The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-03 00:00:00

rHE SUN, ON N, W DNLS E, Vii Nim,G k
5 DECEMBER 3 85 6

Li N' I]3 LE .1 iti

D I,l' er,dl:o Ith/it/US

LORD LUCIAN AND THE LIBERTY
OF THE PRESS.

was ready to give Lord Lucan an opportunity of justi•
fying his conduct by inserting a letter from him. The
learned gentlenion characterised the offer of the editor
as an insult, and revolting to justic, and propriety, and
Lord Lunan would have disgraced liiinself by writing a
letter to a newspaper, denying the statements sot forth
in the libel in question. He then read the correspond•
ence that passed on the occasion, and which is given
below, and in conclusion said the noble lord was before
them for such scanty redress as the law would give him
for an attack on his character, which was beyond fair
criticism, reserving his other remarks till he had heard
the nature of the defence.

KA. tr. w I's

COURT OF EXCHEQUER (THIS DAN).

(Before the Lord Chief Barn and a Special Jury.
This ❑corning Was sp:..cially appointed for the tria

" Lord Lucan v. Smith and others," proprietors of the
Daily News, for damages for an alleged libel contained
ii
nu awnhai
crhti ctl
he
epyttbelriisth;
celd,
eidn
ihsa tl praaspheirp
,osn
conduct 2 6 th luly
lrai tgs,
his command in the Crimea. The 8 offerings of the Eng-
lish army daring the late Russian war created at the
time much Merest; and absorbed public attention for a
considerable period. As die public are aware it gave
rise to much eiscussien in Parliament, and several offi
cial inquiries took place ; and it was after the issue of
the report of the Chelsea Board of General Officers that
the article in question appeared in the Daily News. The
defendants plead not guilty, and that the article com-
plained of was a fair and bona fide comment upon the
conduct of the plaintiff as commander of the Cavalry
Division in the Crimea, and was printed and published
by the defendants as and for such comment, and without
any malicious intent or motive whatever. About 10
days since the defendants applied to the Court to be
allowed to plead a special plea, but the Court refused
the application. As the defence will mainly rest on it
we subjoin it. It is as follows :
"And for a second plea the defendants say that in and
during the war in the declaration mentioned, and until the
plaintiff was recalled as hereinafter mentioned, he was the
general commanding the Cavalry Division of her Majesty's
fdorcaen, in h
forces employedtedeclaration
natio
int he said e war,nt ,d,
3 and the said Lord Ca r -
ig
was the general coin
mantling the Light Cavalry Brigade, being part of the said
division, and disputes and differences arose and existed be-
tween the plaintiff and the said Lord Cardigan touching
their conduct in such commands respectively, and the
plaintiff and the said Lord Cardigan wrote and sent to the
Commander-in-Chief of her Majesty's said forces letters in
which they respectively complained of each other's conduct
in reference to their said commands respectively, and the
plaintiff also wrote letters to the said Commander-in-Chief,
in which he complained of the course of conduct pursued
towards him by the latter in reference to the plaintiff's
said command. And the defendants say that such dis-
putes, differences, and complaints tended to impair the effi-
ciency of the services of the said forces in the said war.
And the defendants further say, that in and during the
said war great sufferings, lessee, end disasters were under-
gone, sustained, and happened by and to the said division,
so under the plaintiff's command, as aforesaid, in men and
horses, as well by reason of want of sufficient food, forage,
and shelter, respectively and otherwise, as in operations
undertaken against the enemy, and that such disputes and
differences, complaints, sufferings, losses, and disasters had
become and were before the committing of the grievances
in the declaration mentioned matters of public notoriety,
discussion, and interest amongst and by her Majesty's sub-
jects, and by divers of such subjects complaints were pub
licly made of alleged misconduct and mismanagement in
reference to the conduct of the said war by those in com-
mand over the said forces, or portions thereof. And the
defendants further say, that the plaintiff was, before the
committing of the said grievances, recalled by her Majesty
from his said command, and afterwards and before the
committing of the said grievances, made public speeches and
wrote letters reflecting upon the conduct of the said Com•
wander-in-Chief of the said forces, and others, in relation
to the said war, and which said speeches and letters were
made public. And the defendants further say, that before
the committing of the said grievances, her Majesty's Sec-
retary of State for the War Department directed Sir John
Me/sTeill and Colonel Tulloch to proceed to the seat of the
said war to inquire into divers of the aforesaid premises,
and amongst others, as to the want of such food and forage,
as aforesaid ; and the said Sir John and Colonel
Tulloch afterwards, and before. tho committing of such
taergoevnr
madepiihdedo
his
s grievances,
sa,ncawnecti edadht skai
c,
ohnedmnruumel
forwardedbnpyyado uertdtrteswhmutoeci proceededshcutaopdhanoieidnrmuells
cyailltdthi didovoiecnefrhsrs
:teshtecuaeh:
ne.
rehtdilt
spaaasliorml Itnynaste.ttioerffwfml 1
And
acsnest
nnti
reference
otsnetus
ohn,
ftedhateenhd erl
de-
fendants further say that afterwards, and before the com-
mitting of the said grievances, her Majesty the Queen ap-
pointed Sir Alexander Woodford, Sir George Berkeley,
Henry Beauchamp, Earl Beauchamp, Sir John Bell, Sir
William R.,wan, Jonathan Peel, Esq., and William Thomas
Knollys, Esq., to be a board to inquire amongst other
things into the said conduct of the plaintiff, and which
said board afterwards, and before the committing of the
said grievances, duly proceeded and made their report under
the said warrant, and humbly laid the same and the whole
examination and proceedings before her Majesty. And the
defendants say that the said reports, statements, proceed-
ings, and evidence respectively were respectively published,
and became, and were, matter of public, notoriety, discus-
sion, and interesteamongst and by the subjects of our lady
the Queen, and that the words in the declaration men-
tioned were, and are, part of an article printed and pub-
lished in the said newspaper in the declaration mentioned,
and which said article so containing the said words in the
declaration mentioned were, and are, a fair and bona fide
comment upon the several matters and premises therein
contained and referred to, and upon the conduct of the
plaintiff as such commander as in the declaration mentioned
in reference thereto, and were printed and published by
the defendants as and for such comment, and without any
malicious intent or motive whatever."

