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

..--;-)/
rD
--- 6-.--,-- LL.-- -_
e,..7)-

~ .
....,.. ‘,........-..-.
ifth.....-
‘ , ...of, ~,, so
~-t.„..x. -c,1011%1,-,
-..' '.., - - -
ir
~ -.;*: ~.. ,-1, • ~ .0. i., ,qi u,., z.," ' . ...,... c._ 1 .
-"----: :'!"111%.
.;:•,,L :. 4* 4 , '''. ' :
____ ___ \ .
,'_....;-,' ...
.. 06, .4`..i 2'
~,,oviy .4" „o's ~,!- 'e-, ,;--,iiii 8,,,‘, -,, :i\ --t---_, \ ter—.-,- :-! ..9,
--.l.iT 3,;,(6) Dri, ~. r rvi,-., ~,,\I, , , r... 4 )R°l'i''' ‘r
'..A k
sh: • r .
y •e.,",-. y tr, - 4.-
~, es:::::00:8;:,,,,::

2 ,e'
' Z/Z: ;--,V,'
----
(._---
i ,----, - -
.....:::-4-...
I''Aii!Vgel,kclt :4_
74PT"4.1-4.1r, ' dfrsl •
aothirfaeT
heivsnu.eadesri
seeTwiap:htogizirurrtoeleeandarl
tnyhhdieessxi,cedistinctionspeeche t
ion tooexceptions
to :it :I
tii•' e''' . ' 4: 4Ow -
L
tiously becomes liable to an actiiat:for e-. 7,
established in "favour of proceedings before a court
moree ches
atrociousi itihuParliaments
established
libels —obtthabei
obtain
law e r
they
widest publicity.
between printed and spoken libels, and between
libellous statements promulgated in Westminster
Hall or the two Houses of Parliament and other
bellpublic meetings, is thus supported by Lord Camp- ,
. .
"The question was whether accounts of public
meetings might be published, in which there might
be matter which calumniated individuals. Now, he
• had no hesitation in saying that as the law then
stood there was no such right. It had been deter-
mined over and over again that it was no justifica-
tion for the publication of a libel that it had been
spoken by another person. As to the report of the
proceedings in Parliament, he was most zealously
disposed to hold them to be no libel—but the case
was different in public meetings, and to allow
everything there said to be published without re-
medy would be monstrous. The speech did but
small injury, but when it was published it was
carried all over the world. He would not say that
there mi7ht not be some cases where the publication
of public meetings might not be exempted from
libel under certain limitations and resVictions, but
it was monstrous to suppose that thos,e ware to
make the law who were appointed to interpret it,
and he hoped that such a precedent would never be
established."
Here, as we have said, we join issue with the
noble and learned . lord. We cannot believe that
calumnies conveyed in speech are less injurious
than when embodied in print, or that it is " mon-
strous" to exonerate the journalist from responsibi-
lity
when„ reproducing a speech containing libels
for which :the speaker -hirase)f cannot be. made le-
gaily answerable. But the dictum is founded alto 7
getter upon a bygone and obsolete condition of _
things. ' Triiauld possibly have been just and-tight
fifty years since—when the press, paradoxical as it
may sound, exercised at once greater and less influ-
ence than it does at present—when it was potent to
assail and destroy private character, but far less
powerful in its sway over public opinion, or as the
guide and censor of public men. At that time it
might have been found just and expedient to fetter
the licence of the jourtialist, and to establish a
broad legal distinction between the penalties incur-
red for the promulgation of a " libei" in mere
speech, or by the more permanent and potent agen-
cies of print. But that time has long since passed
away. In lending the sanction of hie authority to
the conii nuance of so antiquated a system,
Lord Campbell has shown how difficult it is for a
lawyer to escape from the thraldom of precedent.
Law, says Baccn, is the perfection of justice. A
century ago certain laws might deserve that eulogy.
Those laws remain, although circumstances have so
changed that what was just in 1757
has become fla-
grantly unjust and ridiculously inexpedient in
1857. Yet law is law—in the judgment of a law-
yer. At all events, if we would seek some more
rational conclusion, we must not expect to extract
it from the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench.

[PRICE 4D. SrAmPED SD.

THE LA TY OF LIBEL.

( From the Times.)

