The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-10 00:00:00

LONDON, TUES DA Y'' EVENING,

diction from the tenant, he should therefore support the
clause if a division should take place.
Mr. B. ROC itli said that he thought that the Hon.
Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) was a a supporter of the
Church, because, as he believed, he (Sir 1). Norreys) was
himself a titheowner, and was, OY-ref-ore, tieing as his
own c!Junsci.—(Lntighter.) Ile objected to the clause,
because it unjusily tended to exempt the titheowner
from these taxes to which he and every other occapi,tx
are subject.
The !louse then divided, when there appaared
For the clstre 50

.•• ••• -----75

Against it
Maj rity against
The clime wag therefore last.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL then moved the omission of
clause 7, which appoints rent Barges by way of annuity
and jointure mrale liable to deduction for poar•rate. He
was certain that this cfause would give rise to endless
litigation, end being co.vineed of is imp dicy, if he saw
any intantion of retaining it in the Bill he shauld cer
teitily divide the House upon it.
Toe :notion was agreed to without a division, and
the Bill was read a third time.
On the qaeAtiati that the Bill do pass.
Mr. A. STAFFORD said that whatever inhumanity,
itlastiee, or oppression, might attend the oderatian
the first end second clauses, it ought to he rememhet d,
and he wished it might ga forth to the country, that the
Irish 'Members were in no degree chargeable with the
consequences, fur they had voted sitaiast them. He
was by no naeans prepared to say that in this .8.11 the
Gavernment td not improved upon the Irish poor-law ;
but still he thought that a much more afilcieet and just
measure might have been prop )tied. The Bill was in•
tended expressly to introduce capital into Ireland, and
in this respect it was an accompaniment of the. Licata-
bored Estates Bill. The capitalist would purchase land
under the delusive impression of a maximum rate of five
shillings, but would soon find that his rate would be eight
shillings in the pound, the rate of 61. for the rate in
and the balance added in Committee to make up the
amount. The Bill, in fact, placed the property of Ire-
land in the hands of a people who had not to pay the
rates, and that was the justice which Ireland bad to re-
ceive from a Poor-law Act.
Mr. BRIGHT said he confessed that after sitting in
the Committee from first to last ho found himself more
confused at the end than he was at the beginning—
(Laughter)—and on that account he had not voted
upon the propositions submitted when the veto was
in Committee. He had, however, formed an opinion
against the principle of the maximum, and with regard
to the operation of the whole Bill its Ireland, he thought
it would be nil, or next to nil. To relieve Ireland ma-
terially reference should be had much more largely to
surrounding circumstances, and he looked to other Bills,
rather than to this, for any good resula
Mr. H. HERBERT said he thought he might chal-
lenge the House to produce any evidence in support of
the principle of the maximum, or of union rating.
Sir D. NORREYS said he only rose to express his
regret that the question should have been pressed
ihreugh to this stage.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL postponed the con-
sideration of the Lords' amendments, particularly the
22d &awe, of the Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill,
until Friday next.
The House went into Committee on the Joist-Stock
Company's Act (1848) Amendment Bill.
This Bill went through Committee.
The Highway Rates Bill went through Committee.
The Poor Relief (Cities and an-oughs) Bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be committed this day.
The Tides of Religious Congregations (Scotland) Bill
went through Committee.
The Boroughs Relief Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed this day.
The Trustees Relief Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be cominitted this day.
The House went into Committee on the Turnpike
Trusts Union Bill, for the cousideration of the Lards'
amendments, which, alter some conversation, were
.greed to, and the House resumed.
The Bribery at Elections Bill, as amended, was con-
.idered, and the amendments agr. ed to, and ordered to
be printed and read a third time en Friday next.
The Friendly Societies (No. 2) Bill was read a second
time.

The Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The adjourned debate on the Petaco Court (West-
minster) Bill was adjourned to Thursday next.
The other orders of the day were di,po3ed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quartz r to Two o'cloa.