The newspaper was then put in, and the article corn
plained 9f containing the extract read by Sir F. Tnesiger,
was read to the court and jury.
The Earl of Lucan was then called, and Examined by
Mr. Lush. He deposed —I am the plaintiff, and
was Lieutenant-General Commanding her Majesty's
Cavalry Division in the East. I arrived there in the
end of April, 1854, and left the Crimea for this country
15th February, 1855. I attended before the Board of
General Officers at Chelsea. The article was pointed
out to me the day of its publication in the United Ser,
vice Club, and I instructed my solicitor the following
day.

By Mr. James—l arrived in England 12 days after I
sailed from the Crimea. I was recalled on the 13th of
February, 1854, by Lord Raglan, and Lord Cardigan,
part of my time, commanded the Light Cavalry Brigade.
By Mr. James—Why were you called on to resign
your command ?
Sir F. Thesiger objected to the question. (To Lord
Lucan)—Was it in writiog.?
Lord Lucan—Ye,s.
Mr. James—That makes no matter.
The Chief Baron ruled the question could be put.
Lord Luean—ln consequence of a letter he wrote after
the report of Lord Raglan in reference to the battle of
Balaklav,i he was called on to resign.
Mr. Jamee—Was that not in eff€ct insubordination ?
Lord Lucan---Is that a question ?
Mr. James—Yes.
Lord Lucan--Cert tinly not. I never withdrew that
letter, nor was I ever asked to withdraw it. The Go-
vernment thought that in consequence of that letter
there might not be that perfect good feeling between
me and the Commander-in-Chief, and recalled me.
General Airey did not advise me to with-
draw the letter. The report of Lord Raglan stated
that I had misconceived the orders of the charge at
Balaklava. My first difference of opinion with Lord Car-
digan did not occur until we were on board the"
and net at Devna. A difference arose between me and
Lord Cardigan then, relative to some fancied irregu-
larity on his part of my adjutant. I did not write a
letter to Lord Raglan in consequence, dated Kula-
lee. I wrote one when near Varna, in August,
1854, and had to withdraw it. I never knew of
any difference between me and Lord Cardigan
till after the battle of Alma. Lord Cardigan wrote a
letter complaining of me, which I forwarded to Lord
Raglan with an explanation. Lord Cardigan was under
my command. He complained to Lord Raglan in that
letter of how I exercised my command over hice. I
complained to Lord Raglan that I had been separated
as much as possible from my division whilst Lord Cardi-

