THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT AGAINST TIIE SPECTATOR. —Time Attar- ney-General, at

a late hour on Thursday, showed cause for the defend- ants in this case. (In tile report that follows, which is substantially cor- rect, we merely collate the accounts given in the various morning papers —we took no notes ourselves ) The rule called upon the publisher and proprietors of the Spectator newspaper, to show cause why a criminal ix- formation should not be exhibited against them for printing and publish- ing certain scandalous libels on his Grace the Duke of Beaufort and his family. He would take the liberty of considering, first, die paragraph which had been set out in one of the affidavits upon which tile rule had been obtained. It began thins—" In the way of taking counsel, let every Re- former commune only with himself, saying, 'What can I by myself do to promote the good cause ?' " That, he hoped, was not a iihel. The question was answered—" Let him rush to do what strikes him as the best thing to be done at the moment ; and that thing finished, let hint begin another instantly." That was not a libel. Then there was another extract (not immediately following), in these terms—" The sub- scription of the great borough-owners is the most bare faced piece of pre- fligacy to be found in the whole histma of horoughmongering. Why„ the money subscribed is rightfully the nation's—at least, if that still be- longs to a man which has been wrongfully taken from him, and if, as is clear, these borough lords would not havtn had the money to subscribe, unless they had quartered their brothers and sisters, and mothers ang aunts, on the public, as well as not a few of them, their mistresses and illegitimate children." It then went on—" IVtio forgets the history Of . the late Duke of Beaufort's will, which may be seen at Doctors Com- mons on payment of a shilling, and which charges the estates of the present Duke with annuities to his brotliers until they shall he better provided for by Government ?' The amount of public money received by the Somersets since the late Duke of Beaufort came of age, far ex- ceeds the valuers( the estates which lie bequeathed to the present Duke." Now it really did appear, at the least, very doubtful whether this could he considered as a libel at all ; and supposing it were to be considered as a libel, then it was equal)/ doubtful upini whom it was a libel—whether on the present noble Duke, or on his father. ft was surely not criminal or illegal to say of persons of high rank and station, that they had re- ceived large sums of the public y. But the noble Dukes affidavit set out, that the provisions, which the defendants stated might be seen in. the will at Doctors' Commons on pia meta of a shilling, were not there; and then it set out what was to he found there. The noble Duke stated, that his father had bequalthed an annuity of 6901. to each of his younger sons, and directed dolt two of them should be broughr up se the Church, and that when they silmild obtain preferment in the Church, the annuities should cease pro tan!., and should cease altogether on their obtaining prefel !tient nil tbe Church to the full amount of their annuities ; that only one of tile soils had been lir:light up to the Church, and the present Duke had . presented, him to some livings in his own gift ; but that he and his son, the Martinis of Worcester, had ent•Ted into a bond to secure the.payment of the annuity to his brother independently of the Church preferments, and that by this all question was prevented as to whether the annuity would have been forfeited by the presentation to the livings ; that the Lord Chan- cellor had presented his brother with a Prebendary's stall ; and that the annuity had been regularly paid. The noble Duke added, that some of lila brothers had been engaged in the civil service of the country, but that neither be nor any of his family had received any part of the public money, except be. military pay or salary when on active service, except the pension enjoyed by Lord Fitzroy Somerset on account of his wound received at the battle Of tVaterloo ; and that the whole amount of the public money which had come into the hands of his family did not much exceed one year's income of his paternal estates. The noble Duke stated that the object of these imputations was to bring him and his family into public contempt and odium ' • and mentioned another paper placard dr.. mimed about the county of Glourester, containing still more unfounded and injurious imputations, which he represented as having been coun- tenanced by the imputations in this paper. As to that placard, it was not even alleged that the defendants had the slightest concern with it ; and, indeed, there was every reasen to believe that it had been circulated some time before the publication in the Spectator, on occasion of the Gloucester election, in which one of the Duke's family was a candidate. Now, with regard to this publication being a libel on the Duke of Beau. fort or any of his family—there was no imputation against them, except that they had been in the receipt of large sums of the public money ; and surely we bad not yet arrived at such a state of purity that it was a libel on a man to say that he had received a part of the