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

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

LLOYD'S SHIPPIN G—(T HIS DAY.)
LONDON, JUNE 26.—Wind W., moderate breeze and
fine.
FALMOUTH, JUNE 25.—Variable and light.—Arrd.
24th, Jane, Gough, Rio Grande; Gleaner, Bahia.
BRISTOL, JUNE 24.—Wind S.—Arrd. Emerald,
25th,
GAYLWortY., JUNE 23.—S1d. Robert Alexander Park,
New
Dug-
dale,ph i,
Barbadoes.ast.
john ,s,SNwlde.
OFF PENZANCE, JUNE 22.—Unicorn
S.E.—Arrd. 21st,
, Demerara.
DEAL, JUNE 25.—Wind E.S.E. to
Sophia,
Soarabaya, Swans, Banjoewangie for Rotterdam: 25th,
Reliance, Watson, Matanzas. Arrd. from the river and
Francis
Brunswick.,a
lker,
Calcutta.
sailed, 26th, Abberton, Carr, Port Philip; Henry
Tanner, Davies, Port Natal; Ceres, Culverwell, Sierra
Leone; Amigade, Costa, New York.
HULL, JUNE 25.—Wind S.W.—Sld. 20d, Wolga,
Quebec.
OFF CAETLEHAVEN, JUNE 22.—Sir Charles Napier,
LIVERPOOL,. JUNE 25, Wind S.—Arrd., 24th, Eu-
Teare, Mobile; Mary Ann Peters, Brown, Savannah.
phi-rnia, Kendall, Quebec. 25;h, Mary, New Calabar ;
General Berry, Paterson,
New Orleans; Elizabeth,
Rees, ditto; S.r Charles Napier, Teare. Mobile. Sld.,
24th, William, Halhx; Rentrd, ditto; 25th, Beatrice,
Pernambuco; Robert, Bavannah; Salem. Qui,bye; May,
Constantinwele. Off, Herald, Machio; Isabella, Huguenot,
Lancashire. The Spr.culator, hence to Tampico, was
taken into Key West, Ist inst., having been on :hore on
the reef, and part of her cargo sold; vessel con.., mn, d.
A ship was seen ashore on Tennessee Reef, 3d inst, with
s,veral wreckers around her.
PORTECAWL. JUNE 23. Sld. Derwent, Demerara.
CARDIFF, JUNE 23.—Sid. Cornucopia, Panama; NLIOVII
Done, Rio Janeiro,

OFF DOVER, JUNE 23.—Arrd. Santa Anni Gennaro,
Cary!ro, Toro;,to for Sc. Petersburgh.
SHIELDS, JUNE 25. ‘N, iud and S. S. W.—Sld. Poot,
Qth bt-C.

L,NDONDEBRY, JUNE 23.—Arrd. Sunny Eye, Sea-
bury, New York.

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

MARKET NLWS.-(THIS DAY )
13Lts.Ir
ISMITHFIELD.—Meudow hay, 2/ 10, to 3/ 153; Clover
iittO, 21 15s to 51 Os ; and Straw, 1/ 8s to 1/ 13.
load. Both Hay and Straw moved off steadily, at full
prices.
CUMBERLAND. Meadow Hay, 21 15s to 31 18a ;
Clover ditto, 31 Os to 41 153 ; and Straw, 11 9s to
1/ 14, per load. Trade firm, at the above quotations.
HITECIIAPEL.—Mea.tow Hay, 2/ 106 to 3/ 15s
Clover ditto, 2/ 15s to Si Os; and Straw, 118$ to 11 13s
per load. Supply limited, and trade firm.
coLorna.L.
&MAR.—The market for Bre isti Plantation ccntinues
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.
Thy' quantity landed last week at the East and Nett
India Docks was 808 hhds 92 tierces; the, e 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 2a to 3s per cwt; from 40s to
49s 6d for good triage, to f fine ord; 1,400 bags common
very good ord Native Ceylon brought 34s to 36s 6.i, being
a further improvement of 6d to is per cwt; 2,100 bags
Java sold with spirit at 35s to 47s for good ord pale to
f fine ord coloury, being an advance of 3a per cwt since
the last public sale, and 700 bags damaged Havannah
also sold at higher rates, chiefly from 29a 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 Ducks was 159 puns 7 hhds. There were
taken for home consumption 168 puns 26 hhds, and ex-
ported 72 puns 155 hhda. The stock in the same places
is 19,564 puns 2,729 hhds.
RICE.-2,000 bags Bengal sold steadily, at 9a to 103
for low to good mid white.
TALLOW.—F.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 Eq:1;
Pekoe kind, is 6d to is 10d; Twarkay, good ord to but
mid, 6d to 7d; Canton kind, 3id to sd; Hyson, good ord,
10d to ls; and mid to good mid, 1,9 d to 3s 6d per lb.

