The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

Financial reformers lay great stress on economy,
and no doubt it is a very important element in a
national administration of funds, as well as in the
funds of a private individual, but we view an altera-
tion in the system of taxation as calculated to accom-
plish more for the relief of the tax-payer than the
most rigid economy could possibly do, even though
it realised the whole of Mr. COBDEN'S beau ideal of a
budget—ten millions per annum less than the existing
estimates.

The mode by which we conceive that the existing
burden would be borne with as much relative relief as
the knapsack on the back instead of the ankles,
is by the total abolition of all indirect taxes,
and the substitution of direct taxation exclusively.
Our Excise duties, our Customs duties, such important
branches of the revenue, are taxes upon consumption,
and here it is that the evil is so great. An indivi-
dual, a family, a large establishment are,perhaps, able,
and only just able, to bear up under the load, which
these imposts are, in addition to their assessed
taxes, parochial taxes, and income tax, if in the posi-
tion to contribute to these latter; but the effect of
the taxes upon articles of consumption, through Ex-
cise and Customs, has the necessary tendency of
keeping in check and within restricted
bounds benefical consumption, and conse-
quently beneficial production, the source from
which additional supplies could be levied either in
relief of existing chargebearers, or to meet increased
public expenditure for beneficial public objects. Let
this be illustrated. Here is an individual, or a family,
or a class, which may be called the producing class,
and the case will be better illustrated by interpreting
the term producing class beyond those who exert
manual labour. Let it include those who bear a
share of the national burden, not paid out of accumu-
lated capital, but from their industrial or professional
pursuits, the daily labourer, the mechanic, the artist,
the preceptor, the medical professor; all these may,
for the sake of illustration, be supposed capable of
bearing the quota of taxation which falls to their
share under the present allotment, although, doubt-
less, large numbers are from time to time driven
from their position unable to maintain it, and
sink down into a lower grade, or seek a refuge in
emigration; but if those able to maintain their posi-
tion add in any way to their consumption of articles
of daily, and necessary consumption, they are imme-
diately the subjects of large additional taxation, and
thus it is that the great check is kept upon the vital
energies of the nation. If they marry, or, being mar-
ried, have additional children, or, whether married or
unmarried, add in any way to their establishment,
here is an immediate heavy penalty for the trans-
gression. More tea, more sugar, more coffee, greater
consumption of the necessaries of life, becomes the
source of additional taxation, and thus a continual
drag-chain is placed upon the energies of the nation.
_A_ zuwoma.s... bawl;

levied and collected. If on the present consumption
of tea, of sugar, of coffee, of beer; of wine, of other
articles of daily use in the various grades of society,
the ratio bears as at present, let it be borne; but to
impose it in such a
.way as to prevent consumption
from doubling, quadrupling, or increasing in any
determinate degree, is manifestly impolitic and
injurious.

Consumption, necessary consumption, sustains life
and adds to the enjoyment of it, whilst the population
must necessarily be restricted to the means for sus-
taining it. Each individual must, in the aggregate,
be considered a producer beyond his consumption.
No doubt there are numerous exceptions to this rule,
but as no wealth can be produced without a pro-
ducer, and as the clearest statistical facts show that
wealth is in a constant course of augmentation, not-
withstanding the daily consumption and the waste
and destruction from frequent wars, fires, ship-
wrecks, and other causes, if the producers did not
create more than they consume, this would not he the
case. To prevent the producing classes from in-
creasing their numbers by imposing a penalty on the
consumption of those things which go to sustain life,
is manifestly injurious and impolitic; whilst
to restrict the healthful enjoyment of life
from the moderate use of articles of daily
use cannot be advantageous. It may be
said there would be great practical difficul-
ties attending an alteration from a system of
indirect to direct taxation. Probably there might
be some difficulties. What is there which is unat-
tended with difficulties ? But let the Minister or
the nation become thoroughly convinced of the
desirability, not to say absolute-necessity, for the
change, and the difficulties may ,be easily sur-
mounted. On a future occasion we fay, perhaps,
adduce some of the difficulties which are advanced,
and the mode by which they may be obviated.

* Thomaa Carlyle.