public money, whether with or without consideration. It was not likely that such an imputation could be very injurious to a person in the situation of the Puke of Beaufort. If imputations were published against persons in middle lire, which, if suffered to remain uncontradicted, would be at- tended with loss of character, and ruin to them, their Lordships would expect that they should come promptly forward to claim the assistance of the Court for their vindication ; but the conduct of persons in the high station of the nOble Duke was always before the public; and if any unfounded imputations were cast upon them, they might trust to their known character for their vindication. Their Lordships were aware, that in such cases as the present the Court was placed as a barrier between criminal prosecutions and the public. They were in a position analogous to that of a Grand Jury. Prior to the reign of Wil- liam the Third, whoever chose it might file a criminal information; but by an act passed in the early part of that reign, a check was interposed, by preventing the filing of such a process without the leave of the Court. Placed in such a position, their Lordships would doubtless consider whe- ther, even if this were a libel, it was yet such a one as would induce a Grand Jury to find a true bill upon an indictment for it ; and if they should feel any doubt upon the subject, they would perhaps not think it right that that which would be rejected by a Grand Jury should yet find .favour in the eyes of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench. • He had very 'great doubt if this was a libel upon which any Jury would be likely to return a verdict of guilty. And their Lordships might perhaps think, that the noble Duke himself would be better off if this rule were to be discharged, than if he went to issue and the Jury should acquit the de- fendants. Even supposing thrt the publication was a libel, still the Court might, in the exercise of its discretion, think it right to pause be- fore they granted the criminal information under the peculiar circum- etances of the case. Their Lordships would, doubtless, consider the incon- venience to the noble Duke should a verdict of "not guilty" follow a protracted litigation ; and it would be also for their consideration, whe- ther it would be a sound discretion to give a positive opinion upon a publication upon which it was so extremely likely that a different one would be formed by a Jury. The excitement of thepublic mind also, as re- ferred to by the noble Duke himself, was another reason why their Lord- ships should not grant a criminal information, where so much doubt ex- isted as in the case now before the Court. The present was not a case in which it might be supposed that the prosecutor could not sit down tamely without utter ruin to his character—cases such as too frequently come before the Court. It was not a case where female virtue was wan- tonly assailed ; nor where a person in the middle ranks of life was so at- tacked, that to abstain from prosecution would be ruin to his character. This was the case of one of the greatest noblemen in the empire, whose conduct and character were well known, and completely open to the public eye. There was no imputation in this publication on his private character— no charge of vice and immorality in private life—and no language which could render it imperative on the noble Duke to come forward for his own vindication. He was exceedingly unwilling to enter into the par- ticulars of this case, unless he should be compelled to do so; and there. ere he mentioned to their Lordships at once, that the Editor of this Paper had expressed his regret that he had fallen into a mistake in point of fact on the subject of the clause in the will of the fate Duke of Beaufort. But at the same time, he must say, that, in one.view, the clause did support the statement, inasmuch as the annuity of six hundred pounds to the younger children was to abate or cease on their 'aCquiriag Government preferment to an equal amount. That was in ode view strictly true, for if Government had granted them preferment in the Church, the annuities would have ceased in toto or pro tanto, as the case might be. The present Duke of Beaufort, however, and the Marquis of Worcester, had, highly to their honour, become bound to Continue the annuity at all events to that one of the family who had been brought up to the Church ; but the defendants knew nothing of this, and no communication of the circumstance had been made to them, otherwise they would promptly have given it publicity. And then, in any view of the matter, they had published no more than what they sincerely and conscientiously believed to be true. They stated that. they were not aware that the clause was confined to preferment in the *Church ; and the Editor added, that he had not originated any of the statements respecting the will or the emoluments derived from the public by the Beaufort family. All these things were the subject of dismission in the Parliamentary debates, in the conversations of political circles, in all classes, without having been contradicted. And then it was clear, from the tenor of the article, that the object of the Editor was not to impugn the conduct of the noble Duke, or of any of his family.

