The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-27 00:00:00

HE__ OUK, LONDON, TURaDAY JA.,N VARY

at twelve, at the Court of Bankraptcy. Graham, official
assignee ; Sidney:, Smith, and Son, Barnard's-inn, Holborn.
John Ochse, dealer in china and jewellery, Basinghall-
. street, City, Feb. 6, at half-past twelve, and March 13, at
at half-past eleven, at the Coart of Bankruptcy. Cannan,
official assignee, Aldermanbury ; J. and S. !Solomon,
Finsbury-place.
John Bunton Cooper and Henry Banton Cooper, pawn-
brokers, late of Bentley-place, Kingeland-road, Feb. 7 and
March 13, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Carman,
official assignee, Aldermanbury; Foord, Pinner's-hall, Old
Broad-street.
Thomas Cook, boot and shoe maker, Thorpe-le-Soken,
Essex, Feb. 5. at half-past eleven, and March 5, at two, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-
street-buildings; Jones, Colcheater.

James Martin and Markwick, builders, Upper North-
street, and Round Hill-park, Brighton, Feb. 6, at half-past
twelve, and March 16, at twelve, at the Court of Bank-
rupty. Nicholson, official assignee, Basing-nail-street ;
May, Russell-square; Reade, Brighton.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
James Calder, draper, Brechin ; creditors meet Feb. 5,
at twelve, in the Commercial Hotel, Brechin.

THE LA W OF LIBEL.

(.Prom the Times. )

The case of " Davilion v. Duncan," which
occurs in our law report of last Saturday, resusci-
tates a question wh.ich we had hoped had long since
been at its final rest.

