The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-10 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE

, J

TATTERSALL'S.
Yesterday the Yorkshire horse, Bubastes, was hacked
at '7 to 1 in two or three quarters, and m,y be considered
as good a favourite as Bentley, who was scarcely men-
tioned. Plenipo keeps steady at 12 to 1, and at a point
more would he backed. Shillelah declines. For the Oaks,
2,800 to 400 was taken about Mr. Walker's Cotilbin in
four separate bets ; and Colonel Peel's Rosalie was backed
at 7A- to 1 in the early part of the afternoon, but at the
close was taken at half a point less.

THE DERBY.
7 to 1 agst Mr. Yates's Bentley
7 to I agst Mr. Watt's Bubastes
12 to 1 agst Mr. Batson's Plenipo
18 to 1 agst Mr. Chifney's ShekW].
22 to 1 agst Mr. Walker's Delirium (taken)
40 to 1 agst Mr. Greatrex's Trulla colt (taken)
No others mentioned.
NEWIKABIT OATLANDS, P.P.
6 to 1 agst Mr. Wilson's Claret (taken)
7 to 1 agst Mr. Monroe's LazArone (taken)
7 to 1 agst any other.
7 to 2 agst Sir M. Wood's Vespa and Col. Peel's Malibran (taken

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Standard is so extremely sensitive on
the subject of libels and the law of libel, that
we must relieve our contemporary by the assur-
ance that we are not discussing the subject of
criminals, but that of crime ; and his excessive
compliments on the character and conduct of
the Morning Chronicle, ought to tranquillize
him with respect to any supposed reflections
against himself. We will not, however, be
drawn from our purpose, by replying to misre-
presentations of our motives or arguments. We
have never encouraged the Whig Government
to use the terrors of the law against the press ;
and we have too much common interest in its
most extended liberty, to adopt such a course.
The time was when this journal was almost the
only daily advocate of that freedom of political
commentary on public men and national affairs
which a succession of Tory Administrations in
vain sought to abridge. Nor is it true, as
asserted by the Standard, that the present
Whigs and Liberals have of late persecuted the
press. The present Ministry has notoriously
resorted less to the Crown officers, to punish li-
hellers, than any of its predecessors. Not that it
wanted provocation, for few British Cabinets II
have been more grossly or unjustifiably assailed.
During the progress of the Reform Bills, Lord
Grey and his colleagues, and especially Lord
Durham, were overwhelmed with every descrip-
tion of abuse and contumely which the English
language could provide. They wisely showed
their contempt of their assailants, and confiding
in public opinion, the press defended them
against the press—a more complete cure of
licentiousness than the old methods of legal
prosecution, and setting a price on the head,
of libelling writers and printers. Sir Thomas
Denman, Sir William Horne, and Sir John
Campbell have, compared with their predeces-
sors, more leniently and unexceptionably used
their powers as law officers of the Crown than
any Attorney or Solicitor-General their prede-
cessors—excepting only Lord Lyndhurst when
Sir John Singleton Copley (a sagacious man)
for we will "give the devil his due." Sir John
Campbell is far too sensible and shrewd a man.
besides his decided liberal opinions, to split on
the rock of prosecutions, or to wage a legal war
against an organ of public opinion vitally essential
to any British government of the present times.
