The Sun.
London, England, 1839-10-22 00:00:00

The following address from the Editor of the
True Colonist to the people of Van Dicoen's
Land, discloses a case of judicial oppression in re-
gard to the liberty of the Press, which calls for the
prompt interference of the Noble Colonial Secre-
tary. We have too much confidence in Lord John
Russell's administration to doubt that he will hesi-
tate for a moment to remit a fine which, unless
paid by the public, would subject a morally guilt-
less man to imprisonment for life. We trust, more-
over, that this case will impress upon the Govern-
ment the necessity of providing for the greater free-
dom of the Press in the Australian
Colonie—
TO THE PEOPLE OF VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
Fellow Colonists,—l address= y.ou from a prison,
where I am confined by a sentence: passed by the
Chief Justice, as a criminal for two ma'.nths, and
until I have paid a fine of 601., for the oft-Otee of
having published a statement of an occurrence the
recital of which, his Honour said, was enough ta.l
" to excite horror and indignation in the mind of
any person of human feeling." The publication by
me of this statement, subjected me to punishment,
because I had not proved to the satisfaction of the
Judge and Military Jury that I had before publica-
tion niatif sufficient inquiry to give me what they
considered reasonable grounds for believing the ,
truth of what was proved on the trial by the oaths
of the very persons of whom I made inquiry.
I was tried and convicted of defaming and turning
into ridicule Mr. Robert Jacomb, by publishing in
the True Colonist of the 'ith of December, a sim-
ple statement of the fact, that on Tuesday, the
4th of December, a distraint for rent was, by
Mr. James Wood, as broker for Mr. Jacomb,
put into a house in \Vatchorn-street, where
the wife of the occupant, a poor imbecile old
man, was lying dead,..ia....the—bouse, and that
the corpse and the bailiff were to be seen in the
same room. I did not state that Mr. Jacomb put
in the distraint—l did not even directly or indi-
rectly insinuate that he knew there was a corpse in
the house. But the above is the gist of the offence
for which I am now suffering as a breaker of the
Queen's peace. I produced on the trial the person
who gave me the first information of the horrible
fact. Iproduced two witnesses who were present when
it was communicated to me, and who swore that
they believed it from the authority on which I
first received it. Was not this of itself rea-
sonable grounds for my believing it ? But
the Chief Justice said it was not. That I
had it only from hearsay, and that before I pub-
lished a statement charging any man with so gross
an outrage on humanity, I was bound to have it
from persons who had seen it and could speak from
their own knowledge of the fact. I proved that
after the printing, but before the publication of the
article, I heard that Mr. John Dobson had declared
it to be false, and I produced two witnesses who
swore, that in consequence of Mr. Dobson's denial
of the fact, I had made inquiries of them, and
that they told me that they had seen Death and
the Bailiff (that is, the corpse and the man in
charge), in the same room ; in which room they
took a copy of the warrant signed " Robert
Jacomb," authoring James Wood to distrain for
50s. arrears of rent. Mr. Wintle swore that he
gave me this information on the day, but previous
to the hour of publication. Yet the Judge says
that I had not reasonable grounds to believe the
truth of the statement. But 1
beg you to ob-
serve, that the principle of law on which the
Chief Justice laid so much stress, has reference to
cases where the statement published is false. But
the communication which I made was proved to be
true I to the letter. And if I had stated, which I
again say I did not, either directly or by insinua-
tion, and I never intended so to state, that Mr. Ja-
comb was knowingly a principal or an accessary in
the matter, surely the sight of his own warrant, and
the knowledge of the fact that the bailiff was in the
house under that warrant with the corpse, was such
a sufficient and reasonable cause of belief that he
authorised the proceeding; yet the Judge, in the
face of these facts, decides that I am justly pun-
ished because I did not, in his Honour's opinion,
make sufficient inquiry into the facts. But was
I not equally entitled to assume that Mr. Ja-
comb, before issuing a distress warrant for the pal-
try sum of fifty shillings, would have made. every
inquiry into the circumstance of the poor man
