The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-14 00:00:00

and in order to ascertain correctly the cause -of ac-
tion, they caused the declaration filed bv
the plaintiff in the Rik suit .to be *kVgut
of the .. declaroioir -office), t!..2l.'iey append
a copy of petilc,'6'n. The declaration
being rty4de in Her to wit,. complains of the
likessrs. HAN...SARI) that they did, on the
or June, 1839, 4' publish, an ev:ll.6E\b published,
of and coaicerning gr. JOSEPH STOCK-
DALE, in a cettAi'il bciok, purporting to be Reports
of the Irisrctrt,tors of Prisons in Great Britain.," ter-
tarn,ym id sages "contriving a maiicidiisty in •
trwizng to defame and it-;lure th.c4; said plaintiff ;
and the declaration Futtivet sets forth that the
Messrs, HANSARD " maliciously and ftifs.cts'"
did publish " false, scandalees, mtaticious,
and defamatory libel," " tc the injury of Mr.
JOHN JOSE,PII STUCK-DALE in his trade and busi-
ness." The Messrs. HANsAttp state that the
cause of 'action in the fifth suit is identical with the
tIIISC of action in the former :suits, and is for
printing reports and lettEls ordered to be printed
by the House of Commons. The damages which
Mr. STOCKDALE has suffered in his trade by the
imputed and intended malice of the Messrs. HA N-
BARD, are laid in this fifth action at 50,0001. We
presume, as the cause of action was identical in all
the cases, that the declaration in all were substan-
tially the same, if not identical, and we call the
reader's attention to the passages we have printed
in italics.

Now, are not tho e parts of the declaration made
against the Messrs. HANSARD, on which judg-
ment has been, and will be again given by default,
positively and notoriously untrue ? How could the
Messrs. HANSARD, who merely printed what the
House of Commons ordered them to print, have
contrived and maliciously intended to defame Mr,
STOCKDALE? How, too, dare any man say that
they by printing and publishing an authentic and
authorised Report of the House of Commons, did
maliciously and falsely publish a false, scandalous,
and malicious libel of Mr. STOCKDALE ? The
declaration, we have no hesitation in saying,
affirms a series of great and scandalous false-
hoods, and yet, acting on these notoriously
scandalous falsehoods, the Court of Queen's
Bench gave Mr. STOCKDALE large damages, and
will again, if it act consistently and according to
law, give him damages. Such a declaration, in-
stead of procuring damages, ought to have been
kicked out of the Court ; it was a disgrace to the
Court to entertain it, and a profound disgrace for it
to give, or cause to be given, or to assess, or cause
to be assessed, damages on such an averment. It
may he law, but it is an awful perversion of justice,
and a wilful denial of a palpable and a notorious
truth.

We hear a great deal occasionally about the
' Judges' oaths, but can there be a grosser perversion
or neglect of their oath to do justice betwixt man
and man—not togive their conduct a harsher term—
than upon such a lying declaration as this, even sup-
posing no defence be made to it, to pronounce a deci-
sion that Messrs. HANSARD have contrived and
maliciously and falsely published a libel on Mr.
STOCKDALE? The Judges may have followed the
customs of their predecessors, and by alleging that
may shift part of the folly or the guilt of such a
false and scandalous proceeding on previous
Judges ; but that excuse for the existing Judges
proves the whole tribe to have made war on rca•

son, common sense, and justice. If Mr. STOCK-
DALE had gone into Court and made a declara-
tion in his own person, that the Messrs. HANSARD
had cut off his head, the Judges would surely not
have listened to the palpable falsehood, whether
the Messrs. HANSARD attended to rebut it or not;
and why should they have listened to his equally
false, and equally impossible declaration, that the
Messrs. HANSARD had contrived and maliciously
published the Report of the House of Commons to
injure Mr. STOCKDALE
The lawyers will tell us that the malice is in-
ferred from the fact of the injurious publication. It

is constructive malice, a constructive libel, and just
as FROST and his companions were found guilty of
constructive treason, and of intending to dethrone
the QUEEN, so Messrs. HANSARD are found

