The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-26 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, TO URS DA Y, NOVEMBER 26 840.

QUEEN'S 13E:NCH.—Nov. 25.

THE QUEEN V. WORTHINGTON.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT—My Lord, this iS a rule
calling upon Mr. Worthington to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against him for
composing and publishing a certain libel, and I believe

the case will not occupy a very great portion of your
Lordship's time. If I understand it, there is a precise
answer to the application in the course which has been
adopted by the parties making this application. Ido
not know whether it was moved in the full Court, and
whether your Lordships are in possession of the grounds
upon which it was moved.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was moved before
Mr. Justice Patteson in the other Court when there
was no opportunity of moving it in this Court. •
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT.—It is moved upon the affi-
davit of a person of the name of Ross, and the sub-
stance, I think, of the statement of Mr. Ross is this :
—The transaction in question, to which the supposed
libel refers took place as far back as the year 1831, but
he states that in the last session of Parliament
a bill was brought into the House of Commons by Mr.
O'Connell and Mr. Emmerson Torment, for the purpose
of extending copyright in printed designs. It appears
that he (Mr. Ross) was examined as a witness before that
Committee, and he sets out his examination, which I
will read to your Lordship, because you will find there
the nature of what he supposes to be the charge after-
wards made against him. He states that he is decidedly
opposed to any extension of copyright for that
class of designs, and he stated his opinions before such
Committee to that effect, and that the extension of
copyright would operate most injuriously upon the in-
terests of the calico-printing trade—that the , deponent
was under examination before such Committee for three
days, and that in the course of his examination he
was asked by the sense Committee, as appears
from the published minutes of evidence, the following
questions, to which, as appears from the same
minutes he gave the following answers. (The Learned
Counsel then read the portion of evidence referred to, (lad
afterwards the libel, which appeared under the signature
of " Anti-Humbug " in the Manchester Guardian of the
Sth August last, together with an extract from a letter in
the samepaper of the previous Ist August, from Mr. Wheeler,
the solicitor, of Manchester.) The Learned Counseleontitmed
—My Lord, that publication takes place, and then
Mr. Koss, thinking that his character before the House
of Commons will suffer if he does not get a criminal in-
formation, takes this step. He however previously
writes a letter to the Editor of the Manchester Guar-
dian, which is to this effect :
" Sir,—My attention on my return from the Con.
tinent, ye.s:terday, was drawn to a letter in your
paper of the Bth inst., signed Anti-Humbug, in which
the writer makes a dastardly attack upon me, though
eautioth.ly avoids using my riaim', but with malignant
genuity couples his remarks with a letter of the previous
week, written by Mr. Wheeler, and published in your
journal. Having called upon you and been informed
that the said slanderous production was brought to your
offLe by a certain solicitor of this town, I waited upon
that party in company with a professional friend, a:id
was informed that he could not give up the name of the
writer, being indemnified from any consequences that
might ensue. lam therefore debarred from seeking di-
rectly from " Anti-Humbug" that redress to which I am
entitled, as be shelters himself behind his attorney, and I
now proclaim to the world that his allegations, cunningly
couched in the form of interrogatories, are entirely des-
titute of truth, and I dare him to show his face to the
public, and state openly in his proper name the charge
which he has meanly ventured to make from belain: the
curtain of this solicitor's office, that I may have an op-
portunity of selecting for my vindication either the
author or Cite publishers of the libel in question ;

