The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-05 00:00:00

THE EX-DUKE OF BRUNSWICK

AND THE « WEEKLY DISPATCH."

We regret, in times like these, to :Tare a line or space
to matter which may appear personal to ourselves; but,
as our readers will see that the ex- Dake of Brunswick
has this week gained a verdict against a proprietor of
this paper for a political libel, our readers will expect
some notice of the event us affecting the character, and
even the interest of a journal to which our large and
constant circulation proves them to be attached, as to
their own advocate and friend. Be:lring in mind that
no one is a perfect judge in his own cause, eve shall most
studiously confine our remarks within the line of the
most temperateurgument, and we shall hint no diminu-
tion of our respect for one of the highest-minded Judges
that ever presided over a court, because his law was
against us, or breathe a word against the motives of a
jury, who, we have not the slightest doubt, acted most
conscientiously, though we may differ from their cenclo-
sior.s. The articles charged as dbels appeared in 1830, and
in 1847 and 1848, an interval at the least of seventeen
years. The ex-Sovereign plaintiff claimed to produce the
article of Is3o, as a libel fur which the de,endant was
answerable, and also to read, as in conjunction with it,
the articles written 17 years afterwards. Now the Sta-
tute of Limitations would have prevented this had not
his e,itncss sworn that be htd purchased a copy, early
in 1848, at our office, and so established a re-publication.
This Statute of Limitations is a most just bar, and most
especially so in the case of political libels. While the
facts are easily ascertainable, and the warmth of ex-
pression is understood, it is mere justice that the action
should be brought on. It was Lot so in the case of what
is now adjudged to be the libel of 1830. As to its re•
publication, the ex-Sovereign sends, as his witness says,
to our office, and after some trouble, as a matter of some
favour, gets a copy by his emissary's calling a second
time for it. Now the publication of a libel should only
be considered illegal because it is harmful to the party
libelled. Who will pretend that the copy sworn to be
sold in 1848 did any harm whatever to the plaintiff ? It
must have been by his own act that it could in
any way be communicated to any
l
Such a purchase might be or not, a
re-
vival; who, on the face of the earth, will co-nitveinnledgg soul.a t
could be a moral one? and what was the possible amount
at
that
t
of damage sustained by it? Could it amount to one
farthing? If the ex Sovereign says that his feelings
were hurt by the paper, he also says that he got it
through his own agent, on purpose to have them hurt.
It was necessary that they should be so wounded, in-
deed, to get on with his action. The Lord Chief Jus-
tice is reported to have observed that but for this tale of
more than half a generation past, we should probably
never have heard of the recent articles in a court of
justice. No, for there was nothing whatever libellous
in them. They had not the heart and essence of libel,
they sprung from no malice, nor even from any indig-
nation against the ex-Sovereign who claimed to be ag-
grieved by them. The gist and tendency of every one
of them went to some other—some public, and we ho-
nestly affirm, beneficial purpose. The ex-Duke and his
business were mere accessary illustrations. Read them
by the light of any article whatever written in 1830 !
Doubtless the Dispatch (as an honest paper should) has
its traditions, but they are public ones. To the general
principles of perfect freedom, civil and religious, of order
maintained by justice, of hatred to tyranny, of the progress
of mankind, every new writer succeeds, as their advocate
when he enters upon these columns. But personal ani-
mosities do not survive with us, scarcely personal at-
tachments. Neither exist beyond the occasion that
creates them. We judge by deeds. The man whom we
attack to-day, let him do what we consider wise and
honourable, he will find himself the theme of our enthu-
siastic praise to-morrow. Let a man whom we have
eulogized as a friend of the people turn against them—
or even mistake their interests—we lay on with a double
lash. We admit the consciousness that we fall upon his
faults or follies with somewhat of the indignation due to
a betrayal. We keep a register of friend or foe. Our
hatred is only constant to wrong, as our affection is to
what we, in our very souls, believe to be right. We told
the Duke publicly that if he would give us proofs of the
worthiness of his political conduct we would be its ready
defenders. But the articles of 1847 and 1848 were a
combination, a malicious continuation of the warm at-
tack of 1830 ! I Alas for mortality I Death has stood
in the way of the possibility. Many fine spirits have
given their hearts to the people in this paper, and
have died unknown, though not unloved or
unthanked, between 1830 and 1847. Those who
penned the articles of the latter years were
not even aware of the existence of any of the articles
written in the former. We presume we are not at
liberty to prove so much in a court of justice ; but
it is palpable to sense and probability, and we avouch it
to be true. Did any reader of 1847 or 1848 recur to a
newspaper of 1830 for comment on his Sunday's politics?
Had we ever the slightest idea of reproducing it? The
pretence is trumpery in the extreme. It may be the
perfection of common sense in the legal acceptation; it
is certainly the perfection of nonsense in the moral one.
Let no one, however, suppose that we are here disputing
or grumbling about costs and damages. We have said
enough to those who habitually read us to show that, in
moral and political character, we stand as free and erect
as ever. They, indeed, would have believed it without
our assertion. The Duke, it seems, boasted in his
speech that he had already put down the Age and the
Satirist. Did the man believe that he was going to do
the same by the Dispatch? The papers he has at-
tacked for libels on his private character were publi-
cations founded on the principle of pandering to the
appetite for scandal and slander, inherent in the basest
vulgar—the vulgar high and low, titled and untitled, in
aristocrats and their flunkies, of snobs of every degree.
They were weeds growing on a dung-heap, scum upon
fetid waters. Such the ex-Sovereign helped to remove.
His victory was that of Eparninonelas, when he turned
the insult of being appointed scavenger into the triumph
of sweetening the city effectually. But the Dispatch,
legally right or legally wrong, founds its strength on that
sympathy which the people return to those who con-
stantly and eflectuatly sympathise with them. Its name
among the English workers is a sentiment and a power.
All thinkers look to it for clear sense, and honest men
for integrity. When the Duke has eaten The limes
for breakfast, the Journal des Debats for luncheon, the
Moniteur and the London Gazette for dinner, he will sup
on the Dispatch, or put it between his bread and butter
at tea-time. We shall tremble when he has made the
first two or three of these meals. In the mean time, we
abstain from other reply. If we ever have occasion to
speak of him again, it will be " by the card," and proof
in hand, as Lord Denman requires. Till then, let him
go in peace.— Weekly Dispatch.