The Lord Chief Justice (of the Court of King's
Bench) has also distinctlydiscouraged the mode of
prosecution by "Criminal Information;" although
so long as that legal procedure is allowed by our
jurisprudence lie cannot wholly abolish it. The
Standard asserts that there has been an unusual
crop of libel proceedings in the by-gone term ;
but this " happens not to be true." In the Term
succeeding the General Election there was an
unusual number of applications for Criminal
Informations—many at the suit of Liberals
complaining of Tory libels and calumnies ; and
it is not a little remarkable, but nevertheless
true, that Sir Thomas Denman gave much
offence to men of his own political sentiments
by refusing applications, and referring them to
Juries. We do not doubt that this excellent
and constitutional Judge views the practice of
filing informations, by rule of Court on motion
of counsel, as a bad substitute for the old con-
stitutional method of indictment and present-
ment by Jury. They are customary, as were
once general warrants for the apprehension of
the authors of seditious or treasonable libels,
but are not strictly warranted by law ; and we
ardently hope that this abuse of the law will, next
session, be terminated by a revision of the law of
libel. We yesterday called the attention of the Go-
vernment to this important subject, and we
hope that Ministers will take the credit and
advantage of directing the attention of Parlia
tnent to the crying necessity of a complete revi-
sion of the laws and procedure with regard to
libel. At present, private character and the
Press are equally injured by the defects of the
existing system ; and, however essential the
liberty of the Press to the fullest discussion of
the character and conduct of public men, vet
candidates for political public favour have their
claim to protection from calumny and unlimited
abuse. The Anglo-Saxon law originally treated
defamation as an offence against the public
peace ; and in the time of Henry 111., Bracton
held slander and libellous writings to be action-
able injuries. We believe that the first suit for
slanderous words to be met with in English law
is in the- reign of Edward 111., when un-
restricted liberty of calumny and personal
abuse were afterwards considered so mischievous
and injurious to their victims that several
laws, known as the statutes " de scandalis
magnation" (3 Ed. I. 2 R. 11. and 12 R. II.),
were passed, to suppress and punish the propa-
gation of false and malicious slander. They are
considered to have been declaratory of the corn
moo law. Actions of slander afterwards slowly
but gradually multiplied, between the time of
Edward 111. and the reign of Elizabeth, when
they became frequent. The remedy was applied
to a variety of cases ; and a private action of
slander for damages, and even in the action of
" scandalurn magnatunz," the defendant was
allowed to justify, by showing the truth of the
fact charged ; for if the words were true, it was
then a case of " daninum absquc injuria ;" as
in the civil law. Libel matters continued much
in this undefined and partially adjudged state till
it became convenient to the Stuarts, through the
Court of Star Chamber, in the beginning of the
reign of James 1., to establish as a principle of
English law that the truth of a libel could not
be shown as a justification, because, whether
true or false, it was equally dangerous to the
public peace ! This doctrine was especially
convenient in political prosecution—to maintain
the doctrines of passive obedience anti non-re-
sistance, and to shield the character of profligate
Monarchs and corrupt subservient Ministers.
It was more recently maintained unblushingly
in the memorable case of the " King v
Burdett," when it was " held" by the Court that
where a libel imputed to others the commissior
of a triable crime, the evidence of the truth of
was inadmissible, and that the intention of it
to be collected from the paper itself, unless ex,
plained by the mode of publication, or othei
circumstances ; and that if the contents were
likely to produce mischief; the defendant may be
presumed to intend that which his act was likelt.
to produce. Juries, however, are now improved,
and not so easily " packed ;" and Judges will
be henceforth selected of a different stamp from
some whom we have been blessed with by the
late Tory Administrations ; and it is to the
honour of this Government, that in Ireland,
next year, Mr. O'Connell will not be able justly
to reflect on Protestants and Scotchinen as tilt
exclusive components of an Irish Jury. But we
will not protract our observations on the defect-
of the English law, which are unfortunately but
too well known and sensibly experienced. We
yesterday alluded to the alteration and amendmen
of the laws respecting libels and the press in th

was

North American United S a rthat great store,.
house of legal experimei
cotif
dence. The statute a cililon
idditiirtlC'es**riaTarnuti
slander
dt here balsidis
libel,
esiu,bs tt
r•
4:01,t
110.1...ait
~.
c4:te of
and great constitute a crii
Union that ~ every li !.7-01120ese14itipeak,
write, and publish his setittilitnth,444l sfitrjects,
16440/.
