The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-01 00:00:00

than we are, to plead for the exercise of a bold inde-
pendence, and for great allowance, when statements are ne-
cessarily made in the hurry which must belong to the pre-
paration during the night, of so great a name of materials as
go to the making-up of a London Morning Paper. We shall
ne ever ready to maintain also, that the details of the Law of
Libel, and the expences which it occasions even to the most
innocent, are points that loudly call for Reform—but we do
not think that to insult the law ought to be one our privi-
leges. We do not think that when we, have done anything
which the tribunals of the country deem, and decree, to be an
offence, it is withie either the actual or desirable limits of our
rights, that we should persevere in the offence. This is not
manliness, but mean and miserable virulence. Even if we
thought the law harsh, we should yet consider it to be our
duty to treat its decrees with respectful acquiescence.
We should not seek to console ourselves under any
visitation of legal penalties, by a waspish reiteration of the
offence for which we were smarting. So much for the vindi-
cntion of the charater of the Press. We have now to deal
with some matters of misrepresentation. It is asserted that
the libel for which the publisher of the Times has been
punished, was 'merely an assertion that " Sir J. Conroy had
bought an estate in Wales, and who was so capable of answer-
ing as he, whence came the means of paying for it ?" It is
monstrous that it should go forth to any portion of the credulous
public that our Courts of Law visited with severe punishment,
a publication answering to the above description. The records
of the Court of Queen's Bench give a very different account of
the libel. They say that Sir J. Conroy was charged in the
libel complained of with having managed the concerns of
the illustrious Lady whom lie served, in such a way, that
the nation owed to him the obligation of paying off a debt
of 80,0001.—that he had " chalked on this 80,0001."
that an estate had been purchased and paid for not
long ago, and if any public inquiry should take place
whence the money for the payment came. who so competent
to answer the question as the Baronet? Whether all this
should be construed to be a libel, we need not inquire. The
Court of Queen's Bench, which is the competent authority,
did so construe it. But it does concern the public to know
that what was construed to he a libel, was not that which the
Times of yesterday stated to have been the whole amount of
the libel committed. It is stated that on the strength of Sir
John Conroy's solitary denial of the charge, he instituted a
prosecution in the Court of Queen's Bench—that he did so
without a shadow of inquiry whether the Times had published
a downright falsehood, or a strict and unquestionable truth,
and that no investigation into the truth of the statement was
had during the proceedings. Now, putting individuals out
of the question, this is a most gross and unfounded aspersion
upon the course of justice in our Courts. No such
thing did happen—no such thing could happen as that
described by the Times. It was not on the strength
of Sir John Conroy's solitary denial of the charge
that it came before a Jury. That denial gave him no more
than a rule nisi, that is, a power of calling upon the defendant
to show cause why he should not be tried by a Jury for pub-
lishing a statement, the truth of which Sir J. Conroy denied
on oath. If he had in that stage of the proeedings shown
that the statement was true, he never could have been brought
before a Jury for the offence. Whose fault was it that the
truth was not investigated? There were two stages in the
proceedings. In one of these the truth of the statement was
the sole matter in controversy--on the other, the publication
of the statement, and its libellous character, were the sole
matters in controversy. Why did not the defendant avail him-
self of the first stage? Why is it to be continually com-
plained of that he was debarred from investigating the truth
in the subsequent stage, in which stage he well knew
from the beginning, that not the truth of his state-
ment, but the fact of his having made the statement,
and its libellous character, were to be determined ?
The Times continues to assert, notwithstanding that
its publisher is under punishment upon sentence of
the Queen's Judges for libelling Sir J. Conroy, that that
gentleman has not cleared his character by the prosecu-
tion. If he has not, then the tribunals of England afford no
opportunity to any man for clearing his character when at-
tempted to be run down by the Press. He has done all
which an innocent man could legally do, to prove his inno-
cence, and punish his calumniator. Is it not something too
much that after this, the calumniator shall still be allowed to
affirm that his victim has not cleared his character? Is it
honourable—is it just, that any countenance should be shown
to such a continuation of malicious invective ? Still is the cir-
cumstance harped upon, that Sir J. Conroy did not put himself
in the witness box to be examined touching his pecuniary
affairs, by the party who had injured him. No one would
listen to the imputations grounded upon this fact, if they kept
in view the distinction between an inquiry into a man's
pecuniary affairs and an inquiry into his moral con-
duct. Had Sir J. Conroy been distinctly charged with an overt
act, constituting a criminal offence, his Counsel would no doubt
have advised him to volunteer the opportunity for a rigid
cross-examination ; but in his case the matter to be
inquired into was his pecuniary concerns—how he happened
to be rich enough to buy an estate? To a public cross-exa-
mination, in such a matter as this, no Counsel would advise
any man to submit himself. It is the last extreme of folly and
injustice to confound a criminal inquiry with a pecuniary in-
quiry. If the Times should have the courage to charge Sir
J. Conroy with any distinct offence of taking money which
did not belong to him, and if he should refuse to be examined
touching the commission of that offence, then we should not
not say a word for him. But to pretend that because the
Times has charred Sir J. Conroy with buying an estate cut
of money that he did not properly come by, he shall be bound
to come forward and tell the whole world not only what he did
not do, but what he did do to obtain the money, and thus open
the whole course of his private and pecuniary affairs to the
public—to pretend this is to plead in favour of a monstrous
and horrible tyranny, which we trust neither the Press, nor
any other description of power, will ever be suffered to exercise
in England. —.Morning Post.
