The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-09 00:00:00

."Tis true, 'tis pity, pity 'tis'tis true."

• . .
To have the deliberate and inveterate animosity of the press—
to be subject to its daily attacks was dreadful—but to be re-
fused permission to contradict them, even although paid for,
was an instance of profligdte persecution for which, if he did
not substantiate it, he could scarce ask credence. He would
prove, beyond a doubt, the guilt of the defendants, and it
would be for them to show that they had a shadow of ground
for such a statement. The case out of which the libel arose,
was that of the King at the prosecution of the Earl and Coun-
tess Cornwallis against Richard Montprivet and the present
plaintiff, for a conspiracy to extort money. The defendants in
that case were tried and convicted on the 9th February, 1834.
He was alive to the circumstance, that having been convicted
of a conspiracy was no light offence, but he hoped to remove
that prejudice. The plaintiff was about to state the circum-
stances which occasioned the prosecution but was inter-
rupted by
Lord DENMAN—Who told him that he must confine him-
self to the publication of which he then complained.
Mr. Stockdale—The paragraph of which he complained
was contained in what purported to be a report of what took
place when the defendants were brought up for judgment. It
stated that Sir James Scarlett (now Lord Abinger) in point-
ing the attention of the Court to a certain letter, ascribed it
to Stockdale instead of Montprivet. (The plaintiff here read
the passage.) He had on that occasion been hurried into a
prison, and had lain there for twelve months. That letter con-
tained a demand for money to prevent the publication of me-
moirs relative to Lady Cornwallis ; it was signed by the de.
fendant Montprivet; the name was openly read in Court, and
yet the brand of that offence was fixed upon the forehead of
the plaintiff Stockdale. The brother-in-law of Lady Corn-
wallis had sworn to the truth of the statement given to Stock-
dale, before the Lord Mayor, and had admitted by himself
and his Counsel, that he had- sworn falsely ; yet the whole
weight of that perjury was thrown updn the present plaintiff.
The plaintiff had written not less than., four letters-to the de-
fendants, requesting them to contradict what-at first he be-
lieved to be a mistake ' - but all these remonstrances were dis-
regarded. He (Mr. Stockdale) had- been previous to these
proceedings in the receipt of 501. and 1001. a day as a pub-
lisher, and sometimes, on more than one occasion, his receipts
has been 1,0001. a-day ; and from that state of affluence his
family had been reduced to want bread. Ho would now call
witnesses to prove the publication, and would leave the case in
the hands of the Jury.
Lord ABINGER examined the plaintiff at some length. He
could not at the present time speak with certainty as to the
particulars of what had occurred at the time the defendants

were brought up for judgment. But generally he could recol-
lect that it was the object of Counsel for the prosecution to
connect the two defendants, Stockdale and Montprivet, and he
(as one of the Counsel) of course did so. The mistake of
supposing a letter, written by one, to have been written by the
other defendant, might have thus occurred.
Two sons and two daughters of the plaintiff were examined
as to proofs of publication and proprietorship, and also as to
the letters written by plaintiff, requiring the defendants to
correct the mis-statement in the report.
Lord Cornwallis—examined by the plaintiff. He recollected
receiving one letter from the plaintiff, Stockdale. He had re-
ceived a great number, some anonymous, and members of his
and Lady Cornwallis's family had also received letters relative to
a publication that was threatened. He had handed them all over
to his solicitor. He had never paid any money to the plaintiff.
He is not a member of the Conservative Club.—( Laughter. )
Sir W. FOLLETT addressed the Jury for the defendants. He
believed a more extraordinary action had never been brought
into a Court of Justice for the consideration of a Jury. From
what they had that day seen of Mr. Stockdale, the exhibition he
had made of the various members of the family, they must sup-
pose that there was some perversion of intellect rather than any
rational proceeding on the plaintiff's part. In his address, Mr.
Stockdale had stated a great deal about his sufferings and im-
prisonment for twelve months, and that his family and himself
were suffering from the general and universal attacks made upon
them by the public press. If these attacks had been uni-
versal, he ( Sir W. Follett) rejoiced at it for the sake of
the character of the press. Mr. Stockdale had made a
traffic of publishing libellous matter, and according to his
own statement had received fifty, one hundred, nay
1,0001. a day for sending forth tho foulest and grossest libels,
and thereby extracting money from the public. Such was the
person who came before them that day, and brought an action,
and asked for damages for what he called a libel. If he had
been imprisoned twelve months, if he had suffered, and if his
family had suffered, could it be said that it was in conse-
quence of any attack made upon him by the defendants ?
Certainly not. But had he not been imprisoned because Lord
Cornwallis had resisted the attempt made by him to extort
money—because Lord Cornwallis had defied him—because he
had relied upon his own character and that of Lady Corn-
wallis, and had declared that he would not condescend to buy
his peace by paying money to the plaintiff. Lord Cornwallis
had, by his manly conduct, obtained the approbation of the
public in resisting so infamous an attempt, which many had
not the courage to do. Look at the position of the plaintiff.
He came there to tell them that he had been twelve months
in prison, but what was it for ? Because a Jury of his country
had found him guilty of conspiring with another to extort
money by threatening to publish libels. If he had so suffered,
who was to blame ? Had he not made a traffic of the
trade of libelling? Had he not made 501., 100/. and 1,0001.
a day by it, although he was not able to do so now ? and he
(Sir W. Follett) rejoiced that the trade was not so good.
What had been the cource of the plaintiff's proceeding with
respect to Lord and Lady Cornwallis. (The Learned Coun-
sel here entered into some details connected with that case,
which have been already before the public.) Was not the
plaintiff still employed, in the same practices. Had not his
son admitted that his father published the works of which he
had put a printed list into his hand ; the very names of which
were a disgrace to the press of that country. What would
the Jury think of a man who, with a grown up family of sons
and daughters, made a trade of such works ? And_ yet that
libeller now came before them to ask for damages for
injury. sustained by his character. He had charged the
Monang Herald with doing him a mischief. He who
had slandered some of the best and most illustrious in
the kingdom, and who, if he had never done more than assail
the fair fame of the virtuous and dignified lady whose name
had been alluded to, should be considered as disgraced for
ever. What did he ask for? Thousands, to set him up again
in his vile trade. Was the publication a libel ? The Jury
would be the best judges of that ; but he was satisfied they
would never consider it such on the evidence that had been
laid before them. If gratuitous attacks were made upon pri.
vete characters in a newspaper, then the proprietors should be
required to substantiate their charges; but when, as in the
present case, they merely gave the proceedings in the Law
Courts, which it was so important that all should be ac-
quainted with, without comment or note by the editor,
then the publication stood In a very different light.
The present article was of the latter class, and he was satisfied
the Jury would believe it to be a fair, impartial, apd FOrroct re-
port of what actually getaliffP4 at /he time. ( The Learned
ConnSel hero read the passage, and conitnented on it as he
went along.) He would not waste their time with further ob-
servation—the whole proceeding was of too contemptible a
eiti4r4f,•ter fir intelligent menl such he saw hefr.Tp tq
awe further iritkireatiOn Ulm% and Ile left it o theirverdict, to pronounce the article as n 9 Ebel; bait q
partial report of the proceedings as they had taken place in
that Court.

fiord PFNm4N summed up at some length antipg/wluded
kly 'observing, that thp case spoke loudly and plainly for itself.
g they thought the plaintiff entitled te 4 verdict at ell! he

should not direct gentlemen like them as to what amount of
damages they should give. He would leave the question en-
tirely in their hands.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendants.