without delinquency or charge, without a shadow of legal or moral guilt, he was suspended from his office of president.

"He complains of every aggravation by which such a proceeding could be accompanied. He complains that his secretary was turned out of his apartments, which were forcibly seized; that his own library, books, and papers were violently taken possession of; that his suspension was blazoned forth in an unnecessary proclamation, published in the Royal Gazette; that his place was filled up by an appointment most illegal and improper; that a mock procession and a vulgar riot, by which the enemies of your petitioner celebrated their triumph over him, the law, and the public peace, was encouraged and plauded by the governor, whose lawless violence had thus gratified their wanton malignity.'

66

ap

Upon this charge it is the opinion of the lords of the committee, that, under all the circumstances of the case, lieutenant-governor Murray was not justified by any sufficient necessity in suspending Mr. Sergeant Rough from his office of president ; and that the conduct of the said lieutenant-governor was likewise reprehensible in not having taken any measures for preventing a procession, of which previous public notice had

been given, which procession was evidently designed as an insult to the president (whom he had suspended) and threatened not only his personal safety, but the public peace.*

“Their lordships beg leave further humbly to submit, that in the transactions which preceded the suspension, and which were accompanied by much irritation between the parties, they see cause to regret the indiscreet conduct pursued by Mr. Sergeant Rough upon some occasions, and also the remissness of lieutenant-governor Murray in not sufficiently maintaining the respect due from the inhabitants of the colony to the judicial character and authority of Mr. Sergeant Rough, and the court over which he presided; and in not endeavouring to protect them from a series of libellous calumnies to which they were exposed.

"But the lords of the committee are induced to think, that the disputes which arose between the parties in question were owing, in a considerable degree, to the undefined nature of their respective authorities as governor and president, in a colony where these offices had been formerly united, and to the difficulties arising from the want of an established table or standard of fees in the courts of justice, concerning which there was a discordance of opinion and a clashing of authorities.

"And the lords of the committee beg leave further humbly to submit, that they have thought it their duty to take these difficulties into consideration in forming a judgment upon the conduct of each of the parties.”

His majesty having taken the said report into consideration, was pleased, by and with the advice of

his privy council, to approve thereof. JAMES BULler.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
JULY 1

Blore v. Stockdale. This was an action against the defendant, as publisher of the "Memoirs of Harriet Wilson," for an alleged scandalous and defamatory libel concerning the plaintiff. The damages were laid at 500l. Plea, not guilty.

Mr. Scarlett stated the case. The plaintiff was a tradesman, carrying on the business of a stonemason and statuary, in Stratfordstreet, Piccadilly; he had been many years a married man, and was the father of a large family of children. The defendant, Mr. Stockdale, was a bookseller, and the publisher of the work in which this libel appeared. The book, upon the face of it, professed to be, a history of the life and adventures of a common prostitute, of the name of Harriet Wilson. The libel was contained in a pretended letter written by Fanny to her sister Harriet, which was in these terms; Apropos! Talking of vulgarity, I have had a proposal of marriage since I saw you from

66

Mr. Blore the stone-mason, who keeps a shop in Piccadilly. Parker says it is all my fault, for being so very humble and civil to everybody; but you must recollect this man was our near neighbour, and when we were all children together, and I cannot think I had any right to refuse answering his first civil inquiry after my health, by which he no doubt thought, as a man of good property, and better expectations, he did me honour. Since then he

has often joined me in my little rural walks, early in the morning. When first his conversation began to wax tender, I scarcely believed my ears; however, those soft speeches were speedily succeeded by a proposal of marriage! You know my foolish way of laughing at every thing of this kind, which is what encouraged him to argue the point, after I had begged to decline his polite offer. Look y' here, my dear lady,' said he, these here officers cut a splash! And it's all very fine being called Mrs. Parker, and the like o' that; but then it's nothing compared to a rale husband. Now I means onorable, remember that.' I was interrupting him, 'Come, I dont tax you, my dear, to make up your mind this morning. Marriage is a serious kind of a thing, and I wants no woman for to marry me, till she has determined to make an industrious good wife. Not as 1 should have any objection to your taking a bit of pleasure of a Sunday, and wearing the best of every thing; but at the same time we must stick to the main chance for a few years longer, if ever we wishes for to keep our willa, and be ralely genteel and respectable. Not but what I have got now as good a shay and oss as any man need to wish for, and an ouse over my head, full of handsome furniture, and plenty of statters (statues), still I looks forwards to better things.' Though it is morally and physically impossible for a woman, be she what or who she may, to attach herself to any thing so low and vulgar as this poor Mr. Blore, after she has acquired the taste by the habit of good society, still I certainly have a right to feel obliged to any honest man who yet considers me worthy to become his

