ceived from the keeper of the seals: "M. the King's Advocate.-I hasten to announce to you, that M. the duke de San Lorenzo has ceased to be recognized in France in the quality of minister plenipotentiary of his Catholic majesty the king of Spain. "The Keeper of the Seals, (Signed) "PEYRONNET." M. Mauguin. I suppose the king's-advocate conceives his responsibility secure under the signature of the keeper of the seals; but there are present several persons of the embassy, who have no knowledge of the fact, and even this morning the ambassador had not received his passports. The King's Advocate.-That may be. M. Mauguin commenced to argue the merits of the question, when he was opposed by the king's advocate, who observed that, after what he had announced on the part of the government, it was for the Court to decide, whether it could proceed with the suit. In this view M. Mauguin concurred. The Court, after a few minutes' deliberation, gave the following judgment: Inasmuch as it results from the letter of the keeper of the seals to the king's advocate, that the duke of San Lorenzo has ceased to be accredited as am bassador of his Catholic majesty the king of Spain to his majesty the king of France, the Court consequently cannot recognize him in the quality in which he is represented in the indictment. The Court, therefore, declares, that it cannot take cognizance of the suit, and orders it to be erased from the records of the tribunal." 31. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. INTIMATION TO THE BAR.-Soon after the sitting of the Court, the lord-chief-justice said, that, as it was of high importance to the public and to the suitors in the particular causes in which rules nisi for new trials had been granted, that those rules should be disposed of during the term, or as soon after as possible, the Court would wish to hear only one counsel on each side. They therefore requested, that the juniors would not offer to address them after their leader had been heard, unless they felt that he had omitted to notice some important fact or some material argument. They did not mean to lay down a rigid rule, that they would hear only one counsel on each side, which might be productive of inconvenience, but they trusted to the discretion of the bar not to occupy their time by going severally through the whole case, where it was not absolutely neces sary to the interest of their clients. The case of Hollis v. Goldfinch, which stood next in the new trial paper, and was an action of trespass for breaking and entering a close, being then called on, Mr. Gaselee showed cause against the rule for a new trial, in a speech which lasted nearly three hours. As soon as he had concluded, Mr. Selwyn rose and said, "I am on the same side with Mr. Gaselee; and in conformity with that rule which your lordships have this day laid down, I refrain from adding any observations to those which you have already heard. But in the peculiar situation in which I stand, as the first victim of this regulation,'I feel it due to myself and to those who surround me to say, that I trust this regulation will cease with the occasion which has caused it, and will not be applied Mr. Selwyn." I felt it my duty to make the remark which I have made, because I will never have it said, that I surrendered the rights of my profession." The Lord Chief Justice (attempting to interpose)." There are no rights in question." Mr. Selwyn (continuing)." It shall never be said, that I, situated as I am to-day, expressed no dissent from a regulation, which, if permanently adopted, would make a desert of these benches, and would deprive the juniors of the bar of those opportunities of addressing the Court, which may give them experience and a just confidence in their powers, and may qualify them in due time to become leaders of causes." The Lord Chief Justice." I am very much concerned that such a remark should be made; and I am sure it is not called for by any act on the part of the judges. The intimation is not new. Long before the time when I had first the honour to sit here, a similar notice was more strongly given, and was acted on without objection. I am always most anxious to hear all that can be urged by the gentlemen of the bar: I know that their observations are not only calculated to benefit themselves, but to serve their clients and inform the judg ment of the Court; and it is with great pain that I refrain from hearing them at length. We do not mean to say, that we will hear only one counsel even now, but we put it to the gentlemen of the bar, whether, in the present state of public business, they will occupy the time of the Court with a repetition of arguments already presented to its attention." Mr. Selwyn." I trust that I have made the remark which I felt bound to offer, with all the respect which is due to the Court." The Lord Chief Justice." Why, the word "victim" might have been omitted." HOUSE OF COMMONS.-An interesting illustration of the votes of the members of the House of Commons, during the last session of parliament, has been published under the title of " An Alphabetical List of the Members of the Commons House of Parliament, &c." It illustrates their votes both for and against ministers on 14 great questions, and gives the minorities on 36 questions; distinguishing 89 members who hold places, the emoluments of which in the aggregate, amount 183,372. 