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

1111. E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 16, 185 g.

BURSTING OF THE CRINAX CANAL.

A farmer on the banks of the canal, who suffered
by the late terrible overflowing of the waters, thus
describes the catastrophe :—" I suppose you will
have heard by this time of the sad disaster that has
happened here by the breaking down of one of the
reservoirs of the Crinan Canal. It took place on
the night of Wednesday, the 2d inst., about 7 o'clock,
and has made an awful destruction; but, thank God,
there are no lives lost, although there were some
very narrow escapes and a great deal of damage
done to property ; and I am sorry to say that I
am among the heaviest of the losers. My farm
was swept over (almost every foot of it, excepting
the knowe where the dwelling-house stands) by a
volume of water not less than 10 feet deep. Six of
my corn stacks were taken away clean, and as far
as I saw them, going down towards the sea, they
were quite whole—not one sheaf of them removed
from another. The remaining six stacks of corn
and six of hay, which were left in the stackyard, a
stone wall which stood behind them preventing
them from being carried off, were almost over the
tops in the water. All my potatoes and turnips
were also swept away. The place where the water
broke forth and entered into the canal is about 100
yards above Carinban Inn. It carried walls, em-
bankments, locks, and everything that stood in its
way before it. The walls and roof of the inn are
still standing, but all the man's furniture and effects
are a total wreck. You can have no idea, nor can

I describe to you the appearance of the first ap-
proach of the flood coming down my meadows,
about a mile above my house. The noise of the
waters was most alarming ; they carried everything
before them, the cattle and people that happened to
be on the road at the time flying for their lives. I
was in bed when the alarm was first given ; and
you may depend upon it there was very little time
lost in dressing. I had just got all my cattle
and horses out of the byres and stables, and up
on to the high ground at my own door, when in
a few minutes I was completely surrounded—no-
thing to be heardbut the roaring of waters on all sides
of me, my friends and neighbours meanwhile running
round the sides of the hills seeking me, thmking they
would never see me again until they found me in
Lochfine among the fresh herrings. I put on men to
estimate the damage done, and find that it is about
£2OO ; but we cannot yet rightly ascertain what
damage is done to the land, as the water is not
altogether subsided. The canal is in the hands of
Government, and it is hoped that they will not
allow me and others to come to such a sad loss."
—Glasgow Herald.

HEALTH OF LONDON DURING THE

WEEK.

(From the Registrar-General's Report.)

The deaths registered in London, which, in the
previous week, had fallen to 1,243, were 1,274 in
the week that ended last Saturday—showing an
increase, but not of considerable amount. In the
ten years 1849-58 the average number of deaths
in the weeks corresponding with last week was
1,180 ; but as the deaths returned for last week
occurred in a population which has increased, they
can only be compared with the average raised pro-
portionally to the increase—namely, 1,298. The
actual number of deaths last week was, there-
fore, rather less than the number obtained by cal-
culation.
The deaths arising from scarlatina and diphtheria
continue slightly on the decrease, the numbers
from the two diseases together in the last three
weeks having been 113, 92, and 89. Nineteen deaths
from diphtheria occurred last week in the following
sub•districts : one in St. John, Paddington, one in
Hanover-square, one in Belgrave, two in Christ-
church, Marylebone, one in Kentish Town, two in
Islington West, one in Islington East, one in Stam-
ford-hill, one in St. Giles's North, one in St. George,
Holborn, one in Holywell, Shoreditch, one in St.
Leonard, Shoreditch, one in Hoxton New Town, one
in Haggerston West, one in Spitalfields, one in Kent-
road, and one in Battersea. It appears that all, except
two, occurred on the north side of the river. The indi-
cations of an increase of small-pox which the re-
ports of recent weeks have contained are now very
decidedly confirmed, the deaths from this disease
having risen last week to 29. Twenty-four of these
occurred in the central and east districts, the parts
chiefly infested being situated in the sub-districts
of Finsbury, Whitecross-street, East and West
Haggerston. The registrar of Finsbury recorded
no less than six deaths from small-pox last week,
two of these in a family at 19, Cowper-street. He
states that an unusual number of children are
suffering from this complaint in Paradise-place and
Cowper-street, that the locality is well paved and
drained, but lies rather low, and that the habits of
the poor people who occupy it are very dirty.
Of seven nonagenarians, whose deaths were re-
gistered last week, six were 90 and 91 years of age,
and a woman was 96 years.
Last week the births of 898 boys and 856 girls,
in all 1,754 children, were registered in London.
In the ten corresponding weeks of the years
1849-58 the average number was 1,713.
At the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, the mean
height of the barometer in the week was 29.353 in.
The barometrical readings varied from 29.15 in.
on Sunday to 29.63 in. on Saturday. The mean
temperature of the week was 42.4 deg., which is
3.5 deg. above the average of the same week in 43
years (as determined by Mr. Glaisher.) The mean
daily temperature rose considerably above the
average on the last four days. The thermometer
fell to 30.8 deg. on Tuesday, the lowest point in
the week, and rose to its highest point, 52.2 deg.,
on Saturday. The range of the week was, there-
fore, 21.4. The mean daily range was 11.4. The
difference between the mean dew-point tempera-
ture and air temperature was 3.6 deg. The mean
degree of humidity of the air was 89.. The wind
blew almost every day from the south-west. Rain
fell to the amount of 0.48 in.

