The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We insert this day, as we are in candour bound
a letter from Mr. Gel!, the coroner, on the late la-
mentable occasion. Nothing, we still persevere in
saying, can excuse the brevity of so important an
inquest as eiiat upon the body of Lord Graves ; and
we cannot help suspecting that the chief cause of
this impolitic despatch was the apprehension (un-
founded, we now believe) of finding that which it
might give pain to persons of eminent rank to have
brought before the public. A proper inquiry would
have made it manifest to the whole world, whether
the mental torture of the noble deceased were pro-
duced by false and scandalous imputations, which it
was beyond his power to suppress, or by the know-
ledge of a fact which injured his honour. Had this
inquiry been gone into at due length, in how very
different a situation would the surviving members of
the family have now stood ! And now, with respect
to the rumours and caricatures by which so much
mischief has been produced. We were, of course,
very well aware of the scandal in circulation, and
perhaps not wholly indisposed, from various weighty
antecedent causes which it is unnecessary here to
specify, to give it some credit. But be it observed
that inasmuch as we are unacquainted with the
circumstances from which it sprung,—we never once
admitted its entrance into this journal ! While all the
other papers are teeming with insinuations about " an
illustrious Duke and a noble Lady," &c. &c., we never
once mentioned or alluded to the supposed inter-
course till last Monday morning,—that is, after the
death of Lord Graves; and then only by copying a
paragraph from the Observer, calculated to show
the innocence of the parties, or at least the convic-
tion of Lord Graves that his wife was innocent.
No one but those concerned in the conducting of
journals, and particularly such a journal as this, can
conceive to what a persecution this conduct sub-
jected us. Every post, twopenny and general,
brought us letters, charging us with venality—
knavery—desertion of the public cause. Still we
were silent, because we could find no facts to tix
upon. But when the coroner's inquest, which should
have elicited the truth, was " curtailed of its fair
proportions," then we thundered out that article in
Tuesday's paper which created so great a sensation.
And what did we do in that article? What we do now—
reprehended the coroner and his inquest. We made no
charge against the parties respecting whom so much
had been said ; but we saw very clearly that there
was enough in the manner in which that inquest
had been conducted to give a fatal colour and con-
firmation to the rumours, whether they were true or
false. We saw very clearly that Lord Graves could
not be conveyed to his tomb after such an inquiry,
without leaving behind him an imputation on his
wife, and therefore we called for further evidence
and a fresh investigation : and for these, also, the
friends of the lady, being convinced of her inno-
cence, are now, and have been from the time when
our article appeared, most anxious. With respect to
the fact itself, we have given our opinion : and we
have seen documents which prove the undiminished
affection of Lord Graves to his Lady, expressing to
her, in letters of conjugal privacy, the publication
of which he could not have contemplated, his hor-
ror of the " scandalous falsehood," and his determi-
nation that they should show the world, by their ex-
ternal bearing towards each other, that no suspicion
invaded their domestic peace. It is known that
though frequently together, the attendance of his
Lordship at Windsor, and a system of economy im-
posed by their large family, have prevented them
from having any other establishment than the gra-
tuitous one in the Royal Palace of Hampton, which
her Ladyship enjoyed with many other ladies of
similar rank. Sir Hussey Vivian, we believe, hear-
ing of the inquest, attended spontaneously, with the
view and in the hope of being called as a witness,
and many others whose evidence would have been
of the utmost consequence expected to be sum-
moned. It is proper to state, that the jury did not
assemble till a quarter before ten o'clock, and that
the investigation, however imperfect, lasted nearly
two hours.—Times.

It is now nearly two hundred years since Wil-
liam Prynne, in the reign of the Royal Martyr,
was, as every one knows, sentenced by the Star
Chamber to be put from the Bar, to stand in the
pillory in Westminster and Cheapside, to lose both
his ears—one in each place—to pay five thousand
pounds' fine, and to be imprisoned during life, for
saying of plays and players, and those who frequent
playhouses, no more than what almost every lather
of the Church has said, and what is constantly said
in the pulpits of many Clergymen, as well of the
Established Church as Dissenters. Yesterday, Mr.
Alexander, of the Morning Journal, for a libel,
imputing corruption to the Lord Chancellor ;
another libel, charging the House of Commons with
insensibility to the distressed state of the country,
and Mr. Peel with smiling at it, and accusing his
Majesty of suffering himself to be bullied by his
servants, and of being apprehensive of appearing in
public, and of ignorance of the ditties of a just and
constitutional King—in short, a libel calculated to
bring Mr. Peel, the House of Commons, and his
Majesty into contempt; and a third libel, charging
the Duke of Wellington with designs of various
kinds; was sentenced by the Court of King's
Bench—the legitimate successor to the jurispru-
dence of the Court of Star Chamber—not to lose
both, or either of his ears,-nor to be imprisoned fur
life, nor to pay a fine of .5,000/., but to be im-
prisoned for one year, to pay a fine of 3001., and
to give security for three years, himself in the sum
of 500/., and two sureties in the sum of 2.50/.
each. That the notions of men respecting libelling
have experienced a great change in these too hun-
dred years, is pretty evident from the above compa-
rison. The Attorney-General, Noy, endeavoured
to make it appear that poor Prynne, for writing
against stage plays, had committed such a heinous
offence that the punishment of the Court of Star
Chamber was not enough. " Finding (says he) the
Church so deeply wounded by Mr. Prynne, I do
leave her to avenge herself of him, and to inflict
such punishment on him as he deserves. I shall be
an humble suitor to the Court, that they would be
pleased to command the prosecution of those things
that concern the Church to the High Commission."
