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

FEBRUARY 1,

lished more than six years ago, thus taking advantage
of the statute of limitations. Therefore the course
which he proposed to take was to submit the last four
libels to their most careful and serious consideration, and
to ask them to say whether they adverted or cot by
inuendos to the statereer t made in the article of 1830,
end if they thought they did, to call upon them to
give heavy damages in respect of those libels. Why did
he ask them to do this? Because if these libels were
true, the defendant had the power of justifying them,
and showing their truth; and he would leave the de-
fendant to bring before them his grounds for having so
departed from the ordinary course of fair and just com-
ment on the part of public journalists. The Duke cf
Brunswick had occasionally been taunted for not pro-
ceeding by way of indictment or information against
the parties who had so injured him; but the Duke
deemed it right that Mr. Bernier should have art op-
portunity of placing on record the plea of justifica-
tion, if he had the power of justifying the
strong expressions and statements he had made,
but he had refused to accept the challenge.
He simply said he did not publish the libels; and as far
as motives were concerned, as far as malice was concerned,
looking at that which was written by the authority of
Mr. Harmer after the last trial, he submitted that it
would be idle and useless for him now to say that he
was acting in the fair exercise of that freedom of the
press which belonged to public journalists. The article
in The Sun newspaper cuntsined some very excellent
writing, especially the first part of it, because it showed
that the writer understood truly the nature of our admira•
ble constitution and of our happy nation. He understood
truly that in England a foreigner, whether he be rightly
banished, or be banished through the fickleness or caprice
of his fellow-countrymen, could always find refuge and
repose ; he boasted of England opening its doors not
only to political exiles, but to political enemies; he said
they would meet with cordiality and kindness, and that,
if they had committed any offences, those offences would
soon be forgotten ; that if they met with misfortune,
those misfortunes would be alleviated, and comfort and
consolation be given to them; but at the same time, when
he made these observations, he should have recollected
that England would be in the greatest danger of forfeiting
the high opinion which she had earned among the na-
tions of the world, if she did not control the licentious-
ness of the press. If foreigners who came here were
to be attacked in their private character, and to have no
redress, it was as much as to say that, though friendless
exiles might find a home and an asylum in England,
they were t.r live on different terms to other people, ono
be obliged to submit to all kinds of ridicule and con-
tempt without any opportunity of remonstrance, not-
withstanding the statements which might be made
against them were wholly unfounded. The consequences
of such a doctrine would be most serious, especially to
the parties concerned, as the idle statement or vindictive
libel of to-day might become the recorded matter
of history to-morrow. In this way innocent and un-
offending parties may be handed down to posterity
as individuals of unworthy character. He had endea-
voured at some length to lay the case fairly before,thern,
and he would now leave it, with confidence, in their
hands, believing that they would deal justly towards the
Duke of Brunswick, who bad, under the circumstances
he had stated, been again compelled to appear in a
court of justice.
Mr. Isaac Sercomb, clerk in the Stamp-office, proved
Mr. Harmer's proprietorship of the Weekly Dispatch and
The Sun newspapers, the letter as mortgagee.
The papers containing the alleged libels were then put
in, bearing date 19th September, 1830, 20th September,
1847, 3d and 10th October, 1847, 12th March, 1848.
Mr. JAMES here objected to the reading of the libel
of the 19tH Sep;ember, 1830, as there was no evidence
of its having been published within the statute of
limitation.

Mr. CHAMBERS said he was perfectly indifferent as
to whether the first libel were put in evidence at all ;
the substantial grievance was contained in the sub-
sequent libels. He was quite content to abandon_tht,
first count. _ _

The tour Jest publications were then admitted.
The letters of Mr. Oddie, secretary to the Duke of
Brunswick's secretary, to Hr. Harmer, were then put in,
read, and admitted.

Lord CAMPBELL remarked, that if these letters had
been published in the Weekly Dispatch, as desired by Mr.
Oddie, the proprietors would must certainly have been
liable t 4 a criminal prosecution.
This was the plaintiff'a case.
Mr. JAMES--My Lord, before we proceed further, the
plaintiff's case being closed, I will take your Lordship's
opinion if there is any evidecce at all to go to the jury.
The inuendoes contained in this declaration lose their
force if they are to be taken without reference to the
publication of 1830. All the subsequent publications
are sought to be made libels by an allegation that the,
point to the inuendoes, and seek to revive them, which
appear is the publication which has been abandoned,
and since that publication is not attempted to be proved,
I submit that the subsequent publications set out in the
declaration cannot bear the construction that is sought
to be put upon them.

