The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-04 00:00:00

WELLS ANIS FAKENMAM.

Yesterday a special meeting of the shareholders of this
company was held at their offices, 69, •Lombard-street,
to take into comideration the propriety of raising an
additional amount of capital by mortgage or bond,
in conformity with the borrowing powers given them
in the act of incorporation. In the absence of S. M.
Pete, Bart , the chair was taken by Ur. Till. The
secretary having read the notice convening the meet-
ing, the company's solicitor read the clause of the
act in pursuance of which the meeting was convened.
It recited that the company should be at liberty to
borrow 23,0001. whenever all the shares might be sub
scribed for and one-half paid up ; and it having been
certified by the secretary that the company was in .a
position legally to avail themselves of the privileges of
the act, a formal resolution to that effect was pro•
posed, seconded, and carried unanimously, when the
proceedings terminated with a vote of thanks to the
chairman.

The Lords Jo-flees have been pleased to approve of
the appointment of the Earl of Balmore to be a Deputy-
Lieutenant for the county of Tyrone, in the room of Lord
Claude Hamilton, deceased.
ST. PANCRAS.—ELECTION OF A MEMBER OF THE
METI:OroLITAN BOARD Or WOBKR. —Yesterday was ap-
pointed by the vestry of St. Pancras for the eleci ion of
a member of the Metropolitan Board, in the place of Mr.
Corrie. There was a numerous attendance. Mr. Streeter,
one of the churchwardens, presided. Mr. Rashleigh
was nominated by Mr. Churchwarden Wyatt, and
seconded by Mr. Aria. He was recommended by the
former, on the ground of his having effected, as a guar-
dian, some useful reforms in the administration of out•
noor relief, and the application of the labour test to
able-bodied paupers. The other candidate, the Rev. It •
Eckett, was proposed by Mr BrettioOrarn, and seconded
by Mr. Hudson. They represented him as a practical
man of business and a sound economist. The question
was put to a show of hands, and the numbers counted
wore—For Mr. Rasbleigh, 42 ; for Mr. Eckott, 42. -'A
division took place, amidst great excitement and uproa,,
just before which, Mr. Sheffield (a member) came lido the
room. Several protests were made against his vote being 4
taken, and ultimately the tellers annout;cad the mita-
bers to be—For Mr. Rashleigh, including the vote
of the chairman, 48; for Mr, Errkett, 43. The chairman
said he had the ca,ting vote. (Cries of 4‘ Not,at :to
election.") He should give it for Mr. Rashleigh. (it'''
Delved confusion, amidst which a protest was banded in,
signed by several yes, ryyneni
a4ainst the legaTity of the
election.) Mr. RasbleiE :!A
h thaukcd the vry for tie
honour conferred upon him, and, rtfer a few woris from
Mr. Eakett, the proceedings terantrated. At the tine
the division took place four gentlemen—viz., Messrs.
Griffiths, Laimbeer, Pratt, and
Dr. 'Wilson, voters for
Ur. Ecket, were shut out,

Mr. Edwin James addressed the jury for the defence. He
said—My friend Sir Frederic Thesiger, feeling the weak-
ness of Lord Lucan's position, has directed your attention
mainly to what is not the substantial point in this case.
Ho has dwelt in elegant terms on what heis pleased to call
attacks on private character by a malicious and licentious
press. Now, I venture to say that any person who has heard
this article in the Daily _heir's road—because you must
take the whole of it—will find that it is no attack on private
characrer, but it is the language of the historian writing for
the information of the public, fairly and without control,
upon public and serious events. There is no attack upon
private character—there is nothing licentious in the ar-
tiele—:there is nothing malicious. It is an article on a
subject of vital public interest, written, as I trust the press
of this country will continue to have a right to write, free
from control, free from censorship. It is an article writ-
ten not on Lord Lucan's private but his public charactela
as a general paid by the people, and trusted by the people
with their national honour. Sir Frederic Thesiger has
been pleased to remark on the unjust and unfair manner
in which the case for the defendants has been conducted.
