Law Report.
-.Ms;z "esseptttule rpsaoi laec a pinttor,.commjsslons to-go out - to-Africt, Americt, and,thie Westlhdsei,;i(iodg=erstdence ..us tify alibelwltich h apliedgnsteefn autid~to.star the trial of the deflendant's ictlosi6n tlae.r3nean ti3e. To. this the defendant had-demiurred, si~4t1ieYice.Chsi~clior dismiped the bill for being tooT -ttifrloins. .T-he p rintiff thensfiled two billis-for the same purpose, to which the 'aefnan_g erure h Ct sent a request to the Court of King's Bench to*4pooc the trial of the action from to.day. which was ixeed on for hecarinig-the argument On thedem-urrer,tosoiiedavinnextweel At thesitting oftheeVouiA, a converstiton took place,' etween the Counseland he_Conert uapsi the propriety or impropriety of postpning the tria on account of fti demnurrer. Mr. SUGDEWq said that there never liAd beem to his knowledge, it case in which more tricktery bad been exercised than JiV~ the defend' anit in this case. Mir. SHADiWELL said, that trickefy there had been in a'bundance g but it-was exerted aganist the defendant. The LoanD -CHAWcsExOR said that he lied been giTen to under.. stand, that tin application was to have been inad6 to the Court of King' Bec to put off' the tr-ial after the first tansewagover oa tridapy.But tbatfirst cauoe was not Over at tbreeo'clern themniori, ag le wasalso _iven to unders;tand, that counsel wereto-tttndfrote he bar Of the KinFls Bench, ho were to suipport the demurrer totiWf virit-us, as the saying was. His lords-hip thecn went into the )egal history of' the case, and eI ressed some degree of' anxiety to k6ow what grounds of substantialjustice could be laid for supporting ei demurrer against a bill, the object of which avoiredly was to-diaco. ver evidence for justification against the defendant's ngtiou. Mr. SHADWELL, with unfeignedl respect to the Court, was. pre- dpared to resist this proceeding with all his might. It wsuld, if the demurrer were not allowed, give the pleintiff an advantege.over tIi! defendant againstthe tenour of the law, and inoppositiostoalliprn- ciples of justice, which went utterlytso s3bvert therules and erder~, which the Courthad at all times declared to be indispensably neces- sary to its own jurisdiction. He could noDt conceive any justifiable Ireaons for giving this redoubtable triumvirate Of libellees, whose voration no man could misunderstand, theliberty of overleaping all the bouRds and fences of justice, which hiud been set UP for the pro- tection of' the innocent, end for the commnon security, by the 'wisom of 'past ages. 1'he LOaI) CHAwcrLLOR3 asked which of the J07ke BRuzfr was thle paper concerned-thie Old Johke Buill or the Rcai John Bai-.. for he really did not know. Air. SHA'DWELL said, that it was the Old John Rull. The LORD CHANeCELLOR said, that hie was not likely to overleap bounds anid fences, having neither youth nor agility fer such a task. But isuppose the commnon lawyers were to bear him down with their ltois sln,z as they threatened, and by the triekery ofthat Co;urt they, were to obtain a verdict before the argunments either on the ite. m!urrer or the bill; hie would only ask this question-.could they have execution? iMr. SHADWEL.L said, thjat the defendant was not eagef for pen,. nib,ry damnages-he was onlv anxious to re-ertablish his character by the erdct f ajur athdtcout.'menagainst a wanton and emi provkedlibeler andsurly tat as ot a proceeding in which thisw Cour coletdeceouly ntefer atthereqestof the libeller, to slucd hi fro thevengancewhic waslikey otherwise to over- 'rheCout ten enton t th cocluionof en adjourned argtu- mnent in another case, and then proceee to thie argumaent on the demurrer. 