It appears that thore exists at Hartlepool a small
local parliament, ha ving large powers over that
busy borough. We have not read the statute
tinder which they act, but, judging from their
title, " The West Hartlepool Improvement Com-
miisioners" can probably pull down anybody's
house, or pull up anybody's sewer, or stop up any-
body's road. That they can impose taxes upon all
the property in Hartlepool appears upon the face of
the proceedings ; and, even if this were the sole
amount of their power, it might appear to justify
some curiosity in the inhabitants of this town as to
what the Commissioners were saying, and. what
they were likely to do. To satisfy this very natural
curiosity on the part of the people of Hartlepool,
the local newspapers published reports of the meet-
ings of the Hartlepool Commissioners ; and so it
happened that no man's souse was pulled down in
Hartlepool, and no man's sewer was pulled up, and
no man's rates were doubled, without those coming
events duly casting their shadows before. This
happy state of things continued for some time, but
these Improvement Commissioners, quite natu-
rally,—for it is the nature of Commissioners so to
do,—got into a squabble with a neighbouring
power. Collectively they passed some strong reso-
lutions, and individually they used fierce words—
words unpleasant to the ear of an absent gentle-
man. The absent gentleman was indignant that
such harsh things should be said of him, and he
looked about for somebody to punish. Rapidly
singling out his victim, he brought his action, not
against Mr. Commissioner A. or Mr. Commissioner
8., but against the local newspaper which had re-
ported what they said. The proceeding was very
much the sane as if a man should see by the aid of a
looking-glass that some one was shaking his fist and
making other insulting gestures at him behind his
back, but should straightway, instead of turning
round and knocking down his adversary, raise his
walking-stick and demolish the looking-glass.
However, the action was brought, and the defen-
dant pleaded that the report was a fair report of
the proceedings at a public meeting, and that the
report was without malice. To this plea the plain-
tiff demurred ; that is to say, he admitted (for the
purpose of the action) that the facts were true, but
denied that they amounted to a defence. The
Court of Queen's Beach, without hearing argu-
ment,—for the running conversation between the
defendant's counsel and the Court cannot be called
an argument,—and without taking any time to
consider the point, decided that the plaintiff's de-
murrer was good, or, in other words, that there is
no protection for a fair report of the proceedings of
a public body.
Now, we very respectfully represent to the Court
of Queen's Bench that this case of " Davison v.
Duncan" deserved a little more time and attention
than it received at their hands. The principle in-
volved in it is certainly not less important than the
principle involved in that great commercial case
wherein the Courts have just confessedly miscar-
ried. The judgment in " Davison v. Duncan "
should not have been given without grave delibera-
tion upon patiently heard argument. We venture
to predict that whenever some case similar to this
shall be fully argued and well considered this judg •
ment will be thought to be but doubtful law. We
will give our reasons for this opinion, and they
shall be strictly such as lawyers should listen to.
At the end of the last century the press was an
outlaw. A newspaper was'a thing held in equal
hatred and terror by the Bench. It was an esta-
blished principle of law that it had no privileges,
and judpes authoritatively ruled that " it was no
part of the duty of the editor of a newspaper to
report judicial proceedings ; he was a volunteer,
and did so at his own risk." We should not carry
the attention of the reader with us if we were to
deduce through the various cases the gradual
changes in the spirit of judicial decisions upon this
important point. Gradually, and step by step,
the exigencies of the public won from the Courts a
reluctant assent to the proposition that a fair and
bona fide report of judicial proceedings was as
much protected as the character of a servant, or an
answer to an inquiry made by one man of business
of another. At present the law, so far as it respects
judicial proceedings, is indisputable. We will refer
to some of the later cases. Lord Campbell, in
" Andrews v. Chapman," reported in the third
volume of " Carrington and Kirwan's Reports,"
told the jury that " by the law of England a fair
account of what takes place in a court of justice
may be published," and that the privilege of pub-
lishing reports of proceedings iu courts of justice is
" a valuable privilege for the public." Mr. Justice
Coleridge, in the case of " Smith v. Smith," re-
ported in the second volume of " Carrington and
Kirwan's Reports," directed the jury thus :—" If
this libel is a correct account of proceedings in a
court, of justice, you ought to dud a verdict for the
defendant." In the case of "Hoare v. Silverlock,"
reported in the ninth volume of the " Common
Bench Reports," Chief Justice Wilde and all the
Puisne Judges of that court solemnly decided that
a report of proceedings iu a court of justice was a
protected publication. " I think it impossible,"
said Mr. Justice Maule, "at this day to say that a
fair account of proceedings in a court of justice not
being ex parte, but in the hearing of both sides, is not
generally speaking, a justifiable publication."
Now, we presume that these decisions and those
which preceded them to the same effect depend
upon some principle. A decision which has no
principle to authorise it is valueless. Lord Camden
has told us, iu stronger language than we should
care to use upon our unaided authority, that the
discretion of judges, unguided by principle, is no
better than caprice. We find a principle active iu
all these cases, and recognised-in several of them.
In " Flint v. Pike," reported in the fourth volume
of " Barnwell and Cresswelrs Reports," it is thus
enounced :—" The publication should be for the
purpose of giving the public information which it
is fit and proper for them to receive." In Sir J.
Campbell's elaborate argument in the case of
" Stockdale v. Hansard" a host of authorities are
cited by that very learned and careful Attorney-
General to prove his proposition that "publications
for the good of the community have been held pri-
vileged ; ' and in Lord Campbell's own Libel Act
the same principle is recognised in that it is made
part of the averment of the plea given by that sta-
tute " that it was for the public benefit that the
said matters charged should be published."
Now, if this be the principle upon which reports
of judicial proceedings are protected, we ask con-
fidently, what public advantage can arise from a
report of judicial proceedings which does not
equally arise from a report of the proceedings of
public bodies which have the power of taxation in
their hands ? What interest have the public in
knowing the issue in the case of " Nokes v.
Styles" which they have not in knowing whether
their houses are to be pulled down or whether
their taxes are to be trebled ? The immunity as
to judicial proceedings cannot be an isolated
exception ; for it must then have depended upon
some statute. It must proceed from some ge-
neral principle, and that general principle is
the public go ,d. Wherever that principle
leads the decision of the Courts, in common
sense and in sound law (which we are told is the
perfection of common sense), ought to follow.
There is as much difference between the old case
in the " Modern Reports," wherein it was held
that to print a writ of prohibition was a libel, and
the decision in " Hoare v. Silverlock," which we
have mentioned, as there is between the decision
in the case "Davison v. Duncan" and that which
the convenience of modern society demands.
In truth, a newspaper report is but an expan-
sion of the area through which a voice can travel.
The reporter does no more than give to the absent
to read what those present have beard. If there
is guilt in the speech—adest qui fecit, to punish
the reporter is as insensate as it would be to punish
the audience. We ask no impunity for malice, no
protection for partiality, no amnesty for gross neg-
ligence occasioning private wrong ; but we think
we are entitled to demand that important public
duties, the discharge of which is absolutely neces-
sary to the every-day business of society, should
not expose the Press to constant persecution and
wanton annoyance. It is said that " hard cases
make bad law." Perhaps there may have been
something in the facts of this case which may have
.ed. the Court to some inference adverse to the de-
fendant. If so, it was the plaintiff's fault that he
placed his case in such a form before the Court
that the malice or bona fides of the report could
not he tried. This little-considered judgment,
however, affects all alike—it is burning down a
forest to destroy one bad tree.

