recalled, tended in some degree to confirm.

Mr Justice Bayley rose at seven o'clock to charge the jury. He read the indictment against the prisoner, and pointed out, that if it were established by proof, that he either wilfully cut, or by assaulting intended to cut, and maim, and do some bodily harm to Mr Horrocks, then the guilt was clearly established against him under the act of Parliament. Of the facts, and the mode and character of the attack, there could be but one opinion; and the only question then was, whether the prisoner was in a state of mind to distinguish, at the time he did the act, right from wrong, or, in other words, to have a moral perception of the tendency of his actions. This was certainly a very nice inquiry, and required not only very extraordinary attention on the part of the jury, but also extraordinary discrimination. It might, as the experience of most men shewed them, often happen, that a person, who was really not deranged, might assume a pretended incoherency to cover some dark and guilty design, and to impose on the world a be lief, that his actions ought to pass with impunity. Nothing was more difficult than to discover the difference between real and pretended insanity. To enable the jury to discriminate in a case of such extraordinary nicety, they ought to look very particularly at what had been the conduct of the party before the act. His conduct subsequently was also to be taken into consideration; but, for obvious reasons, with a greater degree of caution and circumspection. Even his conduct at the moment of trial must be attended to; for that might guide them to a knowledge of his actual condition at the moment. The learned Judge then pointed out the various forms assumed by insanity, and the manner in which the law viewed the disease as a protec

tion from penal responsibility. He proceeded, then, with great perspicuity, to sum up the evidence in detail, and left the whole case to the Jury to form their opinion, upon a mature consideration of the whole of the prisoner's conduct and condition.

The Jury at nine o'clock retired; and, after twenty minutes consideration, returned with a verdict of Guilty, but that the prisoner at the time was not of sound mind to know what he was about.

Mr Justice Bayley then said, that, by a wholesome act of Parliament, for the safety of the King's subjects, a person in the condition of the prisoner must be detained in custody, at the pleasure of his Majesty, to prevent his doing farther mischief.

The prisoner appeared calm; and returned thanks in a very distinct manner to the Judge and Jury, for their patient attention during his trial.

CAHUAC AND BEEMAN, FOR STEALING BOOKS.

Old Bailey.

Thomas Beeman and John Cahuac were indicted, the former for stealing, on the 16th of July, 106 printed books, value 21., the property of Mr Benjamin Bensley, and the latter for receiv ing the said books, knowing them to be stolen.

Mr Adolphus stated the case for the prosecution, and called the following evidence :

Mr Benjamin Bensley deposed, that he was a printer in Bolt-court, Fleetstreet. He employed the prisoner Beeman as warehouseman. About the latter end of June, the witness printed an octavo edition of Lingard's History of England, for Mr Mawman the bookseller. Beeman collated the work, and

therefore had access to it. In consequence of information which the witness received, he took stock of the work, about the end of August, and found that he had lost from 15 to 20 copies, each copy containing 8 volumes. On the 5th of August, the witness accompanied Mr Fellowes (Mr Mawman's foreman) to Cahuac's shop in Blackman-street, in the Borough. In answer to some questions of the witness, Cahuac said he had several of the octavo copies of Lingard's History, at 31. per copy. The witness then left the shop, and joined Mr Fellowes, who had been waiting outside, but shortly after again entered it in company with Mr Fellowes. Mr Fellowes, addressing Cahuac, said, he heard that he was of fering Lingard's History for sale at a very reduced price, which appeared the more extraordinary, as he (Cahuac) was present at Mr Mawman's sale about a month before, and refused to pur. chase any copies of the work. Cahuac appeared confused, and said that he had only two copies to sell. Mr Fellowes replied, that he knew that Cahuac had offered a respectable bookseller six copies only a day or two before. Cahuac, being pressed, said he had purchased six copies, at 21. 10s. per copy, of a man who had brought them to his shop; but he neither knew the man's name nor address. Cahuac afterwards said that this man was a messenger at the King's Bench prison, and that he sold the book on behalf of a prisoner there; but upon being asked to go to the King's Bench, and point out the messenger, he observed that he did not know the man was a messenger at the King's Bench, but only that he said he was.

In his cross-examination, the witness stated, that when he accompanied Mr Fellowes to Cahuac's shop, he did not know that any copies of Lingard's History were missing from his warehouse. The witness printed from be

tween 1015 to 1025 copies of Lin gard's History for Mr Mawman. The lowest price at which Mr Mawman's Lingard's History was sold, to his knowledge, was 3l., with a bonus of 4 per cent. to those who took 24 copies. The witness employed upwards of 100 men, and they all had access to the work.

