The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-22 00:00:00

LAW OP LIBEL.

VERDICT AGAINST THE EXAMINER IN THE
CASE OF WILLIAM PARRY.
(From the Examiner.)
Our paper of this day contains the report of a trial
which tarminated in a verdict against us, with an award of
50/. in damages to the plaintiff. This is the second lime
the Examiner has been tanounced by a Jury guilty of
a viva'ee and we think it necessary to go into some
explanation of the circumstancee, because, however meri-
torious and honourable it is to suffer for speaking the truth
(that is, writing a public libel) concerning profligate
Princes and corrupt Governments, to be justly convicted
of libelling the character of a private individual, is un-
doubtedly to incur a serious reproach.
Our first conviction was in the case wherein Nicholas
Bochsa was prosecutor, whose merits ate sufficiently noto-
rious to save us the trouble of a single word of explanation.
The second is in an action wherein William Parry is
plaintiff; and we shall be disappointed if, after the facts
are known, the public feeling be not almost as decisive
against the verdict in the latter case, as it confessedly has
always been in the former.
Mr. Serjeant Wrens (who conducted the defence in a
masterly manner, and whose speech will long be remem-
bered by the numerous and delighted audience for its seal,
its eloquence, its shrewdness, and its wit)—Mr. Wilde
clearly and forcibly showed the Jury that the alleged libel
was not the result of any private malice or personal dispute,
but originated wholly in the defendant's indignation at the
base and impudent calumnies contained in the slanderous
book put forth in Parry's name. This our readers will
perceive is a very important point, yet the Learned Judge
was pleased to pass it over in a very remarkable manner.
Some allowances may fairly be claimed for a writer who, in
an honest sea/ to vindicate the characters of honourable and
venerable men from the apersions of a dirty slanderer, goes
beyond the boundaries of discretion in denouncing the con-
temptible creature who has provoked chastisement. In
this case it was a libeller who came into Court to complain
of libel---a slanderer who sought reparation for having been
slandered. Were the law consistent—did the principle
obtain in all cases, that the plaintiff mug come into Court
with " clean hands"—Parry must have been overthrown
at the outset. This vulgar pretender to authorship had
libelled a most honourable soldier and excellent man (Col.
STA:es-tors) in the grossest way; he had taken a base advantage
of his admission to the table ofa virtuous and venerable philoso-
pher (la REMY Bawriram) who was protected neither by his
hospitality nor his silver hairs from the low attempts of
this reprobate to ridicule and annoy him ;—and, indeed,
there is hardly an individual named in the course of the
book called the " Last Days of Lord Byron," who is
not either abused or sneered at—except one, namely, the
self-described honest, frank, gay, good-humoured, active,
zealous, eminently skilful, Major Parry.° Now, how-
ever disagreeable the consequences in one respect, we shall
always reflect with satisfaction on the part we took in ex-
posing the true character of the illiterate pretender who
thus threw dirt upon respectable and worthy men ; and we
cannot help feeling that the obvious honesty of the motive,
and the admitted justice (in all the material points) of the
castigation, should have been allowed to weigh against any
imprudent looseness of ee:pression, which, after all, did
not touch the general effect of the libel. Wes it praise-
worthy to denounce William Parry as the man we knew
him to be, when he came forward in the mask of an author
to ridicule and Blander such individuals as BINTHAM and
STANITOPZ ? Is it the proper duty of a free Press to re-
probate persons who thrust themselves before the public
falsely to villify good and great names? Is there any public
spirit—is there any seal in behalf of truth and private cha-
racter, manifested by the Journalist who, surrounded as
he is by the pitfalls and man-traps of the incomprehensible
law of libel, with all the terrors of special pleadings before
his eyes, yet boldly declares the truth concerning a slan-
derer,
and tears off the borrowed mask from a despicable
pretender ?
Could these questions be put to the Jury in Parry's
case, they would all answer in the affirmative. They would
no doubt tell us moreover (like the Learned Judge) that they
are earnest friends to the Liberty of the Press, and disposed
to view even its faults with indalgence. But what says their
verdict? Most happily, they thought proper to explain
the grounds upon which they formed their decision: the
reader will see in the report of the trial what those grounds
were ; he will see that the statement of the Foremen im-
plies the conviction of the Jury, that all the definite
charges ier the libel against Parry were proved, except
perhaps the excess of ignorance; and that they gave him
damages principally on a minor point, which the Judge
himself (although decidedly opposed to the defendant)
treated as immaterial ! In short, the verdict appears to
amount to something_like this—",,Wt.laeggivnPoler
rwe give him, as a reparation for his injured character, 501.
