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

Mr. Tea-smelt—My Lord, that is the case for the pro-
secution.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—So then, Gentlemen of the
Jury, my Learned Friend has closed his case without present-
ing Sir John Conroy before you. Is he ill in bed ? Is he in
a distant ccuntry ? Is he by any cause prevented from ap-
pearing before you to justify and explain his conduct? Sir
John Conroy is certainly not in Court, we are told; but he is
in some adjoining room, within call of my Learned Friend.
And after the taunt which I on purpose threw out in ero•s-
examination, when there was ample time for ii.v Learned
Fiend to have sent for Si: J.::in Conroy, if he hail any taste
fur. appearing iu the witness box, my Learned Friend closes
t!is mese without producing the prosecutor before you. Gen-
lernen, it is most painful to me to make any observations upon
The conduct of a person holding the situation of Sir John Con-
roy, but I cannot shrink from my duty. From the station I
have the honour to hold, I am now at the head of the
English Bar, which has ever been distinguished for indepen-
dence and for honour. I hope that in my person its reputa-
tion will not be tarnished. Tarni.bed it would indeed be,
Gentlemen, if in a case of this sort, the advocate entrusted
with the defence of the accused party, were to shrink from the
discharge of his duty, because it might be thought he might
make observations that would be painful to the prosecutor or the
prosecutors' friends. I shall take care, Gentlemen, according to
the best of my judgment to confine myself within the line of my,
duty, but 'will not be deterred from the faithful and zealous dis-
charge of that duty by any consequences that may be appre-
pehrensdseingdto myself. Gentlemen, 1 have no hesitation in ex.
my surprise, my extreme disapprobation at the con-
duct of Sir John Conroy, in regard to this prosecution. My
Learned Friend• says he seeks to vindicate his character from
the aspersions that have been cast upon it. If that were his
objet would not his first step be to instruct his Counsel to call
'°l4l as a witness ; to let him be examined—aye, and cross-
ftarained ;--to explain all that is said in this publication, of
which he coenplains, and to
show to the world, if there be any
thing in the publication which is ctearered against him as criaii-
2W, whether that' charge is unfounded. But what does my
Learned Friend do ? He seeks to prejudice this case by an
opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench ; he quoted what fell
from my Lord Chief Justice undr totally different
-circumstances, with a totally differente view. I will quote
we hat I have heard my Lord say, and other Learned
'flakes say, and every Learned Judge say, when such
-a topic has been used—that when the Court of Queen's
Bench grants a criminal information, it pronnunces no opi-
nion with respect to the guilt of the party accused. It
Merely says, that it is a fit case for investigation—
to be submitted to the judgment of a Jury. I have heard my
Lord say, and if it be material, I think his Lordship will new
repeat when the proper time arrives, that it is for you, and
You alone, to determine on the guilt or the innocence of the
defendant. And I say, that the practice of granting criminal
informations, which I have always supported, and which, upon
'the whole, think most beneficial, would be most detrimental
and most mischievous if, when a criminal information is
granted, the party accused were to come before a Jury already
convicted. My Learned Friend says, " Will you say this is
not a libel, which has 'men pronounced to be so by the Court
of Queen's Bench ?" I say that it is an unfair, im-
proper, and unjustifiable suggestion. The Court of Queen's
Bench have given no judgment upon the subject, but
merely, on the affidavit of Sir John Conroy, have said that
.his was a fit case to be submitted to a Jury. But, Gentle
Tnen, did the Court of Queen's Bench expect that this was the
jmode in which the investigation was to take place ? My
tsearned Friend said---(there is no advocate more discreet, but
Legally think he showed a little imprudence here)--eny
lon nod Friend, Mr. Thesiger, said " Sir John Conroy chal-
,, ges Inquiry : he presents himself, face to face, before his
-e"sers." Gentlemen, where is Sir John Conroy ? Does he
present himself face to face before his accusers?" No. He
ssuanks from that challenge. He does not venture to come
bay
Court. Gentlemen, I should have liked extremely to
e seen him " face to face"--it would have given me great
satisfaction to have seen whether, on examination and cross-
e_lantination, he could have given such explanations as were
leatifirely satisfactcry, and I would not for one moment have with-
I: my tribute of applause on the conduct he thus pursued. But
tead of that be comes to the neighbourhood of the Court,
th does not venture to present himself as a witness before
stnjury. Is this the practice that has been usually pursued
a there hes been an application for a criminal informate.on,
ill:" the object has been the vindication of character? No :
! prosecutor who seeks to vindicate his character, comes
,rtore the Jury, explains the whole transaction, and subjects
Zrnself to examination and cross-examination by the party
~c,eused. I will point out to my Learned Friend two cases in
h.u'sb a very different course has been pursued. I will remind
jut of the case of the King v. Shackle, in 1827, where a
4!ipti
emau named Hartshorn, a student in the University
,41) Cambridge, had a foul imputation cast on his character while
4(1. He applied for a criminal information,which was granted.