He is as full of complaints of me as his noble client was of
Lord Cardigan. He has charged me with shrinking from
having these letters put in. Is my learned friend aware
that by an rdmission in the cause these very letters have
been published by the plaintiff? And when he talks of
'ley shrinking from putting them in, does he forgot that be
himself got up to object to them ? The case is of great
importance to Lord Lucan, but it is of equal importance
to the public: The article complained of is written, as
40100KAW gilt 40.yritotsoFit4 a bold and unflinching
:rt'stroliftitttithe'Bygto- nelitinetrageentnifArattei
which the finest army that ever left the shores of Eng-
land melted like snow before the summer's sun—no:
before the foe, but before a es stein of mismanagement and
misrule. By the same right that Sir Archibald Alison
wrote in his history that Wellington was surprised by Na-
poleon at Waterloo, this articlestated that Lord Lama was
unfit for command in consequence of his imperious temper,
and that there was not sufficient control at head-quarters.
This,article was written mainly on the mismanagement of
Lord Raglan, of whom it did not sayone unkind word; but
it said ho was deficient, as no doubt he was, inenergy. He
had not the iron will of a Hannibal or a Napoleon. He was
a kind and a very brave man, but be was entrusted with a
command which required an energy and a resolution that
he had not. My learned friend has spoken in eloquent
terms on the effect of this article on Lord Raglan ; and
ho said that it might have hastened his death, and he gave
an epitaph which would have been fitting to hang onLord
Raglan's tomb. But those observations were rather out of
place, seeing that the article was written long after Lord
Raglan's death. The article spoke of Lord Raglan as the
historian had a right to speak—that he was incompetent,
and I have yet to learn that a public journalist has not a
right thus to speak of any public functionary. Ho may
call a judge incompetent, or a statesman. Now just let us
see what the nature of this article is. Sir F. Thesiger says
we do not justify it. Justify it ! We rest upon our plea
that this is no libel at all, and requires no apology. It is
the historian writing truthfully, courageously, upon facts
that have been notorious, the subjects of public comment
in this country, and which have made us, in a great mea-
sure, the laughing-stock of Europe. Justification ! What
justification do we want? There is no attack on Lord
Lucan in his private capacity. It is an attack on Lord
Raglan, showing that he was unfit to command. The arti-
cle is written on the report of the Board of Inquiry that
sat at Chelsea Hospital. Sir F. Thesiger was right in
stating that a report which had been previously made had
deeply implicated the character of Lord Lucan as a com-
mander. Lord Lucan makes his case public—he makes his
speech in the House of Lords. Does not his conduct,
then, by his own act, become the subject of public com-
ment and inquiry ? What does the article charge ? That
his conduct has been insolent and insubordinate; and we
shall seo presently upon his own statement whether it was
not so. Lord Cardigan and Lord Lucan are brothers-in-
law, and probably the ill-feeling between them is the more
intense from the proximity of their relationship. What is
Lord Lucan obliged to admit ? Why, that at Varna he
addressed a letter to Lord Raglan, and upon the suggestion
of Lord de Ros he withdrew it. This unseemly quarrel
was carried on even on the field at Alma. At night, when
perhaps the fate of Europe depended on the balance, these
two noblemen were writing from their bivouac—Lord
Lucan complaining of the conduct of Lord Cardigan, an&
Lord Lucan saying that the conduct of Lord Cardigan
was insubordinate. Thus they niarrelled, to the utter
destruction of the discipline of the army. At a time
when the fate of Europe trembled in the balance, these two
generals, like two great spoiled school girls, were quarrel-
ling with each other. Lord Lucian said it was the filthiest
of remark in the army that he was not entrusted with the
command of his own division. This article said that Lord
Raglan was not a man of the iron will that was required to
control subordinate officers like these. Do you suppose that
Napoleon or Wellington would have allowed these scenes?
