Star.
London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

CALLING HERSELF MAIICIIIONESS OF DONEGAL.

Dr. l'ittwmorte, on behalf of the Marchioness of
Donegal, prayed the Court to issue its monition, pre-
viously to the further progress of this suit, for the
purpose of citing the next of kin to see proceedings.
These parties were married so long ago as the year
1795, and the present suit was for nullity of marriage,
under the Marriage Act. The Court was aware of
the extreme severity of that Act; and no length of
time, scarcely, deprived the suitor of his remedy.
The only persons on whom the Noble Defendant re-
lied for her proof, and who were present at her mar-
riage, were very old; and this'process was the only
one upon which she could rely, for the better main-
tenance and protection of those high dignities, in-
terests, and possessions which were implicated in this
suii.—Monition granted.

CO URT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 25.
THE KING V. TURNER.

The defendant in this case was called upon his re-
cognizance to plead to an indictment for a libel, pre-
ferred against him by the Constitutional Association,
and not appearing, his recognizances were declared
to be forfeited.

LIBEL ON HER MAJESTY.

THE KING V. THE REV. MR. BLACOW.

Mr. BRounitAist proceeded, in reply to the argu-
ment of Mr. Parke on a former day. He commenced
by observing, that their Lordships would recollect in
this case, that what Mr. Parke shewed as cause against
this Rule was, the want of an affidavit on the part of
her Majesty, denying the matter set forth in the al-
leged libel. Now, to the grounds upon which Mr.
Enke maintained the necessity cf that affidavit, it
would only be necessary for him very generally to
allude. The cases to which he had referred, and in
which the Court had considered an affidavit denying
the charge to have been necessary, were all cases in
which some specific matter had been alleged in the
publication in question. In the first case to which
Mr. Parke had called the attention of the Court, that
of the King against Bickerton, there the charge was,
that the plaintiff had personated one Dr. Crowe, a
physician, and written prescriptions in his name, and
received tees for those prescriptions, which belonged,
in fact, to Dr. Crowe ; and there the Court had said,
" We will not grant you this extraordinary remedy
unless you deny that you so personated Dr. Crowe."
So in " The King v. Webster." Thatwas an informa-
tion applied for before a Magistrate, for killing a
hare, and the person who made the application for
the information would not take upon him to deny
that he had killed the hare. So again in the case of
Sir John Fielding, in that fitmous case of the anony-
mous letters addressed to the Duke of Marlborough,
the Court refused to grant this extraordinary remedy,
unless the writing of those threatening letters was
denied. But upon that case Lord Mansfield had ob-
served, that it would be absurd, if a man were gene-
rally designated as a thief or a traitor, to call upon
him to deny that fact. He confessed, however, that
he had only referred to those cases for the pur-
pose of putting them out of the way. Her Majesty
was perfectly ready to make that affidavit, if their
Lordships did not conceive that it would be ludicrous
and altogether too absurd to require—if their Lord-
ships did not think that it would be a departure from
her dignity to make an affidavit, alleging that she
was not the Goddess of so and so, and other matters
equally absurd and ridiculous. It was by the advice
of her Majesty's Legal Officers that she had slot ten-
dered such an affidavit; and the ground upon which
it seemed to them that her Majesty ought not to have
made that tender was, on the station which her Ma-
jety held in this country. Into the high station and
dignity which her Majesty, as Queen Consort, held
in these realms, it was unnecessary to enter at length ;
and pos::essing these, it seemed to her Legal Ad-
visers to be a descent from that dignity to come be-
fore that Court like a common person. Lord Coke,
page 133, after remarking upon the prerogatives of
the Queen, proceeded to state one or two of these
prerogatives, with respect to Courts of Justice. In
case, it was there said, the Queen was nonsuited, she
was to find no pledges, nor to be amerced. With
respect to the Writ of Right, it issued not to the
King, but to his Bailiff; and Lord Coke held that
the Writ of Right should not be directed to the Queen
more than to the King. So in the case of Aid, the
privileges of the Queen differed from the case of all
common perions. It was admitted on all hands that,
during the argument of a late case in Exchequer, the
Queen might, by her Attorney-General, file an in-
formation.

The C H i er Jusrice..-11 that be so, Mr.-lirougham,
is it not decisive against the preafin application?
Mt. Baouonasn---My Lord, I merely meant to
state, that in civil matters the Queen had that power.
It might be said that this was the case of a first im-
pression; to which he answered, that no Queen Con-
sort had ever been placed under precisely the same
circumstances. The Queen of these realms had for-
merly the power of the Crown to file an information;_

of that able assistance her Majesty was now /vivo
He had nothing further with which to trouble their
Lordships. If they thought that the sta'enterit re.
quired an answer, her Majesty was perfectly willing
to negative that statement.
Mr. DENMAN said, he felt it hardly to be Leen,.
s try,
to add one word to what had been so ably and sin
powerfully urged by his Learned Friend. But hit
Learned Friend had forgotten to advert to one other
most important privilege enjoyed by her Majesty...
namely, the privilege of being represented in Courts
of Justice by her own recognised Law ()dicers, not
for the purpose of criminal proceedings (tor without
a precedent, her Law Officers would not be s% arranted
in attempting to institute such proceedings), but el
advocating her interests in an authorised public cha..
ratter. He only wished to add, that it was in that
character alone that her Majesty had been recom.
mended by those Officers on this occasion, to Caine
the justice of the Court, and that protection to which.,
by her illustrious.rank, she was entitled. His Learned
Friend and himself thought they should have reputed
from that duty which belonged to their situazion, if
they had, in the first instance, permitted her Majesty
even to become acquainted with this foul and mali•
cious libel—which was not written, but preached...
which was not specific, but most general--and which
had polluted the public worship of the Church, fa
the avowed purpose of bringing the first subject of
the realm into odiuni and contempt, by language,
exceeding iu infamy and flagitiousness anything that
had disgraced the present age. If .tlite Court should
say that the first subject of the realm, deprived, by
separation from her Royal Husband, of that protection
to which the Queen Consort was entitled, by credo
information, was not to be shielded from attacks of
this description, he had only to observe, that her Law
Advisers must adopt such course as the Court pre.
scribed to the meanest as well as the highest subject
of the realm. But he was sure iheir Lordships would
pause before they established in the case of her Ma.
jesty that rule which had never been applied to sure
other individual whatever ; for there was no case of
this description brought before the Public, which :I:.
cognised that the genetality of the charge, and tie
circumstances under which this individual had thought
himself at liberty orally to pronounce his. slander in
the hearing of a crowded congregation, called fct
specific negation. Without troubling their Lordships
farther, he would only say that he confidently antici•
gated a decision in favour of her Majesty.
The Cover consulted together for some time.
The CHIEF Jusric4.—This is a case of very gret
importance, and we therefore think that it ought to
, be maturely deliberated upon before we pronounce
our opinion on the subject.