FEARFUL VOYAGE. •

The late passage of the steamer North American,
from Liverpool to Portland, United States, with
140 souls, is thus graphically de-scribed by one of
the passengers :—" We left the Mersey on the 22d
Dec., during a severe gale of wind from the south-
east ; and such was the state of the weather, that it
was found impossible for the pilot to leave, so he
was carried across the Atlantic. At 7 p.m. on the
Ist Jan., the captain calculated that we must be
very near Cape Race. As it was thick weather,
with continued snow storms, •Capt. M'Master
shaped his course so as to give the Cape a wide
berth.' All went well up to nine o'clock, when we
were alarmed in the saloon by the cry of Star-
board ; hard a-starboard !' given by the officer on
duty. Then followed a violent shock that threw
us to the floor. A moment of extreme anxiety and
terror succeeded. The :lashings of the boats were
cut away, and the boats provisioned and lowered in
five minutes. and their crews told off to meet the
emergency. In the meantime the machinery was
reversed, and we moved slowly astern. This was
the critical moment, for we expected the vessel to
sink in deep water. As soon as the excitement had
somewhat subsided I proceeded on deck, and could
just discern through the haze and snow the precipi-
tous coast on which we had struck. All around
were frantic passengers, rushing to and fro, life
belts in hand, and apparently undecided whether to
leap overboard or not. No one slept that awful night.
At last the morning arrived, and we found the crew
hard at work pumping ; the bowsprit was gone,
and there was an immense hole extending from
just above watermark to the very keel, a distance
of from 15 to 20 feet. (This we could perceive as
the vessel was lifted at the bows by the heavy sea.)
11 The hole was large enough, as one of the sailors
expressed it, ' for an omnibus to drive through.'
The first compartment—the ship being constructed
in eight—was full of water, some 30 tons or more,
while the second was gradually filling, as some of
the rivets dividing the first from the second were dis-
placed by the force of the shock. The passengers were
divided into gangs for the pumps, and we all took a
turn every alternate four hours. At times we would
gain on the water, while at others it would gain on
us three feet or more in a couple of hours. Seeing
our dangerous condition, Captain M'Master deter-
mined to bear up for St. John's, Newfoundland;
but an adverse wind arose, which baffled all hope
of reaching that port, so we made for Halifax,
Nova Scotia, a distance of 400 miles, the pumps
constantly at play. To add to our misfortunes the
cold was intense. The vessel was coated with ice.
Ropes an inch in thickness swelled to a diameter
of two and three inches. On the fourth day of our
troubles, January 4, our eyes were gladdened by
the sight of land, and shortly after mid-day we
anchored in the harbour of Halifax. . . . Such
was our high appreciation of Captain M'Master's
coolness, presence of mind, and seamanship, that,
before leaving the ship, we presented him with a
complimentary address, signed by all the passen-
gers.—Manc7tester Examiner.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Holloway's Pills and Ointment.
Delicate chest, tender lungs.—Throughout Great Britain
easterly winds generally set in about the early spring, and
continue many weeks. They are dry, irritating and very
inimious to weak lungs ; causing cough at first, followed by
inflammation throughout the pulmonary tubes. To allay
this morbid sensibility and soothe the irritable chest, no-
thing yet discovered is so efficient as Holloway's remedies.
The Pills taken internally, while the Ointment is rubbed
upsn the back and chest, ensure the purification of the
blood in the lungs, prevent congestion or stagnation, re-
lieve respiration, remove cough, with which disappear
the many dangers ever hovering round a disordered chest.
ofoittelmyp
13Tehreilsse
fr eBmudecidieens
etraheture. lungs against the

