The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. Feb. 15

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term at Westminster.
(Before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)
DICKSON V. THE EARL OF WILTON.
This was the fifth day of the trial of this impor-
tant case, and the court was, as it has been through-
out the whole inquiry, densely crowded, a large
portion of the spectators being military men.
Mr. Edwin James, counsel for the plaintiff, on
Lord Campbell taking his seat on the bench, rose to
address the jury upon the whole case. They must
be fully sensible, he said, that the result of the trial
to Colonel Dickson would either be his honour and
happiness, or his misery and degradation for life.
It was not merely the question so constantly re-
peated by the Attorney-General, whether the noble
lord, whose position, wealth, connections, and social
relations had been so prominently brought forward,
was a deliberate and malignant libeller, or not, but
substantially a question between man and man, be-
cause in a court of jilstice we ought to stand upon
the same equality as we should before the eternal
throne of justice. Though his lordship was born
with a coronet on his brow, he was subject to the
same emotions and passions as the meanest creature ;
and the real question was whether he had not in a
moment of annoyance, petulance, and irritation
penned the two libels charged and uttered the
calumnies about Col. Dickson to Mr. Thos. Dun-
combe, which, upon his own confessing, it was per-
fectly clear he did. That was a question of vital
importance, and it was impossible to shut one's eyes
to the fact that the case had brought to light the most
extraordinary- conduct which had been ever revealed
in an English court of justice—that it showed by
what machinery and upon what statements the cha-
racter and honour of a soldier, earned during a
career of 33 years, might be for ever ruined and
destroyed, and an officer cashiered from the army
without even an opportunity for explanation. The
Earl of Wilton's answer to the written libels,
and the verbal slander uttered to Mr. Dun-
combo was—" I am sheltered from the responsibility
of them, as they are privileged communications,
and unless you think there was an absence of good
faith, lam entitled to your verdict." That propo-
sition was easily understood ; but he (the learned
counocl) alcould prove hogrmil
that, looking
to the whole circumstances of this extraordinary
case, the Earl of Wilton could not avail himself of
such a defence. But there came another matter,
which was of far deeper importance to Col. Dick-
son—viz., that when the Earl of Wilton was called
to account for these libels, he was not content with
protecting himself by the defence that they were
privileged communications, but before the Court
and the public he attempted to prove the justifica-
tion which he had placed on the record ; he tried to
justify his accusation that Col. Dickson had been
guilty of embezzlement. These were substantially
the questions for their consideration. He had no
wish to say anything unkind of his lordship, except
in the strict discharge of his duty as an advocate,
but it was quite obvious that he very much misun-
derstood his position as colonel commanding the
regiment. The Attorney-General said he was totally
irresponsible for the whole conduct of the regiment,
that he scarcely ever went near it, and never inter-
fered in the ordinary discipline of the regiment.
Every military man would tell them that regiments
of the line and militia regiments stood in a very
different position as regarded the duties of the full
colonel. In the former, a colonelship was often given
only as an honest reward for services rendered to
the country, but the colonel of an embodied regi-
ment of militia was solely responsible to the
executive, and the Earl of Wilton entertained avert'
extraordinary notion of his duties, if when draw-
ing his pay and forage money as colonel, out of the
large sum taken out of ;the taxes of the people for
the maintenance of the militia, he only visited the
regiment once in his uniform, and took no part
whatever in its encouragement, and remained, as
some of his letters showed, at Newmarket, enjoying
himself, and probably training his horses instead of
training his men at Bethnal-green. (Laughter.)
What was the conduct of other colonels of militia ?
Lord Methuen, the cothmander of the Wilts
Militia, went with his men to Corfu, and Mr. Wil-
son Patten, the colonel of the Lancashire Militia,
did duty with his regiment at Gibraltar, both re-
ceiving the thanks of the House of Commons for
the services they had rendered to the country; and
the Duke of Richmond, a thorough soldier, and
colonel of the Sussex Militia, invariably went with
his men, and never received a farthing of the public
money unless he did some duty by way of return.