COURTS-MARTIAL.—The melancholy case of Mr.
Douglas, late captain of the 16th Regiment—a case
upon the glaring injustice of which we have twice
pronounced our opinion, namely, on the 11th of May
and on the 22d of June—is beginning to force itself
on the attention of those whose duty it is in such
cases of error to demand a revision of the sentence.
In our legal contemporary, the Jut* of Saturday,
we observe an elaborate criticism upon this singular
trial and its defence. The conclusion drawn from an
impartial examination of the facts by the Jurist—one
of the first organs of the legal profession—is, that the
finding of the court was grossly opposed to the prin-
ciples of justice, and was pronounced in direct defi-
ance of the evidence. The
_whole criticism consti-
tutes a striking professional corroboration of the views
expressed by ourselves in our article of the previous
evening. On Saturday moreover, there appeared in
the United Service Gazette, the following announce-
ment :—" We have heard that Mr. Warren has de-
clared his intention of never again attending a court-
martial as an advocate, unless the constitution of
these courts be essentially altered." Should this re-
port prove correct, the military profession will have
lostcon tianinheia in ma fearlessour
advertising an d
faithfulfriend.,eolamns t
that
a t
anlt
address
will
ebs s
upon the subject be
observed
with some interest, from an announcement
of Mr. Douglas 'and his severe
treatment, is now preparingr.es
being in
by Mr.
add
Warren himself—the
gmovethe form of a
letter offered to our Most Gracious s
a variety of reasons, the appearance of the pamphlet
From_
Pamphlet
will be looked for with peculiar curiosity.
M. LEDRU ROLLIN.—WhiIe we are authorised to
contradict the statement that the Leader of the
Mountain is at present residing at the Sabloniere
Hotel, the opinion is very generally believed that
this celebrated Republican is now living in our me-
tropolis. The circumstance of his escaping in the
disguise of a servant is corroborated by a detailed
statement to that effect in the Salut Publique of Lyons.

UTILITY OF THE TELEOHAPII.—Yesterday morn-
ing a pleasure trip left Birmingham for Linc•,ln, with
about 3 000 persons; a few hours afterwards great ex-
citement was caustd in the former town by a report that
an accident bad occurred, and that 500 persons were
killed. The railway station was instantly besieged by
anxious inquirers; the electric telegraph was Imme-
diately called in aid, and in a few minutes intelligence
was received that the whole party bad arrived setely in
Lincoln. The report of such an accident seems to have
been a most cruel hoax.

Lord and Lady John Russell bad a dinner party on
Saturday, at Pembroke Lodge, Richmond Park. The
company included the Marquis and Marchioness of
Douglas, Lord Melgund, Lady Charlotte klliot, and Mr.
Landtieer.

..,Lord J. RUSSELL said that, taking the rate for the
eleCtoral districts and the union rate also, he did not
think there,
jwould be any necessity for a supplemental
fund, but if i4o proposition of the Honourable Member
for Northamptonshire was to be adopted, there would be
a necessity of coming on the Consolidated Fund.
Colonel DUNNE objected to the maximum
Iwo being higher than 55., and suppored the
amendment to that effect. He Ras convinced

that to make it 7s. would be utterly useless.
He shoul I like to see a maximum rate of 35., and would
support a motionito that effect.

Mr. HERBERT supported the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Northamptonshire. If Honourable
Members supported the proposition of the Go-

vernment they would put a stop altogether
to improvement in Ireland; for no one would be
disposed to give employment to the poor in his own
district if he found he was charged a 25. rate for the
support of the poor in another district.
Sir G. GREY felt bound to contend that the Consoli-
dated Fund ought not to be made liable to supply defi-
ciencies in the Electoral districts. He contended that

the proper course to pursue was that which was now
proposed, namely, that iiken the maximum rato was at-
tained in any electoral division, the other divisions of
the, union should then he rated to supply the deficiency.
(LEFT SPiAKING.)

LLOYD'S SHIPPING--(THIS DAY.)
LONDON, JUNE 26.—Wind W., moderate breea© and
fine.

FALMOUTH, JUNE 25.—Variable and light.—Arrd.
24th, Jane, Gough, Rio Grande; Gleaner, Bahia.
New York.
BRISTOL, JUNE 24.—Wind• S —Arrd. Emerald, Dug-
dale, Barbadoes. Sld. Francis Walker, Calcutta. 25th,
GALWAY, JUNE 23.—Sid. Robert Alexander Park,
Sophia, St. John's, New Brunswick.
OFF PENZANCE, JUNE 2 n
rritfnf
Philip;
Demerara.
vrneaor.einagnray:
sailed,
Quebec. .0
26th,Wa Watson,
b Matanzas. A
DEAL, JUNE 25.—Wind E.S.B. to S.E.—Arrd. 21st,
Reliance,
Soarabaya, Swans, Banjoewangie for Rotterdam. 25th,
Tanner, Davies, Port Natal; Ceres, Culverwell, Sierra
Leone; Amigade, Costa, New York.
MULL, JUNE 25.—Wind
tt—srr.w,
.r d
011 f CASTLEITAVEN, JUNE 22.—Sir Charles Napier,
Teare, Mobile; Mary Ann Peters, Brown, Savannah.
LIVERPOOL, JUNE 25.—Wind S..—Arrd., 24th, Eu-
phetnia, Kendall, Quebec. 25:h, Mary, New Calabar ;
General Berry, Patterson, New Orleans; Eliz.beth,
Rees, ditto; Sir Charles Napier, Teare, Mobile. Sld.,
24th, William, Halifax; Renard, ditto; 25th, Beatrice,
Pernambuco; Robert, Havannah; Salem. Quebec; May,
Constantinople. Off, Herald, Machio; Isabella, Huguenot,
Lancashire. The Sp-culator, hence to Tampico, was
taken into Key West, Ist inst., having been on shore on
the reef, and part of her cargo sold; vessel condemned.
A ship was seen ashore on Tennessee Reef, 3d inst, with
several wreckers around her.
PORTHCAWL, JUNE 23.-51 d. Derwent, Demerara.
CARDIFF, JUNE 23.--Sld. Cornucopia, Panama; Iva
jillellet 110 Janeiro.

