The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-11-17 00:00:00

111.11ILIT

Mr. Harr said. he had ■ motion to make in thin

Case on the part of the Plaint►ff.
Mr. WI LB RA II AM. Counsel for the Defendants.
requested that the motion might he postponed, as
the Plaintiff's bill was only filed on Monday. and
the injunction obtained by him against the Defend.
ants was only served on them on Tuesday night.
Mr. Haire said, if it was in the power of the
Defendants to answer satisfactorily the allegations
of the Plaintiff's bill, they certainly might to have
time for that purpose; when he moved far the
injunction he did so on the affidavit of the Plain-:
tiff, and he had since made another affidavit
of new facts that had come to his knowledge.
of such an important and pressing nature, that
he had to request, if the motion were postponed.
that it would be to an early day. The Plaintiff's
second affidavit sets forth, that since his Lordship
had granted the injunction it had come to his know-
ledge that the Defendants had made engagements,
in the name of the copartnership, for the payment
of 10,0001. in the last month, and that they had nut
40/. at their banker's to meet it.

The LORD CIIANCELLOR--" What is the object
or your nunion ?"
Mr. HURT—" It is for a Receiver."

The 1-0111 D CHANCELLOR—" Let this stand over
till Saturday."

OPERA HOUSE.
WATRRA V. TAYLOR.

Mr. HYALD said hr had a motion to make on
the behalf of Mr. Taylor iu th►s eau's; he under-
stood his Learned Friends, the Attorney-General
and Mr. Hast, were Counsel for the other side, and
►f he wire to make the motion in their absence, lie
would be afraid h►s Lordship would have to hear it
twice. He had several other motions similarly si-
tuated.

The Loan CHANCELLOR—" I am not worry for
it, Mr. Hettl,l,au there is not a snail in England that
wants it holiday more thin, I do."
His Lordship then rose at eleven o'clock, the bar
not beiog ',Trimurti with mot. .

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Lixcowee Ix*,
TULIRSDAY, NOTIVIIIIIER 16.

/N Honour the Vice-Cumscsi.t.oit woe occii.
pied the whole of the day iu hearing comes of uo
uttered, except to the parties concerned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wartuninia,
Teitsumr, Novraissa 16.

THS XING V. MR P. BURDETT.

Mr. DENMAN said, he was now to support his
Learned Friend's (Mr. Scarlett's) argument, to have
the tule granted in this case made absolute. It bad
been maintaioed on the other side, that the writing
of a libel alone was an offence, independent of pub-
lication.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—" We are not in a
ease of that kind ; here his been a publication."
Mr. DENM•N said there had been a publication,
but there was no evidence in what way that pubh-
chtion took.place. In the case of the K:ng v. Bert,
Lord Holt, in giving judgment, had relied upon no
antecedent authority, but on the contrary, had
heeo under the necessity of getting rid of all former
authorities ; authorities, to say the least of them,
equal to his own. He had said that Lord Coke's
decision in Limb's case was not law, unless taken
with the qualification in Moore'b Reports. The
doctrine that • libel written hut not pnblished,
was a crime, had no countenance from the whok
calendar of crimes as known to the law of Eng-
land, except in the siii4le case of forgery. But in
that case the act of forgery it was which dad the
wrong; it was by that act a man was made liable,
and the publication therefore made no Difference
in the offence. 11 the keeping of libels in a man's
pos•ession were to be acconnted criminal, all those
who had the works of Gibbon in their possession
were guilty, for undoubtedly there ware many of
his chapters whirl), if brought before a Jury. might
be held libellous. But the having owl keeping
libels was no crime by the law of England, it was
the act of publication ; the making of other minds
cognisant of their contents which constituted the
offence. The issuing of general warrants was once
held to be part of the law of England, and had
some analogy to the present point. The doctrine
of making the writing of libels a crime, had
reference to the power of searching for and seiz-
ing them in the maker's own possession. Lord
Coke having got rid of the case of the King
against Lamb, hail fortified himself with precedents
from the Star Chamber, of persons who had been
punished for writing libels only, and he said, that by
C./11Petilllnitt 111101 offences were now punishable by
indictment. But it appeared its Hubbard, that
in the two costa relied upon, publication did take
place; 8114 instead of beilig cases of writing alone,
were cases of writing and publishiog, and support-
ed his argument. The Attorney-General had said,
that he dV not want to found himself nu the Ro-
man law ; but, its fact, there was nu English law
for it whatever ; and it was remarkable that Lord
Chief Justice Holt, who had laid down that alarm-
ing proposition, had nothing but Boman law to
*hew for it, awl that equivocal, and when
found to be against instead of favourable to his
Lordship's argument. The two Star Chamber
cases to which he had alluded in Hubbard, were
Llewellyn's case, and Blake against Hatton; they
were both cases of letter. written and sent. In the
time of King Charles 11. Chief Justice &rows
stated the caw of the King v. Harris, as the opinion
of all the Judges, that persons who wrote, or printed,
or sold books, scandalous to the Garet nutent, might
be prosecuted, and the books seized. Such was the
doctrine of the twelve Judges in the time ofCharleal I.
The Loan CHIEF Juvrics--"• The early part of
Lord Holt's life was spent iii iinyuguiu such
doctrines." -