The late meeting of the London Mechanics' Irstitute, the
numerous annual meetings of the branch institutes in the
country, assisted as they are with the late happy recovery of
their founder (Dr. Birkbeck), are circumstances which must
have awakened recollections of deep interest in the bosom of
every friend to social improvement. Considering our journal
as the natural organ of the institutions established for the
benefit of the industrious classes, we are happy to congratulate
the public at large on the diffusion of these societies, and their
prosperous progress in the metropolis and all the provincial
towns of the empire. The growth of these institutions for
the promotion of scientific and practical knowledge among
the people is among the most gratifying signs of the times.
Increased facilities of instruction in every branch of
human knowledge has been afforded by them to stu-
dents of all ages. There is one class of students which
they are more especially calculated to benefit ; we mean the
medical students in the distant provinces, few of whom have
been educated in the colleges, or have resided in the recog-
nised schools of medical instruction. Again, a new class of
lecturers have been called forth by their ministration, who, by
teaching others, like the Greek philosophers of old, lay the
foundation of more various and solid information for them-
selves. Another vast advantage of these institutions consists
in their efficacy for promoting science by defraying the ex-
penses of puleication. Many valuable and important la-
bours of gratuitous contributors have by these means been
rescued from the oblivion into which they would otherwise
have fallen, It should be added, that the libraries and
museums collected in so many different parts of the country,
act as schools of design for native artists and students, and
diffuse a taste for liberal studies through the meldlinglas well
es the lover classes of society; while the frequent meetings
thus effected, and the active interchange of ideas thus pro-
moted, supply a constant stimulus to the energies of the com-
mon mind. IT, has been a hackneyed objection against these
institutions, that men in a subordinate and laborious class
have not time to tarn Oeir itiforination to p: aetical account,
without deducting from their daily avocations. It is, there-
fore, alleged that they waste tin.o and cause expense. But
the greet object of these institutioni is to save, not to waste,
tile time, and money of the mechanic, by drawing him away to
useful and refi ,ecl occupations from the debasing and expen-
sive pleasures of the beer-shop ; and by inducing him to fre-
quent meetings, not only unexpensive, but tending to the fore-
thought of economy, nay, even to the improvement and greater
profit of his art, by uniting the researches and experiments of
others to his own practical experience.—Morning Advertiser.
If, after a more careful perusal than we could afford to be-
stow the night before last upon what took place in the Court
of Queen's Bench on Wednesday in the case of " The Queen
v. Lawson," we had thought it necessary to add anything to
the observations we published yesterday, we should have
found ourselves, as on the 'eat occasion, forestalled by our
excellent Contemporary the Standard, whose short but able
erticle on the case we have great pleasure in traefertring to
our columns. The low-minded end foolish trash which Mr.
Thesiger was instruetcd to deliver, and the arousing twaddle
which that reepeetable old gentleman, Mr. Justice Littladale,
doubtless spoke " all out of his own head," have, indeed,
tempted us with great temptation, but we have successfully
resisted it. In truth, we have no right to find fault with Mr.
Thesiger, becau.;e we cannot be sure that he transgressed that
part of Hamlet's directions to the players, which says—" Let
those who play your fools speak no more than is set down fur
them." We apprehend that no one will expect us to bestow
a single word on the contributions of Sir John Conroy's house-
maids to the Morning Po, nor many on the advertisements
which must be communicated and paid for, though they are,
published as leading articles, in the Palmerston print. The
flippant folly and the thick-and-thin falsehood of the latter but
too well mark the quarter from which they proceed. For
instance, in the advertisement which Cupid inserted last night,
it is pretended that Sir John Conroy, being a soldier, and
therefore having peculiar feelings of honour, could not have
brought an action for damages !I Now, if the dullest ass that
ever was given away in Smithfield had communicated this ad-
vertisement to Cupid. it could hardly have contained anything
more stupid. '1 he fact is, that if Sir John Conroy had pro-
ceeded by action, we might have called and forced the ap-
pearance of witnesses, which be effectually prevented us
from doing by the form of proceeding under which he took
shelter ; and as to the money view of the matter, which is al-
most too absurd for notice, he might have saved his honour by
giving the damages (when he got them) to some public cha-
rity. The same advertisement states, that Sir John Conroy
" dared us to the proof," and that we" refused his challenge."
Now is not this not only not the truth, but the very reverse of
the truth ? Did we not, by cur Attorney and our Counsel,
challenge Sir John Conroy to such a form of proceeding as
would have enabled us to put witnesses into the box—to have

offered proof—and did not he refuse our challenge? Why,
every man, woman, and child in the kingdom knows that this
is the real state of the case. But we feel lhat we are disgrac-
ing ourselves in condescending to bestow even these kicks in
passing upon such assailants. Our object in again adverting
to the case of The Queen v. Lawson" to-day, is to call
the attention of our readers to the following high-princi-
pled and high-spirited observations of the Standard ;