;an had been entrusted with his. command ; these com

plaints and jealousies—though I am not aware of them
—did not continue till my recall. I only wrote
one letter of complaint to Lord Raglan. I complained
in a letter to Lord Raglan that I could not act under
au officer like Lord Cardigan, who had repudiated my
authority altoget,her. That repudiation first took place

at Devna. He refused there to recognise his divi
sional general, and of reporting direct himself to the
Com►nander-in-Chief We never had any personal
wfference. Lord Cardigan, in a letter dated from the
oivouac on 21st September, atter the battle of Alma,
complained that he could not act under me, and in an-
swer to that I did not complain to Lord Raglan of
nighty improper conduct on the part of Lord Cardigan
in September, 1854. I sent to him certain facts, but I

:wade no remarks on it. On being pressed by the learned
counsel, Lord Lucan declined to give any positive answers
on the point from length of time ; in that letter, I tbink
Lord• Cardigan complains of my interference in the
command of his brigade, but whether it was a com•
plaint of my "unceasing interference" with him, or not,
I can't recollect. I replied to the Commander-in-Chief,

that certain orders were not attended to, but I made no
complaint. It was not notorious in the army our differ-
t,nces, and that they were paralysing the service. I
can't recollect any difference between us after Septem-
ber. I did complain to General Eicott, that Lord
Cardigan had written an insubordinate letter;

Before the court was opened a number of persons,
notwithstanding the inclement state of the weather, had

assembled in Westminster-hall, and on the opening of
the doors the court was speedily filled by person:.

anxious to hear the case and have a sight of his lord-
ship, who has become so popular and notorious by the
proceedings that have taken place with reference to the
army in the Crimea. Amongst them were several
females.

it had reference to our differences at Dev-
na, and the Commander-in-Chief informed Lord
Cardigan to report through the Divisional Cora•
wander. I referred the matter to General Escott, as
Adjutant-General of the regiment, and not as a com-
plaint.

Lord Lucan arrived at Westminster-hall before half•
past nine o'clock, and on the opening of the court took

a seat under the witness-bog. He declined to take a se at

on the bench, being so personally interested in the case.

Mr. James proposed to question Lord Lucan on a
reported speech of Lord Lucan's in the House of Lords,
relative to his command being withdrawn, because the

General Pollock, the Chief Baron's brother, was accom-
modated with a seat on the bench. The Court was oc-

terms he was on would injure the discipline of the army,

cupied the first hour of the day in finishing a case rela
tive to a patent for purifying gas.
The special jury was called about .a quarter-past 11
o'clock, but seven only answered to their names ; five
of the common jury were therefore called and answered
to their names, and the case proceeded.
Sir F. The.iger and Mr. Lush were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. James, Q.C., Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., and

and greatly prejudice the service.
The Chief Baron said that Lord Lucan,- as a peer,
need not answer that question.
Lord Lucan said he was ready to answer the question.
Mr. James then varied the question.
Lord Lucan said the ground given for my recall was
in consequence of the letter I fs,rwarded to Lord Raglan,
the Government fearing it might lead to differences
between us, and not because they then existed. I am
ignorant of what the Government felt. I can only state

_ .
Mr. Field, for the defendant.
Sir F. Thesiger, in addressing the jury for the plain-
tiff, said this was not an unimportant ease, and required

,heir serious consideration. On one hand was a nobleman

ghat they apprehended from the letter referred to. On
the letter so stating I was recalled.
The c)rrespondence relative to the article were then
put in and read. The letter of the 6th Sept. was first

of high rank, a distinguished military officer, who claimed
justice at their hands for a serious libel affecting hie

honour and character. On the other hand, they had a
newspaper conducted with considerable talent, and
enjoying an extensive circulation, which had thou;ht
proper to attack Lord Lucan in the manner complained
of. Lord Lucan stands before the world with hi pose

read. It was from the nobh plaintiff's solicitor to the

proprietor of the Daily News, pointing out the article
to question, and demanding an apology or an action

would be commenced for libel. To that an answer was

tion and character known to them ; every circuuistanc,
of his life might be searched out, and it was impossible
for him to conceal himself from any shafts which malic

ent regretting his lordship should feel aggrieved at the
trticle, and offering Lord Lucan the insertion of a letter

denying the facts. Other letters were put in in which the
noble plaintiff refused the offer, and demanded an apology,

might choose to direct against him. On the other ha' d
there was a concealed opponent, unknown and invisible,

to which the defendant called on the plaintiff to pint out
the part complained of, which he declined, and charac-

who might be actuated by personal feelings and most,
malicious motives, but who cou!d not be detected. It

