The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

. .
Our yesterday's paper reported shortly the
proceedings of a public meeting at Colchester
for a repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties. ;We
need scarcely reiterate our own persuasion :that
there is no measure snore likely to work general
good among the people of this country, thamone
which shall tend to make beer an article of more
extensive consumption among the labouring
classes. It:is, however, sufficiently manifest that
such a -measure must be one which shall effect
its purpose by indirect as well as immediate pro-
vi.ions. It will not be enough to repeal the
tax on malt and beer, unless some decisive me-
thod be adopted of opening the rigorous and
oppressive monopoly which now subjects the
consumer to the obligation of purchasing from
the brewer's dependent whatever trash the latter
may think fit to impose upon him under the
name of malt liquor. This involves of necessity
a revision of the law of licences, which, as it
now operates, is little more than a deposit of
power in the hands of a single set of trades-
men, to tax the public for their own benefit, and
at their own discretion. It is obvious that
any regulation limiting the price of a manufac-
tured commodity must be inefficient as a pro-
tection to the consumer, since the maximum
of price is sure to be met by a degradation
of quality ; and thus we find.that the promises
of a Chancellor of the Exchequer that the public
shall be supplied with beer at so much per pot,
is in fact nothing better than a threat that the
adulteration of the beverage shall have no de-
finite limit. Perhaps it would answer, in a
financial view, to raise the amount of licence
money, but to let every man sell beer who
pleased ; as it might serve all moral purposes to
leave the publican amenable to visits from the
Excise, and to fine or loss of licence by judg-
ment of the Quarter Sessions. There is an-
other step to le taken before we can hope to
tender generally useful a reduction in the price
of malt liquor. A heavy tax, we are more than
ever convinced, ought to be forthwith levied on
ardent spirits, which, by every effort short of
positive compulsion, must be thrown out of com-
petition- with beer, or the health and habits of the
working gasses will be irretrievably sacrificed.
People who talk of gin or any other spirit being
a wholesome stimulus for a working man, at least
when taken as part of his daily refreshment,
know very little of the operation of alcohol on
the system, as explained by the best medi-
cal authorities. The secondary effect of drains
is invariably to rel.ix and impair the strength, in
an equal ratio to that in which they have pre-
viously excited it—to shatter the nerves, and
destroy the stomach. We say nothing now of
the vicious habits and associations which are
nnected with frequent indulgence at the gin-
shOp. But as a mere question between beer
gut,and we believe no humane and reasonable
statesman CA's hesitate which ought least to be
encouraged. For the country gentlemen we
would reserve the argument that the tax on malt,
combined with the law of licences, is a direct
tax on !soiled property, and so absolute check
to cultivation, as well of barley as of careen
crops, which are usually the best preparation for
it. if the Minister says, I cannot reduce the
malt tax, because the increase of consumption
would not cover the deficit of revenue," the
answer ought to be, " Then indemnify yoursa
ley an augmentation of the spirit duty, which,
on your own principle, will not diminish the
eeineumption of gin so far as it will benefit the
revenue. Considering the average motives on
cishish die landed interest acts, and thPit unani-
mity where rents are concerned, we aro ria4llY
amonished that country gentlemen have nut yet
succeeded in forcing on Government this reform
in the policy as well as in the morals of taxa-

Our contemporary, the Standard, autintains
that " there is no Law of Libel in England"
To the Jury (says our contemporary) belongs
not merely the exposition and enforcement, but the
making of the law. In the case of writings prose-
cuted as it or insulting to individuals, there
is no Lal,v of Libel in England. Thera is no law—
for what is law ? A. rule of civil conduct, pres4ibed
by the chief power in the State commanding what
is right, u:,d forbidding wLat is wrong. If there is
a law, there must be a rule ; m man has ever yet
formed a rule to fit libel prosecutions; if such a rule
exist, let us have it ; it must define a libel; who
will venture upon a definition? The late Lord
Ellenhocough pronounced A rule, indeed, compre-
hensive enough, Whateveria writings or in print
butte any mates feelings ;' but this r;;Je was, unfor-
tunately, too wide; and its necessary eonLeptuence
would be to dispense with ail but the form of triji
by instituting a prosecution, the man proved that
his feelings were hurt—the Jury oanst find a verdict
of guilty accordingly. This dictum of an able lawyer;
but of a man :vtiose disposition was harsh and over,
bearing, was col, thrown aside; and men were'
compelled to &dant that there is no law of libel, ac-
cording to the just conception of a penal law. What,
Alen, is the theor'y oldie law.about libel ? It seems
to be this : that, as it is impossibia to fix a perma-
nent rule, and as without a rule there :canoV be a law,
a Jury is empanelled to sit upon the case,-.. to Prin
a special nanctNative law for the particular occa.sion,i
upon evidence su!imitted to them in legal form.
