The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE--This Day,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco at Westminster, before the Lord Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Justice Crompton,
and Mr. Justice Blackburn)

THE EARL OP CARDIGAN V. L lEUT.- COLONEL THE HON.
SOMERSET TALBOT CALTHORPE-THE LIGHT CAVALRY

CHARGE AT BALARLAVA.
Mr. Bovill having replied on behalf of the Earl of Car-
digan's application to make rule absolute.

Mr. Garth, at the sitting of the Court this morning,
followed on the same side, dealing at some length with the
three points raised yesterday by Mr. Sergeant Shee. He
contended that the manner in which Colonel Calthorpe
had met the allegations made against his work by Lord
Cardigan were uncandid and ungenerous. He had said/
" I cheerfully declare myself satisfied that Lord Cardigan
entered the etussian battery," thus turning the noble lord
into a plaything without making him a single atom of
reparation, and refusing him an apology. Considering
that the slanderer was an officer who held a low rank in
the army, while the slandered was Lieutenant-General the
Earl of Cardigan, who had received the thanks of Parlia-
ment and the acknowledgments of Lord Raglan and Lord
Lucan and of his country in many ways, he considered that
Celonel Cdlthorpe's was the most unhandsome, the most un-
generous, the most uncandid, and the most unbecoming
style of retractation that could be imagined.
The Lord Chief Justice said he could entertain no doubt
that the passage in Colonel Calthorpe's work, upon which
the present application had been made for a criminal infor-
mation, contained a most serious libel upon the Earl of Car-
digan. He thought it was impossible to read that passage
without coming to the conclusion that that which it was
intended to convey was an imputation upon the Earl of
Cardigan of having been wanting in his duty at a time when
he was in command of a detachment of cavalry ordered to
attack the Russian battery, of having been wanting in
his duty from want of personal courage. It was true
that, in the first edition of this work, the absence of
Lord Cardigan as a general officer was suggested when his
presence was necessary, and it was ascribed to an accident.
It was said that his horse became alarmed by the discharge
of a cannon close to his head, and that the horse swerved
and carded Lord Cardigan away, in spite of himself,
off the field, This was clearly intended to imply,
that Lord Cardigan never reached the battery
which the detachment under his orders was directed to take,
but it a-cribed his failure to reach that battery which others
reached, and through which they carried their attack, to an
accident. Lord Cardigan, feeling that be had reason to com-
plain of this statement, as of many others contained in that
work, mace it the subject of complaint and remonstrance.
In the second edition a notice was prefixed to the work,
which in the third edition was incorporated in the shape of a
note, and in that, notice in the second edition and the note in
the third, that which was given in the first edition as a cir-
cumstance accounting for Lord Cardigan's failure to reach
the battery, which the rest of the line under his command
did reach, was withdrawn in the shape of a compliment,—
a compliment ostensibly on the face of it, but which con-
veyed, in his judgment, the bitterest sarcasm—that it
was not the fault of Lord Cardigan's horse, but
his own fault, that he failed to reach the scene
of danger through which the others passed, It was
impossible, he thought, to doubt that that was intended to
convey that Lord Cardigan had been wanting in that per-
sonal courage necessary to the discharge of his duty. To
say that a soldier ordered to attack an enemy, much more a
general and a leader whose duty it was to lead others into
action, stopped short midway in the path which led to
danger, and perhaps to death, while others went in
without any obstacle or any cause to prevent them, must,
he was sure, convey to the mind of any military man, and
to the mind of any man conversant with such matters,
an imputation of personal cowardice, disgrace, and dis-
honour. It was impossible, therefore, not to feel that this
was a matter of a most libellous character. Heaven forbid
that the time should ever come when the honour and repu-
tation of the soldiers and sailors engaged in the service of
this country should ever be unjustifiably assailed without
redress being opened to them. There could be tea doubt, if this
were a true view, as he (the learned judge) thought it was,
that lacking to the position of the parties, looking to the
importance of the service to which this passage had refer-
ence, the matter was one that would, probably, be the sub
ject of a criminal information, unless some special cause
could be shown why a rule for a criminal information should
not be made absolute. Now, these reasons had been put
forward why the Court should not make the rule absolute
in this case. First, that the substance of the passage com-
plained of was true, or that at all events that the affidavits
that had been produced on the part of the defendant so
conflicted with those of the complainant, that the Court
could not take upon itself to try the matters on affidavit.
Secondly, it was said that at all events whether the state-
ments were well or ill founded, it was written in reference
to a matter of public importance and public inte-
rest, a matter of history, that it was a privi-
leged matter, and not the subject matter of a
criminal information. Thirdly, that the conduct
of the parties had been such that what had taken
place subsequently to the publication of the work had pre-
