The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-17 00:00:00

TO TILE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRESS.

SIR,—In the report of this ease, which was heard on Friday, the
12th instant, you have been misled. S veral actions have not been
brought against s number of booksellers for the publication of the
libel which has given rise to the institution of the one in question.
An affidavit an certainly put in on the part of the defendant, but it
did not go the length to which you have been instructed it did. The
works referred to by me were written long subsequently to the edi.
tions quoted by your correspondent. I ant at a loss to conceive what
is meant by Mr. Blachford's appearing on the part of the defendant
from motives of huntani•y, when I call to mind a former expression
of his, that lie would trot advance a shilling on her account. I have
no recollection whatever of Mr. Justice Park having said that the
case was undoubtedly a hard one, but the law allowed him no
discretion in the matter; and I am much mistaken if he used any
such expression. If the Judge could have entertained the question,
the Learned Gentleman who advocated the making of an order In
this case, authorizing his client to defend its forma pauperis, was
not properly prepared. He produced no petition as required, nor
any certificate from Counsel, certifying that the party for whom he
appea:e I hal a case, which is likewise indispensable. With regard
to the ditlogue between Mr. Blachford and the Judge's clerk, It is
only fair to the latter that I should admit that it was at my pressing
solicitation the affidavit was tiled. The request on his part, to be
paid the usual fee, was courteously made, whilst it appears to me
that you have been instructed, from your report oldie circumstance,
to state it as having been done in a mandatory manner, which was
not the fact. The filing of the affidavit. besides being the practice,
was essential, in the event of any ulterior proceedings being taken
upon it. Mr. Blachford did pay the Judge's clerk's fee with mani-
fest reluctance,which is easily accounted for upon reference to hiafor.
flier declaration, that he would not advance a shilling for his client.
As on the discussion which took place before the Judge, no one was
present save his Lordship, Mr. Blachford, and myself, and as I did
not trouble myself to publish, and as I am sure the Learned Judge
would not condescend to publish this ease, I presume you are in.
debted to Mr. Blachffird for it. It is due to the plaintiff; since this
case has been brought before the public, by or on behalf of the
defendant, in an ex•parte manner, to state that in return for conduct
the most lenient and forbearing on his part, this woman has acted
in a manner inexplicable in the extreme, which I will not attempt
to detail now, lest I may be charged with prejudicing her case on
the approaching trial. Though I have no disposition to show off
in a public journal, I am nevertheless anxious that you should he
rightly instructed with reference to any thing in which I am pro.
fessionally concerned, anti I shall therefore thank you to give inser-
tion to this letter. I remain, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
MATTHEW LOFTY,
King-street, Cheepside, May In. Plaintiff's Attorney.

[lt being at all times our object to be impartial, which is one of
the few ways of eliciting truth, we have no hesitation in giving the
foregoing letter publication, only trusting that should we reedy.: a
reply to it, the writer will make it somewhat more concise. If 3lr.
Lofty had consulted the Times and Aforning Herald, be would
have there seen almost verbatim accounts with our own. We have
only farther to remark, that we have neither the honour of the ac•
quaintance of Mr. Lofty or of Mr. Blachford.—ED.l