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 eourt 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 justice 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 eves
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-
combe 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
counsel) should prove beyond dispute 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 defenco 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 a very
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 commander 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 Militie, 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 a 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. Dun-
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. Dun-
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 con, t 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-
meter. 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 a 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 counse]
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•up 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. The 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, bat 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 sP, 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 thi3 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 Lona fide upon any subject-
matter in which the party communicating has an, interest,
or in reference to which he has it duty, is privileged, if made
to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although
it contain criminatory matter, which, without this privilege,
would be slanderous and actionable." _ .

a question of law for the judge ;
____..........................___
Whether or not the occasion g:ives that privilege is
but whether the
party had fairly and properly conducted himself in
the exercise of it is a question for the jury., there-
fore, as the judge, tel you that, in point a law, all
the communications to Lord Combermerq, to the

War-office, and to Mr. Duncombe were privileged ;
but, whether that privilege has been abused is for
the jury. If it has been abused, the privilege is
gone; but if the communications were made bona
fide, and in the discharge of duty merely, they are
privileged. The defendant was colonel of the regi-
ment, and Lord Combermere was his immediate
superior; and if there was any misconduct which
ought to be communicated to a superior officer,
he did no more than his duty in communicating
it. This will, apply to both the papers of the
26th of May and the 24th of July. Mr. James
makes a distinction between these cases and that
of the slander uttered to Mr. Duncombe ; but
my direction to you is, that if, on that occa-
sion, Lord Wilton acted from a sense of duty merely,
he would be privileged in what he said. He had
heard from Gen. Peel that Mr. Duncombe wished
to see him, and he had heard that a question was
about to be put in the House of Commons on a
_ .

matter of interest; and, if he went to Mr. Dun- I
combe to communicate that which he believed to be
true,•to enable Mr. Duncombe to do his duty as a
member of the House of Commons, my opinion is
that that is a privileged communication. But if he
abused that privilege, and from any motive other
than a sense of duty, or from what the law calls
"malice," made a charge, and said what could not
be justified in point of truth, and his object was to
prevent Mr. Duncombe from bringing those pro-
ceedings before the House of Commons, and so pre-
veating justice from being done, then the privilege
is gone. It lies on the party who would deprive
the other party of his privilege to show what the
law calls " malice." But by that term is meant, not
only spite, for any indirect motive, other than a
sense of duty, is what the law calls " malice." You
will say whether the defendant acted from a sense
of duty, and bonafide, or from a feeling of irritation,
and whether, acting at the suggestion of others, he
went beyond the law. His lordship proceeded :
Mr. James had stated several circumstances which
he considered had taken away the defendant's pri-
vilege; but, until the contrary was shown, it must
be presumed that a party had acted bona fide. His
lordship thought he might say that the defendant
(Lord Wilton) had always hitherto borne a good
character as an amiable nobleman, and he hoped
that, whatever might be the event of this trial, he
would continue to do so to the end of his life. But
the best of men sometimes erred, and the jury
might think that Lord Wilton had been actuated
for the time by motives which could not be justi-
fied, and had surrendered himself to those who had
a spite against Col. Dickson, though he himself
had none. Mr. James had rend on the constitu-
tion of the Regimental Board of June, 1857; but
it appeared that Lord Wilton had promised to ask
the Queen to knight Col. Dickson, and down to that
time -there seemed to have been no change of feel-
ing. He (Lord Campbell) could not but lament the
constitution of that board, but thought that Lord
Wilton, acting as he did in the matter under the
advice of Colonel North, was not blameable for it.
If the plaintiff was to be affected by the decision it
was improper that he should be tried by three offi-
cers who were immediately under him. Such was
the weakness of human nature, that those who sat
asjudges should not have a shadow of interest in

