Star.
London, England, 1827-11-29 00:00:00

PARIS, Nov,s2s..

The*Ministry has. turned Royalist, in order 4o get
possession of the Monarchical electors who have escap-
ed their clutcheso and takes to itself triumphs which
1 are its defeats, and which it unsuccessfully opposed. A
deserter from its own bonne's., it places itself under an
opposing flag, in order to be able to shout victory with
those who *have conquered it. Upwards of forty Roy-
alists,
strtick.ottt-from the Royal recommendotiose
rebels to the Ministry, and guilty in, its eyes of inde-i
pendeace and loyalty, have presented themselves to the,
combat, accompanied only by the remembrance of their
services, the testimony of their consciences, and, not.'
withstanding official instructions, officious calumnies,
and the separat ion of votes, have succeeded in the melee
in uniting the suffrages in their favour. The Ministry
takes all this to itself, end fejoines in a selection which
is in opposition to ite wishesk-Jt presents as the fruits of
its cares what is the'clisappOiatment of its amts.

And,arho are the men that the Ministry kills to its
candidates to have an appearance, such as it is, of a
number in its favour" it it M. Hyde de Neuville,
whose noble devotion it bassi) vilely repudiated ? Is it
Messrs. De Preissac,..De Jankowits, Alexis de Noalles,
De Leyval, all excluded from the Ministerial nomina-
tions from resentment at their honotirible ciadect sod
independent votes? At this rate, the Ministry may
rejoice as mach as it.pleases, and say with an ancient
Captain, 44 A few other such victories, and I am lost." •

Lrt us examine the most visible results of the first
elections. Liberalism was supported by 62 voices in
the Chamber of 1823, but was seduced to 15 on the ie•
election in 1824; it was afterwards augmented to the
number of 'l5 by the partial extinctions in the late Le-
gislature; it now offers on the confession of the Moniieur
' itself, a compact force of 132 nominations. Never since
the restoration has its efforts been crowned with such
success. The Ordonnance of the sth of Sep:ember was
less fruitful !

Shall we, then, occupy ourselves with a pitiful calcu-
lation, by whish it is sought to diminish this triumph.
Twenty-six elections have been lavished with prodigality
upon some names, which had already been returned for
other places, and this double employment of the public
favour must occasion vacancies in the benches, which
these monopolizers of electoral votes are called upon to
fill. Here, then, ore twenty-six deputies less for the
Address, the first projects of law, perhaps for the budget,
perhaps for A whole session..
M. do Villele must make up his mind to it ; the
Royalist party can no longer act with him. This is
less on account that that party hes been so often de-
ceived by the crooked march of the Ministry, as its
being always a fault in policy to support a-falling autho-
rity. The Royalists are not to be deceived ; they
.are
well aware that the Crown of France is not in danger,
but only M. de Villele's portefeuille, and that Minister,
no doubt, allows them to possess sufficient instinct of
our situation to acknowledge that truth. The strength
of the Monarchical party, which Ministerial contact
would destroy, must be preserved entire and pure ; it
must be preserved in its honour and independence. to
resist the forces of Liberalism which will appear in the
hew Chamber. A great example is before the Royalists;
the last Chamber was lost for being too Ministerial ;
that title is now one of electoral proscription, and yet it
is wished that Royalism should lose its noble title to
the confidence of the country, by an alli snce, having no
other object than the preservation of a Portefeuillel
There is a talk of guarantees being given, and even of
offers of Portefueilles to the Royalists Opposition ; but,
admitting this, any alliance whatever is not the less ins-
possible, M. de Villele being at the head of affairs t-.-
right or wrong, his unpopularity is too great ((ma party
to support him; the first condition of an alliance would
be his withdrawal, and he only thinks of the alliance to
avoid that sacrifice. The Royalists cannot become
auxiliaries of the Ministerial cause, now a lost one, to
use their arms in combats without use or glory for
the Alionarchy.

with a suggestion of his Lordship, that the matter should
be brought to a short issue, and the point in dispute
should be referred in such form to his Lordship's deci-
.s.bn. Re took the papers with him, in consequence, into
Dorsetshire, where he kept them during the whole of
the tong vacation preceding bis retirement. On his
return he proposed to give judgment in the cause, and
brought the papers down to Court with him for that
purpose; His Lordship, howeve.x, proceeded no further
than to read over some of the docupents which had
been pleaded in the cause, and had announced his in-
tention of
.giy.ing-hisfittal opinion. on itjust before he
resigned the seals.. The question now for the conside-
ration of the Court was, whether the parties wet e to be
boond ultimately by their agreement to refer the mat-
ter to Lord Eldon, or whether it was to be re-opened
for iliscussion upon its particular merits ? •
The LORD CHANCRLLOR, after hearing a long argue
:wept, decided that the former proceeding had been
iturrely in the nature of a reference to Lord Eldon per-
:usually; and as that had failed of being carried into
'R&M b 7 reason of circumstances not anticipated by
the parties. they ought to be placed in starts Imo ante,
ail& he decided accordingly.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Novagna 28.

