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

IF

•
• 1
1

,v
j
ti

* ffffineffefilineral ; I must be guided by the evidence as
mast. said he should let the case go to
well. May it plow your Lordship,
think you perceive, very easily, why it I
left this part cat his proof so very then, I
• positive testimony of actor than tens-
e Andrew l)unean here mentioned is 1
• by the reports which are represented
ion his character. Ile most halm
presumptions, that either Ins choke
.i which those reports relate, or that be
eoduce a single witness to prove it, who
eexaminaticn,-know much more of that
Friend wished to be made known to you.
,is a practising attorney, carrying
ao:totibt, two or three clerks. at least,
these has been called by my Learned
A them would have preyed that the
Duncan alluded to in the alleged libel;
red too a little more • he would ban
t had been done at 'Bow-street, and
decency would Lave permitted. He
the facts relating to this and other
Gentlemen, that other warms have
I explained to you why it is that they
of those actions the defendant has
....e plaintiff has thought proper te keep
en, and which is not to be tried, believe
.
in —_ . ____ edd brings forwardethis, where the defendants
hiree'thought fit to rely upon the general issue, and hopes to gain
vour 'verdict that he may put the costs of this action in his pocket,
which was the great object this very respectable ettorney had in
view. This was the reason, Gentlemen, for nay Learned Friendhi
no; calling witnesses before you who knew something about him,
and who would have told you a hide history of this gentleman :
but no, they dared not do it ; they preferred calling those who were
sirangen to the matters alluded to in the reports, and who knew
little or nothing about the plaintiff. It was much easier, gentle-
men, to take their proof short, and leave it to you to infer that this
Andrew Duncan is Andrew Duncan the younger, rather than bring
evidence to establish that fact. Now, gendemeo, sutler ins to call
your attention to the observation of the Attorney-General, and to
the stateuieut madebefore you. I certainly agree with my Learned
Frieild In all those general topics which he has dwelt upon as to
theeibuee of the public press. I agree whb lino that great and in-
calculable mischiefs may be done by that mighty engine, when it
turns f;odi disseminating knowledge, and rewarding virtuous merit,
hod is perverted to the purposes of private malice and personal ma-
lignity. I quite agree with him that the word scourge is not too
strong to apply to the perversion of that great engine of public in-
struction, when, instead of being the advocate of virtue, the terror
of vice, and the protector of innocence and merit, it lends itself to
the vilest purposes, and violates every principle of justice and
truth. And if there is one greater perversion of its uses than an.
other, it is in suet a case as the one of whcb this Ar.drew Duncan
tretends this day to complain—where base and malignant talae-
hatefs are invented for the purpose of casting imputations on sir-
%noir* characters, and holding them up to the scorn of the world in
a character which belongs not to them. But, Gentlemen, I call
upon you to say, whether this is one of the cases which exhibits the
perversion of the pre.* from its legitimate use ? Does it show any
ntaLce on the ear: of the proprietors ? It has been admitted by the
Attorney-General, tlist the defendants were not the authors of the
alleged libel; this admission was but just, for what motive could
i: fluence than to misrepresent or detiume the character of the plain.
tiff? They are lour licensed victuallers, who are only share-
holders in a paper, divided into no less than 9,600 shares.
The LORD CIIIEF JESTICE ssid, the evidence was, that the
teo publicans were proprietors, and the other two defendants were
the printer and the imb.islicr.
Mr. BROVCD.IO/—Tb.D tact, my Lord. is immaterial, whether
two or four ; they arc ouly proprietors on the books at the Stamp-
office, to comply with the Act of l'arliainent ; in every other sense
they are but trustees appointed by the victuallers to conduct this
paper for the benefit of a charity, to the support of which the whole
at tine profits go. Has then soy part of the else the slightest re-
lerence to that general gut stion--as to the motive for the publics-
lion ? Is there here one particle of evidence of private malice ? The '
defendants could not be actuated by any private malignity
tdwarcls the plaintiff, for their interests and eursuite were
suds as to preclude the very idea of such a feeling existing of
eke& part. So much, then, fcr the prosecution on the ground of
malice. But I will go a step ruttier. and ask, whether the alleged
libel itself does not go te rebut the charge of malice. if any one
word in the articles cempleined of were false, could I have been
permitted to stand here to-day to ask for the reduction of a single
shilling from the damages ; it there were anything in those articles
either mandalously misrepresented, or notoriontly untrue, could
I base ventured to apply to you for your Verthel ? How easily
could the faleebood have been proved ? 11; under colour
of a pretended report, it was attempted to blacken and de-
eemet the character of a respectable man, no language was
shong enough to reprobate the conduct of those concerned in
the promulgation of such a calumnious report ; but again
I ask, is this ease one of that description ? If it was, why did not
the plaiotlff resort to those means which would bare established the
purity of his character, and proved the infamy of the libeller to all
the world ? Every person at the Office in Bow-street would have
said—whoever said these respective parties had ever applied to the
Magistrate for a warrant ? I never saw such a man as a Mr
Duncan, at Bow-street ; no girl ever came here to bring a charge
against any such person. Besides, gentlemen, the books would
leave proved all this; tile entries would have been sought for, but in
sails; -tie such persons were ever heard of; no Mr. Duncan ever Im-
paired editor is 185,3 or in any other year to answer to such a charge