We wish to set ourselves right with Lord Camp-
bell as to the decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench in the case of " Davison v. Duncan." His
Lordship says—
"It would have been a most monstrous usurpation if we
had decided that the publication before us was not liable
to an action ; for if it hat been determined over and over
again by our predecessors by whose decisions we are bound
that if there be anything slanderous in a writing it is no
justification to plead that the slanderous matter has been
written or spoken by another person."
Now, we submit to Lori Campbell that the
"monstrous usurpation," if any such there be, con-
sisted in first enouucing this proposition. Let us
look fora moment at the history of this portion of
our libel law.
In the twelfth part of Lord Coke's reports we
find the c2.lebrated case of the Earl of Northamp-
ton. It was decided so long ago as 1612, and the re-
solution was made, after solemn argument, by 11
of the 12 judges of England. The resolution was
in these words':-- ,

" In a private action for a slander of a common person,
if J. S. publish that he bath heard J. N. say that J. G.
was a traitor or thief, in an action on the case he may
justify
" But if J. S. publish that he hath heard generally,
without FS, certain author, that. J. G. was a traitor or thief
then an ac`aon on the ease 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 laesam phantasianu,' or who is a
drunkard, or cf no estimation, speak scandalous words, if
it should be lawful for a man of credit to report them
generally without mentioning his author, that would give
greater colour and probability 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 predecessors.
A smatterer in Law will obje3t that this resolu-
..

tion was of -words spoke!), and not of words written.
Lord Campbell 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 recent'y as the year 1812 that
the distinction between written and spoken defa-
mation was first formally 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—"l cannot upon principle
make any difference between words written and
words spoken as to the right which arises on them
cf bringing an action."
So late as 1824 Lord Tenterden, in the case of

" M'Gregor v. Thwaites," very carefully guarded
himself against being supposed to decide that the
resolution in Lord Northampton's case did not
apply to written as 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, uutl in
1829 Chief Justice Best, in the case of "De Cre4-
pigny v. Wellesley," stepped out of his way, and,
confessedly without any necessity for the purpose
of the case before the Court, committed the mon-
strous ustupation" of enacting from the bench that
the law of England as it existed from the time of
James I. downwar Is 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 him,
and swear not to abrogate decrees until he
canes 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 ne7,ro
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."

Naval and Military intailigence.

The 23d Royal Welsh Fusileers, quartered at Portsmouth
and Gosport, were inspected on Southsea-common on Mon-
day afternoon by Major-General Breton, the Commander-in-
Chief of the South-West district. The regiment musters 1
upwards of 1,500 strong, and went through all the move-
ments incidental to an official inspection to the satisfaction
of the General.

The number of troops who have volunteered for the
various Indian corps at Chatham is about 800, the whole
of whom will join their depots at Chatham-barracks.
_ __ _

Her Majesty's steam-vessel Wye, Master-Commander
Moore, 2 guns and 100-horse power, arrived at Spithead
yesterday from the Mediterranean. She left Gibraltar on
the 9th inst. On the 10th and 11th she encountered heavy
gales from the north-west, and lost a quarterboat, but had
fine weather crossing the Bay of Bi,cay. The Wye was
formerly the Heels, and bought by the Government from the
North of Europe Steam Navigation Company to be con-
verted int-) a watertank for distilling water for the use of
the fleet, then at 13alakka. She was fitted for this duty by
Mr. T. T. Grant, the Controller of Victualling at Ports
mouth Dockyard, in the fall of the year 1855, and sent
to the Black Sea in the spring of the following year,
where she has been distilling from 30,000 to 35,000 gallons
of water per day of excellent quality. The crew has hal
no other water, and there has been no sickness among
them.. She left Spitbead for Woolwich to be paid off.
The Governor of Gibraltar was particularly desirous that
the Wye should have barn left there, as when she sailed he
had not more than 1,000 gallons of water in the garrison.
She brought home Captain Ross, R.N., Mr. Goldsworthy,
R.N.. Lieutenant Butcher, R. M., invalided from her
rMa-
jesty's ship Curagoa ; Mrs. Allen and eon; and Dr. Toms,
R.N., in medical charge, on promotion.
i inTohteheßzetumc kb,
a6s.i
ris tae
ta mi.) .
arts
for vteossebe b
l, hasoug hbteefnortwaarkedn for service.
The Plumper, 6, sorew sloop, Capt. Richards, was taken
out of dock at Portsmouth yesterday, after and
taken under the shears to be remasted.,
f
repairs,
Vice-Admiral Sir G. F. -Seymour, K.C.8., struck his
flag on board the Victory on Monday morning, and pro-
ceeded to town to be present at the marriage of his niece,
the Hon. Mary Seymour, Maid of Honour to the Queen,'
to Colonel Biddulph, Controller of her Majesty's House-
hold.