Mr. I)gustAh—u A melancholy example of the
instalnlity or Insulin Inoue."
The LORD etttqr Both before spd
after his elevation Liench. las opiniosts were
in favour of 111 C itharty of the subject. That is the
character which Lord- HOlt ha. always hortte.”
Mr. Dullic.sksAid it toast lie t!1 dusty for
•°7 BfurAtirfit FtrOl:gtifPoligNOY :Of 'LOA. H4t.
but it !vs iksopigesocisce:or.ivaliviqs. is suil4

when even strong and sepe►trus minds frequently
acted afterwards insets, &live upon the principles
which they had behtee,ojqfiesqh
The LORD (uisrJostlCg said, he did not mean
to btate that Lord Holt's doctrine was not AI 10 be
opposed.

. Mr. DENMAN--In the case of the King egoinet•
Cart, Sir George Jefferies. the Recorder. had stated
that the Judges lowan met, had given- it es their
opinion th,t us person could expose to palate
knowledge any thing concertino' the affairs ef the
public without license (rein the King. That main
1660, and iu fact, at the Itestoratiou a licenser was tor
pointed; and it was under such a dispensation that
Lord Halt's early life was passed. It was not till King
William's time that the law respecting the limns.
ing was suffered to expire. The right to seize
papers, and to enter houses seed search for them.
continued to be considered as law till 1767, when
Lord Camden pronomiced against it. Out which
occasion he reviewed the whole of the case of the
King against Bere. The whole of that case au.
duubtedly went on the ground that 11 ere was a
right to search for and seise papers even in the
desk of the party. Hit Learned Friend, the As.
torney-General, had carried his argument to the
ettent that writing of a libel alone, though kept
lucked up in a desk, was punishable, which was
entirely conformable to the tight of searching fur
and seizing papers. The Learned Counsel then
quoted Mr. Starkey's book, poblished in 1813.
to chew that the authority of the cost of the Ki.,g
against Bere was ocit now questioned for the first
time. Lord Camden said, on the qiiestinn of the
general warrants. that, if the doctrine of that case
were true, when a seditious libel had herei publish-
ed a few weeks, the whole kingdom would have
heroine guilty. and it would be a difficult matter
amongst so ninny millions of finding ore tutoceot
Juryman. Mr. De 1111 l au then referred to the 4th so-
lume of Bluckstuns, page 150, the whole of winch
proceeded on the supposition that a publication
hail taken place.
rite Loan CHIEF Justice—" In the same page
he states, that the puni-liment for making, print-
ing, or publishing a libel. was fine."
Mr. DENMAN said, that supposing it established
that writing alone was iio offence, he suit *Omit
that that was the only act *hewn to have bran clone
.iii the county of Leicester. But if the Court should
be of opinion that writing alone was an offence. then
he claimed a new trial on that ground, because the
Learned Judge at the trial WJIII uf opinion that writ.
hog alone was tin °Knee.
Mr. Justice Beat said, that his opinion was, that
theinere act of writing memoranda of libellous mat-
ter was no crime. hut if written with Wed to puh-
Fish, it was one step towards crime, and was a miss
demeanor.
Mr. DENMAN said, he did not recollect his Lord.
ship's stating that ut the Assizes; but upon gene..
ral principles, he contended, that making a libel
was no crime at all, so long as it remained in the
maker's possession. If such were the law, it would
lead to all those inconveniences which were object..