111r. WiA xE I ELD, read so much of the bill as set forth the libel.. lous mnatter which ap peared in the John. Bull of October 28, in last year, and which set forth ti character of the defend. ant, by insiniuation and 'assertion, as that of' a canting, bsitling, worldly-.minded thriving man, who turned religion enid charity to the account of his Own proper profit. The article likewisesuggested v-arious acts of peculation and malversation of public money coin- mitted by the def'endant in Africa and Amnerica The bill went on to inform the Court of the action for civil damages instituted by the edefendant, but not till he was c-onscious of the departure froom England of dlivers of the witnesses whose testimony the plaintiff' sought to discover by commissions sent out by this Couirt in order to justify the publication in the actions. Mr. SHADW-ELL appearee to support the demurrer to this bill. Thie first ground of hiis argument was, that it had always been a set.. tied rule off the Court that a party could not be admitted a PlIntf' in equi ty, unless he: was able to prove to the Court that his conduct was tounded isk fairness and propriety. The ground of equity here avowed by the plaintiff was, thiat he had committed an offe~nce against the lazws of the country. He repreenrted himself to the Court as one who had published a libel. W1as this a party for whiom it wvould be becoming in the Court to interpose its authority with the common course of justice? Except in some very particular cases, the Court wouild not interfere, where a1 party admitted that the trans.- actions had commenced in gUilL. In questions of' coj?y-righit, tbr example, if the hDook were a scanidalous publication, tending to dishonour the doctrines of religion, the Court had often refused redress, and directed the party to seek his remiedy elsewhere. Stich was the judgment of the Court in the casecs of W Nalker v. Wralcot ;" I Soutb ey v. Sherwood," for the pub- lication of Wat TylIr and abo~ve all in the case of the book Publistied by Dr. Lawrence, which .'.eiiied the immortality of' the soul. The reason given was, that aL Court vf Equity would not protect a wrong-doer in the perpetration of hiz wrongy. Here sne party came with an admission that he had offendled the law of the land; he had published a libel, he had com- mitted an indictable offecnce, (for no one could question that it was indictable,) and this was his grouind in equiy. The demiurrer in the next plare alleged, that supposing the litf entitled to the re- lief prayed he had not set forth the case in which lhe needed the evidence t be procured by these commissions with sufficient distinctness. 'The libel,and the billwhich recited it,clzrged the de- fendant in ecstndalous end defsmawory terms, with moral turpitude. A Court of Equitv would certainly not compel a par-ty to an%swer a bill of that nature. He defied the counsel on the other side to pro- duceausingle case in which isuch a bill had been allowed. T-he re- cent case of-" Thorpeand rt lsce" wastheonly one towhikh they coul mae an sot ofapp aladhe was prepared to show that die judgment ofgipen in that caste went upon an entire misapprehension of' the tocssuon which alone it was professedly psven. Those tvwo cases were to be found in 4 Brown's Parl iamentary Cases, pages 407 and 410. The first was " Cojament v. Verelst -" the second was -' Nicol v. Verelst." The plaintiff in the' first case was an Americani who had resided in kiindotstan, where the transactioss in question had taken place. He was im -s. soned at Cealctta by the def'endant, who was Governor there.Li brought an action mor assault and 'false imprisonment agaiitits the (lavernor, who contended that he had a right to imprison hima. Issue being joined between the parties, the Governor moved the Court of Exchequer to grant ilim a commission to examnine witnesses in the East Inidies,and lor an injunction to stay the ac-tion in the mean time. The answer denied the allegations of thte bill. The C-ourt issued a commaission under its own seal, and an injunction was ordered. Upo apeal th Hose f Lrdsreversed both orders. The fol- lowing year Nicol brought a similar action against the same defend. anit, whose