The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-04 00:00:00

THE SUN,

shall have, and with a vengeance !" In that
gallant exclamation, an exclamation so idiomatic in
its expression of English bravery, spoke out all the
indignation which is felt at the faithlessness of the
revolted race.

There can, of course, be no question whatever but
that the approaching contest will prove one of a most
desperate character. The unanimous rebellion of the
Seikh chieftains, not even, we fear, excepting the
wily and enigmatical GuooLAB SINGH, is enough of
itself to assure us that the struggle will be of more
than ordinary ferocity, especially as the insur-
gents must be now sufficiently conscious that
their new and unparalleled treacheries have
been their virtual outlawry, and that, over-
come by the English, they are overcome once and
for ever—their power being annihilated, and their
territories annexed to the already enormous dominions
of Great Britain. Considering that the crippled and
obsolete Native Government which was attempted to
be perpetuated at Lahore by the mistaken treaties of
1846, must under any circumstances have fallen in
the end, by reason of its own inherent rottenness, it
is satisfactory to a certain extent that the buccaneer-
ing inhabitants of the Punjaub have revealed their
treacheries, again, betimes ; that, in short, they have,
by that means, afforded us an honourable pre-
text for the destruction of a dangerous political
anomaly—the anomaly of a decrepit Dewan and an
infant Maharajah. When the perils of the advancing
campaign have been surmounted, and the Seikh terri-
tories have been permanently united to the other
provinces under the sway of the British Government,
the Administration of his Excellency the Earl of
DALHOUSIE will be afforded the additional glory of
extending the influences of civilization far to the
north of the Hydaspes, to the extremest frontiers
of Caubul, to the fertile precincts of Cashmere, and
to the very base of the great mountainous chain of
the Indian Caucasus.

Our readers cannot possibly have forgotten a case

tried at the last Spring Assizes for the county of
Devon, in which Mr. THOMAS LATIMER, the editor of
the Western Times, was indicted for publishing a
malicious libel respecting the Bishop of EXETER. It
is not necessary that we should now advert to the
charges brought forward against the Right Reverend
Prosecutor... They were perfectly familiar to the
community in general at the time, and it is
due to the defendant to state, that he com-
mented upon the various facts with a freedom
and independence deserving of the highest praise.
Lie felt that his duty as a public journalist demanded
that he should. enter his indignant protest against the
conduct ascribed to the Right Rev. Prelate; and in
the discharge of that duty, he cast aside every private
and personal consideration—he disregarded the vari-
ous kinds of persecution to which those connected
with the periodical press are so liable. Criminal
informations, actions for damages, or indictments,
had no terrors for him when weighed in the balance
against that which in his conscience he deemed
to be right. He knew that he might be exposed to
severe penalties if a conviction should take place—
that he might be incarcerated as a malefactor, and
condemned to pay a heavy pecuniary fine ; and that,
even under the most favourable circumstances, a
heavy expenditure in the shape of costs would be in-
curred. He did not calculate upon any for-
bearance on the part of the Bishop. He was
convinced that every engine of the law would
be directed against him, but strong in con-
scious rectitude, and confident in the accuracy of
his information, he despised the consequences, and
without hesitation gave his statements to the world.
An extraordinary sensation was excited, and much
curiosity existed as to the course that would be
adopted by the party inculpated, and that curicsity
was speedily set at rest.
There are three methods by which a party ag-
grieved may proceed against a libeller for the vindi-
cation of his character, viz., either by criminal in-
formation, by civil action, or by indictment. In the
first case, the leave of the Court of Queen's Bench
must be obtained before the information is filed,
but the prosecutor must come into court with clean
..---• V. (pronto,' .nti if n
direct charge is preferred, he must file an affidavit
distinctly, clearly, and explicitly denying the truth of
that charge. Men who are anxious to clear them-
, selves from unjust and unfounded imputations, who
desire to show themselves perfectly free from blame,
and who have no fear of the revelations that may be
made in the answering affidavits, usually adopt this
course, which is generally considered by far the
most satisfactory, as the judgment of the
Court is founded upon many collateral cir-
cumstances that could not be given in evidence
before a jury. The Bishop of EXETER, however, for
reasons best known to himself, did not appeal to that
tribunal.

If a civil action should be instituted, the libel must
not only be scandalous, but also false, for if the
charges be true the plaintiff has no ground to demand
compensation for himself, whatever offence it may be
against the public peace. A plea of justification may
therefore be put upon the file, in which the truth of
the allegations contained in the supposed
libel may be put in issue, and if the
jury find for the defendant on that
issue, the ♦erdict will be recorded in his favour, And
he will, as a matter of course, be entitled to his costs
in the action as between party and party. Here,
Again, the truth of the charge constitutes an essential
element in the case, and the Bishop of EXETER, no
doubt upon sufficient grounds, also declined to avail
himself of that mode of proceeding.
An indictment, however, was formerly a proceeding
of a very different character. According to the old law
it signified nothing whether the charges were true
or false, well founded or ill founded ; if calculated
to bring any individual into public odium or
disrepute, they were punishable by law. And " the
greater the truth the greater the libel " was a well-
known adage that was constantly acted on to restrict
the legitimate liberty of the press. If an indictment
was preferred, the truth could not be put in issue, it
could not even be alleged in mitigation of punishment.
Neither could costs be given against the defeated
party; for the proceedings are nominally instituted
in the name of the Sovereign, and it is considered be-
neath the dignity of the Crown to pay or receive
costs. A bill of indictment was sent up by the
Bishop, who selected the course, at the same time,
most oppressive to the defendant, and least conclu-
sive as to the innocence of the complainant. His
Lordship had, doubtless, sufficient reasons for his de-
cision. In accordance with the present system the
defendant could not be heard before the grand jury,
and a true bill was accordingly found on the ex parte
statement of the prosecutor. '
A. recent Act (6 and 7 Vic., c. 96, commonly called
" Lord Campbell's Act") had, however, made a
great change in the proceedings upon indictments
for libel ; according to that Act the truth of
the allegations might be inquired into, but

it would not amount to a defence unless it was for
the public benefit that the matters charged should be
published.
et is
ed; And to entitle the defendant to such a
tiuth of the necessary that he should allege the
matters
charged in the manner required
in pleading .iciustmetat he
ion to an action for defamation,
and further, to
allege
particular fact or reason
public
establishing the
thebenefittheprosecutor is at liberty
to reply, generally denying resulting from the
publication; to which
plea
whole, and if after
such plea the defendant is convicted,
it is competent
for the Court, in pronouncing sentence,
is to consider
whether the guilt of the defendantaggravated or
mitigated by his plea, and by the evidence given to
judgment is iu
prove or disprove the same ; and if • d
given
for the defendant, he shall be entitled to recover
the prosecutor the costs incurred, and upon a from
special
plea of justification, if the issue be found for the pro-
secutor, he shall be entitled to recover from the de-
fendant the costs incurred.

Mr. LATIMER availed himself of this privilege; he
pleaded the truth of the matters charged, and that the
publication was for the public benefit, and the jury
found in his favour on both points. The
weapon resorted to by the Bishop thus recoiled upon
himself. At length a rule has been obtained by the
defendant to obtain the benefit of the provision in
the statute, and to recover his costs from the prose-
cutor. The Bishop, however, not satisfied with the
defeat he has already sustained, it appears, is en-
deavouring to deprive him of all those costs—to cast
upon his shoulders all the heavy expenditure occa-
sioned by the unfounded charge. 2 Last week he