The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-27 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Attie. Term Sittiop at NW Prios at GuildholL—(Before
Lord Chief Judos Crab= arid a Special Jury.)
CAMPBELL, MD., Y. SPOTTSWOOD& —CHARGE OP LOLL
AGADIST MI " SATURDAY SZVLSW."

The further hearing of thin remarkable case for libel was
resumed this marling.
Mr. Serjeant Parry, Yr. Rew. Mr. Hastings, and Mr.
Pater were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr.
Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Vernon Harcourt, for the de-
feodant.
Mr. Serjeant Parry, in replying on the miss, mid it was
not a question of the liberty of the press, as hag been urged
by the defendant., but of imputing corrupt Motives. He
doubted if they could resist legally giving a verdict for the
plaintiff, but the defendant through his counsel hoped they
would give an ignominious verdict for the plaintiff, w
would be more fatal to him than en adverse verdict. He felt
cosfidect of a verdict that would be • satisfactory answer
to the vile calumny that the defendant had cast
upon the plaintiff. The defendant had not dared to
justify his statement that Dr. Campbell had for pecuniary
gain published fahiehoeds in his newspaper. There could
be no greater calumny than to charge a minister of religion
with being an importer. The article was written in a strain
of ridicule which was very annoying, but if it had been
entirely confined to that, Dr. Campbell would never have
brought this action, but the writer bad gone further, and
in the parte taken exception to the writer had foully
libelled him. However much the writer might have
thought the plaintiff was wrong, and that his whew° was
that of a fanatic, the writer had no right to attack him as
he had done.
_.. . .

