The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-15 00:00:00

CArHoLic ASNOCIATION.

[ From the Dublin Mor-778.—reftegister of Tuesday.]
We were not able to force the following speeches into our report
of yesterday, lengthened and comprehensive as it. was. They relate
to the intended prosecution of the Courier newspaper.
Mr. f.reoNNEII.I.. said, that the mention of these proceedings
had given rise to some uneasiness in the minds of the Association,
and considerable Harm in those of their enemies. For his own
part, he had been from the first persuaded of the wisdom and ex-
pediency of the measure, and subsequent circumstances confirmed
him in his judgment. The Courier exclaimed loudly and vehe-
mently ngainst the wickedness of assailing the public press, parti-
cularly by a criminal prosecution. Ile (311 r. O'Connell) turned to
former pages of that same print, and he found it warn" in its cubs-
giums upon the Constitutional Suciety—(hear. hear,) a society
whose express object was the extinction of the liberty of the press.
Did that Society, said Mr. O'Connell, sutler the truth to he given
in defence of the libel as we have offered to do ? No. they acted
upon the maxim of " the greater the truth the greater the libel."
We have taken another course. We have said, it you can sustain
the truth of your charges you shall• be acquitted as of course, and
xou will leave us defeated and disgraced. But, if the charges are
false, if they are a tissue of the most gross and malevolent slanders,
who will say that we ought not to stand forwatd and refute them ?
(Hear, hear.) It has been said that we want to put a stop to free
discussion. That is not the fact; our wish is only to vindicate
ourselves. The Courier has said that it made no assertion which
it had not derived from authentic informaion. It has said that it
is in possession of dates, names, and particulars. What, I will
ask, would be the effect of these statements on the minds of the
English people if their falsehood were not exposed ? Every
man in England would say_" here are plain and circumstan-
did statements. Surely, if they were false they would be met,
they would be contradicted." But what would be the use of
merely contradicting them ? They are given to the people of Eng-
land on the authority of the Courier. It is necessary to do more
than repel them by a mere verbal contradiction. Is it not, therefore,
fair to meet them on reasonable and moderate terms ? We do not
want to persecute them, we do not avail ourselves of the law of libel,
but give our adversaries all the advantages that ought to be derived
from truth. This I look upon to be just, and it is the principle
upon which I have acted throughout my whole professional career.
I have made it a point never to be concerned ter any client who
would not allow me to state that his adversary should have the full
benefit of the truth as his defence. I consider this to be not only
the suggestion of reason and common sense, but the rule of law,
and on the trial of Mr. Magee I took the opportunity of expressing
this sentiment, although they are the usupported dicta of a 'mews-
sion of Judges, each taking the law on the authority of his prede-
cessor, and promulgating the doctrine that falsehood ought to be
screened, and is deserving of the protection and encouragement of
the law. Our only desire is to show to the people of England the
falsehood of the charges brouht against us. Let the Proprietors
of the Courier hut admit that they have been deceived—that they
have been misinformed, and our proceedings are that instant at an
end ; or let them give up the writer of the libels, and against hint
alone shall our proceedings be directed.
Mr. FINN observed, that he would much regret if the
Association should be driven to the extremity of have' s; re.
course to such an iniquitous law. Ile thought it impossible
that the Courier should hesitate to avail itself of the indul-
gent offer of the Association, and to acknowledge its error;
but should the Proprietors of that print refuse to accede to the
terms proposed by the Association, what would be the conse.
quence? The Courier would be put to the expense of coming to
Ireland to defend itself from a prosecution. He did not mention
this circumstance as it affected the Courier alone, but he depre-
cated die general tendency of such a principle. The Courier
would not regard the expense of a prosecution. Supported as it
was, any attempt to shake its fabric would be frivolous; but sup-
pose that a poor print, of independent principles, should start in
London, and that an Orangeman should have it in his power to
drag it to the extremity of Fermanagh or Tyrone, would not the
effect he the extinction of that independent print? For these
reasons, he would regret if the Association Rhould be driven to
any step that would lead to the estaldishment of such a precedent.
He MRS not present when the measure was first brought forward,
or he would have expressed his sense of its inexpediency. He
thought it an unwise proceeding, and the inure so because the
friends of the Association, amoeg the English press, were unani-
mous and decided in their condemnation of it.
Mr. Cis xCH rose and said, that he believed Mr. Finn was irre-
gular, as the motion had paired. (Cries of "No, no !")
3lr. Ft :ex insisted that he was in order in speaking to the mo-
tion for the insertion of the letter on the 'ninnies. I have a right
(continued .11r. Finn), to state my opinion candidly ; and I urn
satisfied that by doing so I shall gain the commendation of my
respected friend who originated the measure. A servile acquiescence
is not what he wishes for ; nnr does it become us, on any occasion
important to the well-being of the Association and the country.
We are all free, nay we are bound, to express our opinions as to
its propriety. Ido then deprecate any proceeding against any por-
tion of the press, even though it should be an echo of the vile
Orange faction. I was glad to see the lies in the Courier; and
and why ? Because though the bigoted Pro's of Ireland he de-
liberately and shamelessly, reganikm of detection, that cannot be
done in England with imponity. In England the press has a
character at stake. and I ant convinced that the character of the
Courier has suffered in consequence of the unfounded calumnies it
hat adaniued into its columns (Hear, hear!) The people of Eng-
land have been deceived : but they will now have an opportunity
of knowing and of appreciating the real sentiments and the real
motives of the Catholics of Ireland. (Cheers.)
Mr. O'CoEir ELL admitted that the law was a bad one, but was
it to be suffered to lie on the statute book for the accommodation of
the enemies of the Catholics, whenever they might choose to have
recourse to it ? Ile wished to call it to the recollection of the
Coorier. In the hope that it might, perhaps, prevail en some of its
.tricilb in p. 2.0 t' procure its Tfr:::1 (A laugh.)