There would have been an order next day that they were
both dismissed. But they were aware of Lord Raglan's
affability, his courtesy, and his kindness, and they took
advantage of it. Is not this a disgrace to the name of k
land? Is it not a disgrace to the generals—who, allow me
to say, are public men paid by the people of England, and
are entrusted with the national honeur—is it not a public
scandal and a disgrace that at a time when the cordial co-
operation of the generals was required in the face of the
enemy, and in the face of an ally, a quarrel should have
been going on at such a time ? Come we now to Lord
Lucan's explanation. He was asked if he was not called
upon by the Government at home to resign his cenamand,
and if it was not because the misunderstanding between
him and the Commander-in-chief was calculated to preju-
dice the public service, and he was obliged to admit that
it was. He qualified it, by stating that a prole- hie misun-
derstanding might have been the cause. But he was obii3ed
to resign his command? Why wee it ? In the despatch
of Lord Raglan, as Lord Lucan has told you, it was state 4,
that at the fearful charge at Balaklava Lord Lucan had
misconceived the order. Is he well advised in bringing
this action against the historian of his acts ? Lord Liman
was charged by Lord Raglan with misconceiving his order,
which led to the fatal results we are all acquainted with,
to the sacrifice of a band of man in as gallant a charge
as was made at Marathon or at Thermopylae. Lord Rag-
lan, in his despatch, could only justify it by stating that
iu the brilliant achievement there was some little com-
pensation for the fatal misconception of his order. That
misconception led to results which no man can reflect upon
without horror. A most gallant set of men wore sacrificed
to a misconception. The charge those men made was a
charge unparalleled in dauntless hardihood, equalling the
description of the pout :
" Then shook the hills with thunder riven,
Then rushed the steed to battle driven,
And louder than the bolts of heaven
Far flashed the red artillery."
He is charged with having misconceived an order that
destroyed the most heroic band of men who eves
shed lustre on the British arms. He is then guilty
of au act of insubordination. He wrote a letter to
Lord Raglan, which as a soldier he had no right to do.
The matter came before the Government at home, and
Lord Lucan was called upon to resign his command. And
yet the historian is not to say that Lord Lucan was insolent
and insubordinate. Lord Cardigan is not here—l say
nothing of him in his absence. The article says that the
Lucau and Cardigan scandal is a disgrace to the British
name ; and so it is. Lord Cardigan is mixed up with it
in reference to these unseemly quarrels and petty jealousies.
Lord Cardigan led the charge; but it was after that, and
after the despatch which Lord Raglan sent home, that
Lord Lucan thought proper to write to Lord Raglan, which
the Government at home thought unbecoming. If they
had had to deal with a Napoleon or a Wellington, they
would have been tried by court-martial. I say nothing of
Lord Cardigan when the army was at Alma sleeping in his
yacht, instead of by the watch-fire, as Napoleon did at
Eylau and at Wagram.
The Lord Chief Baron —Lord Cardigan is not here.
muchMr; James—Butforthat part
of
i ft
the s mt
libel.
ate for
r Ipublic
s e
okt
o
nothing.
I say it is a public comment by a courageous historian
on a past event. I say he would not have written
truthfully—no historian who writes on the campaigns
in the Crimea would write truthfully, if he did not write
as this article is written. What is the other part of the
article? They are called brave, and it is charged that
by the system of favouritism in the army they have
attained their position.
in the army will be cured by theW
else. " Relying as they do on a bandpyrs'eysss
theeman
odf
bff aayvv oonuuorrtiihtt ssng
r nm
in high quarters." Why, it is notorious that there is such
vouritism ; and has not a public journalist a right to say
haat there is? I now come to that on which they dwell.
" The Lucau-Cardigan scandal still remains undiminished
in real gravity." I say it does to this hour, and has been
evidenced before you to-day, in Lord Lucau's own state-
ment. " They are both brave men, they have both some
military Bella and aspirations, and used as instruments by
a firm, vigorous, and competent commander, whose will
they respected and feared, romething might have been.
