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

FEBRUARY 7, 1851.

lisped more than six years ago, thus taking advantage
of the statute of limitations. Tee! close the course
which he proposed to take was to enbrmvthe last four
libels to their most careful and serious consideration. and
to ask them to say w hi-tiler they adverted oe not by
inuendos to the statement made in the article of IS3O,
and 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 serf,
true, the defendant had the power of justifying thew,
and showing their truth; and he would leave the de-
fendant to bring before them his grounds fir having so
departed from the ordinary course of fair and just com-
ment' on the part of public journalists. The Duke f f
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. Harmer should have an op-
portunity a placing on record the plea of justifier's
tion, if he had the power of justifying the
strong expressions mid statements he had made,
but he had refused to accept the challenge.
He simply said he did not publish the lit.els; and us fur
as meth es V ere concerned, as fur as malice was concern' d,
looking at that which was written by the authority of
Mr. [lsmer after the last trial, he submitted that it
would be idle and useless fur 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 contained 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 otfences would
soon bo 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, it 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 to live on different terms to other people, and
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 bo 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. Ho had endea-
voured at some length to lay the case fairly before them,
and he would now leave it, with confidence, in their
hands, believing that they would deal justly towards the
Duke of Brunswick, who had, 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 IVeekly Dispatch and
The Sun newspapers, the latter 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 September, 1830, as there was no evidence
of its having been published within the statute of
limitation.
Mr. CHAMBERS said ho 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 the
first count.
The tour last publications were then admitted.
The letters of Mr. Oddie, secretary to the Duke of
Brunswick's secretary, to Mr. 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 most certainly have been
liable ns a criminal prosecution.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. JAIIES—My Lord, before we proceed further, the
plaintiff's case being closed, I will take your Lordship',
opinion if there is any evidence at all to go to the jury.
The inuendoes contained in this declaration lose then
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 they
point to the inuendoes, and seek to revive them, which
appear in 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 Fut upon them.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE--I think you had better
go to the jury.
Mr. JAmEs—May it please your Lordship and gen-
tlemen of the jury, I am counsel in this case on the part
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 particular matters which are charged against
the defendant as libels. Now, gentlemen, this is, as my
Learned Friend Mr. Chambers correctly stated, a new
trial. It is true that upon a previous trial of this action
before a special jury, sitting where I have now the
honour of addressing you, and acting under the direction
of my Lord Denman, found a verdict for the plaintiff,
with 5001. damages against Mr. Harmer. It is perfectly
true, as my Learned Friend Mr. Chambers has stated, that
this verdict was returned against Mr. Harmer upon the
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 up
by those who instructed my Learned Friend, because I
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; for
now, when we aome hero to investigate the real truth of
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 in its attainment. Gen

tlemen, it did create surprise, as my Learned Frierliih7a,
truly stated, or rather read from the columns of The Sun
❑ewspaper, that a jury should give 500/. 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 least
reflecting upon the Duke of Brunswick's privet(
character. but simply referring to him in his capacity
of a sovereign prince of the time—written, too, at a
moment when scenes were occurring i❑ 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
ono of the surest safeguards of their rights and liberties.
The press, gentlemen, I am sure you will agree with
rae, has st all times a right freely to comment upon the
great events passing in the various states of Europe, and
naturally enough it did create surprise, as was stated in
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 get e
a verdict for en alleged libel published in 1830, after
the statute of limitations had been pleaded, and at a time
when the events, which would have juetified the libel—
even supposing it was one—could not be brought forward
by the defendant, in order to prove that he had published
merely the trutb. Gentlemen, I have told you that the
statute of limitations was pleaded; but how did tht
Duke of Brunswick get over that plea on the first trial
of this case? Why, he put into the witness-box the man
referred to in The Sun newspaper, named Casimi.
Reinhold, who swore in that box, before my Lord Den-
man and a special jury, that he bought at the Weekly
Dispatch office, in IS4B, a copy of the paper which
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 jury, 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 iu 1848, the law required a republication,
and this man came forward to swear that he
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
perso❑ who heard it in court, and excited the alarm of
journalists, from one end of the country to the other.
Gentlemen, my Learned Friend Mr. Chambers was
right in stating to you that an applicatio❑ 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 DO
allusion to the witness which can justify such a reply as
this.

Mr. JAMES—What, gentlemen, have you not had
read against Mr. Harmer to-day the article which ap-
peared in The Sun newspaper ? It is as follows:—" 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 tho September of 1830."
Well, gentlemen, you have been told that the Court was
applied to for a new trial, and what was the decision
that their Lordships came to? Why, after hearing the
facts 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 law, and hero we are to try the question whether
it was not a conspiracy, aye, whether from a morbid
love or notoriety, the party most deeply interested in this
case has not sought, by means of pacing a man into the
witness-box to state falsehoods to extort a verdict in his
favour, and yet when they ere challenged to produce the
witness, who was brought forward in an unguarded mo-
testing the trusth of his
went, tor the purpose of
evidence—when, I say, they arc called upon