QUEEN'S BEACH.—(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
Weekly Dispatch, to recover compensation in damagt s
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 of
his subjects, tramplt d on the laws, had the letters in his
post-office opened and plundered, and had been guilty
of so much atrocity that hii subjects had expelled him,
and burned his palace.

The plaintiff denied that there was any truth in
these allegations, and hcld that they were published in
of chr to injure him publicly and privately.
On the other Land the defendant pleaded the statute
of limitations, rs regarthd the first alleged libel, and
justification.

The Duke conducted his own case.
Sir Frederick lhesiger, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and
Mr. Martin appeared fur the defencanr.

Tie Duke ot Brunswick read a long speech, setting
forth that during his residence in this country he had
been groesly libelled, by the Satirist and other papers,
wilier' had followed him into society and rendered his
existence most unhappy. But the libels, for the pub-
licadon ot which he sought compensation, partook more.
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. Junes, a librarian at the British Museum,
produced copies of the Weekly Dispatch, of the 18th
September, 1830, and the 17th of August, 1845.
Mr. Debeuham, of the Stamp-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. Jobu 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 pipers in March, 1848.
Cross-examined—He was a teacher of languages, and
lived at No. 10, Oakley-street, Lambeth. and had known
the Duke ten or twelve years. He purchased the paper
by the Dulte'a direction. 2le had to call the cez6 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 sears, 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 front 1830, (limn
to 1847. nothing appeared in the columns of the WeeAly
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 stated that other 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 uo pretence for alleging
that they were libels, so that it was only by tneking
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 adopted was altogether
unfair to the proprietors of the paper; for the paper of 1830
would never have seen the light, it would have been
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 not been repub
lished, 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 emu.
ber of actions, and that he had been successful to a very
considerable extent. He had alluded to certain news-
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 he 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-
lance. 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 their 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 bad a right to animadvert ul.on in any
terms, 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 perfectly clear, !rem the
letter of Mr. Oddy, which had been put in, that he was
compelled to leave his country, as a "evolution teed(
place there, that his palace was set „n fire, and that he vvas
obliged to escape, that his brother was now stated upon
the throne from which this journal asserted he had beet,
driven. The public journalist took different historical
events into his considex ma in, and expressed his opinieli
how revolutions were eff.-ete d of an unexpected cha-
racter, and his opinions upon those who were the princi
pal ac-ors in them. If the proprietors of the Weekly
Disputch believed that the Duke of Brunswick had ac
ed
the part of a traitor, that he had excited the ()is
gust and hatred of his subjects, that they