•0r... •

LAW INTELI.IGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Fatoix, Jar. 14.

Yesterday the Collet was °eel:pied during the early part of the
day, in hearing motions of no pub:ic intrttst whatsoever ; and until
2 o'clock heard bankrupt cams of co importance except to the
parties.

VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, FRIDAY, JAN. 14.

IX RR EiTHEL CHARITY.
This was • case in which Mary Chapman had founded a hos-
pital at Norwich, for the reception and cure of poor curable
lunatics of that city, and giving to the overseers of the pour the
seliction of the objects for such chanty, subject to the approval of
the governot4 of the hospital, who were her trustees. The over-
seers of the poor had contended, that when patients were discovered
to be incurable. the governors had not the power to turn them out,
to Make room fur curable ones; and the matter outs before the
Vice ('hancellor fur decision on this point, who was of opinion
that the govemorsof the charity under the will, had such discretion,
but referred it to the Mister to draw up • scheme as to themanage-
ment of the hospital. The Muter made hit report, to which the
guardians of the poor ofNoririch objected, and now petitioned the
l'ice.Chancellor that if might be retctred back to the Master to
amend, and Mr. IlEatti was heard io favour of the crczptions.
The Vlet-CHANCELLOR said, that he did not see how he
could otherwise than confirm the Master's report. unlesii it could
be proved that it wu contrary to the will of the tininder; which
expressly directed that the trustees should have the sole power of
placing and displacing lunatics. If any specific art of abuse could
bt brought forward against the truster., then hiA intervention
might be fairly called for; but lie certainly could not limit the
discretion of the trustees; so long as they acted cdaferniably to the
will.

kir. HEALD wished to call the attention of his Honour, parti-
cularly to the 4th exception, which .egulateal the mode of noti-
fying • vacancy in the hospital : the 3laster had ordered that a
no;ice of two days should be affixed on the hospital door, sod that
then. if the guardians of the poor did not nominate, the governors
might fill up the vacancy.
The VicE•Cits,xcxxi.nit thiught the time too short, and con-
sidered that 14 days would be a primer time to give to theguardians
of the poor; with this variation, he was of opinion that the
3laster's report might be confirmed, adding also to it, that no:ice
of vacancy should be stuck up on the dour of the town-hall, as well
as at the door of the hospital.
COURT OF KING'S lIENCR, FCIDAY, JA:e.l4.

