The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

We do not, however, take upon ourselves to de-
le which party is in the right in a strictly legal

and, we think, the proposition of the chair-
man of the Dock Committee was a fair and reason-
and might have been acceded to, without
derogating from the dignity of the
cil and its supremacy, as trustees with an ab-
on all the Dock Committee's proceedings,
never been disputed cr brought in

ble one

The Chairman's proposition was, that the Town
Clerk and Dock Solicitor should agree upon a case
to be submitted to eminent counsel, well acquainted
with the Dock Acts, such as Messrs. Austin, Talbot,
and Wilde, and to let such opinions lie binding on
both parties. Such a course we do think both fair
and just, and ought.to have been acquiesced in with
a view to bring the matter to an amicable conclusion.

The case of Mr. Woods, editor and proprietor of
the Wolverhampton Chronicle, brought during the

.11c. before the notice of the House of Corn-
is one which really ought to attract legisla-
tive attention to the present anomalous, and, to our
own order, highly dangerous state of the law of libel.
The circumstances are briefly these. Sometime
complaints were said to exist against the con-
of themaster of a local free grammar school,
^onduct its public utility was diminished ;
I.,sioner, Dr. Allen, was
t down to institute an enquiry. The result was
lrt by this gentleman, reflecting strongly upon
,ter, and imputing the decline of the school
'olent chastisement which he was in the
-_ting upon his pupils. Against this
,ne master objected, as injurious to him, and
3roceeded agaidst the commissioner, who was de-
tended •by the government, his employers, and
although subjected to nominal damages, by them
borne harmless. The same report, however,—a
public document,—had been copied into a local
paper, the Wolverhampton. Chronicle, with some
editorial remarks appended ; and against the pro-
prietor of that paper the master recovered a ver-
c -r5O damages and costs: _ .

ast wee

rurnent cornmi

to the

habit of moth

With the precise character of the remarks in
question we have nothing to do, for it is admitted
that they had no effect in determining the
verdict. It is for having published a govern-
ment report, which the Committee of the Privy
Council thought so important that they di-
rected it to be printed in a cheap form and circu-
lated extensively, that the Chronicle has been mulcted
in £5O and the heavy costs of defending an action.
There can be no charge of injurious intention
against our contemporary—no private malice
alleged. He was acting solely in the discharge of
a public duty ; and, morally, he was in no greater
degree offending than if he had quoted from any of
the blue books, issued by parliament, or from the
proceedings of parliament themselves. He com-
mented upon the report, or he affixed a heading to
it; and so far in one sense, he placed himself in the
position of the government commissioner. The'lat-
ter, however, had the protection of the public purse
held out to him; his employers have the protection
of The unfortunate journalist,
he ever, has no such protection ; and must either
down his usefulness and become a dumb record,
'rcise his vocation at the continual risk of
'Wagged into court by any litigious party
a lawyer.

their privilege

who can raise money to fe

Really this state of things cannot he muc'i longer
tolerated ; and would not if the public were at all
aware of the extent to which t' e honest and faithful
journalist is exposed to the mercy of evil-doers.
The evidence of the Attorney General, given in the
course of this debate, is strongly in favour of an
alteration in the existing law. "He knew one case,

a perfectly accurate report of an occurrence
lad been published ; no exception could be taken to
it, but the heading was in these words—' Shameful
conduct of an attorney'; and in consequence a ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff." Is there, we ask,
a journal in the kingdom, or one publication of it,
n which some lynx-eyed legal practitioner might
'-rials for an action under this

in wlii

:id similar mate

libel law ? There scarcely is.
We claim no immunity for the press. We ask
not for it the privilege of prying into private charac-
ter and exposing the frailties of others. But we do
contend that the press should not be utterly an un-
protected and almost a persecuted thing in the eye
of the law. Submit us to some common sense and
intelligible restriction of our privilege's ; but do not
leave us surrounded with traps into which the most
wary cannot avoid falling.

Almightv God?"
We have heard a good many devices mooted for DR. WEsSoLmEY.—hThb e name of this talented individual has of
rectifying the present state of the Railway Share uuteerinh&oanunsex.ion with the noble
itcoesi:anvSet. George's
rge's
late been
Market, and dealing with the mass of 'rail v instrument aboutac toelfearearetchteeld)
sche. mes now before the legislature. Some of wa'
Ilan, that the public generally will be gladP
;long yi of hearing him deliver
ea course of lectures at Ith
se7leflo:l3loern-
devicesTahre purely selfish. Some are flagrantly theseun rpoessajpeezpinortunities
The majority are preposterously absurd, as
just. afforded them oilistening to his unsu
well as unjust. Sweep away all the new schemes, the organ. Perhaps Mr. William Earle may do himself
pleasure of attending. We feel satisfied that he has a soul thefor
and sanction only " necessary extensions and mal- 1 music in him, and honours genius wherever he may meet it.
We perceive that on Tuesday next Dr. Wesley commences his
gamations," exclaim the holders of new lines a bought
ineui course, and that on that evening the illustrations will comprise
.up at more than their worth, during the • h
e . selections from Mozart, Spar, Back, S, Wesley, St, Ambrose,
'"I St. Gregory, &c,