The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-27 00:00:00

the purpose of fortifyisg a system wherewith his name is
unfortunately associated, he takes occasion, while virtually
and most unjustly insinuating that his clergy do not instruet •
their flocks in the evidence of revealed reli.`eton, to lay down
such injunctions as may seeni,,
r to exculpate his own indiffo-
ence upon that
rent in regard to the national schools, This
is very no doubt. And then *ith reference to the deli-
cate matter of party spirit, which forms the second topic of
discourse) the Ijoctor's opinions arc, as usmil, tolerably
sound and satisfactory, though net uniformly so. For
example, when he gives us to understand (pages 31
..2
and 34) that a Clergyman may blamelessly C^':'.. Mue a
mtnther of a Church without apProu.lllg entirely of its doc-
trines, which he is sWw.; tolielieVe and tiphoidti the Nrch-
bishop, we h':.iribly venture to think, pr'etinulgates a very
novel and a very hilmoraf tentiMent, But still the gene-
ral strain of this pari:ltin of the " charge" is Unexception-
able, When viewed, however, in miation to :ts obvious
purpose, as meant to show that he, as an orthodox Bishop
( ?), may lawfully continue on the National Education
Boards identified as well with Papists as with Socinians in
a scheme wherein sound religion is compromised, it is an
egregious failure. On th's point we cannot do better than
treat him to his own words

" By belonging to the party, he becomes responsible for all
their acts—for all the actt indeed (in matters pertaining to re-
ligion) of any tf the members of that religious party—when
he does not distinctly and publicly protest against those acts.
For It is plain that the very same kind of support and coun-
tenance which he is deriving from them, in accomplishing
what he regards as good objects, they, in turn, derive from him,
in theirs."—( Page 32. )
After this, can we do otherwise than say to Dr. Whately,
" Physician, heal thyself !"—Thies.