guilty, from the fact of publishing a book, of pub-
tish:ng, a constructive malicious libel. The Judges
and the law infer malice from the fact of the publi-
cation, and falsely assume that an action is mali-

cious which is perfectly innocent. The Judges and
the law arc scandalously and ;niquitouslv unjust
in so doing. The very point, and only point,
which the Judges ought to investigate is, whethei
a publication be malicious or not ; and it it be not

maliciously contrived, and made, as this could not
possibly be by the Messrs. Il ANS RD, it is their
duty to exonerate the publisher. Throughout the
whole case there was no malice exhibited by any
parties towards Mr. STOCKDALF, no contriv-

ance or intention to injure him, and the Judges, by
constining the fact of publication into a malicious
intention, grossly perverted truth and justice.
We cannot excuse the House of Commons any more
than the Judges. We now see by the declaration,
that. they were informed that the law infers malice
from the fact of publication ; that they were told by
these proceedings, that the Judges were accustomed
on lying declarations to decree injustice ; they were
made to feel, by that injustice falling on the ser-
vants of the House, that such was the established
law, and ye:, they have taken no steps to alter
it. The Judges, with their fictions and their in-

ferences, and constructions, do but follow the an-
cient practices of their craft, mystifying what is
plain, and perverting what is true. It is the busi-

ness of the Commons to make the law and correct

the Judges. They have been told of its errors and
of its iniquities, and they have left it unamended.
We pretend not to decide which of the two parties

is most to blame. The law is unjust and absurd,
antt so is--the conduct of the law-makers.

"Eleven clergymen," says the, Anti- Corn-law Cir-
" sjgned the requisition to toe Mayor of Don-
caster, in favour of the Corn-law:" They are
bribed; as.:we-yesterday, explained, by being i-e-
Ceivers of tithes, or of a rent charge; which is
high or low, in proportion as corn rises or falls, to
become- the -advocateB' of the accursed bread-tax.
"By basing," says the Circular," the system of tithe
commutation on the high- price of food, the
beneficiaries of_ the State Church are se-
cured a greater sum in lieu of tithe when corn
is at as high price, and a smaller amount
when corn is a} a low price." That coincides ex--
actly witluour view,:,while the number of .clergymen
who signed the Doncister requisition confirms our
statement that the:Statepaid clergy are induced to
adv-ocitte-the Corn-laws from pecuniary, selfish, and
sordid motives. They sell Christianity for a mess
of pottage.
There are, however, a considerable nurnb:r of
clergymen, such as curates,those whoofficiate in pro-
prietary chapels, and in the new district churches,
with many of the incumbents in town parishes,
whose present incomes do not depend on tithes,
whatever they may hope for hereafter, and these
gentlemen cannot see Christianity thus bartered
away with any satisfaction. They must be aware,
that by thus associating the State religion with a
most unpopular and accursed law, the difficulties
of their situation, which arc not trifling at present,
will be very much enhanced. Surrounded as
they are' by other sects envious of their
worldly advantages, hated for the arrogance with
which they have exercised the superiority conferred
by the law, and exposed as they are to a keen com-
petition, the advocacy of the Corn-laws by the
Church must be fatal to their influence. The Ro-
man Catholic priests of Ireland will eagerly em-
brace the advantage which this circumstance affords
to attack the Church. Neither they nor their
flocks have an interest in the Corn-laws, and they
may at one blow weaken the Church and diminish
the power of the Protestant landlords in Ireland.
They are continually reminded by the Tory jour-
nals, that the land of Ireland is Protestant, and
they will feel themselves undera religious obligation,
by opposing the Corn-laws, to diminish the power
of the Protestant landlords and the Protestant
clergy. The Dissenting ministers, we have already
given proof to our readers, are for the abolition of
the Corn-laws, and both they and the Roman
Catholic priests will find in those laws an irresistible
weapon with which to attack the State Church.
At present the bulk of the population take an in-
terest in this question, and read the Journals, or
hear them read. Their worldly welfare is opposed
to the Corn-laws, and they hate them intensely.
The sufferings caused by those laws have already
alienated them from our institutions, from the
Church and the aristocracy. The present mission
of the clergy is to win back the people to their
'old. For that they are making great exertions,
arid demand new churches. But how can they !