troarr!,i,
being responsible for tlielltitlielAithat right,
and that no law can rightfully be passed to re-
strain or abridge the freedom of speech, or of
the Press." This great principle of civil liberty
soon warred strangely with the legal doctrines
imported from the mother country, and the Re-
discovered
of the la tthesubtleties
,
It), technicalfubii can s
(1
upractice,ickl y
and the craft
were inconsistent with that protection of the
right of suffrage and that control over their
rulers essential to a free people. The combat of
popular opinion against the law and the
lawyers soon commenced, and the natural
result was an improvement of the juris-
prudence of the majority of the States of the
Union. We will not fatigue our readers by
a wordy citation of cases from American works
and legal reports in our possession ; but the
history of the question in that country is
extremely interesting and important, because its
nodern legislation has grown out of its originaf
adoption of our jurisprudence, and resulted
from the same double evils so justly corn-
olained of in this kingdom. In the case of
" The People v. Croswell," in the Supreme
Court of New York, in 1804, argued at the
bar with great ability, the Court were equally
divided in opinion on the point, whether, on an
indictment for a libel, the defendant was ens
itled to give in evidence to the Jury the truth
of the charges contained in the libel. ThA con-
stitution of that State now makes the facts iia
every possible case a necessary subject of open
investigation ; the facts are laid bare, and go to
the Jury to determine, as it shall appear to
them, whether the motives of the libeller were
zood and his end justifiable. In that admirable
Code, the " Revised Statutes of the State of
Yew York," the sole legislatioil on the law of
libel, excepting the general principle of the limi-
ration of all actions wi hin two years of the
.ause of action—is comprised in the following
brief and simple enactment (vol. 1. chap. 4.,
" Of the rights of the citizens and inhabitants
of this State," sec. 21) :
" In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth
'nay be given in evidence to the Jury ; and if it shall
appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libellous
is true, and was published with good motives, and for
justifiable ends, the party is to be acquitted ; and the
Jury have the right to determine the law and the fact."
In South Carolina, the case of " The State
v. Lehre" came before the Court of Appeals,
and was solemnly argued, when the Court una-
nimously decided that they must uphold the
English libel principle. The same decision was
made in Massachusetts, in " The Commonwealth
v. Chase," in 1808, and before the same Court
;n 1825, in the case " The Commonwealth v.
Blanding," when proof of the truth of a libel
was deemed inadmissible in evidence upon the
trial of an indictment ; and the same rule was
maintained in Louisiana in a civil suit for da-
mages. But since the Massachusetts decision in
1825, the Legislature of that State have inter-
posed, and by an Act passed in 1827, have
allowed the truth to be given in evidence in all
prosecutions for libels; but with a proviso that
such evidence should not be a justification,
unless it should be made satisfactorily
to appear upon the trial, that the matter charged
as libellous was published with good motives
and for justifiable ends. By virtue of that vial
And excellent political principle which insures
the periodical revision of the constitutions of the
States, almost all their amended constitutions
within the last few years have made special provi
sion in favour of giving the truth in evidence iii
public prosecutions for libel. In the constitu-
tions of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, it is
declared that, in prosecutions for libels on men
in respect to their public official conduct, the
truth may be given in evidence when the matter
published was proper for public information.
In Mississippi and Missouri, the extension
of this right applies to " all" prosecutions or in-
dictments for libels, without any qualifications
annexed in restraint of the privilege ; and an
Act of the Legislature of New Jersey, in 1809,
allowed the same unrestricted privilege. The
Legislature of Pennsylvania, in 1809, went far
beyond their own constitution, and declared, by
statute, that no person should be indictable for
a publication on the official conduct of men in
public trust ; and that in all actions or criminal
prosecutions for a libel, the defendant might
plead the truth in justification, or give it in
evidence ; and in New York, in a celebrated
case—" Thorn v. Blanchard"—the majority of
the Judges of the Court of Errors maintained the
same unlimited toleration as respected libels on
members of the Government of that State. We
do not doubt that some of the Conservative daily
and " Sabbath Journals" would covet such a
liberty when they might libel Lord Grey, Lord
Brougham, and Mr. Ellice. at their ase, and
' calumniate the Earl of Durham, ass a Privy
Councillor, to their heart's content. We cannot
expect that our citations of Transatlantic Law
will be very grateful to Tory prejudices; but wn
hope that Lord Althorp will take a leaf next
session out of the American law books referred
to by us. At least we have now given good
evidence to the Standard that we justly appre-
ciate and understand the real liberty of the press,
and that our contemporary does not now mono-
polize all the jealousy in its favour. 'We may
hereafter allude to the forcible and unanswerable
arguments which, in the above cases, and in the
discussions on the amended States Constitu-
tions, led to the alteration of the American Law.