Lerised the article as a whole a libel, and informing the
defendants of his intention to proceed against the de-

known it might turn out that the author of the
article was a person whose judgment might have n
weight with others, and whose opinion might be utterly
insignificant, and yet a newspaper appeared to speak

fendants for a libel.
This was the whole of the evidence for the noble
plaintiff, when
Sir F. Thesiger addressed the jury, saying it was im-
possible to repress the indignation that must arise at the

with a weight and authority belonging to a public organ
representing public opinion. If D)rd Lucan had felt

disposed to consult his own case he would have sat down

quietly under the stigma, because he (Sir F. Thesiger)

defendants' conduct from a proceeding so unfair and
unjust as to be utterly unexampled, and he hoped
would always be unpAralleled. The defendants, by
the course they had pursued on the trial, had

very much feared that this warfare would not end

with this trial, considering the a iversary he had to

contend with,

Hereafter all his faults would be

collected, eet down in a note-book, learned, carried
by vote, and thrown in his teeth, and we find he would
have to pay a heavy penalty for the offence of having
called on this portion of the English press to an account
of its conduct in a court nfjustice. It was much the prac-
tiee of the day on occasions of this kind to raise the

not justified their coneluct by showing that Lord
Lucan was guilty of what they charged him with, but

had relied on the article being, as they said, a fair
comment on a public maw. The defendants were at
liberty to have gone into the whole of Lord Lucan's
conduct during the time ho was in the Crimea, and
to have producad such parts of the reports in evidence

cry of the " Press i❑ danger," but never was a cry more
misplaced or mistimed than that at the present time, for
never did the press enjoy greater liberty than now. The
danger to the liberty of the press, if there be danger,
arises from the press abusing its powers from a want of
a proper feeling of iti responsibilities, regardless of
feelings used their great powers to licentiously assail
the character of individuals, and if persisted in would

as would justify their conduot ; but they had failed
to do so. That was the course they should have

adopted, and then have appealed to the jury ; but
instead of that they had adopt ed a most unfair course
by cross-exa-nining Lord Luctm from a book (L )rd

Lucan's published correspondence), to use Ole answer so
extracted from him to raise a prejudice on the jury's
mind against the noble lord, or to induce them to believe
the article was a fair criticism on the noble lord's con-
duct. No proof of insubordination had been given, or
that the noble lord had disgraced the nano or fame of

require restriction. The learned gentleman then read
a portion of the article in question containing the alleged

libel, which was as follows :

"11l as we think of Lord Lucan and Lord Cardigan, we
feel convinced that had they been under the orders of a
competent Commander-in-Chief, of one who would have
not h known
ave anddi
disgraced and
themend discredited
as sol i e rs
theonly,name n and fame of even they would
England, or would have been obliged to resign. Insolent,
disorderly as they are—much inclined as they are to abuse
their positions—relying as they do for support on a bad
system of favouritism in high quarters, they are both brave
men, they have both some military spirit and aspirations ;
and used as instruments by a firm, vigorous, competent
commander, whose firm will they respected and feared,
something might have been made of them. Not being so com-
mended, all their naturaland acquired vices and defeats had
full play, and have introduced into the military history of
their country an episode of the most discreditable de-
scription, which is not to be shuffled out of because the
board of general officers happena to have hit on the true
cause why supplies could not be conveyed from Balaklava
to the front. No, the Lucan-Cardigan scandal still re-

England, nor of any of the otn3er charges, and the
learned counsel then referred to Lord Lucan's

relations with Lord Cardigan, wfu'cli, he said, showed
there were no personal differences between them, nor
anything to justify the attack tha t had been made.
Lord Lucas's evidence had shown that his recall was
not based on the grounds relied mit by the defendants.
He contended that the defendants 'had failed to make
out their case ; and called on the jur,;r to vindicate Lord
Lucau's character by giving their verdict for the noble
plaintiff. Before concluding his addtress, the learned
counsel expressed his opinion that that ,uart of the article
mostly complained of by Lord Lucan, was written by
another pen than the other part ; and =in passing paid a
glowing eulogium to the late Lord Raglan, whose life
had probably been shortened by the slanders that
had been cast on him without cause, and with which the
article in question abounded. An article of this descrip-
tion had a great effect on srich men as Lord Lucan.
The leading journal enjoyed an immense circulation,
and the public were disposed to take certain infor-
mation on trust rather than take the trouble to

mains undiminished in real gravity, at once a warning and
an instruction to the Duke of Cambridge as to the heavy
responsibility he has assumed at the Horse Guards. His
first, his imperative duty will be to throw himself upon
the young and energetic officers of the army ;, to seek out
and elevate to places of trust true ability and zeal ; to in-
troduce into the service a deeper sense of responsibility, a
more earnest sense of duty, than the truculent insubordi-
nation of the two whitewashed (,eers, and the frivolous tone
of the Report upon which we have been commenting,
proves to prevail among the senior members of the profes-
sion."