partner for life, and I could not have said any thing cross or harsh to him for the world. You have no idea what difficulty I found in making him believe that I would not marry him. There, my dear,' said he, after I had assured him over and over again that I must really decline his offer, 'there, my dear! I will leave you now, I don't want you to decide all at once; but remember you must not let what I'a been saying about our minding the main chance frighten you, because you'll find me a very reasonable good-natured fellow; and as for going to the play, if you are fond of that, I can get orders for the pit venever I like."-The object of this was to hold him up to ridicule in the first place, by putting vulgar and illiterate language into his mouth; and, in the second, to impute to him the bad taste of making a serious offer of marriage to a common prostitute, independently of the gross violation of morality and decency of such an offer on the part of a married man with a family of children.

The plaintiff's witnesses proved the extensive sale of the book.A Mr. William Smith a linendraper in Half-moon-street, said, he knew the father and mother of Harriet Wilson, when they lived in Queen-street, May-fair. The father's name was De Boucher. He had seen him from time to time. He kept a small shop for cleaning silk stockings. He knew Harriet and Fanny de Boucher. He knew Harriet by the name of Wilson; she used to buy goods at his shop as late as 1808. He had very little knowledge of Fanny; she might be a year or two younger than Harriet. He knew them, when they were all children to gether.

Mr. Stockdale, who appeared in person, read a long written defence, in which he complained that a number of persons had combined together to effect his ruin, by bringing similar actions against him. Although the "Memoirs of Harriet Wilson," had been described in harsh terms, he ventured to say that it was one of the most important works, from its tendency to improve the morals of society (excepting such as were of divine origin), that had ever been issued from the press; and he doubted not that its utility and beneficial consequences would last as long as time should endure. Neither learning nor talent was necessary to show how little foundation there was for this action. He complained that he had been threatened by certain noble persons, whose conduct had been exposed in the "Memoirs," and that these and other persons were at the bottom of the conspiracy against him. He also complained of the manner in which he had been attacked by the base hireling press, and particularly by a Sunday paper, called the British Lion, which was obviously set up for the express purpose of vilifying his character, and calling in question the integrity of his motives. After referring to several numbers of this paper, he broadly asserted that the plaintiff was in league with its Editor, for the purpose of furthering the conspiracy against him. He referred to a letter in one of the copies, supposed to have been written by Mr. Blore's attorney to the Editor, as evidence of the truth of his assertion. He then spoke of the general accuracy of the "Memoirs," and commended their tendency to expose the vices of the age, particularly in high life, and

their ameliorating effects upon the morals of the country. Adverting to the supposed libel, he contended, that there was no evidence whatever that the plaintiff was the identical person there mentioned. For any thing that appeared to the contrary, the letter applied to the plaintiff's son, who might have been of an age quite sufficient to make an overture of marriage to Fanny de Boucher. But assuming that the plaintiff was the person meant, still where was the harm in all this? There was no attack upon the plaintiff's moral character, nor was there any injury done him in his trade. The utmost the supposed libel amounted to, was an attack on his cockneyism.

The first witness called was the plaintiff's son, to show that the libel applied to him and not to his father.

Robert Blore, junior, examined by the defendant:-I did not know Fanny Parker, otherwise de Boucher. I am quite certain of it. I am certain I never saw her, to my recollection. I never proposed marriage to her. I know of no conversation ever having taken place between me and my father on the subject of this action. Cross-examined by Mr Jones? My brother is four years younger than me.

