THE BERWICK LIBEL CASE.
29, Upper Brook Street, 13th March 1860. San—Allow me to call your attention to some inaccuracies in an article headed " What is a Libel," that appeared in your number of the 10th in- stant, and which if unnoticed, might lead the public to form erroneous con- clusions.
The three gentlemen whose magnanimity is extolled for relieving the Newcastle editor of the onus of the libel, are the nucleus of the Northern Reform Union ; they alone were the authors and the publishers of the Re- port of the 9th December last, to which they appended their names, but who when requested to acknowledge this much for the purpose of enabling me to apply for a rule, each separately refused to deny or admit anything, and thus the only course left was to initiate proceedings against the editor of the paper in whose columns the Report appeared, in the hope that it would induce the three gentlemen, who were notoriously the authors and publishers, to come boldly forward and acknowledge the publication—nor was this hope disappointed, but simultaneously with the acknowledgment came also an ample apology, so far as I was concerned, and under these altered circumstances it was not considered necessary to proceed with my application for a rule.
The article proceeds to animadvert most unfairly on Berwick, and to im- ply the most unjust aspersions on the venality of the present constituency; I must ask you, therefore, to permit me to state shortly my experience of that portion of the Berwick constituency which has returned me as one of their representatives since May 1853.
I have been engaged in four hardly-fought contests, and the total amount of my election expenses, including both hotel and personal, comes to 20751., and I declare that I have never myself, or through my agent, paid nor been asked to pay for a single vote that has been recorded in my favour during the whole period ; my first election, when colours, music, committees, and chairing were legal, cost 7141. ; this reduces the average of the three last contests to 450/.
The contest that took place between Mr. Hodgson and myself in August last will come before a Committee of the House of Commons next week, and, until their decision is known, I wish to deprecate all remarks from the press, as calculated to prejudice the case. It is of course impossible to refute the statement made in the report, and which the article copies, " that one of my supporters confessed that if they did not buy up fifty votes by the next day, they would be sure to lose" ; but I can most positively assert that this wise one was not in my confidence, or he would never have given utterance to an untruth, which I can prove had not the slightest foundation ; and to the other statements, that " these votes were bought " and " that Mr. Marjoribanks secured his election by bribery," I can give the most indignant and unqualified denial.
In conclusion, I would merely observe, that it is not correct to argue that any infringement of the liberty of the press can ensue from holding private individuals liable for statements made by them in private letters or reports, which they insert in the public journals, and for which the editor is only nominally responsible, as a means of extracting the legal acknowledgment of authorship and publication.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
DUDLEY MARJORIBANXS.
Previous page