end did Mr. Hartshorn conic, to the neighbourhood of the
fri°,4„ret. remain out of Court, and instruct his Counsel and his
"'as to say that he was the party intended in the libel ? No.
Presented himself in the witness-box ; he entered into a
Ili and complete explanation of the charge brought against
D" he called other witnesses, among them a Reverend
netor, who knew the nature of that charge, and knew that
wss unfounded. I think his Lordship (then Sir Thomas
bellinan) was the Counsel for the defendant, and I recollect
e
-,,rPressing his satisfaction at the line of conduct pursued
Hartshorn, and his belief that that gentleman's cha-
tio• c.ter Was entirely vindicated. Gentlemen, I will hiamen-
another instance, still more striking. His Royal
tiveghnesa the Duke f Cumberland, now heir.presump-
ega. to the Crown, had a most foul and false charge brought
derlnst hini—no less a charge than that he was guilty of mur-
-614. and other crimes of which he was equally innocent. He
-,,a,etdoi, by my Learned Friend Sir Charles Wetherell, to he
Queen's Bench for a criminal information, which
f 43 granted on the affidavit of his Royal Highness the Duke
ea Cumberland and others. It came on to be tried in 1833,.
4,41 his Lordship now on the Bench had become Lord Chief
W4ce of this Conn (and 1 believe before his Lordship).
Ar•
lal,%'s the course then pursued ? Did the Duke of c
thatlt
tn-
117 instruct his counsel to call witnesses to prove
tunas C------" meant the Duke of Cumberland, and satisfy
lishe;lf ; by Putting in an affidavit to show who was the pub-
Stish No, Gentlemen, the Duke of Cumberland
te,ily to vindicate his character, and he did so effec-
he 1; He took the proper measures for that purpose.
actiealled Sir W. Waller, who was privy to the whole trans-
-44°,4 respecting Sellis. He called the foreman of the Jury
/aelf",," Bat upon the body of Sellis. His Royal Highness him-
stiittevareseated himself in the witness-box. He was fully exa-
qtt,-; he entered into a minute and circumstantial account
a, whole affair, and proved, to the entire satisfaction of all
fontmild, that the charge against Sim was unfounded as it was
tho b The Duke of Cumberland, now King of Hanover, then
died ,r°thrr to the reigning Monarch of this country, did not
eshin, in vindication of his character, to pursue the line
ttlo,a I have described ; and he was rewarded by the unani-
leh;s verdict of the British nation in his favour, acquitting
hie, °I the groundless charge which had been brought against
keplwould it not become Sir John Conroy to imitate the, exst
v,eet„e• But no—he shrinks from the challenge—he doe..no
,tiad ;re to come into Court. I should have thought that if he
inett wished to vindicate his character it would have beend
▪ t° have brought a civil action, in which if there had
ho "nY charge against him, through this publication, whichd
Stamps to show you he has entirely misconstrued, the accusch
414 would have had an opportunity of justifying, and
dt e
Ju.or falsehood of the charge would have been submitted to
NIP But no; there is no civil action brought whic
IS old u
such an opportunity to the defendant. There
elite application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a
5e3.41 information, en the affidavit of Sir John Conroy.
tneit-„Qiy Learned Friend Mr. Theseiger, this affords an oppor-
lose: to the defendant of showing the truth of his charge. In
the h cases that may well be so, when the facts are withinut
*heti nal knowledge of the author of the publication. B
%eh the facts are stated on the information of others, no
that ell)Portunity is given. Gentlemen, you may be aware
all tki:uell a civil action is tried, or on a criminal prosecution,
Stith gnesses are compellable to attend on a subpoena ; but
ties regard to the showing cause against a criminal nforms-
fete' there i
is no such obligation, and any person may re-
t° make an affidavit to facts within his knowledge.