aniswer was thesamue asbefore.Butas theproceedingsin the Court of Exchequer were done away, be now- filed niis bill in Chan- cer an obaind a inuncion ?LheHouse of L-ords, upon an ap- peal deermied hat s te whle f tese transactions tOook place in Idia thecaue shuldbe tiedther bya c mmsion : stil the same prinil wsosrved the judgetbigt framed in thtat case,bcuetewoe matter in disueto lc out of'the king- doin' The qu'estio here was, shoul tedfnat be compelled to answer to libels hc went to all the circumstances of his past life? He was represented as an enterprising bustling man, whose sale view in all his professions, wlaether of religion or humanity, wlas worldly lucre. How could he answer this charge without the most fatguig dtai ofal th evntsof ispast life since he became of thischare? hen,it he eidece culdnot beiaedistinctly up. pliabl, t wht urpse oul th cmmission iu? The only objct f te ommssin oul betoobtain evdne which woul'd afewadbe admissibleina courtoflaw. Iftheevidence taken did. not apply expressly, to the matters in issue between the parties, it would be impossible tor a court of law to admit it. Again, so what purpose would he the labour of the commission, if the Court, upon. the demurrer, should determine that the defend-ant was not to an- swer the bill? The very form of the commission stated that the witnesses were to be examined upon 'nterrogatories stattd in the coaimissoion, in reference to the cause in issue between the parties. The first thing for the Court to determline was, whether the bill shiould be ansiwered or not. Abstractedly, there was nut enough to ju8tify the Court in grantingarcomnmission. There was nothing for it. bus the averments of the plaintiff'es bill, and his Lordlship was; not at liberty to conjecture that there was more rnecessity for the evidence lo he produced by the commissmion, than that which was stated in tite bill. The alcIions; as to the present aituationa of the wit. orates were so loose as to suppl y a pregnant, inference, that though there were witnesses abtoad who could help the plain. tiff, to justify his offznce. there were enough of'theng at horne also The bill stated, ihat divers of the witnesses bj`,ihipb, alone the plaintiff could prove the fiscts were abroad. Trhe word, wilich must in sense and grammar apply to other witnetsses besides those abroad. Thken the bill ask-ed for one or maoic commisions for the examination of such wimuessas; and thia xgzin,.-Ulout re.. gard to thiose witnesses who might be at hand, and readly toyrove the facts. l.mconclusion he contended, that on everv ground, vhub.. ther of form or of principle, of law or of fact, the aemurrer ought to be allowed. Mlr. PEs'Ys supported the demurrer to the bill, which raised o entirely new question. Neither of theca-sesin Brown could be held to furnish any argumient for the hill. The question simply was... shall a libeller have a commission in equity to prove his libel4-? In uesion ofperona sot, nconeced ithproperty, the Court had eve ye gien he ggresoritsassstace;and,it it had donfe so.woud a wilinly enditsaidtoan avowed libellJer? 'There beig n prcednt t' he indon ecod,was this thes6rr of mea in wich s wold cooseso mke oe PThat there was,;iy *;uch case he put it to the opposite side to show. 'There was wmeiistiou of any thing like it,either on the books of cascaor in an)o,.sliiext wri-. tees. In tiecase of"1 Lord Montague and anotiier."this was this way in which Lord Hiardw-icke gave hisi opinion -- Sfiowmrenninstance~ ,' saidhe,"inwhicsheourhsd nteferd."ltyou cnnnotJ willnot makea pecednt;earI hod te opnio ofLittleson to be a goodE rule-iss a airpresmpton tat o ation lies whiere noDsetnon was everbrouht."in he cse o" Vagha v. idrige, which was t( he fund r,Frests Echeorr ar,abilwtfle for a discoverr' of a promise of marriage ii aid of an action at law. There was u general demurrer, wnich was overruled on the expresS ground that ithe action