Silliags at Guildhall, London, hepre Mr. Justice ABBOTT and a
Special Jar!.
LIBEL.
DUNCAN, JUN. te inteen AND OTIIEIIII.
This cause, which had been postponed from yesterday, was the
first called on this morning. It had excited considerable Imes at,
not only from the circumstance that the question involved in it was
one of great importance, relating as it did to the right of publish-
ing the proceedings taken before • Magistrate at a public police-
office, but also from the fact of the plaintiff in this action having
made himself conspicuous by commencing prosecutions against
almost all the London Morning Papers, for publiraing a similar
libel to the one now complained of. In the action against the
Alarain,r Ilerald, it wiil be remembered that a question was raised
by the defendant as to the right of publishing police reports, by his
pleading specially to the effect that the police-office being en open
and public Court, lie had a right to publish the proceedings. The
plaintiff demurred to this plea, and upon this the point was argued
before the four Judges of the Court of King's Bench at Werscmin.
rter. The Court. after hearing the arguments, came to a decision
that the defendant bad no right to publish any ex-parle proceedings
taken before a Magistrate, and that therefore the publication in
question was illegal. The defendant, it is said, has appealed
against this decision, and that the appeal now stands to be heard is
the House of Lords in the approaching Session of Parliament.
The Special Jury having been called, and only four of them an-
swering to their names, a talcs was prayed.
Mr. PATTisoN opened the pleading., and said, this was an ac-
tion for an alleged libel on the plaintiff; which wes inserted and
published in the Morning .4,l:•••rtiser of the 10th and llith of July
IBM, by the defendants, who were the printer, publisher, and
proprietors of that paper.
The defendant had not entered a justification on the record, but
pleaded the general Mom.
The ATTORWNY-OZNERAL stated, that the plaintiff, Andrew
Duncan, jun., was a young man in the profession of the law, who,
at the time of the publication complained of, was a Solicitor of the
Court of Chancery, and practised in the Court of King's Bench in
the name of his father, Andrew Duncan, who was a very respect-
able .Ittorner of that Court. The action was brought by the
' plaintiff, to vindicate his character front the aspersions cast upon it
I by a libel of the grossest nature, and to recover damages for the
injury such an attack on his reputation was calculated to do him.
It would be idle for him, knowing who die persons were he was
addressing, to stale to there how important a thing was character
to a professional man. A person acting as an Attorney and Soli-
citor was one to whom the dearest interests of men were entrusted ;
the greatest reliance was placed on his probity, and an unlimited
confidence in his qualifications to counsel tend protect was reposed
in him. If an attack, therefore, was made on the reputation and
character of a professional man, it must be of the most serious con.
sequence to him, and it behoved him to resist it by all the means
which the laws of his country afforded him. The defendants were
the printer, publisher, and proprietors of a newspaper of a very
extensive circulation, and therefore calculated to work an injury be
any libellous matter that it might issue forth, commensurate with
that extent. lle should not say, for he had it not in his power to
prove the fact, that any of the defendants were the anthers of this
atrocious and groundless libel, but they had made it their act by
having lent their columns fee it, insertion, and of thus being
the means of disseminating the falsest calumnies against the
character and future prospects of his client, which, if not
met by the verdict of a Jury, would work him an irreparable
injury. The public press of this country was unquestionably a
must important engine, either for good or foe evil. If conducted
well, and upon the principles of impartial justice and uncompro-
mising integrity, it wit capable of producing the geeatet good to
' society, but if prostituted to purposes of evil, to the violation
' of truth, and converted into a medium of attack upon the peace
and reputations of good men, then it became the greatest scourge
that society could have inflicted upon it. Unless, then, the pro-
prietors of the public pass were held responsible for what sp.
peered in their columns, there would be no protection against the
worst acts of a powe: which possessed so great an influence over the
moral world ; and we should be all exposed to the liability of being
made its victims, without the possibility of redress. The proprie-
tors, therefore, were justly held responsible for whatever appeared
in their columns; Ned the wisdom of this decision of the law was
