The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-19 00:00:00

-n~v

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1834.

The Pension List seems destined to be the
bane of every Administration. It turned the
Tories out of office, it has long vexed and an-
noyed their successors, and, at last, placed them
in a dilemma of no ordinary difficulty. Like
men engaged in a bad cause, and against their
will, Ministers fought with great shyness in the
contest last night. They knew not well whether
to stand or run—they felt qualms of that sort of
conscience that " makes cowards of us all," and
but for the impulse which the cheers of their
enemies gave to the faint cheers of their usual
supporters, and the oaths of allegiance which
they had taken, we verily believe they would
have called out for quarter. Who can wonder
at this ? Nothing is so disheartening as to fight
in a bad cause. In such a case, even victory is
regarded rather as a misfortune than a blessing.
This dilemma has arisen from two causes—the
usual practice of successive Administrations to
continue the pensions granted by their prede-
cessors, and the Act of 1832, passed by an
unreformed Parliament, and tacitly recognised by
another of last session. The former, as a general
rule, is good, but it ought to be observed only as a
general rule, and exception should be made in
all cases where no services had been performed
—when the objects of the pension were not in
want, or reduced to such a state as to entitle
them to charity—and above all, in cases where
the pensions were granted to undeserving fa-
vourites of either Sovereign or Minister. Ilad
Ministers observed this rule—had they, on re-
vising the pension list, selected some of the most
obnoxious cases, and intimated to the holders
their unwillingness to recommend to the Sove-
reign a renewal of the grants, these pen-
sioners would, like the Duchess of NEW-
CASTLE, either have voluntarily resigned
their claims, or been struck off the list by a
vote of the House of Commons. This, how-
ever, was not done, and from a sense of false
delicacy, and a dislike (no doubt natural) to
pry into aumestic affairs, they allowed all to re-
main, and involved the deserving, the helpless,
and the worthless, in the same odious charge.
Something was afterwards done, hut not enough.
Such half-and-half measures ate the most
politic of all. They enrage one party without
conciliating the other, and the authors of them
have all the irksomeness of fighting an up-hill
battle, without the cheers or ordinary rewards

of victory. This was the original fault of Mi-
nisters, and it was followed up by another,
in which the House of Commons had no small
share—we mean the tacit recognition of the Act
2d and 3d of the present reign. That Act should
never have been passed—it is a disgrace to a
reformed House of Commons—and as they
willingly walked into the snare, they must be left
to get out of it the best way they can. No rea-
soning, no sophistry, can justify, or even palliate,
that false policy which allows thousands a year
to persons who have rendered no service to the
state, and turns adrift those without interest or
patronage who had been for years in her ser-
vice, and who naturally looked forward to pro-
tection. When Ministers hare cut down their
own salaries, when economy and retrenchment
are gradually making their way into every depart-
ment, and there is a cry for relief from one end of

the kingdom to the other, the people will listen to
no nice distinctions, or submit patiently to unjust
claims, merely because it pleased CASTLEREAGH
Or WELLINGTON or GREY to pledge the So-
vereign to acknowledge them. Ministers ought
to take a hint from the large numbers against
them last night. But for the support of their
enemies they would have been left in a miserable
minority, and their enemies, on a fitting occasion,
will know how to make use of the advantage.
Let them trust to their friends alone—let them
regard as their paramount duty the welfare not
of a particular class, but of the general body,
and they may set their enemies at defiance.
Mr. ROBINSON truly said that granting the
motion would not injure Ministers, but the
contrary. We are afraid, however, they have
yet too much of the old leaven to listen to the
advice, and, unless the obnoxious penzioners
take the hint and resign, they will try the

battle again.
It will be seen that, in a House of 372
Members, they had 182 against them. How
could it be otherwise, when they admitted that
many of the cases were bad, and justified their
conduct on a plea, which no one denies, that
merit alone ought to be rewarded ? The question
cannot affect the stability of the Government,
but it will add nothing to its popularity.
At the early sitting of the House of Commons

yesterday, Air. P. SCROPE presented a petition
against duelling, which Sir H. VERNEY had
manliness enough to support, observing, at the
same time, that the late Duke of YORK, when
Commander-in-Chief, had always affo►ded pro-
tection to officers who, from conscientious
motives, declined to enter into a duel. The
practice is indeed an absurd one—a relic of the
old days:of barbarism, which authority should
always discountenance. There is no moral
courage requisite to enable a man to fight a
duel ; the moral fortitude is shown rather
in his declining it. Among the most
experienced duellists on record, are