• - -

The remarks were made merely for the sake of illustration ; nothing was said against the noble Duke personally ; and the Editor had ex- pressed his regret that he should have fallen into a mistake in point of fact, in adverting to the will. And then again, supposing there had been some imputation on the noble Duke and his family, the noble Duke had not answered so largely as was usually required in cases of applications for criminal informations. The libel stated, that " the amount of publicmoney received by the Somersets, since the late Duke of Beaufort came of age, far exceeded the value of the estates which he bequeathed to the present Duke." In reply to this, the noble Duke deposes that none of his family had received any of the public money in the shape either of sinecure or pension. The paragraph did not impute that they received any thing in the shape of sinecure or pension; and, therefore, his affidavit was not a denial, so far, of the truth of the paragraph. The noble Duke, in enumerating the members of his family who received pay from the Government, stated that he had three brothers in the army ; but he made no mention of another brother lately deceased (Lord Charles Somerset), who was Governor at the Cape of Good Hope and who also held other profitable employments, the emoluments from which yielded him nearly 200,000/. of the public money. It was very true that he might have earned all this by his ser- vices; but, according to the paragraph in question, the money alleged to have been received might have been fairly earneC. The noble Duke and his advisers supposed something which had not been stated by the per- son, and then they answered the supposed and not the actual statement. They denied having received pensions and sinecures, and said that they had received the public money only while in actual service, in a military or civil capacity. But supposing important public situations to be be- stowed merely for the sake of Parliamentary influence on persons . not properly qualified, that might be worse than pensions and sinecures, be- cause in the latter case the loss was clearly seen and known, whereas in the former case it was not. He said this for the sake of illustration, without meaning to insinuate any want of ability on the part of the noble Duke's family to discharge well the duties of the public situatiOna which they had held. Mr. Rintoul also stated various other sums, which the family had received in a long course of years; but, though the Duke of Beaufort alleged in his affidavit that they were little more than one year's income from his paternal estates, yet they might still be more than the value of the estates left him by the late Duke at the time of hut death. It did not appear from the affidavit what were his paternal estates, or what was bequeathed and what inherited. The denial was not one of that direct sort which was required in applications for cri- minal informations. The noble Duke deposed that he believed the paragraph was written for the purpose of exciting against him the odium and contempt of his fellow-subjects ; and, by way of proof, he sets forth a handbill, published at Gloucester, which, he alleged, must have received " countenance and support" from the article in the Spectator. Now it so happened that there was every reason to suppose that this handbill was published before the article in the Spectator; and at all events it was the first time he had ever known a very gross statement brought forward for the purpose of criminating a very moderate one. The libellous hand- bill was addressed to the freehblders of Gloucester ; and it stated that the family of the Duke of Beaufort were in the receipt of

be disposed to repeat on this occasions what had been said nearly two thousand years ago, that a man in a lofty station of society might safely

despise any statements made against him. This was not the case in the humble ranks of life : in such, therefore, their Lordships would en- tourage such applications, if the libels affecting them were likely to affect their character ; but in a case like the present, where5 in a time of excitement, a statement was .made which was not strictly borne out by the facts' though in some measure supported by them, he felt confi- dent their Lordships would take into their consideration that no slight

inconvenience might result to the noble Duke if their Lordships should give a judgment which might subsequently be in opposition to the ()pi- nion of a Jury. Under all the circumstances of the case, he trusted that their Lordships would discharge the rule.