The defendant then called the honourable George Lamb (who did not appear), and was proceeding to give the names of other witnesses, when

The Lord Chief Justice interposed, and said: If you will take my advice, you will abstain from calling any more witnesses, if the object of their evidence is to prove the truth of other parts of this publication, because such evidence is inadmissible. If you will take my advice, you will not call them,

for they will do you no good. The defendant submitted to the learned Judge's advice.

Mr. Robinson, the plaintiff's attorney, was then called by Mr. Jones, and he denied that he had written the letter to the Editor of the British Lion, which was read by Mr. Stockdale in his defence.

The Jury found their Verdict for the plaintiff.-Damages 300l.

PIRACY.-ST. CHRISTOPHER,

JULY 19.

Competency of Slave Testimony.

In the Court of Admiralty Sessions, John Fletcher and William Arrindell, free black men, were tried for a felony on the high seas. The prosecution was conducted by his Honour the Attorney-General, Mr. Skilling, and Mr. Smith; the defence by Mr. Woodcock and Mr. Hanley.

Fletcher was first put on his trial; and Mr. Smith opened the case, and stated the particularsnamely, that the prisoner, with his accomplice Arrindell, had taken away from Nevis, in a boat, a slave named Branch Hull, on the night of the 10th of October last, and had thrown him overboard, detaining his clothes and other articles; for which robbery he was indicted. The attorney-general rose to examine the evidence ; when the prisoner's counsel objected to a witness called, who was a slave, on the ground of his condition rendering him incompe tent to give evidence in any court in the island, under the existing laws. The counsel for the prosecution replied to this objection; and the court having deliberated thereon, his honour the chief justice delivered the following opinion:

"We know that the courts have long since disregarded the subtle grounds upon which the old cases rested, as to the competency of witnesses; that they have endeavoured, as far as possible, and consistently with existing authorities, to let the objection go to the credit, rather than to the competency, of a witness. We adopt this principle in its fullest extent, and, convinced that it is both expedient and salutary, as tending to the attainment of the great ends of justice, I shall proceed to consider the objection taken to the competency of this witness. He is a slave, and it is contended, that being a slave, his testimony, by the usage of the other courts of judicature in this island, cannot be received. This opinion was supported by some positions, for which I in vain required that authority should be cited. It was urged, that by the practice of other courts, such testimony is rejected, as affecting the remotest interest of any one who claims to be free; but this is too broadly laid down. A mere claim to freedom would not be sufficient-the party must be actually free. I well remember the case which has been cited; for I presided in the court of King'sbench and Common Pleas, on the occasion when the court rejected the evidence of a free man, relating to a fact which occurred whilst he was in a state of slavery; and I had the misfortune to differ from my learned associates upon that occasion; for I could not reconcile the principle with any notion of justice or of reason, that this man being free, should be deemed by law competent as evidence of a fact which occurred yesterday, whereby the life of a fellow-creature might be taken away, but,

being a slave the day before, his evidence is to be rejected upon the most trivial question of property, belonging to a free person, and arising during the period of his servitude. We have no law, whereby the evidence of a slave is rendered inadmissible in regard to free persons, in our courts of justice; but it is the usage of these courts, and therefore there is all the force of the law to reject it; and it may thus be accounted for:

When our courts were first established, our slaves were savages from the coast of Africa. Their want of reason and understanding rendered them, as the same defects would have rendered any other individual, incompetent as witnesses. That objection arising from their barbarism has, by the received opinion and the practice of the court, been attached ever since to the servile condition; although by the progress of christianity, and of consequent civilization, the force of that objection is weakened; and we now see that it is safe, and expedient, and just, that such an impediment to the investigation of truth and justice should be removed-under those precautions and safeguards which the peculiar constitution of our society requires. We at once admit that the uniform and solemn decisions of a court are binding upon the practice of that court; but it may not be contended that they are binding upon any other independent court of judicature. It so happens that the commissioners now presiding, are the judges of the court of King'sbench and Common Pleas, where our minds are habituated to the rejection of the evidence of a slave, as affecting in the remotest degree the interest of a free person. But