The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-22 00:00:00

ssust punish it for attempting to bring people into
contempt, to prevent it from becoming contemptible
itself. Troth or falsehood, according to this Prince
of reasoners, must not be left to themselves, for it,
that case falsehood would always carry the day ; but
the Attorney-General, to prevent mischief, must
step in to the aid of truth. No reliance whatever
is to be placed on the public. The Attorney-Gene-
ral is infallible, we suppose. 0 no, says Sir James,
he appeals to a Jury. "To the tribunal of a Jury
(said Sir James triumphantly) he had appealed in
these recent prosecutions: they had found the pub-
lications which he had brought before them to be
libels." But in the beginning of his speech, Sir
James said " he would commence by assuring his
Honourable Friend (Sir Francis Burdett) that there
was no act of his professional his on which he looked
back with greater satisfaction than that in which he
had the distinguished honour of appearing as his
(Sir F. Burdett's) defender. This he could at least
say, that whether he had done it ably or not, he
had done it honestly, zealously, and sincerely ; for
he felt at that time, and he felt now, that the pro-
secution which was instituted against his Hon.
Friend was a prosecution which ought never to have
been instituted at all." But Sir Francis, as he de-
scribed himself, is not the less a convicted libeller.
A late Chief Justice, now a Peer, charged strongly
against him, and a British Jury found a verdict of
guilty. The Attorney-General considers a Jury an
unerring test when in favour of himself—but repu-
diates the verdict when against him. It is Sir
James Scarlett, then, who is infallible, and not the
Jury. Upon his own showing, then, an Attorney-
General, Judge, and Jury are not always to be
trusted with the' Press; and it is only sir James
Scarlett who is to be trusted, and whenever Sir
James can obtain a verdict the Press must be in the
wrong. It all comes to this issue, that every opi-
nion Sir James espouses is the opinion that ought
not to be combated—that every public man who is
connected with Sir James is a man who ought to be
protected, that every writer who attacks such a man
is a licentious writer. And this sort of twaddle is
gravely uttered in the House of Commons. And
what is the worst of the business is, that he more
than insinuates that these servile opinions are shared
by his friend'.—" He was not ashamed to say in
public—what all men were ready enough to say in
private—that no single individual could now resist
the tyranny of the Press." It is impossible that his
friends can be so base as to have held such language
in private. There never was a time in the history
of this country when the Press was so decorous as
the present. The man who maintains the contrary,
can knew nothing of the periodical literature of his
country. It is notorious that in all the Newspapers
of the present day, the attempt is always made to
gain the reader by argument, and that abuse and decla-
mation are rather the exception than the rule. Slan-
der does occasionally defile the columns of a news-
viper ; but slander is far less frequent than it used
to be. During the mild administration of Sir James's
predecessor, Lord Lyn'lhurst, the Press never dis-
played rancour towards towards public men, not-
withstanding of the leniency shown to it. The in-
sinuation directed against his former political asso-
ciates we look on as peculiarly unkind. That man
is unworthy of the name of Englishman who holds
one language in public regarding the Press, and
skulkingly assails it in private as a tyranny which no
individual C 211.1 withstand. Sir James Graham and
Sir Francis Burdett, at all events we are sure, from
the heartiness of their reprobation of the conduct of
Sir Jatnes, cannot be of the number of these calum-
niators of that to which England owes more than to
ail her other institutions. It is incumbent on the
late political connections of Sir James to wipe off
the aspersions attempted to be cast on them. We
know it has been said by some of our contempora-
ries that Mr. Brougham approves of prosecutions
for political libels. We said, when the charge was
made, that we did not believe there was any foun-
dation for it, and we are still of that opinion. We
cannot believe that the conduct of Sir James has
any admirers among any of the liberal-minded men
of his late party. They must despise the pitiful
pretence, that opposition can only be met by the
Attorney-General and a Jury. That cause they
know must be bad indeed, which 'cannot stand its
ground without the aid of means which are equally
at the command of a good and a bad Administra-
tion, and which oppression may always count upon
with tolerable certainty. The verdict of a Jury is
not a test of truth ; for in nineteen out of twenty
of the prosecutions since the Revolution, against
the most distinguished names in our literature, ver-
dicts of guilty have been obtained. A verdict cb-
tained by an Attorney-General merely proves that a
writer is obnoxious to men in power. If the Press
were to be, as the Attorney-General pretends, a
tyranny which private individuals cannot withstand,
and which but for that Public Officer would be in-
tolerable, then the Liberty of the Press can only be
made palatable to the English people by the kind in-
terfurelace of Sir James Scarlett. What a libel ! And
whet a mind the man has who can utter it!—lbid.
A case occurred in the Court of Common Pleas a
few days ago, which shows both the folly and inuti-
lity of one of the forms used in special pleading. It
was an action brought by a father against the seducer
of his daughter, and in which the Jury gave 5001.
damages; but were immediately told that this could
not be, because those laid in the declaration were
only 3001. Now a declaration, if it is intended to
mean any thing, should declare the true grounds of
complaint of the plaintiff against the defendant; but,
instead of which, it is a mere tissue of deception,
mystification, and absurdity, from beginning to the
end. Where the action is brought to recover one
debt, as must be the case, the declaration avers half
a dozen other debts to be due ; though the demand
accrued in Lancashire, a declaration makes every de-
mand to have taken place "in the parish of St.
Marylebow, in the ward of Cheap"—it talks of
John Roe and Richard Doe as pledges to prosecute,
though it is quite clear no pledges can be wanting
from these, being mere men in the moon. \Viten the
real demand is known, it ends in stating it to be twice
or ten times what it is ; and when, as in the else we
are alluding. to, no damage can be known, but is en-
tirely a question for the Jury to ascertain, it states
them at less than the Jury assess them—violating,
first, the principle that no man should be a Judge
in his own cause ; and, secondly, shutting out the
proper judges from exercising their free judgment
upon the occasion. Well has the poet described
this as " a gipsy diction ;" and justly enough has
Mr. O'Connell described it as a useless incumbrance
of mere technical jargon, which the Courts would
do well to disencumber themselves of. But is this
likely to take place ? Is there in this enlightened
age, as we call it, discernment or self-denial enough
to get rid of such a system ? In short, are the
image-makers for the great goddess Diana likely to
give up so profitable a part of their calling ? We
shall see.-ll7orning Herald.
It would seem, from Mr. Peel's statement, that
the great obstacle to a more cheap arid expeditious
mode of recovering small debts consists in the diffi•
culty of indemnifying persons who hold offices in
the present Courts, the emoluments of which, it is
appprehended, would be reduced by the proposed
measure. This subject is not new to our readers,
and we only regret that there should not long ago
have been found courage enough in the proper quar-
ter to treat the subject at once manfully and justly.
If those who take is hand legal or other reforms ate
to be deterred frem the straightforward path by
every bugbear, and by the cry that, " there is a
in the vray," their efforts will be marked by
more of profession than improvement. We do not
mean by this to say that we arc wholly regardless
of what are called " vested interests,' or Coat we
would, for the sake of any paltry saving, counsel
what might be deemed dishonour to the country ;
but what we do mean to say is, that these vested
interests are often held sacred in proportion to their
aetual valuelessness, and that the timid caution with
which they are approached often encourages the ra-
pacity with which the holders ask for an unreason-,,
able indemnity. The office, for instance, of the