The Express.
London, England, 1867-12-21 00:00:00

HIGH WATER_ AT LONDON_ BRIDOE.

DAITLlionaiisi.101Z26Co::::Alt;;;;;;;ZI1h. 4m.
foallosaaw—ltoratag.llb. Sint---Afternooe, W. OIL.

LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21.

THE great RIGBY WASON trial against the Press
is over, and we may once more breathe freely. For
three days it has oppressed us with its gross, cum-
brous, and unwieldy balk, but happily this morning
we see the last of it. If it has not answered every
purpose of its promoter, it has given him that for
which he has persistently laboured, a high platform
and a vast audience. The verdict was for the
defendant, the Times, on all the counts, so that the
1,0001. damages, which Mr. Wesos, in anticipa-
tion of victory, had already dedicated to public
objects, will not avail to benefit the Clerkenwell
sufferers, or add a Libel Wing to a hospital, or
perpetuate the memory of the plaintiff in any form.
Mr. WssoN cannot, however, complain. His
cause has been tried by the most eminent Judge
on the bench, while he has been indulged with
boundless licence of attack ; so that if the defence
has prevailed against him, he has only the weak-
ness of his own cause to blame.

To listen to Mr. RIGBY WASON'S opening state-
ment, this cause was one to be registered in future
collections of the great trials of the country ; to be
transcribed into the history of England, and pointed
to for the instruction of future generations. His
pewee ul antagonists were Earl Bergsma. and the Earl
of DERBY, the past and present Premiers ; Lord
CHELMSFORD and Sir FITZROY KELLY, the Lord
Chancellor and Lord Chief Baron ; Lord Sr.
LEONARDS, and the Editor of the Times. We find
nothing, however, in the report of the trial to
sustain this statement. Those eminent persons
wore, indeed, assailed in the course of the proceed-
ings with a wealth of vituperation which in
some states of society would make the fortune of
its possessor ; but none of them were made parties
to the action, none were represented by counsel,
and none bad an opportunity of replying to
the imputations which Mr. RIGBY WASON scat-
tered broadcast. The action was, in fact, brought
against a newspaper proprietor, and against no one
else, for serving the public by accurately report-
ing the debates in Parliament, and for publishing
such comments upon them as any educated man
of the world would be likely to make. If the
free and slanderous use of great names can make
a great trial, then this may be so designated ;
but if the character of an action depends on its
aims and issues, and the manner in which it is
conducted, then this of WABON Y. WALTER is one
of the most contemptible that ever occupied the
attention of a court of justice.

Let us briefly recall the facts. In February
last Mr. RIGBY Wseox thought fit to address to
the Houses of Parliament a petition, in which he
alleged that Sir FITZROY KELLY, who six months
before had been made Lord Chief Baron, had,
upon the 11th of April, 1835, pledged his honour
as a gentleman to the truth of that which he knew
to be false, for the purpose of deceiving a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons ; and he prayed
that a Committee might be appointed to investigate
this charge, in order that, if it were found true,
Sir Fazaoir KELLY might be removed from the
Bench. The petition was presented in the House
of Lords by Earl RUSSELL, and became the sub-
ject of a long debate, if that may be called a de-
bate the parties to which were all of one opinion.
Mr. Rio IIY WASON'S conduct in bringing this
charge against an old hustings opponent after an
interval of thirty-two years was severely repro-
bated, his allegations were denounced as malig-
nant and untrue, and his petition may be said to
have been kicked out of the House. The report-
bur the speeches of this debate, so different
in its complexion from Mr. RIGBY WARON'S
hopes, was the matter of the first count
in the action, which alleged that the defen-
dant " publicly and maliciously printed and
" published in a newspaper called the Times, in
" the form of a debate in the House of Lords, the
" words following," and then the speech of Lord
CHELmsroen in defence of Sir FITZROY KELLY was
set out. The candid reader will of course suppose
that the plaintiff meant to charge the Times with
publishing a report which was unfair and untrue,
and that the speeches had been garbled in order to
place Mr. Rinsi Wssox's case unfavouraoly before
the public. Not at all. It was not his purpose to
make any such assertion. His complaint was not
that the speeches had not been delivered in the
House of Lords as the Times reported them, but
that they had, and for this he sought to make the
newspaper responsible by an action for damages,
as he had previously tried to do, in another