The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-03 00:00:00

Gifford waited upon Mr. Maule, the Solicitor for the Treasury,
and formally admitted the authorship of the libel; to which the
reply was, that Mr. Baldwin's disavowal was wanting? Did he
not know that Mr. Baldwin sent in his disavowal on the ',ld of
January, which was kept until the 27th of January, and then re-
turned to him without the slightest ceremony ? Did he not •
know, finally, that the notice of trial for this libel was only coun-
termanded on the very day before it might have been brought
before the Special Jury ? Where these facts or were they not ?
and with them before him was he (Mr. O'Connell) right in as-
serting that the Attorney-General meant, if possible, to crush
the Press ? He had talked of the power of the Press—the power
of publishing what any man pleased—but he had not done what
was absolutely necessary—he had not defined what was and win t
was not a libel. What was the difference between the law of
libel at present and the Star-chamber law of old, which was
handed down from one prerogative Judge to another, and reite—
rated by Attorney-General after Attorney-General, whether
Whig or Tory ?—; Hear, hear.)—A libel, as the law now stood,
after the recent prosecutions, was this :—Anything that tended
to throw reflections upon any man—that was a libel ; and if the
law continued as at present, instead of being free, the press was
in a state •f miserable servi.tide and s'avery • and nothing could
protect it from the heavy inflictions of the Attorney-General but
the shield of public opinion. He (Mr. O'('onnell) had felt it his
duty to express his strong dissatisfaction at the present state of
the law ; his only consolation was to see the Secretary for the
Home Department by the side of the Attorney-General, for to
the Right Hon. Gentleman he looked for the controul of the
I.aw Officer of the Crown, and the protection of the liberty of

the Press.—(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL denied that either what he
had done or said warranted the supposition that he wished to
become the dictator of the Press. On the trial, on the 24th
December, he had certainly said that the Duke of Wellington
would have prosecuted the author of the libel, if he had been
furnished with the means of doing so ; but those means were
withheld until he was obliged to prosecute the newspaper. He
did not intend to be drawn into a discussion of the facts con-
nected with the pen,''ll:.; prosecution of Mr. Baldwin ; but he
would just moption 'that notice of trial had been countermanded
ten days before the day on which the trial was to have come on.
Sir It. HERON contended that the Noble Duke had been ill

advised in instituting the prosecutions.
Mr. NORTH addressed himself to answer the remark founded
by the Hon. Member for Clare upon the dittbrence of date be-
tween the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill and the com-
mencement of the prosecutions ; he admitted that some
months had elapsed between the two events, but he contended
that attempts were most industriously made on both sides of the
water to keep up the excitement of the public mind, which it
was neceesery to check. It wa: the duty of Government to pro-
tect the great measure of Emancipation in the infancy of its