The Lord Chief Justice said that what was zeal in one
man might be consilmed fanaticism in another.
Mr. Serjeant Parry—That was so ; and although the late
Rowland Hill had been described as an enthusiast, a fanatic,
and • fool, yet it was now admitted that he was
sincere, and did good in kis generation. That the
public buying the Ensign would convert the heathen was
not the plaintiffs statement, but the construction pat upon
Dr. Campbell's motives by the Saturday Reriew. All that
Dr. Campbell intended to do was to arouse public feeling in
favour of the cause of evangelisation. He contended that
the evidence showed that Dr. Campbell was a man of sin-
cerity, of earnestness and high character, and could not be
rzof the thee conduct imputed to him by the Saturday
. The defendenta, in asking for the verdict, had said
they meant nothing ; bet was it so? The Saturday Bellew
might have done good service to periodical literature, bat
there were some who considered it had done ill service.
There was, however, one character belonging to it,
which was that it prided itself upon not being
harmless, but of being stinging, biting, satirical,
and upon its great power of bringing
individuals into contempt. It might be legitimately exer-
cised, but he should think one of the most miserable con-
ditions of • man would be that of a writer who wee told
every week to ridicule somebody and to bring him iota con.
tempt. He had no desire to enter into that general ques-
tion, but he alluded to it to ask them if the Review was a
harmless publication. It was the case with every
libeller, when called upon to make compensation
for damages, to say that he meant nothing but
he hoped the jury would not suffer themselves to be im-
posed upon with such ao excuse in this case. To call • man
an impostor, and to say that his conduct was flagitious and
acaodalouv, could not be said to be • fair and harmless com-
ment Dr, Campbell had appeared before them free from
calumny and reproach. He asked for an apology, but it was
refused ; sod he had been compelled to undergo the anxiety
consequent on a trial to order to vindicate his character.
The Lord Chief Justice said the case bad been brought
before them with great Wraith admirable temper, and
consummate ability on both sides, and he rejoiced to think
that in such cue they had had all the assistance
possible from the learned counsel wbo had conducted
the case on both sides. The first question they
would have to decide was, *hat was the effect
of the passages complained of in the article that had been
brought wader their notice, and, in order to judge of the
effect of those they must take into their coo-
eideration the whale of the article, for it was not fair of
them to judge of isolated passage. placed before them, but
' they ought to have the opportunity of appreciating its full
tenor. It could not be denied that the article was written
with considerable bitterness and with great ability. It
was pungent, bitter, and caustic, and was no doubt written
by a writer of very great power, and who knew bow to
deal with an adversary in • mammy to render him ridiculous
and contemptible. At the same time public men, and
above all public writers who invited public criticism, must
aot complain if they were roughly and unpleasantly handled.
The article was written in that style which no man
liked to have applied to himself, but which mast
of them had no objection to see applied to other people.
It was sot that which made the article libellous. One
could quite understood that a writer might have thought
the plaintiff was a very legitimate object of hostile and
bitter attack, and it was impossible to imagine more
antagonism of opinion than between Dr. Campbell and
the writer in the Saturday Review. The plaintiff's
letter • addreesed to the British public on the
danger the Prince of Wales was exposed to in being
sent to Oxford, was likely to have been looked
upon as fanatical and mischievous by those who had derived
possibly their learning, information, and ability, or had bad
it maturely developed aed cultivated at that source of
academical learning, and as matter for public controversy
and rough handling. The ridicule and tone of hosti-
lity of the article was not a subject of action,
and could only be complained of incidentally, but what was
complained of was certain passages imputing to Dr. Camp-
bell sordid, bass, and corrupt motives. The purges oom-
'gained of might be divided into two main heeds. First,
that the names of the subscribers were put forward as a
decoy to induce others to subscribe ; and, secondly, was this
scheme put forward for the conversion of 400 millions
of Chinese, when, in truth, it was not intended for
it, but to increase the plaintiff's gains by extending the cir-
culation of the paper. On the other hand it was said the
article was only a legitimate criticism and discussion of the
merits of • scheme which had been put forth under the I
sanctity of religion. Did, therefore, this oomment go beyond
fair criticism, and charge the plaintiff with base and sordid
motives? He thought the couasel for the defendant did not
put the plaintiff's case fairly before them when he said Dr.
Campbell's proposition was to evangelise the Chinese by the
sale of his papers, but rather that it was to be effected by
arousing the religious sympathy of the people of this eoun-
It appeared,however, that he had not been so enemas-
ful to that respect with reference to the Chinese as
be was with Ms appeal relative to the Prince of Wales ; for,
whereas he sold 100,000 copies relative to that, he had not
distributed much more than • quarter of that num-
ber in the 011:180 of the Chinese, probably from
that subject not being so exciting as the for-
mer. There couM be no doubt that a public writer
had • perfect right to denounce imposture and defective and
delusive schemes, bat the question was whether this article
bad gone beyond it. There could be no doubt it was •
matter open to public criticism. but • writer had no right to
shame sordid and base motives. They were asked to
say that the defendant believed what he wrote
and that what he did was done honestly and is food faith.
Ile was of (million that belief would not du, but if the Me
rested on that, he would from its importance Mans the
point for the consideration of the court above. He thought
a public writer ought not to dive into men's heads mid
represent them as acting *clattery to whit they really
were, and from bens and sordid motives. It was to be re-
gretted that Dr. Campbell had pat the matter forward is
• doubtful mutter at fret sight, and in cooeideriag the
&must of deluges it was right they should consider that
it was • matter arising out of a public controversy. Should
they find far the plaintiff that the article imputed base end
sordid motives to the plaintiff, they would further consider
whether, assuming the writer to have intended to impute
corrupt motives to the plaintiff, be housefly and bone tide

believed that Dr. Campbell was influenced by those motive•
If they thought the writer bad a genuine and honest belief
that Dr. Campbell was freely open to the charge, they
would find it specially.
The jury retired to ocasider their verdict, and after an
hour and 40 minutes returned into court with a verdict for
the plaintiff—damages 60/.
With regard to the special finding, the foreman mid that
the jury were of opinion that the writer of the article in the
Saturday Review did believe that the imputations contained
in it were wall founded.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ottlhtsw7.)
mar= 9. DOOLIONL
Thia trial was again reamed, and the case of the plaintiff
was concluded.
Mr. Montagu Chambers thew addressed the jury for the
defendant, and wee speaking when we went to poem

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Anisiaut-Judge.)
THE LATE ROBBERY ATV= EIIHVEWSITT CLUB.