Mr Benjamin Fellowes, the foreman of Mr Mawman, of Ludgate-street, deposed, that Mr Mawman was the proprietor of Lingard's History of England. Some time during last spring, Mr Mawman published an octavo edition of the work, and previously to its being produced, he had what is called a "trade dinner," at which it is usual to fix the price of forthcoming works. The lowest price fixed for the sale of the new edition of Lingard's History was 31. per copy, with a bonus of 4 per cent. to those who took 25 copies. This price was to be given for the work in sheets. The next trade price was 31. 88. to those who took less than 25 copies. The retail price in boards was fixed at 4l. 16s. After the trade dinner, 405 copies were delivered to Mr Mawman by Mr Bensley. The trade dinner took place on the 23d of April, and the book was published on the 23d of June. The work has never declined in price from that time. Mr Cahuac was present at Mr Mawman's trade dinner, and refused to purchase any of the work. In consequence of information which the witness received from a bookseller named Dowding, he examined Mr Mawman's stock, and found no copies of Lingard's History wanting. The remainder of the witness's testimony was in corroboration of what Mr Bensley had stated respecting the proceedings in Cahuac's shop. He also stated that he found three copies of Lingard's History at the shop of Mr Renshaw, a bookseller in Fleet-street.

John Clinton, a constable, deposed,

that he apprehended Beeman on the 14th of August, and searched him. Beeman denied that he had any fob; but when the witness discovered it, he said that there was nothing in it. The witness, however, turned the fob out, and found two papers in it, which Beeman said were memorandums referring to transactions that occurred three years back. The witness searched the prisoner's lodgings, and there found a piece of paper. (The witness here produced the two papers which he had found in the prisoner's fob, and that which he had found at his lodgings.) On the 16th of August the witness searched Cahuac's house, but found no copies of Lingard's History. John Dowding, a bookseller in Newgate-street, deposed, that about the 28th of July, Cahuac called at his shop, and offered six copies of Lingard's History, 8vo edition, at 27. 8s. per copy. The witness declined purchasing the books, and sent to inform Mr Mawman of the circumstance.

James Cooper, a bookseller in Fisher's-alley, Water-lane, proved that the writing on the paper found in Beeman's lodgings was his. On the 18th of July the witness bought of Mr Cahuac, at his shop, six copies of Lingard's History, 8vo edition, at 21. 10s. Only five copies were delivered to the witness; three of these he exchanged with Mr Renshaw, of Fleet-street, for Comyn's Digest. The other two copies he sent to Mr Agg, a bookbinder, to be bound. Mr Agg returned them, saying they were imperfect. The witness made out a list of the sheets which were wanting; (this was the paper found in Beeman's lodgings.) He took the list to Cahuac, and Cahuac said he would procure the sheets to make the copies perfect. Some time after, however, Cahuac called at the witness's shop, and said he would take back the imperfect copies of Lingard's History, when the witness accordingly delivered them to him.

George Cooper, the brother of the last witness, proved that five copies of Lingard's History were delivered at his brother's shop, one copy by Mr Cahuac, and the four others by Cahuac's son.

Agg, a bookbinder, deposed that he received five copies of Lingard's History to put into boards. Only three of the copies were perfect. The witness made out a list of the imperfections of the remaining copies, which he gave to Mr Cooper. One of the papers found in Beeman's fob was shewn to the witness, who identified it as the list of imperfections which he had drawn up.

Mr Renshaw, the bookseller, in Fleet-street, merely proved that he received three copies of Lingard's History from Mr Cooper.

James Clapperton, a servant in the employ of Mr Bensley, deposed, that, about the latter end of July, he found a paper on Beeman's desk. A paper was handed to the witness, which he said was the paper which he had found on Beeman's desk. He believed the writing on the paper to be that of Beeman. The paper was lying openly on the desk, and the witness placed it on a peg, from which Beeman might, if he had pleased, have removed it.

The written paper referred to was here read by the clerk, and purported to be a list of imperfections in some copies of Lingard's History, which had been sold by Mr Mawman to a bookseller named Anderson, in Piccadilly.

Mr Anderson, a bookseller in Piccadilly, proved that he had not in July bought any copies of Lingard's History of Mr Mawman, and that he had never sent a list of imperfections in that work to Mr Bensley.

This was the case for the prosecution.

The counsel for the prisoner asked the Court, whether it was of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to

justify the putting of the prisoners on their defence.

The Court replied in the affirmative, and accordingly called on the prisoners for their defence.

Beeman, in his defence, said that it was impossible that he could have taken any property from Mr Bensley's premises, because he never left them except in company with other persons. He never saw Cahuac until he was in custody.

Cahuac read a written defence, in which he solemnly declared that he had purchased the books in the way of trade, and that he had never known Beeman until after he was apprehended, and he also complained of the harsh conduct of the prosecutors.

Several respectable witnesses gave a good character to Beeman, and an unusual number (we should think not less than 30) appeared in behalf of Cahuac.