niede of them." I ask, arhethee that is not lite!elly and
strictly true? Who would have dared to have written to
a commander of firm will a letter which, on his own state-
meet, on the mediation of Lord De Ros ho was obliged to
L withdraw ? And yet, not taking a lesson front that, he

wrote an insubordinate letter in reference to the despatch
of Lord Raglan. The article wont on, " Not being so com-
manded, all their natural and acquired vices and defects
had full play, and have introduced into the military history
of the country an episode of the most discreditable descrip-
tion, which is not to be shuffled out of because the Board
of General Officers happens to have hit on the true cause
why supplies could not be conveyed from Balakleva to the
front." Their "natural vices and defects" are not private
vices, but the defects of an uncontrolled temper. They
wore men spoiled by the luxuries el home, and too impatient
of control to enter upon a campaign. Lord Cardigan had
too much sense to bring an action ; but what other parties
are implicated ? for you must take the whole of it. The
historian is writing on a subject of paramount importance
to us all, from the Queen on the throne to the poorest me-
chanic, it is a matter affecting our army,
effecting our
position at home and abroad; and surely the journalist has
a right te comment on a matter which was a scandal and a
disgrace to the discipline of the British army. We re-
quire no justification for this. My friend, Sir F. Thesi-
ger, says there is no authority to control the press. Thank
God there is not. Yon aro the censors of the press by the
constitution of this -country, and if you say that this ar-
ticle is not a fair comment on a public event of paramount
importance I shall be indeed surprised. It is owing to the
courage of the press that this system of mismanagement in
the army has been brought before the nation and the coun-
try. Early in the var, when our soldiers were perishing
from want, the Times had the courage to probe the evil.
It is only by the fearless discharge of *sae duties, pro-
tected by you, that these evils can bo remedied. Sir F.
Thesiger cannot pretend to say that there is ono line in the
article that points to Lord Lucan's private character. I
ask you whether Lord Lucan, who in the box to-day has
been obliged to admit that these unseemly differences went
on till Lord Raglan felt bound to interfere,
has a right to
complain that this article is anything more than a com-
ment on the conduct of a public man And so far from
being liable to damages, I say it is an honour that we here
a-free and independent press, and Tam confident that the;r
'be Tefended by a jury %Mite disfilviikeserthetr
Tho Chief Baron then summed up. He said the decla
ration set forth a portion of a paragraph in the _Daily
News which had reference to other matters besides what
Lord Lucan complained of, but at tho close of it remarks
were made concerning Lord Lucan, of which he complain.
ed. The defendants pleaded that they were not guilty of
what was imputed to them. The paper was put in, and on
that point there could be no doubt their verdict, must be
for the plaintiff. There was no doubt that the defendants
did publish that which was complained of.
Mr. James—We deny that it was a libel.
The Chief Baron said the plea was not guilty, and it did
not appear to him that that would be able to qualify hie
remarks, because all along it was admitted that the com-
ments of the article were disparaging. The second plea
said " the matter complained of was an article in a news-
paper, ".'rich article seas a fair and lame fide comment ee
the several matters and premises t'‘cr >in contaieed and re-
ferred to, and of the conduct of the plaintiff as essence nder
in the declaration mentioned, and wore printed and pub-
lished by tho defendants as and for such comment and
without any malicious motive." About 13 years ago, a few
months before ho had the honour of a seat on the bench,
an act of Parliament passed by which alterations were
made in the law in respect to actions of libel ; and it was
remarkable that this was the first time he had been called
upon since he had the honour of a seat on the bench to
direct the attention of a jury to the alterations then made,
and to ste to what he conceived to be the law as it was now
to be administered under the common law and under this
act of Parliament. By that act an article in a public news-
paper was put upon a different footing from other commu-
nications, from a placard or a bill posted about the streets
or a pamphlet published, but not forming part of a series
of a periodical. It said that in an action for libel cone
tained in any public newspaper or other periodical it
should be lawful for the defendant to plead that such libel
was inserted without actual malice. Before, if any man
published of another, in any way, matter derogatory to
his fair character, that tended to bring him into contempt
and odium, that person whose reputation was attacked
had a right to bring an action. The law presumed there
was malice, and the party charged with the libel was
bound to justify it. Ho might haze remark that, with
regard to mere abuse—not pointing to any particular act,
but mere vague abuse, as speaking of a statesman that he
was the most ineilcient person that ever held the reins
of government, or of any public man that he was more
corrupt than the Most corrupt statesman that ever lived,
or to speak of a judge generally that he was not en-
lightened or not sufficiently learned, or that he had not
sufficient impartiality—all that mere abase it was very
difficult to justify ; and it had been very long the practixe,
he believed, of all lawyers to disadvise proceedings for
mere abuse. But, on the other hand, when there was
charge distinctly pointing to some matter, and bringing
forward that matter as aground for imputation, some-
times persons might just as well let the matter alone. Ge-
nerally speaking, the statesmen of this country rarely ap-
pealed either to the criminal or civil courts, whatever
might be the nature of the imputations upon them. But
the state of the law was so far altered that in an action for
libel against a newspaper malice was not to be presumed.