the matter. His lordship instanced the case of a
clergyman about to be tried for any immorality
which might lead to his deprivation, and said that,
if the bishop happened to be the patron of the liv-
ing, the law would not allow that bishop to sit as
the judge. Whenever men might be swayed by
interested motives they ought to be kept out of the
way of temptation. However, his lordship thought
Lord Wilton was not to blame in that matter, for
at that time he looked on the plaintiff with regard
and esteem. His lordship then came to what was
done on the regimental board, and observed that
Lord Wilton was still less answerable for that.
Considering the questions referred to them the re-
port was very strange. But when the report was
made Lord Wilton did not seem to be inclined to
act upon it, and stopped till the month of March,
1858 ; and even then he did not seem inclined to
take any steps until he was urged to do it by Capt.
Dixon, who was a bitter enemy of Col. Dickson.
Lord Wilton saw Lord Combermere in Jan., 1858,
but made no communication, intimating that this
'report was to be laid before him, as a foundation
for the plaintiff's (Col. Dickson's)-removal. On the
11th March the report was sent in to Lord Comber-
mere, and by this time the rencontre with Captain
Dixon in the Haymarket had taken place, and Capt.
Poley was actively employed. Before the 26th
May, 1858 (the date of the first libel), it would ap-
pear that the debts of the regiment had been left
unpaid ; that the defendant (Lord Wilton) had
been sued for those debts, and believed that Col.
Dickson had instigated the Messrs. Sharpusto bring
that action. This might have. irritated 'Lord
Wilton. Then it appeared that the letter of the 26th
May was not written by Lord Wilton' but by Capt.
Poley, and adopted by. Lord Wilton, who thus
became answerable for it. Still, if it was, sincerely
adopted by him, and if he was doing no more than
his duty, he was protected. The language, how-
ever, of the letter was peculiar. It had been said
that Lord Wilton was not the plaintiff's accuser;
but by that letter he made himself so in express
terms. It began thus

" With reference to your Lordship's letter of the Ist inst.
I beg to inform your Lordship, for the information of the
Secretary of State for War, why I consider that Lieut.-
Colonel Dickson's conduct has rendered it imperative on
me, as Colonel commanding the regiment, to suggest his
immediate removal from it."
He was the accuser, and he required Col. Dickson's
immediate removal from the regiment. He might
be a just accuser, but he was the accuser ; and the
jury would say whether the grounds which he set
down were the true grounds on which he proceeded.
His Lordship said he had felt astonished at hearing
the Attorney-General talking with levity of an
officer being dismissed from his regiment on the
ground of pecuniary fraud. If an officer of the
Queen's army was dismissed from his regiment for
misconduct, or required to resign to prevent his dis-
missal, he (Lord Campbell) took it that the officer
was for ever disgraced. Some of the charges con-
tained in the libel were of a grave nature, but there
were others which his Lordship was surprised to see
put in as ground for dismissal. The charge of em-
bezzling £2O 2s. 11d. of the Cremorne money was
certainly a serious charge ; but as to his not holding
mess meetings of accounts, that was well known to
Lord Wilton, and he took no steps in the matter.
Then, as to the charge of expending £250 in enter-
tainments, that excited his surprise still more, con-
sidering that Lord Wilton was assisting at one of
those ceremonies (the presentation of new colours)
land had liberally contributed a sum which Colonel
Dickson thought he ought to pay. He was rather
surprised to find that brought forward by defendant
as a charge upon which the plaintiff ought to be
dismissed. Another charge was that orders were
given by the plaintiff for goods, though, as to the
crockery and china, the defendant was fully aware
of that order, and was present when the specimens
were shown, and himself recommended one of
them. The Attorney-General was wrong in saying
that Lord Wilton was not a member of the mess ;
for, according to Colonel North's evidence, he was
entitled to take the chair. With regard to the
plates, it appeared in evidence that Lord Wilton
was aware of the order, he was present when it was
given, and it must be considered as his order.

There was also a charge about which little had
been said—that of insulting Captain Dixon, and
accusing him of improper malversation in his
accounts, and the charge about the plaintiff's
employing a spy in the regiment. The letter then
concluded thus ;—" I feel that I should be failing in
my duty as colonel of the regiment, and as well
as for the credit of the corps, if I did not recommend
to your Lordship his immediate removal from the
service." His Lordship then referred to the
second libel, the letter of the 24th of July, 1858,
which charged the plaintiff with retaining the sum
of £25 given by Lord Wilton and Colonel North
to the sergeants' mess, and the conversation with
Mr. Duncombe, in which the defendant charged
the plaintiff with having received and retained regi-
mental funds, and instigated Messrs. Sharpus and
Co. to sue the defendant. With respect to this
conversation, his Lordship said the law would
justify anything which the defendant might hone
fide say to Mr. Duncombe as a member of the
House of Commons, . for his information as such
member. He then proceeded to read over the yore
sions which Mr. Duncombe and Lord Wilton gave
of what passed on that occasion, and observed that
lie believed both parties spoke the truth according
to what they believed took place. If Lord Wilton
Went to Mr. Duncombe and spoke the words liana
fide, and with the view to put him In possession of
the real facts of the case, he was protected, and en-
titled to the verdict on that count ; but, if his
object was to prejudice Mr. Duncombe against the
plaintiff; and he had the indirect purpose of pre.
venting him from putting his question in the
House of Co-lumens, he was not protected, but
the jury ought to find a verdict for the plaintiff.
The same rule would apply to all the counts
in the declaration. llis Lordship then expressed
his regret at the treatment which the plaintiff
had received at the hands of Lord Combermere;
for it was impossible not to see that in that stage of
the case justice was not well administered, because,
while Lord Combermere declared he could not un-
derstand the matter, he nevertheless pronounced
his judgment that Col. Dickson should be removed.
His lordship had no doubt that Lord Combermere
acted in the matter without in the remotest degree
believing that he woes doing wrong. it was impossible
to 100 k OD Lord Combermere's glorious career with.
out admiration ; but at the same time we could not
.shut our eyes to the fact that in rici department of
the -,State sfihellid justice be so administered. His
lordship (whose voice had by this time become
almost inaudible) proceeded to obsom Q 1 tine I

