The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-23 00:00:00

LAW OF LIBEL-PUBLIC MEETING.

Yesterday evening a meeting was convened at
the Lyceum Tavern, Strand, to consider the pro-
priety of petitioning Parliament on the subject of
the Law of Libel as affecting the Venders of News.
papers and other Publication-; and al-o to adopt
measures with regard to a newsvender named
Warne, at present confined in Whitecross-street
prison, for having merely sold a newspaper in which
an alleged libel was inserted.
Mr. JONATHAN WOOLER took the Chair, and
read a le,ter from Mr. Warne, in which the peculiar
hardship of his case was set forth. The letter stated
that he had been prosecuted by an attorney named
Dicas, for selling a newspaper, called the Satirist, in
which a libel on that individual was inserted, and
having submitted to have a verdict of 101. taken
against him, he had been saddled with the costs of
the attorney ro the extent of 801. He was now
suffering imprisonment because unable to discharge
the amount thus incurred.

Another letter was read from Mr. Dices, which
stated that he did not proceed against Mr. Warne
from any vindictive motive, but because he had
chosen to sell a paper containing a gross libel, after
he had received due notice that he would be prose-
cuted if he disregarded that caution. The letter
concluded by stating the writer's willingness to listen
to any reasonable proposal for Mr. Warne's release.
Mr. FELLOWS considered that the law of libel, as
it regarded the mere seller of a publication, was
most iniquitous. The Legislature could never have
intended thst newsvenders should be made respon-
sible for what they were no party to, and therefore
it was desirable that the trade, for its own protec-
tion, should unite to attempt the modification of at
least that portion of the law which affected them-
selves.

Mr. COLLINS thought, if the law was to stand as
it did at present, that the newsvenders ought to
establish a censorship, in order to guard themselves
from the consequences of selling a publication which
the law might assert was the vehicle of a libel.
Mr. WILDE wished to know whether the question
as to the liability of the newsvender had ever been
fairly tried. The situation of Mr. Warne was ono
of a peculiar nature. He had consented to lc:t a
verdict of 10!. go against him, whereas be (the
speaker) had the strongest grounds for believing
that, had he let the case go to a jury, he would not
have been found guilty.
The CHAIRMAN could not give a satisfactory an-
swer to the question just submitted to him, but it
was an admitted principle in courts of law that all
persons were liable for libels which they sold, and
hundreds of examples would attest the fact of this
principle having been generally acted upon. But he
very much doubted whether Mr. Pitt intended that
such should be the case, when he was adopting
measures to bring the press under his control. It
was, however, a construction of the courts that the
mere publisher of a paper containing a libel, of
which he might be utterly ignorant, was liable to all
the consequences.
Mr. FOSTER, formerly of the Leeds Patriot, al-

laded to his case as an instance of the gross anomaly
contained in the law of libel. He had merely asked
a question in his viper, of a person who had at-
tacked him—whether he was the individual who
had stated at a public meeting, that " sheeps' heads
were good enough for the working classes," an ob-
servation which he was fully prepared to prove had
been spoken by that person, when an action was
commenced against him, and, being under the neces-
sity of submitting to the withdrawal of the action, as
the person would not proceed further, he was com-
pelled to pay his own costs, which amounted to
upwards of 3001.
Mr. IVIAGGs moved the third resolution, to the
effect, that the Legislature having sufficiently pro-
tected the public by compelling the printers, pub-
lishers, and proprietors of newspapers, to enter their
names and residences at the Stamp-office, with
those of their sureties, for anything illegal that might
appear in their respective journals, they were in
reason and justice the parries that ought to be held
responsible for any such offence.
The resolution, having been seconded by Mr.
HALLS, was carried.
Mr. WATLING proposed the next resolution, that
the meeting considered every newsman bound for
his own safety and security to come forward and
endeavour to get rid of such an unjust and op-
pressive construction of the law of libel as applied
to them.

The resolution was carried.
It was finally moved and carried, that a petition
should be prepared, expressive of the sense of the
meeting, and that a deputation should be appointed
to wait upon the Lord Chancellor, to request his
Lordship to take into consideration the law of libel
as it related to the venders of newspapers.
A committee for that purpose having been then
appointed, the meeting. adjourned.