from one place to another, this might be considered IiVIPERIAL PARLIAATEN-T,
as stepping out of the latitude rf a Government, an
(THIS ,A'y
interference with individual or private op,ratice,s; arid
that on the principles of free trade, or laissez faire, es
it is called by an eminent writer,* a Government
should hold entirely aloof; but it is difficult to con-
ceive that any private individuals, or public compa-
nies, who of course would subject different parts of
the island to different regulations as to carrying
letters, could accomplish the business of carrying
letters and newspapers, or paying money-
orders so systematically, and, as it regards
one of these two functions, at so little cost
to the public. Perhaps, if a Government
were to undertake the supply of gas, of water, and
other functions hitherto performed by individuals or
companies, there might be great advantages and eco-
nomy. In all these arrangements the welfare of the
entire community would be promoted—that of the la-
bourer as well as the capitalist; and the same is the
case with many functions at present performed by the
Government. Therefore, there is no reason that the
former should not contribute also; and even if the
present taxation takes too large a proportion from
labour and too small from capital, far better to con-
tinue the proportions as they at present exist, shifting
the burthen from the heels to the shoulders, rather
than consume time and energy in disputing whether a
larger portion shall be attached to the heels of one
man and a smaller portion to those of another.

HOUSE OF COIII.IIIO.NS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.

THIRD READING.
The Eastern Counties arid Norfolk Railways Amalga-
mation Bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSIDERATION OF REPOR I'S.
The reports upon the following Bills were considered
and agreed to:—
Airdrie Police and Municipal Bill.
Great Northern Railway (Amendment of Acts, De-
viations and Enlargements at and near Boston, Bentley,
Lincoln, and King's-cross) Bill.
Holme Reservoirs (Increase of Rates and Amendment
of Act—Nu. 2) Bill.
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Acts Amend.
ment, Branches, and Deviations Bill.
Stirling and Dunfermline Railway (Deviation of
Branch to Alba Harbour; Diversion of certain Works;
Extension of Time for completing Line and taking
Land; and Amendment of Acts) Bill.
PETITIONS.