of -refore, when the facts are within the knowledge
erj,"Miter, I say the making this application forof
sls,,junal information, gives by no means the opportunity..
setiehing the truth or falsehood of a charge, as bringing a civil
to it", where, on the issue joined, all perties are compellable
ho:-,,Ind• The circumstances to which my Learned Friend
4etil;,`erred on this libel are such as, even if within the know-
lit d Particular individuals, they would feel loathe to come
voluntaril• to make an affidavit respecting them. But
itttorie,"ll action On a subpoena, all persons are compellable to
the and disclose facts within their knowledge respecting
411 4-estiela in But now we are to be shut out from
hquir issue.
Y' My Learned Friend says, with an air. of tri-
tt.4l " now you can show whether the informs-
;;:s'y -Is out a publication containing no defama-
i'lln4tir,eurgen to ." My Learned Friend triumphs in the
svhich.he bas reduced us. I must regret exceed-
atlth the law is as my Learned Friend has laid it down.
:sieh stn bound to respect the law, and to observe the rules
fiber prescribes. And the law of England with regard
ae justeas, that when the case comes to a Jury,
the truth
theftkieroffiCn. The law says th. at. a -true rovokes to a
eace, just as much if It be , as if it be
sttie 4ad that therefore truth is no nestification or pal-
hb . its j
the The law says, that instead of publishing such a
4 _oParty ought to prosecute. So that it has passed..
sin LP erb, The greater the truth the greater the libel."
I.knd wivanshly of opinion, Gentlemen, with Lord Brougham,
Paslll the present Lord Chancellor, who both in their places
ihtlte of taiZent, have. expressed the opinion that the present
t thou law is defective and deplorable on this subject, and
gn the truth ought not necessarily to be a justification
tilluoa▪
reilt.issileite:tifittithhis. kind, yet the truth of the charge ought to be
t. the evidence. It would be dangerous indeed, to say
, ought in every case to be a complete justifica-
itlij! .WeTinei.truth-may in some cases be an aggravation—. as in
4by,titirriat 'flown instance of a young woman having an
• Tne,r,e. child, and afterwaras becoming a respect-
.arnan,--:thF mother of a family,—and a person
the thoeout"es publishing to the world her early misfortune.__
1,4.1 k he it i tsn the truth may not in all cases be a justifica excluded.
said 8 l'ot creditable to the law that the truth is excluded.
finetr'oarued Counsel for the rosecution, Mr. Thesiger,
)-111Phanil that he. only. question. for the Jury to deter.
whethe Y t
ie atore. r.tee publication contains a charge. that is de-
it" ever;
r_ And if we were prepared with witnesses to prove
e woeid t 7 the truth of each allegation in the libel, stilt
"" t u° the duty of the Learned Judge to reect evidence,
'aZthat he can only, when the case comes before
defend .rt whether the publicatient is biougot hunie tu
the 1_ ant, and whether that publication brings the charge.
laW in this respect were altered, it would in my judg.

ment be better in every respect, and we should have less reason
to complain of the licentiousness of the Press. However,
Gentlemen, what we have now to consider is, whether ths
publicstion in question bears the interpretation put upon it by
this information. I think I shall be able to show you that
there is no ground for putting such an interpretation on tht
publication. The information consists of three counts, ie
every one of which the gravamen is the same, the inuendo i.
all three being, that the object of the publication was
!ci insinuate that Sir John Conroy had defrauded tin
Duchess of Kent, and purchased his estate in Wales with
the money which he so acquired. Now it is mile
extraordinary that this is the only part of the publicatics
complaired of. There is no complaint of the passages refer
ring to the application for the Knighthood of the Bath—fo
the pension, for the Peerage, for the embassage to Sweden.
