Why did I not so reply? For a reason twice before published, namely, that Mr. Justice Bailey had done it for me. Sir Walter takes no notice of the judge’s answer, neither does Mr. Lockhart; and yet it was the most important point of the case. Let the reader judge.
The editor of the Sun newspaper after quoting an article from the Times upon the subject of my controversy with lord Strangford, remarked, that his lordship “wouldVide Sun newspaper 28th Nov. 1828. hardly be believed upon his oath, certainly not upon his honour at the Old Bailey.”
Lord Strangford obtained a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against the editor for a libel. The present lord Brougham appeared for the defence and justified the offensive passage by references to lord Strangford’s own admissions in his controversy with me. The judges thinking the justification good, discharged the rule by the mouth of lord Tenterden.
During the proceedings in court the attorney-general, on the part of lord Strangford, referring to that nobleman’s dispatch which, though purporting to be written on the 29th November from H.M.S. Hibernia off the Tagus was really written the 29th of December in Bruton-street, said, “Every body knew that in diplomacy there were twoReport in the Sun newspaper copies prepared of all documents, No. 1 for the minister’s inspection, No. 2 for the public.”
Mr. Justice Bayley shook his head in disapprobation.
Attorney-general—“Well, my lord, it is the practice of these departments and may be justified by necessity.”
Mr. Justice Bayley—“I like honesty in all places, Mr. Attorney.”
And so do I, wherefore I recommend this pointed repeller to Mr. Lockhart when he publishes another edition of his father-in-law’s life.