The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

From our Irish letter it will appear, and from
the brief report of proceedings m the King's
Bench, that the editor of the Pilot newcpap r
has been found guilty of a libel, for pehlishing
a letter with the signature of Daniel O'Connell,
a few days after the passing of the Coercion
Bill, which letter was the subject of a prosecu-
tion by the Irish Government, for its infl 'm-
inatory and seditious tendency. Ag we have
'awed above, Mr. Barrett, the publisher of this
libel, was found guilty. The question asked by
every man of the least spirit or honesty on this
.'ccasion has been, why the publisher of a se-
altiittiioloursshesiprit
winags sahomualtdtehreavporowseedcuatnedd,nwothoernmutsh;
—why the unfortunate subaltern should be
so edwhile
ut,hiietv ? I
emplotyaeprpaenadrsinimstpigoastsoitr,i; wasto
answer this question truly, but in terms
le
ehich reflect the utmost disgrace on two
nartier, of whom Mr. Barrett indisputably is
Prot one. Had the Irish Government pos-
ctti ofd' o
with imp
,essed a spark of real courage, justice, or wisdom,
it would never have stooped at the petty game
of the Pilot newspaper, which, except as the
vehicle of Mr. O'Connell's violence, has little
usefulness or merit attached to it in the eye of
Anybody living. O'Connell's name was at the
bottom of the letter. Could anything be more
obvious than that the duty of the Government,
if the law officers of the Crown pronounced the
letter libellous, and if the Cabinet approved the
policy of a prosecution, was to attack the uncon-
cealed and incorrigible author himself, passing
by the feeble medium through which his excite-
ment to sedition was promulgated, and to deal
blow for blow with the real enemy of the public
peace, who openly held the executive power, its
sworn guardian, at defiance ? The technical
difficuty is mere nonsense. They should have
proeeeded against O'Connell, and subpoenaed
Barrett and the people of the Pilot as witnesses,
as to their knowledge of the author. How
paltry or discreditable, then, the meanness which
truckled to the original and master culprit, while
it pounced upon the involuntary tool, and
thus proved that not a generous, but a pusilla-
nimous, spirit had dictated the whole proceed-
ng The course adopted by O'Connell oueht to
have directed that of the Government. He al-
ternately abused, ridiculed, challenged, and de-
nounced them as fools, tyrants, and traitors, and
fell short by very little of wresting the state out
of their hands. What did they in return ?
Fight him on his own ground ? When he
attempted to undermine or overthrow the exist-
ing authorities, by bringing to bear against them
the whole force of that malignant and savage
exasperation which he had worked for so many
years to inflame—what, we say, did the Mi-
nisters in return ? Why, Lord Grey, the head
of their Cabinet, in his place in the House of
Lords, twice (with astonishment we heard him)
dwelt, in accents of mellifluous sweetness, on the
prodigious talents, and celebrity, and popularity,
of the learned gentleman, O'Connell, and on the
vast accession of usefulness which any Govern-
ment must derive from his cooperation And
this, after all the gross and contemptuous inso-
lence with which the same Lord Ceey and his
colleagues had, in and out of Parliament, been
treated by the learned person, the subject
of such soothing aspirations. We say
hat, under circumstances like these, O'Connell
could do no otherwise than insult and deride
he Government. Not so, however, does he
stand with regard to Mr. Barrett. Would any
man, let us ask, of high or even equitable fsel-
log, have permitted the editor of a newspaper of
which he had made such frequent and profitable,
use to be prosecuted for him, and punished for
him, when, by writing three lines or speaking
as many words to the Attorney. General, he
might have saved the passive instrument of his
own turbulence from risk of, perhaps, a long
impri,onment, anti shifted to his Proper shoul-
ders the evil consequences, whatever they might
be, of his own exclusive act ? If there be
-mall discrimination or regular); y in t'ie I,w of
lihel, there was, in this he-mance, as little justice
or he egruy displaced by him who ought to here
;rood the brunt of it, as little manfiness or mercy
as there was of resolution stn the tart of his
Aijesty's Government. The judgment to be
pas ed on Mr. Barrett is, of course, unkuovto
The public attenion having lately been en-
gaged \ye h proceedings under the law of
and with the hardship- to which his Majesty's
subjects are exposed by its uncertain ptovisi. •ns,
it appears to us desirable, with a view to the
spesdy and effectual amendme tt of some vices
in that branch of the law, that intelligent indi-
viduals should be induced to offer their opini,nis
with regard to the best mode of correcting it,
and that thus the widest possible field for oh-
•ervation and suggestion should he thr own (melt
for the public advantage. The heads of a Bril
for the improveinery. of the libel law Lye
been submitted to us, and upon the above
principle we deem it right to give publicity to
he paper—without, by any means, asserting
that it does not leave extensive gaps to be
fin ed up, while some of its positive recom-
mendations may present but doubtful matter
for adoption. The p•ofessed object of the new
Bill is to ascertain more precisely the provisions
of the law of libel, and the functions ot jte!ges and
ejtfrireicetsu,
aaindotioe tphoat,yeerndofiit
uprriae)spotosesrettouzadegrt,:rfael
verdict in cases of prosecutiore for libel, by
enabling the prosecutor and defendant both to
disclose the whole matter to the Court and
Jury—that is, to tell the whole truth, which at
present is not admissible, save only in actions for
damages. In cases of prosecution by men in
public office, whose public conduct has been
arraigned by publications designated as libellous,
it is assuredly one of the grossest and most re-
volting wrongs that the defendant should be
stripped of the natural plea of justification, and
that he cannot give evidence to the truth of the
charge which he has brought against a public
officer, in respect, moreover, of time best !old
only title by virtue of which that officer can
Jelin the enjoyment of salary, or the exercise of
tower, vise his irreproachable fulfilment of the
duties which he has undertaken. NVith regard
o private libel, a different principle ought, no
toubt, to be recognized. Those vices or imper-
fections of private elm acter, which would be
unknown to society but for the press, the press
can hardly be justified for dragging below the
world, where the parties accused of tnein are slut
intrusted with any public or official functions,
he respect for which might be lowered, and the
services of the country injured .by their being
confided to melt incapaote of offering that,
,guarantee of public rectitude which is to be
Duna ut private virtu©,
and in that alone. We
tlo nut src atohor of the projected
bill has turned his attention to this division of
the ,object, nor to another, which involves un-
doueteuly the &realest number of d con-

~►' ~'`~