was not in tort,' but in aumpsit on a contract, whisk judgmentwas a decided authority tor this case. Had the question been assault, imprisonment, libel, personl injury of any kiiid-.he action would have been in tort, and not in conuact; and by the very terms of the judgment the demurrer must have been allowed, In neither oftbe casescited out of Brown had the question of the juris. dicdon been raised as in this. st was true that the House of Jjoeds had shown their sense of that question inanitestly enough, by severs. iog both orders of the Court Or Exchequer. In the second of fttS cases, the plafintif at law had, a the tirst instance, acquiecetlin the conimlssson, named his owrn commnsisoners, and examind his oc~ witnesses under the commrission. 'The decree of thlisHousd-di Lords, therefore, was perfectly cohannunt Sn botls caes, 1 "Thorpe and Llacauley," the Vice-Chancellor- seened - think, that though the Court would not compel the ;arty to discer evidence against himself, yett ome use night be muadeofakecom2 mission. But if the defendant were not to-answer, where-was,the use of the commission? lirby talke depositions whichs were aoot -i be used atterwards? Hiis Honourseemed to think *he demurrer-t6, the discovery good, but thac to-demur to the wholc commiasioli*azg going oo fur; wvhereas the comrnission could be ofiio use' but taiBj fect the discovery. I inwhat a; ingular state would tie proceediilj' then he placed?t How was the suit-to -go on -without either anspie or plea? It cold nor stir. sSupposeit were toproCeed, thereioil shortI be no-paucity of precedents for commissionS tO PutWff TIieY Wousld be issuadfr al parts of the 'wozld. Thii was an at. tcn"P',evereforeniaa'pbjut.ce. The,Court. a.awy e the couna. ofp Cwh tor. heewsa TO ttj 1~~5 Ste h, c rFoft&tibe, . heUnever:ba a- convicted' dafctubl et~ea bis tffleina equity u1pon ani ofFence at; lAw, Aaiaed 6 6' thi Cuttio etrid of-the conserjudncea i thedcr Cossodd PlY,'hOw infifiixtelY.11113nst wostid it, be,? A mans -laners is hUFxaonyrvoou%W~. -Theyartyr injured wisheds"to, knOts hom'!0 1itattIc. Hecfiles abilt odit.ver his advcrs~a. ur :1 tnsto h&ar of justice. HJeis met-by. a demurrer, and eur~wU notinterfere to comp'el -. -disrovery of that which awbjcv te atytpanad pepsiole but it will inter" feteto ed he ibe'lerin earhin the. ronscienee of hig ~'ttiit~ t se I~ h cn dscver any shing 'which 'will ,l~titfl hi i th oThsce whch'he bas commietda. He1 had .eau o heirde at lab engfvured suitors in the Court: let * ths prcednt b estblihed nd bellerswoidd he the -peculiar fa- V*unstes. ,ih oe fthe Cut which wa~snever to be exerted agaist thern, woi ea hi evce.. -he genecral effect ivosuld be, that all olhes gis telws ould find their.way into this court. The courtso conmonlla* required 'that libellous publishers 'shouldl lb ready toprove the truth- of the'ir libels...to justify them, if theY could, whenever callea upon. The Court of Equity had al- ~rs~ss rFsi~'t0 Itd ts ctsmmlision in ~ases tlfnfozmation and Mi- c~tmenL...a rule which had beeii laid. doq-o wise purposes, and wishich ought not now to be departed fm Zo moan coitld CVer yen- tore to defend Eds blaraczer by anr ;&nlo n ruled itw nolt properfor sisi' eton,t if this 1ernuirer were over- Of Omao Ir wreso ~ `4c s -oitto gsmthtthe cut 'sl Intf f he could - -'n as itn be witliont a remnedy for the tiodefendant fro~ - oliow tiYLlii a good case. They ouaprevent thou if pro .d -giblb to trial until he consented to the comm'ss- -Vould b, . ' t*iont W.eTe given to them ; and therefore the question Mv: 01dlErA supportd the demurrer, ania enlarged upon the ~~~ ~~of the question to thte general interests of justice. litpac,se bill was fraulty4 because it did not show that ~Y ~~icauo hadbeen made to thie courts, of law upon the subject. '~ &leitwit ufeigned diflldenee of himsgelf, that he could by no fl~t~S retnd o kow precisely wliat were the lim-its of this juris. ~licioo