MU/LitAY V. THZ ASSIGNIES OF HEATH.

This case, which bas been so often before the public
by the reports of this Court, and the report of an issue
lately tried in the Court of Common Pleas, was brought
on again to-day. •
Mr. H-ZA LIT, for the defendants, moved that the in-
junction, which. the plaintiff had obtained, to restraiu
the defendants -Om selling certain, copper plate en-
gravings, alleged • to he the property of the plaintiff.
might be dissuPed; The Learned Counsel said, he
founded Lis meAos on the verdict which had been de-.
lispored in tie Court of Common Pleas, in a trial directe
by the. late Vice-Chancellor. The postea would be
produced, by which it would be seen that the Jury had
decided, that according to the custom of the trade, an
engraver had a right to retain, for his own use and
benefit. eight impressions of any picture he might en-
grave. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the in-
junction ought to be dissolved.
Sir Cartaus %Tamura, for the plaintiff, wagons',
prised that his Learned Friend had rot stated some
grounds for, or adduced some argument in support of,
his application. In this. case Mr. Murray bad filed a
'bill against the assignees of Mr. Heath, an engraver,
who had had the misfortune to brume a bankrupt, to re-
strain them from selling certain impressions of a copper
plate engraving, which, together with the original pie-
** were the property of Mr. Murray. The plaintiff
'had' iven them notice, that the property they proposed
to well wai his; bet the defendants replied, that by,the
custom of the trade they had a right to retain a certain
number of-impressions. What number had they a right
to retain ? This was not told. Several persons had made
affidavits on the subject, but none of them agreed.--
Some said an engraver had a right to retain eight ; some
said ten; others, nine or ten; and others, not more than
twelve. These gentlemen appeared, he might be
allowed the illustration, to have answered the question
by throwing the dice—a very common mode of fixing
upon a number where a doubt esisted, and when it was
nut to be fixed by other means of any thing like cer.
tainty. In a word, these gentlemen seemed to know
nothing about the matter, and according to them the
number of impressions that an engraver might retain,
vibrated, floated, and oscillated between one and
twelve: Then, again, there arose the question—what
is the .engraver to do with them when he had retained
them? this was a very important question. If
he was only to keep them in his own portfolio for his
own use, or the use of his pupils—for show only, or as
a kind of souvenir of his past labours, that was one
thing. If, however, be was to sell them, to dispose of,
and make money by them, the case was very different.
The plates to works, particularly to works of science;
were frequently extremely
_valuable; and such a right
as this vested in an engraver might be the ruin both r.e
the author and of the publisher of some particular
work. In a case in which he recollected that he had
the honour of arguing—it was respecting Dr. Sibthorp's
" Flora," it was proved, that if all the copies of the
work which the Acts relating to copyrights disposed
of were claimed, it• would take away all the profits of
the work. It was in this view of the case that an issue
had been directed, the professed object of which was to
determine, first, if an engraver had a' Tight to retain any,
and what namber of impressions; and secondly, if he
had a right to retain themlwbether he had a right to sell
them ? Now the Jury had returned a verdict that be
bad a right to retain eight impressions for his own use,
and benefit ; but, to have the right of retaining for one's
own Ike and benefit, and to have the right to sell, were
rights totally different and distinct The Jury could
'never have intended them to be synonimous, and be
was perfectly convinced, that if the Jury had had, air
they ought to have had, to try the question respecting,
the right to sell, they would have decidedo.bat an enf•
graver had no such right.
Mr. Hew, said that his clients never Intended WV/
any such question.. The question respecting
.the right.
to sell did not come before the Jury; but it rt had, be,
had no doubt his clients would have bad a verdict.
Mr. Sergeant EDWASD LAwas (who was with Sir C.
Wznisaux) raid,. that.the contrary appeared en. 3120

