The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-04 00:00:00

ROYAL ACADEMY OF MUSIC.

-
This silly institution, with its cant about morality and religion,
*ins likely to be brought into general contempt by the disaussimis
4oNv taking place about it. Already the Archbishop Of Yowl: mutt
411 himself in very awkward company when transacting business
with his worthy friend Mr.lloczisa, and the Academy Chaplain
4%.e nu sinecure in protecting the boys and girls from bad precepts
srul worse examples.
ht has been said, very irreverendly, that " if there were no
there would he no need of Parsons; and we therefore sup-
r4e it
to find the Chaplain in work that Mr. BOCHSA has
It iutroduced somewhat iu that character. The Chaplain
" Keep your hands from picking and stealing, your tongue
"tin lying, and your body in soberness and chastity," The Devil
liplioth with a soft " Do at I do."
0 If the archbishoptand his deputy have power to cast out devils,
prey will serve their Academy best by turning out Beelzebub, the
rrillee of the devils.
but the whole business is truly ridiculous, with poor Ver.t.trn to
Cruet the boys and girls in the Italian mode of making singers--
pod MINIZASH to teach them the abort road to composition—the
mill'ans to teach them morals—the Opera to unteach them again-
1Y Beelzebub, to show them by his example that the
1,44-41111 of the Great has nothing tq do with honesty or decency,
ilothi in fact character in the musical profession amounts to
111r4ft• Does not the Archbishop shake his wig at this? X.
livantrt bad no doubt bat that this came from an alloy-

