Star.
London, England, 1829-06-30 00:00:00

lA.
This case came on in the shape of exceptions to the
• Master's Report. The bill was filed for the adminis-
tration of assests under the will of the late Duke of
Roxburgh, and a decree was pronounced referring it to
the Master to take an account of debts. Among the
debts were those of Lady Mary Kerr and Lady Essen
, Kerr, the co-heiresses of the Duke. The Master, in pur-
suance of the decree, had instituted the necessary in-
quiries. and among te debts brought in was a bond,
dated the 15th of July, 1815, conditioned under the
penalty of 20 0001. to pay 10,0001. This bond had
been brought in by Messrs. Coutts, and Mr. George
Hibbert appeared to be the surety. The debt had been
allowed by the Maiter. Another bond was afterwards
brought in by Mr. George Nicholl, of precisely the
same date, conditioned under the penalty of 24,0001.
for the payment of 12,0001. which the Master bad dis-
allowed. Mr. Nicholl was the King's bookseller, re-
siding in Pall mall, and it was alleged that the bond
had been given partly for money advanced and partly
for services performed. The Report of the Master bad
since been made, and he had found that it was a volun-
tary instrument, and not given as a security or indem-
nity for any debt.
Air. PEMBERTON appeared as Counsel for some of the
parties ; and Mr. TIERNEY and Mr. STUART for others.
His Honoust thought this was a case in which the
assistance of a Court of Equity was peculiarly required.
Mr. TIERNEY submitted, that as most of the witnesses
were dead, and the evidence was chiefly documentary,
a Ccnrt of Equity would decide without the assistance
of a Court of Law.

Tile MASTER of the Rox.r.s asked whether a single
. instance could be shown where in such a case Equity
had acted upon its own responsibility without the aid
of s Court of Law ? This was a case of presumption,
and that presumption was extremely strong against Mr.
NichoU. Some evidence had been read at the bar, and

it appeared that Mr. Nicholl could not tell to whom he
advanced the money. Although a bookseller, and a
man of business, it did not appear that he kept any
books in which any entries of these alleged advances had
been made,
Mr. TIERNEY urged that there would be no utility in
directing an issue in such a case as the present.
The MASTER of the ROLLS--41 Cite to me a case
where a contrary course has been pursued."
• Mr. STUART believed that all panics consented to
take the opinion of the Court.
Mr. PEMBERTON observed, that there was a question
of Johnson u. Ross, where the question was upon two
,old bonds. in which his Honour had not directed an
• issue. It was true there had been an appeal to the Lord
Chancellor, and the question was now pending.
1 . Mr. Pares said that his Lordship had that very morn- i
ing directed an issue in the cases
The Man•za of the ROLLS said, after that statement,
• he could nct do otherwise than direct an issue.
After some further discussion, his Honour directed
: three issues upon the question—first, whether the parties
were indebted to Mr. Nicholl in the sum of 12,0000
second, whether the bond. was or was not voluntary ?
and. thirdly, whether it was to be considered as a gift?
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Weenniness, Jess sa.
LIMO. ON TIM WILD CSANCIILLON.
THE KING C. ALEXANDER, GUTCH, AND TIMER*
Mr. Sergeant WILDE this day opposed the rule ob.
rained by the ATTORNST•GENERAL, calling on the
defendants to show cause why a criminal information
r• should not be filed against them for the publication in
' the Morninc, Journal of a libel on the LORD CHANonr.-
• lon. The Learned Sergeant appealed in behalf of
Gutch only, and expressed a hope that Mr. Attorney.
General would not consider the prosecution of his
client necessary for the support of the Lord Chan.
cellor's character. He was aware that Mr. Gutch was
responsible in law for what appeared in the Paper of
which he was part proprietor, but the policy of the
law only required such persons to be before the Court
as appeared to be the real authors of the alleged libel.
When that object was obtained, the end of justice must
be answered. It would appear that Mr. Alexander was
the editor, Mr. Fisher the printer, and that Mr. Gutch
was wholly unconnected with the management of the
paper. The individuals who had the conducting of it
were before the Court, and his hope was that the high
feeling of the Lord Chancellor would be maintained by
releasing an unoffending man from the prosecution.'
Mr. Gutch stated in his affidavit that Mr. Alexander had
been for many months editor and one of the proprietors
of the paper. When Mr. Gutch became interested in
the property, he made inquiry and had reason to,
believe that Mr. Alexander was a person who would
conduct the Paper in a moral and moderate manner.
When he became concerned with Mr. Alexander. a
good understanding prevailed among them on the Ca-
tholic Questi^n, the Shipping Interest, and other matters,
but since the deponent had ceased to act with them
things had taken another course. He also said, that
finding the Paper conducted with less moderation than
he expected, he had thought of withdrawing from the
Proprietors, and he swore that he had been bona fide
endeavouring to withdraw from all connexion with the
Paper, but could not do so. He was in Worcestershire
in a bad state of health when he beard of the cri-
minal information and libel. He came to town im-
mediately, and endeavoured to release himself from
the Paper. Ile had not been able to do so, but
expected to be able; the deponent denied that he had
been a party to any libel on the Lord Chancellor. The
Learned Sergeant had an affidavit also denying that
there was any foundation for the charge against the
Noble and Learned Lord, but he did not consider it
necessary to read it, because no one could believe there
was the slightest ground for such a charge. Mr. Gutch
said he was willing at any sacrifice to withdraw himself
from the paper. The Learned Counsel submitted that
the case of his client was one which.ought to release
him from responsibility. Mr. Gutch had come to town
from a sick bed, and had been rendered worse by the
present circumstance. He bad never conrcmpla.ed
giving the Lord Chancellor a moment's pain, arid he
hoped that the Attorney General would consider that
be ought to be released from the criminal information.
Mr. F. POLLOCK, on the same side, called upon the
Court to consider Mr. Gutch an innocent person.
Mr. HILL also contended that there was nut a case to
warrant the Court in making the rule absolute as against
Gutch.
The Common SERGEANT slid he appeared for Mr.
Alexander, the Editor of the Morning Journal, and he
begged leave to express his acknowledgme•in to the
Attosoey General for alto* ing the rule to stand open
for this discussion. The anxious wish of his client was,
that those who were concerned in the paper, but who
Lid no knowledge of the objectionable paragraph, might
tc released from all responsibility. The Learned
Corn) Sergeant then proceeded to argue the alleged
it should appear to the' Court that the ap-
did not come within the ordinary rules
their Lordships granted criminal inform-