The Lord Chief Justice Richardson, not to be out-
done by Mr. Attorney, declared that " eye never
saw, nor ear ever heard of such a scandalous and se-
ditious thing as this misshapen monster is, . . .
I beseech your Lordships to give ►nt, :cave : " Stage
plays, B.:c. (saith he), none are rainers and honoured
by them, but the Devil and hell ; and when they
have taken their wills in lust here, the;.- souls go to
eternal torment hereafter. And this must be the
end of this monster's horrible sentence." There is
certainly a wider interval between the langu.. re of
the Lord Chief Justice Richardson and Mr. Justice
Bayley, than between the language of Attorney•.
General Noy and Attorney-General Scarlett; so
that the latter would not have been so much out of
his element in the Star Chamber. But is it
not mortifying that we should, at this time
of day be doomed to bear such language as
that uttered by Sir James on Thursday last,
on moving the judgment of the Court ? "Mr.
Alexander (observed Sir James) said that he was
selected for prosecution, and asked why the Quar-
terly Review, Blackwood's Magazine, and other
such publications, were not prosecuted ? He would
assure him, that if he met with publications of
which libelling formed the system, and not the ex-
ception, he would prosecute them as well as Mr.
Alexander. Whatever the Press might say of him,
he was resolved that he should not be deterred from
doing his duty by their animadversions. The Press
had lately taken upon itself to animadvert upon the
conduct of the Judges, and to question their deci-
sions, and had also taken the same liberties with
Jurors; but he hoped that neither Judges nor
Jurors would be deterred by such animadversions,
nor allow themselves, by any dread of the censures
of the Press, to give such judgments or verdicts as
might suit the taste of the conductors. Such animad-
versions were often indecent and scandalous; but
.t ought to be recollected that the Press was not

lways in the hands of the best instructors of the
people. This was unfortunate for if it were it '
might be an instrument of the greatest good. But
it might be made an instrument as powerful for evil
as for good ; and, therefore, for its own sake, as well
a a for the sake of the community, its excesses must
be restrained." How insulting language like this to
a country boasting of a free Press ! The Press has
taken upon itself to question the decisions of Judges
and to take some liberties with Juries I Why, in
God's name, what is the use of publicity if we are
not to examine that which is of all ether things the
most important, the conduct of Judges and
Juries ? The proceedings are public that they
may be the subject of examination, and ex-
amination supposes necessarily the power of
judging. Why is it that Lord Chief Justice
Richardson, in the case of Prynne, and his fellow
Judges, vilely lent themselves to the abominable
views of the Court of that day, and sacrificed poor
Prynne to gratify the Queen, and her uxorious bus•
hand, end Mr. Justice Bayley, in pronouncing sen-
tence, displayed a moderation and decorum honour-
able to the Bench, lint that the proceedings in the
one case could not be questioned, and could in the
other ? Is it to he endured that an Attorney-
General shall openly declare that the proceedings of
Courts of Law are not to be questioned ? Every
Englishman has a right to discuss all proceedings of
a public nature, from those of the Legislature down
to those of the humblest Court in the kingdom. No
body of men in the country are entitled to call on
the public to abstain from discussing their conduct.
Every day we hear men complaining of Acts of Par-
liament the very day after they have received the
Royal Assent, and seeking to procure their repeal.
Is not this questioning the decision of the Legisla-
ture ? How are we to obtain the repeal of an op-
pressive law, if we may not question it ? And if
We question the act of the Legislature, surely we
may question the act of a Judge or the act of a Jury. '
What astonishes us is, that a man should dare, in the
face of the English nation, to give utterance to
language like this, which coght hardly to be ad-
dressed to a nation of slaves. But if he (Sir
James Scarlett) met with publications of which
libelling formed the sytem, and not the excep-
tion, he would prosecute them. The meaning of
this is, that it is proper and just that the whole
literwure of the country should be at the mercy
of Sir James Scarlett. In the exercise of
this discretion, it is impossible that he should err.
Every Newspaper in London was completely at his
mercy for twenty or thirty libels in their Reports of
the proceeding of Parliament on Thursday and Fri-
day last. Ever other speaker talked of the con-
tempt in which Parliament had brought itself with
the country. Sir Francis Burdett, on Friday night,
for instance, observed—" Under these circumstances,
satisfied that the House of Commons, which was
miscalled the House of Commons, for it was not
the House of the Commons of England, but a
House of Representatives of certain Peers, contrary
to the Law and contrary to the Constitution—a
House of Commons in which of the supposed Re-
presentatives of the People eight or nine represented
the Noble Lord whose son had Met eight moved the
Address—a House of Commons which was stated
to be most corrupt, and of which the corruption
stared them so much in the face, that they them-
selves had been obliged to find a remedy-La cor-
ruption, too, which was known all over the country
—of which the whole world was aware—and the
House of Commons knew that all the world knew
it—a House of Commons which would not be long
suffered; when the people were contending with
bold and increasing freedom for their privileges, they
would not long submit to a grievance which was
the root of all grievances, and which enabled the
Ministers to govern the country by means of this
subservient House of Commons." On Thursday
night Mr. Protheroe observed, " that not long
since he bad read in a Political Work which had
not been much in the habit of attacking the
Institutions of the country, that the House of
Commons was not only chargeable with want
of wisdom, firmness, and integrity, but was,
besides, totally inefficient to discharge the im-
portant duties which were imposed upon them. He
did not mention this with the view of setting the
Attorney-General upon a prosecution for libel, but
because he thought it right that the House should have
such a piece of wholesome censure brought under its
serious consideration." But there is no use in se-
lecting what is common to almost all the speakers.