The defendant might plead that it was done without ma-
lice ; and it was for the jury to say, with reference to the
circumstances—and among others, the character of the
libel was, no doubt, a very material thing—whether the
publication was malicious or not. If the publication was
malicious, then this clause applied very little, and the
matter was much as it was before the act passed ; but if it
were Rot malicious, then parties were allowed to pay into
court what they thought sufficient damages. That being
the state of the law, they would have to say whether they
thought the publication wad one which reflected upon Lord
Lucan, the plaintiff ; secondly, whether the publication
had a malicious object; and thirdly, whether the article
was what the plea alleged to be— a fair and bona fide
comment upon the several ereatters and premises therein
contained and referred to. If they thought it was a fair
and bona fide comment, then it could hardly be considered
to be malicious, and the defendants would be entitled to a
verdict on that plea. If they thought it was not a fair
comment, but an exaggerated, distorted, a'd outragaseas
view of tLe matter, then they have to say whether
it was malicious. It appeared to heal that the act of raelia-
moot meant to maize a large and broad distinction between
a case wherein apublication, not justified as a fair comment,
was still without malice. Having explained to them the
nature of the law, ho thought it right to read to them the
libel, and the whole of it, with very few comments. It had
already been observed upon by the learned counsel, and his
duty in presenting it to them was to take care that it was

brought under their attention free from any prejudice on
the one aide or the other. The libel consisted of an entire
column and about half a column more—that was, one-
fourth of a column at the commencement and a quarter at
the conclusion. That which related to. Lord Lucan was
entirely founded on the second paragraph. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff told them that that part of the
article was probably written by a different hand, and that
an opportunity was taken by some personal enemy of Lord
Lucan's to tack a paragraph to the other, which was no
doubt a comment of what lately had been given to the
world as part of the public events of the day—via.; the
report of the board of general officers that sat at Chelsea.
That there was reason to believe that that was the fact—
Mr. James—There is no proof of that at all. Not atittle.
The Chief Baron said he did not think he should be so
irregular as to reply to an interruption which was rather
insubordinate ; but he was about to ask them whether
there was any proof of that? If, from the article itself,
they came to the conclusion that the entire paragraph was
framed with a view to put in this matter regarding Lord
Lncan, that, no doubt, would lead them to a very different
conclusion. It was for them to decide. There was no direct
evidence on the subject. He need hardly remind them that
the war broke out in 1854, and that the Christmas of that
year was one of great suffering. Inquiries took place in the
following year, and again this year. There was an inquiry
by commissioners in the Crimea; it was. thought that their
report should be re-examined, and a board of general offi-
cers was appointed, and the general comments of this
article were directed to it. It seemed to quarrel with the
conduct of the administration, and it particularly
pointed to some conduct of persons connected with the
Treasury; then it proceeded to blame the conduct of
Lord Raglan as commander-in-chief ; and, lastly, it
commented on the conduct of the generals commanding
the cavalry. The learned Chief Baron proceeded to read
the article (which has already been given). That
was the article complained of, and it would be for the jury
to decide whether they thought it was a fair, candid, and
calm series of observations on the matters to which it re-
ferred, or whether it exhibited an exaggerated or distorted
view of what it professed to treat upon, beyond what was
warranted by the circumstances. In giving public corn-
. malts upon public matters, considerable allowances must
undoubtedly be made for the zeal and spirit with which
persons who wrote for the public papers, or anywhere else,
were embued ; like the speeches of counsel, their com-
ments were not always to be measured and weighed by the
nicest scale. What they had to consider here was, whether
this article contained anything more than a candid and
fair comment called for by the circumstances, or whether
it was exaggerated and distorted, and went beyond what
the occasion demanded. If they thought it unfair and ex-
aggerated, then they would have to consider whether it
was malicious or not. The observations made upon Lord
Lucan had no doubt reference to him in his profevional
character as a general commanding a cavalry division
what they—aupposing they decided that those observations
went beyond what might be considered a fair comment
upon public matters--would have then to consider was,
whether they evinced a malicious intention, and apportion

(Fran?, the Daily News)
The verdict in the case " Lucan v. the Daily
News," though gratifying on public grounds, is
not, in so far as we are personally concerned, of a
nature to excite any undue elation in our minds.
