New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-03

only Cue under y, WILL AWAY oo ie"'e
thu. account. If not for its intrinsic imPot'anc
Lord Mansfield. Mr.. T@iss tells us IN MS Li@
g Tord Fldon. prophesed to the Duke OF North
cumberland tina. Lord Eden Chen NJ Scott
and Young barrister just caled) mien' i've W sec
the NEWSPAPERS write dukes out Of their mites anu
ros.e.siors aid the country out Of its king Though
Tho pevspapers have not vet fulfilled this prophecy
his Iordsbp would 10 doubt think they were on tue
bob road 70 do il. if be could but know that Queen
Lords al Commons had thus enlarged those dan
ger,us prerogatiees Of the press from when ne au'
cured so much evil.
Tbi. action was brought in the Court OF Et-
chequer and tried before the Lord Chez Baron aud
q Special Jury. The libel consisted of leader oil
The Daily Ntus, arguing the incOmPeteucy OF
Lord Raglan AZ Commander.iI- Chief (emons other
thinps), from the damage done 50 The servlceoy
"lbe lucan. Cardigan scandal. Lord Luean was
Major General commanding the cavalry IN the
Crines. aud Lord Cardigan was bngade-Gene'H
II, der him. These noble lords were brothers ~
law. Lord Lucan having married Lady Anne Brad-
eneD. sister Of Lord Cardigan, and they seem TO
hors,4uarrelled in truly fraternal manner. LORD
CARDIGAN YES. permitted by Lord Raglan to
.,eep on board BIS yacht, seven miles from
hi, cor usud and was there enjoying himself SIS II
~ nIe..n,e excursion GG Cowes, While his men
usre diving By dozers aid bis horses eating eacn
Diners tails of in the extremity of thS sur, '''V"'
Lord Lucan seems to have tried to do his>SS! as
far as the order book went but lacked the faculty.
Of c,mnandng obedience TO bis orders. Lord
Cardigan set an example Of open insubOrdnltion
refusing 70 report himself to his immediate SUPERIOR
but making his communications directly TO the Com
mander ID Chief Instead of putting him under ar
rest. as take il he might have done, Lord Lucan
ccntenttd himself with complaining of the afront
TO Lord Raglan, who, in bis turn, allowed this dis
graceful state of things to continue, while he ac
know edged that Lord Cardigan was guilty of DISC
bedience The whole thing was comment of the
most instructive sort the characterOf the military
branch Of the CrcumOcutiOn Office, and on the fit
ness of Lord Raglan to direct its affairs. The Duke
of Wellington would have made short work of the
matter, and perfunctory relieved both nObemen of
tter commands, if not OF their commissions. And
so would Lord Raglan, had It been Dlsior General
Jones ard Brigade General Smith who Ind thus en-
dangered the public service BY their pryo'e quar-
rels.
Then care the terrible blunder of Btlakaya.
Some one had bundered, and, whether il were
Lord Lucan or poor Capt. Nolan, il sent the SIX
Hundred riding straight into the jaws of hell
Lord Raglan said it was Lord Lucsn and Lord
Lucan wrote letter in reply, which hal the good
effect of causing the Home Government to recall
him. Then followed the Chelsea Inquiry, aud the
finding, substantially, that nobody of rank aud con-
sideration had done anything amiss On this state
Of things The Daily N,rs made its comments. II
said in effect that had these two lords had COM
uetent commander, and been treated as soldiers
only, they would have been dismissed the service.
Insolent and disorderly as they are-much in
cBed 10 abuse their positions, relying on favor
"iiism-they have some military spirit, aud
something might be made of them by firm,
rigorous and competent commander. Not being
SO commanded, all their natural and acquired
" vices had full play and introduced into the mi
litary history Of the country an episode of the
most disgraceful description" The article went
on to say that this discredtable affair should be
warning 10 the Duke Of Cambridge to introduce
Into the service deeper sense of resp 1nsibity
and more earnest sense of duty than the
" truculert insubordinstOn Of the two white
" washed peers, and the frivolous tone of the Re-
" port Of the Chelsea Commission proves ~ pre-
" vail among tire senior members Of the profession
II was TO obtain redress for the injury done to his
character By these structures that Lord Lucan
brought his action.
Sir Frederick Thesiger, for the plaintiff, main
tanned tina. this style of CO nment was not meant
TO be protected; that Lord Lucan bad been cleared
Of blame by the Chelsea Commission, and that to
speak of him as " whitewashed peer was license
for which the offender should be mucted in DANA
ges. He spoke sneeringly of the probable nsig-
nlficance Of the writer which would very likely
bave screcued him from notice had it been signed
COMMUNICATION but which became serious ard
formidable when made the expression of the
opinion of powerful press. Lord Lucan was
the OUly wiibess examined, and in the cross
eron.uati be was treated with the most
mpaI isl severity BY the Defendants counsel, Mr.
Edwin James, Q. c., who extracted from his lord
ship all The substsnta ACTS eeded for the defense.
THIS rested solely the ground that the article ID
question was simply the comment OF az historian on
prtlc event. The facts were all substantially
admitted by the plaintiff himself and the only
question was, whether the defendant had exceeded
his ega province. He was very severe on the two
lords their scsndaous quarrels, and their white.
washing commission, ard affirmed that the censure
Of the public could reach offenders of this class
Of y through the press. And be concluded by sp-
pea ing te the Jury 10 sustain the rights Of the
press and of the pubic By refusing TO be the in'tru
nert of Lord Lucsns vengeance. The Lord Chief |