Now, though the Attorney-General cannot question
the speakers themselves, we all know that he can
prosecute the newspapers, and, indeed, there is just
as much reason for prosecuting the papers which re-
ported those speeches as for prosecuting the Morn-
ing Journal, excepting in the ease of the Lord
Chancellor. It was well observed by the late Mr.
John Nicholls, that " the language used in the
House is not to be viewed as language confined
within these walls. The opinions there delivered
are to be considered as spoken to the country ; they
are to influence the judgment and the wishes of the
country; and this, cannot be effected, if the Me►n-
ber is restrained from publishing his political opi-
nions. If those publications are injurious to
the country, either the House itself may punish
its Members, or direct the Attorney-General
to file an information ex-officio ; but as the
law is now held to be, the Attorney-General
has the superintendence of all those political
opinions which any Member may choose to
disclose to his constituents. This is repugnant
to what was intended to have been estab-
lished by the Bill of Rights. If those opinions are
unfriendly to the principle of liberty, but subservient
to the views of the Ministers, the Attorney-Gene-
ral, who is appointed by those Ministers, will not
prosecute; but if the opinions published are un-
friendly to the Ministers, the Attorney-General will
oppress the member by his prosecution. Apply Ode
doctrine to the late prosecution of Sir F. Burdett
by the Attorney-General, for the opinions which
he published respecting the proceedings at Man-
chester, on the 16th Aiigust, 1819." This is what
is meant by Sir James Scarlett, when he says he
will determine whether the paper libels habitually,
or libelling is only the exception. He will take
good care never to find any libels in those publica-
tions which are subservient to the views of his em-
ployers. What we, however, complain of is, the
manner in which he comforts himself. He does not
seem to feel that he is doing anything which is in-
compatible with free discussion. He speaks as if it
was proper that he should be held infallible—that
all writers in the country should bow to his deci-
sion. Another man would, perhaps, have felt a
little ashamed in exercising the powers; but he
boldly heids up his head, as if there was no arro-
gance in claiming this dictatorship. We trust some
Member of the House of Commons will bring him
tr his senses.—Morning Chronicle.
There is, says a distinguished law writer, an
" unaccountable notion" that the man who deprives
himself of life must be necessarily insane. But
such is not the doctrine of the law of England;
that law including the felonia de se among the cata-
logue of offences, and if not beyond, at least to the
tomb, pursuing with its ignominious penalties the
unfortunate individual who is at once both criminal
and victim. From these penalties, which, although
recently deprived of their ferocious character, hare
not been wholly abolished, most suicides belonging
to the upper ranks of life escape through the com-
plaisance of juries attributing the fatal act to tempo-
rary derangement. The facility with which, in the
case of the unfortunate Lord Graves, such a verdict
was given on Monday last, has attracted general
notice, and been the subject of much animadversion,
occasioned, however, in many, not so much, per-
haps, by any meritorious regard for the interests of
even-handed justice, as by the disappointment of
that prurient curiosity which has been excited by
certain scandalous anecdotes connected with the fa-
mily of the deceased Nobleman. Whatever may
be the political demerits or personal delinquencies of
the individual whose name has been ►nixed up with
these melancholy transactions, it must be acknow-
ledged that he is not in this instance a whit more cul-

gable than many of high rank and station in the cou
try. But although bound in fairness to make these re-
marks, we readily join in condemning the conduct of
the Coroner at this inquest, acting, as he appears to us
to have done, under a complete misapprehension of
his duty, and of the law which regulates his functions.
The facts, as we recollect them,are these :—A witness,
the servant of the deceased Nobleman, having said
that " he had no doubt but his Lordship cut his
throat in a fit of great depression of spirits, not
knowing what he was about ;" a Juror interposed
and asked whether the witness could state what
had caused that depression of spirits under which
his Lordship laboured ? But this searching question
was stopped by the Coroner, who declared he did
not consider it necessary to put such a question ;
the Jury were assembled to inquire whether Lord
Graves died from violence inflicted by himself, or by
any other person, and in what state of mind he was
at the time, whether insane or otherwise. It was
in evidence that his Lordship had laboured under
great depression of spirits, and it was therefore pro-
bable he committed the rash act while labouring
under temporary insanity. The Juror replied, that
he considered the Jury would not discharge its duty
unless it inquired into the cause of that depresston
of spirits, and demanded whether, according to the
oath which had been administered, the Jury were
not bound to investigate all the circumstances? To
which the Coroner answered—No, Gentlemen, I
do not consider it a part of their duty to make in-
quiry upon that point to which allusion has been
made ...... Finally the Coroner did,

nevertheless, put the question, desiring the witness
to say, whether he could state, on his oath, what
was the cause of his Lordship's depression of spirits.
