dof ANNUAL REGISTER, 1815. 
the .Princess, after all the preli- 
minaries 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 Woron- 
zoff originally maintained his 
Sovereign's innocence of the Prin- 
cess’s death, though he was after- 
wards induced to depart from 
that assertion: but when did he 
make such an admission? Much 
depends on the time; for Cathe- 
rine 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 nego- 
ciation advanced much more ra- 
pidly after the decease of the Em- 
press ; and, on the 18th of May, 
1797, thenuptials weresolemnised. 
Over the nature, as well as over 
the author, of the first Princess of 
Wurtemburg’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 probuble, for ever proble- 
matical.’? 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”; 
and the answer which we 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 
bore 
foundation in the front 
second edition. 
The Attorney-General said that 
this would be no satisfaction to 
thecharacter of Count Woronzoff, 
or atonement for the injury he 
had sustainedin 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. Scarletthad 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 interposeis, that there was 
no motive of personal malice. 
If that was an excuse, it would 
excuse the greaterpart of the most 
pestilent libels. ‘There is gene- 
rally speaking no personal motive 
of malice in the libels brought 
before us ; the object, in general, 
isto make that which is slander, 
and catches the itching ears of the 
public, most profitable. Whether 
the publication gives pain or plea- 
' of that 
sure, 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- 
to make the complaint he 
has urged to our justice? He is 
2 person representing onceagreat 
_potentate, and he is libelled in 
respect ofa communication of facts 
most injurious to his honour and — 
character. Could he do otherwise 