If Sir John Conroy had presented himself in the witness-box
I might have asked him questions on some of these topics_
particularly as to one of the charges brought against him, the
he was guilty of disrespectful conduct towards his late Ma
jesty, William IV. Could there be a more serious charge the!.
that of personal disrespect to a Sovereign so affable, so concla-
scending, so kind to all who approached him ? Yet, Gentlemen,
on this subject the information is silent, as it is on all the othei
charges, and it confines itself to the alleged charge of fraud
and peculation. My Learned Friend, Mr. Thesiger, charged
the publication with being disrespectful towards her Royal
Highness. I should deeply have deplored if there had isaued
from the press of England language disrespectful to that illus-
trious lady, to whom the nation is under such a debt of oblige
Lion, and whose conduct has been uniformly admired and
reverenced. But there is not a Syllable in this publication
which can bear such a construction. The publication states,
that while the afairs of her Royal Highness were uncle;
the management of Sir John Conroy they fell into s
state of great embarrassment, but through no fault of his—
no fraud is imputed to Sir John Conroy. Those embarrass
merits might arise from the deficiency of the allowance whirl
was granted to her Royal Highness. The fact of those em
barrassments is not denied, and in the statement of those em.
barrassments it is not insinuated by this publication that Sig
John was guilty in any degree of fraud or dishonesty. Gen
tlemen, to show that I do not shrink from encountering every
line in this publication, I will read the whole that is complained
of. After alluding to Sir John's alleged conduct with regard'
to the late Monarch, the publication goes on to speak of tin
"happy state in which the pecuniary concerns oft he Illus.
tr.ous Lady whom he served were involved under his ma.
nagement. The amount of this latter obligation of tilt
nation to him it is perhaps hardly possible to compute.
It may be thought to be in hard cash somewhere about
80,0001. and a large annuity of 30,0001. was granted with the
understanding that the liquidation of the 80,000/. should gra-
dually and silently take place." All that I have here read
merely states that by some mismanagement there had
been a deficiency of about 80,000/. It is not said that
those embarrassments arose -from Sir John Conroy hav-
ing robbed her Royal Highness. The publication goes on—
" But a matter which has come to our knowledge throws some
doubt upon its success (referring to some previous arrange.
ment stated). We learn that the Baronet of whom we are
speaking, having been so happy in conciliating tire re-
spect of the late King William, is desirous of exercising:,
the same amiable modesty towards the King of Swe-
den, and to be sent out to that country in the character of
ambassador. We have been told that the Premier was dis-
posed to acquiesce, not sorry perhaps to get rid of him, but
that the highest Personage did not approve of such a person
as the representative of the Crown of England." Now, my
Learned Friend has not said that this is either untrue or in-
correct, and surely no blame can be imputed to a public Jour-
nal for expressing an opinion as to whether any particular
person is a fit representative of the Crown of England.' Should
lie quit his present situation, where are talents to be found
capable of applying the due portion of the 30,0001. a-year to
the liquidation of the 80,000/. ? who can so well understand
wiping off as he who chalked on ?" Gentlemen there is noim-
putatien of dishonesty against Sir John Conroy in
this, and I now Ca= to the last sentence, and it is
for you to say whether the effect of that last sentence is this,
that Sir John Conroy purchased estates in Wales, with money
of which he had defrauded her Royal Highness, the Duchess
of Kent. Gentlemen, there is no kind of connection between
that last sentence and the one which precedes it—it is alto-
gether a new paragraph. The commencement shows that it
is. It begins " There is another matter also worthy of
notice. There is a certain estate in Wales purchased and
paid for not long ago, and if any public inquiry should take
place whence the money for the paye!ent came, who so com-
petent to answer the question as the Baronet ?" Gentlemen,
does that pa,sage charge Sir John Conroy! with having
paid for his estates in Wales out of money of which he
had defrauded the Duchess of Kent ?--No such thing ;
and I assure you it is with the utmost sincerity I declare, that
I do not mean to make any insinuation respecting Sir John
Conroy's purchase of these estates. I hope, and Ido not hint
anything to the contrary, that they were purchased in a fair,
honourable, and proper manner ; but at the same time, when
a gentleman holding the responsible and delicate situation of
Private Secretary to the Duchess of Kent, and of Equerry to
her Royal Highness, purchases large estates, without any
ostensible means of paying for them, might it not be matter
of investigation and explanation, whence the money
came with which those estates were purchased ?