To which question, so couched, the reply was, that
the witness could not take upon him, upon his
oath, to say what was the cause. The Juror stood
alone in his desire to extend the inquiry, and after
having heard this answer., declared that he should
not put the question again. No further effort was
made, notwithstanding the candour and openness by
which the evidence of the physician was charac-
terised, to elicit the circumstances which led to the
unhappy event. Now, that the Coroner was mis-
taken when he gave so emphatic a negative to this
spirited and intelligent Juryman's proposition, that
" all the circumstances" should be investigated,
will sufficiently appear from reference to the opinions
of Serjeant Hawkins, in whose Pleas of the Crown
(a work of the highest legal authority, book second,
chap. 9, sect. 28), it is laid down " that a Coroner
may and ought to inquire of all the circumstances (If
the party's death; and also of all things which oc-
casioned it ;" an instance, showing the wide range
which the inquiry ought to take, follows :—" If it
be found by the inquest that the person deceased
was killed by a fall from a bridge, and that bridge
was out of repair by default of the inhabitants of
such a town, and that those inhabitants were bound
to repair it, the township shall be ;amerced." So
that in such a case, the liability of the inhabitants
to the repair of the bridge actually falls within the
scope of the inquiry! Again, with leave of the
Learned Coroner of Westminster, there may he
accessaries, as by incitement or persuasion, to
a suicide; and with a view to their detection,
all the circumstances which may have induced
the deceased to embrace the resolution of lay-
ing hands on himself are strictly within the proper
range of investigation. As to the legal conse-
quences to be deduced from proving the-. depression
of spirits under which poor Lord Graves was said to
labour, let us hear Lord Hale, who says—" It is not
every melancholy or hypochondriacal distemper that
denominates a man non compos, for there arc few
who commit this (fence but arc under such infirmi-
ties; it must be such an alienation of mind as renders
a person to be madman, or frantic, or destitute of
the use of reason." But Lord Graves, although
labouring tinder the influence of melancholy, was
treated as a rational being in full possession of his
intellects, by all around him, and with whom he heti
intercourse. Ile was occupied with the ordinary
business and engagements of life up to the fatal
moment. He had transacted business at the Excise
Office, and dined with a friend on the day before,
and was invited to dine with his brother-in-law on
the day of his death. He appears to have given a
series of orders to his man, in a regular and rational
manner; so that his case would seem, upon the evi-
dence, to fall altogether within the exception laid
down by Lord Hale ; it being clearly established that
the imputed insanity must be proved by something
anterior to, and extrinsic from, the act of suicide ;
and that such act cannot in itself be legally re-
garded as evidence of any such state of inind.—lbid.
There are men whose aristocratic principles we
respect, but whose proceedings we deeply deplore
—some whom we regard with pity, others with a
widely different feeling ;—these err from their folly,
those from selfishness and pique; but, whatever be
the cause, the effect is equally mischievous; and
whatever they may think in their delusion, we owe
it to the common cause to declare what others think
of them. The persons who, under the name of
Tories, are now caballing against the Duke of Wel-
lington's Government, if not very blind, aid very
weak, and very ignorant, must in reality possess a
worse spirit than they would wish us to believe ;
for, setting private respectability apart, what are
they as a body ? Weak, or they would never need
such a conjunction as that which we have lately
witnessed ; and worse than weak, or they would
never have condescended to form it. Time was
when a junction with men of another party consti•
toted a capital charge ;against Mr. Canning; and now
the very men, whose watchword is consistency,
make common cause with Messrs Huskisson and
Waithman. But Mr. Canning, in making use of
Whigs as teen, rejected their principles ; and they
as a party conformed to his standard, not he to
theirs. Our present oppositionists, on the contrary,
not content with herding among Radicals, are mad
enough to espouse their doctrines, and, like all new
convects, out-Herod-Herod in their infatuation.
Such a course, if pursued, can lead us to no good,
and every effort made against the Duke must ine-
vitably fall back upon themselves. Wide as the
poles asunder are their views and those to which
Mr. Huskisson is pledged. Proud and petulant as
their own spirits, are the feelings with which all
Radicals regard them, and bitter as Mr. Brougham's
worst sarcasm is the contempt entertained for
them by him and the Whigs generally. Upon
every question of vital interest, commercial
policy, currency, and corn laws, they are op-
posed by all parties in the House—by all men of
sense throughout the country. The only bond of
union is a factious disappointed spirit—the only
common principle a desire to subvert. That the
Duke of Wellington will triumph over these new
domestic enemies, as over our foreign ones, no one
can for an instant doubt ; but for the sake of good
old English feeling, for the sake of that aristocratic
order, which to ensure support must deserve re-
spect, and to which the ninny will we trust do
honour, despite the errors of a few—for the sake,
lastly, of those consectarian principles, whose
triumph disunion can alone endanger, we call upon
all real friends of Toryism to rally round its only
true supporters.—. Morning Post.
The sentence has at length been passed—the first
act of tyranny on the part of the Wellington Go-
vernment and a Whig Attorney-General directed
against the liberty of the Press has been completed,
and we who have, for so many years, given an uii-
bought and loyal support to the King and his Mi-
nisters, are compelled to address our readers from
within the bars of a prison—from a gloomy cell, a
stanchioned window, a fir board for a table, a damp
and cold floor, and the sounds of the prison-bell
ringing in our ears. These are subjects, this a
situation, well calculated to create melancholy, and
tempt one either to curse God and die, or nurse
into duller apathy those thoughts and sympathies
which induce men in dangerous times to relax their
exertions for the good of their country. Well, let
the result be what it may, we shall bear our mis-
fortunes as meekly as we can, and trust that we
ehall survive these calamitous times, and the unprin-

cipied men who, with the terrors of a prison to re-
strain public opinion, have a truckling Parliament and
a heartless Minister to laugh at the cries of distress,
and turn a deaf ear to the prayers of the starving.