—all is a Issse fabrication, and a most wicked libel. This Inc
pladotiff could easily heretic:red, had none of the circumstances m-
eowed, but there was one thing he could not have done—he could not
Aioproved this. •The defendant denied the greater part of thecharge—
not the whole, then ?—only the greater part ; then the otter parts riot
tier-led must of course have been admitted too, by this man, whose
character oil now had never known reproach—whose name was never
coeuected with any thing that could reflect one particle of disgrece
upon it, and who had never created a blush in the cheek of intro.
seoce. But that is not all, Gentlemen, ' the defendant denied the
greater part of the charge, but admitted, that he might have been a
Mute imprudent'—A little imprudent, Gentlemen, to a lade,
pretty, Interesting girl of thirtees years of age I.—a little pretty
stirl wbo came to his chambers in the morning, not unbidden.
-But again he added, ` that he was elevated with wine at the
tiote'—elerated with wine at his chambers : early in the mono-
log. A respectable solicitor, whose clients would be calling
on him, was, early in the morning • elevated with wine,' and in-
stead of receiving their visits was acting • tether icaprudently with
two pretty, little, interesting, female children ! But how came these
little girls there?—they did not come unmasked, as appears by the
evidence of one of them at Bow-street. And who were they ?
One of them was a Duncan, a cousin of his own, and the other a
" pretty little interesting girl," her companion. This was acting a
hide imprudently, certainly. Gentlemen, I say, if this is ell a
fiction. the product of the wild imagination of the reporter, the
mere dream of some half-cracked teller of sad talcs, or if it is
foe invention of some genius whom poor Duncan has made his
eacuay, could any thing have been so easy as to have proved it
to be such? Mr. Halls and his clerks would have proved
in Of the truth, however, of the whole affair, my Learned
Friend has been very cautious in speaking, although he was
lavish in his comments on other topics. (In saving that this
publication offered abundant evidence of the absence of any
malice on the part of the defendants, I have stated only a fact
which is too obvious to he questioned ; but I will go further, and
say, that the particles furnished the strongest proof of the absence
of all malignant intention on the part of the reporter. It will also
appear to you, that the whole of the report in the flee paper
does not even mention his name, and in reeding that report,
it Affixes nothing more upon the character of the plaintiff than
inset'. But not till a week after, when the proceedings had as.
sinned a serious complexion, and it wan become impossible to stop
them, th.n. and not till then, is 111 r. Duncan's name mentioned ;
aed when it is mentioned, there is no comment, no remark on the'
pert of the reporter, either on the turpitude of the offence, the cha- '
;rider of the parties, or the nature of the evidence; it was :eerily
said that Mr. Duncan was brought up, and that certain thing.: had
happened. It is in evidence the the reporter, in performing what
La conceived to be his duty (of which a word hereafter), and having
till then kept from the knowledge of the public the name of the
micro charged; it is in evidence that when the proceedings had
takes this course, he then from this time flames the accused. Was
Os the conduct of a private enemy, or of a person acting through I
malignant motives? Certainly not. But look at another pate
of the report ; it had been said in the first paper that while'
the assault was committing
.on Ann Chandler, that her coin_ I
psalm, the plaintiff's cousin, looked on with apparent ',alit-
terence. Now, is the second report, the writer says,—" We
bare been requested to Cale, that the little girl (Ann Dun.
cafe) declares she did make resistance when the defendant took
h*d of her, and that she endeavoured to get away the instant he I
first laid hands on Ann Chandler." Now was this contradiction 1
tolinorahle to the plaintiff's cause? Certainly not. But does it'
met go to disprove the least particle of malice es istingin the mini
of she eeporter In making the lint statement, when the eircunastamee
Adult he related of Ann Duncan's being indifferent was calculated
it' threw discredit on her testimony given before the Magistrate,
and to place the character of the two girls in the worst Isseible
them, and, by &Mai that, favour the accused. In fact, the report 1
one the most favourable one which the best well-wisher of Mr.
Ilitthean could have framed—and indeed, the reporter was his
beet felnol. I give you this, Gentlemen, as a badge not
only •ef the absence of an ill motive, but as an evidence of,
the innocence of inteution on the part of the reporter to
de*rong. Now, Gentlemen, s remark of the Attorney. General is
slay material, as to the manner of drawing up the report of the
poneedinge at Bow-street. He says that it gives no detail,., enters I
nibs no psrticuhirs, but only a general statement of what is pre. I
wised to have occurred. But does not the Attorney-Generale
know tha. the details were too groin end indelicate to place-before the I
pellet eye—that it became a duty on the part of the reporter to sim-
mer; the (Ingesting facts that ewe forth in the examination of the I
ploititrini and therefort, instead of a particular report of the evi.
deuce, the whole stateroom' was put into the chastest language, and
id the best powdble manner favourable to the defendant's chant-
ten TbloOlentlement was the motive for having kept togeoerals, '
aid not having mom into the pa/emulate of the evidence. Than.
waft. not • single observation made by the reporter, nor etteledet
reference to what had taken place on the former day. Gentlleneld,
I toe *heady skett to of the amtiety of the plaintiff,'
his character elitht ;ad I thomannee by which he had jedletalt
Iciest to do so was, is froward this cause, where the tiidlF
0 /he elleri lilrel ,and keep beak 'bet acfloi 1
cseremi
..:-....: .---m.: z •.---t..i7".. ~ '.....) ::,....
. .