plaintiff's dismissal by Gen. Peel (in the letter of
30th June), and said he could not understand how
Gen. Peel could have signed that order. His lord-
ship referred to the proceedings which in ancient
times were- supposed to take place in inferis, where
the judge castigatque auditque dolos ; but in so low
a tone as to be at times quite inaudible. As we
understood his lordship, he drew a comparison be-
tween the proceedings below and those in the War-
office, rather in favour of the latter ; and exculpated
Gen. Peel from the imputation of deciding against
the plaintiff without investigation, at the same time
time that his lordship expressed his regret that
such affairs should be proceeded with in a manner
to incur such risks. It was to be regretted that
the plaintiff could not have been tried by a court-
martial, where, from his lordship's own experience
while at the bar, he was able to say justice was
'fairly and satisfactorily administered. But, where
a court-martial could not be held, it seemed that
there was no mode of proceeding where justice
could be satisfactorily administered. Great com-
plaints had been made of the mode in which the
inquiry at the War-office had been conducted, and
he (Lord Campbell) must say that it would have
been more proper if Lord Wilton, who was in
fact the accuser, had attended. His lordship made
some observations on the non-publication of the
report of that board, and proceeded to con-
demn the private interviews which had taken
place between Lord Wilton and Lord Combermere.
That was what a common law judge in this country
would spurn instantly; though in foreign countries
such practices as soliciting the judges prevailed.
These private interviews between Lord Wilton and
Lord Combermere were to be regretted, because
Lord Wilton was the accuser, and Colonel Dickson
was the accused, and the judge ought not to have
heard the one except in the presence of the other.
It was to be regretted that Lord Combermere and
the War-office did not regulate their proceedings
according to the proceedings which took place in
courts of law. The jury, however, must not allow
their minds to be prejudiced by the constitution of
the regimental board, or.by the conduct of the board
of inquiry at the War-office ; but the question which
they would have to decide was, whether, looking at
all the circumstances of the case, the defendant
(Lord Wilton) from other motives than a sense of
duty, wrote the letters of the 26th of May and the
24th of July. If in writing them Lord Wilton was
actuated only by a sense of duty, he was entitled to
a verdict ; but if, without having anypersonal spite
against Colonel Dickson he was actuated by a feel-
ing of irritation, and a wish to have the plaintiff
removed from the regiment, or in weakness sun-en-
dered himself to the adjutant, Captain Poley, who
framed the indictment against the plaintiff, he was
answerable for what he had done from other mo-
tives than a sense of duty, and the jury ought to
find a verdict for the plaintiff. His Lordship said
the next question was whether the plea of justifica-
tion was substantially proved, for, if it was, that
was an answer to the action, and the jury must find
their verdict for the defendant. His Lordship then
went through the various charges seriatim, and
said it was for the jury to say whether or not they
were proved. His Lordship said the jury must find
all the charges proved in each plea before they
could find a verdict for the defendant on the several
pleas of justification, but if they found any of the
charges proved, that ought to weigh in mitigation
of.damages.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
were twice called back in consequence of some dis-
satisfaction expressed by the counsel of the de-
fendant with his Lordship's ruling in point of law,
arid they were directed to find their verdict on each
issue separately.
After an absence of about two hours the jury
returned into court, and found for the plaintiff on
all the issues, negativing the defendant's bona fides
and pleas of justification, and assessing 2001. as
damages for the slander, and 51. for the libels.
The court and avenues were densely crowded
throughout the trial, and when the verdict was
given some applause burst from the friends of the
plaintiff, which was immediately checked by the
officers of the court. But as soon as the audience
had reached the outside of the court, they, and a
crowd which had assembled, uttered shouts- of
triumph as the plaintiff got into a cab and drove
away.