The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-07 00:00:00

my Learned Friend to come before you again, for the
purpose of acquiring an unenviable notoriety, hating
ample funds at his command. But he is mistaken if he
thinks he can harass the Dress much longer by these
attacks, or if he supposes that an English jury will allow
him to amuse himself in this way Nag impunity.
I think the Duke of Brunswick mistkee the feeling of
the country when he supposes that he can get a verdict
for the purpose of gagging the press, for that would
really be the effect of the verdict if he obtained it; ho
may lead what course of life he likes, as long as he con-
fines his pleasures and luxuries to, his own domestic
circle ; but it he imagines that in this country, the
freedom'
.of which he now enjoys, along with many
other reugees, the press is to be stifled and his conduct
not to be mentioned by the public jonrnalists, he mis-
takes the genius of the people and of English juries.
There was no attack on his private character, nothing
but a fair comment on his character as a deposed mo-
narch, and, therefore, I confidently trust you will, by
your verdict, vindicate the right of the prese, whose free-
dom has been struggled for by juries and the reople in
past times, to publish strictures of this nature on the
public conduct of an individual, even though that
individual may be the Duke of Brunswick. It'
encouraged in these sort of persecutions he, no doubt,
will tring action after action against the press ;
but let me tell him that if he is misled by his great
desire for notoriety to put Casimir Reinhold in the box,
to speak to what is untrue, and then on a subsequent
trial to be afraid to bring him again before a jury, lest
he should be taxed too hard with regard to the truth of
his statements, that sort of conduct may have done very
well in the state of Brunswick, in 1830, before the Duke's
subjects rose against him, but it will not do in this free
country, whose hospitality be has taken advantage of.
We say, therefore, gentlemen, that this publication is
no libel at all; that it is a more comment on events which
occurred, in which he figured largely, and that nojusti-
fication is necessary—that it is a comment which an
English journalist had a right to make on the conduct
of a monarch who had been deposed under the circum-
stances stated. I feel, gentlemen, that I should not be
warranted in occupying your time further, and I now
leave the case in your hands, feeling confident that you
will consider the defendant is entitled to your verdict.
Lord CAMPBELL then proceeded to sum up, and said—
Gentlemen of the jury, whatever charge may be brought
against the Duke of Brunswick, it certainly cannot be
that of acquiescing silently in the attacks which are
made upon him in his lifetime; because it appears from
the evidence to-day that on several occasions he had
brought actions in vindication of his character, and it
would appear not hitherto with any great success. The
present case has been laid before you very ably by the
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff; who most properly
was anxious that it should be known to all mankind, and
who adopted a bold and independent manner of laying
before the jury the grievances which were complained ot,
and you will, therefore, require little assistance from
me; but having heard the whole case it is now for you
to express an opinion upon it, and my address to you
shall be very brief,-as lam sure you will require no as-
sistance from me to arrive at a just verdict. Now, with
regard to the first count containing the alleged libel of
1830, I must make-this observation, that the course pur-
sued by the Duke of Brunswick in regard to the produc-
tion of evidence of a republication is not creditable
to him. A witness named Casimir Reinhold swore
there was a republication in 1847 of this alleged libel
of 1830, and without any reasonable or just notice on
the part of the journalist. Gentlemen, under the direc-
tion of a learned and eminent judge, whose memory is
dear to us all (here his Lordship paused as if affected
at his own touching reference to the late Lord Chief
Justice), a verdict of 5004 was returned, which was no
doubt a just verdict on the evidence then proved; but.
affidavits were subsequently laid before this court, of
which I have now the honour of being a member, and it
clearly appeared on those affidavits that there was the
strongest reason to believe that this person, Casimir
Reinhold, had sworn what was false. We therefore,
without determining whether this was true or false,
thought fit that the question should be submitted to ano-
ther jury,
.a jury being the proper tribunal by which
every question with regard to the credibility of evidenco
should be decided, An opportunity was thus given to
the Duke of Brunswick to prove the republication of
that supposed libel in 1848. Casimir Reinhold, however,
does not appear. Gentlemen, I think the only conclusion we
can draw from that circumstance is that he swore
falsely. Ile possibly might have imposed on the Duke
cf Brunswick; but it is for you to consider whether
under all the circumstances of the case that was an
honest complaint that was made against Mr. Birmer.
You will now abandon altogether from your considera-
tion the republication of 1848. It is admitted by the
plaintiff's counsel that there is no evidence whatsoever
of such a republication. Therefore, you have now to con-
sider whether you, as intelligent Englishmen, exercising
the important functions which the constitution has as-
signed to you, consider that in tho alleged libels of the
eeth of September, 1847, the 3d of October, 1847, the
10th of October, 1847, and the 12th of March, 1848,
there is anything reflecting on the private character of
the Duke of Brunswick. As my Brother Erie men-
tioned, and in fact as I mentioned at a former trial, the
Duke had filled the station of a sovereign prince, and
had been dethroned, and being an historical character,
he is a subject of fair criticism, and he may fairly be
brought :forward to the public, like any
other deposed sovereign whose conduct is can-
vassed; but of conrse it is for you to
say whether such fair comments were made by the
journalist, or whether the comments were not made
maliciously as attacks on his own private character. If
the latter, the plaintiff would certainly be entitled to the
protection of the law, and the jury would have to give
ample damages so sustained. I will not detain you by
reading over these four alleged libels. It is for you to
say whether anything contained in them does reflect on
the private character of the Duke of Brunswick. It
seems to me difficult to say that there are any passages
reflecting on his private character; but it is for you to
decide whether that is so or not. Then, gentlemen,
there is given in evidence, by way of showing malice, a
publication in The Sun newspaper of the 28th June,
1848. I think that bad no such tendency, because it is
merely an article complaining of a former verdict, which
was supposed by the writer to have been ob-
tained by perjury. You will say whether there
is anything iu that article, Mr. Harmer being responsi-
ble for it, which shows any disposition to attack the pri-
vate conduct of the Duke of Brunswick, or whether it
may not be fairly said to be a commentary on a former
trial, in which
.the verdict was obtained by improper
evidence. Gentlemen, the only other subject of com-
plaint by the Duke of Brunswick is the nonpublication
of those two letters of Mr. Oddie. I have already ex-
pressed an opinion, which I believe you will all concur in,
that if these letters had been published in the Weekly
Dispatch, Mr. Harmer would have been guilty of a
crime for which, as proprietor, he might have been pro-
secuted and punished; for not only does it contain
gross vituperation, directed against a particular
newspaper—against the press of England generally,
and against some of the subjects of the Duke, but
it is most libellous on the memory of George the
Fourth, not on his public conduct, which would offer
a subject of fair comment, but it says ho was engaged in
a conspiracy to get possession of the private fortune of
the Duke. Another individual is represented in the
letter as having run away with a part of his property.
Therefore, gentlemen, I see not the smallest propriety—
indeed I take it upon myself to say as a judge, that it
would have been highly wrong to have published that
letter; that being so, the refusal to publish it should
afford no evidence whatever against Mr. Harmer. Oae
of the alleged libels is that tnero was a false account
given of the substance of one letter in the Weekly Dis-
patch. You have heard that accouut so complained of,
and the letter itself has been read to you at large, and
it is for you to say whether there is any such misrepre-
sentation, or anything to show that Mr. Harmer was ac-
tuated by malice in refusing to insert them. You will
take these publications into your consideration, and
say whether all or any of them aro libels. If you
think they contain any calumnious representation
on the private character of the Duke of Brunswick, you
will find a verdict for the plaintiff, giving such damages
as you may consider he is entitled to receive under the
circumstances; but if you think they contain no such
representation, but are comments which might have
been honestly made by any journalist commenting on
the topics of the day, then the defendant will be entitled
to your verdict.