8s. 111⁄2d. per annum, according to a return made to the House during last session; distinguishing also about 40 other members such as the sons, brothers, or dependents of the Lord President of the Council, of the Secretary of State for the colonies, &c. who receive about 20,000%. per annum out of the taxes, not included in the before-mentioned sum of 183,372l. 8s. 114d. The following analysis and summary is deduced from the w..ole, viz. to "Their lordships having heard counsel in support of the claims of the marquis of Hastings and the Grand Army, and of those of sir Thomas Hislop and the army of the Deccan, and having maturely and deliberately weighed and considered all the documentary evidence laid before them, in behalf of the several parties, and the arguments of the counsel, are of opinion, that the most just and equitable principle of distribution will be, to adhere, as nearly as the circumstances of the case may admit, to that of actual capture : and that, although they are aware that the principle of constructive capture must, under certain circumstances, in a degree be admitted, the disposition should be to limit, rather than to extend, that principle: "They are therefore of opinion, that the mode of distribution originally intended by the marquis of Hastings would be most equitable and just, with respect to the booty taken at Poonah, Mahidpore and Nagpore; and that the booty taken on each of those occasions respectively, should belong to the divisions of the Deccan army engaged in the respective operations in which the same was captured: but that, as the division of the Bengal army, under brigadier-general Hardyman, appears to have been put in motion for the purpose of co-operating directly in the reduction of Nagpore, and to have been actually engaged with a corps of the enemy antecedent to the surrender of that place, this division appears to their lordships to be justly entitled to share in the booty captured at Nagpore; and that such other booty, arising from the operations against the Mahrattas in the years 1817 and 1818, as may now be subject to his majesty's royal disVOL. LXV. position, should be granted to such divisions of the grand army under the command of the marquis of Hastings, and of the Deccan army, under the command of sir Thomas Hislop, as may respectively have captured the same. "Their lordships are also of opinion, that conformably to the letter of the marquis of Hastings to sir Thomas Hislop, of the 12th of January 1818, sir Thomas Hislop, as commander-in-chief of the Deccan army, and all the officers of the general staff of that army, are entitled to participate in the booty which may arise from any capture by any divisions of the army of the Deccan, until the said army of the Deccan was broken up on the 31st of March, 1818. "Their lordships have felt it to be inconsistent with their duty to recommend to his majesty to give his sanction to any agreement for the common division of booty, into which the several divisions of either army may have entered, as it is their decided opinion, that if the principle of actual capture be not adopted, in this case as the rule of distribution, no other correct or equitable rule could have been adopted, than that of general distribution amongst the forces of all the presidencies engaged in the combined operations of the campaign. "Their lordships do not consider, that, under all the circumstances of this case, it will be expedient to recommend to his majesty to grant any part of this booty to the East-India Company. "And their lordships will submit to his majesty their recommendation, that he will be graciously pleased to direct, that his royal grant of the said booty may be made in conformity with these principles." C 6. The cause relative to the letter of Benjamin Constant to M. Mangin, procureur-general, before the Royal Court of Poitiers, was heard on Thursday by the Court of Paris. Both parties, M. B. Constant and the public prosecutor, had appealed against the sentence of the Court of First Instance, which condemned the accused to one month's imprisonment, and a fine of 500 francs. The Court, after hearing the pleadings, and deliberating one hour, annulled both appeals; but nevertheless, in virtue of article 463 of the penal code, altered the punishment, condemning M. B. Constant to pay a fine of 1,000 francs. KING'S-BENCH The King v. Wright. Mr. Gurney moved for the judgment of the Court on Mrs. Susannah Wright, who, having been found guilty of publishing a libel on the Christian religion, was committed last term to Newgate, for persisting to state matter which the court deemed offensive. Mrs. Wright now appeared on the floor of the court, attended by a female friend. She was neatly dressed, but seemed to have suffered in health from the imprisonment which she had undergone. The Lord Chief Justice asked her, if she wished to offer any thing in mitigation of punishment. Mrs. Wright replied that she did. The Lord Chief Justice.-Then we are ready to hear you. Mrs. Wright produced a large paper, and proceeded to read it. She began by declaring, that, having reviewed her conduct in the solitude of her prison, she saw no reason to change her opinions, or to repent of the constancy with which she had urged them. When she was last before the Court, she was prepared to show, that the Judges had no right to pass any sentence upon her, because Christianity was no part of the law of England. In pressing this argument, she had been stopped by their lordships, because her reasoning was not agreeable to their ears Mr. Justice Bayley.--Not because it was not agreeable, but because it was not legal. I will show to you, that it is not our as sertion, but the solemn decision of former judges, that Christianity is parcel of the English law, and we cannot suffer that point to be argued now. The learned judge then read the opinion of the Court in the King v. Orme." Mrs. Wright, without making any reply, proceeded with her argument, that Christianity could not be part of any human law, and that no human judges had a right to punish those who endeavoured to destroy it. The Lord Chief Justice then addressed the defendant, who continued her endeavours to obtain a hearing:-Mrs. Wright, you have been informed by the Court, that they cannot permit you to contend, that to defame and vilify the Christian religion is no offence against the law. If you can urge any thing, to which we may properly attend-especially if you can address to us any topics to show, that a pitying consideration of your case may be taken, we are most ready, nay, most anxious, to hear you; but we will not hear what we cannot listen to without a breach of the duty we owe to ourselves and to the country. We will not suffer any person, convicted of a blasphemous libel, to repeat the offence, under pretence of showing that no judgment ought to be pronounced against him. |