The Sun.
London, England, 1856-09-20 00:00:00

MORE PRESS PROSECUTIONS.

(From the Dmily ilrews.)

Within the last few days we have had to carry on
a correspondence with the attorneys-at-law of
Lieut.-General the Earl of Lucan ; and it has ter-
minated in an announcement by those gentlemen
that they are instructed on the part of their noble
client to bring an action for libel against this jour-
nal for an article on the Report of the Chelsea
Board of General Officers, which appeared so long
ago as the 26th July last, but which was complain-
ed of only two weeks since. Always ready to
give reparation where injury is supposed to have
been inflicted, we pursued the usual, and, as we
think, the proper course, on receipt of Lord
Lucan's first communication, and informed his
Lordship that the columns of the Daily News were
open to any explanations or complaints which he
bad to make. TLis offer was somewhat imperi-
ously rejected, and an ample apology was peremp-
torily demanded fur the opinions we had expressed.
As, however, the article sn which they were con-
tained was of a very general description, and
treated of the whole conduct of the earlier part ef
the war, we very natural ly requested Lord an's
attorneys to point out the particular passages in it
that were regarded as libellous by his Lordship,
and to inform us of the nature and terms of the
apology which Lord Lucan required. We did this
in order that we might perfectly understand and,
fully appreciate the precise nature of Lord Lecan s
conalilaint, and so be in a position thoroughly to
estimate the extent of the reparation he sought.
To this request Lord Lucan, has directed a refusal
to be returned. He charges us with having libel-
led him, but he declines to inform us in what, or
of what the libel consists. He refers us to the whole
of an article of which nine-tenths concern other
people, as being throughout libellous of him. Re-
fusing to specify the wrongs he thinks we have done
him, he requires a most plenary apology, the terms
and language of which heleaves to our own imagina-
tion, and, without even waiting to know whether
we will or will not apologise for an offence of which
we are refused knowledge, he demands the
name, not of our friend, hut of our lawyer. His
demand on that point having at least the merit of
being intelligible, has, of course, been complied
with, and in one of the common law courts of the
Queen we shall be furnished in precise and clefini e
terms with the language which Lord Lucan terms a
libel, but which the Judges of this land and a
British Jury may, after all, think to be a perfectly
fair expression of opinion on his public and mili-
tary conduct.
Conscious of having no personal ill-feeling or dis-
like of Lord Lucan, and having formed our judg-
ment on his conduct in the Crimea, and sub es-
quently out of the Crimea, on data before all the
world, we are not at all inclined to shrink from de-
fending in a court of justice the opinions we have
deliberately expressed. If, therefore, Lord Lucan
means in our person to attempt to punish the
Press because, in thehonest discharge of its duties,
it has pronounced a judgment adverse to him, or
endeavour to repress that freedom of discussion
which Lord Lucan himself has, on more than one
occasion, publicly carried to an extent and licence
which it is not the practice of respectable journals
to indulge in, we are quite content to meet him.
We have no love of legal strife or contention, but
if through our means Lord Lucan seeks to obtain
the opinion of a Jury of Englishmen on the part he
played in the Russian war, and in the controversies
which arose out of his removal by the Queen, on
the recommendation of Lord Hardinge, from the
command of the Cavalry Division in the Crimea,
we feel that we haveagreat public duty to perform,
and however indisposed generally to appear as de-
fendants in courts of law, we will enable him to
take that opinion. Restless and impatient at Lord
Hardinge's twice-repeated refusal of a court-
martial to investigate the transactions which
produced his dismissal, Lord Lucan may have
resolved on vindicating himself, if he can, be-
fore a civil tribunal. If so, we shall at least
have a cause celcbi-e with which to amuse and in-
struct thepublic, Of its result we have no serious
apprehensions. At all events, the liberty of the
press, and the right and duty of free discussion on
all public questions, shall not suffer at our hands.
For any verbal harshness of expression we might
have expressed regret ; but for the general judg-
ment we have passed on Lord Lucan, in his public
capacity, we cannot apologise, because we fed There
is nothing in that judgment for which an 'apology
is due.