action.
'I he SOLICITOR-GENERA L contended, . that the best
friends of the Press were those who wished to curb its licentious-
ne 5, without infringing upon its liberty ; and he denied that the
Attorney. General had erected himself into its censor, or wished
to become its dictator. The I-lon. Member for Clare seemed to
forget that no party could be convicted upon an ex-offic:o infirr-
matim without the intervention of a Jury constituted upon the
most impartial system, and judges at once of the fact and of the
law. Instead of meriting reproach, he thought that Government
deserved great credit, for not instituting prosecutions for libels
published during the agitation which attended the passing of the
noman Catholic Relief Bill ; and it ought not to be forgotten,
that the libel on the Lord Chancellor was only one of a series of
attacks, the object of which was to bring the Members of the
Government into contempt. He put it to the House to say whe-
ther any one could credit that the libel charged as upon the
Lord Chancellor was really upon the Duke of Wellington. Yet
Mr. Alexander swore that it was, and set up for his defence
that he did nit mean or intend to attack the Lord Chancellor,
but some other member of his Majesty's Government. What
else could his Honourable and Learned Friend do than
meer that defence in the manner he had done ? It was al-
leged in extenuation of those libels, that they had no effect
upon the character of the Lord Chancellor, but he had the best
reason to know that it had effects upon Its character, most
injurious; and if he had allowed his character to remain
under such aspersions, he could not much longer hold his place
ether as a judge or as a member of his Majesty's Government.
It was most erreneous and most unjust to suppose that the Lord
Chancellor could be insensible to libels such as those questioning
the character of a man so high in office, and holding a situation
that, in an espec al degree, required spotless and perfect purity.
Could any Lord Chancellor discharge his functions if disap-
pointed suitors, leaving his Court, could go out with any colour
of imputation upon his integrity as a Judge ? Important, then,
as this character was to himself and the public, what could he
have clone but consent to the institution of that proceeding
which had brought upon his Hon. and Learned Friend the accu-
sation of the Member for Plympton ? At that time of night he
could not' enter into all the facts of the case; he could tell them,
however, that if was a seleotien of three out of three hundrs.d
libels, any one of which he believed might have been prosecuted.
He could not enter into all the grounds of that assertion so
often made, that his Honourable and Learned Friend could
not have done otherwise. If the conduct of every Attorney-
General, on occasions similar to that, were made the sub-
ject of discussson in that House, he should venture to say
that the license cif the public Press might be expected ma-
terially to increase ; for the legal advisers of the Crown
would gladly avoid the responsibility of instituting those pro-
secutiotut, if they cppld allege a well-grounded apprehension
that their conduct az poblie prosecutors was likely to undergo a
too rigid investigation in that House. If that House, after an
Attorney-General had honestly exercised his official privileges,
should bring him before them as his Hon. and Learned Friend
had that night been brought, they would naturally enough
gladly avail themselves of the pretext so afforded to avoid prose-
(alarms which ought really to be instituted. He regretted that
instead pf the speeds which which his Hon. and Learned Friend
the ...itemiser for Ptymptoo had that night made in that House,
he had net undertaken at the Bar the defence of Mr. Alexander.
But ho must ISO, 11011.iever,
speech.—(dicer, shrink from the responsibility of that
hear! from sir C, Wetherell).—}le assured NO
Hon. and Learned Friend that he meant him do personal offence
—nothing could be further from his mind.—(liear).—But the
mover had trot only brought the Attorney-General before
the House, but he arraigned before them the conduct of
the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and the verdict
of the dlffs.tent and successive Juries by whom the cases
were trim. lip pi.tt all foncerned upon their trial, and re-
tried the cases therrUiyeti. Ile Irsbolired, or at least the
effect of his speech was to bring into contempt the direction
of the Judeand the verdicts of the Juries.—(Hear),lt might be
supposed dirt its pronouncing an opinion upon a question of that
cert., he had something of a personal interest ; but he could
assure the ;louse he had none, for the responsibility did not rest
with Into, anti the-fefisFe he might, without imputation be al-
lowed to say that never were pfwoutums carried on with a
kinder feeling—never With a greater desire tp avoid msneecssary
putusio4.3;:t. To these few phseryations he should en/dole him-
telt; fRr at tfiat late hour he did not desire longer to getain tic:
House.
Mr. SADLEI could not avoid making R. few obsetva-
•
tions upon an occasion like the preaent, were he npt de-
terred by the lateness of the hour. In the discharge of
his duty, however, he felt bound to say dist the question,
tliongh well argued as a legal question, had not yet been
put upon ihnze gropnds of constitutional right, policy,
and expediency, upon whiel; he de+iled to see it placed.
Influenced by a consideration of that -644117, bp haulfu .re-
solved, as speedily as circumstances would admit, to bring
the matter again before the House in a distinct and sub-
stam;ye form ; what its shape should hereafter be, he in-
tended to tape r.,;? opportunity of giving due notice. In'
the subjects of his inteAded r r-,o4ions would be included the
r, ~,,,
time chosen for the prosecution In qme4l9Pi tb;... nature
....
of the proceedings, and the spirit in which it was con.