Conscious that our motives had been such as we
had no reason to be ashamed of, and that our con-
duct had been above suspicion, we never for a
moment doubted what the result of the trial would
be. We abstained from commenting upon the
conduct of Lord Lucan in the Crimea until the
Chelsea board bad concluded its inquiries. Even
then we only adverted to his lordship for the pur-
pose of illustrating the necessity of Briny reform.
When his law agents intimated to us that our
remarks were regarded by his lordship as a libel,
we placed our columns at his disposal to correct
any errors we might have fallen into in regard to
facts, and volunteered a declaration that if our
langnage could be shown to have been unduly
strong we should regret it. We were met by a
haughty demand for an apology, and au uncour-
teous refusal to specify which of our remarks were
complained of. No alternative was left us but to
assert our right to canvass the public conduct of a
public man in a fair spirit, by giving Lori Lucan
to understand that we had no fear for that appeal
to a court of law with which ho three tened u.s.
After he had thus forced 1.13. into court, our conduct
continued to be animated by the same spieit of
loyalty and frankness. We did not rest satisfied
with a more negative plea of not guilty; we offered
to prove our allegations to an extent which one of
the judgcsdeclared to be tantamount to uteleetaking
to prove what was net required at our hands; and,
when the proposed plea was disallowed, we went to
trial upon the simple issue that our remarks wore
a fair and bona fide comment on the conduct of
Lord Lucan in his •eublic capacity as Commander of
the Cavalry in the Crimea. Matters ste nding thus,
wo relied with implicit confidence on the sagacity
and sense of justice of an English Judge and Jury.
We felt confident that, whatever might be the legal
result of the case, it would be obvious to the world
that we had spoken earnestly, honestly, and with-
out malice—and we cared for nothing more.
The event has justified our confidence. The pro-
ceedings iu court speak for themselves It would be
ingratitude en our part not to acknowledge the bold-
ness, energy, and ability with which our cause was
advocated by Mr. James. Still we cannot but feel
that it was mainly the evidence of Lord Lucan him-
self that convinced both Judge and Juryof the re( ii-
tude of onr conduct. And wo may add that the
ingenious speech of Sir Frederic Thesigor is; a cor-
roboration of this view. The learned counsel had
little more to urge than imaginary descriptions of
the manner in which newspaper leaders are pre-.
pared, and conjectures as -to what would be the
course of the Daily News in the event of a verdict
against it.
This hypothetical line of argument was necessa-
rily a failure. The result for the Daily Netts was
never for a moment doubtful. The sole interest of
the case sprung from its involving a decision
ode the great question whether journalists—and
other nu( %cial critics of public man—might safely
canvass the conduct of public servants, provided
they did so honestly and without malice. The result
of yesterday's proceedings in the Court of Exchequer
is to affirm this important privilege of Englishmen.
We institute no parallel between our own case and
that of Horne Tooke and his associates. They were
called upon to display a courage and devotion for
which in our case there was no need. And yet we
may be allowed to say that for the general public
our triumph is a more important one than theirs.
Their triumph merely proved that courage may
commandsuccess even at times when law and justice
are set at nought ; ours, that law and justice are
now so thoroughly established that every honest
man may do with safety what they did at the peril
of their lives. It is impossible to read the report
of yesterday's trial without feeling that the right
of free, bold, discussion has become an article of
the national faith—at all events on this side of the
Tweed. The candour and impartiality with which
the Judge summed up, and the promptitude with
which the Jury returned their verdict, prove that
henceforth every writer and speaker on matsers of
public interest is free to speak his mind, provided
he do so honestly and without malice. No one
can reflect on the quiet, unexaggerated tone of the
proceedings without feeling convinced that they
were pervaded by perfect impartiality—that the
same Judge and Jury who exonerated us, would
have condemned us without hesitation had there
been a shadow of reason for believing that we had
acted from improper motives. Such a calm, Judi-
cial recognition of an important principle is not
liable to fluctuation or change ; it is a guarantee
alike for the rights of the public servant and of his
critics. And here let us—in justice to Lord Lucan
and ourselves—declare, that by putting himself in
the witness-tiox, and by his frank acknowledgment
of the authorship of his letters, he met us like a
man. Towards Lord Lucan personally we have
never entertained any sentiments of hostility. We
have canvassed freely his conduct as an officer—
we have never attacked him as a man. The re-
forms which are being inaugurated in the army, in
consequence mainly of the discussions to which his
conduct gave rise, may, we trust, be regarded as a
pledge that there is little danger that such conduct
will again call for animadversion from a public
journalist; and we should never have reverted to
the consideration of that conduct, had lie nor, by
dragging us into a Court of Lew, compelled us to
do so. That his unwise attack has placed our in-
tegrity and leniency in a clearer point of view than
it could otherwise have been placed in, we cannot
but feel ; mid feeling this, it will be Lord Lucau's
own fault if we have ever again to talk of him in
terms that may be offensive to his self-love.