buthe ookthe eneal uleto be,that the Couxrt would refue t inerfee i reedywereto e bd fr the party elsewhere .andthatif i coud beshow tha a prty ad wilfully passed by hecommon dooro fustice,whhsto at Il times, and witliout MiY qluestion, open to hitm, the Coirt ,votild, on that accounit, were there Qootheir,refull~ to interfere. Now, thoughi the courts of law did Mot pgresent a door in iuxvitarn, a? it w7ere, to the particular purpose of, the plaintiff's bill, and thiough directly they couldI not help him to a camimiessOn, yet if they saw fit teasotis for it, they woulda In. diretly for it had been held by the Judjces, over anti over again, 'that, ratlter thanttic a pary downi to suffs r sI-istice which was only irtvidens alt the fo,rms of their pmedn' KcY would refuse to let 'the PlaintiffProceel to the trial of hiis action utntil he wouldI consent 'to a. CUMiunmion. mni was the lantguage uised by Lord Mansfield to0 a Plalintiff who unjustly refused his consent to a commission to obnan necessary evidence. In thecse courts they took other thiing s '1vto cOnlmderation. WitnessesoliKhtbheabroad; hut theyiniglitalto be brou ,ht h, ome; anidif that co:-ld be tione atany *thinz like a re-soniab eexpcu:Se..t an expense,for instance. which would alittle exceed the exp~ense of a comnsission-they would certainly require that expense to be incurred for the sake of seuing evdence so miuch hIOrc atisfactory in its niature. The letgoudw iehe wouldl takZe was, that if th;e plainitiff in equiity hdm etatplication to the court' of l,w, it would, in all probblt,hv en refusedl. T1ht)e courts exercised a particuilar disrioiontefcs af a case. They would have said to the plaintiff-"1 You are a libehllr- you bave most unnecessarily, as a volunteer, come forward and Publishied slantoers atgainst your neighbour-it was your busns at le-,t to have lvial e,idence at hanid to prove. the =ru_h oyour slande;j before yo volunteered to throw thiem outt th frs chrat sounal not protect yourself fromr jutiice hy f ourorms ceedin, , which wvere designed to shcelte innro. vernt men-i-ou sh F.uld have secuired eviden-.e'for your defence be. f0re You di'd a mnis'chief whebc you were not called uponi to do, tor doin.v which yourcan allegeno nece,ssity, ad which, in the eve of0te 1aw, YOu cannot be justifie-din doing.-4n slhatleriig your neig'hiboLtr." If'inch would be the reasoning of' th_e(',eurt there, much more ouight 'this Court to refuse it, interpoiin For there the plaintiffhad not only pleaded justification, bitt the general issue. Here he liad 'onlY informed the Court of the plea or justification.. There he hiad deniied, by the genieral issue, the malica of the publication, and put It upon the plansillin the action to prove the malice. The question Emf'nlalice was quite immaterial so the- plea of jutstification. By ad.- Imittin,i the publication, anti confining hiimself to thie plea of justihl. catinn, the plalintiff mnust Ihe held not to dlenv the malicious inteni. He set f-rtb the truth of toe charges, but he dlid not attempt to deny his owon salice in making thecm. In the case of 4Fairman and Ives,"' Justice Ilolroyd heldi, that showing the truthi of the slanderous mnat. ter was no denial of the inalice, but must be recrivel mnerely as, a statement to shiow that the plaintiff ought not to have all the dla. tinagcs which he claimed. rn the case of " liewis v. Walter," the sIc- fendgant not only did not deny, he lexpressly admitted the malice, thiough he justified by tshe trut Iof the facts. In the presient e-ase the malice was cx aressly adlmitted, and yet the plaintiff Ca.ine here in his capacity'of libeller, to ask the protecuon 'sf the Couart. lie had comnmitted an offence whichi might be proseccuted either by information or by indictment-an offence whichi he must have knlown wras a crime in the eye of the law: asnd yet he expected 'she as;sistance of this C-ourt to be extenided to hiim to protect