The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-19 00:00:00

irJEEN THI - DAY.)

( B-far Lord Detan.in and a Special Jury.)
LIBEL—THE QUEEN v. LAWSON.
The court w is extrenieh cronded this mornina, and the Pr°.
ceeding,s in this Case appeared to excite much interest.
Mr. WIGHTMAN op, ned the pleadings. 'This was an n3,:i
dictment against John Joseph Lawson, the printer an
publisher of the Times Newspaper, for a libel upoa Sir J°lln
Conroy, published in that paper of the 9th March last.
Mr. THESSIGER stated the case. Gentlemen of the PITY"'
This is a prasecutiosi against the defendant, who is the Prin:
ter and publisher of the Times Newspaper, for a libel Pay.
fished in that paper of the 9th of March last, against Sir .0
Conroy. Gentlemen—yau aie probably aware that Sir Job
Conroy for many yearsheld a highly confidential appointraven
in the establishment, first of his Royal Highness the Du.e;
and afterwards of the Duchess of Kent. Sir John Conroy 'cat
bred in the army, and passed from a military emplarnein
into the household of his Royal Highness, and I think Genil;
men, I may fearlessly say, that ho brought with him te the
administration of the important affairs with which -0
was entrusted, those principles which Ire had acquired in
the school of honour in which he was educated. He serlre
for many years with fidelity and integrity, and so as to secure
to himself the entire and unqualified approbation of his sat
periors. periors. Gentlemen, it is quite in the n,ture of things tio
t
from the position Sir J. Conroy was placed in, and pat
trust and confidence lie enjoyed, he should excite a gi:--of
number of enemies; and those enemies resorted to one
the most formidable engines of annoyance—the public Prr'ef
For many years Sir J. Conroy found himself the Ace co
severe censure and malicious inuendos, but the attacks Ow
him were of so vague and general a character, as tegill
perfectly harmless. lam quite sure, Gentlemen, rti or
agree with me, that any person who values his own
has any confidence in his own character, will feel hire
ay
bound to disregard any general censures which the press in
think proper to bestow upon him, and which he may Ord.
if he happens to be placed in a situation of trust and bone-s;
If disregarded, they pass away and are ferg°lsy.
and the slander of yesterday is effaced by the slander of tn-
But, Gentlemen, the case is widely different where a spec
quiet,sof
ifiC
charge is brought against an individual—that charge inv°-sri
dishonour. He has no power then to say, I will disregno,
it—my character is far above it—l shall treat it with e;
tempt." Gentlemen, the public is too apt to believe theciceir
circulated against ourselves, and persons who think that ttios
nature is strong enough to resist charges of this descriP
will find that what they consider the security of innocenec'er,
interpreted into the confession of guilt. Gentlemen, a fists
son, therefore, who has a charge of this description, sec his
the charge against Sir J. Conroy, brought against him!oort
no alternative ; he is compelled either to come into a 10.
of Justice or submit to the serious imputation cast upon Post
Gentlemen, that the libel in question is of the character-a it.
described, you will have no doubt when you have heartho
It is published in the Times newspaper of the 9th of .`"
last, and runs in these words :
Of
The British pub!lc, we believe, was aware of the demands °f ;
taro newly-created Baronet attached to the household of the Duc"" eof
Kent whom her Royal Highness's daughter ascended the throe
these realms—" a red riband" (to be sure one little thought hovron!'
thcoration wxild be afterwards bestowed), " a peerage! a 10°100
We wish he had had the red riband promised hint : it would bays
as much honoured by his wearing it as by its present possessor.
sop
We believe the chief merits of the person who made these de
were his respeclful conduct to the estimable Monarch then iu'itiftti°.
and the happy state in which the pecuniary concerns of the a•-.Louno
lady whom he served were found under his management. The_:: FOP
of this latter obligation of the nation to him, it is perhaps haru'iosts
sibte to compute : it may be thought to be in hard cash Onto, 0
about 60,000/. ; and the large annuity of 30,000/. was granted
nrider,tanding that a gradual liquidation of the 80,000/. should 'Ol tor
take place. Happy be the end of the affair! we say; but s
,tiC•
which has corns to our knowledge may throw some doubt won its
cess. We learn that the Baronet of whom we are speaking,' „
been so happy in conciliating the respect of the late King
,Of P" gordl
is desirous of exercising the same amiable and modest qualities Wt of
the King of Sweden, and to be sent to that Court in the chars? eoed
Ambassador ! And we have been told that the Premier WO dhlbeo
to acquiesce, for the purpose of getting rid of him; butth •0 of
personage did not approve of such a representative of the Cr°ll
England. to I'S
Should he quit his present position, we ask where are talen7iquicis'