Sarah Erma% 42, and 4,s* learleff. 34, Pleaded guiltY
to two indictments, c Sarah Er am 'nth stool.
lug two towels and other~ietio vain 101., the property
of George Charlie Pratt, Marquis Camden, sod others, her
madras, trustees of the University Club, and Ann Farley,
with fekilionsly receiving the sense, well knowing the
mime to have beets stolen. . _

Ilir.l•7lnge Gifford, who appeared for the prose:lt
maid the two prisoners at the bar, sod who had
guilty, had bees in the service of the University Club, one
for speeded of IS years, and the other had formerly been in
the mine 11017100 as upper housemaid. She left that club
about four years ago. but there was reason to believe that
ever since that time doom to the present a system of plunder
had been pursued. In consequence of information received
both prisoners were taken into custody and on searching
Farleys apartments • large quantity of ;tole° property was
found The primmer Farley need to visit the establishment
cam a week, which formed an excuse for her to carry away
• rest variety of articles. One of the instructions he re-
ceived was to draw his lordship's attention to the fact that
one of the prisoners hod been in the service of the club for
eighteen years, and there was every reason to believe that
this was not an isolated case, but that a regular system of
plunder bad been going on for a long period.
The Assistant. Judge said he understood that Farley had
very large pc:aka . tied toned her woad which would
enable her to carry away • great number of satiated
Mr. Harding, Giffard said she had no leer than three of
them.

Sleigh, who appe►rd for Ersam, said hie learned
friend, Mt. Giffard, had very fairly ended that she had
been for eighteen yam in the service of the University
Club, and although he had stated that • s of plunder
had been carried on, sod it might beperfectly correct, yet
he hoped his lordship would ode wept so vague •
notion as facts against the prisoner, who for the
eighteen yeses she had been in her situation, had
maintained • character for propriety and honesty.
Since she pleaded guilty he was informed that
sha had no idea that in doing so she had pleaded guilty to
taking anything beyond some jelly and glasses. She had
borne also a good character irrespective of the club, and
several witnesses were in attendant.* ready to speak on her
behalf. He need hardly say by the position in which she
was now placed she would be unable to obtain ►ny employ-
ment of a similar nature, and her prospects for life were
completely blasted. Amongst the charges there was one
for stealing dripping, and he must say that whether right or
wrong there was a notion amongst servants that they were
entitled tolthe dripping. As to the glass, as there was a sum
stopped ever► quarter from her wages for breakages, the
amount often exceeding the actual lose on that account,
she might have considered am was entitled to take
to the full value of the stoppages. He concluded er
pealing to the matey of the court.
Poland having addressed the court for Parley,
Yr. Hardinge Gifford said since the prisoners had been
in monody the expanse of each servant had been reduced
by 7s. • head.
The Assistant-ludge sentenced the prisoners to be im-
prisoned and kept to hard labour for 12 months.
ROBBERY OP ♦ LLVENDRAFER.

John Harrill, IT, convicted oo Tuesday of stealing
V. Is. 110., the monies of Charles Meshing, his muter,
was brought up for judgment. and salaamed to hard labour
for six mouths. _ _

(Before Mr. Payne
Wes. Attunes, who was omprioted.) on Wednesday of
assaulting Amy Brown and breaking her jaw, was brought
up for judge:not.
Looker, the prison taker, said he had been twice in
raison for assaults.
Mr. Paine sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to
hate labour for 12 calendar months.

lilkitC;siellowas convicted of stealing three jags, value
24. U, the property of John Corner.
Mrs. Howe, warder of the House of Correction, Westminv
star, proved nine previous convictions against her,
Mr. Pays. sentenced her to be kept in penal servitude for
four yea's.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

lIMILBOROUGH-STREET.