hiim from, the vengeanice of the lawr, at the expense of his opponeat. In the case of"1 Verelst." cited from Brown, his p lea was not that he was a3 WrOng-docr-h.e puIt in a general and complteus,tificatflon, which went to the whole subject of the action; ho contendedl that he had a ri,ght to imprisoni the plaintif't. There svas no such rightassumed hiere. The plaintiff onl averred that tue slanders which he had pubIlithed were true, He could conceive all the mischievous con- euecsto which the disallowing of the demurrer to the discovery motla,In all aictions of personal tort, no matter whether se- dluction, slander, libel, breacb of promise of marriage, there would be a ~right establishied to ati on tlie opposite party to state on oath all the rcranistances of his past life,LB becoming a plaintiff-in equity, time defendartt could eibtrem deLay indef initely; andI besides thinS, ha've the 'OPPOrtuni ty of sifting the plaintiff's mind for-tuie means of his own jlustifcation. Suppose the case of an, action for criiminal con- verstionl. The plaintiff' in the action, in dlefault of those n'wcessa-rv and circumstantial proofs which the lavw requir. ccl, w7ould hare nothiing to do but to file a bill, calling upnthe defenidant to say if he did not commit adultery with his aie. nd seduce her from fisrimarriage alleg~ianice tinder theo most ag- gravated circumstances. The ordinary rule of the Court wvould not auly here. Adultery was not an indictable offence ofits,elf,and the defen ancold nots hield himself from discovery on the ground of ubjecting himself to pains and pe nalties. The argumnent wvouldl ,cspccirflly be applicable to compel discovery in the Ecclesiastical Court'., There none of the proceedings were penal in their consc. ,quences, being all intended pro salute animit. Suppose a charge ,st theft published against a mian it would only be necessar to atlege ibat it had be-en perpetratet beyond the seas, and a bill of discovery would lie: theft beyond seas is not necessarily indictable at home the plaintiffirmust answer-d4id lie comrmit theft,yes or no? A mni -ight be charged writh constantly enitertaining impute and flagstious ideas. Thiere couldI not be a gross4er libel puiblished ; yet the fact was not indictable; thoughts were no subject of a criiniial Puocess if they didl not run ouit into critminal acts:- the injured party owoud be called on so discos-er the inmost thoughts of his breast b~' hlis libeller. It was only to add to the tail of every such slander. that she witesses were abroad and the trial, as in tiepresent caseIt was ,-ought, could ~not procQee until commnissions had gonie out to the four quarters of the world in quest of evidence. In anticipation -of any' imputations against Mr. lilacaulay's character, he took thtat opportunity of denying that the course taken by him in tbese PToceeetsngs was in the slightes degree inconsistent with the moat Perfect consciousness of innocence. His legal advisers were bound, 'without consulti;g hiim to have recourse to all the forms of proceed- ing 'which were availab?e for the defence of his character; and as -ell might his% adrersary ask him to admiit hearsay instead of direct evidenice, ori parole instead of documientary, evidence, as call upon him to wave the atlvantage of those forms wvhich were set up to Pr-omote the ends of real justice. The objects of this bill were cdearlY endless delay and unlimited vexation-to obtain impuniity from the offended lawsa for months and years. It would now be seen whether the Couxrt would hielp the plaintiff' to drive his disgraceful traffic of slander against the characters of those who bad never in. uth itg ar hi-n or the puiblic, for the sake of lucTe and for no. tigelse. Mfr. Macaulay did not shun inquiry-he wanted it ; he h-ad sougt it at the tribunals of his country, and his prayer to his leordship svas, that it mighti not be impedled by delay. Afllthe evidence which the