.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I think you had better
go to the jury.
Mr. JAMES—Hay it please your Lordship and gen-
tlemen of the jury, I am counsel in this case on the pert
of Mr. Harmer, and it occurs to me, in order to secure
proper understanding of what you have to try, that be-
fore addressing to you the few observations I have
to make for the defence, it is necessary to clear
away the mass of irrelevant details introduced by those
who instructed my Learned Friends on the other side. It
is the only way to secure a true and ready comprehen-
sion of the pat ticular matters which are charged against
the defendant as libels. Now, gentlemen, this is, as my
Learned Friend Mr. Chambers comedy stated, a nea
trial. It is true that upon a previous trial of this action
before a special jury, aittiug where I have now the
honour of addressing you, and acting under the directior,
of my Lord Delman, found a verdict for the plaintiff,
with 5001. damages against Mr. Harmer. It is perfectly
;rue, as my LearneaFriend Mr. Chambers has stated, thy.;
this verdict was returned against Mr. Harmer upon tilt
proof that he had republished in 1848. But I
do beg your most serious attention to the
mode in which this case has been got ul
by those who instructed my Learned Friend, because 1
think, out of his own statement, I can show you that
there has been in this case a tampering with witnesses,
and that this verdict was obtained by unfair means; foi
now, when we come here to investigate the real truth or
the matter, they dare not submit to the ordeal of your
examination, or even to your inspection, the agent who
was the chief instrument used iu its attainment. Gen-
tlemen, it did create surprise, as my Learned Friend has
truly stated, or rather read from the columns of The Sun
newspaper, that a jury should give 5001. damages
against a journalist in this country, for the publica-
tion, in 1830, of a commentary, written perhaps
in strong language, but still not in the leas;
reflecting upon the Duke of Brunswick's private
character. but simply referring to him in his capacity
ef a sovereign price of the time—written, too, at
moment when scenes were occurring in his dominion:,
that should always form the just subject of comment in
a country where the people are proud to call themselves
free, and where the freedom of the press is considered
one of the surest safeguards of their rights and liberties.
The press, gentlemen, I am sure you will agree with
me, has at ail times a right freely to comment, upon the
great events passing in the various states or Europe, and
naturally enough it did create surprise, as was stated it,
The Sun newspaper— a surprise, too, that extended
from one end of the country to the other
that a British jury could be found to give
verdict for an alleged libel published in 1830, aftet
the statute of limitations had been pleaded, and at a time
when the event;, which would have justified the libel—
even supposing it was one—could not be brought forward
by tile defendant, in order to prove that he had published
merely the truth. Gentlemen, I have told you that the
statute of limitations was pleaded; but how did tin
Duke of Brunswick get over that plea on the first trial
of this case? Why, he put into the witness-box the mat
referred to in The Sun newspaper, named Casimir
Reinhold, who swore in that box, before my Lord Den-
teen and a special jury, that he bought at the Weekly
Dispatch office, in 1848, a copy of the paper whist;
had been published so far back as 1830. That,
gentlemen, you see was for the purpose of
proving the republication, and upon that evidence the
case was placed before the iury, and commented upon by
the Learned Judge who tried it. Mark, gentlemen, in
the first place, in point of law, it defeated the statute of
limitations, while in the second place, in point of da-
mages, it induced the jury to find the republication of
an alleged libel, which had long since been dead and bu-
ried, and which had remained for years mouldering away
upon the dusty shelves of the Weekly Dispatch news-
paper, and which after all, so far from being a libel upon
private character, was nothing more nor less than a
simple comment upon events notoriously passing in
Europe at the time it was written. Nevertheless, to
give it point in 1848, the law required a republication,
and this man came forward to swear that hy
purchased a copy of the paper published in
1830 in the year 1848. It was upon that the
jury acted, it was upon that my Lord Denman made his
remarks. it was that which led to the verdict and the
awarding of damages which struck with surprise every
person who heard it in court, and excited the alarm to
journalists, from one end of the country to the other.
Gentlemen, my Learned Friend Mr. Chambers was
right in stating to you that an application was made to
this Court to set aside that verdict upon the ground
that this Casimir Reinhold was a suborned and per-
jured witness, and my Lords directed a new trial, or
another investigation, to see whether it was true or
false what this perjured man had sworn.
Mr. CHAMBERS—I must object to my Learned Friend
making use of these expressions. I have made no
allusion to the witness which can justify such a reply as
this.

