THE INIQUITOUS LAW OF LIBEL; CASE OF THE SHREWSBURY CHRONICLE.
PROOFS of the necessity of amending the Law of Libel are multi- plied.weekly. Even in its mildest and least objectionable form, it sanctions gross injustice. A recent trial at Shrewsbury gives an instance of this. A Mr. CHARLTON, who resides near Ludlow— once an ardent Whig, but lately become a partisan of the Tory house of Cuvs—brought an action against the proprietor of the Shrewsbury Chronicle, for publishing a report of certain proceed- ings before the Corporation Commissioners at Ludlow, in the course of which several statements were made impugning Mr. CHARLTON'S character as a gentleman and a magistrate. The damages were laid at 3000/. The defendant proved, by the most unexceptionable testimony, that the report was a correct account of the protwedings; but this he was only permitted to do in miti- gation of damages, not in justification. There was no proof what- ever of malicious intent against the defendant. Indeed it was stated, that the report was in type before he saw it. But the Jury had no choice : the fact of the publication was not denied; the libellous nature of the statements, according to the existing law, was indisputable; and the Judge declared that it was
" clearly illegal to report any evidence given in a Court where the
proceedings are merely preparatory, and not final. therefore (he said) as these Commissions, even if legal, which is very much questioned, were only autho- rized to collect evidence for future measure', to report their proceedings is de- cidedly illegal. and brings the publisher within the libel law. So would it be in a Coroner's Court, or in any other preliminary investigation. Therefore, I am bound to tell you, that the publication of the evidence taken before these Com- missioners being clearly illegal, the plaintiff will be entitled to your verdict ; even although it were provts1 that the report was every word correct, for that fact would only go towards mitigating the amount of damages."
The verdict, of course, was for the plaintiff; but we are happy to say, was for one shilling only, instead of three thousand you nds.
There is some uncertainty as to the exact words which Judge PATTESON made use of in regard to the legality of the Corpora- tion Commission. The above extract is taken from the report in the Shrewsbury Chronicle. In another part of our paper will be found the charge, as published in the Times, more at length. if the provincial paper is correct, the conduct of the Judge in de- crying the legality of the Commission, was, to say the least of it, highly indecorous.
That man is unworthy to live in a free country, who would not exert himself to repeal a law which obliges an honest Jury to give such verdicts as the one against the Shrewsbury journalist. For what was his offence? He had published a full, fair, and correct report of the proceedings of a court of inquiry, carried on in public by his Majesty's command. It was not proved that lie had " aught extenuated or set down aught in malice." The presumption was the other way. Yet for this strict performance of his duty, he was put to heavy expense, made to suffer much anxiety, and was finally pronounced a libeller in a court of justice.
The animus by which the prosecutor was influenced, appears from the circumstance of his having brought an action against a bookseller for selling a copy of the report, and another against the proprietor of a Hereford newspaper, as it would seem, for a similar offence. The first of these actions he withdrew.
As a specimen of the nonsense which sometimes escapes from under the wig of great lawyers on the bench, hear the remarks of Judge ParrEsox on the duties and liabilities of newspaper editors!
" It is very true that the editors of newspapers, against whom the law of libel has chiefly been employed, are placed in difficult circumstances. They have often no time to examine accurately the accounts they receive ; and from the hurry with which they- are com pelled often to make up their papers, but little care can be taken in excluding improper matter. But then, they are not compelled to lie editors of newspapers: there is no compulsory liability thrown upon auy one, like the office of consta!de: they venture on the business with their eyes open, and with all the consequences before them. It is not for the public advantage, but for their own private benefit, that they undertake these duties; and, as in all other professions, they must stand by the consequences."
The Courier makes some pertinent remarks in exposure of this error of not recognizing any duties in men which do not grow out of the enactments of the laws. Mr. PATTESON, says our contem- porary, upon his principle, " should not know what was the duty of a stage-coachman, or a ship's pilot, or the conductor of a steam- carriage, since the law does not appoint them." Yet he
. . . .
"would hold either of these parties responsible to the extent of man- slaughter or murder, if by his carelessness or misconduct the lives of any of his Majesty's subjects were lost. Surely, however, newspapers are ass useful in their way as steam-carriages, ships, or stagecoaches; surely the duties of a public editor ate as deserving of recognition as the duties of coachmen and pilots; and surely, if the Judges know nothing of those duties. and have not recognized them, it is high time they acquired that knowledge. and recognized these duties. The duties of public editors grow, like the duties of any other class of men, out of their occupation and their station ; and whether recognized by the law or not, like the dunes of parents, they do not the less exist, nor is the responsibility of them less felt."
And, we may add, it is also just and fitting that the law should protect public editors, not oppress them, in the honest and faithful fulfilment of those duties.
Previous page
