The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-16 00:00:00

had copied the paragraph from a distant pro-
vincial paper, rather than be at the trouble and
expense of obtaining witnesses for the justifica-
tion from a distance of some hundred miles,
they might be induced to pay a sum by way of
compromise. This is the working of the libel
law of England. From a hatred of newspapers,
and indeed of all discussion whatever, Judges,
with very few exceptions, have always encouraged
malicious prosecutions. Juries, unaware of the
consequence of their verdicts, have too often
become blind instruments in their hands--
imagining that they gave merely 20s. of damages,
when they were in effect subjecting the de-
fendant to 4001. or 5001. A late Chief Judge
of the State of New York effected a most
beneficial alteration of the Libel Law of that
State, by regulating that all damages below a
certain amount (50 dollars, we believe), should
not carry costs, on the principle that an injury
which was not estimated at more than that sum
had better be suffered than redressed at an
expense out of all proportion greater than the
injury sustained. This regulation wa, !evelled
at unprincipled attorneys, who are always ready
to encourage actions for the sake of costs.
While such is the state of the Libel Law, it is
clear that upright men are placed in a situation
of peculiar difficulty. When persecuted by
systematic slanderers, who invade the sanctuary
of private life, and hold them forth in the most
invidious light to the world, they must either
submit with patience to the wrong, or have
recourse to a law, justly detested, on account of
its being in general called into operation only
by the worthless, and being equally efficient to
crush the innocent and the guilty. It is hard
on a man of fair fame, that he should be the
prey of the malevolent, because the law is bad ;
and nothing but unquestionable points of cha-
racter would enable a man to escape unscathed
from so perilous an experiment as invoking a
law, which is the resource chiefly of those who
have no character to lose. We cordially agree
with our contemporary (the Globe), that the
Law of Libel demands instant attention from
the Legislature. As our contemporary well
observes, with reference to the argument of the
Standard on Thursday evening—
" Nothing can be better exposed than the principle by
which acts of inadvertence are punished, which originate
in the unavoidable necessity in a Periodical Press of gene-
rally and mutually trusting to local and other authorities,
where there is no reason to impute premeditated misrepre-
sentation or falsehood. The manner in which newspapers
are punished for errors against which no human prudence
can guard, is of the very essence of oppression and in-
justice ; nor in actions have they the protection of a jury
in a verdict for nominal damages, while the necessity un-
der the constructive principle of giving a verdict for plain-
tiff implies a fine in the way of expenses, of the most
onerous descripti,,n. The very fact that people lend
themselves to pettyfogging attorneys for the levy of costs,
exhibits at once the character of a system under which
such a conspiracy can be rendered profitable. Neither
does this truly consistent law itself make any distinction
like the French, between the original communication of
an unfounded article and the innocent copiers of an inac-
curacy or mistake—who, in fact, while morally blameless,
are preposterously subject to the same penalty as the really
offending party. The criminal prosecution, it is unne-
cessary to say, as respecting construction, is governed
by the some principle ; and moreover puts it out
of the power of the Jury to stand in the way of a
morally unjust prosecution, or even to be affected by alle-
viating circumstances, which must all be left to the „lunge
in the adjustment of the sentence. Need it be said that
all this subjection of annoyances of a character so essen-
tially dia'inct to one sweeping rule is most monstrous?
The case is more monstrous still when it is reflected that,
by this definition of the existing law—and the doctrine is
v, ry frequently laid down from the Bench—almost every
thing one man may say of another which does not please
him may be construed into a libel; and a finer reduclio
ad absurdum could scarcely be found than a copious crop
of prosecutions undertaken on the strength of these deb•
nitions. Enough, however, are undertaken. from time
to time, to expose the nature of a law, in respect to which
we accept the invitation of the Standard, and heartily
join it in exhorting " the public not to content themselves
with a mere idle declaratio❑ in favour of the liberty of the
press; but in whatever reform is to be made to get rid 0,
toe whole fraudulent m ichinery of the libel code, viz.,
constructive responsibility, constructive cogn'zance, or,
which is the same thing, constructive malice, and con-
structive publication."—Morning Chronicle.

While the more ambitious class of gamblers,
for we cannot call them the more respectable,
are pursuing their nelariow system of fraud
and plunder in the neighbourhood of St.
James's-street, and other fashionable localities,
unmolested by the police, the less aspiring
portion of the " profession," who levy contri-
butions with the dice-box, or by less disguised
modes of robbery, are equally active and equally
undisturbed in the low haunts of vice and
dissipation. A case appeared in the papers the
other day, which was heard at the Thames
Police Office, and which afforded a revolting
illustration of the scenes of violence and rob-
bery which nightly occur at certain low public-
houses, where the demoralising practice of
gambling is encouraged among the work-people
and poorer classes. The complainant in this case
was a working engineer, %% ho had just come up
from Bath to look for employment, and who
was a stranger to the town. His charge was
against a stout woman and a black man, whom
he accused of assaulting and dreadfully beating
him in one of those dens of dissipation in the
Back-road, St. George's East, where he had
been directed, upon inquiring for a lodg.
ing. He stated that he first sat down in
the tap-room, but left it shortly, on account
of the disorderly characters with which it soon
filled. He asked to be shown into another room,
and was taken into the kitchen ; that also was
thronged with a disorderly company, who had
assembled to raffle for a hen and chickens.
From the kitchen he went into the parlour,
which also became crowded with people, engaged
in another raffle for a pair of ear-rings. Be-
coming disgusted with what he witnessed, he
requested the servant to allow him to sit by
himself up stairs. There he remained but a few
minutes, when the woman and the black man
came into the room, followed by two fellows in
the garb of sailors, when he received the ill-
treatment of which he complained, and which
made it necessary to transfer him to an hospital
in a most battered and pennyless condition,
every farthing he had having been abstracted
whilst he lay stunned from the violence which
he had received. Now, whether the complainant
really gave any provocation in the first instance,
or whether the facts were exactly as he detailed
them, we, of course, know not. The brutal
violence committed on his person was proved by
two witnesses; but the wanton and unprovoked
nature of the assault depended on his own state-
ment. The accused parties were committed for
trial at the Sessions on the charge of assault
for it does not appear that he made a specific
charge of robbery against them, which, under the
circumstances, if only one farthing had been
taken from his person, would have been a capital
offence. But our object in adverting to this
case is upon general grounds, to show what is
metropolis,
slisil seems, without
onfiShcrtolywidlosnoef ;pneotphlee,maent(r in the presence
any concealment in the way of gambling, and
various sorts of depredation, without any inter-
ference of the police. It appears that officers of
preventive justice at the east end of the town