tie which a justification had been pleaded. Permit me to add one
word more on the course taken by the plaintiff, and which is ex-
torted from me by the comments of my Learned Friend. He com-
plains here of cot having been afforded the opportunity of vindi-
cating the character of his client, by the indictment against him
not having been followed up.
The AS Tom NER•GRXERAL denied that he had aids°.
Mr. BROUGIIAM insisted that he did, and rend his note of it.
The AT TOR X ET-( i EN ER AL again said he did not.
Mr. Blionowast—Gentlemen, the plaintiff here complains. es
I said (for I have a note of my Learned Friend's expression), that
he had no opportunity afforded Mtn of vindicating his character
and establishing his innocence. Ile exclaims, Strike if you view ;
proceed with your charge, if yon dare ; I have a defence ; and I
only complain, says he. that you have not afforded me an apparu-
nity of vindicating inyalf, by no indictment being prefastrad against
me. A year and a half hail however elapsed ; the parties were
bound over to prosecute, and no indictment had been preferred.
One of those persons was his cousin. Now, it may have been that
the indictment was nut preferred because it was in the lards of a
relation, or it may have been because the subject was of so
delicate a natute But these are circumstances 1 cannot know,
and what is the cause I care nor ; but one thing I know, it is
ant, it cannot be, that the parties are afraid of the result of
such a prosecution, or •because that all that is contained in the
report is not true. And, Gentlemen, I tell you why, because, if
that were the reason, and if, as lie has instructed his Learned
Friend to satire you, this man of spotless character has been
basely accused ; if this was • lying report, bottomed in falsehood,
and the whole a foul and baseless vision engendered by a malignant
and impure imaginatiort_if the Chandlers were base conspirators,
and the plaintiff a man of untainted name, and the
sufferer by a foul and hellish attack—the law, Gentlemen,
steps forward to his assistance, and the law would give
him redress. It was his bounden duty to indict them
for a conspiracy, and to have come forward to justify the violated
hart of his country, as Ann Duncan came forward at Bow-street.
Ile may bring actions as many as he pleases, acting at the same
time as agent, client, and attorney. rscover the damages, and
pocket the costs ; but one thing he could not do here, he could
not come forward, be examined on oath, and on that oath deny the
truth of the alleged libel. But he might have gone before
a Grand Jury, preferred his indictment, been examined, con-
victed, and confuted his enemies, and have come out as pure
and as spotless as his Learned Counsel portrays him to be.
All this he could have done if he haul chosen to indict for a
conspiracy. But co ; he dared not take this coulee; for we
should then have heard what had really happened, and the his-
tory of the Bow-street affairs would have been illustrated by
some very curious notes and comments. But there was another
eourse open to him if, from the consanguinity of the parties, he
had felt reluctant to prosecute them criminally, either foe a cons
spiracy or for perjury—for all this was sworn to, Gentlemen, at
Bow-street--and the comae I mean is this--he might have brought a
civil action against them all. One of thieve courses he must have
taken if the story he now tells is true, that this is all a fiction, and
the hese invention of the enemy, but he has not adopted either of
these says, satisfied with brtnging these actions, and to try his
fortune In ()Moaning from you a sum of money sufficient to en.