ed to general warrants, now happily got rid of. The
consequences would be en encouragement to spies,
mid an incitement to breaches of confidence and
treachery iii servants. It would, indeed. lead to
consequences so monstrous. that no English Court
of Justice could fur ri moment entertain the doctrine.
Cases of conspiracy had been refined to, where the
offence had been committed in different counties.
lee the case of the King v. Brosac, one overt act
was done in Middlesex, and that was sufficient to
bring the casewititin the jurisdiction of that county.
It was one complete act there committed. But the
two acts of writing sold publishing were distinct and
separate acts, and there was no evidence whatever
of Sir Francis Burdett having done any ate act in
Leicestershire besides writing. Cases of nuisance
had also been referred to, and the case of a wind-
mill had been supposed situated in one county pro-
ducing en act of nuisance in another. But that
act was one and entire, and had no analogy with the
present case, where the acts were entirely different.
The third point made was, that evidence of publics.
tiun had been allowed to go to the Jury, because
the letter had been received open iu London. it was
to be presumed that it mss open in Leicestershire,
which would be a publication in Leicestershire.
That was a presumption which, io a criusitisl case,
should never he admitted. But lie denied that,
Strictly speaking, there was any evidence whatever of
the letter having been delivered open in the county
of Leicester. It was contrary to common practice
and experience that it should have been so, and
the evidence which was given on the trial, its his
opinion, put it out of all doubt. It was admitted
at the time that a sealed letter was no publication.
Mr. Justice Barr denied that had been admitted
by him. The only evidence was of an open letter.
Mr. DENMAN said, he should he sorry to put his
memory in competition with his Lordship's.
Mr. Justice Bea? said, he had a distinct recol-
lection that he had referred to the cam of the
King v. Walnut which was that of a sealed letter,
and bow he cools, have referred, to that if he had
been considering the case of an open letter, lie
could not imsgine.
Mr. Dammam proceeded to observe on the case
of the King v. Watociii.
Mr. Justice B•v 1.E1f...." Did it appalr what day
the letter reached Brooks ?"
Mr. DENMAN—" He was not certain if he re-
ceived it on the 43d or 24th August."
Mr. Justice BAY LEY—"Sir Francis Burdett was
seen in Leicestershire on the nod ?"
Mr. DENMAN said he Was so; that there was
plenty of time fur him to have carried the letter
himself. It ought td have been shewn that he was
never ont a the county.
Mr. Justice Bear—" The letter was published
in THR BRITISH Pans on the 25th August, so
that it most have arrived is term on the 44th."
Mr. DENMAN contended, that the written di-
✓ection as to the publicittiou on the envelope. Was
• strong prouf that the letter was not delivered to
Mr. Bockertdaffin the county of Lee:eater. This,
he said, would be the Bret itietesee if a part, con-
victed au tee irrerunkriene; which hid nerbeirtr
shrove to he 'Melee pettlieble dell twenty other pre-
somptions which might be mimed. His Learned
*lshii& had • found len Initheritf whatever; though
so Wit I Pitied had %MA s_ ' enitileyed iri the .elide'."
• The -Um) Crairr'Jthlitte'iiihd. liras% 441
•.C..... , V la- .':',..°WllF. ..e*l4- "Ow
.. • lb. lid -4101410 10:1" Pt
!I.
1 wiii pi in tip peels .1 ..isi.

