of Great Britain himself was strongly imbued with the opinion, of which he made no secret. In 1796, when the first overtures were begun, on the part of the Court of Wurtemberg, for the marriage of their Prince to the Princess Royal, George the Third was so prepossessed against him, for having been supposed privy to the death of his wife, that he would not listen to the proposal. In order to remove an obstacle of such magnitude, the Prince sent over to London a private agent, instructed to ascertain from what quarter the accusation came, and furnished with documents for disproving it. That agent I personally knew, while he was here, employed on the above mission. He possessed talents, spirit, zeal, and activity, all which he exerted in the cause. Having clearly traced the imputation up to Count Woronzoff, who long had been, and who then was the Russian Envoy at our Court: he induced the Count, by very strong personal remonstrances, accompanied, as we must suppose, by proofs, to declare his conviction of the Prince's innocence, and utter ignorance of the nature or manner of his wife's end. It followed of course, that Catherine, under whose exclusive care she remained, could alone be accused of having produced it. The agent finally satisfied his Majesty that the Empress, and she only, caused the Princess to be dispatched, without the participation, consent, or knowledge of her husband, if after all she did not die a natural death. In May, 1797, the Princess Royal of England was married to the Prince of Wurtemberg, who, before the

conclusion of that year, became duke, by the decease of Frederic Eugene his father. Early in the summer of 1798, a gentleman conversing with me on the subject of the first Princess of Wurtemberg's death, assured me that he had seen and perused all the papers relative to her imprisonment and decease; which, at the desire of the Prince, and by his authority, had been transmitted to George the Third; who, after a full inspection of them, became perfectly convinced of his having had no part in that dark and melancholy transaction. Lastly, he gave it as his opinion, that Catherine had alone caused her to be poisoned unless her decease resulted from natural causes. Her husband remained a widower near eight years after that event, before he attempted to obtain the hand of the Princess Royal of Great Britain. During so long a period of time, he seems to have adopted no measures for repelling the calumnious report circulated all over Europe, of his participation in the death of his wife: reports which had made the most unfavourable impression even in England. It is true, that George the Third became convinced of his innocence before he consented to the union of the Prince with his eldest daughter: but though the King yielded to the proofs brought upon this point, yet it was well known that he did it with reluctance and hesitation, rather giving way to the Princess's avowed wishes on the subject, than himself desiring or approving the match. So far, indeed, was he from pushing forward the alliance, that I know, from good authority, he offered U 2

the

the Princess, after all the preliminaries were adjusted, and the marriage was fixed, to break it off, if she chose to decline it, taking on himself personally the whole responsibility of its failure. There remains still another important fact, which merits consideration. We have seen that Count Woronzoff originally maintained his Sovereign's innocence of the Princess's death, though he was afterwards induced to depart from that assertion: but when did he make such an admission? Much depends on the time; for Catherine died on the 6th of November, 1796; and after her death, a crime, more or less, might not appear to be of much consequence, where so many could be justly attributed to her. Certain it is that the negociation advanced much more rapidly after the decease of the Empress; and, on the 18th of May, 1797, the nuptials were solemnized. Over the nature, as well as over the author, of the first Princess of Wurtemberg's death, a deep or impenetrable veil is drawn. We must leave it to time to unfold, if it does not rather remain, as is more probable, for ever problematical." Upon the publication of this libel, the prosecutor wrote to the defendant to ask him who this private agent" was, whom the author "personally knew;" personally knew;" and the answer which he received was, that it was so many years ago that he had forgotten; but that he never meant to libel the prosecutor, and if he would assure the author he was in error, he would expunge the whole story in a second edition of the work which was about to appear; he further promised to assert the want of its

66

foundation in the front of that second edition.

The Attorney-General said that this would be no satisfaction to the character of Count Woronzoff, or atonement for the injury he had sustained in the minds of those who had read only the first edition, and the proposal constituted an aggravation of the libel.

The court being subsequently moved to make the rule absolute; after Mr. Scarlett had shewn cause against it on the ground that the defendant could not be supposed to have been actuated by malice, Lord Ellenborough said, the rule must be absolute. The ground upon which the Court is called upon to interpose is, that there was no motive of personal malice. If that was an excuse, it would excuse the greater part of the most pestilent libels. There is generally speaking no personal motive of malice in the libels brought before us; the object, in general, is to make that which is slander, and catches the itching ears of the public, most profitable. Whether the publication gives pain or pleasure, the object looked at is a lu crative sale of that which, from its malignity, is likely to be bought. I do not know whether that is the motive of Sir N. Wraxall, but it is with reference to one of the worst publications of the kind that we are desired to give way and not exert the arm of the law. Could the person libelled have for. borne to make the complaint he has urged to our justice? He is a person representing once a great potentate, and he is libelled in respect of a communication of facts most injurious to his honour and character. Could he do otherwise

