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

which is censured to contempt P When we do
not feel Conteffipt fo4. that against which censure
has been dittited, this merely means that, in our
opinion, the censure is misplaced. We trust
Juries will constantly bear in min*, tht the idea
of punishing for holag lip anything to con-
tempt, is at k'aliance with the very principle of •
fret discussion ; and when they punish an indi-
vidual for speaking contemptuously of men CM
account of their public measures, they proscribe
all freedom of the Press. As to the decency or
indecency or the mode ill which the censure is
exprtssed, this is altogether arbitrary, as no rule
can be laid down on which any two men would
agree as to the course which would be proper.
Let us take the question ofthe inside of conducting
business in Conamittets of the House of Com-
mons. Hive not Members again and again
stated, that there was nothing so corrupt and
abominable as the system pursued ? Does not
that hold Committees of the House up to con-
tempt ? When a motion is made for Parlia-
mentary Reform, is it not stated that the exist-
ing house of Commons does not represent
either the property or the population—that inte-
rests opposite to those of the people at large
govern the majority—that the Representation is
founded on the principle of corrupting a few
with the money improperly taken from the com-
munity at large? Is not this holding the House
of Commons up to contempt ? How can a
motion for Parliamentary Refoim be conceived
possible, without the existing House of Com-
mons being he'd up by it to contempt? It is
true the Judges and the Attorney-General tell
us that liberties must be allowed to speakers in
discussion which ought not to he allowed to
writers. But we deny this. There can be no
liberty allowable in debate which ought not to
be allowed also in writing. The discussions of
the House of Commons receive all their value
from the diffusion throughout the country which
is given to them through the Press. Annihilate
the freedom to censure, to hold up to contempt,
and you destroy equally the freedom of discus-
sion, whether in Parliament or in writing. But
the law says so -and so. True, by law we have no
liberty whatever ; for, as Sir James Scarlett,
after Lord Mansfield, observed, the Liberty of
tlie Press, legally speaking, means merely the
pnblishims, without,a licenser, what could only
be ~published formerly with the consent of a
licenser. The doctrine of bringing into contempt
being punishable, amounts to a complete
frustration of the only object for which Free-
dom of the Press is desirable. All the liberty
we have we owe to Juries protecting us against the
strict interpretation of bad laws. We admit that
we have only an illusory freedom, by law.—
Burke has said this long ago, and
Burke Will not be accused of favour-
ing popular excesses. " The laws of this
country (he observes) are for the most part
constituted, and wisely so, for the general ends
of Government, rather than for the preservation
of our particular libeties. Whatever, therefore,
is done in support of liberty, by persons not in
public trust, or not acting merely in that trust,
is )table to be more or less out of the ordinary
course of the law ; and the law itself is suffi-
cient to animadvert npon it with great severity.
Nothing, indeed, can hinder that severe letter
from crushing us, except the temperaments it
may receive from a trial by Jury." In the
struggle which awaits all of us, and which Sir
James Scarlett has announced in the censure of
the moderation of his .predecessors during the
last ten years, it behoves Juries to be constantly
nn their guard against this error—that they are
bound to give effect to this defective law. Juries
hare large powers to correct the defects of liber-
ticide laws. They ought to be particularly on
their guard again,t Sir James' Scarlett, whose
powers of mind are admirably suited to the sort
of work in which he is engaged. He is a
common-place speaker, but a dexterous ad-
vocate. We have always looked forward with
apprehension to the possibility of his be-
coming Attorney-General, for we -have never
been one. moment in doubt as to his principles,
and the illiberal cast of his mind: He is the
most
_bitter enemy of discussion that ever filled
the situation he holds since the Revolution. He
would reduce every Journalist to a state of com-
plete subserviency to himself. We hope the
warning will not. be thrown away. With respect
to the mode of conducting these trials, we hare
also something to say. On what principle is it
that the public money is lavished in feeing, be-
sides Sir James himself and the Solicitor-Ge-
neral, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Gurney, and Mr.
Wightman—the only individual doing anything
being the Attorney-General himself? And this
in the-case 'of a-lay individual who, under every
disadvantage, pleads his own cause ? What is
this but buying with the public money the sanc-
tion of the talent of the Bar ? We trust this
matter will be made in time the subject of in-
quiry ?—)Morning Chronicle.
There is something extremely anomalous in

the nature of the prosecution against the Atlas
newspaper when contrasted with that directed
against Mr. Gutch. for a libel, which, if its worst
inuendoes could' have been sustained, would have
been venial compared with that ascribed to Mr.
Bell.. The chair imputed to us was, that we
accused the Lord Chancellor of bestowing the
office of Solicitor-General upon Sir Edward
_Sugden from corrupt motives. •We denied that
this inuendo could be sustained, and we, more-
over, fortified.this denial by affirming upon oath
that the paragraph was not intended to apply to
the Lord Chancellor, but was exclusively a mili-
tary satire. If any explanation could clear the
injured reputation of Lord Lyndhurst, satisfy
his conscience, or soothe his wounded feelings,
this should have done so. Where there was no
malus animus there could .be no crime. We did
all that could be done to prove that no intention
existed to criminate Or censure the Chancellor,
and, being convinced of our innocence, we had
no further apology to offer. We were, never-
theless, by a very itniTtien,t jury, by a jury, the
foreman of which wouid scarcely listen to the
defence, and who .repeatedly interrupted it,
round guilty ! Well, all this may be right !
We hope the justice of the case is satisfied, and
that the successor of Lord Eldon is gratified and
contented. But let us glance at the case of Mr.
Bell. This gentleman is the editor of a Sunday
Paper, which is printed by two persons of the
names of Whiting and Swift, who are also the
proprietors of the paper. Mr. Bell's alleged
libel charged Lord and Lady Lyndhurst with
simony or the sale of church patronage. These
noble persons were represented, in terms so plain
that it was impossible to-misunderstand them, as
bartering the livings of the church for the favours
of Mammon, ofsclling the cures of souls for filthy
lucre, and of making a profitable speculation of
glebes and tithes. A more atrocious or cruel
charge never was brought against any judicial
functionary in this country. A crime more re-
pugnant to morality, religion, and the Constitu-
tion of England, never was imputed to exalted