The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-18 00:00:00

MORTALITY IN THE METROPOLIS.

NITMBER OF DEATHS FROM AIL CAUSES REGISTERED
IN THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, FEB. 14
Zymotic Diseases
Diseases of Uncertain Seat
Tubercular Diseases

Diseases of the Brain, Nerves and Senses l3B
Diseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels 65
Diseases of the Lungs and other Organs of
Respiration
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other Organs
of Digestion
Diseases of the Kidneys, &c.
Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, 6
6
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles .. 9
Diseases of the Skin, &c.
Malformations .. 4
Premature Birth and Debility 27
Atrophy 43
57
Old Age
Mudden 1
Violence, Privation Cold, and Intemperance 24
Causes not specified'
•
DUNES nom ALL CAUSES 1,264
Population Deaths in corre- Deaths
Enumerated. sponding week in the
1851. 0(1856. Week.
West Districts
North Districts 490,396
Central Districts 393,256
East Districts 485,522
South Districts 616,635 ...... 264
- -
1 Totals

Males
F3males
BIRTHS IN THE WEEK

606
658

Males
Females

947
904

Total 1,851

CITY COMMISSION OF SElrva.

Yesterday a court was held for the despatch of public I 1
busines 4 ; Mr. Deputy Peacock occupied the chair.
Dr. LETYIEBY, the Medical Officer of Health, pre-
sented a report, from which the following is an ex:tract
" Tho mortality returns for the week indicate a satis-
factory state of the public health, the number of eteaths
having fallen from 70, the death rate of the prec ediog
week, to 54 ; 25 of these arose from diseases of ti to re•
spiratory organs. There were also Biz deaths from .fevtr
and two from diarrhoea. The mortality from hopping.
cough is greatly on the decline, and there were not ..any
deaths from smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, or alter
epidemic disease."
The Court, atter inflicting severe penalties on severe 1
of the contractors foi cleansing' the streets, for neglect 0 .
duty, adjourned.

_
" But if J. S. publish that he bath heard generally,
without a certain author, that J. G. was a traitor or thief
then an action on the case lieth against J. S. for this, that
he hath not given to the party grieved any cause of action
against any but against himself who published the words ;
for if any one who hath imam phantasia,-n,' or who is a
drunlcard, or of no estimation, speak scandalous words, if
it should be lawful for a man of credit to report them
generally without raentioninglis author, that would give
greater colour and probsbility that the words were true in
respect of the credit of the reporter."
This was the old common law' and the judges
who enounced it quoted abundant decisions of their
and of Lord Campbell's predeces=ors.
A smatterer in law will object that this resolu-
tion was of words spoken, and not of words written.
Lord Camptell is too sound a lawyer to make such
a reply. He knows that it is most indubitable that
when this judgment was given the Courts recog-
nised no • distinction between oral and written
slander. It was so recently as the year 1812 that
the distinction between written and spoken defa-
mation was first forinally drawn. Lord Chief Jus-
tice Mansfield, in his judgment in the case of
" Thorley v. Lord Kerry," said that he could find
it in none of the old books and abridgments, and
he used these words—" I cannot upon principle
make any difference between words written and
words spoken as to the right which arises on them
of bringing an action."
So late as 1824 Lord Tenterden, in the case of
" MGregor v. Thwaites," very carefully guarded
himself against being supposed to decide that the
resolution in Lord. Northampton's case did not
apply to written PS well as to oral slander. We
admit that from time to time judges cast evil eyes
on the old law ; 'but no Court thought itself strong
enough to repeal so solemn a decision, ratified by
eleven judges and reported by Lord Coke, untl in
1829 Chief Justice Best, in the case of "De Ores-
pigny v. Wellesley," stepped out. of his way, and,
confessedly without any ne3essity for the purpose
of the case before the Court, committed the " mon-
strSus usurpation" of enacting from the bench that
the law of England as it existed from the time of
James T. downwards should then be changed.