rose indignantly against his oppression, that they hurled
him teem the ilirene, was there mete thine in the re mei-
tote, Ti ofiho eouetts er 0, hl sh, .S y, piteiebie te tee pi ess
, f ih,e country, watch et old eta, fain the ex pre-ssien of
those ()pintoes and feelings a hid] he might this k prefer
to express upon the occurrence of such events? How
many successful insurrections had they seen within the
last few years; monarchies shaken to their foundations,
and the rulers of those States becoming exiled in
foreign countries; acid how often had they read
the opiniosis that heel been given expression to
with regard to the characters and conduct ot those mo-
narchs who had be en so driven from their countries.
Take, for instance, the case of Leuis Philippe whom this
paper, called " the ea-traitor of France." Let them re
we tuber how his conduct had been animadverted upon.
I: 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 ot the Pepe, Charles Albert, the King of the
Two Sicilits, 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 us much entitled to maintain
actions against the Editors of other newspapers
as much as the plaintiff was entitled to bring
this action against the 14 eekly Dispatch. Did they
believe that these public persons wooed have any
right to assail the public preys, or indeed take any legel
proceedings because the newspapers, confining their at-
tention 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. Ile apprehended
if the editor of a paper appealed in his remarks entirely
to pub' c conduct, to historical incidents, and did nut
assail the private character of individuals, he appre-
hended that they had a right to du 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 Vl'eekly 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 bad an undoubted right to view
such acts, and to present them to his readers ire 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 ante
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 sue ungenerous, and had lee ob-
jected to its production he should have been told that the
letter was evidence against the person to whom it was
addressed; and if 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 %,:hether
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 showed to slumber toe
nineteen years. Ile contended that tree editor of the
Dispatch could not be held liable for a publicati ,n of a
letter of the plaintiff's. A letter sent to a
private individual could not be held a publication
unle-s sent with the view of committing a breach of the
peace. What was the, argument used? Why, because
the articles of 1847 and 1848 contateed the very coin-
mon word " outrage," which also occurred in the article
or 1830 ; that the writer ot the latter articleM
mast have had the former letter in his
mind. Such was the slender foundation upon
which this superstructure was based. The alleged libel
1 keued• 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
au 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
Dogberry he might say " Comparisons are odious."
Again, his depostism was likened to that of M-Deu-
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 indignant.
subjects." The Duke said he was not. 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
your subjects, and we say your subjects, who were
indignant, did rise, and they expelled you." flow often
had 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, but they had to say whether a public
journal had a right to remark upon public objects, and
whether it had a right to assert its views
foe *AI.. boaotit .e t. 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 olu libel ; and upon this logic
the Dispatch was to suffer. The Dispatch said in
reply to one of the letters addressed to it, "It he fights a
battle with us, it will be a political, not a personal one.
We shall rake up no filth to pelt him with.
It 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 had; 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; aid they might
congratulate 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 misruie and misgovernment, 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 props rly in what it had done.
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 eel justice to geg the British press, and to
prevent its expressing its opiniens, honestly and fear-
It 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 not 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 eo-day would apply to
every other reigning or exiled monarch to-
morrow; and the result would be that it would
be quite impossible to express any opinion on public
matters, except in that mincing and diluted way which
was far from desirable in a public journal. He therefore
stood upon this ground: he utterly denied that there bad
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 was anything which, in the
smallest degree, re fleeted on the private character of the
Dulee 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
obnoxiuus to public comment; and if the jury, by their
verdict, should lay down a contrary principle, they
would do more to destroy the liberty of the
press than had been done for many many years before.
Ile thought this-public journal was completely defended
in this action ; and be certainly looked with some
anxiety to the result of this investigation, but not with..
out a most sanguine hope that that result would be the
acquittal of the defendant.

Lord DENMAN then bummed up the case to the jury
He said the Duke of Brunswick, who 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. [l !ere 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
disparagine• 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 perscn 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, andon
a.ddrt ssed to this paper, complaining of the dl ercormip
hi"
given in the paper of the Duke's dismissa
the
country; and he (Lord Denman)
.understood
away
from his
expla-
nation was that the Duke was not drtbviesn
subjects, but being about to leave
was prevented doing so by a mobu rising
land anti sp. nd his
and desiring him not to go to
set fire to his palace.
money there; and at last they 5..
W hen his Sovereign
couagnatri3n.mstentlimhe,
That letter wt nt on to
~,satyfighting at Waterloo, lit
Highness's bather, t°r-rr,,--urP;n, then Prnrice Regent of
ogtand,
pouteille"
our cause, George the x
person, the Duch), and eon.
.„, a Duke Charles; from that.
siderable private l4)rPri.ncw's doom was st sled, for he was
England, seized u
moment this helpless
at:d our George made up his mind nly ten years of ttg:l:
the Dui and private f
0 keep Plissessweto let .•
Charles, and never .t.im eta of hib c;utehes."
Duke
Now he (Lord D swat) must ovin in that respect that it
appeared to tom that the Duke of a,, unw it k did ~+ hat
was tighly reprehensible in giving directions to Mr.
Oddy to write a letter of that kind rt.:l:Leung in those
terms on George- the Fourth; he had no right whatever .