than

than come before the Court, and coming for the reparation of his fame, will the Court deny him those means which are necessary to him for the purposes of bringing the person who has assailed his character before the tribunal of justice? It was the duty of Count Woronzoff towards himself to apply to the Court for redress, and it is the duty of the Court to grant him the effect of his application. There are a great number of anecdotes in this work, which may be entitled to a greater or less degree of respect; but the representation I have pointed at is not of doubtful effect. It is a hardy and calumnious inference which the party chooses to draw. It states that Count Worouzoff had the baseness while his sovereign lived (and it was material to him to have her favour) to assert her innocence, but that he departed from the assertion as soon as she was dead, and he could expect no further advantage from her; that he admitted her to be criminal, considering that one crime more would not be much, where there were so many. It is an imputation of that sort of baseness which, independent of the truth or improbability of the other passages, warrants Count Woronzoff in his application to the Court, and warrants the Court in saying, that his application ought not to be made in vain, The Court cannot discharge its duty to the public without making this rule absolute. The rule was made absolute accordingly.

Le Duc de Sorentino v. Lord Blaney. The defendant is the author of a work, entituled, "Nar

rative of a forced Journey through Spain," &c. in which his Lordship introduces the name of the plaintiff in this action, stating, that on his arrival at a certain village, he (Lord Blaney) was surprised to see, among other persons, the Duke of Sorentino, (mentioning him by one of his inferior titles), whom he had formerly met at Lord Nelson's: at which time he was partner in a faro bank, and a collector of modern antiques; that he disposed of them to young travellers who wished to acquire the characters of cognoscenti, and as the Marquis always introduced them with a long harangue, he was represented as very successful; that he (Lord Blaney) had bought some of them, which, though at the time he wrote they were more ancient than when he bought them, he would willingly sell for less than prime cost; that the same Duke had been obliged, in haste, to quit Palermo, having been openly detected in cheating in his Lordship's presence at Sir W. Hamilton's, and that afterwards he (the Duke of Sorentino) had been turned out of the English fleet by Lord Keith, strongly suspected of being a French spy. The book went on to state that Lord Blaney, in the course of his forced journey, meeting with the Duke of Sorentino again, knowing him to be an entertaining fellow, from whom he might derive information, his Lordship determined to overlook the slight blemish of the Duke's being a professed swindler, who, on this renewal of their acquaintance, had adverted to the affair at Palermo, and treated it as a mere bagatelle. His Lordship then pro ceeded in his work to notice the

removal

removal of the plaintiff from Italy, his marriage with a Spanish lady, his attachment to the French authorities, and his acquisition of property near the village in Spain, where his Lordship had then arrived. For this libel the Duke de Sorentino brought the present action.

The Attorney General, in opening the case, reprobated the manner in which the writers of modern travels frequently attacked the characters and conduct of persons with whom they became acquainted. In this instance there was not a syllable of truth in the assertions of Lord Blaney; and as the statement was circulated on the Continent soon after its publication, it became important to the Duke de Sorentino to give it a direct, positive, and public contradiction; such was his motive for this proceeding. As early as possible he addressed a temperate but firm letter to Lord Blaney, charging his Lordship with having entirely mistaken the individual, declaring that he had never disposed of any antiques excepting two gems, which had been sold afterwards in England for 750l. to Mr. Payne Knight, and for which he took others in exchange; that he had never been turned out of the English fleet as a French spy; on the contrary, that he had been treated with the utmost attention by Lord Nelson, at whose house at Merton he spent some time, and referring to the wounds he bore, as ample proof of his camity to France; that the terrible imputation which made him shudder, that he had been detected in cheating at Palermo, was wholly false; and that Lord Blaney had con

founded him with an Italian Count, who had been so guilty, and expelled the city in consequence, and that he could establish his innocence of all these offences laid to his charge, by many witnesses. The letter concluded in these words, "I know well the honour and the character of a Peer and an Englishman, and I am persuaded that I risk nothing by referring to your Lordship the manner of doing me justice, and of effacing the impression occasioned by an attack as outrageous as it is unjust.” Such being the sentiments of his client, and being aware of the disposition of the noble defendant to make every reparation, the Attorney-General abstained from making those remarks upon the libel that, under other circumstances, he should think it well merited.

Before any witnesses were called, Mr. Scarlett, on behalf of Lord Blaney, expressed his readiness to admit all the facts necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict. Lord Blaney was as sensible as the Duke of Sorentino of the injury he had done, and was, if possible, more anxious that it should be repaired. As soon as he was convinced, by the letter of the plaintiff, of the error into which he had fallen, he stopped the sale of his work, published a new and amended edition, with an advertisement stating his reasons, and doing justice to the plaintiff. As a nobleman and a soldier, Lord Blaney did not think it now unbecoming to make an apology by his Counsel, and to express his sincere regret at the unintentional mistake; it was impossible to say a single word in justification of the false

assertions