We this day present the c...
We this day present the coizclusion of the very remark. able case, in which, though but passively, we have borne sc prominent,-so gratifying, if we may express our own feel. ings,-and,if we do not deceive ourselves as topublic opiniony so honourable a part-the case of " Bodkin v. The Times' journal. The Jury, atter 20 bours' conflict, did at lasi agreea to a verdict, in favour of the right of public discus- sion, by giving nominial damages. We say that this is , verdict 'ix FAVOUR OF TIIE IaG{T OF rPUBLIC DISCUS- "SION ," for, as Mr. SCARLRTT stated, in a speech of the most transceindent merit, ours was not the Journal in wvhich the idle or the malignant were to look for assaults upon private cllaracter. TIhe Society whose acts we repre- hended is a society of a public nature. claiming by almost daily advertisements public support; and the very document upon which we commented was a printed document, published and sent forth into the wvorld by that Society. 117hat was the use of such a pubIlcation, if no one were te open their mouths or dlraw their pens upon it, except in the language of panegyric? Is no public body but the Ministrv of the country to be reprehended for error or misconduct? We say, then, that though of an humbler nature, this is a public triumph: and we confess that it is not without pride that we flnd ourselves placed in the gap whenever the rights of free discussion or the liberty of the press is assailed. Bat it-nay be necessary to say.a ftiv words respecting the manner in, which this very useful verdict has been obtained. The public will have perceived all tlhe (leprivations to which the Jury were subjected before they finally returned into court to give: their verdiet, or iuthd.r to kif ''tiie* rebease -a release by.? the6 -way I, h a so'-ight to asI for, .nor the J'udge any power to grant; for, were it but once understo6d. by the. ily sonD8 of: iin- d*1ence,-^tha,t they could merely. skirmish for an hout or two in the character of special jurymen, to please the Court; and then, if they founid the clash of intellect too strong for them, retire to their fire-sides or counting-houses, land there earn. money faster or by less labour, the utility of trial by jury would be at an end. However, when the Jury at last did come into court, were none of them, we ask, affected with feelings of shame, wben they found that they had been conteniding for vindictive damages, wbilst even the prosecutor-we do not say in his personal character,.but by his counsel-was ready to accept nominal ones? Are many members of a British. Jury found capa- ble of imposing upon themselves and their brethren all manner of suffering for nineteen hours together, in order to inflict greater severity upon a defendant, in a case where the liberty of the press is concerned, than would have satis- fied even thepublic prosecutor,theAlrToRNzY-GEN ERAL,- a gentleman of whom we have no reason to complain? We h,td ourselves, indeed, with a view to relieve the Jury, of- fered nominial damages, even to the amount of 40s.; that is, ten sliillings more than were ultimately granted. We were, however, doome(d to the greater triumph, in spite of that effort of humuanity-aan effort of humanity, too, some of the objects of whicii must have been those very irien wlho were seeking to cruslh Us with heavy damages. But whenee, it may be asked, spring these discordaint elements in juries composed wholly of Englishmen? Not merely, we reply, from the circumstance of the mem- bers being partly special jurymen and partly talesmen ; for in the case before us, there wvas no other diff'ereclce even in the station of the parties, than that some received their guinea, others acted gratuitously. That Mir. SAWYEI1, for example, wlio spoke in cou-t X dith an Iitelligenice and miot:esty evincing his superiority of mind above the rest of them), was, we believe, a common juryman; as, on the coII- trary, among the special juryinen,was, in the first place, one, wlho, tbr any thing we know, may be the second hIisbaiid of that fair ladly whose story makes the subject of the epic poem, of which the following are the first two lines:- " ;rs. \1'addlc as a witdow, andl she made a little gain, " Seic kept a tUipe and trotter shop in Chick-a.biddy-lhrne." Anothler of the special jurymen, also, was a person capable of attempting personal violeince on those w7ho differed in opiniioii fromil him. A third avowed hun- self openly to be the friendil of BODKIN, the prosecu- tor, withouit having declared that fact to the Court. [Cut the misfortune, we believe, is, that there are special jurymen by profession-men who serve habitually for the pabry gain. Such men, it is obvieus,will be m0ore intent upon pleasing those in power ancl retaining thtir guinea, than discharging their duty impartially. It would be fitting, therefore, in Counsel, upoin trials of public interest upon which a special jury is unfortunately struck, to ask the members, upon how many, or how many scores, they have served before. WVe shall only touch upon one topic more, as some may think connected with this case, and a topic of some in- terest, as we also conceive, to the welfare of the Mendicity Society. In the dispute which sprung up between our respectable Solicitor and Mr. BRocK, allusion was made to some previous discussions of an unpleasant nature whiicl had taken place between us and the Society, or rather one of its officers. The subject requires some explanation, and a brief one shall suffice. It is now some years ago (three years exactly from the date of the late trial) since we received a letter containing certain false informnation, to which the name of one of the officers of the Mendicity So- ciety was forged. We thought that we had proved the forgery to have emanated from the bosom of the Society itself; and the proofs might even now be shown to any independent member of the Society. When we inform the public that it was the object of that forged letter to vilify the ciaracter of his prcsent IMAJESTY, by stating to us, for the information of the public, that he did not receive the unbouight applause of his subjects ou his visits to the Theatres, but that a set of hirelings had met at the chambers of this Menidicity Society to organize a regu- lar system of clapping, it will readily be conceived that our loyalty was inflamed, and we should not tlhink well of such a Society if protection were afforded by it to the author of the falsehood. But we were not, therefore, the writers of the offensive letter which made the subject of the late action: we have given repeated assurances of that fact. It would be as rational to attribute to us the Annual Report ot the Society itself, upon which those letters commented, and to say that we had published it through malice. A public report is a fair subject of public discussion, and that it re- ceivetd, not at our hands, but at those ot another writer.