plied to ordinary cases, were not admissible. He divided the case into three periods of time-from the present juncture, back to the second marriage, and from the marriage, back to 1818, and from that time, to any antecedent period which might have been spoken to in evidence. There was nothing in the last-mentioned period, which was, of necessity, to be connected with the is sue. Yet the evidence respecting that portion of time, might be made material, with a view to finding in what state the earl was, and what had been the opinions concerning him and his state of mind, by those persons who were about him. To recur, then, to the first period in his division-from the present time, back to his marriage -it was chiefly affected by the evidence of the medical gentlemen. He would confine his remarks to the effects, and accord the details. These gentlemen had all seen Lord Portsmouth in the month of January last: they were Sir H. Halford, Drs Baillie, Powell, Warburton, Sutherland, Sir George Tuthill, Ainslie, Latham, Willis, and Monro. All these persons being of high eminence in their profession, concurred in the opinion that at present, or on the 28th of January last, Lord Portsmouth was of unsound mind. The jury had also examined Lord Portsmouth, and well knew how far their own opinion concurred with that evidence. He might put it to them directly, if they could come to any other conclusion. There might be shades of difference in the two examinations, but they were of light importance. Dr Bankhead's evidence differed from that of the other medical gentlemen, but Dr Bankhead had not seen Lord Portsmouth since October last, and then found his lordship's mind so locked up, that he was unable to get anything from it. It appeared clear, under all the circumstances, that, since the return from Edinburgh, they

must consider Lord, Portsmouth as a man of insane mind. Most of the medical gentlemen were of opinion, that Lord Portsmouth's mind had always been in the same state as at present. All these examinations had taken place since July last, and they judged of the previous period of his life, by the declarations of Lord Portsmouth himself; supposing those declarations to be true, they found it impossible to come to any other conclusion. They had then to go back to the period of his second marriage, in March 1814. His first countess died in November 1813. The circumstances under which the marriage was celebrated, were peculiar. It was not his intention to cast any severe reflections on the Hansons, but he must say that the, conduct of Mr Hanson did not accord with that protection which the law expected a trustee to throw around the object committed to his charge. If the deeds executed on that occasion could be supposed, in point of obligation, to be unconnected with a marriage, there could be no doubt the circumstances were such as to make the deeds void, and to set aside all the covenants. There were numbers of instances which must occur to the minds of all the professional gentlemen who heard him, in which deeds had been set aside on lighter grounds. But the marriage altered the case. The children likely to be born of the marriage, were purchasers, and however indiscreetly contracted, while the marriage held, the deeds could not be set aside. It appeared, that in March 1814, Lord Portsmouth was at Mr Hanson's, and expressed a wish to be married again. Mr Hanson said he could not consent to the marriage, unless his lordship married one of his daughters. Lord Portsmouth immediately went into another room, and addressed Miss Hanson. She referred him to her father, who told him he should have an answer on Monday,

this being said on the previous Saturday. But though no answer was given till Monday, there was full evidence of a settled determination. A deed of settlement was sent, sheet by sheet, to be engrossed by a stationer Mr Hanson never employed before or since. This was done on Sunday, and on the same day, an attempt was made to take out a licence from Doctors' Commons. It was generally known that a licence could not be taken out on Sunday, but it went to prove the determination. The next morning, Lord Portsmouth repaired, perhaps with some eagerness, to the house of Mr Hanson for his answer. There he was told that Mr Hanson would not consent, unless he would be married that day. The licence was there. The affidavit was prepared. Lord Portsmouth took the oath. He signed deeds which he had never read. He was hurried away to the church, unshorn, without clean linen, without any clothes on him suit able to so cheerful a ceremony. The clergyman was performing the morning service. The party were obliged to seat themselves in a pew. When it was over, the clerk learned, for the first time, that there was a couple waiting to be married. All these circumstances shewed that sort of haste which implied, that all the parties who had brought his Lordship to this, were afraid, lest the interposition of the friends of the earl, aided by the law, might prevent the marriage. So far was Lord Portsmouth from being conscious of the importance of what was going on, that he actually did not know which of the daughters he was to have. Looking at all these circumstances, what could they infer ? not folly merely, but folly run mad. The same consequence flowed from any reasoning which could be applied to the period immediately antecedent. The cruelty of the countess, Mr Alder, and the Hansons the degrading submission

