The Sun.
London, England, 1826-08-12 00:00:00

-,-- .. .• . . ..
inch for ihe'grotind it now ()emits; and thOugh7they
now generally preface their eharges by an admission of
the benefits of free diteussion, they do not prOceid far
before they discover that the feeling of times when all
discussion was viewed in the light of an offence is not yet
extinct. We, have no wish to dely.that injury pity.be
done to indiiiduals by statements iii newspapers. Neither
do we wish to 'contend that the proprietors. of newspapers
should be exempted, any more than any other description
of citizens, from responsibility for their actions. But
what we complain of in the Judges is, that they. do not
make sufficient allowance for imperfections, which, from
the very nature of things, must alwayi attach to news-
papers ; and that, forgetful that on the whole the good in
them greatly preponderates, they would destroy them ra-
ther than see them exist with the imperfections, from
which they can never be wholly freed. The Judges have
also a morality peculiarly their own. Thus, for instance,
the proprietor of a newspaper is not only held bound to
conduct it with a superhuman degree of faultlessness bia
'
in addition' to the loss of his cause, through the faults
committed by the lawyers to whom he entrusts it, these
faults are held to warrant the infliction of an additional
amount of punishment. Thus, for instance, Mr. Justice
Burrough, in his charge, ,
.
• "Regretted that the Papers had got into a most incautiousba-
bit of publishing matters which brought severe injury to the cha-
racters of others, and this, as too often happened, without the
slightest foundation in truth.i Whenever they aetetl so, it was
the province of Juries to .award compensation, and that compensa-
tion they were also to measure in proportion to any aggravation
Which was subsequently given to the original act ; and he consi-
dered Owing on the record a justification—that was, that they
would prave all the ficts—to be the greatest aggravation of which
the Editor of a Paper could be guilty, supposing the justification
not strictly proved:"
There is not' a Barrister who would not spurn at the
idea of not being allowed to conduct a cause in the way
he should deem -himself the most judicious. But if it
should turn out that the moss judicious course has not
been pursued, the poor defendant is held to merit two
punishments—first, the quantity corresponding to the of-
fence for which he is prosecuted; and secondly, the quan-
tity comprehended under the term "aggravation' to
which he is vicariously liable, because his legal advisers
have not played the legal game with sufficient skill.—
Against the doctrine of aggravation, we have often
had occasion to protest. A man is charged with a viola-
tion of the law; the law either has or ought to have de-
clared the amount of punishment; but the Judge pu-
nishes him for the violation of the law, and he punishes
him additionally for what he is pleased to term an aggra-
vation of his offence, in his manner of ' defending himself.
Thus a clever man, possessed of good tact, who has the
luck to please the Judges by his speech, .or his mode of
conducting his trial, generally gets off with a slight pu-
nishment, whereas a man possessed of less understanding
and dexterity, suffers a double or triple measure of pu-
nishment for his mental inferiority. We can un-
derstand how a person who fails in proving every
tittle of hie justification, ' should be bound to pay
the additional expence which his mode of defence
may impose on his opponent, beeause that opponent
ought not to suffer from his want of skill. But a
man ,must have a truly legal understanding—he must
be as completely the creature of .rule as a Chinese Man-
darin—to see how 'an unskilful mode of defence, or an
erroneous estimate formed of the evidence, should entitle
a complaining party to additional damages.. When com-
mon sense shall find its way into our Law Courts,: this
technical nonsense will be scouted. We by no means
with to enter into the merits of this particular case. • Our
remarks have been called forth by the tare of asperity in
the charge of the Judge against the Press.
• r " It was (said the Learned Judge) the duty of Newspaper Ediei
tors first to be convinced of the truth, before they published any:
matter injurious to the character of another, that they might he
prepared to justify themselves, if ailed upon to do so."
Convinced of the truth ! But, what if the ,evidence,
which convinced them, turns out to be untrue I—They,
cannot know truth or falsehoodhy inspiration. Newspaper
Editors, who publish as true what they believe to be false,
are scoundrels ; but how often do they publish falsehoods
which they firmly believe to he truth ? We do not claim
for eosin `tin exemption' from responsibility ; but we protest
against the preposterous position; that it is, possible for
them to secure themselves against erroneous testimony' any
more than other people.—/Menieg Chronicle.
.
The German newspapers, n'commepting upon the late
Russian conspiracy, point out, ss a striking feature of dif-
ference between the association from. which it proceeded,
and the secret societies tiertmuly, . that members of
.the
former were of the higher of nobility, while the latter con-
siated merey'of inexperienced rialto, to Whose.plans .no
man of note ever lent his influence or name: A remark 'Of
chit kind, coming from Berlin, is i proof, 'that in that part
of the world, at least, the fear of secret societies has
;ceased.—German Students, however, do not Stern to be
more rational .and ,dscent:in their conduct than, heretofore.
i Some time ago; thepatriotic yoUth.could not exist, ex-
cept In a costume which imitated the dress of the ii.ftetoth
and sixteenth centuries.. Their caprice has , iio W' taken a
different turn. " The Students of Heidelberg," says one
of the journals,'" wander in the country about the Rhine,
throwing the inhabitants of it into no small astonishment
by their Greek dresses, and Orients! eostume."—New
Tinio. " , . . . ,