The Recorder then proceeded to sum up the evidence, and concluded at a quarter past one o'clock.

The Jury then retired, and precisely at two o'clock returned into court. The Foreman, addressing the Bench, said he was instructed by his brother jurors to express their sincere regret that they could not conscientiously declare the men at the bar, who had received so high a character, innocent of the charge which had been brought against them. He then returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoners to mercy, on account of their previous good character.

est interest in the city, and before the sitting of the court, every part, except the front bench, reserved for counsel, was crowded. The Baron de Stael was introduced by Mr Campbell to the Lord Chief Justice, and invited by his Lordship to take a seat on the bench. The Lord Mayor, and Mr Sheriff Lawrie, with two ladies, were also on the bench, and Lord Nugent sat on the back bench, usually occupied by counsel. Mr Brougham sat within the bar, next to the Common Sergeant, and Mr Harvey was seated behind his counsel. About twenty minutes before ten, the cause was called on for trial.

Seven special jurors answered to their names. The Attorney-General prayed a tales, and the jury, being completed by the addition of five common jurors, was sworn.

Mr Shepherd stated, that this was an information filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General, against Daniel Whittle Harvey and John Chapman, for a libel on his Majesty, published in a paper called the Sunday Times; to which they had pleaded Not Guilty.

The Attorney-General stated, that this was a proceeding which, in the discharge of his public duty, he had felt it necessary to institute, for the publication of a libel as unwarrantable as had ever issued from the press. The article now under consideration, was not one of those written in the fair and constitutional discussion of public measures or public men, nor for the purpose of animadverting on the acts of government; it would not, therefore, give occasion for any of those questions which were frequently introduced in such cases, as to the extent to which

IMPUTING INSANITY TO THE KING.

Court of King's Bench, Oct. 30.

The trial of this ex-officio information, for a libel on the King, appointed first for this day, excited the deep

carried. It could not give occasion to any observations respecting that which was justly prized by every lover of the constitution-the liberty of the press. When the jury heard the libel read, they would be satisfied of its malignant and mischievous tendency, alike offen

sive to every man, whatever might be his political sentiments; for, he believed, whatever might be the opinions of men with respect to the conduct of government, or the acts of public men, there were none who were not firmly attached to the constitution, as by law established, nor who did not entertain, and wish to see inculcated, due respect to the person at the head of the government. The libel contained an imputation, and an insinuation, and not merely an insinuation, but a direct assertion, that his Majesty, early in the present year, was afflicted with mental derangement. Such an imputation could not but be injurious to the feelings of any person, and still more to one filling the exalted station occupied by his Majesty. But it was more objectionable still, on account of its public tendency, because it was calculated to engender distrust, with respect to the public measures of the government, by representing the King as incapable to perform the functions which, by the constitution, he ought to exercise. They had, most probably, heard, that in the early part of this year, his Majesty was, for a short time, indisposed; and it was during the period of this indisposition, that, in a paper entitled the Sunday Times, there appeared an article which was the subject of the present prosecution. It was not one of those light articles coming from a correspondent, and conveying intelligence respecting his Majesty's health, or any public event; but it professed to emanate directly from the editor, and was what was usually termed the leading article, because it was meant particularly to attract the attention of those among whom it was circulated. It was to the following effect, and was headed, in large letters,

Latest Intelligence.

"THE KING.-Attached as we sincerely and lawfully are to every inte

rest connected with the Sovereign, or any of his illustrious relatives, it is with the deepest concern that we have to state, that the malady under which his Majesty labours, is of an alarming description. It is from authority we speak, when with sorrow we inform our readers, (as we think it our duty to do,) that the King not only still continues to be confined to his chamber, but that the symptoms of his disorder are of too serious a nature to admit of his medical attendants being able to say when their royal patient will be sufficiently recovered to shew himself to his anxious and afflicted subjects. Dr Knighton, his Majesty's private secretary and domestic physi cian, is in constant attendance, scarcely ever out of the chamber in which the King is confined, and never farther from the scene of sickness than the adjoining room. The persons

about his Majesty foreseeing, that, probably, it will be a considerable time before the seat of his complaint will be in a state sufficiently convalescent to render it advisable that he should quit the Pavilion, have, in order to ease the apprehensions of the public, circulated the report, that pleasure and comfort, not any afflicting necessity, will produce a protracted stay at Brighton. But far from approving this deceptious kind of policy, which only ensures a more violent shock, whenever the real truth of the case shall appear, we deem it much the wiser way, to use, on such unhappy occasions, the language of fact and reality; therefore, we are as desirous of communicating, as others are of concealing, the melancholy truth that the King's disorder is, it is feared, of an hereditary description."

The libel thus alleged that the King's indisposition was of an "alarming" nature; that it would be some time before his Majesty's "seat" of complaint would enable the physicians to declare the royal patient in a state