Mr. JAMES—What, gentlemen, have you not bad
read against Mr. Harmer to-day the article which ap-
peared in Vic Sun newspaper ? It is as follnwa:—" As
to the obstacle presented against such a decision by the
statute of limitations, it will be observed that that was
peremptorily overcome by the evidence given by a wit-
ness named Casimir Reinhold, who swore distinctly to
having purchased in the March of 1848 a copy
of the paper printed in the September of 1830."
Well, gtrottemen, you have bt,eu tt:!d that the Court was
applied to for a rhw trial, ens, what was the decision
teat their Lordships came to? Why, after hearing the
taco: that were laid before them in affidavits, their Lord-
ships directed another investigation to be had to see
whether it was true or false that Casimir Reinhold did
buy the paper in 1848, so as to establish the republica-
tion in taw, and hero e LI '.re to try the question whether
it W:.B 1O t it eonsiracy, aye, wh,:ther from a morbid
love of° notoriety, the par,y most deeply interested in this
Cd.s, riLIS sought, by ratans tot putiog a man into the
witness-box to state falsehoods to extort a verdict in his
favour, and yet wlan they are challenged to produce the
witness, who was be ought forward in au unguarded mo-
ment, tor the
,purpose of testing the trusth of his
evidence—when, I bay, they are ottlled upon