Lord Ellenbnrough there said that was proof of
oublicaticei.
Mr. DENSIAtt referee**, the case of the King
igaibit IONIA; irheri-itre Seine 'tesined Jirtfike.
boa. the' the Postimitk wits •itd-eeidenee of pub-.
licetiOn,.at it taiglit be forged; but is ilest cow.
his Lordship had that the asublication Wadi Attune.
the letter was received. sibiele was in Middlesex.
Mr. Justice Bile* sthil,'-he had ten tithed' eon.
that terse.
Mr. Dit4ll4ll said, his arevment wee, that Sir
rialtos Bordettaliould have been proved to have
ported with the low in Leicestershire; boa on'
that point there was no evidence at all. He again
observed on the -absence of all authority, anti ar-
gued.ithat if it had been law his Learned Friend'
on the other side, with all their ingenuity and re 7
searcht must have 'toned one. He looped he
had said eimagla to satisfy their Lordships that
alone was no offence, nest that it was
quite impossible.to os.iindate the lorseot to thla,e.
veer* where two distinct act* were necessary to make
up one crime ; and also, that the law required that
the criminal act done should he within the inri.direi
bon of the place, 'and he inquired into where it oc-
curred. At least he hoped it would appear that
there was euough of doubt in this extraoidi-
rimy cud lung-discussed case, to make it necessary
to have a more satisfactory trial.
Mr. Pnitetes followed ; he -aid that it was not
his intention to go through the, arguineet agate, tilt
it related to the civil law. It way necessary to refer
to it, because Lord Holt ha.' said, that the civil
law was transferred to the law of Eisglatel, slid it
therefore becessieelecessery to see if there were no
mistake in what was stated to he the civil law. Ile
cited to their tool-hips the wiginal tea. of Justi-
Man, and referred them so the. C'oninteniuries of
Oppius and of Heeber to sheer that Cite rule of site
civil law will, that rlw writer or 3 Will would he
beble ;after poldiratioo. Li the cave of the st ea
Bishops the writing proved by the aelcosisvlrd4-
meta of the Prelates, hut Mr. .11,•ice Powell ob-
served on that occasion, that rhr writitio in Mid-
dlesex was not proved, from widelo his Learn..
rd Friends on the other side itittozril Oat
ritiog is ;one wi•houi puts lahilig COI sufficient.
But they forgot that the ill fro. sgainst .lie s
was conspiracy, and the tote overt act
of conspiracy would he correct %till' reit-wirer to
the case before the Court. hot is had sto refer-
ence whatever to the pees-nt. The ar.g ttttt eget of
hie Learned Fiiiiiislo„ that a. at comities) law the
writing a forged note wisliont publication was
crime, so the writing of a lit,: easliout puleication
was a crime also, was Melling more thus: aft argument
from teleology, and if carried to iss tamest !everts
would epply to every cure wle—o lite thrums were
prepared for a crone, but never aAI reed into exe-
CllllOO. Si, that slearpenrs.g a d .gger with intent
to strike, collecting cointinsiihies with' latent to
burn a house, or intent:: poles,' with intent to ad-
minister it, would ell be considered es crfinee;
whereas he would contend that there wuat be
some overt act to demonstrate the legal gain.
The moral guilt mtget coneisi in sensualism. but a
criminal intent is not under she cognizance of
human laws till some act ha, liven dour to carry
it into execution. The Learned Counsel, on the
authority or ■ treatise whine renew we coolie Dot
catch, contended that the laws of Edward I. and
the whole of the Saxon hies proverdeil on the sup-
position that the libel must be published. As to
the•vexoe. he' Contended that in civil cameo the
rule had been relaxed, hut in criminal procrediegs it
had never been touched. In support of this propo-
sition lie cited Mee sled Hawkins. He contended
that the presumption that Mr. Bickerstaff had been
for two or three slays in the county of Middlesex be-
fore he received the letter, was as reasonable end
probable as that Sir F. Bolden should be presumed
to have been in Leicestershire oil the 23d mud 24th
August, because he oat seen there on the 22d Au-
gust. But, at all events, it appeared clearly that
publication did first take place in the county of
Middlesex. and therefore the resat should have
been laid in that county. The Learned Counsel
then took a 'review of" the Learned Judge's charge
to the Jury, and objected, that lie had stated that
" the letter might have been liven and read by
Blekerstaff in Leicestershire," whereis there was
I nut a tittle of evidence to aliew • that Bickerstaff
was in Leicestershire at all at the •time. The
Leerard Judge also stated, that it lay with the Dee
tendent to prove that the letter weiciest• pot in the
post in Leicestershire, when in the nature of
things that was impossible. supposing. what was
extremely probable, lie had put it in the post
himself. He had also roasted, that the Defeodant
1. delivered it out for publication at . Kirby;"
but there was iso proof.at ell of that. These
observations must, lie contended. have amide an
undue impression on the minds of the Joey ; sod
as in a case like the present it was desirable that
the administration of justice should not only be
pule. but perfectly unsuspected, he thought he
war warrauted in asking of their Lordships that
the rule for a new trial should be made absolute.
Mr. BLACIESUati followed 011 the same side, sod
cited several authorities in support of the proposi-
tions laid down by his Learned Colleagues who pees
ceded him.

At half-past three o'clock.
The Loan Calms dimwit said. as Mr. Justice
flolroyd was obliged to leave. they would peel.
pone hearing the remainder of the argiutest tols.
other day.
The ATTOMIST-GENIERAL inquired if the argot.
ment could be resumed immorruw. but es straw
of the great sneer in the special paper the Coast
decided that it could not then be goue into.