It might be a matter of public inquiry, and if it were, who so
competent to answer the question as the baronet? He was
competent to answer the question. He might have done so
to-day. He might have presented himself as a witness in the
box before you, and he might have said " I purchased these
estates in Wales for a very large sum of money—l have had
that money by way of pan in:oily—l had that money as a por-
tion with my wife—l engaged in some fortunate speculation,
and obtained the money—l was in some lucrative situation,
and I fairly amassed it—l bought a ticket in a lottery, and it
came up a 30,000/. prize." He could have answered these
questions. He has not done so. My Learned Friend does
not pretend to say that he has ever done so. My Learned
Friend does riot pretend to say that he did so in the affidavit
which he made in the Court of Queen's Bench. Now
whether you approve or disapprove of these questions being
put to him, whence that money was derived—your verdict will
net depend upon your approving or disapproving of these
questions ; but it will greatly depend upon this--Does this
article contain a clear, and distinct, and intelligible, and ne-
cessary accusation, that the money was obtained from that
source which is here pointed out, viz., the money of the
Duchess of Kent. I say that it contains no such charge. It
merely
he was,
liysya'sthis—that Sir John Conroy, in the situation, in
was not supposed to be likely to purchase these
estates, but he does purchase large estates ; and if it should
ever become a question of public inquiry whence the money
was derived—who so competent to answer the question
as the Baronet ? He was competent to answer that
question. He has not answered it. The very circumstance
of the money not coming from the Duchess of Kent, may
very readily be allowed—l say that it does not come from the
Duchess of Kent—there is no such charge contained in this
publication. lam really to allow with my Learned Friend
that such a charge would be unfounded. That very circum-
stance adds to the probability of the construction that I seek
to put upon the publication—for if, in fact, it was hot derived
front her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, does not that
add to the probability that it was derived from some other source
which Sir John Conroy does not venture to explain?
Well, then, Gentlemen, if it does not come from her Royal
Highness, which I very readily allow, it must come from some
other source. That source is unexplained. The circum-
stance of its coming from some other source, which I acknow-
ledge, which I assert, which I rely upon, shows that it was not
intended as any charge that it came from the Duchess of
Kent, but some other source, the nature of which requires
explanation. Now, Gentlemen, if the last paragraph takes
up a new topic—if it is not necessarily connected with what
goes before, then there is no pretence for saying that the
inuendo is proved which is found in each and every one of the
charges in the informations; and whether the information be
such as you would altogether approve of or not, will not be
the question to which you will have to address your under-
standing, but the qnestion will be, whether it contains the
charge that is imputed to it, and whether that charge is a
libel. I say, instead of containing such charge, it contains
no such charge—that there is no such accusation of Sir John
Conroy having in any instance defrauded the Duchess of
Kent, and much less is there any charge of his having
paid for his Welch estates from the money so
improperly obtained. There is a charge that he had bought
these large estates—there is a question put as to the source
from which the money had been derived—there is a challenge
thrown out to him to give an explanation upon that subject.
He, however, shrunk from giving that explanation. Why then,
gentlemen, if you were absolutely determined upon the pro-
priety or impropriety of such a paragraph as this, I think that
you would hesitate for a time before you proceeded to condemn
it ; because it is a matter of public importance how a public
servant, such as Sir John Conroy was, had conducted himself,
and whence the emoluments were derived that enabled him to
make purchases of large estates. And, gentlemen, let me re-
mind you that this is not an affair of private life. Sir John
Conroy is not an obscure individual, whose privacy is wantonly
invaded. He is a public character, and as such he is liable
to public censure. You will bear in mind that he held the
situation of Equerry to her Royal Highness the Duchess of
Kent, the mother of the then heir to the throne, the mother of
our present illustrious Sovereign, asituation of great importance,
of great delicacy ; and it was a matter of deep public interest
to mark what would take place upon the accession of a new
Sovereign, and the station thatfrould be assigned to Sir John
Conroy. Gentlemen, for these reasons I trust that you will
be clearly of opinion that my client is entitled to your verdict.
I regret that anything should take place that should be at all
hurtful to the feelings of Sir John Conroy or any individual ;
but you will bear in mind that it is of the last importance
that the Liberty of the Press should be preserved ; you will
hear in mind the infinite benefits that we derive from that
liberty, and you will be a little indulgent to the errors which
may be committed in the conductingtat of
hsucha
eJso,uwrnhailchasisthei
Times : you will bear in mind that
Morning Paper, publislieswhat
you
in ordinary
there intelligencervyprintwouldamount
to a large octavo volume—chat
of
from every quarter of the globe—that you harvoeinformation
everything that takes place in this country, from the House of
Lords down to the lowest tribunal which is known to the laws

—that every occurrence is mentioned for public information—
that all topics are discussed, and with an ability that is credit-
able to the country in which that Journal is published.