Amon.- the notices of motions which now stand on the
order-book of the House of Commons for early discussion
next session, is one by Mr. O'Connell, which is of deep
interest to the public, and of urgent importance to the class
to which we appertain. It is for a Bill to correct the pre-
sent Libel-law, more especially with a view " the better to
secure the liberty of the Press." The English law of libel,
as it stands at present, is disgraceful to a civilized country.
Truth is a libel--and a true report, exposing the examina-
tion of a most notorious thief or swindler, at any of the
police-offices—an exposure than which there is nothing
snore useful to the commercial classes and to the well-being
of society at large—might subject the reporter or pub-
lisher of that true statement to an action for libel by the
said notorious thief or swindler, providing he could induce
any pettifogging lawyer to bring an action. We do not
hesitate to say, that if the above exposition of the law of
libel be correct, actions for libel might be brot,ght every
day in the week by the whole fraternity of the swell
mob against ourselves and our Contemporaries of the
Press, It may be said, indeed, that in such cases
Juries would protect their own social and individual
stake in the commercial well-being of the community by an
adequate verdict. But, unfortunately, Juries do not take
this patriotic view of the benefit of the community, nor of
their own, as involved it. Instances have occurred in which
they have given damages to men inculpated—not by an ex-
parte police report, which, we hesitate not to say, would
enable a regular thief, any day to bring his action—but in
cases where the Police Magistrate (invested with full power
to that effect) has pronounced a summary and ultimate
judgment on a culprit—converted into a prosecutor by the
barbarous anomaly of the law. It is true that in such
cases small damages have been given, perhaps a farthing ;
but, although the damages be small, the costs they carry
with them are great, and a malignant knave may easily gra-
tify his malice against a public-spirited detector of his mis-
conduct by bringing his action for libel, for the mere purpose
of saddling him with costs. This abuse in the matter of costs
requires an immediate reform, and that urgent requisition of
reform the Bill of Mr. O'Connell appositely meets. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposes, that when the da-
mages do not exceed 40 shillings," the defendant is to be en-
titled to costs, as if a verdict were in his favour." The
absurdity of the present law of libel is not greater than the
extent of individual and social wrong which it inflicts. It
is bottomed in falsehood. Our law denounces " truth as a
libel." Not satisfied with this startling proposition, some
of our judicial functionaries have gone farther, and asserted
" that the greater the truth, the greater the libel." . All the
evil consequences flowing from the present law of libel may
be traced to this polluted source—the falsification of truth.
What legislation must that be which proclaims its vital
essence to be falsehood ? What beneficial system of na-
tional education, which implies the instruction of truth—
such as that proposed by Lord Brougham and Mr. Wyse,
M.P.—could be coupled with the authoritative inculcation
of such an axiom ? What respect for the tuition of useful
truths, or for their tutors, could be maintained in the face of
this legal abomination ? We are pleased to perceive that
by " clause six" of Mr. O'Connell's printed Bill, defen-
dants in actions of libel are to be allowed to prove the
truth of their allegations. This will be a great point
gained. We will conclude with an especial example of too
common occurrence, in which the absurd anomaly of the
present law of libel is not more conspicuous than its disas-
trous effects upon society and upon individuals. Every
one must recollect the case of Probert, Huts', .and
Thurtell threatening the Press with actions, lisr libel, for
publishing police examinations, after_ I.lle commission of
their appalling crime. lf we in `ibis Journal under the
present law of libel were 'hits day to say of a notorious
robber that he Yva,—'l;roVed to be so at a police-office—con-
fining ours'l:;res to the unembellished truth—if by so doing,
we '.are, by publicity, to prevent burglary, robbery, or
;murder—there can be no question that we should be liable
to an action for uttering a useful truth. It is true, that a
Jury might not give either to the plaintiff or to the lawyer
(who might be prompted to farm his case by managing it)
more than a farthing damages. They might, however, give
forty shillings. In one instance we can state that they did
give forty shillings to a subsequently convicted burglar.
But whether a farthing or forty shillings, the result would
be the same. We should have to pay costs for doing a
common duty of honest citizens in frustrating crime, and in
warning or protecting society. We might save others ;
ourselves we could not save. We should probably have to
pay 1501. costs for being declared innocent. Did Voltaire
or Rabelais ever imagine anything more stupidly and s il-
lainously absurd ? So much for the present libel law !
Morning Advertiser.
The case at Marlborough-street Police-office, which
we reported on Saturday, must raise in the minds of many
persons considerable doubt as to the reasonableness of the
law concerning the custody of persons alleged to be insane.
It would appear from what was stated by the very intelli-
gent Magistrate who presided on the occasion, that what-
ever may appear to him to be the justice of the case, he
has no jurisdiction once a certificate of a medical practi-
tioner is produced attesting the insanity of the person who
applies for Magisterial protection. In the case as re-
ported, to which we now allude, the individual applying for
protection does not appear to have exhibited insanity, but
quite the contrary ; yet to his repeated remonstrances
against being left without protection, while persons were
waiting outside the door to put handcuffs on him, and
drag him away against his will to a place of confinement,
the only answer of the Magistrate was, that having been
pronounced insane by the doctors the case was out of
Magisterial jurisdiction. And the end of the matter was,
that though the madhouse people did not ven-
ture into the office, yet when the gentleman alleged
to be mad attempted to escape by a back way he
was " punced upon," and carried off. We do not mean
to offer any opinion upon the insanity of the applicant to
the Magistrate in this case. Probably he was insane, not-
withstanding all the appearances and the evidence of his
landlady to the contrary ; but the serious matter in ques-
tion is the monstrous power which any two doctors and a
madhouse keeper appear to have over the liberty of any in-
dividual. From what fell from the Magistrate the public
cannot but conclude that though he were as well convinced
of the sanity of a person appl3ing to him as he could be of
any other fact within the scope of moral consiction, yet if
the madhouse people came, provided with handcuffs and a
doctor's certificate, he could not hinder them from carrying
off the applicant as their prisoner. It is true that the
Habeas Corpus Act remains, and we suppose a Judge's or-
der in such a case is potent enough to of errule even a doz-
tor's certificate ; but once a man is shut up in a madhouse
it may not be so easy for him to sue out a writ ; and, more-
over, if a temporary imprisonment were a great object, that
might be accomplished before it would be possible to bring
the adjustment of the case under a writ of Habeas Corpus
to a final issue.—Morning Post.
Our readers are aware that " The Imprisonment for
Debt Bill," having received the Royal assent, has become
law. It is also well known that a very unjust clause
was by some underhand means, for every one disavows
the fraud, introduced into the Bill after it had passed the
House of Lords. This clause, so unworthy of an honest
or enlightened people, is intended to compel the proprie-
tors of Newspapers to insert the schedules or notices of
the insolvents who may be entitled to take the benefit of
the said Bill. The moment this pettifogger's clause was
discovered, by the return of the
.Bill to the House of
Lords, their Lordships, with that quick sense of justice
which has placed the moral character of the hereditary
Peerage so immeasurably above that of our sbopocratic
House of Commons—their Lordships at once declared it
to be " a gross invasion of the right of private property,"
which ought to be expunged from the Bill ; the Ministerial
organ made a feeble attempt to retain the clause, but even-
tually Lord Brougham drew up the following Bill to ob-
viate the evil :

A BILL, INTITULED, "AN ACT TOUCHING THE INSERTION OF
SCHEDULES OF DEBTORS IN NEWSPAPERS."

,6 Where s it is expedient to provide that no proprietor,
editor, or printer of any newspaper shall be obliged to insert
any schedule of any insolvent for the sum of three shillings, or
any other sum other than may be agreed on between the par-
ties ; be it enacted, by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by
and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and