The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, lA)NDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 15:,46.

cialists—will not lessen the amount of pr:vate wrong
which individuals may be exposed to, from the 'esta-
blishment of Railways. We must adopt them—let
us then adopt them while they are capable of enriching
our country by trebling the demand for its manufac-
tures, and profitably employing its surplus labour.

Tl►c Paris Papers of Monday arc only relieved from
insufferable dulness, by the reports of the trial of

FIESCIII and his accomplices. Ft EscHf s part is
nearly terminated ; what now remains is the convic-
tion of his accomplices, who deny all participation in
his v►llany. The correspondent of a Morning Con-
temporary describes FIESCIII as " sailor-like in his
appearance," and that he treats his judges and supe-

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

DRYDEN V. LEE AND ANOTHER.—LIREL.
Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. Henderson) stated
the case. It was an action brought by Mr. William Dryden,
a gentleman who, for twenty years, had carried on business as
an attorney, in the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, and upon
whose character, until the time when this publication ap-
Feared, not the slightest imputation rested. Ills character
had been perfectly unimpeached and unimpeachable, until the
publication now complained of appeared in a newspaper,
called the Hull Rockingham, or Yorkshire and Lincolnshire
Gazette. In the course of last year an election for Members
of Parliament for the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull took
place, and the plaintiff exercised his franchise as a voter in fa-
vour of the unsuccessful candidate, Mr. Mildmay. The elec •
tion having run very close, the majority in favour of Colonel
Thompson being only four or five, it was not unnatural that
the parties beaten should be anxious to scrutinize the votes
given on the other side ; and accordingly a petition was pre-
sented to Parliament, praying for an inquiry into the validity
of that election. Soon after the presentation of that petition,
the libel complained of was published, and it professed to give
a list of the friends of Mr. Mildmay ; upon which list it was
pretended that something ulterior would be founded, and it
imputed to the plaintiff that he was guilty of receiving bribes,
and of distributing bribes to others. He need hardly ask
them if that were -a
libel or not ? If it were base to ac-
cept a bribe for his vote—that was imputed to Mr. Dry-
den ; if it were base to bribe another to give his vote,
and thus induce him to sell his franchise, then undoubtedly
that baseness was imputed to Mr. Dryden. Moreover, the
charge would subject the plaintiff to a prosecution, and could
not be considered in any other light than as a libel. For the
purpose of putting down their adversaries by numerous in-
stances of delinquency, and of bringing the whole party into
disrepute, Colonel Thompson's friends published a list of ob-
jections to not less than 900 votes. There were 38 classes of
objections. and numbers were prefixed to the names of the
persons charged, referring to the objections brought against
them. The list was headed " The Scrutiny-list of Votes
objected to, with the objections to be made on behalf of
Thomas P. Thompson." It then published the list, among
which were " Dryden William, Bowl-alley-Lane, 24." On
referring to No. 24, it appeared that he was charged with being
employed as attorney, agent, poll-clerk, runner, or in any
other capacity, and with having received money, and given it
to procure votes. The plaintiff feeling that his character was
aggrieved by that publication, in order to vindicate it and chal-
lenge the party to prove these allegations in a court of law, had
brought the present action against the proprietor and publisher.
He was influenced by no vindictive feeling—he was merely
anxious to stand well with his neighbours, and the world ; be-
cause whatever political differences might exist between the
plaintiff and his fellow-townsmen, he was anxious that his pri-
vate and professional character should be vindicated. Mr.
Dryden had no wish to make the present action a source of
profit to himself, or to put money into his pocket—all he
asked was that the defendant should state publicly that
he was satisfied the charge made against Mr. Dryden was
groundless, and that he was sorry for having made it. If that
be done Mr. Dryden would be content with nominal damages.
[A pause.] After the lapse of six full months, and after hav-
ing been challenged to bring forward their proofs (if they had
any)—after having deliberately admitted, on the record, by
their plea of not guilty, that the charge was false, the printer
and publisher, and for aught he (Mr. Cresswell) knew, some
employer behind, persisted now in withholding that very mo-
derate satisfaction for the injury that had been inflicted upon
him, which he publicly asked to-day. What motive could there
be for such conduct? If there was any truth in the charge,
why not manfully come forward and substantiate it. If false,
why had not the defendant the decent modesty to express re-
gret for having been betrayed into that publication. Did the
defendant mean, through his Counsel, to say that it was no
libel to impute to a man that he received and gave bribes?
There might be persons mean enough, who think themselves
nothing the worse after such conduct, but Mr. Dryden was
not such. He felt himself degraded by such a charge in the
eyes of his fellow townsmen, and called upon the Jury to mark
their sense of it by proper damages. Could it be said that be-
cause there was a petition to Parliament against the sitting
Member, that would justify such a publication. If such a
charge had been actually proved against the plaintiff, it might
be some justification ; but there was merely a miserable pretence
that such a charge was about to be made, and the publication of
it, as the law stood, was undoubtedly illegal. If the charge was
a bons fide one, why had it not been put in as ajustification upon
the record. If any one of the Jury saw in a newspaper a
statement that it was intended to prefer a Bill of Indictment
against him at the Old Bailey, would he not consider it a
libel, and such was the position in which the plaintiff was
placed. It might be urged in palliation that the plaintiff
had not ventured to bring his action in Yorkshire, where he
was known, but had taken it up to London. The fact, how-
ever, was, that the plaintiff was anxious to have it tried as
early as possible, but the new Municipal Bill intervened, and
