The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-10 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1870.

THE Judges have shewn themselves more merciful
than the prosecutor in the suit of " SEFTON v. LENG.!'
Yet it can scarcely be said that they have shewn
mercy at the expense of justice. There never
was a case in which there was more reason
for leniency, and rarely one in which the
plaintiff allowed so resolute a determination
to carry matters to an extremity. The details of the
case are well known. Mr. LENG is one of the pro-
prietors of the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, a j uurnal of

high standing in Yorkshire, and which has done
good service in exposing the iniquities of the local
trades unions, a service of no little peril, inasmuch as
Mr. LENG had his life threatened by men who,
he had good reason to know, had never shrunk
from committing murder, even for a less powerful
motive than the dread of exposure. Several months
:,go, and shortly after the MORDAUNT trial, it
I came rumoured that the Prince of WALES would
F made co-respondent in a divorce suit. There was no
rah in the rumour, but it was so prevalent that it
.• as sent by one of the agencies which supplies
•!e%lTriiphic information to the country press, as a
riece of intelligence, save only that the name
of Cie tidy said to be involved was not mentioned.
Simultawously a London evening paper published
the report, while the reporters who attend the
Divorce Court supplied the most positive information
as to the identity of the parties concerned. Suffice it
to say that when the rumour sent on by the Press
Association reached Sheffield, the sub-editor of the
Telegraph, relying upon the information supplied by
a reporter who had arrived from London that same
night, mentioned the names of the persons said to be
implicated. The story was utterly false from be-
ginning to end, but it came with so much
apparently independent confirmatory detail that
the sub-editor of the paper in question credited
it and published it. At that time Mr. LENG was
absent, being indisposed. The next day he saw the
paragraph in his own paper, and, being alarmed, at
Once rebuked his employd for having inserted it, and
ordered the sale of the paper containing the para-
graph to be stopped. He was soon to find his alarm
well-founded. Proceedings were at once instituted by
Lord SEFTON, which wore certainly more than sufficient
to vindicate the character of the COUNTESS. That,
indeed, was vindicated by Mr. LENG himself, who in-
serted a retractation and an apology. Most persons on
hearing how the error had arisen would have been
satisfied with this full avowal and with-
drawal of it. Few persona would have
thought of asking that the man who had
not committed the offence should be punished.
But Lord SEFTON first incised for a rule for criminal
information, then applied to have the rule made
absolute, t•ien had the case tried at Leeds, and then
had the defendant, after three months of suspense,
sentenced in the Queen's Bench. The ex-
penses of all these proceedings wore inevitably
to come out of the defendant's pocket,
and must have amounted to an enormous
fine. But Lord SEFTON would seem to have wished
that Mr. LENG should pay in person as well as in
purse. An ordinary action for libel would have
sufficed to ensure a pecuniary penalty ; but the
criminal action could have had for its object no other
end than Mr. LENG'S imprisonment. Fortunately,
as we have said, the judges were more
merciful than his lordship, and they have inflicted
what they call (and Mr. LENG will hardly differ
from them) the "extremely moderato" fine of £5O.
This case has more than a personal interest. It is
one in which not only the proprietor of the
Sheffield Telegraph is concerned, but journalists
throughout the kingdom. It is a fact that they are
exposed to a danger which no other portion of the
community incurs; they are answerable for the mis-
doings of their employ6s, not only civilly in the shape
of pecuniary compensation for damages proved to
have been sustained, as other employers are, but
they are liable also to criminal proceedings,
and a personal penalty. A newspaper pro-
prietor residing in London may any day
be threatened with imprisonment for an
article in a newspaper which may be published at
Penzance or Wick, though he may not oven have
seen the article. It is true, as was pointed out by the
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, to whom the Press has been re-
peatedly indebted for his liberal ruling, that ajournalist
cannot be held criminally answerable for a libel, that re-
sponsibility is removed from him if no malice is proved
on his part ; and Sir ALEXANDER. COCKB URN intimated
pretty plainly that if he had not been ill when Lord
SEFTON moved to make the rule absolute, it would
not have been so made. Nevertheless it

appears that Mr. LBW}, though he could not
be sent to prison for his sub-editor's fault, was liable
to that punishment because a few papers had been
sold some days after the publication of the libel,
though contrary to Mr. LUNG'S orders those
papers being kept solely for the purpoie of allowing►
certain advertisers to verify their advertisements.
It is high time that such an unjust con-
dition of the law should be set right,
The journalist's office is one of peculiar difficulty and
anxiety. None but he can tell of the extreme per-
plexity in which he is often placed by the difficulty
which he has to substantiate information which it
would be most perilous for him to publish if untrue,
but ,which it would be most detrimental to his
reputation to omit if true. Though we would seem
to be magnifying our office, we venture to say that
in no profession is more anxiety shown to do the
duties which pertain to it honestly and honourably.
ht the same time in no profession is a principal so
much at the mercy of indiscreet employds. It is quite
enough that he should be exposed to the danger
of a ruinous fine by reason of his agent's
blunder, it is too bad that he should also be liable to
loss of liberty in defiance of the just principle of
English law that no man can be considered
a criminal who is not an accomplice in the
crime. No such anomaly prevails in Scot-
land ; and yet in no part of the kingdom is
the newspaper press conducted more rempectably,
nowhere is' it more free from libellous writing.
There is not the smallest reason why journalists
south of the Tweed should be liable to proceedings
so harsh as those-which Mr. LErio has had to endure,
and which elicited the unmistakeable disapproval of
the LORD OMR* JUISTICR` of England. •

FUIMIER reveiations respecting the armistice
negotiations shim' •still More plainly how vain was
the hope of obtaining 'tiny -beneficial result. The
intervention of the Neutral Powers was even more
useless than it at first appeared to. be. According
to German official statements, Count BISMARCK,
when the proposal for an armistice came to nothing,
suggested that the French Government should appoint
a tithe for the elections, and promised that the German
armies, without any cessation of hostilities, would
avoid all interference with the free choice'of the
people. The Ministry in Paris declined this oiler.
Their' refusal was perfectly consistent with the
poiiCy to which they have definitely com-
mitted themselves. They have announced that
they will yield no territory, and they can have no
degre for an armistice which does not promise them
means of escaping from the dreaded humilia-
tion. A very few minutes': conversation be-
t Ween Count BISMARCK and M. THIESS would,
serve to convince the two statesmen that
the views of the hostile Governments were as
irreconcilable as ever. That fact being ascertained,
the'French Ministry bad every reason for declining
an armistice. `Whether they themselves yield territory,
or an Assembly be found who is willing to incur that
responsibility, the result must equally be the fall of
the September Government. The declaration they
made on assuming office they repeated when 'Paris
expressed its confidence in them by an overwhelming
majority. If the national representatives rejeot this
uncompromising policy, it will be clear that France
does not endorse the confidence vote of Paris. There
is absolutely no hope in such a position; nor is there
save patiently
anything for neutral States to do,