to bring forth this Casimir Reinhold, who, when
the defendant was not prepared for him, came into the
witnea,box, an swore to the repub!ication in 1848,
I they do not produce him. He is not here to-day to
keep up the republication of 1848, so as to give them a
claim on the alleged libel of 1830. Do they either
account for his absence ? Do they tell you when he
was Lat seen ? Do they say when he was first missed?
He was the Duke of Brunswick's witness in the box
when ho took everybody by surprise, and swore that in
1848 he bought at the Weekly Dispatch office the
paper containing the statement that was published in
1848. Gentlemen, he is not here to-day, and his evi-
'fence must therefore be taken to be false. Here we are
ready to submit the man to you, gentlemen of the special
jury, if they will only produce him, or say where he is
to be found, to see whether the grounds upon which the
tormer jury gave their verdict Here correct; but Casi-
mir Reinhold is not forthcoming now he knows
that those who were taken by surprise at the
former trial are at present fully prepared to
,neet him. It was, however, through his evidence
that the adverse verdict was obtained, but I venture to
say that when the gentlemen who composed the first
jury become aware of the fact that he perjured himself,
and dare not face the parties whom he has so grossly
injured, they will look back upon that verdict with the
deepest regret, as will, no doubt, the Learned judge who
cried the case, and all the counsel who were deceived
by the evidence of this perjured witness. Well„ gentle-
men, this witness they do not put into the box to day, but
prefer rather to withdraw the alleged libel of 1830, and,
therefore, I will dismiss this matter now with the simple
remark that it will have to be made the subject of an
inquiry elsewhere. Now, then, gentlemen, let us deal with
the case as it is presented to you to-day, and in doing so
I will endeavour to be as brief and as precise as possible.
What now is the case for your consideration? The
publication of 1830 I need not say a word more about;
but, if necessary. one could have remarked, with re-
ference to the Duke of Brunswick, that it was a com-
ment, perhaps composed of strong language, but still
justifiable in a free country like thie for it was nothing
more than a commentary upon a king deposed by his
subjects, whether rightly or wrongly did not matter. I
will not go into that. It was a commentary upon events
that were occurring in Brunswick before his Highness
the Duke had honoured us with his presence in Eng-
land. It was no attack upon private character, and with
that observation he would dismiss the publication of
1830 and pass on to the others. Now, the first, gentlemen,
is the alleged libel of the 26th of September, 1847, and
how do they shape this case with regard to that? My
Lord has seen the declaration, and he can tell
you that they do not pretend to say that
this of itself is intrinsically a publication con-
taining anything which can be complained of, nor in-
deed does it contain anything for which even the Dtrke
of Brunswick, with the most morbid love of notoriety,
can bring journalist after journalist before a Court,
though his fortune may enable him and his will be to do
so, but the frightful expense of which proceedings the de-
fendants themselves ought not to be called upon or
liable to incur. They do not pretend to say that this
of itself is a libel, but they say it refers to the former
libel of 1830, but subject to his Lordship's direction. I
will take your opinion, gentlemen, as to whether any one
31: these alleged libels published in 1847 has the
slightest reference by inuendo or in anything
else to the statement contained in the article of
1830, which introduces the name of the Duke while
commenting upon passing events of exciting interest all
,ver Europe, inasmuch as at the very time thrones
were tottering under kings, and the hearts of kings were
`ailing them through fear of their people rising and
dashing asunder the chains that enslaved them. And,
gentlemen, this may be said of all the statements pub-
lished in 1847, and the one published in 1848, for they
make no reference whatever to the statement of 1830,
nor can you trace in them the slightest inuendo, or
the remotest link which can by any possibi-
lity connect them with the publication of 1830.
dentlemen, I feel moat anxious to do the fullest justice
to this case in the absence of my Learned Friend, Sir F.
Thesiger, but I do not conceive that it will be necessary
for me to occupy your time at any considerable length.
I shall merely direct your attention to one or two of
;he roost prominent points of this case. What is the
case? I defy any one to look at this first extract which
has been read, and to say that there is anything in it
which at all bears the appearance of a libel. It is
merely a narrative of affairs occurring at the time in
Italy, and a comparison of the Duke of Brunswick with
the Duke of Lucca. That is all that is said in the libel
about the Duke. But, says my Learned Friend Mr.
Chambers, this comparison was not at all palatable to
his Highness! What, and his Highness imagine that he
is to fly to this country for refuge, and living here
under the protection of our free constitution, he is not
to be subject to the remarks of a free press?
Does he imagine that as a king, against whom
his subjects have rebelled, that his name is not to be
mentioned by journalists in their comments upon events
which may be passing in Europe at the time? I cannot
understand it at all. He enjoys the benefit of the haven
of refuge which this country gives, and he thinks his
name too sacred to be mentioned even by the journalists
of the country, though he is a king who has been dis-
missed by his subjects. It is most absurd. Instead of
toeing animated by feelings of gratitude towards the
country which gives him shelter, he repays her kind-
Jess by harassing the press by these continual actions.
Gentlemen, he very much mistakes the feelings of an
English jury if he thinks that they will at all assist him
,n this amusement. But, I say again, does this extract
which has been read at all attack his private character?
It is absurd to say so—it is a mere comment try
upon public events, and I say that every jour-
nal according to its politics has a right to refer
si political events, taking its own peculiar view of
commenting on the conduct of the people on one
aide and the king on the other. One journal, in taking
one political view, may lay that the people rebelled
against the king; another, that the king rebelled
,gaiest the people. In the present instance, the matters
n question were matters of history, and a fair subject of
comment. Does the Duke imagine that passing events
are not to be noticed? The Duke is like an ostrich,
who, when he puts his head into the hush imagines he
covers his whole body, and having come to England,
tansies that be is entirely freed from all notice. It is a
most extraordinary notion of his, and one, perhaps, that
might have done in former days, when he was in Bruns-
eack, and may have been the cause of his dismissal from
that country; but he misunderstood the genius of the
English people and of English juries, if he fancies that
upon such topics his name is never to be mentioned as a
person who once occupied a throne, but was driven from it
ey his outraged subjects. He may live in this country
quietly and in peace, if he likes, and indulge his habits
.o any extent, provided that he conflees them to his own
establishment; but be is mistaken if he thinks in such
matters as his public and political conduct he is
not to be made the subject of comment. He complains
that he has been likened to the Duke of Lucca, another
sovereign inoearch who was driven from his throne,
and for that comparison be now comes before a jury to
lemand compensation in damages. Why, the fact of
:he Duke of Brunswick having been expelled in like
easnner was a matter of history, everybody knew it,
and a journalist, in the exercise of his functions, had
,s much right to comment upon it as Mr. Macaulay
lad upon Charles I. But now we come to what is
called the second libel, and what is the course pursued
„here? I venture to say it surpasses everything that
is charged to the defendant in this action.
Me Duke of Brunswick writes by his secretary,
Jlr. Oddie, to the editor of the Dispatch, and availed
himself of the statements welch bad appeared in the
Dispatch, to endeavour to get into this paper false and
malicious libels upon the memory of George the Fourtb,
.t.-ceased, mod his Ministers; which, indeed, if the Weekly
Dispatch had been foolish enough to publish, the pro-
prietors would most certainly have been amenable to the
law, and rendered themselves liable to a seven! punish-
ment. Mr. Oddie's letters contained statements of the
grossest nature upon individuals deceased, which the
Duke wished to publish by the medium of the Dispatch.