Inquire into its truth themselves- Thisjourt;a bad gone
forth to all parts of the world with a statement, connect-
ing discreditable circumstances with the name of Lucan.
The esteem of our fellow-men was highly prized,
and i.dignalod and resentment were, therefore,
aroused to repel any attack on its character,
one of the best possessions a man could have, and
"fame is the spur of noble deeds," and it was well it
should be thought so. The noble plaintiff did 13,0 t ask

The learned gentleman then referred to our army being
in the Crimea, and the various official reports thereon,
and said that the libel in question appeared in the Daily
News in July. In September Lord Lucau's solicitor
wrote the Daily Nov 3, complaining of the lib el, and de-
manding an apology to be placed in a conspicuous part
of the paper. A reply was sent, stating that the editor

or heavy damages ; all he required was a vindication of
his character from an attack such as that complained of,
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the defence.
He commenced by stating that the counsel for the noble
plaintiff, feeling the weakness of Lord Lucan's position,
had directed the jury's attention mainly to what was not
substantially the point in the case. He had dwelt in elo-
quent terms on what he was pleased to call he attacks on
private character from what he called a malicious and a
licentious press. He (Mr. James) would venture to
say that any person who had heard the article read,
because they must take the whole of it into their consi-
deration when they considered the Verdict, would find
no attack in it on private character, but that it was the
language of the historian writing for the information of
the public freely and without control, and that there was
nothing licentious or malicious in the article. It was
an article written on a subject of vital public interest,
and he trusted, in praise of his country, written
freely as an editor bad a right to write,
free from control and censureship, and without
private malice or malignity. It was an article, as the
plea stated, a public comment on a question of public
iterest, and jt was an article written by the
historian on what was past for the benefit
of futurity, and calculated, as be would show
it was, to expose the insubordination and want
of discipline in the army. It was not an article written
on the private character of an individual, but en a
general to whom the public had entrusted
their national honour. Sir F. Thesiger bad been
pleased to remark on the unjust and unfair manner in
which the defendant's case was conducted and he was as
full of complaints of him (Mr. James) fom it, as his noble
client eas of Lord Cardigan But was his learned friend
not aware of the fact that the book from which he
examined Lord Lucan was published by him, and con-
tained his correspondence. This case was of great
importance to Lord Lucan, there could be no doubt,
and it was equally so to the public. The article
in question was written with a boll hand as history
ought to be written, and with an unflinching hand. It
pointed out that system of mismanagement under which
the finest :army that ever left this country melted like
snow before the sun,—which melted and dwindled
away, not before the foe, but before mismanagement
and favouritism. By the same right that Sir A. Alison
had stated that Wellington was Surprised by Napoleor,
the defendant claimed the right to state that Lord
Lucan was incompetent to the command. These
Lucan-Cardigan squabbles were a cllsgrace to the
army. Lord Lucan was of an imperious temper,
and there was not sufficient control exercised
over him at head-quarters, and the article
reflected more on Lord Raglan, to whom it did not say
one unkind word, than to Lord Lucan, and pointed out
Lord Raglan's deficiences, who was deficient in energy,
and did not possess the iron will of Hanibal or Napoleon.
He was a general of a most courteous and kind
disposition, and as brave as the sword be wore, but
unfortunately he was not possessed with that fore-
sight and prescience and energy required in a Com-
mander-in-Chief, and the article was wrttten as a matter
of history. The remarks of the learned counsel with
reference to the effect of slander on the late
Lord Raglan was here out of place, because the article
was written atter Lord Raglan's death.
[We shall give the conclusion in our late edition.]

MARKET NEW .—(This 'ay.)

CORN EXCHANGE.

We Lad only a limited supply of English wheat in to-
day's market. For most kinds the demand ruled steady,
and Monday's prices were well supported.
The imports of foreign wheat are 12,390 quarters.
Good heavy parcels were in fair request, at full quotations.
In other kinds very little business was transacted.
We had a fair inquiry for barley, at fully late rates.
Malt, however, met a slow sale, on former terms.
The oat trade was less active ; nevertheless, the quota-
tions were supported.
Beans, peas, and flour were steady, but not dearer.
• ARRIVALS THIS WHIM
Wheat. Barley. Malt. Oats. 'l'm,
English .. I 1,650 2,870 950 I 40 I 1,920
Irish .. 2,821 --
Foreign I 12,390 5,230 29,740 1 6616 brls.
370 scks.

BOROUGH HOP.
The demand for most kinds of hops continues steady, at
full prices.