to bring forth this Casimir Reinhold, who, when
the defendant was not prepared fur him, came into the
witness-box, and swore to the republication in 1848,
they do not prodeee him. lie is not here to-day to
keep up the 'Ten' lication of 1848, so as to give them a
claim on the alleged bbel of IS3O. Do they either
account for his absence ? Do they tell you when he
Was list seen ? Do they say when he was first missed?
He seas the Duke of Brunswick's witness in the box
when he 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-
dence 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
former jury gave their verdict were correct; but Casi-
mir Reinhold is not forthcoming now he knows
that those ho were taken by surprise at the
former trial are at present fully prepared to
meet d▪ im. 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 nut face the parties whom he has so grossly
injured, they will look back upon that verdict with the
dsepest regret, as will, no doubt, the Learned judge who
tried the case, and all the counsel who were deceived
by the evidence of this eerjured witness. Well, gentle-
men, thi▪ s 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 fur your consideration? Tne
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 this, 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 upcn 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 dues it contain anything for which even the Duke
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-
fecdants themselves ought not to be called upon or
cable 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
Hof 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
over Europe, inasmuch as at the very time thrones
were tottering under kings, and the hearts of kings were
failing them through fear of their people rising and
dashing asunder the chains that enslaved them. And,
gentlemen, this may he said of all the statements pub-
lished in 1847, and the one pnblished 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.
Gentlemen, I feel most 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
the most prominent points of this case. What is the
case? I defy any one to look at this first extract which
ass 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
s to fly to this country for refuge, and living here
under the protection of our free constitution, he is not
o he subject to the remarks of a free press?
Does he imagine that as a king, against whom
nis subjects hare rebelled, that his name is not to be
nentioned by journalists in their comments upon events
which may be passing in Europe at the time? I cannot
understand it at all. Ho 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 ho is a king who has been dis-
missed by his subjects. It is most absurd. Instead of
oeing animated by feelings of gratitude towards the
country which gives him shelter, he repays her kind-
ness 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, doss 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-
ad according to its politics bas a right to refer
o political events, taking its own peculiar view of
.hem, commenting on the conduct of the people on one
side and the king on the other. One journal, in taking
inc political view, may say that the people rebelled
against the king; another, that the king rebelled
sgaiust the people. In the present instance, the matters
,n question were matters of history, and a fair subject of
comment. Dues 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 bush imagines he
covers his whole body, and having come to England,
fancies that he is entirely freed from all notice. It is a
,noet extraordinary notion of his, and one, perhaps, that
might have done in former days, when he was in Bruns-
Nick, and may have been the cause of his dismissal from
that country; but ho 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
+)y his outraged subjects. He may live in this country
quietly and in peace, if he likes, and indulge his habits
to any extent, provided that he confines them to his own
establishment; but he 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 morarch who was driven from his throne,
and fur that comparison he now comes before a jury to
demand compensation in damages. Why, the fact of
the Duke of Brunswick having been expelled in like
manner was a matter of history, everybody knew it,
and a journalist, in the exercise of his functions, had
as much right to comment upon it as Mr. Macaulay
!lad upon Charles L But now we come to what is

calledtho second libel, and what is the course pursued
there? I venture to say it surpasses everything that
is charged to the defendant in this action.

fhe Date of Brunswick writes by hici
gr. Oddie, to the editor of the Dispatch, and availed
himself of the statements which had appeared in the
tlipatch, to endeavour to get into this paper false and
malicious libels upon the memory of George the Fourth,
*i,ck_ased, and 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 severe punish-
ment. Mr. Oddie's letters contained statements of the
4russest nature upon individuals deceased, which the
Duke wished to publish by the medium of the Dispatch.
Lord CAMPBELL.—You may assume that it would
have been highly criminal fur the Weekly Dispatch to
have published that letter.
Mr. JAMES—Then, I say, that the course which the
Duke took was most untair. He writes this letter by
eLr. Oddie in defence of himself, as he states, but which

contains a base attack upon other individuals, and thinks
from the politics of the IVcchly Dispatch, and from the
view which they took of the ctaaracter of the late

'larch, 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 Wee lacrynio. 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 round and
charges it with libelling. But I trust that the Duken
of Brunswick will this day learn, and he has had several
lessons before, from the verdict of an En
jury, that his conduct as a l
publictter is of the
is a fair subject of comment. The neettheat
the editor
10th October, and in his comments upon
ay
more regard
begins by recommending Mr. Oddie to p English
hhasracter
gentleman spells
with a view to the
of trash
to orthography and correct spi:lllnfga7
government he spells
cultivation of a better style; zoor_f
serene' sereen,' and the reins
t o the allegedon t
h o
the comments on that
' reigns,' and in feet the
from beginning to end.
lying slumbering
Weekly Dispatch office. Mr. Oddie
0 which was then.
wßhuotleinletter is a piece
libel of 183 ,
letter there is not the slightest reference
and the comments his
writing,
goes on
Weekly Dispatch. They have been read to you,
dusty shelves of the
in the
and you will see them, and I ask you if a single
word is said in them about the attacks of 1830,
though in the declaration in the present action
the whole gravamen of the charge is made
to consist in the repetition of the libel of 1830. I think
I ought not to occupy your time with my remarks.
There is not a single line in the whole of the articles,
from one end to the other, which refers by inuendo even
to anything which has gone before. My Learned Friend
Mr. Chambers was quite right in telling you that the
Duke of Brunswick has a right to compensation in
damages for any libel which has been illegally and un-
lawfully directed against him. But is this a libel? I
say it is not. As an evidence of malice, my Learned
Friend has produced the article in The Sun newspaper;
but that was made the subject 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