The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-24 00:00:00

Wellington quailing before hint, the Duke of Cr,bt;;;
Lind. It would be most contradictory to suppose 3. d
Duke of Wellington on the one hand had the P" that
that
.tutliority which is attributed to hint here, and the° one
me
should quail before any individual. If there he sq„,jtls
individual whom the Duke of Wellington approclT
respect it is the Sovereign of the countrysAnd "all
to that Sovereign he feels that res;•ect which be '' ePed
to entertain ; but as to fearing any man, perbBo
not say the Duke is the last person who Would enter"i2
such a feeling.
v.in and
The affidavit proving the proprietorship was .
read, also a copy of the Morning Journal contaion
libel.
fr.
John Barrett Leonard called and examined by

I GURNEY. (leek
Mr. Gum.Tav--..--Mr. Leonard, I believe you are
in the Privy Council Office
Witness—Yes. acelltet
Mr. GURNEY—On the 30th of July, do you r- ,acl
if his Grace the Duke of Wellington was at that time
before a member of the Privy Council?
Witness—He was.
Mr. IItiMPHRIrS then rose for the defendant, Div.
son. Ile assured them with regret, when he fist cants. of
Court that morning, he hail not had an opporturotroor
making himself master of the contents of the libel' era.
had he any knowledge that he was to have been engiliffulti
le felt it necessary to make these remarks, because be, Jury
be obliged to ti elms somewhat on the patience of the
the
and his Lord.hip, and he trusted they would Oct's!, to
imperfection of any obligations that he should sob° fbe
them in the absence of a maturer con•ideretion I)n
list
Rubj-ct. He did not know, however, whether 't
to
tn.glit have been a misfortune was not an advantfi.t,,
him, because he mine with his mind fresh to the sub),o
and in his own opinion he thought he should bare ',ill),
difficulty in persuading the Jury to a different view 010,„
case than had been expressed in the opinion of the Atter:lo
General. That Learned Counsel had stated that this t
the fourth libel which it had been necessary to bring
lions for against the newspaper in questieu. Ile beg!;
however, to assure them, that it was only the first 00°,1
which had been brought against the gentleman whorna:,
had the honour of representing. That gentleman
o wh
clergyman, a member of the Church of England, whe; s
for several years been considering and writing on the
.„,
which, at the same time in which the alleged libels were p.,P."
lished, had so greatly excited the attention of the pub;
He called called it a libel, because it had been so called b/df,
Learned Friend, but for his own part he took a Yeti oft
ferent vier/ of it. It contained no corrept motive ag,. g,
the private character or conduct of the Duke of
ton ; it contained no imputation bat against his
conduct, which was open to the observation of every °°:
ptehraniwf Wes
it did net meddle with, or offer an opionnlidd
the private worth of the Duke of Wellington. It al' able
to nothing but that for which the Duke was anete,ertf-ere
to the public—his public conduct as a public man• fled
was an advantage of which the Duke might have at;so
himself in this publication, which was not generally IPO,O
by p ilitical observations : that advantage was, that td
not anonymous. It contained the rank, the rams, ,bt
situation of the person who wrote it. If it could be the'4ify.
that the Duke of Wellington could have a private 0411°113
against a newspaper, the course pursued in this case
well justify that opinion, for why was not she libeller o'er'
self—if a libel it were—brought there to-day, to 'boo
in his own person for what lie had written ? It hiii „e
said that the Press was a vehicle from which could
t'ol
anonymoualy the moat scandaloue and slanderous observavit
e,
to tile public, but he thought it a little singular that
.n_ff
a person who was the composer of that which h d 17,1 p
to-day charged as a libel could be found by the proserto`',„
that the noble prosecutor should be advised that it was his
best course to set himself in array against the printer
proprietor of a newspaper. But why (Paid the
Counsel) dthe oes he
ire nonote_prweshe;udt,ewerhhee
If
writer
think that if the writer had bier prosecuted,
the charge would sustain it here to-day ? If he door;
which has been so boast,e,
cannot say much for that valour
proceed against the publisher and the punterpb.r°efil'eara.bnilea.t:
of. Might not the person who had put his name to the
publication, have sufficed for the prosecution? Is he rh,
to be found ? He tells us in the publication itself Oslo
ut/e1
is private Chaplain to the Duke of Cumberland. I'Vee re,
not have been more manly, more honourable, to h9O,
(erred Lim to the printer and the publisher ? Leffler. a
however, gentlemen, look at the date of this le
eta
Was it not published within a very few Pt'
f t
he
pr ei
inciples
iar,secuai
ptt
en,isuliam'ililb.iecerlret:
oiinfr
thethdeniltn)gpei !ran:).