If there should be some occasional failures, I think they ought
to be looked upon with a favourable eye. I believe lam jus-
tified in saying that this is the first time for 40 years that there
has been any criminal proceeding against that Journal brought
before a Jury. You will hesitate long, I think, before you
will come to a verdict of guilty. What will be the, conse-
-lu.-.l,ceof,'uch a v.rdiet to 1,,y cl:cnis Mr. L..lvsori, the respec-
table publisher of that Journal ? Ile would be subjected to a
fine; but, much worse than that, he would be liable to bo im-

prisoned by the sentence of the Court of Queen's Bench, and
sent to Nevvgate amongst common malefactors ; and, more
than that, there would be some discredit thrown upon a Jour-
nal, which I think I am justified in saying, however warm and
zealous it may be in party politics and in discussing topics of
public importance, has ever abstained from tittle-tattle, and
has ever made it a rule to respect the sanctity of private life.
Gentlemen, to Sir John Conroy, if you acquit my client upon
the ground that I suggest, no evil consequences will follow.
I call for your verdict on this ground, that the pub-
lication does not impute to him, as he supposes,
that he was guilty of peculation and fraud. I say that
he is under an entire misconception when that
.s the construction he puts upon this article ; and if you should.
be pleased, in the exercise of your right, so find a verdict of
not guilty, he will go from this Court vvith his character alto-
eether untarnished, and he will be precisely in the same
situation in which he was before he instituted this prosecution.
What I say, Gentlemen, is, that ho is mistaken, that the pub-
lication is not the libel that he supposes—that he is under an
entire misapprehension when he imagines that it brings such a
charge against him; and your verdict, which will acquit
my respectable clients, will at the same time, acquit
Sir John Conroy of being supposed to have had any
such accusation preferred against him. Gentlemen, the
ease is now in your hands. You are aware that by an
Act of Parliament, which is the law in this case, Mr.
Fox's Act, which did so much to establish the liberty of the
press, which refers the question of libel or no entirely to the
jury, which is quite contrary to the spirit in which my Learned
Friend, Mr. Thesiger made his address to you, which reininds
me of what the lawyers contended in the case of the Dean of
St. Acaph, where they contended, arid contended successfully
for a time, that the Jury had nothing to do with the question of
libel or no libel— that all they had to consider was, did the de
fondant publish the article complained of, and were the inuendos
proved, that is to say,does it apply to the prosecutor, and the ques-
tion of libel or no libel was exclusively for the Court to consider;
inasmuch that in that very case, Mr. Justice Buller who tried
it said, he would give no opinion as to whether it was a libel
or not—that tiddler he nor the Jury had any concern in any
such question. Gentlemen, by the happy exertions of Mr.
Erskine, the greatest ornament ever known to the English bar,
seconded by Mr. Fox, that Statesman whose memory will . be
held in perpetual reverence, who will always be considered with
gratitude by the English nation—that law was altered, and it is
not as my Learned Friend would say, a question for the Judges of t
the Court—it is now, happily a question for the Jury alone. Then,
Gentlemen, it lays upon the prosecution to persuade the Jury,
and each and every one of the Jury, that the publication is
criminatory and defamatory, and that it bears the construction
pus upon it by the information or indictment. I say that this
publication bears no such construction—that the construction
has been put upon it by mere misapprehension, and, there-
fore, that my client is entitled to your verdict. Gentlemen,
I thank you for the attention with which you have
honoured me. I have discharged my duty to the
best of my ability. I look with anxiety to the
verdict that you will pronounce. I hope that it will be a ver-
dict of acquittal in favour of my client, and I hope for the
future that when application is made to the Court of Queen's
Bench for a criminal information on the ground of character,
that the prosecutor will present himself as a witness before
the Jury—that he will not remain in the purlieus of the
Court—that he will not shrink from the ordeal to which he
wishes his case to be submitted.
