1843—At the Easter Sessions the committee appointed in Mr. Ellins’s case were about to bring forward their report, when Mr. R. Scott and Mr. R. M. Mence moved that it should not be read, as the matter was one altogether out of the jurisdiction of the court, and with which they had no right to deal. On a division, 20 hands were held up for its being read, to 9 against it. The report was then read, and stated the committee to be of opinion that “Mr. Ellins was the moving party to the publication in the _Worcestershire Chronicle_, of a most gross and unfounded libel, imputing corruption and jobbing to W. H. Ricketts, Esq., in the execution of his duty as a magistrate and member of the police committee, in carrying into effect the orders of the court.” Mr. Hanford and the Rev. Thomas Pearson, as members of the committee, declared that though they believed Mr. Ellins to be a party to the libel, they did not believe him to be the sole party, as the report seemed to convey. Mr. Scott moved that the report be rejected. The court had no right to take any judicial notice of the acts or character of any of its individual members; and nothing could be more dangerous than for a judicial body to exceed its jurisdiction. Mr. Scott condemned Mr. Spooner for bringing this matter forward at the previous Sessions without notice. Mr. Benson also spoke against the reception of the report. The chairman had always had doubts as to the propriety of their moving in the matter, but thought it discourteous to the committee to reject the report, and it was received by a majority of 28 to 11. On the question of transmitting it to the Lord Lieutenant, there was another division, 20 voting for that course and 11 against it. 1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Lord Lyttelton addressed a letter to the court, enclosing one from the Lord Chancellor, with his opinion that the proceedings of the magistrates in Mr. Ellins’s case had been very irregular. Lord Lyttelton trusted the magistrates would feel it their “duty carefully to avoid any similar proceedings for the future;” and he requested that his letter might be entered upon the records of the court. Mr. Spooner thought they had a perfect right to do as they had done, and moved that the letter be not entered on the records. The chairman said he had always considered their proceedings irregular, but thought Lord Lyttelton’s “lecture” might just as well have been left alone. The consideration of the letter was at last postponed till the next Sessions.