(Prom the Morning Chronicle.)
The anomalous conditions under which Englishmen
hold their much-pannted " liberty of the press" are curi-
ously exemplified by a trial reported in our columns on
Saturday. The case originated in the country, where the
action waa first tried, and the sentence then pronouncel
was brought up to the Court of Queen's Bench upon de-
murrer, in order that Lord Campbell and other judges
of that court sitting in banco might decide a certain point
of law. With the special details of the case we are thent-
fore unacquainted, nor are they material. What was left
for the Court of Queen's Bench to decide, and which on
Saturday that tribunal decided in the negative, involved
simply the question whether a newspaper is justified in
publishing a fair report of the proceedings at any public
meeting, without incurring legal liability for any state
ents calculated to damage private individuals, which
might be promulgated at that meeting...
Lord Campbell ruled that no such right existed, and
we are bound to believe that, as the law now stands,

his decision is unimpugnable. Whatever a journalist
may print, therefore, when reporting the speeches
at a public meeting, he must publish suo periculo.
If the speaker has hazarded a libellous statement—
s id to be libellous in legal acceptation there is no neces-
sity that it should be false—the newspaper in which his
speech is reproduced becomes liable to action for libel,
justas if the assertion complained of had been promulgated
upon its own authority or emanaoed from its own writers.
Li the case before ua it seems that at a public meeting
of the Hartlepool Improvement Commissioners some-
thing was said calculated to lacerate the feelings or
damage the interests of the plaintiff, whose name is
Duncan. These sayings were printed in the general
report of proceeding-, by a local journal, the Durham
and County Advertiser, and thereupan Mr. Duncan,
leaving the original author of the libel untouched, su far
as appears, brought his action against the journal,
which merely reproduced it among other toerticulars of
what transpired at the meeting, In itself the libel, as
Lord Campbell acknowledged, " was very mild ;" yet
his lordship passed judgment against the defendant, ac-
companying his sentence with the folio .ving expoe6 of
the law as it now stands in relation to the question .
"Uneer the existing law a fair account of what took
place in a court of justice was privileged. This was a most
beneficial provision, because the public bad a great
interest in knowing what passed there under the con-
trol of the judge. The inconvenience wLich arose
from allowing such a privilege was infinitesimally
small compared with the benefit which it conferred ; but
as yet the privilege bad not been extended generally to
public meetings. He was not aware that tha doctrine
that the same privilege applied to public meetings had,
until now, ever been contendel for in a court of justice,
and it certainly would, if established, extend the privilege
to an alarming width, and be did not think it could be
sanctioned without some guards to protect private cha-
racter. If the plea were good, a fair account of what
took place at any public meeting migA lawfully be pub-
lished, whatever injury it cnigl t do to the private cha-
racter of individuals. To lay down such a doctrine
would be most alarming, for many things might be said
at a meeting very injurious to the character of private
individuals, and the mere fact of the meeting having
been a public one, and of the proceedings being fairly
reported, would exonerate the printer cr publisher of
the journal in which th,, report appeared. In what
situation would the calumniated man be ? The falseness
of the accusation would be no ground for an action, and
he would have no opportunity of redeeming his charac-
ter."