Mr. HENLEY presented several petitions from places
in Bedfordshire, praying that an enactment might be
passed to prevent trading in prostitution, and for the
protection of virtuous women.
Similar petitions were presented from other places.
THE IRISH STATE PRISONERS.
Sir LUCIUS O'BRIEN wished to know whether
there was any truth in the report that the cholera had
broken out in the vessel destined to convey the state
prisoners from Ireland?
Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to state in
reply, that it was true that the cholera had broken out,
but that other arrangements had been made with respect
to the conveyance of the prisoners.
Sir LUCIUS O'BRIEN then made an observation to
the effect (as we collected) that on one or two occasions
he had opposed the Transportation for Treason Bill, but
would now offer no further opposition to the due course
of justice. He thanked the Government fur the hu-
manity which they had shown with respect to the pri-
soners, and trusted that such occurrences as had taken
place would not happen again.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Irish
Poor Relief Bill, and the discussion of last night was re-
sumed by
Sir J. WALSH, who moved an amendment on
the first clause, to the following effect:—" That
frdm and after the passing of this Act it shall and
may be lawful for the Poor-law Commissioners, and they
are hereby required to divide the electoral divisions of
the several unions in Ireland into such and so many
rating districts as to them shall seem fit; and when the
said division of such electoral division shall have been
duly made by the said Commissioner, each such rating
district shall constitute a separate rating district for the
relief of the poor now resident within the same, and no
pauper or destitute person shall be entitled to relief un-
der this Act or any Act for administering relief to the
destitute poor of Ireland, save and except from and in
account of the rating district, so to be formed as afore-
said, in respect to which his legal claim for relief arises;
and such electoral division, so divided into
,rating dis-
tricts as aforesaid, shall continue to be an electoral divi-
sion, for all the purposes of election of guardians and of
representation at the board of guardians of the union
w_thin which same shall be situate: provided always,
that in forming such rating districts the Commissioners
shall, as fur as circumstances will permit, have regard
to the boundaries of tt e several properties within such
electoral division, so as to ferm the property of each
proprietor in such electoral division (or in such union,
it they shell so think fir) into a separate rating district,
if such property shall amount in rated value to the an-
nual sum of 1,000/ ; and it the rated value of any such
property shall nut amount to the said SUM, it shall be
lawful fur the said Commissioners to unite such and so
many of the adjoining properties as to them shall seem
fit, so as t ) form a separate rating district for the pur-
poses of this Act; and provided also, that no rating dis-
trict to be formed under the authority of this Act shell
exceed in rated value the amount of 3,0001. per annum;
and provided also, that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to limit or prevent the said Commissioners
from forming any rating districts of any smaller extent
than 1,0001. rated value per annum, if it shall seem ex-
pedient and necessary to them so to do.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that—the matter ap-
peared to him to be placed in this form. A debate had
been taking place during the whole night as to the
maximum rate, and the House was then proceeding to dis-
cuss the details, when the Hon. Baronet had risen to
propose the substitution of a rating district for electoral
division, thus getting rid of the whole question.—
(Hear, hear.) Ile did not wish to enter into the
question of the area of the districts.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Baronet had introduced a clause which gave
every encouragement to landlords who possessed more
than a 1,0001. a year, and every discouragement to those
who had less. In England there were about 200,000
landlords, and the average of income was about 200 i. a
year. He hoped the House would not enter into the
question of the size of the area.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that if the Noble Lord
did net wish to enter into a discussion he should not
have acquiesced in the truth of the statements which had
been made by the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down.
—(Hear, hear.) He must say, however,. from the op-
nnrtur,ity whigitt.hck had_ hod of judging in Committees
up stairs, that if the area of taxation were not dimi-
nished the number of bankrupt unions would be very
much increased. It was a question of considerable im-
portance; to him as an Irish landholder.
Sir JOHN PAKINGION made some remark, which
we did not catch.
Lord CLEMENTS said he thought that the
Boundary Commissioners had acted in the best way.
Mr. S I'A FFORD said that if the substitution which
bad been proposed were to take place he thought that
the Commissioners would be able still to retain the same
number of poor-law guardians.
Mr. CON OLLY said that he had understood that
the diminution of the area of taxation would be un-
just for the small holders of land ; he thought it would
be as well if the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment would make some distinct statement on the subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had not stated
that the particular principle of this reduction would be to
prejudice the small landholders.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD thought that the
discussion at the present time was very inconve-
nient to the House. Still pauperism in Ireland was
not to be put down by some strong measure, and he
thought that the reduction Of the area of taxation was
such a measure. But it was very inexpedient at the
present time.
Sir J. WALSH, in reply, said that it bad appeared
to him to be the legitimate time for raising the present
discussion. But he found that several Hon. Gentlemen
who acquiesced with him in several points yet differed
with hits here, and as he should be sorry to prejudice
this question, which was one of great importance, he
should not at present press it.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. :>TAFEOIi.I) considered that the House having
decided by a large majority in favour of a maximum
rate, the question now was as to what
the amount of that maximum rate should
be. Mr. Twisleton had recommended that
it should be 7e. in the electoral divisions, without a
union rate. He would therefore move that that recom
mendation should be adopted by the House. As a
maximum had been adopted, there must neces•
sully be a fund somewhere, and he was
of opinion that such supplemental fund should
be raised by a national rate oft the union, as he could
not see the justice of one part of a union being called
upon to pay the deficiency of another part.
Mr. GROGAN supported the proposition of the Hon
Member for Northamptonshire.

OFF DOVER, JUNE 23.—Arrtl. Santa Lanni Gennaro,
Catio,ro, 7,.;1 r, to .!t.r St, P
111. LDS .1 u.NE 25. • • :.•••• 1 t

Q C

I...NDONDERRY, JUNE 23.--Arid. Suety Eye, Sea-
burv, Nt:w York.

CORE, JUNE 23.—Wind S.—Arrd. Hocd, Ma-
talmts; Barbara, Mackay, New Orleans.
SWANSEA, JUNE 24.—Wind S.W.—Arrd. Commo-
dore, Crawley, Cuba.

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.)

VA:7 IVILkYILICAST
SIVIITRFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 21 lOs to 3t 15s; Clover
ditto, 21 15s to 51 O ; and Straw, 11 8s to 1/ 13s of,
104(1. Both Hay and Straw moved off steadily, at full
prices.

- CUMBERLAND. Meadow Ray, 21 153 to 3/ 18 ;
Clover ditto, 3/ Os to 4/ 15s ; and Straw, 11 9s to
1/ 14s per load. Trade firm, at the above quotations.
WHITECHAPEL.—Meadow Hay, 21 105 to 3/ 15s :
Clover ditto, 2/ 15s to 5/ Os; and Straw, 1/ 8s to 11 13s
per load. Supply limited, and trade firm.