The Wellington Administration commenced its ca.
reer in deception and fraud, and it will terminate
reign amid the execrations of an insulted people, if
not amid the shouts of furious anarchy. When that
moment arrives, and arrive it will, if an immediate
and sweeping change both of men and measures do
not take place, we shall be released from this hateful
and debasing confinement, and probably it will be
our lot to survive the men who, to indulge a mise-
rable spleen and a despicable malignity, have di-
rected all the powers of a bad law and a vindictive
prosecutor against one humble individual. We say
one individual considerately, for we ask who has
been prosecuted or who punished but the editor of
(he Morning Journal? Against him alone have the
bitter invectives of Sir James Scarlett, the partial
and shameless affidavits of the Treasury solicitors,
and the persevering prosecutions of the Government,
followed series after series, day after day, without al-
most the intermission of an hour, been directed. It is
true that the editor of the Atlas has been tried
and convicted of a libel—the grossest libel ever seen
in print—charging Lord and Lady Lindhurst with
selling, for certain dirty moneys, the church livings
of England. But has he been brought up for judg-
ment ? Has he been sent to gaol ? No, no. He
was contrite, fell down to the dust, and begged
pardon from that moderate and learned Attorney-
General, who, instead of protecting the rights and
property of the King's subjects, and bringing the
burglar, the duellist, or the conspirator, to justice,
seems to have little else to do than watch the
opinions of public writers, and visit with every
rigour of the law the momentary effusions of
those who either dare to speak their free thoughts
or indulge in a harmless squib against the
venality and military civilities of the servants
of the Crown, and tile too well-paid ser-
vants of the public. It has been deemed a serious
offence, not only by this vindictive lawyer, who was
cradled in a land of slavery and sipped the milk of
legitimate liberty among the Whigs—and not by him
alone, but also by Mr. Justice Bayley—it has been
deemed a grave offence by these upright and sensi-
tive persons that the prisoner in this case did not
express any contrition for the libels he was accused
of writing. Contrition ! Good God ! for what ?
For an imputation on the Chancellor which he from
the first swore did not apply to that noble and
learned Lord. What ! beg pardon for saying that
Mr. Peel was seen to smile when Mr. Fyler and
Colonel Sibthorpe described in the language of holy
truth the awful and heart-rending sufferings of the
poor. Ask forgiveness for this indeed ! It
would have been an insult to truth itself. It would
have been a violation of the duty which every man
owes to himself and his country. The fact was no-
torious. It is as indisputable as is the light of day.
But, oh, we did not supplicate mercy for having re-
presented the Duke of Wellington as an ambitious
and unprincipled Minister. Why should we ? Is
there a man in the country of any intelligence or
independence who is of a different opinion ? Is there
a man in the United Kingdom so senseless as to
doubt his ambition, or so blind, or so stupid, or
so insane, as to assert, with the evidence
before his eyes, and his conduct on the Ca-
tholic Bill still rankling in our hearts, that
the Duke of Wellington is not unprincipled ?
We declined, however, for these plain and
obvious reasons to express any contrition or
beg any mercy, and this was deemed a high ag-
gravation, which, of course, was not forgotten in
the sentence. And this sentence in these mild times
is as follows :—Twelve months' imprisonment in
Newgate. A fine of 3001. to the King. Bond of
5001. to keep the peace for three years, and securities
of two persons 500/. to keep the peace for the same
period. But one of the dogmas of Mr. Justice Bay-
ley is deserving of notice here. On passing judg-
ment he remarked :

" Tou charge his Grace with being unfeeling and
dictatorial—with treachery and cowardice.' Now, giving
every freedom to the liberty of the Press, and I hope it
will ever continue to be free, and enjoy the right of fair
discussion, particularly that discussion relating to political
matters, it must yet be held in mind that such discus-
sions, and the conclusions drawn from them, must be
founded on facts. It was most unfair, it was most
wicked, to assert that the Duke of Wellington was
treacherous, that he was destitute of mercy, if sash state-
ment was founded in fact. If there were no promises
for sayings°, surely that could not be called fair discussion."
We do not dissent fri.rn this dogma of the
Learned Judge. The expressions which he makes
use of as applied to the Duke of Wellington,
were not written by any of the defendants who
have been punished for them, but by a corre-
spondent, whose name, profession, and place of
residence were appended. Had the Attorneys
General been inspired by any feeling of justice
he would have prosecuted this correspondent,
particularly as he affirms he had charges enough
against the other defendants. But we waive all
this, and adopt the dogma, with all its imperfec-
tions. The learned Judge says that an accusation
against an individual of this nature is calumnious
and libellous unless it 6e true. The charge
ought to be founded on facts, or such imputations
go beyond the limits of fair discussion. Now, it is
unfortunate that they are by his own law deemed to
be libellous even though as true as are the gospels.
Judge Bayley knows that if the defendants could
have proved the allegations they would not have
been permitted to prove them. Although we could
have produced twenty Members of the House of
Commons to prove that they saw Mr. Peel smile
on the night in question, their evidence would not
have been received. Arid the same with the allega-
tions against the Duke of Wellington. What non-
sense is it then to hear such law from a Judge ! It
is folly to waste time on such twaddle. But let us
consider the justice of the sentence in another point
of view, as regards Mr. Gutch, Mr. Fisher, and
Mr. Alexander. The first an older proprietor than
the latter—who never complained of the libel till it
was prosecuted—is discharged on his own recogni-
zances—Fisher is not even called up—but
Mr. Alexander is severely punished because
he had the candour to admit that he wrote
the libel, though legally not more responsible
than the others. And why did he admit the
authorship ? Because he was conscious of inno-
cence, arid because to his own heart alone was
known his motives. It is true that Lord Holland,
and Lord Bexley, and several others, swore that
they believed the squib applied to the Chancellor.