And we will console the libellers and slanderers
by assuring them that the alterations of the
United States law, although framed to secure
reputation and to punish libellers, neverthe-
less afford ample scope to libelling pro-
oensities ; for the American Press sufficiently
teems with personal abuse, calumny, political
party spirit, and misrepresentation. More-
over, the libellers have still, as they ever
must have in England and Ireland, the chances
of the lottery of juries. The fact is, that the
fireta rain
mostt.reed patriotico m
of
e,iii
si aecrnuodsussi generousoipaot
el Lion,
subject of libel law—the security of the liberty
of the press—and the repression and punishment
of its abuses—are matters of great legislative
difficulty and embarrassment to all who have
ern° main.tli
maturely considered the question. We may have
and in the
press ; but character, public anttaiielpxriiiiesbrta t e ,y boa s a n
equal claim to g
duet protect .
ion of the press we are not to destroy.
s responsibility to just laws and rational re-
:traints ; nor will the true liberty of the press, or
its moral influence, be advanced by unlicensed
and unbridled power. Tne learned and ena
lightened jurist, Mr. Kent, the ex-Chancellor of
he State of New York (to whose invaluable vo.

times of " Commentaries on the American Laws"
we must acknowledge our obligation in this arti-
cle), justly observes, that" to control the malicious
abuse or licentiousness .of the press, is the most
effectual way to preserve its freedom." The
present defective law and procedure in this
country is a premium on libels, and an irresistible
temptation to knaVish lawyers. Legal proceed-
ings are commenced to take advantage of the
law ; and libellers, when justly prosecuted and
convicted, too often obtain the mawkish pity
and extenuation of the public, under the pre-
tence of being " victims of the law." We re•
marked some days since, that persons libelled
are frequently deprived of the right of action.
because, as plaintiffs, they can give no testimony
in their own case, when frequently they are the
very evidence of the falsehoods circulated against
them. And although, in an indictment, the
real prosecutor (fictitiously borrowing the name
of the King) frequently frames his indictment
to put the truth at issue, the libeller when con-
victed ingeniously and successfully proclaims to
the public that the law deprives him of the right
of proof. The vexatious "splitting of libel
prosecutions" by trafficking attorneys should be
put an end to ; and the multiplication of ac-
tions and informations, against defendants for
the same cause of complaint, may be sub-
stantially prevented. The optional power
of attacking the persons or pockets or both
departments of defendants should be determined
and restricted ; the doctrine of costs may be
essentially altered, and made a most effective
security of character and the press ; the prose-
cuted may be allowed to plead according to
common sense, and specially to the different
charges preferred against them ; and the different
degrees of liability in the author, copiers, and
accidental and often innocent propagators, of
slander and libel, should be distinguished by the
written law, and recognised in judicial decisions
and verdicts. The Standard exhorts us to join
in the " hue and cry" against the late and pend-
ing libel prosecutions, as a matter of self interest,
because by our liberal and impartial course we
may be sharpening weapons for Tories, who, it
appears, may possibly succeed Lord Grey, and
when we are to be the " depressed party." We
do not, however, happen to entertain this political
apprehension ; but we see, by the following ex-
tract, that the Standard has very lively expec-
tations :
" And now we must remark upon a double impolicy
of our contemporary in encouraging libel prosecutions.
It is first impolitic as the act of a pat ty journal, because
it is, in fact, preparing weapons of vengeance to be exer-
eiFed upon the Whigs when they shall be the depressed
party, as very soon they must be. It is nonsense to sup.
pose that a set of men, absolutely without any party in
the country, except the party which it feeds from the
public manger, can long retain the reins of Government,
even in the present disjointed condition of British society.