'The theory is supportC4 to a great degree by the
history of libel prosecution. 7; irbich were at first in-
stituted in the S:ar Chambe."—a Cogrt of Criminal
Equity, said to be subsidiary 40 the law, c,. ul, there-
fore, not identical with the lasv;,' and it is a cti,.:64s
illustration of this severance bettveeo
.what is called
the law of libel and the body of )s, in truth,
the law, that the only apologist of 1;04 glie"-
borough's libel rule ' is the only writer at a.ieAast
century who has ventured to lament the abolion
of the detestable Star Chamber. But the strongest,
and, in our opinion, the conclusive argument for our
view on the theory of the law about libels, is the
32d George 111., c. GO, which gives to the Jury the
pruvioce of deciding libel or not.--. 5 Jttdicis est
Agent U there were a law, it is cite pro-
wince of the Judge, not of the Jury, to pronounce it. i
taw cannot be supposed guilty of the prepos-
terous indec:ncy of saying to the Aury in this only
rage—e fi gall upon you to exercise a discretion, in-
dependent of tire advice of my living oracle, whom,
therefore, you are rerired to distrust.' How much
more decent the -hypothesis, that the Jury are called
upon to legislate for ti,te particular case; because I
legislation in species has been found ineyractlcable;
that they ate assisted in this tkeir act of
us the Houses of Parliament often are in more gencxal
act-, by an enforcement of the known rules of evi-
dence, the general form of judicial proceedings, and,
the suggestions of judicial wisdom and experience;;
—but that they are still legislators, not merely en-:
titled, but bonnd, to take into account political con-
siderations, matters of provocation, pailiginn, and
all the manifold circumstances which can throw light?
upon the moral and political consequences-of their)
verdict. That Jurors have always acted upon these'
priuciples must be apparent from the differing ver-1
diets of which the same publication has been the
subject, according to the temper of the times or
pbree-in which it has been tried."
The law certainly hag never said what a libel
is. We, are in the present day, after all the pro-
ceedingsln our Courts, nol, one whit farther
ativaneed_lhan we were in the time of the Star
.C4mber j.-1' All divines agree that the sin against
figYGliost is the great unpardonable sin ;

but tio two of them have ever agreed as to what
constitutes that sin. Mr. Bentham says, 'that
" in point of actual law, a libel is any paper in
which he who to the will adds the power of
punishing fos it sees any thing that he does not
like ;" and, in point of fact, the Judges of this
country, with hardly one exception, have declared
every thing a libel of which any one power chose
to complain. From the Revolution, when the
Judges became less outrageously unprincipled
than they were before, there is not, we believe,
an instance of any writing, either in the shape
of discussion of opinions, or animadversions
on public characters, having been made the
subject of prosecution, that it has not been
declared a libel—that word of awful import
in the charge to the jury. Burke observes,
that no despotism can be conceived more
complete than that which the English
Judges would uphold ; for there is hardly
an act, which is performed in obedience to au-
thority, with respect to which a man can consider
himself safe, if the dicta of the Judges were to
be the law. Our contemporary has alluded to
the late Lord Ellenborough. In the famous
Judge Johnson's case, this is part of his Lord-
ship's charge :—" He (the libeller) admits this
noble person (Lord Hardwicke) to be celebrated
for understanding the modern method of fatting
a sheep as well as any man in Cambridge.
Now, Gentleman, what does this mean ? Does
it not clearly mean to infer that Lord Hardwicke
is ill-placed in his high situation, ar.d that he is
only fit for the common walks of life ?" Now,
as Lord Ellenborough was one of the ablest
Judges who ever sat on the Bench, his dicta are
of course to be looked up to with especial re-
verence. Well, then, taking this instance, in
which praising a man in power for his knowledge
of the most difficult branch of farming is deemed
libellous, we may ask what is not libellous ?
If we were to say the Duke of Wellington
understands the science of war as well as
any man in Europe, according to the above
rule of interpretation, this would imply that
he is only fit for war. If we were to say
that the present Lord Ellenborough dresses as
well as any Nobleman who takes an airing in the
Park, this would imply that he is only fit for
taking airings in the Park. Mr. Bentham, in
his " Elements of the Art of Packing," observed
that the " Liberty of the Press, de fircto, was
that which being contrary to Law, proscribed
by Law, has all along maintained a sort of rickety,
and still maintains a momentary half existence in
the teeth of consistency as well as law, by means
of breach of the law in low situations, and non-
execution of the law in high ones." But where
there is no law there is no transgression. The
Legislature has never declared what shall be
deemed a libel; and, as our contemporary has
observed, the Act of 32d Geo. 111. cap. 60,
which gives to Juries the power of determining
both the law and the fact, is incompatible with
any rule whatever, because the same writing may
come before different Juries, who may return
different verdicts ; and this is not an imaginary
occurrence, for of two publishers of the same
writing, one has been acquitted by one Jury,
while the second has been convicted by another.