It was old Lord Wynford who, by his -own au-
thority, made this law, and a more "monstrous
usurpation" certainly never was committed by an
English judge. We are not aware that there was
anything so vast in the intellect of this ancient
gentleman, whether as a lawyer, a moralist, or a
politician, that we should make a Solon of h;m,
and swear not to abrogate hrs decrees until he
conies back again. The evil he did might have
been undone, and it was quite open to the Queen's
Bench in 1857 to say that the judgment of the
Common Pleas in 1829 was not law.
This has been done before. Thera have been
Lord Chief Justices who have not dealt so tenderly
with the dicta of their predecessors. Lord Mansfield
was told, upon an historic occasion, that the con-
stant course of precedents was to seize upon negro
slaves in England, and send them back to the West
Indies. The jUdgments of Lord Talbot and Lord
Hardwicke were cited as closing a long series of
precedents which ran up into the old feudal slave
law of " villein regardant" and " villein in gross."
But that Lord Chief Justice said, "I care not for
the supposed dicta of judges, however eminent, if
they be contrary to all principle. The air of Eng-
land has long been too pure for a slave, and every
man is free who breathes it." Lord Mansfield was
a man who dared to overrule " judge-made law,"
and who could openly say, " We do not sit here to
take our rules from Siderfin and Keble."
We have shortly sketched the history of this ex-
crescence upon the libel law, not to criticise Lord
Campbell's judicial decision, nor simply to show
that it was not quite impossible for his Court to
have decided otherwise. Lord Campbell is the only
really great lawyer we have upon the bench ; others
may be formidable to the bar from a habit of sneer-
ing safely indulged ; some may be good pleaders,
and all are honest, painstaking judges. But Lord
Campbell is the only man who will be remembered
hereafter as having a spark of the genius which lit
up the intellects of our Bacons, and Mansfieldq,
and Camdens. While he follows the last precedents
he does not forget that his position entails upon him
higher responsibilities, and that he can reform as a
legislator what be consider.; he must be bound by
as a judge. It is to help him in this work that we
have pointed out that this vexations rule of law is
but an "usurpation" of yesterday ; that it is con-
trary to all ancient authority, and but the edict of
an old Tory judge whose politics no ono respects,
and whose learning no lawyer venerates. If Chief
Justica Best's law cannot be overruled there need
not be any scruple about repealing it.

(From the Morning Chronicle.)
No one can dispute the law of libel as laid down
by Chief Justice Campbell in the House of Lords
on Monday night. But with his exposition of the
policy on which that law is founded—and, as we
gather from his speech, ought in his opinion to be
maintained—we feel bound to express our dissent.
Let us see how the question remains, according to
the tenour of existing statutes, as interpreted by
the judicial tribunals. " Libellous" statements.,
may be promulgated is three forms. They may be
spoken—they may be written—and they may be
printed. With the first form the law confesses
itself wholly unable to deal. Words are but wind,
and the most atrocious sl4nders may be uttered,
either in private conversat'on or before some
crowded public meeting, with perfect impunity.
The law cannot touch the slanderer, provided al-
ways he keeps within the compass of certain tech-
nic 11 regulations. Thus every atrocious epithet and
insinuation may be freely lavished upon any ob-
noxious person, if care be taken to avoid callipg
him a thief. Over members of the legal profession
more especially protection is thrown ' • yet oven a
solicitor can be branded with many terms of oppro-
brium without finding any legal remedy, unless he
can prove that his calumniator termed him " petti-
fogger." For the weaker half of humanity, as
usual, there is no protection whatever. A woman
can be stigma' ised in phrases which would cendemn
her to infamy for life ; and yet the cowardly slan-
derer may laugh at every attempt to bring him
within the purview of a legal devalty.
With regard to written slander, the q
the roof
uestion, in
a legal point of view, always buss upon p
of what is called publication. Certain letters,
whatever the character of their contents, are con-
siderel, " privileged communications." Of this
class are epistles containing the characters of ser-
vants or other applications for confidential situations,
and the communications addressed to various per-
sonages occupying positions of trust and responsi-
bility. Letters sent by private hand also enjoy
the great negative advantage of putting the plain-
tiff in any case of libel founded upon their contents
to the necessity of proving, by extraneous evidence,
the fact of publication. With regard to letters sent
convenience eanlceega inl
bfiyetipoons,te,ntdhiesepeeropotfedisfeeratshiley d. By
w
other respects—as, for example, when propertyepistles
stolen from a letter in transitu—th e
dropped into a receiving-box at any post-office be-
longsn for the time to the Postmaster-General. Be-
ing thus made public property for a few hours, any
statement contained in the letter is legally sup-
posed to be published ill the precise sense of a pub-
lication disseminated by the most widely circulated
newspaper. This is the law as regards "written"
libels.
With respect to printed statements in which in-
lividnal characters are traduced, the law has no
doubt. All such are published at the entire risk
absence,observed,
of the writer, if he can be identified, or, in h?
escapes unpunished.
of the publisher. The real author, te. it
quiry even after him. For libels which
imsniga or,
when
libelous when merely spoken, become
eui?.,ahrenwo
thnmoi
written and printed. The origin
therefore, even if he has been addressing a thronged
assembly, and although his words can be attested
basysaailathwoeus, and come
while the journalist who happens to
etent witnesses, remains un_