moua writer as it professed, for it was no trifle for a man to extract
from his awn brain so much original matter as was in the Excl..
miner. There was a great temptation to take from an anony-
mous writer any thing to fill up columns, yet he ought to be very
cautious not to injure others. His Learned Friend Mr. Brougham,
may say, that the Editor of a Newspaper has a right to animad-
vert on the character of whom he pleases ; and he may say, that
he will give the Jury such a history of the prosecutor, as will con-
vince them that the defendant was right. He Mr. Scarlett, re-
membered the time, when in prosecutions of this nature,
Counsel for the defendants would offer no observations, but
ressime what they had to say until their client was brought up
for judgment. But a different course was adopted here, and he
(Mr. Scarlett) would tell the jury, that if Mr.. Brougham and all
the Counsel at the bar, endeavoured to persuade them against the
defendant, that it could not alter the nature of the case, and
that they were bound if they. deemed the publication
a libel, to find hint guilty.
Thomas Vincent, a clerk of the prosecutor's attorney, proved
the proprietory of the Examiner ; he believed the paragraph iu
question alluded to the prosecutor; he heard, but he had no
knowledge of himself, that the prosecutor had a situation in the
Royal Academy of Music.
Henry Watts, examined by Mr. HUTCHINS—Was Secretary to
the Royal Academy of Music, which was established in 1922 ;
it was conducted by a committee of management ; the Arch-
bishop of York was President in February last, at which period the
prosecutor was principal harp-master ; be also superintended the
practice of the,bugle.
Cross..examined by Mr. Baouattaat-The object of the insti-
tution was to teach youth of both sexes. _
Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
His Learned Friend, be observed, bad said, that he was induced
to make a long speech after his (Mr. B.'s) example, and that the
' time was when Counsel could not he found to defend such a libel.
He (Mr. B.) did not know that there ever was such a time when
a verdict would be allowed to be taken in criminal proceedings,
without any defence being made ; but he was sure that there never
was a time when Counsel would rise up on Monday to address a
Jury in reply to what another Counsel had said on Saturday to a
different Jury.—(Laughter. )—lf there was such a time, it must
be when no defence would be offered to prosecutions of this kind.
The question for the Jury in this case was, if the paragraph com-
plained of was published through malice, for that is the essence of
a libel. After the candid admission of his Learned Friend, re-
specting Mr. Hunt's liberality and integrity (and for this his client
was much obliged to him), he (Mr. B.) did not see how the Jury
could come to such a conclusion. Mr. Hunt entertained
no enmity or malice towards Mr. Boylan. No doubt
he was answerable for whatever appeared in his Paper.
He did not shrink from the responsibility of this para-
graph—which he inserted not from malice, nor enmity ; but he
knew that the prosecutor was placed in a public station, where he
was intrusted with the education of youth of both sexes, in an
Institution of great patronage, over which a venerable prelate
presided, and front which more purity should consequently be ex-
pected; and that Mr. Bocbsa, was employed not only professionally,
but to superintend their general education, and that under all these
circumstances, it was fit that the directors should know the cha-
racter of such a person. In what situation is an honest Journalist,
in what situation are the public, who have an interest in the edu-
cation of youth, in what situation are the directors themselves,
if no man presume to say, if no man dare whisper a syllable
respecting the character of such a man, however heinous the
offences might be with which he was charged—however necessary
to the public it might be that a statement such as was here com-
plained of might be made ? If Juries felt bound to give a verdict
for the Crown in all cases of indictment, it would be exposing a
man to conviction the moment he was prosecuted. His learned
friend said, that the prosecutor was too modest to trouble the
Court of King's Bench for a criminal information, and that he
had been well advised in proceeding as he has done. If modesty be
the characteristic of this man, he would let him have all the benefit of
it; but he would say of the Court of King's Bench, and
in the presence of the Chief Justice, that no Court gave more sa-
tisfaction, by lending an ear to the complaints of all persons of !
whatever class or rank in society; and not a week ago his
Learned Friend, moved for a rule to show cause why a criminal
information should not be tiled on behalf of an actress,
or at least a female. His object might be, no doubt,
to prevent a violation of the peace—(Laughter)—or, per-
haps, that the motion was made not by the advice of his
friend, but that of another person ; but with respect to the pre-
sent charge, which was for making observations on a man placed
in a public' institution, notwithstanding the acknowledged
innocence and integrity of the defendant, notwithstanding the
usefulness of the publication to the public, the Jury were called
upon to find hint guilty, without hearing a whisper in evidence.—
The law was not so oppressive as all that, for if so, it would go to
extinguish the liberty of remark on all persons in public situa-
tions. Here was a person admitting the truth of the charge, I.)
not bringing an action, not denying it by not tiling criminal iniiir-
mation, yet they are called upen to give a verdict in his favour.
The law did not require that in all cases of indictment a ver-
dict should be given against the defendant, the Jury were to
judge if the object of the publisher was malice or rancour. The
observations made in this publication were of a slight or
jocular nature. Their object was to call the attention of
the Directors to the person whom they hail employed.
There was no charge of criminality or malice ; the Jury were
confined to the consideration of two things—namely the con-
duct of the prosecutor in such a public situation, and
the motives and intentions of the defendant, coupled with
his general conduct. Having drawn the attention of the Jury to
these points, he would trouble them with no further observations.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, observed,
that it had been said Mr. Hunt was a gentleman of character
and respectability, and could not be influenced by malicious
motives. That his Lordship did not mean to question ; hut,
by law, proprietors of newspapers were answerable for whatever
they published, and if they were not themselves influenced by ma-
lice, but lent themselves to the foul purposes of others, and would on
that account be exempt from punishment, no character could be safe.
It had been said that he had published this to give in-
formation to the Directors of this Establishment; if he
really wished to give information, the proper way would
be to communicate personally with the Directors thernselves.-s-
It had been said that if the prosecutor were innocent of the charge
he might bring an action, or file a criminal information. As
a general proposition it was true that the applicant for
a criminal information should deny upon oath the truth of the
libel, but pu looking on this publication, he saw nothing in it
which the prosecutor could deny, unless he made en affidavit
that he was not the devil.—(Much laughter. )—The learned Judge
then commented upon the publication in question, and gave it as
his opinion that it was libellous.
The Jury, after considerable hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEA &—(Tnis DAT.)
(Before Mr. Juitice GAsEt.rit.)
The COURT was occupied till two o'clock in the trial of a case
of no public interest, and subsequently of undefended causes till we
went to Press.