COLONIAL.
SI:MAR.—The market for Bet isb Plantation continues
steady, in consequence of the extreme firmness of
holders and the limited quantity offering. The sales are
270 hhds, at an advance of fully 6d since this day week.
The quantity landed last week at the East and West
India Ducks was 808 hhds 92 tierces; there were taken
for home consumption 1,438 hhds 76 tierces 248 barrels.
The stock in the same places is 12,745 hhds 1,985 tierces
4,187 barrels.

COFFEE.-320 bags 20 casks Plantation Ceylon sold
readily at an advance of 2s to 3s per cwt; from 40a to
49s 6d for good triage, to f fine ord; 1,400 bags common
very good ord Native Ceylon brought 34s to 36s 6d, being
a further improvement of 6d to is per cwt; 2,100 bag 3
Java sold with spirit at 35s to 47s for good ord pale to
f fine ord coloury, being an advance of 3s per cwt since
the last public sale, and 700 bags &imaged Havannah
also sold at higher rates, chiefly from 29s to 365. Pri-
vately 4,800 bags good first Rio sold at about 29s 9d.
Rum.—The quantity landed last week at the East and
West India Docks was 159 puns 7 hhds. There were
taken for home consumption 168 puns 26 hhds, and ex-
pont d 72 puns 155 hhds. The stock in the same places
is 19,564 puns 2,729 hhds.
RICE.-2,000 bags Bengal sold steadily, at 93 to 101
for low to good mid white.
Tar.Low.—P.Y.C. is 38s to 38s 6d per cwt on the spot,
and Town 39s 6d.

TEA.—The market is steady, and the deliveries last
week were fair. Congou, ord to good ord, 8d to 81d;
Pekoe kind, is 6d to is 10d; Twariloiy, good ord to but
mid, 6d to 7d; Canton kind, 3id to sd; Hyson, good ord,
10d to is; and mid to good mid, is 9d to 3s 6d per lb.

QUEEN'S BEINCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a
Special Jury.)
THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. HARMER.
This was an action brought by the Duke of Bruns-
wick against James Harmer, Esq,, the proprietor of the
Weehly Dispatch, to recover compensation in damages
for a series of alleged libels.
The libels complained of alleged that the Duke of
Brunswick had been expelled from his dominions, be-
cause he was a tyrant, and had outraged the feelings or
his subjects, trampled on the laws, bad the letters in his
post-office opened aid plundered. and had been guilty
of so much atrocity that hie subjects had expelled him,
and burned his palace.
The plaintiff denied that there was any truth in
these allegations, and held that the) were published in
order to injure him publicly and privately.
On the other Laud the defendant pleaded the statute
of limitations, as regarded the first alleged libel, and
justification.
The Duke conducted his own case.
Sir Frederick '1 hesiger, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and
Mr. Martin appeared for the defendant.
Tne Duke of Brunswick read a lung speech, setting
forth that during his resilence in this country he had
been grossly libelled, by the Satirist aral other papers,
whicii had followed him into society and rendered his
existence most unhappy. But the libels, for the pub-
lication of which he sought compensation, partook mere
of a political than of a personal character, though not
devoid of the latter, since they had reference to
events in Brunswick, as contrasted with that at Lucca.
The plaintiff then read the libels, and called upon the
jury to award him ample compensation for the injury
he had sustained in consequence. He then called the
following witnesses :
Mr. J. W. Jones, a librarian at the British Museum,
produced copies of the Weekly Dispatch, of the 18th
September, 1830, and the 17th of August, 1845.
Mr. Debenhare, of the Stump-office, produced copies
of the paper of the 3d and 10th of October, 1847 ; the
12th of March, 2d and 9th of April, and the 25th of
June, 1848.
Mr. John Harrison, clerk to Mr. Warnford, the plain-
tiff's attorney, proved that from 1830 up to 1847 the
defendant and Mr. Robert Bell were proprietors of the
Weekly Dispatch.
Captain Reinhold proved purchasing the Weekly
Dispatch newspaper of the 19th of September, 1830.
Purchased the papers in March, 1848.
Cross-examined-11.w..
lived at No. 10, Oakley-street, Lambeth. and had keown
the Duke ten or twelve years. He purchased the paper
by the Duke's direction. He had to call the next day
for them in order that they might search for them.
This the plaintiff intimated was his case.
Sir F. THESIGER then proceeded to address the Court
on behalf of the defendant. He said it was usually sup
posed that when a person appeared in a court of law
without counsel that he was under much disadvantage,
but he confessed that on this occasion the defendant had
been allowed considerable latitude—he had been allowed
indulgences which would not have been allowed to a
practised advocate. On such occasions an advocate on
the other side did not like to interfere. Therefore on
that occasion the plaintiff possessed an advantage
over the defendant. The case was a remarkable one
as presented to their notice, for it began with
a charge of libel alleged to have been published so far
back as 1830. Now one would have imagined that if
there was anything in that alleged libel that outraged
the feelings or assailed the character of the Duke, so as
to render the matter one for inquiry in our courts of
justice, he would have resorted to such a course—re-
sorted to it when the publication first appeared, and
that he would hardly have waited nineteen years, when
probably the person who penned the article was dead,
and when, as stated in the letter that had been read to
them, "many of those now connected with the paper
were little boys." Indeed, his course was not a little re-
markable. He said, "It is true that from 1830, down
to 1847, nothing appeared in the columns of the Weekly
Dispatch of which I have a right to complain, but in the
year 1847 I find the words outraged and indignant
subjects.' In 1848, I find the words 'ruthlessly hurled
from his throne.' " He (Sir Frederick Thesiger) found
in the same paper that it was stwed that 0. her exiles
had favoured this land with their presence; but the in-
genious way in which the publication of 1830 was made
to speak, at the present day, since it was raised as the
means of making out the publications of 1847 and 1848,
This was the most remarkable mode of making a person
accountable for libel that he had ever heard in a court of
justice. If the action stood merely upon the articles of
1847 and 1848, there would be no pretence for alleging
that they were libels, so that it was only by melting
them point to what had appeared in 1830, and making it
interpret what had been published in the latter years,
teat the Duke could seek damages at their hands. In
deed, the course the Duke had lopted was altogether
unfair to the proprietors of the paper; fur the paper of 1830
would never have seen the light, it would have bee

