The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-10-27 00:00:00

~~

+~

0
i. r ;
. r
I'
4 !
4 i :

~. r
i

.'
G

4
,i .
... ..1
I.

1,
r 1
N t.:
41 1
11
4

144

1)
i t
!

~ ,
i
V

grew investigation, it is eetiefactorily refuted. Besides, many who
read one part of the proceeetiega perhaps never see the tither, and it
fa exceedingly difficult to reihoie the tinesvourable ingression given
by an incorrect account of troisactions in the first instanter. The
inconvenience of reports dins given to the public has been of ten felt,
and more frequently in recent tnstances than formerly. Ile para.
cabal;' alluded to two eases with which they were all familiar—the
ease of lleade in York, and of Thurtull in Hertford, Inc murder.
sawing to the ex-rule and defamatory statements which went
abroad respecting them, v ry great public inconvenience had been
felt, and he hoped that their Leinishiri would, by their decision,
cheek the great and increasing injury which society sustained by
the publication of false told eeendalous statements. m which notch
W. 1.4 suppressed that tendril to extenuate a charge, and much was
Merritt that tended to aggravate it.
Mr. LASIES was unwilling to enlarge the circle of discansfon,
and would confine himself to the consideration of ore or two tiro.
pi 'diens. The question was an important one, and one to which
those who were .angsged in editing noisperan looked with eon.
siderabie anxiety and interest to their Lordships' decision. The
first proposition he would submit was. whether the publication of
the sublitance of what takes place, before trial, at a police• office,
whilst the prisoner is there, as public new., without comment, ma.
levolenec, or defamatory waiter, be jtotiliable. He would contend
that it woes If it were alleged that it wan necessary to detail the
whole rritieece, it should be done in every instance, and the vati-
c-Mr indelicacies which in certain cases were detailed, should be
given, or the case be altogether suppressed. This was an "extent
which he was satisfied would not hi contended for, and the sub-
seiner of the proceeding. was all that could in fairness be rished
for et riiinina. Ile would state how far, in his opinion, the liberty
of making report. (whether r.r-part:. or not) extended. First, pro.
S;drd the publieation of the report contained re false or highly.
colouterd a:Rieman ; setrwely, provided it contained no enturoents
or ophiloos Tethering on the Court we on the parties; and thirdly,
provided the publication arm free from indecency and blaaphooy,
and no part of et contained masks of private malice. The report
in mie lion vas exeingt • from any of these three point., which
would render it certainly Wallows His Learned Frienil, with
that candour which became him, said that he could not find a sin*
case upon record where a private action had been maintained. The
cases which had been cited were principally cases of seditious Ilhels,
and the indictments were generally instituted, not so much on ac-
count of the publication of a report, as fsr the aggravating tone in
which it was communicated, or for mine comment or opinion that
sceompanied it. For inehmee, in de very ease of the King r.
Cathie. under the pretence of publishing the trial, Praxes Aire
of Reason was published with it, aid in the title-page it was called
the Mock Trial." This was reflecting on the Court that tried
tl)e ease, and came whist* one el the points he had hid down, as
exceeding the legitimate hounds of publication. In a ease cited by
hie Learned Friend, in which confidence was withellawn from one
attorney end trsasfetred to another, it was prefaced "Shameful
Condoet of an Attorney." This was not, as in the present in-
stinct, a mere statement of facts, but the declaration of sit oyi.
nion upon them. In the case of is 31,:tilier of Parliament's
speech, he unquestionably has•a right to sneak 'bat lie pleases
there, and is protected; but that protection does not extend to
its publication, by which it might be made tl:e vehicle of slander
and defamation, The leaned elentleman pro ceded to detail the
Isgal piocens adopted in this cause. The pined which tl.eir
Lard-
ships had to decide was tine of great importance to editors, as by it
they would ascertain whether they had a right to publielt whatever
tisek piece pubtkay in an open (aunt, which they were not prohi.
bited or prevented from doing by the presiding Judge or 'Magis-
trate.
Mr. Justice Bat te Y—M by law ought to be open !—Magis.
t'ate, are not obliged to keep their counts open—if they are open, it
Is bosun they themselves choose to keep them so.
Mr. LaWES WU/aware, that Magistrates frequently heard Caltrii.
nations in private. Various reasons and proper motives were SS.
alienable for their doing se, but the publication in question took
Owe without any dmire that it should he suppressed ; there was
no Magisterial prevention or prohibition whatever to its publication.
The euee of the King v. Lee, which hail been cited, bore no simili-
tud: to the present. That related to in smuggling transaction, and the
calm:taint was not, that the evidence, nor the substance of it, was
riot given, tint thermos, different accounts of the same evidence. In
the e.ise of the Captain, who bad assaulted the lady tinder his pro-
teetiun from Barbadoes, the round of complaint was the agara.
awed tare and language in which the transactions were detidleil ;
and again in the case of the King v. Fleet, the indictment was not
preferred on account of publishing, the evidence given at the COTO-
ner's Inquest, but for publishing part of the evidence before the
inquest was &MIL
Mr. Justice BaTtET—The publication of the depositions given
at an Inquest,. are unfit matter for publication,• for it is calculated
to operate unforly town:ls a prisoner who may afterwards be upon
big trial.
Mr. LAW2II resumed, and was proceeding to argue upon the
absence of malice from the mind of the writer, which was evinced
by his enntining himself to the mere statement of facts.
Ur. Justice Bar Lye said, the mower consideration was not so
much what. was the intention or disposition of the writer, as the
'Ewe on the character of the party aggrieved. If he eonseientiouely
believed a person to be a thief, it did nit follow, because he enter.
mined such a conviction in his own mind, that he would have&
ratit to cell him no. The mere ites,ation of malice dues not destroy
the right of action.
Mr. LIMES Was about to preteed, when the Court intimated its
attention cf rising., shed ordered further argument in the cuss
to
come on this tneentng.