iittnhaenontfatioht
fewtmahsai
this
okriint yg.rd
cogr: ; boat.° t
fctleifol
tnt
lcnyl.e's owl ethxewcniat esdfi rt.h.emia):yhtinel months the
An-pdesswilhn,lelnotei.ftesavott 311
the empire to its foundation? There never sv," anYinq to
opinion of a large portion of the community tl," r°
writer 0
his duty to feel deeply'
rtioo
member of that eitahlisiiment, which large P°l,
the community concurred with him in thinking' ha t
ceived almost its death-blow at that time from thecriod 37
sure which was passed. When I hear my Learned (
the Attorney-General imputing to this gentleroanblood -• t
ranee of the met its of the Catholic question, I feefifrb
to say that he was not alone in the opinions ve')l the '
11
then held. If he erred, he did so with tome
most excellent, the wisest, and the most bos°°roce a
persons in this country. It may be folly--iNn
I believe it is nut ; but if it were, it was she
coat'
men with whom it is an honour to have any thing to
mon. The Duke of Wellington might take the ere both b
himself for having carried that measure through: 1
Houses of Parliament : he might take credit to h'ri'a
at
k
s tl
ott,tt;:ueilf:airtee,
Attorney-General
c:
merittri noteinn•reiseyniueia-g:nitGtheusee,
publications,genri,,uecie:veerr nsearnt)li
0..
eetiitest:.adg himi:
satoilite:efsiavneiai
tmtilorluivineer
oawetd:th
,?:earrntl,ehs ti.thhyfy:ieiitwLrai
aoiaitcfrni'y' irihnlaoadeb
etts
iwtdltfileehfirueethrlrisigeice,ettoohro,ol,olbl
for be
f
men who hold high situations ought to treat withal he ft
is observed that persons ofretlsrae",pulbnliacn'Pres''s, p
they prosecute one another, do so with an are'
rity which is seldom found in private or other to
aecutions. But does the Learned Counsel men °he
compare such a case with the present ? P°Zeli,g
mean to justify by that the Duke of Wellington', ""000° t
sore at such a paltry attack, because two or three Pet, f
of the public Press feel a little soreness at obser',', oleli
upon each other? Is the conqueror of a hundred '5,00,
to be compared with a poor printer ? That because Per rho
of the public Press have a jealousy of each other/ thief, to I
Duke of Wellington should think it due to his dig,n'lrest
prosecute a poor scribbler in a newspaper? Fresh I°r9
Wa'erloo, noes he think he can add more to hie gieo '
by such a prosecution as this? Now, Gentlemen, hot tte,osa
at the article complained of. I know of no objection tOacet.
having for object to marry his son to an infant PrLigi„ the
For the set could not be illegal if it were done
Royal assent. This, it appears, is the only charged le
the learned Attorney-General seems to have selects t°
it a libel to suppose that it was his Grace's inteci 1-i°
marry the heir of Apslry House to an infant Prine`r-ith's
apprehend that it would be legal for any subject ite,°
realm to have Such an intention ; for the net itself 1;1101;
Royal assent, would not be illegal. I never yet beer,. ill'
if he had married this infant Princess, it t. °Ol/1
have been any harm, for the Royal aasen-rriec;
be given to a subject as well as to the highest h'r
bin Europe. There are two points, Gentlemen, to wry) ita"
beg to direct your most serious attention. It is eery
11°'
Portant in reading a libel, to say whether tilers art of
specific charge which can be expected to make a me
or which can justify h' for bringing • ,G)-r
him it into a iv:
Justice. If there is nothing more, Gentlemen, than "dotie
for
defendant has done nothing more than has beAeu :her;
or centuries past. I say it has been determined alt tee
wise. Gentlemen, if abuse is to be considered lib Quo
have had some of the most noble, some of the toes:,til
trious libellers that have ever lived, whom perb,Pe 00'
you, Gentlemen, have beard, but of whom I ba".ifecf.tr,
rend ; I have seen papers, I have seen speeches 'oll;„c:',ltP-
tained the directest and mose severe charges a 0,7, ieer
Minister of the day. If your wish to object to
sores of their government, which you hare a rig"` ~°IO,
are your words to be rendered in such milk and Wat;:dl'
ofgunge,otrea,
ttcdiciocoutur,bt,:
Gentlemen,
,intry kiciecg:iehluyttaoh attentiongui
t%s byl,eli
ti:ckrole.ft clat,iaarnet
publicctaoh lueonndteterryfleitro:iniininalgyanitt.;h: r
bps 1;11 hita-ee,
was
yourthn
to
condtheacquit
h writer
eprper ohveerde,
any tlae Pc
bisti;
e
is likely to bring the Duke of Wellington into coy e'er
or is it only t' e real opinions of a person labouring
a delusion ; if :mu place it to the foundation of his Of 001
only endeavouring to bring lielore the public, Oj,igts
which at least a very large portion of the inhoubintstief, 'at;
this kingdom, had concurred with him in dertihihei:
Now, Gentlemen, let us look at the cont nti f S"-sfor,'; I;
Now, gentlemen, let us stop here. There are die rip;
" ignorance, vanity, and ambition." You baces„ set'
to say, if you think so, that a man is ignorant. valere
ambitious, and here language does not afford soft ,gs'
enough to state what we think in more tender Mogi! Jar
We must, therefore, address ourselves in the evel'etir
language of feeling, and if it be libellous to do
language must be altered, our language mbst be Aloe; spill
that we may not venture to wound great ro°I)