Lord DENMAN—Gentlernea of the Jury--This is a criminal
information, preferred at the instance of Sir John Conroy,
complaining of the printer of the Times for a libel on that
gentleman, and charging him, as he alleges, with a fraudulent
misapplication of money belonging to the Duchess of Kent.
It is introduced by an introductory averment, that at the time
of publishing the libel Sir John Conroy was attached to the
Household of her Royal Highness. and that long before the
publication of the libel he had purchased the estate, and paid
for it. These facts are proved, and also the publication and pro-
prietorship in the usual manner ; and the only question is, as to
the construction to be put upon this article—whether you
think it carries against S:r John Conroy that imputation which
he himself attributes to it, and which is made the foundation
of the complaint lie brings before you. Now there have been
several general observations made which make it not unfit for
me to state in what form it comes before you, and then it will
he entirely for you to put your construction upon the article.
There are various ways in which a party may complain of a
libel. In one way the libeller may justify and obtain a ver-
dict by admitting the defamatory libel and proving it to be
true; but in a criminal proceeding, the only question sub-
mitted to the Jury is, whether or not the publication is a
libel, and whether it bears the defamatory character, of which
the prosecutor complains. That may be done by indictment,
on which the truth is altogether laid aside by the prosecutor,
and the only question is as to the libellous tendency of the
article; or it may be by criminal information, which undergoes
some previous discussion in the Queen's Bench. That Court
is in the habit of granting a criminal information, but only on
condition that the prosecutor convinces the Court that the
allegation against him is false; and the party who ap-
pears to show cause against the rule, has the full op-
portunity of establishing, not only the fact that the allegation
is true, but the fact that he had good reason to bebeve it to
be true ; because, if there is a bona fide belief on the p.irt o;
the party so publishing, founded upon fair information, I think I
may ventxre to say that the Court, whatever they thought of
the libel itself, would not make the rule for a criminal informa-
tion absolute, supposing they believed the matter altogether
bona fide and fairly published. That, therefore, gets rid of
the question, whether or not the truth is in any way to come
into consideration ; because that being the preliminary con-
dition upon which alone the criminal information is granted, it
is supposed the party gains the necessary information by being put to his own oath, and to that extent only it is that cha-
racter is vindicated by this mode of proceeding; because, if
it were only to punish the individual who is guilty of the
attempt to break the peace, they would leave, the question of
character altogether out of the question, and the party only
puts himself in a situation of having that question tried by
having come in the first instance before the Court with
allegations as to the truth or falsehood of the statement,
which the Court has found satisfactory. Therefore the only
question iP, whether or not you think this publication a
libellous and defamatory publication. A geed deal has
been said with regard to Sir John Conroy's being
present on this occasion, and being called as a wit-
ness. But when it is once clearly understood by the Jury
that the truth is not in issue upon this occasion, that it would
be quite an idle parade to offer a person to be cross-examined
upon facts which ought not to have the least effect upon your
verdict when those facts are proved—in point of fact, if Sir
John Conroy had been in the witness-box, and questioned as
to every poi tion of the charge made against him in a public
newspaper, whatever opinion you might have formed of the
truth of this charge, it is admitted that your verdict
must have been the same, provided you thought the
defendant guilty of a libel. Why, then, that being
the case, I cannot discover that there would have been any use
in calling Sir John Conroy. Gentlemen, you have heard of
two other cases, which are particularly in my memory ; on© a
proceeding against a Sunday paper, with regard to a young
gentleman just entering life, who was reflected on in a gross
paragraph in that Paper. I was the counsel who had to de-
fend that Newspaper, and the course taken in the defence
was, that it was not to be supposed there was the smallest im-
putation cast on the gentleman—that it was some unfor-
tunate expression which got into the newspapers, and that
there was not the least wish to impute anything to him.
He also obtained a criminal information, but it was not for
the counsel for the defendant to object to his appearing on the
box, and clearing himself in the most satisfactory manner ; and
a person labouring under such an imputation would be anxious
to come forward, and subject himself to a cross-examination
that might have served the purpose of the person who attacked
him. He did present himself, and I remember the uni-
versal feeling that nothing of imputation in the slightest
degree rested upon that character, of which no vin-
dication can ever be superabundant with regard to
the nature of the charge. The other case was that
of the Duke of Cumberland. I well remember that his
Royal Highness attended on that occasion, and Sir Charles
-Wetherell stated that he should call him as a witness ; and
I well remember that he was told not to inquire into the
truth of the fact, as it appeared to be a mock issue put
before the Jury, and the party could not be indicted
for perjury, if he stated an untruth with regard to
the fact. The law which was sanctioned by the
judges in these cases has been, that a mere complaint
brought before a Jury by the means of criminal informa-
tion, does not, in this stage of the proceedings, bring into
question the truth of it at all. The question is really, and
simply, and solely this, whether you are of opinion that this
matter is defamatory, and in the way in which Sir John Conroy
complained of it?