consigned to the dust of the Stamp-office, if the Duke
had not directed his emissary to obtain a copy, and if
they wanted any evidence to prove that it had been con-
signed to oblivion, it was to be found in the fact that a
search had been made for it. It had nut been repub
fished, and so far as the proprietors of the paper were
concerned, the matter had been entirely forgotten. In-
deed, but for the anxiety of the proprietors to oblige
every customer, for the sale of the copy for which the
Captain had applied, they might have pleaded the statute
of limitations. It might be true, as the plaintiff had
alleged, that he had been compelled to bring a great num-
ber of actions, and that ho had been successful to a very
considerable ex tent. He had alluded to certain news-

be quite impossible to express any opinion on public
matters, except in that mincing and diluted way which
was far from desirable i❑ a public journal. He therefore
stood upon this ground; he utterly denied that there had
been anything like the publication of an article in the
year 1830, for which the defendants were to be held re-
sponsible to the Duke of Brunswick, or that in the
article of 1847 or 1848 there wee anything which, in the
smallest degree, reflected on the private character of the
Duke of Brunswick. He (Sir F. Thesiger) did most
earnestly and anxiously assert the right of this or any
public journal to express fearlessly its opinion of the
Duke's public conduct, if it thought that conduct was
obnoxious to public comment; and if the jury, by their
verd►ct, should lay down a contrary principle, they
vtould do more to destroy t'ue liberty of the
press than had been done for many many years before.
He thought this public journal was completely defended
.in this action ; and he certainly looked with some
anxiety to the result of this investigation, but not with.
out u most sanguine hope that that result would be the
acquittal of the defendant.

papers, and had insinuated that the Dispatch had fol-
lowed the same case of extortion; that it had marked
him out, assailed his private character for gain. Of the
result of the actions to which he had alluded, he (Sir F.
Thesiger) might express his satisfaction; twice he sought
compensation for libels on his private character, and
indeed he held that man a public benefactor who, when
he was unjustly and unworthily assailed in his pri-
vate capacity by the public press, brought the
matter before a jury of his country, and he
would not for a moment stand.
.up and
assert the right of a public journal to assail private cha-
racter. But ho thought, if they were to consider the
article of 1830 as making part of this inquiry, they would
be much mistaken, since the question they would have
to decide would be one of a very different character.
They would have to say whether a journalist was or was
not entitled to discuss matters of public and general import-
tance. He asserted and vindicated the right of the public
press—a right to attack the public characters of public
men, and to express its strong and honest opinion
upon all
.public events. They were matters of history
upon which every man had a right to form, and to ex-
press his independent opinion in this free country; and
he would venture to say, that if they looked carefully
into the columns_ of the newspapers that were pre-
sented to their notice, they would see nothing but re-
marks upon the public conduct and public character of
the Duke, which, he asserted, the public press of this
country had a right to animadvert upon in any
termsli however strong, provided they were satisfied
that it- was not done with any private malice
or with the view of assailing his private reputation
through the medium of his public one. Now the events
with which the Duke of Brunswick was mixed up were
events of great public and political importance, and had
become, therefore, part of the common property of the
history of Europe. It was pa rtectly clear, tr m the
letter of Mr. Oddy, which had been put in, that he was
compelled to leave his country, as a revolution took
phce there, that his palace was seton fire, and that he was
obliged to escape, that his brother was now stated upon
the throne from which this journal asserted he had been
driver. The public journalist took different historical
events into his consideraii.m, and expressed his opinion
how revolutions were effected of an unexpected cha-
racter, and his opinions upon those who were the princi-
pal ewers in them. If the proprietors of the Weekly
Dispatch believed that the Duke of Brunswick had ac ed
the part of a traitor, that he bad excited the dis-
gust and hatred of his subjects, _ that they

