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

EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 6.

(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and Et Special Jury,

DUKE OF BRUNSWICK v. HARMER.

This was an action on the case brought by the Duke
of Brunswick, to recover compensation in damages for
a series of alleged libels which were said to have been
published in the iFeeklyDispatch newspaper, of which Mr.
James Harmer, the defendant, was the proprietor. The
declaration contained five counts, the first setting out an
alleged libel, published so far back as September, 1830,
and the four other counts referring to that libel as an
inducement, and setting out other alleged libels pub-
-li-bed respectively on the 26 h September, 1847, the 3d
October, 1847, the 10th of October, 1847, and the 12th
of March, 1848. To the first count the defendant
pleaded the statuta of limitations, and to the others not

guilty, and upon these two pleas issue had been joined
The damages were laid at 10,0001.

Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., with whom was Mr.
Atherton, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Bovil, conducted the
eat,e for the defence.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in opening the case to the jury, said
he had the honour to appear for his Highness the Duke
of Brunswick, and they would well understand why he
rose to state the case to them with considerable
trepidation when they came to hear the wrongs
of which the Doke complained. His anxiety was
that be should not be able to do justice to his
Highness, or the great consideration which neces-
sarily arose out cf a case like this; but, nevertheless, he
would endeavour to bring before them as clearly as he
could all the circumstances connected with the griev-
ance of which his Highness complained. The present
action was brought against Mr. tlarmer, who for many
years had been the prosperous proprietor of the Weekly
Dispatch newspaper, and it was brought in respect of
five publications containing five separate libels, which '
hat been published in that newspaper. The first libel
was published as early as the year 1830, in which a
most unjustifiable and uncalled-for attack was made
upon his Highness; and in order, thoroughly, to under-
stand the case, it was nt cessary to take that libel in con-
nexion with the one published on the 26th of September,-
1847. Before. however, he proceeded with his narrative,
he would veuture to submit to them, that although
there was great excitement in 1847 amongst nations,
yet that excitement did not justify the wanton attack.
that was made upon his Highness, who was residing in
this country. He was perfectly well aware that jour-
nalists had a right to comment upon the acts and pro-
ceedings of sovereign princes, but to make that the
medium of a wanton attack upon the private character
of a person living here under the laws of the country, he
apprehended was moat unjustifiable and most improper.
Now, the libel:publislaed on the 26th of September, 1847,
was to th►s effect. (The alleged libel has been so often
before the public that it is unnecessary to repeat it
again; it was nothing more than a brier though graphic
account of the exciting events which occurred in Bruns-
wick in 1830.) Now in the first place the libel of which the
Duke of Brunswick complained was the introduction of
his name at all; he was residing in this country, he bad
not at all been mixed up with politics, and yet his name
was here introduced as a Sovereign, " who had been dis-
missed by his outraged and indignant subjects," which was
nothing more nor less than a wanton and uncalled-for
attack upon the Duke, lecause there was no
occasion whatever for introducing his name.
In consequence of this libel toe Duke of
Brunswick thought it necessary to look into the file,
of the Weekly Dispatch newspaper, in order to see how
the writer of this libel could justify the expression " out-
raged and indignant subjects;" and accordingly, on
looking back, he found in the libel of 1830 this vary ex-
pression of which he complains introduced into the
very long article which was the subject of the first count
in the declaration, and a portion of which article was in-
troduced as a preliminary averment to the other counts
to "point" the libels that were afterwards published.
Nuw, the article of which the Duke of Brunswick iu the
first place complained, and which he found in the news-
paper of 1830, was unquestionably most atrociously
libellous. It purported to give an account of the flight
of the Duke of Brunswick from the Duchy of Brunswick
—it purported to state as facts things which the defend-
ant dared nut support by a plea of justification. He
would now proceed to derail to them what the libel was.
Mr. JAMES submitted that the libel of 1830 could
have no reference in a legal point of view to the pre-
sent inquiry.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—I cannot stop Mr. Cham-
bers; I see no necessity for it.
Mr. CHAMBERS apprehended that all the libels of
1847 distinctly referred to the statement published in
1830; indeed it was set out in the declaration by way
of inducement to the other libels, and there being only
a plea of the statute of limitations the publication was
admitted.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—At present I cannot stop
your opening.
Mr. CHAMBERS continued—Now he had read to them
the libel of 1830, and if the jury would be good enough
to follow him they would see that the expressions made
use of were most atrocious and abominable libels, con-
tained in statements which ought not to
have been published, and which could not be,
justified by the moat extreme notions of what
was called the freedom of the press. It went consider-
ably beyond the fair limit of political cotnieentary. It
etigaiaez d him ae a monster, accused him of robbery—
accused hum of a disposition of assassination, indeed it
