The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-05 00:00:00

made in a court of law or equity by counsel, if publish-
ed, would be libellous—and so would every printed
charge delivered by a judge to a jury ; for all these are
one way or other injurious to the reputation of the
parties attempted to be eliminated thereby. In short,
the Law of Libel is a sort of India-rubber enactment,
which may be stretched at pleasure to any extent.
But even where the .subject of a printed libel is
more explicitly marked, what can be more unjust than
the prosecution of individuals ignorant of the very ex-
istence of the party libelled ? Not only is the writer
of a libel subject to severe penalties ; but the printer,
the publisher, the vender, and even the innkeeper into
whose shop or coffee-room the illegal paragraph has
found its way, although the first offender may have
been unconscious of having committed any offence, and
all the subsequent parties be totally ignorant about the
matter. Admitting the writing of the libel to have
been criminal in the first instance, why inflict a
punishment on the honest, unoffending tradesman
who could know nothing about it ? If the law
declares Judges on the Bench to be incompetent to
declare what constitutes a libel—if the ablest civilians
in the country have differed on the subject, even
in the most ordinary cases—in the name of reason and
common sense, how is a printer, a publisher, a news-
vender, or a publican,, to decide on cases of libel,
which they have neither time to read nor examine ?
Were a London newsvender obliged to read over all
the public Journals to discover libels, before delivering
them to his customers, they would be three or four
days old before this task could be accomplit4hed, pre-
suming him competent to perform it. What, then, is
the consequence of this legislative sanctioning of in-
discriminate punishment ? 'Why simply this :—All
being liable, all despise the law. The common sense
of every man tells him it is unjust; and this establishes
the demoralizing conviction in the public mind
that the Legislature is not infallible in its judgments.
The general liability to punishment is an encourage-
ment to transgress the law ; first, because there are as
many chances of escape for the guilty as there arc in-
nocent liabilities ; and, again, because the law itself
being admitted by the common sense of the people to be
unjust, it is no longer a disgrace to be punished under
it. Hence the moral sanction is lost ; and from that
moment the law degrades and demoralizes the people.

But the worst feature in the law of libel is the re-
fusing to admit the truth in evidence and justification of
the defendant's conduct, in all cases where a criminal
information has been filed. This not only goes to se-
cure impunity to guilt, but absolutely exposes the honest
citizen to the hazard of being plundered by every scoun-
drel against whose nefarious tricks he ventures to ad-
monish an unsuspecting public. Let him only dare
to complain of the losses he has sustained, and attempt
to put others on their guard, and he is immediately
denounced by some " buccaneering adventurer," who
lives by plundering under the flag of a criminal infor-
mation.

At present, no person in the remotest degree con-
nected with literature, can calculate on exemption
from prosecution for twenty-four hours together. In-
dividual innocence is no protection. Our news agents
may be most upright men, but their rectitude of con-
duct will not keep them out of prison, if we, in our
zeal to correct an abuse, throw out some hint respect-
ing the mal-practices of some pettifogging attorney,
notorious swindler, or infamous spy. Even among
respectable people, such a dialogue as the following,
which we take from a work of fiction, may not unfre-
quently be heard :

" The bishop now exclaimed, after having taken the paper
from the dean, and read the paragraph, " It is a libel, a rank
libel, and the author must be punished."
" Not only the author, but the publisher," said the dean.
" Not only the publisher, but the printer," continued the
bishop.
" My lord, it is a pity we cannot try them by the ecclesias-
tical court," said the dean with a sigh.
" Or by the India Delinquent Bill," said the bishop with
vexation.

" What is the meaning of the word libel ?" asked Henry, in
a whisper.
" A libel," replied the dean, " is that which one person pub-
lishes to the injury of another."
" And what can the injured person do," asked Henry, "if
the accusation should chance to be true ?"
" Prosecute," replied the dean.
" But, then, what does he do if the accusation be false ?"
" Prosecute likewise," answered the dean.
" How, is it possible that the innocent behave just like the
guilty ?"
" There is no other way to act."
" Why then, if I were the innocent, I would do nothing at
all sooner than I would act like the guilty. I would not per-
secute."

" I said prosecute," cried the dean in anger. Leave the
room : you have no comprehension."
"Oh yes, now I understand tho difference of the two
words ; but they sound so much alike, I did not at first observe
the distinction. You said, the innocent prosecute, but the
guilty persecute." He bowed (convinced as he thought) and
left the room."

The public will sec at once that this is not a drawing
from fancy, for which the world affords no prototype.
The above is not only an exposition of the way in
which the law of libel operates, but likewise an instance
of the immense power of oppression which it places in
the hands of every unprincipled person, who thinks pro-
per to put it in operation. The reasons why it ought to
be forthwith abolished, may be thus summed up :
Because it confounds guilt with innocence in the
persons accused of actually writing the libels, inas-
much as the fact of intention is disregarded, it being
immaterial, in point of law, whether the accused did
or did not intend to injure the character of his accuser.
Because it confounds guilt with innocence in the
case of the libel itself, by declaring it immaterial to
the punishment of the accused whether the statement
put forth in matter charged as libellous be in itself
true or false.

Because it punishes the innocent for the guilty,
where the guilt has been proved, by making printers,
newsvenders, and others, amenable to inflictions which
ought only to be visited on the writer.
Because this system of chance punishment en-
ables every trader in politics and in scandal to
ruin innocent parties by actions for damages, the sole
object of such individuals being to plunder honest
booksellers, newsvenders, and other persons connected
with literature.

And finally : Because a system which confounds
guilt with innocence demoralizes the people, by teach-
ing them that they ought to evade the law, thereby
in-
stilling into the ignorant mind a principle, which,
acted upon in one instance, will be soon extended to
others. The evasion of one law leads to the evasion
of all laws ; for one being known to be unjust, all
others will in time be presumed to be so too, until the
whole community is covered with a moral leprosy.

An animated discussion took place last night in the
House of Commons respecting the Orange Societies
of Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL told Ministers some
home-truths on this subject, which Sir R. PEEL, find-
ing that he could not answer them, adroitly attempted
to parry, by saying, " we are losing sight of the main
question ;" and then went on to observe that the answers
given by his MAJESTY to the addresses of certain
Orange bodies in Ireland, were merely in the usual rou-
tine way of business. Now this was not the question.