The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-30 00:00:00

manner direct the attention of the general commu-
nity. That consideration was, briefly, the notorious
fact that the opinion of lawyers is divided as to the
validity or invalidity of the charter of* Hudson's Bay
Company. And yet it is-To this-Company, whose
power over its old dominions reposes upon such a very
dubious foundation, that the Government, at the insti-
gation of the Colonial Secretary, has shuffled away an
immense and fruitful island like-that of Vancouver t
It is to this company that Quadra has been handed
over in the middle of the nineteenth century, although
upwards_ of 150 years ago, namely, by an Act
of Parliament, the 2d of William and Mary, it was
declared that the duration of that charter should be
no more than septennial. Upon this point, and in
regard to the contradictory opinions expressed by Sir
SAmuEL ROMILLT and Mr. BELL on the one side,
and by Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT and Mr. Sergeant
SPANIIIE on the other, Lord BROUGHAM remarked
last night very emphatically, that " with respect to
the opinions of all lawyers, whether of Chancery, or
the Queen's Bench, or the Common Pleas, including
his Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord
CAMPBELL), if they said the charter was legal, he
would not care a rush for their opinion, because
he found, by the Act of Parliament, that
that opinion could not be right." Know-
ing thus much, it must assuredly strike the
most unreflecting mind, and those least prejudiced
either for or against the transaction, that out of all
the great commercial associations in the world,
scarcely one could have been selected whose acquisi-
tion of Vancouver's Island must have appeared in a
light so peculiarly rash and perilous. Beyond the
circumstances of this heavy doubt being entertained
as to the validity of the charter of the Company of
Fur-Traders—a company originally constituted in
the reign of King CHARLES the SEcoND—it cannot be
forgotten by those who have studied the annals of the
development of our colonies, that that company,
from the very nature of its trade, is inimical to
the cause of colonization. Upon this subject, Lord
MONTELGLE expressed himself in the most explicit
and unequivocal language. " Here," he exclaimed,
in a tone eflindignant amazenln t, '" here is E grant
of a whole island to a trading company, whose pur-
suits of the fur trade incapacitate' them for the ad-
ministration of the new function's which devolve
on them as colonizers !" Further on the Noble Lord
protested against the transference on the score that
" it is notorious that under the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany there is no fair administration of justice."
Referring to the inconsistency of the Colonial Secre-
tary throughout the transaction, LordMoNTEAGLE re-
minded the House that when Prince Edward's Island was
granted, not to one company, but to five or six indi-
viduals, no one had commented more severely on that
grant than the very nobleman who was now instru-
mental in consigning to the power and jurisdiction of
the fur-traders a large island which was invaluable,
if only as a coaling station. Notwithstanding all
these home truths, the Colonial Secretary so far
brazened the matter out as to secure the second
reading of the measure. Great, however, as is our
estimation of the force of effrontery, we cannot
but think that the proceeding is altogether too
gross an act of jobbery to be sanctioned by
the indirect approval of either of the Houses
of Parliament. The !grant has been so very
evidently contrived for the promotion of private,
nay, more, of family interests—with the sacrifice of
the interests of the Empire and of the cause of co-
lonisation—that we are still sanguine of observing a
protest made against it in Parliament, so indignant
direct, and emphatic, as to prevent the completion of
the intentions of the Government.

The case of the Duke of BRUNSWICK v. iliamEa,
to which we have already directed the public atten-
tion, is worthy of more than a mere passing al-
lusion. It should be maturely and seriously con-
sidered in its various aspects as affording, perhaps,
the strongest illustration of the grave responsibi-
lities to which a public journalist is exposed
under the existing law. These responsibilities had
ever been regarded as sufficiently onerous. No un-
due leniency was exhibited towards those who under-
took the important duty of enlightening the public
mind, and of recording a faithful chronicle of
passing events. Every person in any degree
%Inv rechim....tlx..l arrc-rrrptercr
might be severely punished, not only in purse, but in

person, for any abuse of the powers belonging to the
" fourth estate." The proprietor, printer, publisher,
in fact every one, down to the humblest messenger in
the employment of the office, were both civilly and

criminally responsible for every publication.
It might be morally as well as physically impos-
sible that any single individual could have been aware
of every article that appeared. Nay, it might be
clearly and distinctly proved that he was wholly
ignorant of its nature until after publication; still he
must assume a vicarious liability, almost unknown in
any other business or profession, and answer in his own
proper person for the wrongful acts of others. But
the law which imposed such grave responsibilities
afforded some slight protection. The subject-matter
of the publication was to be inquired into within a
reasonable period. It was felt that a certain
limitation was peculiarly necessary in actions
for libel. The truth of the publication
would prove a valid defence in a civil action, but the
defendant was bound to produce the most satisfac-
tory evidence thereof; and it would manifestly
be unreasonable to call upon him to-do so, when
many years bad elapsed, and that evidence
could no longer be obtained. Accordingly
we find the facilities afforded in any prosecu-

tion or action for libel withdrawn after the
termination of the second year. The copy of the news-
paper which must be delivered at the Stamp-office, and
which is to be received as sufficient evidence of the
publication, will only be produced if applied for
within two years after the original publication (6 and
7 Wm. IV., c. 76, s. 13). The outside period within
which such an action could be commenced was thus

indicated, and indeed the person who patiently sub-
mitted to an injurious charge for such a period could
not be actuated.by any very intense anxiety or acute
feeling .with respect to his character. ~

Now in the present instance the article chiefly
complained of was published in the month of Sep-
tember, 1830, no -less :Than .!ighteen years and
nine months ago. Had it .:not". been for that
article no suit could -have_ been instituted on
the latter publications. How, then could such
a dccument be given in evidence ? Under
what pretext• could it be brought-undef the considera-
tion of the Court ? It was necessary to enable the
Duke:of BRUNSWICK to maintain his action that there
should be a new publication of that article. We find him,
then, endeavouring to entrap the servants of the de-
fendant into the commission of the very act of which
he complained, and for which he sought and obtained
no less than 5001. (1 !1) damages in a British court of
Ile sent his agent to the office of
the Yfreera Dispatch, to apply for a copy of
the paper of the September, 1830. It was not
at first forthcoming. At m„ urgent request of the
messenger a strict search was tee, the shelves of
the office were ransacked, and on a ~,I,.quent day
the missing copy was produced, and handed
This, be it remembered, is the statement of the Dukes
own witness, of the gentleman who so readily
undertook the honourable duty imposed upon him, and
this it was which, according to the Lord Chief
Justice, constituted a republication, and such an ex-
traordinary circulation as in the eyes of the jury re-
quired the infliction of a penalty of 500/., together
with the heavy cost of an action, upon a gentleman who
personally knew nothing of that republication.
Now, supposing that these facts were strictly and
literally true in every particular, we contend, with
all due deference to Lord DENMAN, that the delivery
to Captain REINHOLD did not constitute a suffi-
cient publication to render the defendant legally
responsible. Qui facit per alium, facit per se,
is a legal axiom that has never been con-
troverted or impugned ; the act of Captain REIN-
HOLD, was, to all intents and purposes, the act of the
Duke of BRUNSWICK, his employer. If any republi-
cation took place, it was at the special instance and
request of, and to all intents and purposes, to the
Duke himself. Can a man then recover damages
for an act committed at his own solicitation ?
Can he complain of a publication to his
own agent and at his own request ? We should
think not. It is distinctly established that a publi-
cation to the plaintiff himself is not such a publicktion
as to maintain an action; and here it is not only to
the plaintiff himself, but on his urgent application.