Following up tho principle thus enunciated, Mr.
Justice Coleridge observed that the privilege accorded in
regard to courts of justice was fouuded upon the fact
that "the injury done ti individuals was small as com-
pared with the immense good its exercise conferred upon
the public." In addition to this quality—which, after
all, is merely an accident—appertaining to the reports of
proceedings before a judicial tribunal—there is the theo-
retical difference between the two cases, that in the law
court both parties are nominally present—defendants as
well as assailants—and that no ex parte statement can be
made without leaving opportunity for a full and instant
answer. In the public meeting this opportunity is net
always allowed Attacks m'ey be made against absent
individuals, or, even if they were present, there may be
no time or possibili.y fur explanations. Therefore, it is
urged, the r, port of speeches at a meeting must be sub-
jected to a different law, and restrained within narrower
bounds of licence, than the accounts published of argu-
ments and evidence produced in the course of trials be-
fore a legal tribunal.
This allegation sounds well no doubt, and is particu-
larly suited for the atmosphere of a law court. But it
breaks down most deplorably upon closer examination.
In the first place, it is utterly false that no libellous
statement can be promulgated in the course of a legal
suit except in the presence of the inculpated party, and
with full opportunity afforded him for reply. The very
contrary is the fact. Seldom does any action of moment
ripen to deci-ion, either before a criminal or civil tri-
bunal, without involving the most atrocious insnuations
against many persons who are either absent or defence-
less. What defence—what means of r.plication—for
example, has the witness in any suit against the vile
calumnies which counsel " on the other side" are sure
to suggest when attempting to damage his evidence
In a whole class of cases again---the actions for trim.
unfurtunate party whose character is chiefly
at stake, and upon whom the advocates engaged
upon one side, and sometimes upon b tb, endea-
vours to concentrate the heaviest inculpation, Is
by the law itself sternly forbidden from saying a word,
or having a word said, in her behalf. These are among
the atrocities of our legal system. Is there anything that
can transpire at a public meeting which can be—we will
not say worse—but anything like so bad?
We may not question the maw as laid down by the
Chief Justice All that can be said is, that the law must
be altered. Upon his own principle, that a "small injury
to individuals" should be risked in order to secure an
" immense good to the public," the fearful penalty
under which the journalist must now prepare his
report of a public meeting cannot be allowed to con-
tinue. Any etateweut made at such a meeting is
promulgated in the presence of the " public," and the
newspaper report does but somewhat widen the circle
of publicity. The responsibility for the libel—if
libel there be—should rest with the first author,
and not with the innocent agent who happens to
put it into type. Otherwise the chief purpose and
use of public meetings will be wholly destroyed. In the
great majority of cases these gatherings are held to inves-
tigate charges of neglect or criminality—to give a voice
to comp aints, and expose either the wrongdoings of in-
dividuals, or the groundlessness of the accusations by
which wrongdoing is charged against them. All these
purpos-Js require the promulgation of statements which,
taken by themselves, the I—v would consider libellous.
Yet if it is to the interest of the public that these meetings
should be held and these purposes fulfilled, it must like-
wise be useful to afford the proceedings all possible
publicity. Even the accused or " libelled" parties would
be benefited. None but the guilty could be damaged, or
are like'y to complain. As for the possible case in which
the journalist himself may be instigated by malicious
motives, the question then, no doubt, assumes a different
aspect. But this is a fact susceptible of distinct proof—
and may at all times be safely lett to the jury.

ninepence "short of its legal term in April twelvemonth,
a new act will be required ; and it once such an act is
before the house, who knows what insidious arrange-
ments may not creep in ? It is better, they insinuate,
to leave things as they are. With this recoininendation
we will venture to declare that the public are in no hu-
mour to agree. The Disraelite Oppo•ition are quite
ready to lead the attack on the Ministerial position if
any resistance is offered. But when public opinion is
once roused to the extent and depth of its present
agitation the people of England need never be in want
of leaders.