to be found the names of some of the
greatest bullies and savages that ever disgraced
civilized society. We shall hail the day when
this practice is exploded, as a proof that intel-
lect is really on the march. On military men
it bears with peculiar severity. If an
officer engages in a duel, he commits a breach
of duty, and is possibly wounded into the
bargain ; if he declines it, he is instantly
posted as a coward. Again, the duel , affords

little or no chance of fair play. The inexpe-
rienced and nervous man—even though he may
be brave to desperation—runs all hazards in such
an encounter; the cool, collected, and practised
marksman, tew or none. And this, we suppose,
is what is called satisfaction,—na►nely, that one
man should shoot another through the head,
and then both parties be instantly declared to be
placed on the same footing, as regards this very
ambiguous term ! What an arrant absurdity !

Mr. O'CONNELL obtained leave last night to
bring in a Bill to amend the law of libel. We
are glad to see the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
thus occupied. Here, he may be of some real
service to the community, for the evil with which
he proposes to grapple is one that concerns not
the Press alone, but the whole vast body of the
people. Well might Mr. O'CONNELL observe,
" I never knew a man prosecute for libel who
did not come off infinitely worse for the prose..
cution." He might have gone even further, and
added that, in very many instances, the plaintiff
is left at the close of the trial in a more pitiable
predicament than the defendant. In fact, the
law, as at present constituted, reverses the usual
spirit of all wholesome legislation, and throws its
shield over the
.rogue, while it leaves the honest
man unarmed and unprotected. There are
exceptions, of course, but this is its leading,
fundamental principle.
Another evil attending this law is, that though
incompetent—or all but incompetent—to work
any practical benefit, it is omnipotent for all
purposes of mischief. As no Judge ever yet was
found able to define it, or circumscribe its power
within reasonable limits, so every one interprets
it after a fashion of his own. Thus, the same
law which, left to the discretion of a temperate
and sagacious Judge, might in some degree be
crippled in its capabilities of annoyance, becomes,
in the hands of an irascible and self-opinionated
one, the deadliest (we will make no reservation)
instrument of tyranny ever yet wielded by autho-
rity. For instance, what defendant could pos-
sibly hope for justice, or expect aught but the
most preposterous visitation, in the way of fine
and imprisonment, from the late Lord EL-
LENBOROUGH, when that Noble and Learned
Lord defined libel as a something that " hurts
a man's feelings ?" Why, upon this prin-
ciple, the Journalist who ventured in a thought-
less moment to impugn the omniscience of
Lord LONDONDERRY—co question whether Dr.
PHILLPOTTS was a miracle of consistency—or the
present Lord ELLENBOROUGH the most accom-
plished equestrian he had ever seen—might, on
the plea that he " hurt the feelings" of these
eminent individuals, be subjected to a punish-
ment worse than that accorded. to the pick-pocket
or the swindler ! Even the most innocent
phrase, the most sportive remark, thrown off

without the slightest intention to do injury,
might, under such a definition, be construed
into a crime, and visited accordingly. It is a
pity that Lord Keeper GUILDFORD was not
aware of the power of the libel law, when he ex-
pressed such huge indignation at the wags of the
day insisting that he had " ridden a rhinoceros!'
Pity that Dr. JOHNSON did not know that he
had the same balm for his anguished feelings,
when the witty TOPHAM BEAUCLERK accused
him of taking lessons in dancing from VESTRIS !

But Baron BOL LAND'S definition, as we
showed a few days since, arms the libel law with
if possible, added terrors. According to this
Judge's dictum, libel is, like the air we breathe,
universal. Praise is a libel—blame is a libel—
nay, any, even the slightest, allusion that bears,
no matter how indirectly, on the slightest frac-
tion of humanity, is a libel. It is the sword of
DAMOCLES, that hangs suspended by a single
horse-hair over the head of every journalist—
every pamphleteer—every reviewer—every news-
vender, publican, and coffee-house keeper, in the
three kingdoms. He alone is safe from this
horrid bug-bear, whose time being his own, en-
ables him diligently to sift the contents of every
publication he may sell, or be otherwise mixed
up with ; and who to his own trade or profession,
whatever that may be, adds the tact and
experience of a finished lawyer. But even
then he is not wholly beyond its reach,
for as libel is neither more nor less than a vague,
abstract idea—a mysterious shadow with which
there is no grappling—a sort of Proteus which
can assume a thousand different shapes--rit may
lurk in nooks and corners, where no eyes save
those of a perplexed Jury, can ',detect, or fancy