Mr. Hill followed the Attorney-General ; and commented upon the defective denials of the affidavit of the Duke of Beaufort in support of the

application. He contended that the long silence of the noble Duke and his family, while these reports were in circulation, made it an excessively hard case on the part of the Spectator that it should be the first to suf-

fer, though it had. adverted to the matter in a far less objectionable way than bad been done by other persons. If the reputation of the family had stood against all these reports for such a series of years, their Lord- ships would consider whether there was any thing so pressing as to pre- sent their waiting until the Sessions arrived, when they might present a bill before a Grand Jury. He submitted to their Lordships, that the article in question was no libel ; and, if it was a libel, the proper mode of proceeding had not been adopted by the prosecutor. Sir James Scarlett, in showing cause in support of the rule, began by adverting to the argument used by Mr. Hill, that if a man passed by several attacks, and if, finally, he made up his mind to bring one of the aggressors into Court, it was then to be retorted against him that he had formerly suffered the same attacks to pass unnoticed ; so that, ac- cording to this doctrine, the oftener the blow was repeated, the greater was the right of the Press to repeat it. His learned friend took it for granted that the statements in the Slack Book hal not been an- swered, and that upon that account carters had a rig. ! to repeat the calumny. How was he to know that Mr. Rintoul himself was not con- nected with that publication, since he appeared to he master of it ; at least, he had not sworn he was not. It was the excitement Which existed throughout the country that censtituted the grava- men of the present case ; and it was to that which lie alluded When he made the application in the first instance to the Court. Their Lordships would remember that he then said, that that which, at one time' would be perfectly harmless, would at

another be a gross and flagrant ; and he on that occasion

• quoted the words of a learned writer, who had instanced the words; " To your tents, .0 Isms! !" in support of the position —words which might, at one time, be perfectly innocent—and yet, according to the circumstances under which they were uttered, might be grossly Linen( us and seditious. A man might publish lies of another at a time when public mind paid no attention to them, and they might, in such a ca e, be quite harmless; but, when a man seized a time of public excitemint to strike the blow, what he then published became a gross libel. He begged to state, in justice to Mr. Rintqal, that he had never intimated that the publication of the handbill at Gloucester was at all connected with the Spectator, or could in any way be traced to any of the defend- ants; he had only adduced that handbill for the purpose of showing the state of the public mind at the time. He would describe that state, not in his own words, for they might not have much Weight, but in the words of a public writer—" History tells us that so great a change was never effected in any country without a civil war." Now, if so great a change had never been effected without a civil War, was it not of consequence that particular individuals and families should not be held up to public edium and hatred ozt the eve of such convulsions ? Ile said that this was the opinion of a public writer ; and he would then inform their Lordships that it was from the pen of Mr. Rintoul himself that he quoted the opinion.

One of the defendants desired Sir James Scarlett to read to the end of the paragraph from which he quoted.

' Sir James complained of the interruption.

The Attorney-General said he should himself have interposed to pre.

vent mis-statement ; and added, " That is not in your affidavit." • ' Lord Tenterden.—" It need not be in his affidavit, for he is only using it as an argument. He is not urging it against the defendants as part of the libel."

Sir James Scarlett said he only quoted the passage from a recent num- ber of the Spectator, in order to show that the Editor, who ought to be the first to endeavour to correct erroneous imputations, and to exert himself to allay every bad passion, was himself, at the very time when he was in expectation of an approaching ferment, the first to excite false illusions in the public mind, and to point out the Duke of Beaufort as a fit object of public indignation. To say of any family that they had been plundering the public for years, was precisely what the defendants had said of that of the Duke of Beaufort; and: if a list of persons were to be put forth to the public, in a time of excitement, he would ask if any man would like to take his rank amongst persons so held up ? Certainly not; and yet the defendant had, in the present instance, put the Duke of Beaufort in front of the rank. The defendant stated in the libel, that on payment of a shilling, the will might be seen at Doctors' Commons; but it appeared that that was a shilling which he did not choose to spend, or his information would have been more correct. He had, it appeared now,

