The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-17 00:00:00

should be the guide, of British Juries on the Law '
ofLibel. But where truth is held to be an aggrava-
tion of guilt—where that which is the ornament
in all other relations of life—is held to be the
damnifying quality in a case of Libel, how is a
worthy man safe ? To speak boldly, that which
is for the benefit of the indivigual, and the safe-
guard of the community, ought not, surely, in a
Christian country, to be held as the signal for
attack, or the badge of obloquy—and yet, ac-
, cording to the dictum of one of our Judges, and
the practice of the rest—the greater the truth the
greater the Libel. Admirable reasonistg indeed !
But why have a law of which the bounds are
thus undefined, depending upon the will or
caprice of the Judge—and that varying with the
man ? Are not the evils attendant on a prose-
cution in a Court of Justice great enough—the
loss of time and money—the imputation of
malicious motives—in short, the harrassing anx-
ieties incident to an action for libel—are not
these enough in all conscience, without having
the feverish uncertainty of the law, the question-
able nature of the charge, and the ominous tem-
per of the Judge superadded ? But the exces-
sive amount of costs, and not the verdict, is,
after all, the great, the crying evil in an action
for libel. Let your damages be a farthing or a
thousand pounds—the costs are the same.—
Though the Jury have been puzzled to express

how small is the value of reputation lost—if,
indeed, capable of diminution—yet shall the re-
probate or his accomplices be amply paid for

their assurance in coming into Court.—
But is it common justice that a man, in paying
a strumpet or a swindlera farthing—or even
twenty-five pounds—their respective values in
trade—shall, in addition, be compelled to pay a
pettifogging attorney perhaps five hundred pounds
costs ? Yet so it is. British juries, sanctioned,
nay influenced, by British Judges, have coun-
tenanced such monstrosity. But how different
would be their verdicts, especially whets farthing
characters are concerned, were die Judge to state
the whole bearing of the case—that by giving a
farthing or a shilling—merely nominal damages
—they inflict a serious fine upon a rich man—
and ruin a poor man for life. Humanity, com-
mon sense, individual safety, and public protec-
tion, all rise up in judgment against such shame-
less, though legalised, robbery.
It may well be said that he who refuses to ac-
cept any reparation for loss of character but
through a solicitor, is in great danger of losing
the remainder in a Court of Law. Brittle cha-
racters are always most tender of their reputation,
and, like leaky vessels, have recourse to every
shift to prevent their sinking in the ocean of
public opinion—they ask damages, and get tarled
in proportion to their -unlmortilitiess.
In the present state of the Law of Libel no
Newspaper is sale ; if a felon is had up to a
Police Office; you dare not .11int that he is a
rogue till he is hanged, and even then you are in
danger of his executors. If.a fellow contracts
debts by deputy, :and endeavours to skulk from
responsibility by " his man Friday"- in
the lurch, yOu idire not insinuate that therels
such a crime as swindling mentioned in the
Statute-book. You dare not warn your neigh-
bour that a robber is hovering near his dwelling,
for fear that you subject yourself to an action
for defamation of character. You dare not even
adopt the prudent Scotch way—and believe that
a suspicious fellow is picking your friend's
pocket,—no, no ; a man's character is above all

price ;
Who steals my purse, steals trash ; 'tis something, nothing ;
'Twas mine, 'tie his, and has been slave to thousands :
But he who filches from me my good name--
Aye !—there's the rub—in this free and happy
country every man by courtesy possesses, or is
supposed to possess a good' name—and he who
is sceptical in a particular instance where he
knows a rogue, must not dare to prove it—for
that justification would sadly enhance his
damages, and make the rogue richer—
The very consummation which he seeks !
Talk of reputation indeed !—how should
these libel mongers appreciate its value, when
they never possessed it but in fancy ?—T.
dreamy substance !—why they know it not. If a
pickpocket wants to retrieve his character .and
make up for professional lack of business—if a
bankrupt wants a second opportunity of defraud-
ing his creditors—if a man of straw—a violator
of public decency or abuser of private trust,
wants to'get itp once more in the world at the
expellee of his old friends, and the Press dare to
put honest people on their guard, he has only to
bring an action for libel, and recover the bubble
reputation with heavy damages, for in this libel-
hunting age every scoundrel has his price. He
may well parry off the imputation cast on his
fair fame while the Law of Libel stands his
friend, though all honest men are ashamed of
his acquaintance—and wish to get off scot free.
But the rage for libel does not confine itself
to character—it invades the empire of taste and
the republic of letters ;—question a man's judg-
ment in architecture, however incongruous, and
lie brings an action to prove that there is nothing
so beautiful as the work of his own hands !
Doubt his veracity in scandalising his friends,
and he rill swear, to your satisfaction, that he
has not said the worst of them ! Lament his
Want of hinneur and he will crack a joke, how-
ever wretched, though at the expence of his
gratitude;—and.this is Fight
If vindication of character be the sole, as it is