New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-07-12
BRITISH LAW.

OVERWHELMING NEWSPAPERS DENOUNCED
YN opEN CoURT-CoNDUCT OF THE PREss--PROs-
EctrTIoN or JOURNALISTS.
,rRou THR REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE
LONDON, June t2.-The Lord Chief-Justice
IA sim haraSsed with the notion that he is object OF
contempt. lie lie not content with first filming Mr.. Ons
low and then turning him out Of the in which he
appeared produce the accused for whom he was bail
He not content with having fined and repressed the
heretofore reprossble Mr. whaley. He Is not content
with having 10y his colleagues sttingn his BEHALF sent
Mr. spworth TO prison for three months, nor yet with
the fine OF $500 exacted from that unucky gentleman
He content with having exOrted from the ress
approval Of, or at least acquiescenoe IN, his
judicial usurpaons He is still haunted by the fear lest
somebody may nnd courage to express the contempt
good many people must feel for tribunal which
permits itself such liberties. And now Mr. Gu-
fsrd Ousow has again afforded this energetic function
AIRY chance OF putting his doctrines into praetce' or
Alexander is assduous reader of the newspapers nc
discovered paragraph, certainly not very conspicuous,
In London evening paper, stating that MI DWuoru
Onslow, NJ. p, having asked If IL was true that
he had given up the claimant, had ansWereu' 1
am more convinced than he is the man he repre-
sans himself 10 be- In spite of the terrible amount OF
perry he has 70 contend with. confidently certain
he win receive an honorable and triumphant acqutta"
This was published Friday Of last week. Monday
morning the Lord ChefJustice opened the days session
minister Hall. Mr.. Hawkins answered he did not know,
whereupOn the Lord ChiefJustice said:
In his absence wish to call your attention "a his
representave to P1Sgrapm Mcn ab mas wbab cop
tans an extract from letter written by Mr. Guilford
Opsow presume it was a private letter, aud was not
intended for publication. II that be not So It Is the
greatest contempt OF court that has vet been cOme1
| do not, however, think that Mr.. Gudford onsow is
responsible for IT, because appears to Dc private let
ter which the recipient had the folly aud bad taste 20
communicate TO the public press IL is about as gross
and ScandaOuS contempt OF wen De con-
reived
He added that the effect of il was to mpue perjury to
the witnesses who have been examined on the trial and
while the trial is proceeding and that he surprised
The Pal Mall Gazette should have published it, That
per replied next day with degree OF dignity for which,
considering what the general attitude of the Press has
been in presence OF oil this judicial bullying its readers
and the whole public have TO be grateful Itsays
Yesterday had the misfortune 10 learn that the re
publication OF letter written by Mr.. Guiford Onsow
In reference to the nchbOrne trial regarded by the
Judges as serious contempt OF court Inc letter orig
been sent 10 that journal for publication by the gentle
man to whom II was addressed-a Mr.. Hogg-and TO
have been written in to inquiry whether it
true that Mr. Onsow had deserted Roger Itch
borne For our own part; We wish TO explain that IN
items OF and gossip had conception that it
injurious TO do so, for these reasons Mr.
OnsOWs advocacy OF the defendants claims has been
public persistent, and notorious almost as the de-
fendants own advocacy While, therefore, the " deser-
tom OF such an advocate or his reported desert1On,
might have very preudicial effect on the defendants
IL did not occur to ms that any repetition OF the sort
OF language held long ago and often by Mr.. Onsl0w at
pubic meetings. from carriages In the streets and so
forth would have the remoest effect on the mind Of any
human being.
No apology you will observe, but explanation dis
tiucty intimatng that The Pail Mall Gazette was of
opinion and still Is that it had right to publish the
letter OF Mr.. Gullford OnslOw. Contrast with this
spirited language the following from The Echo:
We regret extremely the inadvertent publication, on
the 9th inst I'm our columns OF part OF letter
written by Mr. Guilford Onsow NJ p referring to the
graph was extracted from The Hour, which seems TO
have taken it from The Leeds Express in which town
Mr. r. Hoee We beg to otter a respectful apology to
the Court for inadverence which greatly depIore
That is not worthy Of The Echo. of its editor,
whom prefer 70 believe ignorant Of it. The original
offender II oense was, The Leeds Express does
not think il necessary bow its head low that,
bat is content with remarlng:
We think our duty the Insertion in our issue
low NJ p. In reply 20 Mr.. Hogg OF Leeds The letter
inserted in our columns at the request OF Mr. Hocg
and we now regret that without due consideration OF Its
contents-whieh editor did not carefully nOte-t
should have been published at all 1t has been our de-
avoid anything like a criticism commentary ON
the trial which pending, and we take this opportunity
Will or for the purpose OF any other person OF max
ing OF columns TO prejudice OF interfere
with the due course Of justice.
Then, on Tuesday the Lord Chief-Justce again ad-
vers matter and tins time he has discovered that
The Leeds Express not only published Mr.. Guiiford
Onslows letter, but leading article commenting the
evidence al this trial THAT is course" exclaimed
the angry ChefJustce, which cannot be tolerated"
Tie Attorney in court and promised that
everything should be done put stop TO such pubiea
lions have no doubt wi, and Judging from what
the English Press says and refrains from saying, they
will he stopped. The Press has not word TO
against being muzzled. II leaves TO one hottempered
and thn-skinned old man to say what is proper and
what is not proper for the Press 70 publish. see no
limit 70 the claim on one side the submlssiveness
Id.
ChefJustce from issuing edct that the trial shall
not be reported or that the name Of the claimant shall
not be mentioned till the prosecution has succeeded in
getting mm convicted If the Press continues 10 yield
20 the monstr0us claims OF the Bench IL
certainly deserves the ignOminy thus far heaped
IT, and the greater ignOminy probably
In store for It, But there interest beyond that OF
the Press-that OF the public 1t is not less important
20 the public 20 preserve the independence Of the
than OF the Bench. The latter is in no danger, the
is and amazing that English journals should
show in this matter in which their rights and honor
are concerned OF the sagacity and none Of the
courage they have often displayed in behalf of others
Very probably they Indifferent because they think
the claimant impostor aud Mr.. onslow dupe, as
they undoubtedly
But the luminosity Of the Lord ChiefJustce against
those two men only pretext for his warfare upon
Free Speech and Free Press, both of which he hates
and repeat II is amazing the press does not compe-
the situation and utter at least protest against
the judicial tyranny which the chief Of the English
Judges wants to exercise over IT, 1 said thought
the papers had night TO publish Mr.. Onslow's
letter and right TO comment on II, but
that is not the question. ADMIT that they have
not Admit that they have committed an ofense,
they s have a right to be tried according to the ord
nary forms of law by Indictment and trial by jury In
stead OF by summary proceedings before a judge
claiming the right to SIT in his own cause. All the Eag
hsh papers are protesting with and rightly pro-
testing against the outrage upon the Press which has
lust been brought to Light in France rejoice at their
unanmity only wish could see some signs OF sim
liar vigilance for England. IL was understood that
the Attorney General would take steps tins morning