1-827.] Letter on Affairs in general. 69 



mingkam Journal encourages the Smiths to bring actions all round the 

 kingdom; and, among others, one against the Times ; in which his 

 Lordship treats the case as if it were one of the most atrociousone of 

 the " blackest," as Mr. Scarlett said of an action brought once by 

 Messrs. Day and Martin of Holborn, ever presented to a jury. 

 The Times cut two paragraphs out of a country newspaper ; and the 

 Chief Baron says such an act is an " offence against God and man 1" 



The jury may as well" open their houses at night to house-breakers, as 



not prevent the proprietors of newspapers, when they repeat such atro- 

 cious libels as these !" It is his Lordship's duty to tell the jury, that 

 " the law implies malice from a man's acts." When they warrant such 

 an inference, I presume ? though that they may very easily be made to 

 do, where he is not permitted (as in a proceeding by indictment) to ex- 

 plain them.* The general respectability and honesty of a libeller, more- 

 over, is a reason why he should pay two thousand pounds instead of one. 

 " The Times" his Lordship says, " is a highly respectable paper -in 

 general very free from libel ; but, if a paper be highly respectable, its 

 readers therefore give the more credit to any libel which may be found 

 within its columns." This is rather hard ; but the best point is to corne. 

 The Times merely copied the article in question from another paper. 

 At worst, it only being " in general very free from libel " cut out a 

 paragraph from a country paper too negligently, without taking the cau- 

 tion to be sure that what was there stated was strictly true. Now mark 

 what follows! His Lordshipthe very Chief Baron, who is insisting 

 upon never-varying punctuality, and tewing the Times so mercilessly for 

 its little omission on this occasion of duty goes on, the very next mo- 

 ment, in the teeth of all caution and punctuality, to pronounce against 

 the Times itself a most grievous and unquestionable LIBEL ! In a case 

 tried some years ago against the Observer newspaper, for a paragraph 

 copied from a country paper, and headed " Infamous Conduct of an 

 Attorney !" I recollect it laid down in the strongest terms by the judge 

 who tried, that the heading of the paragraph which was not copied from 

 the country paper, but added by the Observer itself was the most scan- 

 dalous and unjustifiable portion, and merited the heaviest punishment, of 

 the whole libel. Now, the Chief Baron misere sucurrere! let his 

 Lordship pity the imperfection of our common nature! the Chief Baron, 

 sitting as a judge, actually goes on to charge the Times (in his charge to 

 the jury) with the heavy offence of absolutely and directly having added 

 the Heading at the top of their paragraph from the Birmingham Journal, 

 which is "BARBAROUS OUTRAGE!" He inveighs against the act as an 

 addition which " made the paragraph the defendant's own," and " pledged 

 their credit to its veracity." And it is not until the end of his summing up, 



* Lord Chief Justice Best (of the Common Pleas) who, though he is considerably 

 hotter than Cayenne pepper, always seems to me to have a peculiarly free and liberal 

 feeling of common-sense, and justice, and manly reason, running through his law 

 has lately adverted to this point of " malice," in one or two actions for libel which 

 have come before him. In " Stockley v. Clement," for instance, a few days back 

 only, his Lordship observes, " that he does not see how the law can imply malice 

 where the circumstances of the case are not such as, in some degree, to raise the pre- 

 sumption that malice existed." But there are a class of lawyers who are " reputed 

 wise," as Gratiano puts it, " for saying nothing ;" who are always perfectly content to 

 lay down the most self-evident absurdity, if it can only be proved that a given number 

 of " authorities " have laid it down, or abided by it, before them. 