(Prom, the Times. )
The action for libel brought by the Earl of Lucan
against our contemporary, the Daily News, has
ended in a verdict for the defendant. We need
not say that such a result is, in our opinion, most
satisfactory. Not only the press, but the country
in general, has reason to rejoice that the jury which
was empannelled yesterday in the Exchequer had
the good sense and the good feeling to defeat an
attempt to punish a journal on so frivolous a
charge. The article which was the subject of this
abortive action was written soon after the report
of the Chelsea Board of Officers was given to the
world, and merely expressed with regard to that
document the opinions which, we will be bold to
say, were held by nine-tenths of the thinking men
in the united kingdom. Lord Lucan had been, from
the beginning of the war, mixed up with the affairs
of the army ; he had been concerned in the calami-
tous charge at Balaklawa ; he had quarrelled with
the Commander of the _Forces, with one of his own
Generals of Brigade, a.ild with one, if not more,
of the Colonels under him ; he had been recalled
from the Crimea, he had been reflected on by the
Commissioners, he had written letter after letter
to,thelnewspapers, he ha d. kept the Chelsea Com•
mission engaged on his case for a most inor-
dinate length of time, and very strong
opinions had been prom f)unced on his capacity
and temper by all sorts of people during the
whole of these proceedin gs. He had more-
over, to the scandal clf a large body of
his countrymen, received an accession of military
rank, the Order of the Bath, and the command of
a distinguished regiment. if these things are not
sufficient to constitute a pu;v) lie mau, then there
never was yet such a charact, r in England, and
the criticisms on a Cabinet's po .6cy must be held to
be an unwarrantable interferem 10 with the reputa-
tion of private individuals. As f, er the terms of the
alleged libel, it is plain that O. tete is nothing in
them of which Lord Lucan cowl d fairly complain.
If, in a time of war and dis aster, it be not
competent for a public paper tog ive an opinion ou

paper.
Phis action is probably the ierninatioa of the
long contruvorey which has occupied the ccuetry
for the lest two years, end may he briefly described
03 the contest Letereen the -fees: and the military
mica We ail knew hew it heeen with the letters of
our ceerespondents in the East at the time when
the British forces, after gainingon hrilliaet victory,
felt the first chill of causing ini sforr titles. It has eon-
tiuued since that time with tittle in! ermission. There
have been questions of perhaps deeper political
interest, and on which party spirit has been more
thoroughly roused, but never has there been in
our time a discussion in which private and family
feelings have been more enlisted, and in which
such bitterness and rancour has followed criticism,
which was necessarily bold and unsparing. Few
families of any slauding are without a relative or a
connexion who has chosen the profession of arms
as a career, of whose credit they are jealous, and
whose advancement they would make many sacri-
fices to promote. It follows that the military must
have, in a high degree, the sympathies of the most I
important class in our society. Against the men
who made, who directed, and who represented
the military system the press made unrelenting
war. Accustomed to observe keenly and to judge
accurately, it saw the rottenness of the edifice,
and, even before it crumbled to the earth, gave
warning of the coming destruction. Of the truth
of the rjpertj published in the chief newspapers,
of the justice of their views, and of the invalaahte
services which they have rendered to the country,
both during the war and during the difficult
negotiations which have succeeded it, there is
now but one opinion. Any one who contrasts
the position of England now with what it
was two yearn since, will at once acknow-
ledge the benefits which the independence and
courage of the English papers have conferred on
the community which they claire to represent.