Lord CAZIPISZLL.—Yuri may assume that it would
have been highly criminal for the Weekly Dispatch to
have published that letter.
Mr. JANES—Then, I say, that the course which the
Duke took eves most unfair. He writes this letter by
&Ir. 011ie in defence of himself, as he states, but which
contains a base attack upon other individuals, and thinks
from the politics of the Weekly Dispatch, and from the
view which they took of the coaracter of ihe late mo-
narch, George the Fourth, that he would thus insinuate
it into their columns. But, gentlemen, with politics we
have nothing to do here; they enter not into the jury
box, it is too sacred a place for them; and I am sure
no gentleman whom I have this day the honour to
address is at all capable of being influenced by them.
The Duke was, however, mistaken in his estimate of the
character of the conductors of the Weekly Dispatch.
We war not with private character, they said, we have
only to do with the public life of a public character.
And this was the reason why his serene and sensitive
Highness came here to-day as an aggrieved individual
seeking damages. Iliac ills lacrymce. That is the
reason, and the only reason, why we are here to-day ;
because the Weekly Dispatch would not lend itself to
inserting a vile and foul libel on the memory of a dead
monarch. Because he could not turn libeller through
the medium of the Weekly Dispatch he turns rouud and
charges it with libelling. But I trust that the Duke
of Brunswick will this day learn, and he has had several
lessons before, from the verdict of an English specialter
jury, that his conduct as a public character
is a fair subject of comment. The next letterhi:
10th October, and in his comments upon that
ard
begins by recommending Mr. Oddie to pay, wvierw to the
co orthography and comet spelling, ot_e 4itor
cultivation of a better style; for thata
-13 nt he spells
serene sereen,' and the reins ofttgr ri;ehutleman spslls
is a piece of trash
reigns,' and in fact the wholesale
from beginning to end. B thee comments on that
slumbering on the
sitlyrieafgerence to the alleged
letter there is not the slightest
net
libel of 1830, which a
'tines and the comments hisletter appear
dusty shelves of the was then
Dispatcohnop. ee Mr. Oddie
goes On writing,
/eh• They have been read
you if a single
is the Weekly VisPa • to you,
them
word is said in
and you will tea them, and I ask
w , ug 1, in the decleration in the preterit action
o
the whole gravamen of the charge is tirade
Le connive ins the repele..:en libel of 1830. I think
I ought not to eccupy your time with my remarks,
There is not a single line in the whole of the ariieles,
from one end to the other, w hieh refers by inuende even
to anything which has gone before. My Learned Friend
Mr. Ghaeehers was quite right in telling you that the
Duke ot Brunswick less a right to compensation in
demsgee tor any libel which has been illegally and un-
law, ugly directed against him. But is this a libel? I
say i is not. As an evidence of malice, my Learned
Friend has produced the article in The Sun newspaper;
but that was made the sul-ject of an action tried before
Mr. Justice Erle and a special jury, and the jury looked
and said it was no libel, and returned a verdict for the
defendant. And yet the Duke of Brunswick instructs