Lord DENMAtc then summed up the case to the jury.
Ile said the Duke of Brunswick, uho was the plaintiff
in this case, complained of several libels which had ap-
peared in the Weekly Dispatch at various times. The
question was, whether the jury thought that the articles
in question were libellous, and if so, what damages the
Duke of Brunswick was entitled to. [here the Learned
Judge read the article from the Dispatch of the 26th
December, 1847, in which the expulsion of the young
Duke of Blucher from his dominions was spoken of in
disparaging terms.] The proper observation seemed to
him (Lord Denman) upon that article to be, that that
term was used rather as a bye-word, and that
the Duke was spoken of as a persc n who
had improperly governed his country, and had
taken refuge in this country. Then upon that
they had immediately a long letter written by the Duke_
of Brunswick's directions by Mr. William Oddy, and
addressed to this paper, complaining of the descriptioi9
n
given in the paper of the Duke's dismissal from _ his
country; country; and he (Lord Denman) understood the
from e
his
subjects, was that the Duke was not driven w
subjects, but being about to leave h
was prevented doing so by a rnot)
risingit d and app nd his
iscoaugnatri3n.smtenhimhe,
and desiring him not to go to Lug al
Regent of
when his Sovereign
That letter wi nt on to say—
money th,-rei and at last they s,..,twfihre to. his palace.
foremost fighting at Waterloo, in
Highness's father,
then 1!
Dr ince
Duchy, and con-
sE° rec aaa btu' Idle: spGeiv:')darptgetielepsftosohnrretrutFihrni ee:po:setfild-r so'Doountnhici
sealed,es
for fro e thatwas
a,,d our GeorgrA made up his mind
o
private fortune of
onlymoment
ten thisyears h f
age.
Duke Charles, and never to let him out of kis clutches."
to keep possession of themDastite(lLynanind
that respect that it
aNpopwgabreed(Ltoorhdimp't})hmatatrh)e Duke of Bi did e hat
was highly reprehensible in giving directions to Mr.
Oddy to write a letter of that kind 'Affecting in these
terms oil Qoorge the Fourth; he had no right whatever