found capable of applying a due portion of the 30,0001. to the ligou'De
tion of the 80,0001., and who can so well understand wiping °ff
who has calked on. estate
There is another matter also worth notice. There is a certal
in Wales, purchased and paid for not long ago. If any Public :eaceis.
should take place whence the money for the payment came, who
petent to answer the question as the Baronet ? 000
Having read the article you will see that it conveys
Ja coo-
serious imputation on the honour and integrity of Sir • f her
roy. If it had merely referred to the embarrassments of
Royal Highness's affairs, that might perhaps have been P such
without notice, because it might be attributed, if off, but
existed, to a want of care or management—to any thing
oa
want of integrity on the part of Sir J. Conroy; but when and
find that this subject is introduced merely to give Pei,-.11 roof
sting to that which follows—to insinuate that Sir J. t'ai,„es
was guilty of a dereliction of duty, and had taken ao‘ A, to
of the situation of trust and confidence that he enjoYe" the
divert from their proper purpose, for his own advantage, jot
funds belonging to her Royal Highness, what pessoiri
course had he to adopt, but to challenge utile?
into the matter, and to meet his accuser face to ,7„e-se,
He owed it to himself—he owed it to her Royal Higu-,-ett
whose name has been so improperly and unnecessarily drogobe
into this discussion—he owed it to the public, who rnescea
interested in learning whether the funds which they had Woo
for the support of her Royal Highness's dignity, were or
upon
not misapplied to any other purpose. Acting therefore ~00,
the feelings paramount with every man of honour, Sir J. 'co.
roy instantly applied to the Court of King's Bench fora that
minal information. You are perhaps aware, Gentle/1110h
any person making such an application is compelled uPesooo-
- deny the truth of the material points of the afo'
tained in the libel. Sir J. Conroy therefore made tr;lavits•
davit, and applied to the Court on that and other afh"„,atle,
The person against whom such an application is.
io
is at liberty to deny the truth of the statements contat", sl5O
the affidavits of the party making the application, and
the
at liberty to show other circumstances connected wit" 'aitioo
quiry, which would render the party unfit for the interP°Ortir
of the Court. Gentlemen, the defendant had that erP ore-
nity ; with what success he has availed himself c f it, lei for
sent proceedings will show. The Court granted the rtilroeor
the criminal information on investigation of all the
stances ; and we are here now before you merely in thisofa'
tion, to ascertain whether the matter charged upon te;egaots
mation is or is not a libel, and whether it refers to and. the
is Ole
upon the character of Sir J. Conroy. Gentlemen, t'cocetee
only course which is required or even permitted to the Pre- wait!
on the present occasion. The defendant has had an opPetaiigbt
on a previous occasion of bringing forward all that heAiags ;
deem necessary to prevent the institution of these procee"bord
and Sir John Conroy is of the opinion which I halepersee
my Lord express on a former occasion, that " lv,her!„-- s6O pre'
engages in the perilous trade of libeller he ought wh, gate;
pared at once, and at the earliest moment, to justify t---. 101,
ments he has ventured to make." Gentlemen of the„•tiou is
throw out these remarks in order to justify the Pv-- ias.'
which we now stand. You have nothing to do with the soot
ters contained in the libel, except to decide whether thelopeore
arc not libellous; and I trust my Learned Friend, whe."arsiatlaA.
for the defendant, will not attempt, by anY,,. so"
tions which he may here think proper to 'lnure' pro'
which it is wholly out of the power of tr.d
secutor to answer, to endeavour still, in his 'Tied he
piring effort, to leave an envenomed sting in the ose-sao ad
has inflicted. Gentlemen, I shall proceed with this eaos bet;
in every other of a similar nature. I shall call witnes'ait co"
fore you to prove the publication of the libel, andvii sh 111 yon
persons acquainted with Sir John Conro, who tteo
that they entertain no doubt that they libel refers -
and having discharged my duty on these points, Yaeau
con'
have nothing to do but to consider these facts, 30(1 Yfnioa
is
not hesitate, after the expression of the highest oP•fer one
this Court which has been pronounced—you cannot
moment entertain any question that this is a libel uPOO
John Conroy. sip Wm. Shakespeare, examined by Mr. WzawrolAllbtaieed
clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution. I have °l3fi the
from the Stamp office a copy of the affidavit made_ ors,
defendant and others. It is certified by one of the ; reed.
C. P. Rushout. [The affidavit was then put in anf No. 1'
It stated that the defendant, John Joseph Lawson'
°Publisher
Earl-street, Blackfriars, was the printer and
_bousr
of the Times newspaper, published at Printing' sot
square, in the city of London ; that Anna .13, of the
Walter Wilson, of the city of Bath, were """ was
di-
proprietors of the sa'd Paper • that the Pr°Perty
into sixteen shares, of which two shares
r
perty of Anna Brodie, one share belonged to Wa-te pre
and the two
The affidavit was signed by the defendant,
prietors named therein.] were the pro-
vided
of the
Examination resumed—l hold in my hand a cop
at the
Times newspaper of the 9th March. I purchased
office in Printing House-square.
oa
ro
Cross-examined by the A TTORNEY- GENEILtIF-- su
know Sir John Conroy ?—I do.
Is he in Court ?—I am not aware that he is. coining
When did you see him last ?—Just previously to 0!
into Court. outside"
ere did you sec him ?—ln the Guildhall-yard
This very morning ?—Yes. I should
Then be is not confined to his house by illness ?--
say not.
He is in good health ?—I believe he is. 81 58'
[The alleged libel from the Times of the 9th March'
was then put in and read by the officer of the Court.]
Mr. Sergeant Mirehouse, the Common Sergeant,
mined by Mr. THRSIGER—I have long known Sir J., caro the
He is attached to the household of her Royal HIP"
ss
Dueness of
Di Kent Royal
d he hold the office of Private Secretary to her
Highness ?—He did. ears
Do you know whether Sir John Conroy, many yen
._d Leo
purchased any property in Wales 7-1 do. I negociate
purchase of the property for him.
How long is that ago ?—ln the year 1824. , which
ape.
Have you seen the article in the Times Newsp
has just been read ?—I have. It doe'
In your opinion, does it refer to Sir John Conroy
11
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY- GENERAL.--
seen Sir John Conroy lately ?—I have seen him this r lorlYel6e
Where ?—ln the neighbourhood of the Court, ready
if you want him.
The Hon. Edmund Blng, examined by Mr. WI61! 001
Are you acquainted with Sir John Conroy ?—Yes, for
years. of
aper
Have you read the parr graph in the Times re wsP
the 9th of March last ?—I- have.
In your opinion is Sir John Conroy the person
—Most decidedly be is.