If the question related to a branch of permanent re-
ceipt, there might be a better excuse for reluctance to
part with it. Other taxes might be pointed out caus-
ing injury to commerce and industry, or which the Ila•
tion would be very glad to escape, and the alternative
would then lie between exemption from one impost or an.
other. But in the pre,eni case no offer of that kind is pos-
sible. Whether or not, the income tax will drop to sd.
some twelve months hence. The whole gain to the Go-
vernment is, therefore, limited to a sum of about 9 mil-
lions, which they would receive this year, and never
again, and to obtain which the country. must be left suf-
fering under an intolerable burden until April, 1858,
and smarting, besides, from the sense of injustice and
broken faith practised upon them by her Majesty's Mi-
nisters. Oa so temporary a foundation it is evident
that no new adjustment of taxation is possible, and the
millions will be extracted from the pockets of the tax•
payers without hope of reimbursement in any shape. It
is a naked act of spoliation, which nothing short of some
well proved case of State necessity can justify.
Between the public and the Government the prize con-
tended for in this crude lump of nine millions. This
money cannot be considered revenue in any sense of the
word. It passes once into the Treasury, but never again.
It is like the contribution levied by a invading general
from some captured city. The Government can build
no future system of finance upon it. The receipt is spe-
cial, and must be devotes to a special purpose if it is to
be usefully or sensibly expended. Now does any such
special purpose exist I Are there any particular de-
mands, or " final payments" to be met during the next
financial year, which will require to bo stopped by some
immediate appliance, arid are not likely to recur here-
after) Can the Chancellor of the-Exchequer show that
he wants for the year 1857-8 nearly ten millions more
than he is likely to require in 1858-9 ? In such. contin-
gency only can the cow inuar.ce of the income tax for the
ensuing year be endured. Yet when pushed to the utter-
m9st to make up some decent reply to the deputation on
Friday last, Sir Cornewall Lewis could mention
but one demand of this character— nprnely, the two
millions of Exchequer Bantle which will fall due in
the course of a few months. He fo,rgot at the same
time to mention that even if the income tax subsided
to the lower scale in April many millions would still
accrue frem the collection of past assessmen:-s—far
more than sufficient to meet the calls upon the Bonds,
or any other war bills that may remain outstanding. In
fact, the entire half-year's charge at the full rates will
still remain due for the service of the year commencing
in April next, so that the revenue wit! practically enj.)y
the benefit of the war impost until October.
MeArtime, the income tax movement grows and
spreads. Every day accounts arrive of great meetings
in every district of the United Kingdom, at which re.
solutions are invariably carried denouncing the longer
continuance of the war tariff, accompanied in the great
majority of instances by a demand for the entire abo-
lition of the impost; On the ground of good faith there
can be- no question of the course wtiich Government
should adopt, unless excused by the plea of a necessity
which they cannot chow to exist. Unless their finan-
cial arrangements evince more extravagance or more
unskilful husbandry than we are trilling to believe,
no difficulty need be experienced in immediately
reverting to the status quo ante. This justice the
public are entitled to demand, and if they should fail to
obtain it at the hands of her Majesty's present Ministers
there is every probability of their applying "over the
way." •

ROYAL FLIRTATIONS : A LEAF FROM

SPANISH HISTORY.