to cite the case of George the Fourth for publication
in this paper in the manner in e hich he le fl, creel on that
metiarch. It wa si ato mpt to publish a libel, ith
respect to the late K►ng, who possit,l) might or might
not have been justified; bur, ci Vainly wh, n a man com-
plained of being libelled in a newspaper, he ought to bo
the last to take that opportunity of publishing in a
newspaper a libel of another. [Here the Learned
Judge read the remaining articles charged as libellous.
Ile must observe that it was clear that on the part of the
Weekly .Disputci, and of the Duke of Brunswick
also, that the Duke of Brunswick had been
subject to very atrocious libels in a certain
infamous newspaper ; this the W eekly Dispatch
was perk ctly avva. e of, and in one part or the articles
complained of as libellous the editors of the Dispatch
seemed to have drawn a distimitien between their own
conduct and that of the newspaper in question. He
(Lord Dewitt)) agreed fully with the Learned Counsel,
that the most ample liberty eheuld be given to
the public journalists in observing on known facts,
either public or private, and with respect to the Govern-
ments of foreign countries, they had a perfect right to
state any opinion they might entertain, unless it re-
fkcted on private character; but then the personal cha-
racter of a man might be such as to be affected greatly
by his public acts, and he might ,how himself to be in-
famous and cruel, and to deserve the nem,: of traitor and
t) rent; but no person had a right to charge those public
acts upon him, unless he cuu!d prove them. Now, it did not
appear to him (Lord Denman) that the publication fell
at all within the question, either of historical statement
or political remark. There were sm ral publications,
and he was of opinion that the first publication was not
protected by the Statute of Licuitetiune, because it was
sold at the office, though not in the ordinary way, and
any one might have brought it tht re. He thought that
that publication was one for which the defendant was
answerable. It had been stated in the Dispatch, and
told with great eloquence by their counsel, that " it is,
atter all, a proud reflection to the people of the island
of Britain, that it is the haven of repose and secu-
rity to which the barque of the political Exile
invariably speeds, in order to escape from storms,
and commotion at home," and then the cases of the King
of France and the Duke of Brunswick were referred to
in illustration of that sentiment. But if, under the no-
tion of the liberty of the press, this country allowed her
public journalists to assail the character of public indi-
viduals who came to seek a haven of repose
in this country by stating facts most highly discreditable
and unwarrantable, and even clue!, on their p,:rts, and
which would subject them to the highest punishment if
they were brought into a court of law. It appeared
to him that he had gone through the facts of this case,
and it was entirely fur the jury to say what damages
any, the Duke of Brunswick was entitled to, if they'
thought those publications were libellous, and he left the
matter entirely in their hands.

The jury re-drtd, aid, after being absent for about 20
tninu rt turned into court, aid stated they found for
the plaintiff—Dam9gcs, 5001.

EXCHEQUEIC-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins ut Westminster before the Lon.

CHIEF BARON and a Spfuial Jury.)
NOTTIDGE V. RIPLEY AND ANOTHER.

This c'se was resumed to-day.
Mr. MILNE, a commissioner of lunacy, proved havieg
.een Miss Nottidge at Mr. Stilwell's asylum on two t•e-
eisions in company with Dr. Pritchard when he cow
versed with her, and came to the conclusion that she wog
of an unsound state of mind. Dr. Pritchard had since
died, but he a ntertained the same opinion. She endea-
voured to avoid or to evade all questions respecting her
own peculiar religious opinions, which circumstance W'4s
of itself a ground of suspicion as to her sanity. fler
only d lusien was upon religious opinions, and Isla°
spoke ress.,n4bly upon other subjects. Delusion upon
a particular subject was sometimes called mononiamrep
and persons who v6ere under the ii fluence of it were
sometimes harmless, and were allowed to go at liberty •
Mr. Proctor, also a comints,,ioner of lunacy, said reli-
gious delusion was a common form of insanity, to id
persons under the influence of it were perfectly sensi"o
arid reascnable upon other subject,. He thought the
fact of her having, irninedia.ely on leaviiig the asyfunh
given all her money to the person who was the se* et
of her delusions was a proof of her insanity.
A clerk from the Bank of England staled that 5,7281
7s. 7d. in Three. and .a-Quarter Cent. Annuities had
been transferred by the plaintiff to Mr. Henry Jatries
Prince in May, 1848.
Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury in reply. Thee
Learned Counsel commented at great length upon th
address of Sir Frederick Thesiger and the uvidenee
which had been produced in the case.
The trial had not ceneluded when we went to press.