.41!
• 4.. -

~~.

e.
- , ' •
•

'.

rim, the rule mast be discharged. If ever there
was a case which required the parties to go to the
common channel of justice it was this. He really was
struck with the novelty of the proceeding.' It was the
first time that any great publiefunctionary so high as the
Lord Chancellor had taken such a course. Could any
one suppose the Lord Chancellor guilty of the corrupt
motive- imputed to him ? Was not the Noble and
Learned Lord enjoying the confidence of his Sovereign
and presiding in the Cabinet, and was such a person to
come into Court for a criminal information against
the printer of a Journal? During many years it
had been well known to all that attacks were made on
the character of individuals high in office, but they
had found it convenient for their own importance to
leave those attacks unanswered. It was not that those
darts of calumny were not injurious that they were not
repelled, but because they felt themselves in a coat of
mail, Which protected them in their situation against
such attacks. When an attack was made upon a dis-
tinguished Officer of State, it bad been found necessary
to direct the Attorney General to proceed against the
offending party es eacio, and he could see no reason
for departing from that practice in this instance. The
Attorney General had said the Noble and Learned Lord
had sot been anxious formerly to press the severity
of legal proceedings against those who offended
others—then why act with severity against those who
offended himself ? He could not but feel surprise that
the Noble and Learned Lord should have selected this
obscure Journal for prosecution. The circumstances
under which the libel was formed appeared too ludi-
crous for the attention of the Lord Chancellor. There
was a conversation between Corporal Trion and Uncle
Toby. It was said there was to be a new appointment,
and that Sir N: Tyndal was no longer to be Solicitor-
General. Mr. Brougham was applied to, bat he looked
up to the Rolls—(A laugh at the expense of Mr.
Brougham, who was seated by the Common Sergeant.)
It might have been the Attorney-General—(a laugh)—
but Mr. Sugden was mentioned, and then came the re-
ference to Uncle Toby:—"lf a man ler.d money, what did
he expect "To be promoted," (Jade Toby replied.—
"If a Captain lends 1,0001. to his Colonel what does
he expect? To be made a Major.—lf he should lend
him 30,0001. what then ? He would stand in the Ge-
neral's shoes." Then it was said, "this we admit is
reason satisfactory—reason which Mr. Sugden and
another Learned Personage can answer." Such was
the article which the Lord Chancellor considered a
charge of something corrupt between him and Mr.
Sugden. He thought there was nothing in it but ge-
neral satire. All that he could suppose from it was that
Sir E. Sogden had lent 30,0001. but to whom he
could not arose. What was he to get by standing in
the Generals shoes. What Genera? It might be
the late Solicitor General, or the Attorney General
—but it was all in military phrases, and be could not
see bow it could apply to the Lord Chancellor. He
then *dented to the affidavit of Mr. Alexander. who
swore that the article wan not published to impute any
corrupt motive to Lord Lyndhurst, nor did be believe
that any pecuniary transaction passed between him and
Sir E. Sugden. The article was not written to apply
to the Lord Chancellor, nor did it ever occur to the
deponent that the Chancellor would ever have made it
apply to himself. This affidavit stated in positive terms
that he had no intention to cast imputation on the
Noble Person. It might be a libel on the party to
whom it did apply, but the Court would not call upon
, Mr. Alexander to criminate himself by naming the per-
, son to whom it did apply.