Mr. Sergeant EDWARD LA was repea
observation respecting what bad past
Mester.
Tbe Vtce•CsimscaLiost said the que
ther-wn issue had beets tried. and *hetl
en this trial. gave sufficient information
Win He should prefer hearing Mr. 1
that the finding had settled that questio
mode of arguing the case.
Mr. HEALD thought there could be
his client's right to sell. Whether an e
bad not that right was not the question,
was, whether the assignees of a banktut
and that be thought perfectly indisput:
tees had found these impressions among
property, and as the verdict of a jury
the bankrupt's right to retain, there cot
that the assignees had a right to sell I
bankrupt had a right to retain. As to
before the Master, that had nothing
matter. •His clients had nothing to d
Master said,or with what the other side t
per to do. It was certainly a little t•
they came into Costa with a posted in t
the other side to turn round and say—
Master told us such and such words
to the word sell. We were deceived I
This was the language of Mr. Serpa
what had his clients to do with, or wl
was it necessary to return to such an e
" The Master gave you bad advice,
foolish enough to take it ; and having
0/E3Si take the consequence." The sim
fore the jury was, the right to retain
and benefit: the jury had no right to
would appear by the ponea, decide a
Mr. Justice Gaselee did, indeed, after
turned their verdict, ask ;hem if they
had• a right to sell them, as, well as
• but that was no part II the real que
cal!ed upon to try, and what right the
had, or for what purpose he did ask th
about selling, was not for him to dete
• Mr. Justice Gaselee wished to become
thetefore asked the question for his of
oration and guidance. _

The VICE CHANCELLOR thought the injunction ought
not to be dissolved. One object of the issue was, of
course, to determine the right to retain, beCause that was
a prelintinary step ; but then the main intention of
issue was to determine whether a man had a tight. to
convert to his own use and to dispose of at his own will
and pleasure the property in dispute. That quer4oll
had not come before the Jury, and consequently tho
cause remained precisely in the same situation iu 'latch
it was before the issue was directed.

Mr. HEALD submitted to the Court that a nevi icree
ought to be directed, if the Court thought the cabsJ%i
the same situation now as it was brfore the eirperiste'
trying this issue had been incurred: Surely the Coen
muss do something more in the matter, if it thought
that the verdict of the Jury ought to uphold thleftii•
junction.
The Vice CHANCELLOR intimated that he was of die
same opinion with Mr. Healo. •r''
Sir C. WETHERELL said it was the fault of the Other
side in opposing before the Master the insertion of tide
-words "-to sell" in the issue. •
Mr. HEALD said that. wits not in evidence. . a
The VICE CHANCELLOR said the Master had certainly
miscarried in the way in which he had drawn tip
the issue. He therefore thought there ought to be
another issue.
After some discussion as to the irregularity of men.
tioning it,
Mr. Sergeant LA WES was allowed to inform the Court
what Mr. Justice Gaselee asked the Jury respecting the
right to sell.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS (who was with Mr. Heald),
after protesting against the irregularity of introducing
this fact, which was not in evidence, and declaring that
ho should not have touched upon it if had not been for
what Mr. Sergeant Lawes had said, observed that the
fact was certainly as his Learned Brother had stated.
but then something else also. occurred. When the
Learned Judge was requested to ask another question
of the Jury, he refused, and said, expressly, that "be
was afraid he had done wrong in doing what he bad
done."

After a long conversation among the Counsel, princi-
pally on the subject of costs, which the Court intimated
its intention of reserving until a new issue had been tried;
The Yid-CHANCELLOR said, he would frame a neW
order for an issue, and hand it over to both parties. -
eoUlitT OF KING'S BKNelli.Novniant 28.
HINSON .1/.. ROBSRTS.
The plaintiff's case as stated by his Counsel, Mr.
Gonuswitti, was giverin Dm STAR of the Bth instant,
to' which our readers may refer; though the facts are
sufficiently detailed in the proceedings of yesterday to
render the whole case perfectly intelligible without any
_ .
such reference. gifizesoon,
Th. ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he appea

cause against a rule for a criminal information agisitisb.-
James Roberts, Esq. a clergyman and -magistrate Otl
•the,county of Warwick, for irnprneer conduct ja but
magisterial office. =u•
The application to the Court greet:WWl:if fPnvicse•
don ofthe-plaintiff for keeping a 'weld dog,.;frhicbs.
however, the plaintiff alleged not to be a dog ,of that-
description. The plaintiff complained that the defer=,
dant did not allow him time to procure proof that the
dog was'not a lurcher, and of a variety of other patti.,
[4triars.in the delendast's conduct. To answer these:
?e.llarges he was fuinished with several affidavits, the
substance of which he would state
certain RizAsr, of the name •of

to to the Coup -
Boultei, who, und,
f •