was a libel of so very strong and dreadful a character as
to make every man feel that he was unfit not merely for
decent society, but that if he was guilty of the charges
thus plainly made against him, he was unfit to appear
even in civilised society. Having adverted to this libel
of early date, he would pass to the articles referred to
in the subsequent counts, and to which the previous one
was a kind ot introduction; for all the libels to which he
had now to direct their attention contained inuendos
directly referring to the charges made in 1830, but he
would go the length of saying, that even if they struck
out the inuendoes in all the five subsequent
counts, there would still remain in them most atrocious
libels to justify their finding a verdict for the plaiatiff
for very considerable damages. When the Duke of
Brunswick saw the libel, in September, 1847, he looked
back to see how it was possible to ascertain what was the
meaning of the charges that were rather insinuated than
directly made against him, and having
done so he wrote
a distinct contradictory statement to the editor of the
Dispatch newspaper, in the expectation that the editor
would retract what he had said, and relieve him-
self from the consequences of an expression which he bad
unintentionally maue use of against the Duke of BrUnb•
wick, who at the time was living quite retired under the
protection of the English laws. Be expected that
his letter would either be published in the
columns of the Dispatch newspaper, or that the editor
would retract any assertion be had made tending to
bring him into contempt. Instead of doing that, how-
ever, the editor, in pretending to give the substance 01
the Duke's communication, did that which was often
done by the conductors of public journals and, under the
pretence of doing the Duke justice, he did him an addi-
tional injustice, by repeating the calumnies which he had
written to complain ot, and this repetition formed the
subject-matter of the libel set out in the third count.
it with the previous ys then wrote is second
IMetrtrOtdodyth,etheed?tuokr,e'fisndseincgreittatur
mis-
representation, and on the 3d of October, 1847, another
libel was published on the Duke, which tended
still further to lower him iu the estimation
of the world, and ,to
.hold him up as an
object of oislike; and the jury would bear in mind
taut ail this was done under the preteuce of giving
the substance of the Duke's cot:lamentations, and through
statements which the editor endeavoured to fix upon the
Duke which ho had never made. In consequence of this,
which simply to write another letter,
pointed
theowhichat t Do
the
ees
editor da ci rc eocr tdet
ihdneg Mimy
mistakes
toa
andnOkeed,sd3-
he
had fallen into; but in-
stead of inserting that letter at length, the editor thought
proper to give his own wham to the comunication, and
make it the medium for further libels on the Duke,
bsridees short, holding
Mr.
Oedrde v e r y
yup to redicule. The
observations which the editor made upon the letter
w
strong. It began by
asserting that which was perfectly true, namely,
that England was the haven of refuge for all
political exiles, but gave him leave to observe
eert, but they were
that if, when these banished exiles arrived here,
they were to be made the objects of unfair attacks and
slanderous libels without being able to obtain redress at
the hands of the law, there was an end of the boasted
security which the count!), afforded them. Well, then,
the latter part of the notice of the Duke's letter was un-
questionably an attack, a gross attack, upon the Duke's
character. It said the Duke had honoured the English
people with ignoble presence; bat ,the observation was
made in a strain of sarcasm and irony, and of course it
meant dishonoured the English people, thus showing that
he a fit object of dislike, outrages and attack. He
had now nearly concluded what he had to say, but before
sitting down be must meet a topic which he was told
would be urged against him. It referred to something
which had taken place in this case b.efore. The Duke of
Brunswick first brought hi▪ s actionan March, 1848; that
action was tried in July, 1849, when a verdict was re-
turned for the Duke, with 5001. dannages; and with a
view to show them that these latter libels were not pub-
lished in the nature of fair and honest criticisms, justi-
fied either by the particular subject to which they re-
ferred, or by the freedom that was always given to poli-
tical commentary, it would be his duty to direct their
attention to another publication, grossly misrepresenting
the trial, and clearly showing the malice which actuated
the defendant in publishing his former statements.
Two days after the trial an article appeared in TI
i
Sun newspaper, commenti▪
ng upon Its and this clearly
showed that throughout Mr. Harmer had been actuated
by malice. The Learned Counsel then read a portion
of this article, which was Published in The Sun on the
28th of June, 1848, and has akeitdy been before the
public on several occasions. He Contended that it con-
tained some unfortunate mistatements with regard to the
trial, which were calculeteel retsiead Lae public.
H e took that opportunity of introducing is for
the purposa of showing thet the were not pub-
lished in that just and fair spirit which journalists ought
to observe when speaking merely of the political or
public character of individuals. H. e might state, per-
naps, that an application was made for a new trial, and
that it was again sent down for their euniideration; but
in consequence of the delay which had taken
place a person of the name of Casimir
Reinholt, Rho purchased a e^P37 of the Disp:Atch
ileaspaper in 1848, which contained the libel of 1840,
was not in attendance and could not be pry curiel„ Nave
with reference to the actual publication of the first
, that was not disputed or challenged by the plea which
had been put in, but it was simply said that it was pub-