to a pollution of the bed on which he was resting-the many acts of folly and cruelty which had been given in evidence, none of which were conceivable as the acts of a man of sound mind. They had been attributed to mere ignorance; but what sort of ignorance was this which was incapable of becoming informed on the most essential affairs of human life? As to what had taken place in the early life of Lord Portsmouth, he thought that there was enough proved to shew that his Lordship had never been considered of very sound mind. He then went into a lengthened examination of the evidence on the one side, from which he inferred that there was no evidence to overturn the conclusion that Lord Portsmouth was decidedly insane. Something had been addressed to them with respect to the time, from which they would find an attempt was made to excite their alarm as to the consequences of their verdict. They had looked at the evidence in its progress, with the most minute attention, and they would determine the time, as well as the lunacy, according to the facts before them, without regard to the consequences. It had been said, that if they did not return the lunacy of this man, admitted on all hands to be weak minded and of easy delusion, the Court of Chancery would still be able to furnish him with an adequate protection. He confessed, from what he knew of the law, he did not discern how that could be done. They must have no fear of consequences, but judge by the facts only. Their verdict would not be enough to set aside the marriage, without other circumstances. That, they might learn from a late trial in the House of Peers, when it was declared, that not even an act of Parliament would be enough to set aside a marriage, without a previous decision being obtained in the Ecclesiastical Courts. But if they were to consider consequences on one side,

they must not blind themselves to them on the other. Suppose the adultery, the cruelties, and all the other circumstances alleged to be true, what was to protect Lord Portsmouth from the recurrence of the same evils again, if they found him of sound mind? They must, once for all, consider the facts alone. He could not leave a case in worthier hands. To see a jury of their rank, sitting with such patience and assiduity, for nearly three weeks, to discharge their unpaid duty to society, at the expense of great loss and inconvenience, was, perhaps, the best proof of the excellence of the law, and the paternal care which surrounded the interests of English subjects. He thanked them, on behalf of the law and the country, for the service which they had rendered to both. They were at liberty to retire and consider their verdict. The jury retired at six o'clock.

Verdict of the Jury.

Upon the return of the jury, which was about seven o'clock, Lord John Fitzroy, the foreman, turned to his brethren, and said "As many of you, gentlemen of the jury, as are of opinion, that John Charles, Earl of Portsmouth, is a man of unsound mind and condition, and incapable of managing himself and his affairs, signify the same by holding up your hands."-All the jury held up their hands.

The foreman then said," Gentle men of the jury, as many of you as are of opinion that John Charles, Earl of Portsmouth, has been of unsound mind and condition, and incapable of managing himself and his affairs from the 1st of January 1809, signify the same by holding up your hands."

The jury were unanimous in the affirmative.

THE DECCAN PRIZE CAUSE.

THE Lords of the Treasury have at length determined this cause, which is equally important for its novelty, its principles, the distinguished parties interested, and the magnitude of the property in question.

Our readers know that the matter has been repeatedly agitated before their Lordships, in many learned arguments, since the middle of last July; Mr Harrison and Dr Jenner having appeared as counsel on behalf of Lieut.General Sir Thomas Hislop, and the army of the Deccan; Mr Adam and Dr Lushington on behalf of the Marquis of Hastings and the Grand Army; and Mr Serjeant Bosanquet on behalf of the East India Company.

The property was captured at Nagpore, Poonah, Mahedpore, and many other places, in the course of the Pindaree war, between October 1817, and March 1818, and it was of a very large amount. By the law and constitution of the British empire, all property captured from a public enemy, by land or sea, belongs, in the first instance, to the Crown; whose interest is solely divested by its own act, either as a constituent branch of the legislature, or as a spontaneous grantor. No statute applies to the land prize, or booty, like the present; and the question therefore was, to whom, and upon what principles, the Crown, acting under the advice of the Lords of the Treasury, should make a grant of such large property?

In former cases of Indian capture, where the grant was comparatively small, the Crown, we understand, had been in the habit of apportioning a part of the captured property to the East India Company, who distributed it among

the captors, or others, as they thought fit; but the first point determined by the Lords of the Treasury, in the present instance, was, that the bounty of the Crown, for such it was, should proceed directly from the King to the captors; and therefore, that it would be inexpedient to advise his Majesty to grant any part of the sum in question to the East India Company.

The next question was, who were to be considered as captors? and this was a matter of great nicety; depending not only on the principles applied to analogous cases of actual or constructive capture, but also on a large mass of evidence as to the facts, which might, or might not bring the case within the range of those principles.

Their Lordships thought generally, that actual capture should be given as the primary ground of claim to reward; and that the principle of constructive capture admitted, in a variety of shapes by the facts which have to decide similar questions, should not

booty taken by the separate divisions of that army.

