The Court of Queen's Bench was occupied on Wednesday with

the trial of John Joseph Lawson, printer and publisher of the Times news- paper, for the libel on Sir John Conroy. The prosecutor had ob- tained an absolute rule for a criminal information against the defendant. The counsel for the prosecutor were Mr. Thcsiger and Mr. Wightman ; for the defendant, Sir John Campbell, Mr. Platt, and Mr. Ilumfrey. The libel appeared in the Times of the 9th of March. It imputed to " a certain newly-created Baronet, attached to the Household of the Dutchess of Kent," mismanagement of the concerns of her Royal High- ness, who had accumulated a debt of 50,000/. ; towards the silent dis- charge of which debt, Parliament had voted an annuity of 30,Mio/. Disrespectful conduct to William the Fourth was insinuated against the " Baronet ;" who it was said, " wished to have been sent Ambassador to Sweden, but the Queen refused to give him the opportunity of exhibit- ing his " respectful " manners to the King of Sweden. And then came the two following paragraphs, in which the pith of the offence lay- " Should he quit his present position, we ask where arc talents to be found capable of applying a due portion of the 30,000/. to the liquidation of the 80,0001., and who can so well understand wiping off as he who has chalked on "There is another matter also worth notice. There is a certain estate in Wales, purchased and paid for not long ago. If any public inquiry should take place whence the money for the payment came, who so competent to answer the question as the Baronet ?"

Evidence was given of the publication and sale of the libel at the Times office, by a clerk to Messrs. Williams, Powell, and Brookes, soli- citors to the prosecution. The witness was cross-examined by Sir John Campbell. the Queen's Attorney-General.

" You say you arc clerk to the solicitors of Sir John Conroy ?"—" I am, Sir."

" Is Sir John in court ?"—" Not that I am aware of."

" You arc not aware ?"—" I am not." " When did you see him last ?"—" Just previously to my coming into Court."

" In the Guildhall-card?''—" It was."

"This very morning ?"—" This very morning."

" Ile is not confined by illness to his house?"—" Ile is not."

"lie is in good health?"—" I believe he is."

Mr. Common Sergeant Mirehouse deposed that he had long 1.110W11 Sir John Conroy ; that he had purchased an estate for him in Wales and had no doubt that he was the person alluded to in the Tinws article. When cross-examined by the Attorney-General, the witness said that he had seen Sir John Conroy- in the neighbourhood of the Court, and teat he " was ready" for the Attorney-General it' he "wanted him." [This learned judge ought to have known that the defendant could not summon the prosecutor as his witness.]

The Honourable Edmund Byng knew Sir John Conroy very well, and was "most decidedly" of opinion that he was the person alluded to by the Times.

Such was the case for the prosecution.

Sir John Campbell addressed the Jury for the defendant. This was the opening of his speech- " May it please your Lordship—So, gentlemen of the Jury, my learned friend Mr. Tlicsiger closes his case without presenting Sir John Conroy as a witness before you. Is Sir John Conroy ill in bed ? is lie in a distant country 't is he prevented from appearing to explain and justify his conduct ? Sir John Conroy is not in court. He is not in court, but be is, we are told, in some ad- joining room within call of my learned friend; and utler the taunt which I on purpose threw out on the cross-examination of the first witness, when there was ample time for my learned friend to have sent tbr hint, and to have pre- sented him before you, if Sir John Conroy had ally taste to appear before the Jury, yet my learned friend closes his case without calling the prosecutor as a witness."

It was said that Sir John Conroy challenged inquiry—was eager to meet his accusers face to face-

" Where is Sir John Conroy ? Does he present himself ' face to face' be- fore his accuser? He shrinks, gentlemen, from that challenge. He does not venture to conic into court. I should have liked exceedingly to hove seen hint ' face to face ; ' and it would have given toe great gratification, if, on examina- tion and cross-examination, he had given such an explanation as might be en- tirek satisffictory ; nor should I for one 111011101a have withheld my tribute of applituse from the conduct he had pursued. Instead of that, gentlemen, Sir John Conroy comes to the neighbourhood of the court, but he does not venture to present himself as a witness before the Jury. Is this the practiee that has been usually pursued where a criminal informaiion has been resorted to with a view to the vindication of character? That is what 1 utterly deny. A pm- secutor who seeks to vindicate his character count before a jury, explains the matter that is charged against him, and subjects himself to the cross-examina- tion of his accuser—"

Mr. Theeigur—" That is not what you did yourself a few days ago in the Queen rersum—"

The Attorney-General—" I will remind my learned friend, and you, gen- tlemen, of cases in which a very different course to that now adopted has been pursued."