But sympathy is not always concurrent upon con-
\ iction, and many who aro enable to charge the
press with any offence, who, indeed, in their secret
hearts acknowledge its services, have been still
ready to see any obstacle cast in its way, and loss
or dishonour inflicted on those connected with it.
Happily fer England and the principles, she repro-
seats, any such feeling can never be widespread or
of long duration. Even at a time when cliques
and coteries were denouncing us, misrepresenting
our motives, and making even Parliament resound
with their passionate declamations, the great body
of the people trusted and stood by us. Every
succeeding month has added to the credit due to
the course we then took ; and events which are
actually occurring fully prove that the present is
no time to discourage such vigilant national organs
as the London journals.
A proof of this state of feeling is afforded by the
verdict of which we speak. There can he no doubt
that Lord Lucan was induced to bring his action
through a belief that the press did not truly repre-
sent public opinion, and that the great mass of
society were unconvinced, though silent, listeners
to its statements. Without doubt he found
plenty to tell him that a special jury would be
only too glad to give a blow to a Liberal news-
pap -r, that, pa pie were coming round to the be-
lief that. the Crimean generals had done their best,
and that the acqaittal of the Onelsea Board would
he held by any judge as taking away all just ground
for ad verse criticism. The result shows *low much
he was mistaken. The case went to the jury in the
simplest form. Lord Lucan was placed iu the
witness-box, and confessed that he had been re-
called in coesequence of a highly improper letter
to Lord Raglan. The jury found that the de-
fendants were justified in publishing the article,
and that it was a fair comment on the acts of the
plaintiff.
We shall probably hear so more of such proceed.
ings. Tee present verdict is a sign that juries
clearly see that the interests of the press are also
their own, and gives assurance that the press,
when firmly doing its duty, in spite of threats and
temptations, will be upheli by them. As the
whole of this Crimean business now belongs to the
domain of history we need say nothing more as to
the merits of the particular case, but we may, at
the close of so long a controversy, remind the pub-
lic at how great a sacrifice the press has fought
the battle against incapacity and oligarchical influ-
ence. Does the world think that there are not
many inducements to "prophesy smooth things ?"
Do they think it a pleasant position for a man to
have his hand against every one and every one's
hand against him ? If we or our contemporaries
could hats truly described Lord Raglan as an.
other Wellington or Lord Lucan as another Hill,
it would have been most agreeable to do so. If it
had been consistent with honesty to suppress all
that was unfavourable in the accounts from the
East there would have been none of these daily
and nightly invectives against " publicity " and
" anonymous writing." We would request the
public to believe that in Oct., 1854, there was
every temptation to pronounce our generals
heroes and our army perfect. Society was all that
way, the national vanity was all that way, the fear
of hastily uttering discouraging predictions tended
to the same course. What could the press hope
for during many months but to be charged with
slander and misrepresentation ? Yet it did its
duty boldly and uncompromisingly, and we believe
it has its reward in greater authority and more
general respect than at any former period. It is
very well for Sir F. Thesiger to insinuate that the
censure upon Lord Lucan was the result of
private malice. Such suggestions are only part of
an advocate s business, and are always made with
that recklessness which is one of the most ungrace-`
fill traditions of the bar. But we may take the
opportunity that his address offers, and ask in
what case, during these long discussions, false
'charges have been brought forward, such as.anger or
prejudice would produce? With all the bitterness
of the military oligarchy and their friends, with
all their determination to crush the press, they
have been unable to bring a single charge of libel,
except that a teiloes deputy was &geed, and the
trumpery affair winch was disposed of yesterday.
So far „from the press being guilty of making un-
suppeorted assertions, we are even now surprised at
the small amount of inacCuracy which has found
its way into newspaper ;so/limns. However
a no
apologies are needed for a course which has at
length received the almost uuanhasous approbation
of the country. The verdict in tlaa caso triect yes:
terday will, we trust, put an end tee. the hopes ot
those false friends and evert enemies, bee at home
far and
and abroad, who look with nature.
dislike on the courage and freedom of the
Fu ,lash
press.