who would suffer a distress to be levied on him,
for the non-payment of so small a sum ? Was I
not entitled to assume that he had made a demand
for rent, and that his agent in making that demand
had fully acquainted him with the miserable condi-
tion of the party on whom the demand was made ;
am I justly punished by the privation of my liberty
and a heavy pecuniary penalty for publishing a
statement of an act which the Chief Justice de-
scribed, and most truly, as calculated to excite
horror and indignation in the breast of every man
possessing the common feelings of humanity. And
is Mr. Jacomb to be exempt from the censure of
public opinion for having " without sufficient in-
quiry," issued his warrant for doing that which led to
the perpetration of an act meriting the designation
given to it by the Chief Justice ? In the article
charged as a libel in the second count of the infor-
mation, on which I am found guilty, which article
appeared in the very first paper after the statement
was published, there is the following passage :
" We have since heard that Mr. Jacomb was not
aware that there was death in the house before his
distress was entered; if this be true, Mr. Jacomb
is indebted to his bailiff Mr. James Wood 'for not
having returned and made him aware of the fact,
and sought his instructions." Yet lam convicted
of having published both articles for the purpose of
defaming Mr. Jacomb by making it appear that he
had acted harshly and cruelly. But it is not un-
worthy of notice that the bailiff remained a week
in possession, five days with the corpse in the house,
and that the bailiff was threatened with an action
to he brought against all concerned for making an
illegal distraint.
Mr. John Dobson in the witness box swore that
we were not worth one shilling. The Chief Jus-
tice's attention was directed to it by me, but his
Honour ruled that the witness had a right to make
such a statement, and in the face of that statement
solemnly sworn to by an attorney of the Court, the
Chief Justice sentenced me to pay a fine of srxtY
POUNDS, and, after suffering two months' imprison-
ment, to be further imprisoned until the said fine
was paid. Fellow-colonists, if the Chief Justice
did then believe Mr. John Dobson on his solemn
oath, then has his Honour deliberately, in the dis-
charge of that awful attribute of the Almighty,
justice tempered with mercy, sentenced me, the
father of six unprovided children, to imprisonment
FOR LIFE I! ! I leave it to you to reconcile the
sentence passed upon me by Sir John Pedder, with
the credibility of Mr. John Dobson's oath, and the
humane administration of justice. But looking at
my sentence in its mildest light, I ask you, did my
conduct merit it ? Did justice demand it ?
In my address to the Jury, I stated that it
would be a most deplorable state of affairs, should
the law or their administration be opposed to' the
sympathies and general opinions and feelings of
the community, for whose protection and whole-
some control they are supposed to be framed;
when a man, for actions which were approved by
his fellow-citizens, as tending to the moral good of
society, would be subjected to punishment as a
criminal, while the public sympathy and approval
were with him. I ask of you, if you consider
the sentence passed upon me calculated to increase
the reverence that ought to be felt for the law
and administration of justice, as " a terror to evil
doers, and a protection to them that do well ?"
By me personally, imprisonment is perhaps less
felt than by most men, while it does not affect my
bodily health. I can employ my mind in a prison
to more advantage than 1 could in a palace. I
chiefly feel it on account of the unprotected state of
my young family ; but supported by the conscious-
ness that I am not suffering as a wrong doer, I can
with confidence and resignation cast them on the
care of that Judge who cannot err—either in dis-
cerning facts, or in passing judgment. It is not
the Government that is now attempting to put
down the Press. It is the self-constituted auto-
cracy of usurers, that have now taken up the wea-
pon which the Government has thrown aside I
Permit me, Fellow Colonists, to recommend to
your compassion and benevolence, the poor infirm
old man, James Day, the double victim of death
and the bailiff—he is destitute and not able to work.
GILBERT ROBERTSON.
Hobart Town Gaol, June 10, 1839.

ANIMAL SPIRITS.—AnimaI spirits are conti-
nually
ete andaken jn m
fodrgwietnat._Hn
nd fancy ; and th© want of them
tfitt.
ferns ti