The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-06 00:00:00

.014--vniug

lINDON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1849.

A rule nisi for a new trial has been granted in the
case of the Duke of BRUNSWICK V. HARMER, in which,
it will be in the public recollection, a verdict for the
plaintiff was returned, with 500/. damages, during the
sittings of the last term. A more extraordinary, and
we will venture to add a more important case, so far
as the public press is concerned, never came under the
consideration of any tribunal, and we rejoice to find
that there is every reason to hope that the matter
will he subjected to a new and searching investiga-
tion, so that the real facts may be fully elicited, and
that what we cannot help considering an erroneous
and dangerous decision may not pass into a precedent.
Ii Lord DRNelate's judgment should unfor-
tunately be sustained there can be no
safety for newspaper proprietors. However
cautious they may be however anxious
to keep their journals strictly within the limits of
the law, and to avoid any publication for which they
could be held either civilly or criminally responsible
—they might be rendered liable for acts of
which they were completely innocent, and mulcted in
heavy costs' and enormous damages, when the mind
that conceived and the hand that penned the incul-
pated article had long passed away from this world.
Notwithstanding the great improvement effected by
Lord CAMPBELL'S Act, the state of the law of libel is
still sufficiently rigid and onerous, and it is of the
utmost consequence to all persons in any way con.
nected with the press that the stringency of that law
should not be unduly extended.
The case on behalf of the plaintiff at the original
trial was of a very extraordinary character. Five
distinct publications were complained of and charged
to be libellous : of these, one had been printed
nearly nineteen years previously—on the 19th of
September, 1830, a period of intense excitement, when
many revolutions had taken pile 2, and were of con-
stant occurrence, on the con'inent of Europe, and
when among others the plaintiff had been removed by
a popular movement from his hereditary dominions,
and from the Ducal Throne of Brunswick. At such
a time, and under such circumstances, it was by no
means surprising that so enthusiastic and ardent a
supporter of the democratic principl& and of the
supreme sovereignty of the people, as the Dispatch
has ever proved itself, should speak warmly and fear-
lessly; that it should disre4ard the narrow limits to
which it would willingly restrict itself on other occa-
sions, and that it should cast aside all private or per-
sonal considerations in order to advance the good
cause of which it was the zealous and unflinching
champi m, the powerful and consistent advocate.
It entertained no animosity or malice against the
ex-Duke of BRUNSWICK as a man, but it merely re-
garded him as the opponent of popular rights, the
invader of popular liberty. As such it spoke of him, not
for the purpose of injuring the individual, but to
vindicate the people over whom he had formerly
reigned, and to exonerate them from the charge of
having wantonly or unnecessarily interfered with the
former regime. This, we believe, was the sole end
and object oi the article in question, and although it
have, in some degree, exceeded the
might po.ssi )ly
leeitim de bounds of comment upon the public cha.
racier and conduct of a public man, great excuses
w _paid naturally be male for the publishers, if corn.
plaint had been made within the time properly set
apart for inquiry into such transactions.
The policy of the law had fixed on two years as
the full period within which an injured person
should receive every facility necessary fur the full
and complete vindication of his character. By the
38th Geo. lii., c. 78, s. 17, it was provided that the
printer or publisher of every newspaper shall, upon
the day of publication, or within six days after,
deliver to the Commissioners of Stamps, at
their head office, or to some officer to be ap-
pointed by them to receive the same, one of