But they did not form this opinion in utter igno-
rance of the facts. They were not even aware that
the defendant had denied the application on oath.
They thrust themselves forward between a man's
private motives and their ignorant belief, and they
interpreted that to be criminal or at least accusatory
when they had no means of judging, except by the
evidence of the defendant, to whom the libel ap-
plied. And this is called justice ! This is the law
of libel in a country which vaunts of its purity, and
whose'public men boast of their moderation and
liberality ! Away with such cant. The sponge
must be applied, and the law changed, or soon there
will he no protection to life, liberty, or property in
this country.—Moening Journal.
The Times newspaper of Wednesday contained,
in the form of a leading article, certain comments
upon a recent melancholy and distressing event. The
statement put forth therein formed the universal
topic of conversation throughout the metropolis,
from the earliest morning . to the milnight ! they
have, doubtless, by this time found their way into
all parts of the kingdom, and, as in London so in
the country, men, and women, and children, are
speaking or murmuring curses against a high and
illustrious individual, as against a heartless seducer,
who has been the immediate cause of a suicide, by
cti hick a noble arid distinguished family is plunged
into a state of misery and despair—who has placed
the brand of guilt upon the wife, the crime of self-
murder upon the memory of the husband, and upon
the sons and daughters of the wretched pair a double
main that time can never remove. Such was the

effect produced, and we presume intended to be pro-
duced, upon the public mird, by the Times news-
paper—the brother of the King, because he is the
political adversary of the party to which that upright
and consistent journal has given, or rather lent,
its support, was, thus described to his countrymen,
in a di' but fearfully indistinct outline. It was
more than insinuated that a horrible story had been
infamously hushed up; that a coroner and twelve
jurymen had hugely lent themselves to pre-
vent crime from being exposed; that justice had
been cheated of a victim ; that humanity and de-
cency had been outraged ; and that the voice of a
whole nation should call loudly for punishment
upon guilt that was without parallel ; upon the se-
ducer of the wife and the murderer of the husband.
The atrocious calumny—for such it is now acknow-
ledged to be, even by the calumniator—was not the
growth of a day. For some weeks past it had been
hinted by the journal referred to, and by others who
usually follow in the same track, that the peace of a
noble and high-minded gentleman had been for ever
destroyed; that a large family had been consigned
to eternal shame ; that a lady, the mother of that
family, had in the decline of life exchanged an envi-
able station in society for one of utter degradation;
and that the author of this misery was—it is mine-
cessary here to declare his name. No mistake
could by possibility have occurred; his base and
atrocious enemies had pointed Him out, for public
execration, in a manner that left no room for doubt.
There was not, we venture to assert, a single per-
son in the kingdom who, having read the statement,
hesitated for a moment on whom to fix the guilt.
Unhappily the poison, acting upon a too sensitive
mind, took effect—the husband, although convinced
that the slander was without the slightest founda-
tion, read, and lost his reason—and died by his
own hand. The Morning Journal stated more than
once or twice that the accused courted investigation
and challenged proof. The Standard took up the
matter from the moment it was first broached; and,
in the following paragraph, published on the 30th
of January, denied that the charge was aught but a
wicked invention of some designing and malicious
enemy. Who that enemy was we well know :
" We regret to see the *444*" "4"'" retailing
though certainly with little ostet.tation, an exploded slan-
der, involving the character of a most respectable wife and I
mother. The story was set on foot three weeks ago by
the usual circulators of court lies at the clubs. It was
subsequently printed in the John Bull and the Times, but
it was not worth a contradiction until it went further.
The delators of the club are by this time pretty notorious ;
and the John Bull's connexion with the Treasury, and the
hitter malignity of the Times to one of the parties calum-
niated, are as well known. Now, however, that we find
the fabrication copied into a respectable journal, though,
is we have admitted, in an unobtrusive way, and perhaps
without the editor's knowledge, we feel bound to give it
the most direct contradiction. There is not one word of
truth in it from the beginning to the end. The acquaint-
ance between the parties is the slightest possibl The
lady is living in the bosom of her family, suspected of
wrong by those only who know nothing about her, and the
person for whom she is said to have deserted her husband,
never dreamed that he was an object of suspicion until the
tale to which we are alluding had been many days in cir-
culation. We hope the business ends here."
But slander,
" Whose edge is sharper than the sword,"
secured one victim and then sought for another.—
We will not defile our columns by copying the in-
famous comments in reference to the Coroner's
Inquest on the body of the deceased lord that have
led to these remarks. But though we do not disse-
minate the poison, we feel it our duty to spread the
antidote, and to call the attention of our readers to
an article in the Times of yesterday. We extract it
word for word :

" In relation to the subject which, in our Paper of yes-
terday, created so much attention in the public, we must
first say that it is most unfortunate when people of un-
popular characters are in that rank of life that they can, of
necessity, obtrude themselves where they please, and drop
in upon those whom they may choose as associates at will.
It is indeed unfortunate for the persons who are thus dis-
tinguished ; for it cannot be but that the potent guest will
impart to his friends a portion of the peculiar regard which
adheres to himself ; and that aptitude which may unfor-
tunately exist to believe ill of him, will of course extend
itself to those with whom he establishes relations, psrhaps
only of ordinary civility. A more intimate knowledge of
the very painful transaction to which we alluded yesterday,
has induced us to judge that such is the case in that very
melancholy concern. But how miserable, if the lady (as
we now conscientiously believe) be innocent, her lord con-
vinced of Ler innocence, and only unable to bear up, be-
cause the world unjustly thought he put up with that in-
jury which it would have been base in him to suffer tamely
but which he himself knew he had never sustained ! And
all this because one man is—what he is !

