The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-26 00:00:00

.
.; •

•
i'I7SP 3 p. • • JIM PUBLIC JOURNALS.
. - inisterial prosecutions for libel,
~ssiCeV..f
onsequences of such prosecu:
, sstds are such, that the More
,
. 41" mister tnem, the more tntenable
(14stiswappr,.is argument, soil in practice the
more impossible'to be borne. An editor is at-
tacked by the law-ofliters of the Crown for hex-
ing composed and published that whidt has " a
tendency" to bring Governments—that is, the
existing Admiuistrationsa—into contempt or
obloquy with the (motile. Then see how the
very terms of such a charge re-act upon those
on whose behalf they are, at least on occasions
like the present, had recourse to. if any writing
press-tented as a libel sets forth a distinct and po-
mtive.fact, which if true, would imply in a Ca-
binet Minister and his colleagues a criminal neg-
lect or violation of duty, and one therefore
punishable by the law t 1
.England, 'three is an
end of the matter ; let the .intiictment be pre-
ferred, or the informatien laid, and although
truth cannot be pleaded in defence, it may be
sworn to by all who have the mean or proving
it in mititallon of punishment. If so attested,
and not denied, it is obvious that the Ministers
are ruined, while the defendant escapes with at
most a trivial sentence.. nut if the libel charged
he nothing more than gross, coarse, and general
declamation% accusing the Ministry, on the more
opinion- of the writer, of incapacity, or bad in-
tention;, not acts or absolute unfitness for office,
hos's does the argument of tendency act in
such a descriptson of cases ? Why, if the Admi-
nistration deserves contempt from the people, or
dismissal by the Crown,—if it be a Government
to which the foul epithets and insulting re-
proaches complained of by its law-officers are
tally applicable,' might, in the first place, a
British subject to be tongue-tied when he sees
such men ruling over him ? Ought such men,
iii the second place, to usurp these rewards and
sours, that universality of support and dura-
tion of. power, which is equally the right of the
Sovereign, of the people, and of the whcle
class of meritorious and able statesmen, that the
latter e* should enjoy and exercise ? Will it,
ia the last place, serve a worthless Ministry to
where k the expression of public feeling through state
prosecutions, which can only obtain verdicts, but
rsat never refute arguments or crush men's thoughts,
but, on the contrary, must exasperate and augment
that ill-will, the prevalence of which amongst
a large portion of society, is that which gives
exclusively its sting and 'force to, newspaper in-
vectives upon Ministers. If, again, . the Go-
Nernment, thus abused and scandalized, be in
reality one which has gained the good -opinions
of the people,—one which acts with even ordi-
nary firmness, intelligence, and honesty, or
rhich enjoys pretty generally the reputation of
so acting—how operates this famous engine of
" tendency" in writings hostile to such a Go-
vernment ? The tendency of such writings is
indeed to " bring down contempt ;" but con-
tempt on whom ? Why, on the libeller him-
self, and no other. • Nay, the more furious,
frantic, outrageous, and brutal, the declamations
of the foul-mouthed termagant, the more
.alive
will all mankind become to his revoking in-
justice—the.more inapplicable to the parties in-
veighed against, will every man of the least in•
fluence or respect consider his accusations ; and
the more certain and powerful will be the re-
action against the malioant writer of the libel,
and in defence of 'the- parties abused. Thus,
where the libel is least deserved it is most inno-
cent, and to prosecute it becoMes a downright
folly. Where it is effectual, as against a bad Go-
vernment, it is virtuous and praiseworthy, and its
punishment becOmes a crime aeainst the nation.
But Juries ought to see all this, and insist on
being, what the law of England has designed
them for—protectors of the realm against official
prosecutors,—the sacred and glorious function of
those whom the Constitution has established
and the Bench itself has recognized.to be sole
judges 'of the law in every case of libel. If die
Juries of England now desert their post, they
will have the execration of posterity. For our-
selves we can declare that, never having seen a
more contemptible farrago than that for winch
the Duke of Wellington in person prosecuted
the Morning Journal. on Thursday last, •we
have felt hardly less pity at the weakness of ar-
raying such enormous power by an individual
of the Duke's illustrious name and station, for
the punishment of such insects as those con-
cerned in concocting and publishing that mass
of nonsense, than- contempt at the fury of the
poor-creature himself who aspired, we suppose,
to favour in some secret quarter, for inventing it.
.1-lad we been on these Juries, we would have
fasted -lmg ere we had found guilty on either
round,Ls.df tendency" to bring into contempt a
powerful and respected Government, or of actual
injury inflicted on the Noble person at the head
of it.--Times.

. . . .
, Now that the first hatch of prosecutions
against the Press has been disposed of, it may
not be amiss, before Sir James Scarlett recom-
meneeS3lig lalcours (and we have no doubt that
he has chalked-out to himself an extensive plan
of operations), to advert to a few points con-
nected with the late cases. The alleged offences,
the subject of the prosecutions, resolved them-
selves into false statements, affecting the honour
and character of individuals.; and attacks di-
rected against the Administration, and House of
Commons, calculated to bring them into con-
tempt.. The first elassimay be easily disposed
;of. No matt contends that the liberty of writing
-and, publishing should be carried so far as to
=luso wrongful injury to individuals, any more
than he contends. that liberty should in any
other respect be carried to-the length of injus-
, tics. With regard to the second class, it may
be said that without the liberty to bring into
-contempt, there Can be no liberty of the Press.
Theimr-mak& has said,. that such and such
`things shall not be brought into contempt : but
the law is like many others, a bad one, and is
itself deserving of contempt in the- strongest
sense of the word. A free PreSs, as contra-
distinguished from'an enslaved Press, necessa
rily supposes the liberty to censure. The liberty
•to praise is.not only not denied lay any Govern-
' meat in Europe, but, on the contrary, praise
• through the Press is encouraged by the liberal re-
' ward of the writers. Under no Censorship,
under no Licenser, would there be any impedi-
ment in the way of as. abundant praise and flat-
. tery as a writer could possibly lavish on all pub-
lic men, from the Prime Minister to the Con-
'.stable.. But when we censure, we do that which
we could not do without a free Press, which
renders a free Press such an inestimably benefit
to a country. Undeserved censure as well as
undeserved praise, under a state of freedom, re.
• coils no doubt on the author. But where there
is liberty to censure as well as to praise, till we
can find mankind unanimous in their judg-
ments, we mint be prepared for both injudicious
.eensuie and praise. And what is censuring any-
thing kit the endeavouring to hold up that