but I now distinctly declare that I shall not con-
descend to natica any future attacks from the same
pen unless accompanied by the real name of the
writer. I rugret to find that this piece of calumny
should partake in the least of on official character, but,
I base good grounds for believing this to be the fact, mid
leave the public to judge of the vaunted high moral
standing of some of the promoters of the defunct Bill,
when private charactat is anonymously slandered to
support their c-tune, and in lieu of honourable warfare
recourse is had to the cloak CIA the dark lantern."
That, my Lerla is the publication in a newspaper pre-
vious to neskieg any application to this Court. lestead
of appi.jiug to your Lordships for a criminal information
for a supposed libel, Mr. Ross publishes a: letter in n
newspaper, using the terms I have read to your Lord-
ship, against the piny who wrote that letter in the
newspaper. Now if it is necessary under these circum-
stances to refer to the fact:, of the case, I think I can
show your Lordships that there was ample ground
both for the examination before the Committee of
the House of Commons and for the statement in
the letter ; but those are the circumstancs maier
which the libel was published ; and perhaps
ought to submit to your Lordships that these
circumstances alone aro a sufficient answer to
this rule. Your Lordships have repeatedly held that
a party, who comes; here to apply for a crimi-
nal information ought not himself to enter into a contro-
versy iu a newspaper upon the subject matter of the
charge, and that it he chooses to take that
course of vindication this Court will not inter-
fere to grant a criminal information. Your Lord-
ships have directed that repeatedly, and more
especially where a party uses language of this
description, because here the party abuses the author (d
the libel, He publishes a letter in the newspaper, and
appeals to the public, through the columns of the news-
paper, for the purpose of vindicating his character, and
not till atter that does the case come before your
Lordships. Now, I can state several instances
in which, upon the mere fact of the -proof of the
party having taken upon himself to enter into a
discussion in a public newspaper instead of applying to
this Court, your Lordships have interfered immediately
to stop the rule. That has occurred in several cases
where criminal informations have been applied for. In
cases of letters seeking to provoke a breach of the
peace, even in those cases your Lordships have re-
fused to interfere where the party has published a letter
vindicating himself, or appealing to the public instead
of applying to this Court. I have known this occur in
cases of libel repeatedly ; but I can mention one
ethat on account of the
o
in-
stance where the party called for a criminal information
pori the
, and where your Lord.
gat ships
srcircumstances
would groundprobably o
f a
haveehalln
this Court challenge,
ouwas the case of an application against Mr. Fleming, the
Member for Hampshire, for a criminal information ; but
saidg t
to interfere. It
your Lordships discharged the rule upon proof that the
party applying hail published a letter in a newspaper.
Lord
DatEtoNrnley who
AN—'nveolucinatcesetri°e''
d the
would
take advantage of the attack by the party libelled
publication, b c'
whetherca n
you,
against the supposed author of the libel.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT—We are the author, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN—No, no ; but he does not attack
You. I do not say that you are not right, but Ido
see 'a distinction between those cares.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lord, I do not at
all dispute the general rule. I have had the advantage
of it, and it has been called into operation against me
again and again. I do not dispute that it would have
been better, perhaps, if in this case Mr. Ross had re-
mained entirely quiet until the term came round and
he could appeal to this Court fpr protection, but your
Lordships • will say whether this is such a taking of the
law into his own hands by appealing to the public, as
would bring him within the general rule. Now what I
would point out to your Lordship as the distinction here
is this---if this libel had been signed Edward Worthing-
ton, and then there had been a denunciation against
Edward
Worthington in the Manchester newspaper that
he was a person wholly devoid of truth and sincerity,
and that nothing coming from him was entitled to any
weight or consideration, I allow that under
those circumstances we could not afterwards have
come to the Court and applied for a rule
against Mr. Edward. Worthington. But this is in
the nature of an anonymous publication. Might we
not—protesting that this is wholly false—when we find
who the real author is, might we not make an appeal to
your Lordships cud ask for your protection, although in
the meantime we have cautioned the public that it was
entirely without foundation? That is a distinction which
your Lordship has antic;pai.ed. If this had been a pub-
lication in the name of Mr. Worthington, and my client
had assailed Mr. Worthington, he could not after-
wards have applied to your Lordship for a criminal in-
formation against Mr. Worthington ; but when it as-
sumes a different shape I trust that your Lordship will
think that this case does not come within the'rule.
Lord DENMAN—It appears to me quite the same
thing. Mr. Rass has taken this entirely into his own
hands. He has assumed that such a one is the author,
and he defends himself, and attacks the author with a
good deal of vehemence. I must own that I think
altogether if a gentleman is attacked in his conduct
as a tradesman, it would be better to make it the subject
of an action, where it might be brought before a Jury.
Mr. ATTORNEY•GENERAL—Your Lordships can
hardly be aware of the great importance attached to
such a matter in the town of Manchester, imputing
without any foundation, that this gentleman hail seduced
a workman from another employer, and that he had
pirated a pattern.
Lord DENMAN—If it had been my own case, I
would much rather have the opinion of a jury. than
any thing else upon the subject.
Mr. ATTORNEY•GENERAL—If it comes to that I
can clearly show that, the charge is wholly unfounded,
and that there is no pretence for it, but if this preli-
minary o'ojection is taken, I certainly feel that it is nut
,
without-weign!.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT--Your Lordship will dis-
charge the rule with cost..
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This is a case where
two attornies take upon themselves to send a libel to a
newspuper, saying that they were indemnified ; and my
T earned Friend says that is a case where he asks
for costs resting upon this preliminary objection.
Sir WILLIAM FoLLETT—No ; on the contrary, rest-
in g upon its merits.
Mr. ATToRNEY-GENERAL—Tiv.,,n waive it, and let
• ,
US enter into the merits. . i
•
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT—I neither waive it, nor