The truth was that Col. Dickson, being a good sol-
dier and a strict disciplinarian, was not very much
liked by the young and inexperienced officers, al-
though beloved by the men, and that a gross and
scandalous libel was organised against him by the
former. The learned counsel then commented with
severity upon the composition of the regimental
board appointed by the Earl of Wilton to inquire
into the charges against Col. Dickson, observing
that p, tribunal consisting of three inferior officers to
try a superior officer, was a mere farce, and revolt-
ing to the dictates of justice. It was like the Chief
Justice of England being put upon his trial before a
board composed of the Attorney-General and two of
the leading Queen's counsel, the former being anxi-
ous to jump into his lordship's place, and the
Queen's counsel hoping to attain the dignity of
Attorney-General. (Laughter.) The people remem-
bered Alma and Inkerman, and loved their army,
but they hated injustice and tyranny ; and although
he complained of Lord Combermere for dismissing
Col. Dickson in the way he did, and upon state-
ments which he candidly confessed he did not under-
stand, and thus committed an act most unjust to a
worthy and honest soldier, he was rather disposed
to attribute what he did to the vice of the system in
the army, for he believed that his lordship would
rather allow his sword arm to wither than know-
ingly do injustice to any man. Mr. James next ad-
verted to Lord Wilton's interview with Mr. bun-
combe, and said the jury would most likely be of
opinion that his lordship went to that honourable
and incorruptible public man in the hope of bring-
ing to bear upon him his social position and his long
acquaintance with him, in order to induce Mr. bun-
combe to stifle inquiry into the case in the House
of Commons. The hon. member for Finsbury might
not be rich, but his integrity was proof against
the lordly influence of the Earl of 'Wilton, who
hoped on seeing him; to stop an investigation in the
House of Commons, which must have covered as
this trial would do, with ridicule, if not with dis-
grace, the administration of her Majesty's army,
when such documents as those produced proceeded
from head-quarters. After referring to the details
of the case, the learned counsel concluded by saying
that the parties met in count on unequal grounds.
The plaintiff had against him a nobleman of wealth
and influence, who, he (Mr. James) admitted to be
of high character and honour, but who, in a mo-
ment of petulance, was led to that which, on re-
flection, he no doubt regretted. On the other hand,
there was Col. Dickson, who had no patrimony but
his honour, and no wealth but his sword and cha-
racter. In their hands the scales of justice would
be held evenly; and he asked them for a verdict
which would restore Col. Dickson to the position
which he had done nothing to forfeit—a verdict
which, founded on 0. strong sense of impartiality
and justice, would give as much satisfaction to the
country and to his client as to their own hearts and
consciences.
There was applause when the learned counsel
resumed his seat.
Lord Campbell then summed up the evidence.
His lordship said,—ln the course of this protracted
trial I have caught a severe cold, and I am afraid
that I shall have some difficulty in making my
summing-ip heard by you all; but I will do my
best to make you understand the questions of law
which I have to lay down, and the questions of fact
which you are to determine. My address to you
will be very brief, for I have observed that you
have heard it very ably discussed on the one side
and on the other, and, without any assistance from
me on the facts, you must be prepared to come to a
satisfactory conclusion. 'rho action is brought
upon two alleged libels of the 26th of May and
24th of July, 1858, and also for verbal slander. To
the whole of this declaration the defendant has
pleaded the general issue of " not guilty ;" not
denying, as I understand it, that he wrote the
letters, or that he spoke the words,but claiming a
privilege for the communications which he made.
He has also pleaded, secondly, that what he wrote
and spoke is true in matter of fact. You will do
well to keep these questions separate in your minds.
The first question is, whether these were what the
law calls privileged communications ; for, if so, the
defendant is not called upon to prove their truth,
provided they were made in good faith. The
law most reasonably says that what is written or
spoken in the course of business, or in a matter of
serious interest, where a person has a duty to per-
form or an interest to consult, and addresses a per-
son who has a like interest and relative duty to
perform, the communication is privileged. In the
year 1855 there was a case in this court in which
the law on this subject was most properly laid
down. His lordship here read an extract from the
judgment of this Court in the case of " Harrison v.
Bush" (5 E. and 8., 348), as follows :
" A communication made bona fide upon any subject-
matter in which the party communicating has an interest,
or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if made
to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although
it contain eliminatory matter, which, without this privilege,
would bo slanderous and actionable."
Whether or not the occasion gives that privilege is
a question of law for the judge ; but whether the
party had fairly and properly conducted himself in
the exercise of it is a question for the jury. I, there-
fore, as the judge, tell you that, in point of law, all
the eeraMllllieittions to Lord Coraberraere, to the