" It was a younger member of the family of the lady
who went down to Hampton-court to announce the me-
lancholy event whirls had taken place ; and in a letter
which he wrote from thence, when there could be no idea
of the suspicions which were about to be excited on the
subject of the Coroner's inquest, he wrote to an honoured
relative in London, to describe the effect of his distressing
news upon the widowed sufferer and her family. ' It is
her only consolation,' says he, that the last letter she
ever received from her husband (that which was sent
down by Spry, the servant, by the coach)—the letter
which he wrote when in contemplation of the rash act,
was the most tender and affixtionate she ever received from
him in her life.' Fhis is the letter which we said ought
to have been produced at the inquest ; and which there is
in truth no difficulty in producing."
But even in its penitence the journal retains some
portion of its original taint. It does justice, be-
cause it is compelled to do justice, to one of the
parties against whom it preferred a most revolting
charge; yet, although the innocence of the other
was thus clearly manifested, it would destroy by an
inuendo—it would murder by a dash. Its conduct
is like that of the assassin who stabs over the
shoulder the man he would not dare to meet—who
departs satisfied that he has done the job for which
he was hired ; and, although it was performed like
a sneaking coward, remembers that it was no part
of his bargain to look his victim in the face.—/bid.
It moves us even to laughter to watch the pro-
ceedings of some of the poverty-stricken supporters
of the present Administration—the " petty men"
who " walk under the huge limbs" of him who
would " bestride this narrow world like a Colossus."
Here is the Morning Post levelling its paper bullets
at the Marquis of Blandford—a mongrel cur barking
at the heels of a true English mastiff. God save
the mark ! The Noble Lord moved, in the Com-
mittee of Supply on Tuesday, " That no supplies
be granted until the grievances of the people are
listened to and redressed"—a motion that did ho-
nour to his head and to his heart ; at which, for-
sooth the fashionable chronicle takes umbrage, and
argues, that a man is not justified in attempting to
do good and to prevent evil, unless he is certain that
his object will be accomplished. Very sound rea-
soning this.—lbid.
The Whigs openly declare that the Duke of
Wellington's political existence depends upon them,
that they can turn him out of office whenever they
please; in short, that his Grace is a mere puppet in
their hands. This is fine talk, though, front what
happened on the first day of the Session, it cannot
be said to be a mere empty boast, without any
foundation. On that occasion the Whigs certainly
appear to have held the balance in their hands, and
to have served his Grace in as good stead as the
coming-up of " Old Blucher" is said to have done
on the memorable day of Waterloo. But there the
parallel ends; for, whatever opportunity the equal
balance of the fight in the one case may have given
for the junction of his Prussian Allies, he could not
have been indebted for his political victory to the
\\Thies, had he not first, by a singular neglect and
infatuation, caused a desertion among his own
troops, which left him at the mercy of the enemy.
When only one-sixth part of the House of Com-
mons could be found to vote with the Ministry, it
may well be said to owe its escape from defeat to the
stragglers which were found (as they are in all kinds
of warfare to be found) hanging about his camp. But
the Whigs—the recreant Whigs—are greatly mis-
taken if they imagine that such a victory, thote-,ii
gained by them, increases either their force or con-
sequence in the eyes of the country. On the occa-

skit in question, upwards of 400 Members of the
House of Commont kept aloof, or did not vote at
all. And can a little band of six or eight and twenty
persons, because they were able thus accidentally to
turn a scale which had little or no weight in it, ima-
gine therefore that their will is a law, or that their
votes will be of any value when the real strength
and numerical force of the House comes to show
itself ? The real tug of war, we apprehend, is still
to come. Nothing, we feel convinced, can ulti-
mately make the present Ministry secure but a
prompt and candid renunciation of past errors, and
an accession of talent, in which, as now constituted,
it is miserably and manifestly deficient. If the
Duke looks to any other means of sustaining his
power than those resources which superior wisdom
and integrity ought to supply to the Minister of a
great empire, we would take the liberty of remind-
ing him of a memorable passage in one of his letters
to Mr. Huskisson, when he disencumbered himself
from that gentleman's assistance in his Majesty's
Councils, saying, " any loss is better than a loss of
character, which is the foundation of public con&
dence."—Morning Herald.