plantiff couild use was to be found in this colintry, nor could his jutstification be enlarged by one hbair'a breadthl by all the commissions whichi could isste. In vain would any man seek redress for slanider, izn vain would he defy his traducers to come forward and face ?lim beflire a jury of' the country, if this demurrer were not al.. lo-ed. In oorclusion, he contended that the plaintiff had no cha. ratrbywhich to claim a right in equity but that of alibeller, and that if , cmission were granted, it would dliscover nothing which 'wou-ld avert thie trial ofl the action at law. Mlr. (iARnETT tollowed on the same side, and enforced the ne. cessity of the plaintiff- comning into court with clean hands. Hie cited vaorius cases and opiniions in which plaintifft,both here and at ~cmon law, had been ousted of their remedy by reason of the un. amglneousness of the transactions to which their suits ref'erredi. With Tr-specst to tak-ing depositions to ~ustify libel, he believed that the Court oaf King's Bend', had rules that the libeller muse make afhida. 'sit th-at the 'witnesses who were able to prove the truthi of the libel 'were withi.% reach at the timne of publication. His Lordship's own judgment lhad repeatedly shiown that thie suboject of the plain. tiff'5 application to thie Court shouldI be an irreproachable snatter. Be went on to show the inconvenience which must result fromn dis.- allowing the demurrer,the danger of substituting irresponsible depo- eitons talcen abroad for the evidence of witnesses sworn and exa- furintance to bveoccrred n Deterara. htcomsioner * coaid ope o obainevidnce n faourof Mlr. Ilaalay fromi De. sneraa, ulessbe wee prpare to eoe a rnant'. AIT. SUGDEN was part ly heard against the demurrer. He found Luult wish the course taken by M5r. M acaulay thirough-out these pro. cecpings, which were much better calculatedto fill hisr pockets with tl;%`m6aey of the plaintiff thian to clear his own character. 'Why had be not in the first instance proceeded by wvay of information ? Be- causp he must have put a distinct denial of- all the matters in the libel upon record; and that, for very obvious reasons, he was very unwill to do. v h its ch;arater wasotlimnuch served by the issue of the firstbil, which was dis,missed for being multifaroious. But why schuld it requite two acions to justify it, if his charcter was all that Ira eared about? Above aill, why did he seek by the ffhrms of pro. ecling to shun that examination of the question which lie night rasure himself could alone satisfy the public mind as to the truth eichcod ofthe ChargeS made against him? Thisat least was obvious, from the trick of the demurrer-that he was not very desirous of rgiag'iwsdf of those charges by oath. He denied that the wrish sr ddely was i tany m.ann rattributable to the plaintiff. Be appre. ded that the merits of the case had been srgned altogether. He cld ni s deny but that Alr. hAlcaulay milist bave indicted the plain. tf. But Alr. Macaulay chose,in' prefsrenoe, an action for civil c=irges. Than, as far as this Court'was concerned it ought not t3 be treated at all ts a question of libel. Why shoula the Court so c:ide it, when MSr. Macaulay declined treating it as an indictable CT=Ccev 'ei^LOOD CHANCELLO1I, in the course of the argunment, as. euued ie s,ight of the jurisdiction to interfere by its commission.-a ti>t Vwhic s h2d been exercised by it ever since it was a jurisdictio-i; vureas the whimsical method adopted by the King's Btnch, of *cmpzlLng a oman =oh4htasriy to consent to a commission, by post- .ang~. tiled from time to time till he would consent, was of but mo. w daze' Ln answer to the argumesit, so far as the dread of 'vexa- ms cmexe and d elay had;bcen ex pressed, his Lordship said, that iciuy care, she explense arisng ifrom the delay of the defepdiii~tes Fersir; liaenrug on Monday. LAW Rx?O1eT.. !COURI Op-f CKANCEkyi,,,TiDtJL1.. sn - FUl.t i.L- SELL V. YACADAY.