The present men must be turned out very soon; possibly
to be replaced by a Conservative cabinet, but more proba-
bly by a gang of revolutionists, more honest and disinte.
rested than themselves, and therefore less unpopular. In
either case there will be all the disposition to destroy the
Whig press which the Whigs entertain to destroy us. The
public detestation of all persecuting practices will then be
the only shield of safety for the Morning Chronicle
and its coadjutors, and that shield it is now labour-
irg to destroy. Now, it is again impolitic for the
Morning Chronicle to play its present game in rela
tion to its character as an integer of the public press. As
it happens, we have, from whatever cause, p'wer—power
which the Reform Bill has infinitely enhanced. Public
men must gain this power on their side, either by raising
the press to a condition of companionship and equality,
or by degrading it, with bribes on one side, and oppression
on the other, to the servile state—there is no middle-
course. This, we believe, the Conservative party are wise
enough to see. We have reason to know that their acces-
sion to power would be followed by a large distribution of
public patronage amongst the persons of all degrees con-
rected with the press; and this without political distinc-
tion, or distinction of any other kind except such as would
be made by character, and talent, and capacity of serving
the public. Thus, connecting the hopes of the press with
the institutions of the country, they would certainly rear
their Conservative structure upon a broad and firm foun-
dation. This, however, contemplates a kind of change
which we do not anticipate as very likely soon to occur."
These may be the day dreams of a certain set of
(sr-Members of Parliament,—the late represen-
tatives of rotten and nomination boroughs, who
can delude no free constituencies, and who
therefore vent their spleen in the well known
wholesale manufacture of daily and weekly
libels. But our shrewd contemporary has no
such real golden anticipations ; and though the
Press has long been, and ought to be, as it is in
France, one of the honourable roads to affluence,
political power, and station, yet are we not to be
tempted from our " propriety" by such magnifi-
cent prospects. Moreover, we are assured that
the Conservatives will long sigh in solitude for
their expected opportunity of again governing this
nation; and " the gang of revolutionists" will wait
as long, unless the Tories should succeed by libels
and calumny in displacing the present Ministers,
who among other reforms we hope and believe will
consult public opinion by revising the law of
libel, and further seeming the real liberty of the
press. The libellers will never persuade the
people that they are so miraculously and sin-
cerely converted to their new doctrines in favour
of the press, nor that a few present legal pro-
ceedings against it (the majority of scandalous
libels against private character) are promoted by
the Ministry, or have any real political relations
such as the Tory journals absurdly labour to
establish. They will more successfully aid their
palpably paltry objects by following their busi-
ness of propagating libels than by vainly attempt-
ing the present juggle. But according to the
Scripture proverb, " The wicked man scattereth
firebrands, arrows, and death, and sayeth, Am
I not in sport.' "—Morning Chronicle.
With the revival of anytning like liberty in a
country the press immediately multiplies the
organs of public opinion ; or rather, the privi-
lege of expressing opinion freely, under a liberal
Government, creates the organs of a political
press. At any rate, the two facts of freedom and
free discussion are never separated, and we can-
not conceive, in a reading age, that men should
possess and exercise a power of speaking freely,
without desiring to extend the sphere of their
persuasion or utility, by addressing through the
press and public journals those whom their indi-
vidual voice could never reach. Accordingly,
no sooner had the absolute authority of Ferdi-
nand of Spain ended pith his life, than several
new journals were established at Madrid to give
utterance to the public feeling. Among these
we find the Estrella, or Star, the sixth number
of is hich now lies before us. None of these pa-
pers, so far as we have seen, display much inde-
pendence of character, or indulge in much
freedom of remark, because the censorship
has not yet been formally abolished, and
because the power of suspending or confis-
cating a journal still rests with the Go_
vernment ; but it is something to have
secured public discussion within any limits,
however narrow, and the Estrella seems to have
taken honourable advantage of this new privi-
lege. In the number to which we have alluded,
it enters into a defence of the conduct of Go-
vernment respecting the late amnesty, and pro-
bably goes further than would suit the views of
M. Zea in vindicating the character and rights