Upon the ground of a constructive capture, approaching in its circumstances and merits to an actual capture, the Lords held, that as General Hardyman, with his division of the grand army, was marching towards Nagpore to co-operate with a division of the Deccan army in the reduction of that place, and as he actually had an engagement with a body of the enemy on his way, before the capture, this was such a construction, or rather actual assistance, as would entitle him and his division to share in that portion of the booty which was taken at Nagpore.

Of course, these decisions exclude the Marquis of Hastings, and the Grand Army, (except General Hardyman's division,) from any share in the Royal bounty.

Upon the first and main ground their Lordships then determined

That the separate divisions of the Deccan army should share the booty actually captured by each respectively; and their Lordships therefore overruled an agreement, which was entered into for the whole of the Deccan army, to share with each other; considering, that in case of such sharing, there could be no equitable reason why their Lordships should not advise that all the troops from the different Presidencies should be allowed to participate.

2. That Sir Thomas Hislop having been Commander-in-Chief of the Deccan army until the 31st of March, 1818, was, with his Staff, entitled to share, as an actual captor, in all the

Wednesday, March 5.

MACKINTOSH AND DE GRAVES V. THE COURIER NEWSPAPER.

MR SERGEANT VAUGHAN stated the case to the jury. The plaintiffs were respectable merchants, and the defendants were the proprietors of the Courier newspaper, which possessed an extensive circulation-a circumstance that did not render the evil of which the plaintiffs complained the less grievous. That paper, as far as it had fallen under his observation, appeared to be as little stained with reflections upon character as any journal that was published; but he thought that it would be impossible for the jury to declare that the writing of which the plaintiffs complained was not a libel; and it would

have been as impossible for the plaintiffs to pass it over in silence, since no apology had ever been made by the defendants, who, on the contrary, now stood forward to justify every tittle of it. The plaintiffs having determined to carry out a mercantile adventure to Van Diemen's Land, purchased a ship called the Hope, on board of which they embarked various pieces of machinery, which were calculated at once to advance their own interests, and to prove beneficial to the colony to which they were about to proceed. Amongst the articles thus carried on board, were a saw-mill and corn-mill worked by steam. The plaintiffs determined to carry out passengers, and about ninety persons engaged to sail with them. Originally it had been the intention of the plaintiffs to set sail from London on the 20th of August, 1821, but circumstances occurred which prevented them from leaving that port until the 7th of October. Having arrived in the Downs, the vessel suffered damage from a severe gale, and was compelled to run into Ramsgate harbour. The vessel was insured for only about 3000l., although it would be proved that it was worth considerably more. It was necessary that the jury should direct particular attention to that fact, and also to the circumstance that the wives and children of the plaintiffs were on board the vessel, because the libels of which the plaintiffs complained attributed to them nothing less than an intention to consign all the persons who were on board the ship to destruction. After the Hope entered Ramsgate harbour, a surveyor from Lloyd's proceeded there to examine her. That gentleman happened to tell the passengers that they must all contribute to the repair of the ship under what was called a "general average." From that moment the passengers became unwilling to proceed in the vessel; and in order to get rid of their engagement,

some of them represented to Customhouse officers that there were more passengers on board than were allowed to be carried, according to the 43d of George III. called the Passengers Act. In consequence of this information, the ship was seized, and detained at Ramsgate for five months; but upon an investigation before the Board of Customs, it appeared that there had existed no just ground for taking possession of the vessel, and the Treasury granted a compensation of 20001. to the plaintiffs for the injury which they had sustained by that act, and sent the passengers out free of expense in another ship. The libel which formed the subject of the prosecution was published in the Courier on the 3d of January 1822. It was in the form of a notice from a correspondent, and it stated, in substance, that the ship Hope, after having been detained in London for a considerable time after the period at which her owners had declared that she would sail, to the great prejudice. of the passengers, had been obliged to put into Ramsgate harbour in a state of great distress; that she had been discovered to be unsea-worthy, and not sufficiently victualled for her intended voyage; that the provisions were of an inferior description; that the owners had been arrested for debt; and that the unfortunate persons who had been deceived and misled by the promises of the owners were reduced to extreme misery. Every statement contained in the libel would be proved to be false; and if that should be done, how criminal would not the conduct of the defendants appear! They had published a libel, which was calculated to destroy entirely the value of property of so delicate a nature as shipping; and yet they had never, from the day on which the offensive writing first appeared, down to the present, condescended to offer the slightest apology, or even to acknowledge that they had been mis