rose indignantly against his oppression, that they hurled
hies re et the ,hrerie, e, Y' sea, Ilene ttl Ile, e h, Tt-
-4"1,'"., i;
• h ,u-sta , wee hei s eie 4 \,: H
those opinions unit f elings • hicil he might tot k pts•a
to rxpiess upon the occurrence of such events? How
many successful insurrections had they seen within the
last few yeers; monarchies shaken to their foundations,
and the rulers of those States becoming exiled in
foreign countries; and how often had they read
the opinions that had been given expression to
with regard to the characters and conduct of those mo-
narchs who bad been so driven from their countries.
Take, for instance, the case of Louis Philippe whom this
paper, called " the t x-traitor of France." Let them re
member how his conduct had been animadverted upon.
It was impossible to imagine any attacks upon character
more serious than those directed against him. Take,
again, the opening observations made with regard to the
conduct of the Pope, Charles Albert, the King of the
Two Sicilia a, and with regard to other princes—for in-
stance the King of Sardinia, the Emperors of Russia, of
Prussia—all of them allies of this country—and
all of them just as much entitled to maintain
actions against the editors of other newspapers
as much as the plaintiff was entitled to bring
this action against the Weekly Dispatch. Did they
believe that these 'public persons would have any
right to assail the public press, or indeed take any legal
proceedings because the newspapers, confining their at-
tendon to the public acts of public men, and having
better opportunities than most men of estimating their
characters, chose to stigmatise one as a wretch, another
as a monster, and another as a tyrant. He apprehended
if the editor of a paper appealed in his remarks entirely
to publ c conduct, to historical incidents, and did not
assail the private character of individuals, he appre-
hended that they had a right to do so—to speak in the
strongest manner without being assailed by legal pro-
ceedings. He now came to the real question
between the plaintiff and the defendant, and
the liberty of the press in this country
He denied that the defendant had published any attack
whatever on the private character of the Duke—he de-
nied that the Weekly Dispatch had directed its attacks
to anything except the public events in which he was
concerned, and his conduct during that time, and he ap-
prehended the Editor had an undoubted right to view
such acts, and to present them to his readers in the light
in which he viewed them. The Duke, by his secretary,
said he was not sent away—that he left voluntarily, and
that his subjects in order to show their regret made a
bonfire of his palace.—(Loud laughter.) But the
Weekly Dispatch took a different view—it thought and
said that his palace was not set fire to in order to light
a beacon to guide him on his journey.—(Laughter.)
But the Duke, in his secretary's letter, had libelled anu
slandered the dead and living members of the
dead saying, that George IV, had enough of sins of
his own to answer for without taking the additional
weight of his (the Duke of Brunswick's). The
Duke knew that the letter could not be produced in
evidence, being written to the editor of the
paper. He, therefore, commenced his action
and made the purchase of the very paper in which the
letter had appeared the ground of his proceedings. Such
a,course was unworthy and ungenerous, and had he ob-
jected to its production he shouid have been told that the
letter was evidence against the person to whom it was
addressed; and it he had attempted to show
that its contents were false, he should have been told
that that was not material to the present inquiry whe-
ther these libels were published or not, and whether
they were libels. They could have no doubt that this
action was brought in order that the letter assailing the
characters of the living and the dead should be produced
—otherwise why was the matter aliowed to slumber for
nineteen years. Ile contended that the editor of the
Dispatch could not be held liable for a publican ,u of a
letter of the plainziff's. A letter sent to a
private individual could not be held a publication
unless sent with the view of committing a breech of the
peace. What was the argument used? Why, because
the articles of 1847 and 1848 contaiiied the very coal-
man word " outrage," which also occurred in the article
of 1830 ; that the writer of the latter articles
must have had the former letter in his
mind. Such was the slender foundation upon
which this superit- ucture was based. The alleged libel
likened the plaintiff to the " village despot" and "com-
mon pelted sovereign" the Duke of Lucca. But the
Duke of Lucca had not thought proper to bring
an action. It went on to say that the
plaintiff carried off his jewels, and it must be
said that such an act was one of a private rather than of
a public nature, and therefore it was a libel ; but with
Dogherry he might say " Comparisons are odious."
Again, his depostisua was likened to that of isl-Duu-
gal, the master of the Andover workhouse,
That, he held, was a fair ground of comparison, namely,
the machinations of a petty Prince. Then another of
the alleged libels consisted in a long article, in which the
name of the plaintiff was not mentioned, except that he was
" driven from his throne by his outraged and indignunt
subjects." The Duke said he was riot. The Weekly
Dispatch said he was. It says, "I look to all the cir-
cumstances—to the firing of the palace, and the yells of
yotir subjects, and we say your subjects, who were
indignant, did rise, and they expelled you." How often
heel these very words been applied to the ex-King of
the French and other fallen sovereigns, and yet they had
brought no actions. They were not there to try the
merits of the revolution in Brunswick, whether the
Duke was driven away by his misrule, by the popular
indignation. __ltur—they__had to say._ whether_ u. public
journal had a right to remark upon public objects, and
whether it had a right to assert its views
fbr the benefit of those to whom the pub
lication was addressed. But if they fettered
the press in the expression of its judgment on
matters of this kind, the liberty of the press must be at
an end. The remark with respect to the crimes of
Geo. IV., showed the dexterity the Noble Duke had
acquired by his practice in our courts. He held that
the sale of the copy of the paper was a re-
publication of an old libel ; and upon this logic
the Dispatch was to suffer. The Dispatch said in
reply to one of the letters addressed to it, "It be fights a
battle with us, it will be a political, not a personal one.
We shall rake up no filth to pelt him with.
Is may be worth the while of certain in-
famous publications to seek out miserable sources of
private scandal—ours is a public concern, built upon
public character, rewarded by public support, exercising
public influence," which showed that the defendant
did not intend, and had no wish, to deal with
the private character of the plaintiff. Now those were
the grounds on which he took his stand, and showed
that the Weekly Dispatch was justified in making use of
the expressions it bud; it spoke favourably of the
damages which the Duke had rceived from
papers that made a trade of extortion, and he
should be rejoiced, if he over and over again re-
covered damages whenever his private character was
assailed; but he insisted, upon public grounds, that
journalists had a right to deal with the
public characters of public men; and they might
coneratulate themselves as, indeed, did the Dispatch,
that monarchs and other exiles had found a safe
asylum here. If the Duke was a tyrant, he was
righteously hurled from his throne—if he was guilty
of misrule and misgeverament, it was right that he
was deposed. He held that the plaintiff was a lair object
of criticism, and that the Weekly Dispatch
had acted prop. rly in what it had dune.
He should like to know where they were to stop if the
Duke of Brunswick was to be allowed to come into an
English court of justice to gig the British press, and to
prevent its expressing its opinions, honestly and fear-
ssly, with regard to the public events that happened
in his kingdom, and to the circumstances which led to
his being driven from it. Where were they to draw the,
line? The Duke of Brunswick was not to have a mono--
poly in those actions; he was nut to be the only public
person who was to be exempted from the attacks of the
press. The same principle which applied to
the Duke of Brunswick so-day would apply to
every other reigning or exiled monarch to-
morrow; and the result would be that it would