The heathen god Janus had not two faces more
unlike each other than the different aspects with
which the " leading Journal" of Tuesday and yes-
terday regarded the melancholy event in Hanover-
street. On one day fierce and truculent—on the
next meek and conciliating; it has given an example
of inconsistency, which the most versatile of its
political patrons can never hope to surpass. But it
is easier to lacerate the feelings than to heal them
—to press upon misfortune than to pour oil and
wine into the wounds of the afflicted. Whatever
might be the circumstance which led to the death
of Lord Graves, his children were, in their dreadful
bereavement, entitled to some forbearance—to more
than ordinary sympathy. But, in its eagerness to
strike at an individual, who is politically obnoxious
to its party, the Times was reckless of the misery
which it inflicted upon private feelings and defence-
less character.—lt has, however, made some atone-
ment by proclaiming the injustice of its own conduct,
and administering to the poison of its own charges the
antidote of sudden and submissive retractation; we
leave it to reconcile, if it can, such a mode of carry-
ing on political warfare, with the feeling requisite
to support the decent interests of society and the re-
spectability of the Press. Of the circumstances
connected with the melancholy case in question we
know nothing, and profess to know nothing beyond
what transpired on the inquest, and we alluded to
it only as far as was necessary, in vindication of
those principles which ought to direct and govern
the administration of justice. We thought it a new
and monstrous proposition that Lady Graves, who
was ignorant of the death except from hearsay,
should be called as a witness—the Jury being saris-
fled,
on the evidence of the servant and the medic,' •
attendant, that his Lordship was insane when he
terminated his own existence. A Morning Paper
of yesterday, however, laid it down that the
Coroner was bound to inquire into the cause
of that depression of spirits which ended in in-
sanity. In support of this doctrine, the writer
in that paper quotes from " Hawkine's Pleas of
the Crown" the following words :—" A Coroner
may and ought to inquire of all the circumstances of
the parties' death, and also of all things which occa-
sioned it." The law is certainly well laid down in
this passage ; but it is perfectly consistent with,
instead of being contradictory to, our position.
All the circumstances of the death should be in-
quired into. So they were in the present instance,
with the exception of not having called the person
who was present with his Lordship's servant when
the body was first discovered after the infliction of
the mortal wound. The cause of death was also in-
quired into—what was that ? The Jury was of
opinion, on the evidence of the servant and the me-
dical gentleman, that it was insanity; but the
writer alleges that the cause of that insanity ought
to have been investigated. Neither Hawkins nor
any other writer on English law states that in cases
of suicide by a lunatic the causes of insanity shall be
required in evidence. The insanity in such eases is
the cause of death. The Jury are riot required
to ascertain the cause of that cause. It stands
to reason, as well as to law, that, if the insanity be
once established, it matters not how it originated.
To show " the wide range that the inquiry ought to
take," the writer quotes also the following words :
" If it be found by the inquest that the person de-
ceased was killed by a fall from a bridge, and that
bridge was out of repair by default of the inhabi-
tants of such a town, and that those inhabitants
were bound to repair it, the township shall be
amerced;" and adds, " so that, in such a case, the
liability of the inhabitants to the repair of the bridge
actually falls within the scope of the inquiry !" So
it does; and what does this prove? Nothing more
than that in cases of accidental death, where human
negligenceictd has
f,fori led
ntLot a fin
e a,
m anbe called
killedd a deodand
by falling
i -
o
a stage-coach, a deodand is leviedon the coach, which
makes it necessary for the Jury to inquire as to
who is the owner of the coach, that it may be known
upon whom to levy the deodand. For a similar rea-
son, the liability of the inhabitants to repair the
bridge is ascertained, that it may be known upon
whom to levy the deodand incurred by a man being
killed by a fall from it. If, however, a man kills
himself upon a bridge, and he be proved insane, the
liability of the inhabitants to repair the bridge is not
inquired into—for, in cases of suicide, there are no
deodands—and cessante ratione cessat lex. Indeed,
when a man kills himself, the question of insanity
only becomes necessary to prevent the consequences
of a verdict of felo de se—and the Jury being once
satisfied on that point, they have no more to do
with the cause of the insanity than with any other
question immaterial to their verdict.—lbid.

O❑ Thursday the men belonging to the Coast
Guard, at the back of the island, discovered a boat at a
considerable distance from the land, after watching her for
some time, they fancied something must have appeared to
her at sea, as they could not perceive she was making any
progress in either direction, which induced them to put
off to her, when on coining along side, melancholy to :elate,
they found the bodies of three men in her, who had all
perished from the cold. They are supposed to have been
smugglers.—Hants Chroniele.
The long continuance of the frost has had a
dreadful effect in Boston, hundreds of poor people have
been thrown out of employ, and rendered utterly destitute
of even what may be termed the necessaries of life. T; e
low wages that ►abourers and mechanics have of late been
receiving has precluded the possibility of any store being
reserved, and consequently more than 1,000 individuals,
residing in the town, have been reduced to a state border-
ing upon actual starvation. We are assured by one who
has personally visited many of the districts where the poor
people reside, that their misery beggars description.
Without food or fuel, and frequently without decent cloth-
ing, families of ten or twelve individuals have been found
crowded together in a miserable hut, but without hope or
expectation of relief. It has frequently been found that
the blanket which kept some of the children warm during
the long winter's night, has been pawned in the snore-
ing to provide a meal's victuals fur the family ; the
fishermen especially have suffered intensely by the
storm, for their own avocation being impracticable, and
they being unable to follow any other, even if opportu-
nities occurred, they hare suffered every extremity of
hardship. Numbers of the poor have involved themselves
in debt, under the impression that better times would
come, and consequently they cannot obtain further credit
for food to stay their craving appetites. One family, we
have been informed, were entirely without food for nearly
six and thirty hours. In another instance 14 human
beings were found in a little room about 10 feet square,
which formed their only residence,—and they were suf-
fering severely from want of fuel and food. To the in-
finite credit of several respectable individuals of this town,
the poor have received considerable relief: in one case
ne .rly 1001. was expended in bread and coals, and tickets
given indiscriminately to the most needy ; in another in-
stance about 340 received an abundant supply of very rich
soup, in which 18 stone of beef formed one of the ingre-
dients; and numberless other cases have occurred io the
highest degree honourable to the benevolent and humane
contributors, whose names we would gladly have held
forth to admiratio❑ and imitation, were it not that from
motives of delicacy they have desired to do good by ste tit!).
—Boston Gazette.