It would not become us further to allude to a
matter which must be settled elsewhere, nor should
we now have brought forward this topic so promi-
nently if it had not happened that this attempt to
coerce the expression of opinion had been nv.de
almost contemporaneously with the publication,
by Lord Lucan, of a little book under the title of
"English Cavalry in the Army of the Etst, 1854
and 1855," but which contains only " divisional
orders and correspondence whilst under the co;n-
mand of Lieutenant-General the Earl of Lucan.
1C.C.8.," and is stated to be, in fact, the intended
appendix to a larger work. We cannot imagine
the "circumstances which have made it desirable
that their publication should not be further de-
ferred," but we presume that our noble antagonist
can scarcely object to our giving increased public: 'y
to a work of so much interest, in his eyes. We
have carefully perused these orders and that cor-
respondence, and while we find in them ainp!e
proof of Lord Lucan's military spirit, and are
disposed to hope that zeal for the service of his
country was the guide of his conduct in the sad
affair at Balaklava, they yield, we must say, most
abundant support to the adverse opinion generally-
entertained by the public as to the character and
composition of the Staff.

It is impossible to rise from a perusal of this little
volume without feeling that a conviction existed
both in the minds of the officers of high social rank
in the Crimean army, and of its first General, that
they were a peculiar class to be specially cared fer
and treated, and we cannot show this better than
quoting somewhat at large from the correspoe.
deuce contained in it. On the 9th of January,
1855, Lord Lucan, in a letter to Lord John Rus-
sell, complaining of his observations in Parliament
on the Balaklava charge, says—
With
many officers in this army, a sense of duty and
an ambition of professional distinction are the sole in-
ducemen ts to hold commands of great responsibility under
no ordinary difficulties. How mortifying and how great
must be the disappointment of any such ofilcA., etc:.
Now what does this imply but that there aresrime
officers to be more considered than others by their
superiors and the Government, because a sense of
duty and ambition of distinction are their " sole
inducement to hold commands ?" Other officers
hold commands as a means of living, and a life-
long profession ; but they are another and different
sort of people—their feelings are to be differently
estimated and treated. And this correspondence
proves that such was actually the case in the army
of the Crimea. Twice did Lord Lucan address
(once in June, 1854, and again in August, 1851)
letters intended for Lord Raglan's perusal of a
character such as we do not care to describe. To the
former of the communications he received the fol-
lowing replies and entreaties from Lord De Ros
then high on, Lord Raglan's staff :--.

Scutari June.ll, 1854.
My dear Lucan,—lf you require it, I will
,deliver
your letter to Lord Raglan, but if you leave anything to
my judgment, I strongly advise this letter being sup-
prossed. My opinion is, that you should go to Varna ;
and I shall press that opinion both on public grounds
and from private friendship. Unless I hear again from
you to-day, I shall not deliver your letter. Think it well
over, and do not send it me unless you are convinced I
am wrong.—Ever truly yours,
Signed) DE Ros.
Well, Lord De Ros did, from " private fiend-
ship," press his opinion on Lord Raglan that Lord
Lucan should not beleft at Kulalie, asLord. Raglan
had previously determined, and of course Lord
Lucan, despite his suppressed letter, had his wishes
gratified.

June 12, 1554.
My dear Lucan,—On my suggesting this morning to
Lord Raglan the advantage of your being at Varna, to
superintend the arrival and quartering of cavalry regi-
ments as they arrive, he agreed to it ; and you will there•
fore be so good as to hold yourself in readiness to pro-
ceed thither in a few days.—Faithfully yours,
(Signed) DE Ros.
Ilajor•General the Earl of Luean,
Commanding Cavalry Division.
Lord Lucan's second letter was addressed to the
"Commander of the Forces" himself, and it com-
plained, in the strongest terms, of the favouritism
shown to Lord Cardigan, and Lord Raglan's dis-
paragement of himself, notwithstanding Lord
Lucan had "had the honour and pleasure of Lord
Raglan's intimate acquaintance during many
years." Now to this letter is appended .
"Note.—The above letter was withdrawn.—Lucas."
Here we have two of Lord Lucan's letters with-
drawn. At last, however, in September, 1854, when
in the Crimea, Lord Cardigan in his turn complains
• of Lord Lucan to Lord Raglan. On this occasion
Lord Raglan decided that Lord Cardigan was
" wrong in every one of the instances cited." But
such was the display of animosity before him in the
correspondence, " which he had perused with, the
deepest regret," that Lord Raglan humbly appealed
to two officers of that class o
e,f his army with whom ,to to use Lord Lucan's languag "a sense of duty
and ambition of professional distinction are the sole
inducement to hold commands," in the followin
terms :

The Ehrl of Lucan and the Earl of Cardigan are
nearly connected. They are both gentlemen of high
honour and elevated position in the country, indepen-
dently of their military rank. They must permit me,
as the Commander of the Forces—and, I may say,