spent his shilling, and he discover,nd teat wh it he statet was not true. This argument told strong' against himself; f as the will couhl so easily have been seen, he should have spent his saihing !zefore he published the

article. Suppose a man was ti say to a mob, " Such a person is an eater Of tithes ;" and suppose the mob, in consequence, were to attack and demo- lish his house ; could it be said that that expression—which, at another time, might be harmless, as merely denoting that he lived on the tithe —was, under such circumstances, no libel ? He contended that it wail a gross libel ; and for the same reason also was this :meek on the illus. trions house of Beaufort a gross libel. He acquitted Mr. Rintoul of any thing like personal feeling against the Duke of Beaufort or any of his family ; but it appeared that he had a political object in view, which he had undoubtedly a right to advocate : and, whether that object was right or wrong, he did not complain of his endeavouring, by every lawful exertion, to attain it ; but what he did complain of was, that he had taken false and improper means to attain that object, by spreading false reports among the people. He stated in his affidavit, that if the Duke of Beaufort had communicated to him the application which he was about to make, in consequence of the mistake, he would have willingly corrected his error ; but he showed that he really entertained no regret for what he had done, for in his affidavit he enter, in a most elaborate manner, into a statement of the situations held by the family of Beau- fort, and with a minuteness which induced the suspicion that it was done with the view of following up his blow by the publication of his affidavit In his newspaper, in order to sink deeper in public estimation, if possible, ail illustrious family, who had served their country with ho- nour, credit, and ability. The affidavit of the defendant stated that the Duke had made no mention of the emoluments of his deceased brother, Lord Charles Somerset ; but surely he was included in the words " all my brothers," which words were used in the affidavit of his Grace, when stating that all these emoluments were little more in amount than one year's income of his paternal estates. Their Lordships would bear in mind, too, that all that was sworn by Mr. Ria- toul, was entirely upon information and belief. The learned cotin- sel read the paragraph complained of ; and contended, that, con- sidering the time and season at which it had been published, it was a gross libel. The object of the libeller, he said, was to hold up to public odium the family of the Duke of Beaufort, to whom the country was under great ()litigations for their public services. Be- cause several members of that illustrious family had held appointments in the army, and received that pay for their services which the meanest individuals would have been entitled to, they were to be treated as the plunderers of the public—as persons who derived their incomes impro- perly ; and that, too, at a time when topics of the kind were most greedily swallowed by the public. The time, it would appear, was now come when the noble deeds of our ancestors were no longer to be thought any thing of—when their services were no longer to be remembered— when the Cecils and the Somersets were na longer to be considered as benefactors to their country—for new it was an odium and a disgrace:4a have noble blood miming in our veins. If their lenalships should think that these remarks were justified by the libel before them_if they should think that this was not the ninta (indeea no time could be proper to treat men as the Duke of la..authrt was here treated) to state matters calculated 70 excite men to eels of violenre (ind insubordination —they would, doubtless, think it right to make the rule absolute for the criminal information against the parties.

Mr. Campbell followed on) the same side ; and said that if Mr. Rintoul had stated his sincere regret, and apologized to the Duke of Beanforc for what he had done, he felt cold-I:lent that his Grace would not hiese pressed the matter to an issue against him ; but so far from apologizing, the affidavit he had filed, and the speeches of the Attorney-General anal Mr. Hill, were an aggravation of the original libel.

Lord Tenterden, after turning round to the other Judges, said, that acting upon those rules which leal been adopted by their predecessors and followed by themselves in a variety of cases, he thought the Cort could not do otherwise than order the rule to he made absolute. What opinion might he firmed by those who would have to consider the ease, • it was not for their Lordships to anticipate. It was to be assumed that they would form an honest ()pinion ; but it was for the Court to give their opinions upon this occasion, and he (Lord Tenterden) had no diffi- culty in saying that, connecting the paragraph with what went beforeit, the comment appeared to contain matter of strong imputations uponlha Duke of Beaufort and his family.--Rule absolute.