Atreted?
34, MINA after making due askrzwledgmeuts to the
Hon. and Leaned ferreber for Plympton, for the manner
in which he had brought for,;/.4 ;.Ie present motion,
and for the service which his motion was calculr,t;;ll
tq
e!fect, and the incalculable benefit which it would confer
trpoii tp, canse of liberty, said that he had read his Ma-
jesty hi,torpg-peueral a lesson which he hoped that
public officer wow d KeTeprher. He next proeeeded to
pronounce a warm eulogium po;i. the Fonduct of the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (the Se‘retary fn i: pie
Home Department) for the noble indifference which at all
times 14,F manifested with respect to the various libels
uttered azaiinst hirfi, He (Mr. II.) ceuld not exPress in
ter me ,t;io s,trong Iyhich that indifference
had excited hi the kreas4 ,cf 21; Wok;ip-o- ?pen, The
pleasure which the contemplatioo Of 11)4 ev.eino Fas
calculated to excite, was materially 4hoinished by the regret
which be could not help feeling at the speech of the
4aropet the Member for Westminster. The whole
of that neyli wa.s a defence of the Attorney-General,
and web- thitt was a `which they little expected
to coiiiit fTPIP that rarter; arn,l it -,vaa.re,i.-..!4able enough
that the defence ;WNW bOre tistamed ,ttya ryl:t4erce
to the worst and most odious pilot's of our hisiory;
argument which would call upon that Ille;se tO !aagq.pb
the prosecutions of the present Attorney-General, merely
beeayso they were not so bad as some of the prosecu-
tioha u ,h,i;o predecessors, was anything but the reasons
of one who Nraz a ,fr;e.::;c.: to the Liberty of the Press—was
anything but reasoning v./V:4? ;^.he rouse of Commons
ought to sanction at this time of day.' '}dot bpi" did t':e
Hon. Bart. fail to treat the Member for Plympton with the
respect which was his due, but he carefully abstained
thiottib..,vitt his entire speech from saying any thing which
could be otherwia4.l.?, a defence of the Attorney-General.
However, that speech cirrie,i x.4.tL it its own antidote, for
few who heard it could see ill it, staieimtoti; art() fer!.simings
any thing which could excite a desire to be satawnstith
the poent practice and system, merely because it was not
so bad its ,c, .;11 that had gone before. The Attorney-Gen.
had told tbei4 dresired to see and preserve a well-
regulated Press ; but in; 4344.4 pif well-regulated Press
a Press regulated by himself; 11421 is" &ilia,. 112 would
call a'we::-regulatel Press. lie bad heard many deli:rco
in that liodie any elsewhere, but so lame a defence &a that
made by the Iron. st;ci !learned Attorney-General he had
never before heard. That defe,upg would speedily
abroad by means of the public Press; ‘4-4,4 whep the Hon.
and Learned Uent. cane to read it in the morn;ni,
hoped that a clear perception of its impel fectious would
lead him to see th,e folly ,of *l4ch lie had been guilty, and
would put a stop to his proeeedings oi s.rnilar kind in
future. He (AL,, H,) was far 'from attewpting t far, that
the publication against the T.ord Chancellor was defenstltle ;
Ice had heard no one;in that house note apt to defeuffit. But
he would inquire why the Lord Chanceih.:bad wit defended
his cbaraeter by an appeal to a Jury of his country 4; the
usual way ? lla would not say that the reluctance
to do so, proceeded from auy weakness of his cause ; but
he had not thought proper to do ay, par bad any one ex-
plained why he avoided that course. remark-
able that throughout tie whole of those proceetkings, and
during the discussions in that House, the affair of the Lord
Chancellor was put in the front of the battle, and the
House and the country could now judge what had been
made of it. Ile woi.ild put it to the House whether the
Attorney-General had not ttor:.; wore to bring his Majesty's
Government into contempt and diseep;,..te with the best
part, of society, in his prosecution of Mr. Alexander, than
that indieide sl had ever done by his publication of the pa-
ragraphs
question-,(llear.)—Nothing could give him
greater sasisfaction than to heq from the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department that
those prosecutions 1,4 d been instituted without has L:iow..
ledge--Oat he ];pew nothini of them till he saw the men.