Mr. Lwow, who appeared for John Fisher, read the
affidavit of his client, stating that be received a weekly
salary at the office of the Morning Jamul', and that be
had no profit in the sale of the Piper. He bad no in-
terest in the circulation. He never in his life used any
expression to the injury of the Lord Chancellor, and
did not consider that be ought to be subject to acrimi-
nal information.

The Arroaontz GENERAL said the Court had nothing
to do with the views taken of the libel by the Lord
Chancellor ; the Court were to treat the Lord Chancel-
lor as they would any other person applying for jus-
tice. The Lord Chancellor was before their Lordships
on affidavit, and they would deal with it hi due ezetcise
of their judgment. If the Court should be of opi-
nion that those persons who were employed to serve the
1 press, and whose names had been sent to the Stamp
office, should not be prosecuted, they would not be in-
cluded in the rule; but if their Lordships should hold
that those persons were responsible. he was sure tbe well
known liberality of the Noble and Learned Lord would
not be wanting. With that, however, the Court bad no.
thing to do. With respect to the case of Alexander, it
was with pain be rose to address the Court. His Lear ned
Friend Mr. Denman bad been betrayed by zeal for his
client, to assert a doctrine which he sever expected to
bear from him. What did his Learned Friend mean
by saying that Ministers of the Crown, when libelled,
did not come before the Court for informations, and',
that the Lord Chancellor had found it necessary to do
that which his predecessors had not done ? Would
his Learned Friend continue an advocate for es-elide
informations? It had always been held that the pro-
ceeding then before the Court was more consistent with
rational liberty. In all cases of libel he had always been
of opinion that the most tender mode of proceeding was
to give the defendant an opportunity to defend or miti-
gate the libel by affidavit. The object of the Lord
Chancellor in this case was, to give the defendant
an opportunity to justify the charges which made the
Lord Chancellor appear unfit to hold his office. He
could not agree with Mr. Denman that it was impossi.
ble the libel could apply to the Lord Chancellor. If
the Court should be of opinion it did not apply to him,
die Lord Chancellor would be satisfied. The Attorney-
General den read the libel.--" Mr. Sugden is to be
Solicitor General. The reasons which led to his pro-
motion are really so natural that we beg leave to ex-
plain them." Did the writer not mean to explain the
motives? How did he explain? Why in a mannet
which no person could misunderstand, and the am-

biguity with which he wrote the libel was not to
exclude persons from coming to the natural conclu-
ion. He proceeded with a decalogue, in which he
spoke of promotion and the lending of money, and
concluded by saying, 44 there is reason in this, and
potat in the argument, which Mr. Sugden and another
Learned Personage cannot be at'a loss to understand."
The affidavit of Alexander was certainly most extraor-
dinary. All he said was that he did net mean to make
the libel apply to the Lord Chancellor. This proved
what some men sere in the habit cf doing to promote'
'the sale of papers. Could any man refuse to admit,
that the person who wrote the libel was too cowardly
to support his assertions io a Court of Justice? They
were told that the palladium of public liberty was in
the hands of such men. No person in England who
had his senses could doubt that Mr. Alexander did
mean the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Denman had supposed
the paragraph applied to himself, Mr. Brougham, and
Sir N. Tyndal ; but it was the first time he had ever
beard it meant any other personthen theLordChaseeller.
Mr. BROUVHAM followed OA the sense side:

Lord MITIRDIIII said chitchat bad been made that
the Lord Chancellor had not done all the Court re-
quired, namely, that be had not denied every corrupt
motive. The Lnrd Chancellor had drilled the imputa-
tion of the Publisher, and done all the Court could re-
quire. Mr. Alexander bad stated in positive 'terms thit
he did not mean this to allude to the Lord ChAiteeilor,
but that was a qdeition which, necoraink to the pie.
tice of the Court, Must be submitted to a Aril, and that
no prejudice might arise from any opinion he might
express, he should only say it would not be proper to
alter that practice. With regard to the other two de•
fendanto; one of whom was a Proprietor and the other
a Printer, and who said they had no concern in the pub-
lication, it was admitted that they were legally revon-
sible, and he was not aware of any case in which the
Court had released persons legally tesponlable. The
Court under all the circumstances held that t he rule must
be made absolute. It was accordingly made absolute.

Common
em
thc:itioa
• by which

~.
, .
r ;'>ct -;;113,73,, . • • i • ,': • '''
4, .....
~ , 4.4 I,lki -t• • 4 k
, - f
~, ,1,....
sk,• ' ,-. lAA
ya
- -,............-% .1.; . .....
t t!kilG :NCB.
. .
3 • - xr.: ••• '• ''
.'"-13411 • L
. ROLLS' CO
Ants 49.
le
THZ ZARL 01 WINCHILSZA V OA HITT!".