New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-04-03
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
~, TUT GREAT LIBEL SUIT.

crrNrs IN THE GREAT LIBEL Bull
..v pru.sHEp-cULMINATION OF LONG
N.Y., rrup-MR LAwsoS's UNFoRrCNAIh
.xyyr - THR DETAILED TORTURE W
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Oh MI" In
,orcHrRE's ISCisIvE QUESTIONING
',-,ou THE REGULAR coRREsfoSDESrof me
p 1"xnoN March 22-lt is one popularity OF Eng,
wsh criminal law procedure that proSe.u'o
-. n hear the name Of the private indiv'uu''
OoN th. law in motion. Tie trial which began
.r-d.v in the Court of Queens Bench Is the
- Mr.. Labonchere for libel. but the case is
s."s..rs,,y known as the Lawson Labouchere hoe'
inaccurate as this is legally, it does represent
- nearly the real fact. Mr.. Lawson is the prose
-. The Oueen's name is used. but sue does no'
80. mnch part in the matter, except prco-
~. 70 read the reports Inc iaw-ohcers
"a ths Crown do not conuuct tno
..cn,on. nor does the Treasury pay 'ne
~.,,.as Of it. 1t is Mr. Lawson who undertakes 10
.sS;..t. the majesty of the law, and WHO bears the
80 ~ that enterprise. who pays the NAH doAen
800, cu,ployed to demolish Mr.. Labouchere, and
- .onld il he chose, leave the majesty OF 'he
- In 40 far as it has been violated Dy MI La
honehsre. altogether unvndicated. Perhaps Tue
lac vonld not have been much worse OIL pu' So
;o.y-some sections of it-wouid nave bisSeo
-.>S doa, of amusement Interest III this case seems
mite inexhausiible. II is the same case whcn mas
heen before the courts once or twice oeIo1e' All
,he main facts are familiar, yet the crowds wh'cn
.,'..,o tho approsches to the Court are amos; us
ore,t "a if the Irish obsructves were periorm'hl'
o., ths onposite side of Westminster Hall.
ps,hans NAV assume that even IN America some
.,,nc ia known of this famous controversy, and
-. ,;no over AGAIN the ground have once or
.,,;cs trayersed will touch what is new IN yes
..,dav,s hearing 1t is only necessary to premise
.h., tbis trial grows out Of Nh. Lawsons assault on
n, Jabouchere. The popularity oil 1t is that X IS
80, AR Lawson who is tried for beating or trying to
heat Mr.. Laboucherc but Mr. Labouchere who has
~ dsfsud himself against charge OF hbelling MI
lawson. The alleged libels produced tho assault
That one can understand Mr. Lawson. however,
was 30 dissatisfied with tho success of his assault
Che, be afterward r-us .cuted SIR Lahonchcie for
,be Ibels growing ont OF 1t. That shows how badly
he has been ADVISED lie has broken one OF the pro-
Visions of that uuwri,tcn code whcr Is at leasl as
sten "a any statute. Society would hot condemn
MIR. Lawson for assLultng Mr.. Lahonchere' IL Ee
had n grie9ance against him. Nor w0ud ne DC con-
damned for rosorting to the law. But Mr. Lawson
10 not content with either lie must have b"th, ana
bs desire to get both has put him clearly in the
wropg that the best his friends can Offer Tor
him is the one gave above, that he has been badly
advised
ORIGIN OF TIE QUARREL.
Between him and Mr. Labouchere there is an old
ouarreL Mr. Labouchere, first in The Ucr'd and
than in Truth has dscoursed with much freedom On
the conduct Of The Daily Telegraph, of which Mr..
lawson is the editor and part owner, and on the
persistsnt attempts of the Levy-Lawson family to
present themselves to the public as exponent' OF
English opinion. Mr. Edward Lawson Is sensitive.
and resented Mr.. Labouchere's PLAIN speaking lie
did not like to see himself in print as the person
who first reycd Mr.. nisracli and then fawned on
him; who On the other hand, first fawned on Mr.
Gladstone and then reviled him; or who tad made
. great profit by continuously publishing
obscene advertisements When Nj. Lionel Law
BON. uncle to Edward and halloween
of The Daily Telegraph, died, Mr.. Labouchere
Published some paragraphs about him which the
nephew thought entitled Mr.. Labouchere to a
thrashing. In pursuance of this view Mr.. Lawson
lay in wait for Mr.. Laboucherc outside the Beef
steak Club toward midnight. accompanied by his
friends aud assaulted him. Mr.. Labouchere defended
himself OF the ARRAY which took place. naturally
enough different accounts were given Mr. La
bouchere then challenged Mr.. Lawson, who declined
to 60 out, upon which Mr. Labouchcre wrote him
letter. afterward published III Truth, giving his own
version of the attack on him, and rccaptulating IN
his puEgent way, some of the most unpleasant of the
observations previously made about Mr.. Lawson.
This letter forms the basis Of the present prosecu
ton, and Mr.. Laboucherc's defence Is what %
called in law a justification. He aeg s
that what he has said about Lawson is true;
that the paper he edits did rat. that it did publish
obscene advertisements that Mr.. Lawson is "a dis
grace to journalism" that he did attack Mr.. Labou
chere in acowardly manner and 30 on. Under this
plea, Mr.. Labouchere is entitled, and indeed bound
- H. &c l..
TnE PRINCIPALS FACE To FACE.
The particular interest of the proceedings tins far
lies In tho crosse Examination of Mr. Lawson by Mr.
LabOuchere. This defendant-:or there arc two tho
other being Mr.. wylDsn. the printer of Truth
chooses to defend himself. He did the same
thing when the case was first heard before
police magistrate, but then the cross-exam-
inaton was checked by an objection from Mr.
awsons counsel. Neither the public nor the
defendant has lost anything 5y this interruption,
for Mr.. Labouchere's forensic style has much I'M
proved in the interval much as to suggest that
I he may have been practising at a target. The art
Of putting troublesome questions to n reluctant
witness 10 not one that by nature TO any man.
In this case, however, Mr. Labouchere's natural
apttudes, which are extraordinary. are much
helped by his antagonist. Mr. Lawson is perhaps
one Of the worst witnesses that ever stepped into
V0x. In the hands OF his own counsel he does as
$ badly Is under what SIR Iardinge clifford called
the torture of crossexamination. lie cannot
answer PLAIN question plainly. He poses,
and makes little speeches. and is tull Of eager
zeal He fetches out all sorts of superuous state
ments about himself and his wrongs embarrassing
MS own counsel, amusing the audience, eliciting
sometimes the ieproof Of the Judge, and playing the
game OF his adversary. Under Mr.. Labouchcre'5
man'puat'ons, he showed worse still. One must
assume that Mr. Lawson meant to he frank and to
Toll the whole truth. 1t is bis misfortune that his
manner gives so little evidence of his virtuous in
tentIons. This secretlveness Of manner wa. the