1827.] Letter on Affairs in general. 05 



before the Chief Baron in the Court of Exchequer ; upon which a few 

 words, I think, might be said with advantage to the public. 



The facts of both cases I assume to be in every body's recollection. 

 M. Bochsa, who is a harp-player and musical composer, was appointed 

 one of the principal directors in a new scientific institution, under " fa- 

 shionable patronage," which is called the " Academy of Music," and of 

 which the Archbishop of Canterbury (I believe) is a patron. The Exa- 

 miner newspaper, which thought the whole institution as I think it 

 rather a tweedle-dum sort of affectation, expressed some surprise that M. 

 Bochsa, who (as it stated) was a ** fugitive felon," and had been con- 

 demned in France to the galleys, to be branded, &c., should be associated 

 iri any undertaking with one of the first dignitaries of the church of En- 

 gland. M. Bochsa then indicts the Examiner newspaper. The publication 

 of the paragraph complained of, and its offensive character, are proved. 

 These proofs, in a case of indictment, are sufficient to constitute LIBEL ; 

 and they are all the proof at which the court will look. No evidence of 

 the truth of the paragraph complained of can be received; because the 

 statement, although it be true if it be calculated to injure is never- 

 theless a LIBEL. Accordingly, the jury is not permitted to declare any 

 thing, but that " an offensive paragraph " (they know not why or where- 

 fore) " has been published;" and the judge then convicts Mr. Hunt, who 

 will receive sentence, by fine or imprisonment-^ or both to any extent or 

 amount that the Court of King's Bench shall think fit. 



The second case is an action for damages not an indictment. And 

 here, evidence of the truth of the statement published maybe received, 

 and Will form an answer (or " justification ") to the action. But, then, 

 that "justification" or proof of truth by the practice of the court- 

 must be to the LETTER. Your statement must not only have a founda- 

 tion in truth, but all the circumstances of it must be strictly borne out, or 

 you have a verdict against you ; the effect of which practice is, that no 

 man, whatever his caution, could ever write an account of any transac- 

 tion which he had not (at least) seen with his own eyes, without being 

 saddled with costs and damages, if the account were offensive, and an 

 action for LIBEL were brought against him. In the present case, the 

 facts were shortly these. In January 1825, a Staffordshire magistrate, 

 of the name of Broughton, heard that an ideot, or lunatic, named George 

 Smith, who had been confined for many years in the private house of his 

 brother and sister, was treated with great neglect and inhumanity a 

 variety of particulars being stated to this effect, some of which were exag- 

 gerated, and into which it is not necessary that I should enter. Mr. 

 Broughton, who is a clergyman as well as a magistrate, upon this, pro- 

 ceeded to the house of the Smiths; and there found such a state of 

 things, as he thought made it his duty to take the lunatic at once out of 

 the hands' of his relatives, and to send him to the county asylum for secu- 

 rity." The whole impression upon this gentleman's mind as appears af- 

 terwards, from his own evidence on the first trial was of a very unfavour- 

 able description. Then, subsequent to this public proceeding by the ma- 

 gistrate, and when the affair of the lunatic was, of course, already bruited 

 through the country, a paragraph, purporting to be a general account of 

 the case, appeared in a paper called the Salopian Journal ; in which the 

 neglect of the Smiths towards their relative was described with a variety 

 of circumstance, and at considerable length. For that paragraph an ac- 



M.M. New Scries. .VoL.llI. No.13. K 