The jury, having consulted for a few minutes in the
box, were about to give their verdict,
when
tia WaS
Lord-
ship's MONTAGUE CIAMBEIts intimated
M that ih
intention to tender a bill of exceptions to
ship's summing up.
a loss to know how he
Lord CAMPBELL said ho was -- nt ., i that in which
could put the case in any
otherrtisP light than Lns
the jury would be so
good as to suspend their
he had already done, but Pc
deliberations for a few

moments.
9—Your Lordship has left it to the
private character.
Mr. CiusisEnher
the articles are an attack upon the
jury to say whet.
JUSTICE--110Vi Would you have me
put the case?,
to put it in this way—ls it a bond fide com-
unszo3 would humbly suggest to your
DuTkhoeoLoßarDuncEsliwßzistk'j:
Lordship
Ptified by the occasion on the public character of
rilhinrDcit Duke? It is entirely for the jury to find whether it
is libellous upon the face of it or not.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—You wish me to say that,
do you, because I have already done so.
Mr. CHAMBERS—If your Lordship pleases.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, turning to the jury aad
recalling their attention, said—" I leave it for you to
say, gentlemen, whether these publications, or any of
them, are libellous."
The Foreman—We understood your Lordship 10
direct us so before.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTlCE—Certainly, I did, go;
tlemen. This is the most singular way of tendering
bill of exceptions I ever heard of.
in their
box, and then returned a verdict for the defendant.
The jury again turned round for a moment
The result was received with manifeststious of applause
by a crowded court.

The director of the Dublin Trinity College Mu-
seum contradicts the statements published in the Liinerich
Chronicle, that the college had purchased or possessed at all
the sword worn at the battle of the Boyne by king William.
The only ground, he says, that could have origivated such a
statement is, that there is a sword in the Museum of' the
time of William and Mary, whose heads are chased on its
hilt, but it is even doubtful if this was a sword used by King
William himself.

" There is," says the Macclesfield Courier, "at
this time residing in this tows an Irishman, whose
__grand-
father died some twelve years ago, at the age of 99. Daring
his life he had been the husband of five wives, by whom he
became the father of 37 children. Of these 37 children, 32
were sons, and of these 32 sons, 31 enlisted in the army. The
thirty-second, who did not enlist, occupies a situation in u
iron foundry in Rotherham, and is the father of a hags
family. One of the daughters, aged 46, lives in London, lan d
is the mother of 21 children."