they detect, it.
To bring this anomaly within the limits of
common-sense is Mr. O'CONNELL'S present
task, and we wish him well through it. Let

himnot be dismayed by difficulties,— but put his
shoulder bravely to the wheel, and we promise
him a speedy triumph. The alterations he pro-
poses in the law are as follow :

1. To fix the legal definition of the offence of libel, assimilat-

[rig it to that of slander.

2. To determine the boundaries which separate public from
private libel ; and, in connection with this branch of the sub.
ject, to draw precise distinctions between principals and acces-
saries.

3. To do away with all ex-qtecio and other informations.

4. To deprive the Crown of the right of reply, unless when

the defendant produces evidence; and in this case, if the pro.
secutor avails himself of the right of reply, to confer upon the
defendant the right of being further heard.

- -
5. To confine the right of demanding a Special Jury to the
defendant.

6. To admit evidence of the truth of the publication charged
as a libel; the truth, when establi•hed, in criminal prosecutions
to be deemed a vindication ; in civil actions to be for the con.
sideration of the Jury.

7. To regulate the amount of costs in civil actions by the
amount of damages. Less than 40s. damages never to carry
costs, but, on the contrary, to throw some part of the defend.
ant's costs upon the plaintiff. Any damages not exceeding 501.

to limit the costs to an equal amount. Damages above 501. to
carry costs to the full amount actually incurred.
_ _ _

We have not the slightest fault to find with

these .proposed amendments. They are all
excellent. The two last, in particular, deserve

the highest praise. We cannot agree with Lord
ALTHORP that truth, in justification of libel,
can ever, under any circumstance, be " injurious."'
It may, indeed, damage the knave; but surely
the law is not to be amended, solely for the
benefit of men of doubtful character, whose
sensibilities, as is usually the case, may happen
to be somewhat thin-skinned ! The honest
man has some right to have his interests con-
sidered ; and to such a one the promulgation of
the truth never yet produced aught but good.
Equally satisfactory is Mr. O'CoNNELL's
proposal that no damages under forty shillings
shall carry costs. At present, the plaintiff in
a libel case, whose grievous wrongs the Jury
think handsomely compensated ior by a farthing
damages, has the power of saddling the defendant
with the whole costs of the action, whereby the
libelled party is enabled to share a profitable
per centage with his attorney; and thus turn
his very want of all character to better'account
than other men turn their integrity ! Surely an
injustice like this demands the promptest re-
medy ; for what possible right can that scamp
have to the compensation of costs, whose moral
worth is publicly estimated in a court of law at
the value of the fourth-part of a penny ?

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, FEB. 18.—Wind W.S.W.—Arrived from the River
and remain, the Andromache, Andrews, for Bengal ; and
Katharine Stewart Forbes, Anderson, for Madras.
PORTSMOUTH, FEB. 18.—Wind W.
FALMOUTH, FEB. 17.—Wind variable, light breezes.— Ar-
rived the Renard packet from Rio Janeiro, sailed Dec. 19.
BRISTOL, FEB. 18.—Arrived the Woodbine, Maw, from St.
Petersburgh; and Thetis, from Riga.
DUBLIN, FEB. 16.—Arrived the New Prospect, Knox, from
St. Andrew's, New Brunswick.
Coax, FEB. 16.—Arrived his Majesty's troop ships Romney,
Jupiter, and Athol.

PENZANCE, FEB. 17.—The Durham, Spenully, from Liver-
pool, which put in here on the 15th, with pumps choked, has
commenced discharging.

CUXHAVEN, FEB. Is.—There is much ice drifting on the
river above here.

HAMBURG, Fcs 14.—Thirty-six casks of tallow have been
driven on the Island of Fanoe, the marks and numbers oblite-
rated by being a long time in the water.

His Majesty's ship Snake captured and carried into Rio
Janeiro, previous to the 15th December, the Portuguese brig
Maria da Gloria, with 425 slaves on board.
The Selitia, from Jamaica, is under -weigh, the leak having
been stopped.