obvious, for in the present case, the defendants could not but know
that they were doing an act which might possibly have entailed an
infamy on the name of the plaintiff, which, it' not possessing the
means of redress given him by the law, and which was grounded on
the responsibility of the defendants., for what they published, he
never would have been able to remove. They must have been
aware also that if a prejudice is excited ageinst a person by the pro-
mulgation of any preliminary proceedings in a judicial investiga-
tion, where the party had ro opportunity of rebutting the charge,
that the conserpences to that person men be of the most serious
and injurious nature. It had always been held, that wherever a
publication is made of any thin"„ libellous, that comes out in the
course of a preliminary inquiry berate a 31tegistrate, that a liability
to an action Is incurred, because the publication may be prejudicial
to the individual at the day of his trial, by unduly influencing the
minds of those who may have to decide on his innocence or guilt.
The Jury must have heard, over and over again, that charges were
often brought before a Justice of the Peace. for purposes the most in.
famous and wicked—that of extortirg money. or of venting personal
malice against an enemy, and oftentimes too these charges have been
founded on mistake, either of the person accused, or of the inten.
bons with which the act was committed ; and yet notwithstanding
all this, and notwithstanding too the impossibility of the party
thus charged meeting the accusation with a full denial of the facts,
or an explanation of them, in that preliminary and incipient state
of the inquiry, the Jury must have seen that the minutest pani-
cuter' of these ex-parte proceedings have been blazoned fonh to the
world through the medium of the public press, without, be re.
pealed, the party libelled having as yet had it in his power to repel
the charge by the examination of a single witness, or to obtain re.
dress by confuting his calumniator before a Jury of his country.
How powerfully must this operate to the prejudice of the person I
who is thus made the object of the per:urer's malice and the libel-
ler's maliemitv. But let us look to the conduct of the plaintiff in
this cause. What has it been ? Here is a charge made in a public
journal, reflecting upon his moral character, imputing to Iran con-
duct of the vilest kind, and which, if true, would subject him to
the severest penalties of the laws ; a charge calculated' to destroy
all his future prospects in an honaurable profession, and
to exclude him for ever from the society of all respectable
men. But what does he do ? Instead of indicting the parties
criminally, he says to them, " you have published upon me a gross
libel, tending to effect my rain in life, every word of which I deny
to be true, and I now call upon you to establish its truth-1 chal.
lerge you to the proof." But do they venture to accept the chal-
lenge ? No; they have not thought proper to conie before &Jury
to justify their calumnious assertions, or to afford the plaintiff ail
opportunity of clearing his character, and setting it fairly before the
world, cleansed of the stain which the breath of this malignant
libeller hail cast upon it. This fair and manly course is not that
which the defendants have thought proper to take; theirs has been
that of conscious guilty persons, who having no means to prove
what they have so boldly advanced, seek to screen themselves be
denying that they ever made such assertions ; and they have accord.
ly adopted that most weak and evasive defence, called the general
issue, by which they pretend to deny the charge altogether.
He would now proceed to read to them the libel. It purported to
be a report of certain proceedings that took place at Bow-street I
I police-office, on the 10th of July, 1813. It was headed " Bow. I
street.—A Scene of Depravity !" That was not exactly the way
in which a report of the proceedings taken before a Magistrate, in
a Court of Justice, was usually given.—(The Attosney-Generel
then read a portion of the alleged libel contained in the _Venting
Adverliter of the 10th of July. 11e23. It alluded to a person re.!
siding in one of the Inns of Court having been brought up to I
Bow-street on a warrant, charged with an indecent assault. upon I
two female children, the eldest not thirteen years of age ; and that
he was directed to find sureties to appear at a future day.l—Mere'
the writer dor, not mores, to be giving the evidence that was ad.
ducted, as even the substance of it, but he makes a statement of his
own ; be write* a narrative of facts, the truth of which he makes
referrable to himself sad not to the witnesses who were examined.
ela will be seen that the name of the plaintiff is r.ot once mentioned

-