RIGHTS OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
A feeling of sympathy and commiseration, ii not of
respect, was pretty generally felt for the Duke of Brims-
wick during his legal campaigns against a certain
obscene publication. To be compiled to maintain a
protracted struggle with men who degraded literature
into a means of pandering to the meaucet tastes and most
licentious passions, was no slight addition to the loss
even of a crown. The thought might indeed at times
intrude itself, that the vermin of the press only fixed
themseves on men who were less guarded in the choice
of associates, and scenes of ausur.ement, than strict pru-
dence dictated; but indignation at the venal inventors
and disseminat irs of filthy scandal prevailed, and the
Duke of Brunswick's actions tor damages were seconded
by the goodwill of the public.
But success in any pursuit is apt to be dangerous to
eneu weak in intellect oe deficieet in prudence, and
such a man the circunestene s under which the Duke
forfeited his throne had suilitheruly proved h m to be.
ree success which attended the foretedc exertions in
which ha generally ha 1 engag,(l ate persevered,
against the advice of those who imagine that there is
.carcely less shame in thraslain, a scoundrel than in
being thrashed by him, appears to have given the Duke
an unhappy liking for such pursuits. The touch of da-
mages and colts has had the same efF,ct upon him as the
taste of blood upon the shaith-hound. Flushed with hi,
victetit,s over trsders itr eb,cene scandal, he is be-
ginning to strike indiscriminately at the whole press.
Were there no principle of law involved in sueh pro-
,•ecutions, by which the itherty of the pri es or the right
et tree political discussion is endengered, they %voted
have been quite unwordiy of notice. Tae like of Bruns•
wick has been so cenipleiely thrown, by the waves of
civil turmoil, tar upon the beach, beyond the po,sibdity
of the highest spring-tide ever again washing him back
Into public life, that there can be no use in drawing his
frailties from their dread abode." His pugnacity, his
eagerness to rush into law proceedings, is matter of
notoriety. There can be little sympathy felt for indivi-
duals who get themselves involved ie law suits by attack-
ing a person nut worth noticing, and who appears to like
nothiog better than the excltetuent of litigation. They
might have known what would have cane of it.
But the law, as laid down by Lord Denniiin and ap-
plied by the jury, in the case of the " Duke of Brunswick
v. Harmer," is su pregnant with danger to the press and
to free political discussion, that a protest mutt be re-
corded against it.
Four articles appeared in the Weekly Dispatch nswse
paper in the months of September and October, 1847,
and March, 1848, in which the dethronement of the
Duke of Brunswick was adverted to. The articles
were purely of a political character ; and the Duke's
case was introduced incidentally by way of parallel
la Plutarch, in treating of the more r• cent
one of the Duke of Lucca. Of themselves
it is evident the Duke felt that they w'buld
scarcely warrant an actuin, fir he sought to aggravate
their character by estabiiskine' a connexion between
them and an article which had appeared in the same
paper as far hack as September, 1830. The latter article
also was in the main pelitical, but contained allusions
which trespassed upon private life. Sir F. Thesiger, on
behalf of the defendant, pleaded the statute of limita-
tions in so far as the article of 1830 was concerned;
but Lord Denman ruled that the subsequent publica
tiens barred the application of the statute, and the decla-
ration of the foreman showed that the jury regarded the
publications of 1830 and 1847 as one continuous net, and
t hat they had read the succinct paragraphs of 1847 and
1848 by the reflected light of the more questiunaele one
ut 1830.
Damages to the amount of 500/, were accordingly
awarded against the proprietor of the Weekly Dispatch,
on the ground that the article of 1830, and the articles
published 17 and 18 years later, were parts of a continuous
systematic attack upon the Duke of Brunswick. Is it in
she slightest degree probable that any party or parties,
animated by personal malice, would have allowed 17
years to intervene between their attacks? The utter
silence regarding the Duke of Brunswick, persevered in
for seventeen years, is proof sufficient that no ani-
mosity was entertained ag tiast him personally; and
that the notice •taken of him was prompted solely by a
desire to illustrate and establish a political principle. It
is quite possible, even assuming that the articles of 1830
and 1847 proceeded from the same pen, that the writer
in 1847 might have forgotten the existence of the article of
1830. It is very probable that the proprietor takes no part
in the managetnent of the paper, and that the present edi-
tors and writers hail no connexion with it in 1830, and
no knowledge of what it then contained. The unguarded
irespass on the field of private life in 1830 was
wrone, both in point of morals and taste ; but it was
doubtless rendered more venial by the style in which the
controversy was at that time conducted on both sides.
The Duke advanced grave charges (personal as well as
political) against his uncles on the one hand, and his
ci-devant subjects on the other; and the advocates of his
deposition retaliated in kind. Bath parties were to
blame for the introduction of irrelevant and exasperating
topics. But the war of 1830, between the Duke of
Brunswick and the Dispatch, is a matter of nearly
twenty years past. The public had forgotten it. All
parties now connected with the Dispatch had forgotten,
if they ever knew of it. It was al if it had never hap•
pened, to all save the Duke of Brunswick himself, who
had brooded over it—alta write reportani. It was with
no small labour that a copy of the paper containing
the obsolete offence was ferreted out by the publishers,
when applied for, they knew not why, by an emissary
of the Duke. Yet, but for his gratuitous and forced con-
nexion of the forgotten article of 1830 with the articles
of 1847 and 1848, the latter could not have been brought
within the reach of the libel law.
There is no safety for the press, or for any person
engaged in political discussion, if such a 'practice is to
he tolerated. Had an action been brought in 1830, the
jcuadngoeniaynd jury would have been aware of every cir-
cumstance of extenuation or provocation. Now, they
parties using them within the reach of the law. There
it,dt:
oti
hmfuteslaseyiavnit:l
err
measuring
eto
armsdotifiarndNii
n'iegswrcelhua,ontsi ;:uandas.gweod: which bring the
is no man, however severe in the exercise of self-control,
after nearly half tual7n'shet'e)Ptimi century,tisah,ye nadorba:dee
for such a lapse, because he engages in per-
fectly of the conduct of the same party,
end to free and useful political debate. The
the Judge and jury in the case of the "Duke
ck v. Harmer" is (we have no doubt uniuten-
. howeveriattprodt.iehoetfumecgentntuririilita
isemyes,rith.ouliet:senensa)iiisaAorciwan'ifani g
rave erkereachment on the liberty of political
• dioquion....-,Exatitiner.