cluded the prosecutor from applying to the court success-
fully. He would deal briefly with these points in the order
in which they had been stated. In the first place it was
stated that substantially the statement contained in the
passage upon which this application was founded was true.
He must say he could not understand what was meant by
any argument founded on that assertion. It turned indeed
upon what was the true construction of the libel in
question. If, as was contended yesterday, all which that
passage conveyed was that Lord Cardigan, from some cause
or other, was absent when his presence was desired, it might
be said that, to a certain extent, it had been made out
that that was true. But that, in his judgment, was not the
true character or meaning of this libellous passage. He
thought it was not the gist of the statement complained of
that Lord Cardigan was absent when his pi eseace as general
was much to be desired. The gist and sting of the libel was
this, that Lei d Cardigan was absent, not from defect of
judgment. or from any accidental cause, but because he had
not the courage to face the danger, which the brave men
whom he led, did face, and nobly contend against. So that
it was incorrect to say that the substance of this charge was
true; and Col. Calthorpe had been, through his counsel,
constrained to say, that if that was the view, he was satis-
fied by the affidavits which had been filed, that his view was
incorrect, and that his statements were ill-founded. Then
with regard to the affidavits which had been adduced. It
was said that there was a conflict upon those affidavits, and
that the court could not try the questiOn. There was no
conflict of any substantial character between the affidavits
of the prosecution and the defendant, but the defendant
seemed to give the go-by to the real question at issue. The
libel was that Lord Cardigan failed to reach the battery be-
cause he turned short halt-way in the path that
led to it. Colonel Calthorpe had admitted that
that was an erroneous and ill-founded statement,
He was constrained to admit that Lord Cardigan I
did reach the battery, and that he passed through it, and
he meets the charge by saying that, admitting all, he
took the ground upon the statement that Lord Cardigan
came out of the battery sooner than he ought to have done.
But that was a totally different charge from that to which
the affidavits of the prosecutor were addressed. So that he
thought there was no conflict when the real nature of the
down charge
anCyarfiruelteoobne c
thiso s i
pd
oe
irne d. t
as
oflle u
ihvoeur
sl da basip
ps oy l
ircrat
itoo
n layor
t
O ve sr tea
et eo
nwjahi
ea
nt hg ea
ifioduarvt
tws
.Couldlt dwo
aisn t ar
un y
ea caseffigednaevrbi ats byuutsthe
wattoh
utehlr
dee
Court would not try questions upon
leave parties to their remedy; that however was not a rule
of universal application, and he saw no reason why in this case
the Cour tshould not make the rule absolute, if, looking to other
circumstances it was thought a fit one for a criminal infor-
mation. But it was said that whether the imputation was
true or not this was a case in which the defendant, writing
as an historian of the events of that campaign, had a right
to make such comments as Le pleased upon Lord Cardigan,
who had borne so conspicious a part in it; but this again
must be taken with certain limitatious. It was true that
the events in question were of the deepest public character
and importance. It was true that the conduct of the men
who were engaged in thosetransaotions was fairly and legi-
timately matter of public. He adverted to what had passed
between Col. Calthorpe and one of the friends authorised
by Lord Cardigan to negotiate on the matter, and which
altogether took away the fousdation on which this rule
was absolutely granted. Connected with this subject
was the destruction of I,COO copies of the last edition,
a fact which was not known to the Court when the
application for a rule nisi was made; otherwise it might
have made a difference in the decision of the Court.
The learned Judge, having passed a high eulogium on the
military career of Lord Cardigan, said the rule must be dis-
missed, but without costs.
The other judges concurred.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

1N RE W, P. WAUGH.

His Honour to-day gave judgment on the question as to
whether this bankrupt, Colonel Waugh, formerly one of
the directors of the London and Eastern Bank, should be
allowed to surrender after having been outlawed. After a
long argument on Monday his honour, on the authority of
several cases quoted on behalf of the bankrupt by Mr.
Roxburgh, decided that the Court had the power to inter-
pose and acctpt the surrender. Mr. C. E. Lewis, on be
half of the cfficial liquidators of the London and Eastern
Bank, proceeded to show that, although the Court might
have the power it was discretionary, and he opposed ; but
his honour held that AIL Lewis had no locus standi, but
left the question open whether a bankrupt could be ad-
mitted to the privilege of surrendering, and by so doing
avoiding the penalties incident to outlawry in bankruptcy,
without bringing into Court all property he was possessed
of at the time of his bankruptcy. The bankrupt had ad-
mitted that when he left England be had £5OO which he
stated he had expended for the use of himself and family.
His Honour now referred to the main facts of the case,
and said it was one which showed to what extraordinary
speculation, and tho
lengths and to what awful depths a man might be led by
" making haste to get rich," without
his consietering his duty to ethers, For years the bank-