my Learned Friend to come beore you again, for the
purpose of acquiring an unenviable notoriety, having
ample funds atlas command. But be is mistaken if he
; thinks he can harce:s the pass much logger by these
attacks, or like supposes that an English jury will allow
him to amuse' himscli in this aisy with impunity.
I think the Duke of .Brunswick mistakes 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 ite-he
may lead what course of life he likes, as long as he con-
fines his pleasures and luxuries to his own domestic
circle ; but if he imagines that in this country, the
freedom
,of which he now enjoys, along with many
other refugees, the press is to be stilled 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 characterasa
youele wposeidll.mbo;
mo-
narch, and, therefore, I confieently trust
your verdict, vindicate the right of the press, whose free-
dom has been struggled for by juries and thepseogplreeaint
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. Ii
encouraged in these sort of persecutions he, no doubt,
will bring action after action against the press ;
but let me tell him that if he is misled by his
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 had taken advantage of.
We say, therefore, gentlemen, that this publication is
no libel at all; that it is a mere comment on events which
occurred, in which he figured largely, and that no Jamie
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 isid—
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 bad
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 moat 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 I am 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 observatioe, fl;at 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 bathing reference to the late Lord Chief
Justice), a verdict of 5001. was returned, which was no
doubt a just verdict on the evidence then proved; but
affidavits were subsequently laid before this ooart, 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 evidence
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 be swore
falsely. He possibly might have imposed on the Duke
of 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. Harmer.
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 intell'gent Englishmen, exercising
the important functions which the constitution has as-
signed to you, consider that in the alleged libels of the
26th of September, 1847, the 3d of October, 1847, the
10th of October, 1847, and the 12th of March, 1848.
there is anything rtfiscting 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 wore made by the
journalist, or whether the comments were not made
maliciously as attacks on his own ',riven) character. If
the late-r, 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; bat 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 had no such tendency, because it is
merely an at ticle 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 in that article, Mr. Harmer being responsi-
ble for it, which shows any dieposition 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 anopinion, which I believe you will all concur in,
that if these letters had been published in the Weekly
Dispatch, Mr. Helmer would have been guilty of a
crime fur which, as proprietor, he might have been pro-
secuted and punished; fir not only does it contain
gross vituperation, directed against a particular
newspaper—against the pees of England generally,
and against some of the subjects of the Doke, but
it is most libellous on the memory of George the
Fourth, not on his public conouct, which would offer
a subject of fair comment, hut it says he was eneaged 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. pr,priety—
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 there 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 poslications into your consideration, and
sthayinktr
ey whether
contain
taoi
nr any of
calumnious themare lirbeeosenlrse.ltfat3iooun
owniltlbfienpdria.
catrisocrtetrh
eof p
plaintiff,
tiDukeff.
giving o B rsuuneshw ick,
damagesyou
as you may consider he is entitled to receive under the
awnoualtdt
yon
have
me
circumstances; but if you think they contain no such
vavteerdcih
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 mint* . the
box,_ were about to give their verdict, when his
Mr. MONTAGUE CMAMBERB intimated that It Witiord.
intention to tender a bill of exceptions to Owl
ship's summing up.
know how he
Lord CAMPBELL said he was at a loss to
Jury would be so
could put the case in any other light than
he bad already done, but paha s
Pelihdeirations for a few
good as to suspend their d than that in which
moments.
Lordship has left it to the
Mr. CHAMBERS—Your
an upon the
character.
Duke of Brunswick's private
jury
rroteo LayanwermaitibEeir
put the case?
csaxeltas—l would humbly suggest to your
Mr. . put it in this way—ls it a .bond fide coin-
Lordship
by the cc •
com-
ment justified
.o anon ou the public character of
JUSTICE—How the articles a e
the Duke? It is entirely for the jury to find whether it
is libellous upon the lace of it or not.
The LORD CH
lEF 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 and
recalling their attention, said—" I leave it for you to
say, gentlemen, whether these publications, or any of
them, are libellous."
The Foreman—We underetood your Lordship to
direct us so before.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTlCE—Certainly, I did, gen-
tlemen. This is the most singular way of tendering $
bill of exceptions I ever heard oh
The jury again turned round for a moment in their
box, and then returned a verdict for the defendant.
The result was received with manifestations of applause
by a crowded court.

The director of the Duhlin Trinity College Mu.
seum contradicts the statements published in the Limerick
Chronicle, that the college, hod purchased or possessed at all
the sword worn at the bi.ttle of the Boyne byK.irg
The only ground, he says. that could have origniated such a
statement
that there is a sword in the Museum of the
time of William an. Mary, whose heads are chased on its
hilt, but it is even doubtful if this was a sword used by King
William himself.
" There saYs Macclesfield Courier, "at
this time residing in this town an Irishman, whose grand-
te l Ye
e y
husbandear s ago, at the age of 99. During
of five wives, by whom he
hlaitstileifre died
he hased
became the father of 37 children. Or these 37 children, 32
were sous, and of these 32 sous, 31 enlisted in the army. The
thirty-secondt who dui not enlist, occupies a situation in as
iron foundry in Rotherham, and is the father of a large
mbeee to
the
- One of the daughters, aged 46, lircein Louth% sad
is the mother of 21 otaldren."