title him to pocket the costs. Gentlemen, one word before I sit
Clown, of public police stymie, to which my Learned Friend has
referred, and so triumphantly stated to you as being illegal. A
subject of more importance and of greater delicacy cannot be dis-
cussed, and which I should have been willing to have re-
frained front commenting upon at all, if it had not been al-
luded to by my Learned Friend. At the time that this report
was made, the opinion was moo genets!, he would not say among
the profession, hot among the public, that whatever took place at a
public Court. and where the Magistrate did not think proper to
exclude the public, might he published. That this opinion was
well founded I am now prt vented from saying, because in one of
the actions brought by this plaintiff a decision had been come to,
the result of which goes against the legitlity of publishing rs-parle
proceedings before a Magistrate, and this decision was not come to
without much and deep consideration, end after some very learned
arguments had teen made upon the question. Put notwithstanding
this argument and decision, I feel myself justified in raving the ques-
tion is one of great difficulty, and that the public, in Wilding the opi-
nion of the legality of those publication'', was justified, In a popular
sense, although they were wrong ; thr.t is. that the Court of King'.
Bench were of a contrary opinion. It was at that. time, Gentle-
men, when every roan out of doors held that opinion, that this re.
port was published. This question Is not yet finally and irrevo-
cably settled, for the decision of the Court of King's Bench has
been taken to a higher tribunal, and now awaits the judgment of that
superior Court. When you consider, Gentlemen, that the report
was published under the conviction of its being legal so to do, and
when you look at the conduct of the defendants, I feel satisfied
you will be convinced no malicious motives or intentions existed on
the part of the editor, of the publisher, or of the proprietors, and
that you will not hesitate in giving your :mita for the de-
fendant, to which I shall look forward with confidence.
The LORD CHIEF ehrSTI CR then summed up, at considerable
length, remarking that the opinion of the public, as to the legality
of publishing ex-p arte proceedings, could not be justified, as the
Jnages had frequently declared them to he illegal. lie had no
doubt in his own mind that this was a libel, but the question of
damages he should leave to the Jury, adding, as he always did, this
single observation, that they should be fair and temperate.
The Jury turned round and consulted a few minutes, and then
bind a verdict for the defendants.

COX v. KEAN.
This cause is postponed till Monday, in consequence of the in-
disposition of Mr. Session.

it is.
Pb. ATTORNEY-MINERAL
the Jury.
Mr. Biouorrad.—Very •el
Gentlemen of the Jury --I thin
is sy Learned Friend has left II
wfwshe could 'lambed the pod
Sy:endues to prove that the A
the:Andrew Duncan alluded to
by hien to contain a gross libel I
dttlikupon one of there two pi
fiftet the Andrew Dundan to wl
iSltut that he could not produce
fta not, in his crali-essuiii
Ernim:,oan rny'Learndi Friend
M =its r. Duncan, (ientlernen,
oilthtlipsietess, and haring, no'
id% billet, but not one of the
iFttend, although either of the
pttirait was the Andrew Dunc
aucl oho would bare proved tl
-pit.reyt the report of what ha
the truth of it as far as deal
SON have proved, also, the
1411111* for you have heard, t
been brought ; he would have e:
MU been brought. In one o
pleaded a justification, but the
biterthe trial of that action, an 4
kit, in the world ; and brings