prevented his being able to bring it on last term, as he had
intended. The fact also was that Mr. Dryden, living at
Hull, was as little known to the Jury likely to try the case in
the West Riding of Yorkshire as he was in London. Mr.
Dryden asked for nothing but a full vindication of his cha-
racter, and as the defendant would not give it, he asked it at
the hands of the Jury. The libel was the snore malignant,
because, having published it 7 months ago, and not being able
to substantiate it, the defendant now stood there to defend
and repeat it, and on these grounds he was confident the
thrzn.iii4tier,:;‘,.. .lie}, a,....siees as would fully vindicate
Archibald Keightly, plaintiff's agent, believed the publica-
tion referred to the plaintiff. There is another action next
on the list, " Jennings v. Lee," in which Mr. Dryden is also
the attorney. Mr. -Dryden was an active agent at the Hull
election on the Blue or Conservative side.
The publication complained of was then put in and read.
Mr. M. D. HILL (with whom was Mr. WrotermaN), ad-
dressed the Jury fur the defendant. He gave his Learned
Friend great credit for the dramatic interest which he had
given to his speech, by turning round and pausing for a re-
ply. He had almost " sawed the air," after the manner
described by the great hero of history and the drama. That
had been all previously arranged ; but he ( Mr. Hill) had sat
quiet, knowing that his turn would come. He should shortly
explain to the Jury why his Learned Friend had spoken, and
why lie (Mr. Hill) had been silent, but before doing so, he
would call their attention to what had been termed a libel, and
what the plaintiff, with twenty years' standing in the county of
York, had thought fit to bring for trial to London. An elec-
tion had taken place at Hull in June last, and notwithstand-
ing the merits of Mr. Mildmay, and the exertions of Mr.
Dryden on his behalf, he was rejected. That was the real
ground of offence, and might, perhaps, enlighten them as
to the nature of the publication complained of, for not
content with beating Mr. Mildmay, Colonel Thompson's
friends attempted utterly to crush their opponents by publish-
ing a list of 659 voters (just as many as there were members of
the House of Commons) who would be objected to. It was
not a question between Mr. Dryden and the defendant as to
character, but it was a question of if we have not victory, may
we not have revenge. Mr. Mildmay was beaten at Hull ; a
thing not easily borne, and requiring some philosophy, as lie
( Mr. Hill) knew by experience.—( A laugh.) It must be
clear to the Jury before this, that the whole was an election
squabble ; and it must be also evident, that the imputation
upon the plaintiff's character was altogether imaginary. If
there had been any real attack upon the plaintiff, should he
not have gone among his neighbours at York, where he was
well known ; and if he was really anxious to have the imagi-
nary staia wiped off as speedily as possible, why suffer seven
of eight months to elapse ? why permit the registry of voters
under the Municipal Bill, or any other business to interfere
with the vindication of his character ? His Learned friend
had dwelt very emphatically upon the circumstance that no
apology was made ; but the very next paper after the publica-
tion complained of, the proprietor of the paper published an
article disclaiming any wish to impute anything prejudicial to
the plaintiff's character ; and that, if the plaintiff merely
wished for the vindication of his character, should have
been amply sufficient for him. The Learned Coun-
sel here read the article complained of, commenting on
it as he went along. The whole was merely a list prepared to
resist the petition of the other party, and gave a statement of
the objections intended to be made to the friends of Mr. Mild-
may. Actions like the present merely protected the press in
its licentiousness. They were all aware that there were news-
papers which trafficked upon the character of their neighbours
and fellow citizens, and why, it might be asked, were not such
papers borne down by the weight of actions and prosecutions ?
Because so many actions of a description like the present were
brought that it was a greater libel upon a man to- say that lie
was a plaintiff in an action for libel than to publish the most
disreputable matter of him. Actions for libel had been brought
into disrepute because it was not the most honourable part of
mankind who now came into Court. Could it be supposed
that each of the 658 persons in that list could bring their ac-
tions against Mr. Lee, because objections to be urged before a
Committee of the House of Commons had been affixed to their
names ? Why had not Mr. Dryden, as any other respectable
attorney would have done in similar circumstances, employed
another attorney to conduct his case ? He had on that point
laid himself open to a much graver charge than that in the
newspaper, because it might naturally be inferred that he had
brought the action not to vindicate his character, but
to put the costs into his own pocket. In an ac-
tion like the present the Jury should recollect that
one farthing damages would carry the whole of the
costs, and therefore Mr. Dryden had subjected himself
to an imputation which he could not shake off, that it was for
costs he came there, and not for character. He would almost
characterize the present proceeding as an impudent pretence,
for what his Learned Friend had asked for had been done long
since. An apology had been made, and the Jury should re-
collect that the Hull newspaper had actually saved Mr. Dryden
his long journey of 170 miles to London by publishing an
apology for having inserted the article. The Learned Coun-
sel here read the article, apologizing for the publication of the
list. The article appeared on the 18th July, and the expla-
nation on the 25th. He should now leave the case in their
hands, trusting that they would be satisfied that no imputation
whatever rested upon the character of the plaintiff; and that
his client was entitled to their verdict,
Thomas Dyson, clerk to the Committees of the House of
Commons, proved that the list published in the defendant's
newspaper was flied in his Ofilco.
C4EBWPM, objected to its being received.
Objection overruled,
The list was then read. It was the original, from which
the list published in the defendant's newspaper had been
copied.
The paper of the 25th July, containing the apology, was
then put in and read.
Mr. CRESWELL having replied at some length,
Lord DENM4I4 summed up, and the Jury retired, but had
not returned a verdict when we went to lareSS.