the money of the Duchess of Kent to pay for that
estate? If it does not impute that then the defendant
is entitled to your verdict. If it does impute it, then, I don't
think I need tell you that it is an imputation of the grossest
nature. You have heard, gentlemen, the observations made
by the Attorney-General, that this is a new paragraph ; but
it follows observations written by no means certainly in a
friendly tone; and the question is asked "if any public in-
quiry should take place, whence the money for the payment
came, who so competent to answer the question as the Hon.
Baronet ?" I can hardly see how it should become matter of
inquiry, unless there was some malversation on the part of Sir
John Conroy. When you speak of the purchase of an estate
by a person having followed his being entrusted with a large
sum of money belonging to another, what does that mean? Let
any one put the case of a statementZof expenses, having
become the treasurer or trustee of a charity estate, and it
should be said here is a large deficiency—here is a debt of
80,000/. incurred under your mismanagement, and if any
parochial inquiry, or any enquiry among the subscri•
bers should take place where the money came from by
which that person paid for the estate he lately bought,
who so competent to answer it—should you, or should
you not suppose that that imputed to the Trustees or the Trea-
surer a misappropriation of the funds entrusted to him ? It
seems to me that it admits of that kind of construction.
Gentlemen, you have heard all the observations that have
been submitted to you. The only observation that I have
to conclude with and repeat —and I repeat it as strongly
as it is possible to do so—is this, that Juries, in cases of
this description, arc the sole judges, and on whose judgment
alone must depend in every instance the question, aye or no,
—whether the party is guilty of the libel with which the
prosecutor charges him. If you think so you will return a
verdict of Guilty ; if, on the otl er hand, you think not,
yuur verdict will be, Not Guilty.
Tho Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.

There cannot be much doublon the nature of the publica
tion. If this really does mean to impute that he had misap-
propriated the money of the Duchess of Kent in applying
it to the purchase of art estate of his own, cvery
man of common sense must agree that thatis a
gross imputation on the honesty, honour,
and inte-
grity of Sir John Conroy. Tho question is, whether that
is the meaning of these words. This article, after stating a
great deal about an attempt to become Ambassador to Sweden,
and throwing out some imputation about want of respectful
conduct towards his late Majesty (which !presume is ironically
put forward), proceeds thus to speak about the money matters
of the Duchess, " and the happy state in which the pecuniary
concerns of the illustrious lady whom he served were found
under his management. The amount of this latter obligation
of the nation to him, it is perhaps hardly possible to compute ;
it may be thought to be in hard cash somewhere about
80,000/. ; and the large annuity of 30,0001. was granted with
an understanding that a gradual liquidation of the 80,0001.
should silently take place. Happy be the end of the affair !
we say ; but a matter which has come to our knowledge may
throw some doubt on its success." The next sentence is
about the desire to become Ambassador to Sweden ; and then
it goes on thus--" Should he quit his present position, we ask
where are talents to be found capable of applying a due por-
tion of the 30,000/. to the liquidation of the 80,0001., and who
can so well understand wiping off as he who has chalked on ?"
I think I understand the Learned Counsel for the prosecution
to say he hardly makes any complaint about the supposed
mismanagement of the money. It might be said the money
was not frugally and prudently expended on behalf of the
Duchess of Kent; but that is not really the complaint he wishes
to bring before the jury. The complaint really and substan-
tially is this, that he is charged with having misappropriated
a part of the money entrusted to him, by putting it to his own
use. Then comes another paragraph, and you arc to say
whether this bear the construction they put upon it :--" There
is another matter also worth notice. There is a certain
estate in Wales, purchased and paid for not long ago. If any
public inquiry should take place whence the money for the pay-
ment carne, who so competent to answer the question as
the Baronet ?" Does that mean that he has taken

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1838.