The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-05 00:00:00

T .1.1111330 AT SERVICES.—Dunng the stof
the pun mar the National Lifeboatnstitution. by le-
boat and other preens, contributed to the saving of 707
from different wrecks oa our coasts. The institution irrea:
waded SUMS In the same period on its lifeboat establishments,
in addon tiztllen.E4,o6o for rewards for saving Eta and
Tthe
oohs_ baitheion miser* APPEAL to the
rune far ANCE, to enable than to meet the continued
bean &monde on the bosaltelioas lid useless emshose
Contributions are received by the London and Country
Bankers; and by the Secretory, Richard Lev* Rm., at the
Institution, lt, John-street, Adolph', London.

TURTLE, TURTLE, TURTLE.
Clear Thick. and Invalid TURTLE SOUPS always ready.
ST JAIIIIFS-HAI4L, P.ROSNT-STRINT, PICCADILLY.
WY:DONALD, Pim:wider.

LONDON most have a SUPPBR and MUSIC
ROOM for Geollemen.—Resembeir, we watt tar you at
" EVANW," afar die Om ot canton Opera sad the Theatres

eitt erprelso.

TO 0011RESPONT0INTS.
Adnetbieineots intended for "The irpreee," London Ilvening
Paper, must be at the Moe, 10, Soureclentavet, by Two
o'clock oo the day of publication.

HAYwAsarr.
Teo limas', A ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT. Messrs
and W. Ferree ; Mies Ada useendien.—TlLli FAYORITH
ri;arlntTUNl. Menem Ruckatoae„ Obippeadale, and Whom
Mesdames Chippendale, Seville, dc.—And SHOCKING ILTRNTS.

PRINGIONN.
TIM 9 Ermine, A GHOST IN SPI OF ZLF.—Aftur
arida STNIZTS OF LONDON.TZ HIMS
Mama Vining, T. Maud,
D. Murray, More, mad Villlen ; MIH. Mani." and Mow Jr,
Barnett and IL lodger&

LYCEUM.
Tins htinmro, srmrsoN AND CO.—And THE MASTER OF
RAVENSWOOD. Mews. Fechter, G. Jordan, Veda Komi,
Widdleomb, FanoArick, ; Mediates Teams, lieweeibl.
lavenu, sod C. Lecacq.

BRITANNIA.
Eaminie, THE DARK KING OF TIM BLACK MOUN-
TAINS. Sibs Clara 81. Came, Mra Um —Master R Bandies
—The &hams Banally —And TEE 800TTISH Mr
Jana Andaman.

191011-WATER, AT LONDON-BRIDOL
Tvis DAT —Monaog, 4h. 67m Attensorm, A. 12n/-
To-Moattov—Moralag, 51L 90m Attanioon, Mt 47m.

LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 5.

A..-4 increasing disposition has of late been appa-
rent among those who present themselves to the
public, either for its instruction or amusement, to
resent the free expression of public opinion. We
have, not very long since, seen attempts by theatri-
cal managers to put down the ancient privilege of
the audience to hiss; we have seen playwrights in-
dignantly denouncing disapproval as malicious con-
spiracy ; we have seen an actor obtain damages on ac-
count of acritique which represented him asbeing im-
perfect in his part ; and our law report yesterday
contained a notice of the case of a gentleman who
sued a literary contemporary for libel in reviewing
his book. This convenient tendency to invoke
the law to silence censors gives the last case an im-

.
portanoe which, intrinsically, it is perhaps not of a
nature to excite. Dr. Suss wrote, it seems, a
novel which the Atheneum called the worst

novel ever perpetrated. It taxed the book, besides,
with "inanity and vulgarity," with " profanity
" and indelicacy," with " bed Latin, bad
"Frei*, bad English, and bad grammar," and

with various other faults. Dr. Svitsuss declared
that the critic had killed the book, and he brought
his action for damages to the amount of 1,0001. It
seems, however, that his counsel had not read the
book he was retained to support, and when the op-
_

posing counsel had read a few passages from the
work in justification of the severity of the critique,

Dr. Sras.uss's advocate professed himself unable
to defend it, and threw up the case, a procedure
which Lord Chief Justice Elms declared to be emi-

nently sound and proper.

In this instance, then,

it has been established that the judgment pro-

nounced was justifiable, and we must assume that
it was only an author's wounded vanity which led
him into court without taking advice as to whether
he had a case. But it is probable that Dr. Braauss
may have had the course he adopted suggested to
him by the success which other efforts to put down
or punish criticism have lately attained, and it
may, therefore, not be unseasonable that the public

should consider how far in such cases the critic or
the author criticised deserves its favour and sup-
Portlt
is not unfair to recall at the outset that the
function which critics have to perform in guiding
to some extent the public verdict, either on
books or entertainments, is one which is not
merely demanded by the public, but desired
by the persons who are immediately concerned.
An author, or his publisher, sends his book
to be reviewed ; a theatrical manager invites
the critics of the press to his theatre. Both, no
doubt, hope for a favourable notice, but both have
voluntarily invoked judgment, whether favour-

able or adverse. In such circumstances it seems
pretty plain that neither has any right to close the
mouth of censure. Of course, if personal
malioa should in any case be discovered, that
circumstance would alter all the eonditions of
the case ; but where no personal hostility can be
alleged it seems unreasonable that those who are
invited to criticise should have to answer at the
bar of a court of law for having criticised in an un-
favourable sense, whatever the severity of language
in which the observations are couched. A dis-
tinction on this head would, however, of course, lie
in regard to an author who has not sent his book
for review, or the actor who has not invited the
press to notice his performance, and who may say
that he is not to be subjected to remark because
his manager has asked for remark. In such cases
the right to criticise on the part of the press can
hardly be put higher than the right of any private
individual to publish a critique. But then it is
not to be put lower. If the critic condemns, he
must be prepared to establish the truth of what
he asserts. If he has plainly asserted a fact which
is proved not to be a fact, he must submit to pay
for it, and this was the doctrine whichwas illustrated
in the case of Mr. EMERY against the Gtotrivorm.
That gentleman was charged by his critic with
not knowing the words of his part ; he satis-
fied the jury that he did know the words accord-
ing to theatrical custom, and he recovered damages
for the erroneous accusation. But even here it
will easily be seen that in general a fair latitude
must be allowed for difference of opinion, when
the question is one not of fact but of opinion. Had
it been asserted of any actor that he spoke too fast
or too slow, that he dressed unsuitably, or in any
way played less satisfactorily than might be, it
would be hard for him to persuade a jury that his
critic was so utterly wrong as to be unjustified in
publishing his opinion. For the opinions of no
two men seldom wholly agree on any subject, and to
say that no unfavourable opinion shall ever be pub-
lished in regard to a person who voluntarily comes
before the public, unless it is certain that every-
body must share in that opinion, would be felt at
once to be wholly unreasonable.
But the press in the fair exercise of its functions
is entitled to the support of the public on higher
grounds than it can always claim is a court of law.
It undertakes the duty, always difficult and deli-
cate, of discriminating for the general information
between the good, the indifferent, and the bad,
that,. 'elicit public favour. In the huge mass
of what is thus daily offered private opinion
would be helpless, and its expression would be
lost. No one could read everything, bees every-