Star.
London, England, 1828-11-28 00:00:00

not made absolute, an easy recipe would be found for
making libels. it would be off..-iitvg facility in the
readiest m. de of manufacturing itbels. His Lea. tied
Friend ha.i c,iniended that Lord S:ratigiord WAS bollati
to answer the statement m .sle in the Times, bec Anse it
appeased in the Bun ; but he should call the attenti n
of their Lordships to the passage of which Lord Strang-
ford complained. It was pithy; It had the mei it ac
least of cnncentr stints, for a grosser attack on a public
Minister and a Peer of the Re dm had never been more
concisely expiessed. It was said at once, he is not ter
be believed on his oath or his honour. The Attorney
Generaljpassed over tI eft" &esprit, i He liea like truth,"
and contended that the libel imputing want of veracity
was sufficient to warrant the applicat:on for a criminal
infinmatinn. They had heard of double dispatches by
Tier of Government, for Vie benefit of the public set-
oce ; but he had never before heard that the M ni-ter
who was concerned in making such dispatches was not
to he believed on his oath. The'flares did not treat
Lord Strangford in that way, and he bad a right t
consider the article in the Sun a substantial libel.
Mr. BROUGHAM here observed, that it was stated in
the Timm that Lord Strangford, whist employed in
the service of his country, fabricated dispatches.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said chat was true, and he
should not defend the Times, but contend that Loid
S:rangfnrd's affidavit was sufficient. If a man, in'
.the situation of a Minister, wrote dispatches in Btu-
ton-street which purpotted to come from the Tagus,
it did not follow that it was an act of diplomatic
dishonour. He did not know where his Lear, eJ
Ttie id filund it was a crime. It *is not so laid down
by Vatel or Grotius. Thar, however, was not the
gist of the libel. Lord Strangford was held out as
a man rot to be believed on his oath or his ho-
nour. Everybody might not know that diplomatic im-
propriety eras often sanction -d, hut they must all know
that a man Was O•AMIS when held oi.t to be one who
was not to he beiiev:d on his oath. What has the re-
viling r.f. N. Canning's memory to do with the qiies-
Lion, whether a note was wiitten in the Taltus or in
London? To use a phrase which had lately been di op-
yed in that Cour, the defendat•t,• in mixing up those
matters, had gone itivr another laasl—( A laugh). His
L arned Friend supposed that ships wete su imming and
sailire up Bruton rtrect ir.stead if carriages, and that
the Noble Lord's boudoir was the Tagus ; but it was
known that dispatches might be written in duplicate
order—No. 1 might be for publication, and N 0.2 for his
Majesty's inspection ; and unless a minister was allowed
to ra rite public and private dispatches without misrepte•
sentation cf his conduct, the public service might find
great inconvenience.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, with tespect to reviling Mr.
Canning's memos y, he had two affidavits on the subject.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL concluded by contending
that the act•of dipl mracy which was supposed to be dis-
honest might have been done by Lord Strangford with-
out impiaclinpnt of either his veracity or honour, and
the Court under all the circumstances were called upon
to make the rule aht.olute.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL followed on the same side.
At the time the dispatch alluded to was published, it
was justified by the nature i f iiur foreign relations. At
that time many lives Might have been sacrificed by the
publication of the real facts.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—You might have kept it in your
Office of State.

The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICS, after a few minutes con-
sultation on the Bench, said, We thir' Ott- particular
article in the sun, of which Lord Sir-gni:Jura complains,
is expressed in langune nit warranted with 1, ference
to th? article in the Times; but we also dila e are
to lank at both, and considering the whole, and all the
circumstances connected with this application, on the
whole of which the Court proceeds, we are of opinion
we ought not t•t grant a criminal information."
Rule discharged.
The Court sat until six o'clock disposing of motions.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N0v.27.
r (Sittings in Banco )
DICAS V. JAY AND AtinTll6S.

Mr. Sergeant Caoss, on a f rmer, day in this term,
obtained a rule calling on the plaintiff, uho is an attor-
ney, to show cause why he should not be 'truck off the
rolls. The ground upon which that rule had been
obtained was, that the plaintiff, in whose favour a ver-
dict fn a small amount was given at the trial, had made
charges in the bill of costs to the defendant which had
never been incurred.

Mr. Sergeant Wit.as this morning appeared to show
cause against the rule, and produced affidavits in which
explanations were endeavoured to be given of all the
charges complained of in the affidavits upon which the
rule had been obtained. The correctness of one of aose
charges was very satisfactoaly explained ; but as the
affidavits in reply were not so clear with respect to
the others,

The Count expressed a wish that the matter should
be further investigated, and-proposed that it should be
referred to the prothonotary to review his taxation, and
to make a special report of that review to the Court.
After some discussion between the Counsel on bud,
sides, and after some further ob•ervatuns from the
Bench, it was determined that it should be referred to
the prothonotary to rev eve his taxation, and to report
upon the criminatory matter contained iu the defend-
ants affidavits against the plaintiff.
The Comm then observed, that when it was furnished
with that report, it should feel itself competent to decide
the case, which at the present moment it really did net.
It was understood that the rule should remain sus-
pended until the investigation had been completed.
In the eour_e of the day an insolvent was buougbt up
under the compulsory clause in the Lords' Act, to be
formally called on by the Court to make 40 as•ignmerit
of certain landed property which it was alleged was
either in his possession or expectancy.
The LORD Clingy JUSTICE told him that it was his
duty to make an assignment of that property for the
benefit of his creditors, observing at the same time, that
if he refused, he would be guilty of felony, and would
be subject to transportati"n, and that he was mistaken
if he thought he could enjoy the proceeds of the property
at Botany Bay, for in the case of his being sent there it
would be forfeited to the Crown. _ _

The insolvent was then It rurally asked, if he would
execute an assignment which warshuwn to him ? to
'which he answered in the negative. He was then asked,
'if he would execute any assignmet t ? but to this gores-
' urns he also answered in the negative ; upon which the
Coils t ordeied him to be ft cornmved.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Novnuisi 27.
LX PARTE LEAKS.

Mr. Ho!WRAY moved for and obtained a rule to show
cause ss by a writ of Habeas Cmpits should not issue to
the Gaoler of Lincoln Castle, calting upcin him to bring
up the body of a person of the name of LeAke• who had
been committed illegally (as it was alleged) to Line( la
Cattle by the kcal Commissioners of Bank, upt. under
tha 6th of Geo.lll. e. 30. sec. 16 ; and the Learned
Counselobsetved that it was odd the commitment as. old
have bemanade under so old an Act of Parliament,