Nay, pply on Saturday last, in the Court of
King's Blend), ljr, Murray was twice indicted
for the same libel, with a view to a double
chance ; but, as the first Jury was compliant,
the second indictment was abandoned. Mr.
Bentham, fn his lot work, The Petition for
Justice, has taken a IWW yew of the functions
of the Jury—he , supposes them to have the
power of applying their veto to the laws in the
last stage
Allusion (he observes) has been made to one
good oi-rept of the power of conquest thus given to
the strongest of th,e twalvo wills. The good effect
is this t—A law (soppose) bra place, by which,
were execution and effect given to it, rinfligeence
would be infused into the whole frame of Government:
absolutism, for example,with all itsattendant miseries.
Jpdividuals at the same time are not altogether
wa,uti,qg,,e,attli of whom,. if in his capacity of Jury-
man, the iaw SP-FP4iestion were brought before him
fur eteautioP, oppse tp Jr this irresistible
will, would, in ; word, apply his ye/9 tp ii. 14y the
King and the Lords tint; "veto is applicable to the
laws in the first stage of their progress,,the stage
o: Legislation : by Juries in the last stage—the
stage ofjudicature.
" In the case of
,offences styled political, and in
these perhaps alone, is pplultiess indispensible,
49 itJ9 eQncent ration; meaning by poiiticel offences,
those by which the effective power of the func-
tionaries exercising lu chief the powers of ,Oovern-
ment is struck at treason, for eFimple, and political
defamation : meaning, in this ia.st c;-ge,t,lpts striking
at the reputation of men in otlieial situations, pen:-
Aidered as such, in which class of cases, constituting
as it da, s the main, not to say the sole security
against absolutis,:e7, better it were to endure much
more than the evil it all other cases. . . .
11 To this generous self-devotion i‘ii.,7gs the country
appeaw to be altogether indebted for such peiimci; Ff
actual, tLongh imasoctioned, and even precarious
liberty, sole security fp,r 14; 9ther salutary liberties'
the press is in possession of,
" That but to too great an extent toe abo7e-Focnu
tioned disastrous supposition stands verified, is but
too undeniable. Under the existing system take
awg,y this irregular power of the Jury, neither are
laws va,o4;,:jr, ;tor power conjoined with will to give
execution and ,ege4ct
,1„o them, sufficient to convert
the (01111 of CiOveiramen,t, s,ycb ys it is, into as per-
fect an absolutisiii as any body Cokdd
" Determined instrumaots 'of absoligitsm, uncl, tea
such, with scarce an exception, riutwolioed and' in
exca;ble enemies of the press, have at
been—aii Z4lisli Judges: accordingly on every oc-1
casion of a proseetit.:;;;l for a so called libel, in which
, ensure in any shape imaz ;-,e,e,n applied to the con-
duct iny public functionary, in lame propor-
tian,has tb;een 4,4: constancy of the directions K;y ram
t'y -diem to J,ttrries, IA) oficupunce for their verdictl
the wort? eyery yo,# ) then, has
an English Jury refused to render itself wigther
sense guilty, by the utterance qt that same g otnent-i
ous word.
" Now then, admitting time effect to be pod, ;
what way, iy what means has this same determined
will been prodi;z:;ye of it ? By contributing to
give execution and effect tw ;h,e body of the law ?
No; kot by successful obs:ruetlou frustration
to
. _

Our ,contempoiwy the Standard, says there
is iio law but that which is it; ,:..,'.r, breasts of the
Jurors, who, ,after hearing the facts of the case,
make a law for it. Mr. Bentham admits the
existence of a law, such as it is, b;t that it is:
the klqtli pf the Jury to frustrate it. While we.
adlikit the i.c.rg,e pf what Mr. Bentham says, with
regard to .the necessity fur the Jury, in all cases
of prosecution ,fur libel, seiailig tkei,nselves against
the J udgss, as a class' who in all tinie.F, jiay. keen
hostile to ail ;free discussion, 'we: ,thiiik the
theory of die ,itaittlarti i; he more correct, that
there is 11,4, jg:,y, and that the bushier,;, Rf the Jury
is to make a lax 4CW Or
,occsion.. A man 1111g4,1,wade through all the Itepori;spf Libel Cases ever
Irie4 in England, and not find in one of them a
principle A.? serve as a rule pf ,conduct to him,
like that laid sckcwn by the Cour lioy,al,e
,in ,the
case of the trial ()if the Courrier Francais.—
Every thing is special in gtigland ; we know
that a man is convicted or acquitted-7444the
Judge charged for or acrainst; lout theralikef
o