out of the defendant's pocket, because the latter has
slipped into the libel the phrase—' not to say the worst
of him,' and also because we do not think the plaintiff
profoundly ignorant."t The gentlemen of the Jury will,
we hope, pardon us for saying that their verdict is in itself
absurd. If Parry was really libelled by the defendant
if his character was unjustly blackened—they should
have given him ten or twenty times the amount of
compensation which they have actually awarded—they
should have inflicted upon his cruel assailant a far heavier
punishments But if (as they plainly declare by their
reported explanation of the verdict) they believed that the
defendant had proved by evidence the serious charges lie
had specified against the plaintiff, at his own risk and for
the public good, where is the justice, where is the libe-
rality, of turning round upon the defendant upon a careless
phrase of no calculable effect in the alleged libel, and—
(forgetting the credit due to him for first asserting and
afterwards establishing the truth, in spite of the at-
tendant danger)—condemning him in costs and damages,
to the exoneration, if not the benefit, of an admitted de-
linquent? Was this an evidence of regard for the freedom
of the Press? Was this a practical application of the
poet's advice, which may he addressed with peculiar pro-
priety to Juries in relation to the Press—
" Be to its faults a little blind :
Be to its virtues ever kind."
The charge of Chief Justice Beer was just such as the
public expect on such occasions from that learned but not
very equable person. His opening was ominous ;—our
hearts sunk within us, when we heard his Lordship profess
his great regard for the freedom of the press ; for we knew
then what was coming. We were nevertheless amused for
an instant by his ingenious admission, that he had not
" obtained credit" for that regard. Poor man ! Accused
of a cordial hatred of that which he tenderly loves! Sus-
pected of a wish to strangle the darling over whose safety
he so anxiously watches ! It is indeed a melancholy case.
We must beg the reader to examine for himself the sum-
ming-up of the Career Jusricz : to insert the notes we had
made upon it would lengthen this article unreasonably.
We only call attention to the tender way in which the
Learned Judge alluded to the charges (slander, for instance)
of which the plaintiff had been proved guilty; to the generous
and obliging manner in which he invented all possible
excuses for the vicious acts committed by the plaintiff, and
the surprising liberality with which he suggested the
possibility of pelliations which the plaintiff had neglected
(poor man !) to scpply. In some instances, indeed, the
overflowing liberality of the Chief Justice led him to put upon
proved facts a construction diametrically opposite to that
formed by the ill natured common sense ofmankind. He sug-
gested that Parry might, by the company of men so superior to
hiruselfas Lord BYRON and Col. Sri. arnora—(sober men them-
selves, be it observed)—be tempted into unusual indulgence in
liquor. Now the malicious world would lay jest the re-
verse, via. that the presence of his superiors would natu-
rally operate to restrain even a man who did not mind
lotting in the company of his pot-house associates. The
Cnexr-Jusricx observed also about the drunkenness, that
several instances of intoxication were proved against
Parry ; but he added, that probably Col. STANHOPE,
himself a gentleman of refined taste, might speak too se-
verely of irregularities not commonly thought very flagrant.
Now, what was the fact ? His habitual drunkenness
during the voyage to Greece was sworn to by Robert Lay-
cock—his habitual drunkenness during his stay in Greece
• In one of the editions of Shakspeare is an engraving
(after Stothard) representing Antient Pistol cudgelled by
Fluellen. Perhaps as humourous a subject might be found
for that admirable artist's pencil in some of the situations
attributed by the witnesses to our valiant Major ; for in-
stance, the lying asleep after a debaucla embracing the
bottle, as described with significant gestures by the witness
Zambelli ; or the elaborate shaving and dressing, while his
men were proceeding to assault the Turkish brig.
t The latter clause of the Foreman's statement was so
obvious a misconception of the meaning of the paragraph
in the Examiner, that we cannot believe he accurately
spoke the sense of the Jury in that particular. Our para-
gragh calls Parry " exceedingly ignorant"—(not pro-
foundly)—clearly in reference to his pretensions as an
author—not as respects his capacity as a shipwright or
caulker, regarding which we neither had nor assumed any
knowledge. Now if anything was clearly proved on the
trial, it was the man's literary incapacity ; but the only
of ignorance which could have influenced the Jury
ot f h
a chargea
‘i
ard him a compensation, would have been ignorance
trade—with which we did not charge him.
$ The fifty pounds, they must or ought to know, is in
to Parry's Attorney, whose extra costs will
fae t
swallowgve iint up.