LOUD IIROUGHAM's OPINIONS ON NEWSPAPERS AND THE 1..11V OF LIBEL.
Tilt: present continuation of what we may venture to call the substance, or it least tin! most interesting passages, of Lord IlitouGuAm's evidence before the Libel Committee, is limited to the examination of the 9th :Lad the I 7th of June.
Iui Ize17, Lord Brougham brought in a bill to amend the law of libel, vhichi vas read a first time in the Flouse of' Commons ; and in November 18:10, a short time before he became Chancellor, he gave notice of another bill. Its object was to allow the truth in all eases, civil or criminal, to be given in evidence—not as conclusive of the guilt or innocence of the accused, but to be laid before the judge and Jury, to be weighed in the verdict, as an unilateral test ; falsehood being always it strong presumption of guilt. Ex (Oki° informations and special juries were also to be abolished by the bill. But Lord Brougham has now some doubts as to abolishing ex officio informations. In revenue eases, especially, it seems desirable to leave the right of Ming ea: qffieht informations in the hands of the Attorney-General. It is a great mistake, in Lord Brougham's opinion, to imagine that grand juries ilirord 11101C protection against unjust prosecutions than an halividual public prosecutor. The members of grand juries feel no jersonal responsibility—they do nothing., it's all the grand jury. In times of high party-spirit, as ill 1607 for instance, true bills would have been found against any num in the Opposition ; if not in England, certainly in Scotland. Lord Brougham could name fifty peTSODS whom the Lord Advocate would not prosecute, but against whom Scotch grand juries would certainly have found bills. Once, an old genthamman was tried for murder, before Baron Wood, very much to the Judge's indignation, for having caused the death of an old woman, who on her return front market fell over a string which the prisoner's ser- vants had tied across the road. had he tied the string himself, the offence could only have been manslaughter ; yet the grand jury found a bill for murder against him. In cases of libel, enlightened persons may differ as to whether a grand jury or time Attorney-General should have the responsibility of sending persons to trial. Grand juries sel- dom throw out bills, except when there are cross ones ; and then they often ignore both ; as once happened in the case of two persons con- nected with the press, when both bills ought to have been found. In all cases, Lord Brougham would substitute public prosecutors, and do away with grand juries. A concurring power to prosecute with the Attorney- General should be given, in case that officer should neglect Ins duty. This is the case in Scotland ; and the power was exercised in 9..ket, against some military officers in Aberdeen, whom the public prosecutor refused to proceed against. The effect of the stamp on newspapers is most assuredly not to check the introduction of personal abuse and demoralizing matter ; it has just the contrary tendency. At present, owing to the stamp-duty, the bad journals are protected from the competition of the good. The greatest number of libels on individuals are not to be found in the on- stamped papers ; but as far as regards ribaldry against religion-- against the institutions of the country—against the King and public men—the greatest amount is to be found in the unstamped publications. Loubtless, this is to be attributed partly to the necessity of pleasing the taste of those for whom they are prepared ; but a supply of better matter at as cheap a rate ought to be provided. Allow the more able and better-disposed a fair competition, and these ribaldrous publications would be driven almost entirely out of circulation : a few would be sold, just as a few grossly obscene books will always be sold; but the demand would be very limited.
There are certainly stamped newspapers which deal in personal
abuse and obscenity; such as those that have grown up during the last fourteen years. As Lord Brougham reads butone paper, and that not always, he only sees professionally the class of weekly and disgrace- fill papers alluded to : as he is generally the object of pretty copious abuse in them, he does not feel bound to read them, and still less to pay for them ; he does not go out of his way either to read or to avoid them. These weekly papers seem to have carried off much of the trash, and left the respectable papers more pure. The working classes have not much taste for private libels. Those who write for the discontented part of the community; attack public men and public institutions; they do not care to be personal, and to abuse men's wives and daughters and mothers and sisters. The higher and middling classes have an appetite for this vile and indecent trash. Some people in the middling classes like to read gossipping stories: they say, "Let us see what Lady So-and-so is doing with Lord So-and-so." Men-milliners, ladies'-maids, and upper servants in great houses, have a taste for this sort of stuff. But, no doubt the drawimproom furnishes the effective demand for such writings; and the tipper classes are very unjust in blam- ing the press and its licentiousness, as they are prone to do on all occa- sions, seeing that they themselves afford the market for the worst sort of saurrility. There is generally no danger from /ihels couched in strong vitupera- tive language against a Government. General Fitzpatrick used to tell an anecdote of the Duke of Queensberry, who was a great alarmist in 179.2, and thought there was to be an end of all things—like a gitae many other very rich, very honourable, and very noble persons. Ore' day the Duke was abusing seditious writers, calling them infamous, detestable, abominable; and a toad-eater said, " Aye, and so full of falsehoods too !"--" No," said the Duke, "not fideekoods—they are all so true—that is what makes them so ribominable—so dangeruus." had the Duke felt all they had said about the corrupthee of Parlia- ment to be false, he would not have kared those writer or abused them.