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 Mansfields,
and Camdeus. 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 he considers he must be bound by
as a judge. It is to help him in this work that we
have pointed out that this vexatious rule of law is
but an "usurpation" of yesterday ; that it is con-

The Dee steam store transport is unloading boilers and
machinery for the new ships Diadana and Melpomene.
The urgent steam troopship, Commander Phillips, was
taken ont of the steam basin at Portsmouth on Monday,
after repairs.

A portion of the Crimean stores brought to Chatham
from Kertch by the engineer corps of the Turkish Contin-
gent is to be for warded to Alderehott for the use of the
troops at thecamp and yesterday afternoon four carts filled
with artificers' tools were forwarded from Chatham, in ad-
dition to which 16 of the large pontoons and 8 rafts have
also been sent to Aldershott, to be used by the Royal En-
gineers stationed there. Twelve of General Blanshard's
pontoons and six rafts have also been sent to Sandhurst,
where they will be used by the young officers. In addition
to the stores which have already been forwarded to Alder-
shott, 12 waggons and carts, laden with intrenching tools,
will be sent from Chatham this day. Nearly the whole of
the stores have now been removed from the gun-wharf and
deposited at Brompton barracks.
The Iris, 26, Capt. W. Loring, C. 8., fitting at Chatham
for the Australian station, is under orders to proceed to sea
to-morrow.

trary to all ancient authority, and -but the edict of
an old Tory judge whose politics no one respects,
and whose learning no lawyer venerates. If Chief
Justic) Best's law cannot be overruled there need
not be any scruple about repealing it.

The Diamond, 27, Capt. C. B. Hamilton (1853), is to
be paid off at Chatham this day.
The following appointments were made yesterday at the
Admiralty :
Lieut. Richard C. Mayne, to the Plumper ; E. M. Tap.
per, mate, to the Iris; Wm. Parsons, midshipman, to the
Victory; A. J. Errington, midshipman, to the Impreg-
nable; and Robert W. M. Jones, paymasjer, to the Curlew.

(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.
Lot us see how the question remains, according to
the tenour of existing statutes, as interpreted by
the judicial tribunals. " Libellous" Statements
may be promulgated in 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 slanders may be uttered,
either in private conversation 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-
nical regulations. Thus every atrocious epithet and
insinuation may be freely lavished upon any ob-
noxious person, if care be taken to avoid calling
him a thief. Over members of the legal professio
more especially protection is thrown ; yet even 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 stigmatised in phrases which would condemn
her to itiftiny for life ; and yet the cowardly slan-
derer may laugh at every attempt to bring him
within the purview of a legal denalty.
With regard to written slander, the question, in
a legal point of view, always turns upon the proof 1
of what is called publication. Certain letters,
whatever the character of their contents, are con-
sidere 1, " privileged communications." Of this
class are epistles containing the characters of ser-
vants or other applications for confidentialsi.tuations,
and the communications addressed to various per-
souaqes 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
by post, this proof is easily procured.
By a legal
teraxnasmitput,
the
epistles when property i
whens
fiction, and accepted for the sake of convenience in
sottohleern
from.e a ects
-tatser iftoir
dropped into a receiving-box at any t ffi
Pos.-0 Ce be-
long for the time to the Postmaste Gr- eneral. Be-
ing thus made public property for a few hours,
statement contained in the letter
legally sup-
posed to be published in the precise senseofpub-
lication disseminated, by the a
most widely circulated
newspaper. This is the l
I libels. aw as regards " written"

With respect to printed statements in which in-
dividual characters are traduced, the law has no
doubt. All such are published at the entire risk
of the writer, if he can be identified, or,
.ie b!,7
absence, of the publisher. The real author, i'b.ni!
observed, escapes unpunished. Ther.ehisarnee I
not
(lulu even after him. For libels
erom
libellous when merely spoken,. becolwmhic
written and printed. The original a
therefore, even if ho has been. addressing_scan ulgator,
thronged
be attested
assembly, and although his worci
remains
by a thousand competent. witnesses,rtwho
un-
assailable. while the JOl 1111a.1,4 liappell4 to
such when