Sir John then referred to the case on which Mr. Hartshorn, accused in the John BO of a foul offence, appeared in the witness-box himself; also to that of the Duke of Cumberland against the Independent 11'111y, on which occasion tl:e e did rmt hesitaie to p t seat h self ins

cross-examination. Not only sii—he called Sir Wathen W.(•ier, vvh was privy to alp :he circumstances attending the (bath of' Sails ; an( Mr. Place, fore e.n of the Coroner's Jury which sit upon the corpse o: Sellis. Would oat have berm becoinlog in Sir John Conroy to hays followed such esamples? Sir John Campbell went on to ex!.lain the defects of the proceeding by criminal information, when it was desir- able that the truth should be ascertained. A civil action was far batter. " where upon issue joined there was a trial before a jury." Ile quotes. Lord Brougham's opinion, that the truth should not be excluded it proceedings for libel, though it might not be a justification of the libel But, apart from those considerations, Sir John Campbell thought hi- could convince the Jury that the article in the Times did not bear the interpretation which had been put upon it : and he went into a Ions argument to prove that nothing like fraud was insinuated against Sim John Conroy and that there was no more connexion between the has paragraph, about the purchase of the Welsh estate, and the money transactions with the Dutchess of Kent, than between it and the disre- spectful conduct to William the Fourth, which imputation was not com- plained of- " Now, it might happen that Sir John, although bred in the school of honour. might have no patrimony ; it might be that he received no portion with his wife it might be that, serving his country in the Army, he had no opportunity whatever of making any money, and yet still he bought large estates in Wales : and it might be a matter not merely of private curiosity, but of public concern- ment, just to ascertain %hence that money came. Gentlemen, I do not, I assure you w:th the utmost sincerity. mean to bring any accusation, or throw out tun insinuation, respecting Sir John Conroy and the purchase of those ia elsh estates. I hope, nod I do tint at all hint at any thing to the contrary, that they might be purchased with money honourably, and fairly, mud properly pro- cured. But at the same time, gentlemen, if a person in Ins situation did pur- chase large estates in Wales without any ostensible means of paying for them, considering the delicate and responsible situation he held, might it not be a subject of question and et investigation, and of explanation, just to inquire. whence the money came with wind' those estates were purchased ? is there only one improper source from which the money could he derived? There ie one, bat that is one of the many. Lest I show( be supposed, gentlemen, to insinuate any thing,—which I do not I assure you most smcerely,—T will not enumerate, or even hint at, the various other sources from which that mune; might have lawn improperly obtained."

Had Sir John Conroy been put in the witness-box, he might have satisfactorily accouoted for the manner in v, aieh he raised the funds to pay for his estate. The Attorney-General again reminded the Jury, that Sir John ('orroy was not a private individual—he was before the public in a very delicate and responsible situation. The Times was not ayap. r given to gossip and tittle-tattle. The Jury might might acquit Mr. Lawson, on the fair ground that no fraud or peculation was imputed to Sir Jolm Convoy. No injury could result from a verdict of acquittal. Under Mr. Fox's Act, the Jury had the ease in their own hands. The question was for them, and them alone to decide. Lord Denman charged the Jury. He briefly stated the facts: and said that the point for them was—what construction ought to be put upon the article? In consequence of Sir John Campbell's observations, it was

necesssry for hint to :tag the nature of proceed:1,gl., ei"" lion. Accordingly, Lord Dolman explained to the Jury, that the ques- tion of the troth or falsehood of the libel was derided in the preliminary proceedings : and that before the Court made the rule absolute, its falsehood was dearly prayed. it then only remained for the J being satisfied of the filet of publication, and that the rrosecutor was die party to At horn the article applied, to say a holler tbe lillillt:ttiOTIS were defintia.- tory or not. With the question of truth or fillsehood they had nothing w hatever to do ; and it would have been mere parade to have lint Sir John County loon the witness-Lox to speak to facts which ought to have no effect upon the verdict. In the case of th.. Duke of Combs.-- land, Sir Charles Wetherell had called the Duke as witness ; but Sir Charles was not so well versed in criminal proceedings as the gentlemen who conducted the present case and Lord Denman well remembered teliirg him, that 1w would have no inquiry into the facts —no mock issue raised. For his own part, in the present case, he did not see how oily other construction could he put on the Times article, than that it was intended to impute fraud to Sir John Conroy lint the Jury were the sole judges of that point.

The Jury. vvithout leaving their box, immediately retorned a 'ver- dict of "guilty."