The weekly papers have not the monopoly of falsehood and elander„ On the contrary, tin, last publication of thr kind Lord Brouglene saw —and it was about the most false and absurd of any—was in a teamed work of great pretensions, carried on by scholars and persons said to be connected with office. Among other ridiculous slanders, there was a prolix and elaborate comparison between Lord Brougham and Judge Merles. No doubt, both were Chancellors ; and in like manner, the publication tilluded to may be :-aid to resemble the Bud,' because they are both Ivorks of pure fiction ; and there ends the likeness. Certainly, Lord Brougham would not pretend to equal Jeiferies in talent ; tint! he hoped he had IDDIC Of his other qualitie4. But it was said that he re- sembled him in his love of tyranny, in being the tool of every despot, and ill his intemperance ; a rirliculons fal ,elmourl, which Lord Brougham's 01.111 servants and the servants of his acquaint:owe mold refute. It was insinuated that he appeared intoxicated in the Hon re, of lauds ; the foundatioa for the calumny belie, an excuse given by a respectable daily paper for not reporting a speed.; if his. Some Lords insisted upon the editor being brought to the bar; but Lord Brougham would not perinit it. The fitet vas, he had tasted nothing that day but tea for breaktst. and no fermented liquor whatever, not having dined till he left the I iow:e late: there could be no mistake about the day, for be never in his life tasted above three glasses of Nvi:w ill water before going to the 'loose. Such untruths as this, invented by political partit $ through spite, or published by those to %loin something has been re- fitsed, have no kind of relish or the connuon people; who %could not give a fitrthing to read a history of all the Chaneellors for the last half- century, most of whom are known to have been free livers. The com- mon people liave more sense than to b UppiSti that an intemperate man could lead the laborious life Lord lhouglann led. llut there is nothing SO absurd that the upper classes will not believe it of an adversary. The best thing that could be devised to prevent bad consequences from a law of libel, would be for an Attoracy-1;eneral to have the pru- dence not to prosecute those whom it would be indiscreet to prosecute. Mist ducidally, he might nut to prosecute a nerrspoper which advised the Arming Vassuciations to resist the payment mro. Such a prosecution would have no tendency to prevent the evil, and would therefore he very injudicious. But the Attorney-General would be justified in pro- secuting a combination or conspiracy with such an object. A libel which Incites to a breach of the peace or a felony—as arson, murder, and so forth—is to be taken, not as a libel merely, but it substantive crime. Only see the excellent effects of not prosecuting the I 'Mons : in consequence. the Birmingham Union is now dissolved of its Own ac- cord. Lord Brougham was sorry to bear (from the terms of a question put to him) that prosecutions of the press were more numerous than heretofore in Ireland. Of course there are exceptions to all rules, and he was sorry to find there had been so many aggravated cases requiring prosecution in Ireland. Great absurdities occur from refusing to admit the truth in evidence in eases of libel. Lord Brougham recollected being counsel for a newspaper publisher, who was prosecuted for having published that a teacher in a public institution had been convicted of a forgery in France, and sentenced to work in irons. Indisputable proof that such was the fact was obtained, but of course was not admitted ; and the defendant was found guilty of a false, scandalous, and malicious libel. He was not brought up forjudgment, however, as the prosecutor dared not risk having the French record of his conviction given in mitigation of punishment.
The manner in which an aggrieved person is enabled to clear his character by making an oath of the falsehood of a libel, when applying for a criminal information, is superior to any other mode. There is some difficulty in saying that in all cases the prosecutors should be sub- ject to vied voce examinations; for they are sometimes nervous, and would not like to be cross-examined in a court ; and Lord Brougham is not certain that it would be desirable to give the Court a discretion- ary power as to calling or not calling upon the prosecutor to come for- ward personally. There would be great difficulty in classifying offences • of the press, and awarding punishments for each ; otherwise, it might, Lord Brougham thinks, be advisable. It would ben great advantage if a libel could be defined, so as to say, " this comes within the law, and this does not ;" but then, who can furnish the definition ? Persons have been unjustly found guilty of libel, but that has not been owing to the vagueness of the definition of a libel. As to commenting upon the conduct of public men, all comment is an imputation ; and it depends upon the nature of the comment whethtr it is libellous or not. It would be a libellous comment to say—" What a grievous evil it is for our fine soldiers to be subject to this cruel Administration; here is a Secretary at War who starves the troops by his order of such a date ; here is a First Lord of the Admiralty Las thrown away their lives, by contracts with bad shipbuilders."
Lord Brougham had much rather be libelled in the specific, direct way, which it has been suggested should he punishable, than in the vague general way of comment, which some would make allowable. Vague charges are as damnatory as any specific ones. To say of a man, that he is corrupt, cruel, oppressive, bloodthirsty, cowardly, impotent as a Minister, that his understanding is emasculated, that he has not the nerves of an old woman, and is as bloody-minded as a tiger,—all this is vague ned general abuse, but exceedingly injurious aud -painful to a man and his flintily. Such expressions may do a Minister little harm, compared with their effect upon the character and happinese of indivi- duals in lower rank, such as the parson of a parish, justice of the peace, overseer, or churchwarden. Lord Brougham could not pretend to fur- nish a vocabulary by means of which editors of newspapers might safely abuse justices of the peace, tke. If there is any way of deciding whet is temperate and legitimate language, Lord Brougham will be glad to learn it.
• The Quarterly Review.
Previous page