(FROM MONARCHS RETIRED FROM BUSINESS. BY DR

With the accession of CD°halirAlNes.). Louisa,
IV , Maria and
Manuel Godoy commenced to reign. The king was little
more than what Louis XVI. had styled him, a mere
cipher. There aas a man, however, who was almost as
much in the way of the unprincipled lovers as the late
king himself—viz., the Minister Floridablanca. He in-
curred the especial hatred of Manuel Godoy and the.
Queen, by energetically opposing her attempts to ag-
grandise .the former. His last stand was made against
the proposal of the Queen that Charles IV. should con-
fer an estate on Godoy, and at the same time create him
Duke de la Alcudia, and a Grandee of Spain. Florida-
blanca implored the King not to yield to this, and ob-
tained the royal consent to refer the matter to the
Cortes of Castile, which body was to pronounce on the
legality of settling crown lands on a subject. Florida-
bla,,ca wrote to the President of the Council, Count
Cifuentes, a letter, the object of which was to procure an
answer that should save the King's honour and avoid
public scandal. Unfortunately the Ceuet died soon slier
receiving the dispatch, which was discovered among his
meta and secretly transmitted to the Queen. That
lady's talents for intrigue were forthwith set in successful
action. All was accoomplished .or Godoy that she could
desire ; and the two together devoted themselves to the
destruction of Floridablanca. This object was not long
of accomplishment. Private and public crimes were laid
to the charge of the Minister. He had counselled his
master to j lin the European coalition against Republican
France, and he bad been mixed up in some di,creditab!e
matters of finance and private scandal. He was pro
pounced guilty of embaz ement to a vast extent, and
was only releaser! from confinement in the fortress of
Pampeluna, to be a prisoner at I .ree in his melt • town
of Murcia. Charles IV. appointed Count de Aranda to
the vacant post of Minister. The policy was " peace
with France ;" but at the end of seven mouths Godoy was
Prime Minister of Spain (1792) watt was dec,ared with
France, and disasters succeeded each other, with one ex-
ception, so rapidly, that to save Spain from becoming the
prey of the French Republicans, Godoy patched up that
treaty of Basle, for successfully negotiating which he re
ceived the title of the Prince of the Peace, and was given
precedence of every nobleman in Spain, save the Princes
of the Blood. From this time, Charles IV. esteemed
Gudoy more warmly than, even the Queen herself did.
His gratitude for his escape from ruin was unbounded ;
and though Godoy was, to all intents and purposes, king
in Spain, and his administration was far from being either
weak or injudicious, Charles could not too profusely ac-
knowledge the lucky escape which Spain had had from
being absorbed by French Repeblicanisin. The next step
is the greatness of Godoy was to make him a member of
the royal family by marriage. Nothing was more easy, or
more ardently desired by the Queen. She had not only
marked with feelings of jealous anguish the attachment
of Godoy to a young lacy from Malaga, named Tudo,
but hearing that the couple were at supper together, in
one of the apartments of the palace where the court was
temporarily residing, she suddenly brought the King
upon the imprudent pair, to contemplate a sight which
was a scandal if the parties were unmarried, and a base
act of ingratitude to the Queen if they were married.
Godoy being free, the Queen speedily arranged a marriage
between him and the King's cousin. She was a very plain
lady, but then she was a descendant of Louis XIV.; and
by the union, Godoy was placed at too great a height to
be expected to stoop to official duties. A Prince of the
Peace who had no responsible vocation, and was burdened
with a consort for whom he had no regard, was exactly
what the Qaeen required. The Prince gave up- the ad-
ministration of public affairs, and devoted himself to the
service of his royal mistress. Under thie. system, Charles
remained, a cipher, but his wife interfered in every de-
partment of the State. She was eager to promote her
own parasites without respect to their merits. When
the Minster Jovellan, s roughly refused to accede to her
demand of a prebendal stall for a favourite who had never
been at a university, the Queen asked, "At what uni-
• versity have you been yourself 7" Jovellanos replied,
"At Salamanca." "Ah I" said the Queen, "what a pity
they forgot to teach you manners " The court intrigues
of this period became daily more scandalous, but the
King was the only person who was not in the secret.
They were sometimes directed against Godoy himself,
whom Charles IV. now loved as a child, of whom the
Queen became frantically jealous. She sought his ruin,
repented the act, pardoned the unfaithful • lover, and
plunged into projects of revenge on discovering fresh
proofs of his treason. Godoy contrived to defeat all his
enemies. He was as active as the lightest gentleman in
a Spanish comedy ; and, indeed, there was something of
the old licentious comedy in all that was going on. When
Godoy became volage, the Queen piqued him by selecting
new favCourites, whose downfall it was his object to ac-
complish. It'was said that the King slept through the
whole comedy ; but non omnibus do,miebat—he was
awake without being able to comprehend. There was
one Mello, a poor Guardsman, whom the Queen's favour
had raised to dishonourable pre-eminence. One day, as
the whole royal family, with Godoy, were on the balcony
of the Prado, Mello rude by in great baste. "I wonder
how it is,", said the foolish K'ng, " that such a fellow can
keep such flue horses." "The reason is," said Godoy, •
"that the fellow is himself kept by an ugly old woman,
whose name," he added, looking at the Queen, " whose
name I cannot just now remember." Over this and all
other rivals Godoy finally triumphed. Some were impri-
soned, some were sentinto exile. Meanwhile, Spain was•
under the heels of
-the worthless favourite, the worthless
queen, and their creatures. The King slept on, except
when he wasOutshooting. 'McQueen pulled Span down
into an abyss of ruin. The union of Spain and France
was then effected in order to destroy England (on the
part of France), to subjugate Spain. The day of Trafal-
gar, however, brought the final destruction of the mari-
time po ever of Spain ; and after the fleet was annihilated,
Godoy was raised to the ancient and obsolete office of
Lord High Admiral. The appointment was an epigram
in action. Still Charles IV. continued well content with
matters domestic and foreign. An anecdote has been
told to show the unparalleled simplicity of this un-
kingly King. Therein it is said that the Duke de lin-
fautado " was once, with other Grandees, in attendance
on the King, when his Majesty, being in high gossip-
log humour, entered into a somewhat gay coeversation
on the lair sex. He descanted at Rome length on fickle-
ness and caprice, and laughed at the dangers of hus-
bands in these southern climates. Having had hie
fill of merriment on the topic of jealousy, he con-
cluded with an 'air of triumph, ' We crowned heads,
however, have this chief advantage above others,
that
our honour, as they call it, is safe ; for supposing
that
queens were as much bent on mischief assome of their
sex, where could they find kings and emperors to ffrt
with—eh ?'" Such a King was an easy tool in the
hands of designing and ambitious men. The court of
Spain became a stage, on which was played eue of the
most bustling and ignoble of dramas. The heir-appa-
rent, Ferdinand, plotted against his parents ;
.Gocloy
ooppired against both; the Xing and (Olen .were AA