Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (13)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 13 Aug 1825   (p. 4, col. 1-6)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING [sic] ASSIZES.

(Continued from the preceding Page.)

  

LIBEL.

WHEATLEY v. PEILE AND GIBSON.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG opened the pleadings. He said this was an action of damages for a libel which appeared in the Cumberland Pacquet newspaper, published at Whitehaven, in this County, of which the defendants were the proprietor and printer. The declaration charged, first, that the plaintiff had sustained damage as an attorney practising in the Court of King's Bench; secondly, as a private individual. The damages were laid at £500.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury.—Mr. WHEATLEY, he observed, is a young Gentleman of very respectable family and connexions, being the eldest son of the late Rev. Mr. WHEATLEY of Whitehaven. He is very young, and has lately entered into the profession of an attorney at that town—a profession most useful and honourable if properly conducted—but a profession in which character may be said to be every thing. Professional talents and professional honesty, judgment, temper, all are so intimately connected with success, a reputation for them is so essential, that an individual of long standing could not safely disregard an attempt to deprive him of it. But an attack of this sort, upon a young man just entering into life, if not rebutted, must prove not merely injurious, but signally and certainly fatal. The defendants, Gentlemen of the Jury, are the proprietor and printer of a newspaper which bears in its front a long motto—poetry perhaps some may call it; but if so, the longest line that was ever before heard of. I speak in the presence of a distinguished person who understands these things (alluding to Mr. WORDSWORTH, the poet, who appeared as a witness in the cause), but I'll engage to say that even he never heard of so long a line in the work of any author, ancient or modern. I will read it, Gentlemen, and you shall judge of this phenomenon: "Where moderation dwells, the soul admits distinct ideas and matur'd debate; an eye impartial and an even scale—hence wisdom sound, and unrepenting choice." (A laugh. Mr. BROUGHAM ludicrously read the quotation as a single line of prose.) Such a line as this no one ever before heard of—it is like no other except a line at the end of a fishing-rod (laughter)—at the other end of which, probably, might be found some of the readers of this print—characters long and accurately defined by Dr. JOHNSON. Now these Defendants, the publishers of this libel, it appears by their long line, pique themselves upon their "moderation." (A laugh.) They boast, too, of "distinct ideas," an "even scale," "sound wisdom," and "unrepenting choice" (laughter); and one would expect something of the kind where "moderation" is to be met with in such great perfection. The Cumberland Pacquet is a very old paper; and when I knew it long ago, it was very dull and inoffensive; now it has become very offensive, without losing its original quality of dulness. But you shall now judge, Gentlemen, whether the charge brought against my client by these "moderate" printers and publishers can be agreeable to his feelings—and whether it would be prudent or safe in him, as a professional man at his entrance into life, to pass it over unnoticed. It seems that Mr. WHEATLEY was employed by some persons who had been brought before the magistrates at Whitehaven for smuggling. An account was given of this circumstance in a common paragraph, an ordinary article of intelligence, and into this was insidiously introduced the libel complained of—introduced in the most dangerous and injurious way, calculated to deceive almost any one, but especially the unwary, who would casually glance over the passage, and observing the plaintiff's name, would exclaim, "Aye, I see he has been brought up," and so on. Thus the paragraph runs: "On Thursday last, several persons were convicted at the Public-Office in this town, of having smuggled whiskey, or rather whiskey over-proof, in their possession, and in their dwelling-houses. Among the offenders were several innkeepers, some of them belonging to Workington; these were subjected to a penalty of £12 10s. each; the private individuals were fined £7 10s., £5, £2, &c. according to circumstances and ability to pay." And then in the same line—not even the commencement of a fresh paragraph: "Mr. WHEATLEY, whose advice is generally sought by persons in difficulties of this sort"—a sneer by the way, but let that pass—"appeared on the present occasion, and received a smart reprimand from the Bench for rudeness and officiousness." Reprimand for rudeness and officiousness! Now, Gentlemen, I don't know that words could be found more hurtful to a man's feelings or more injurious than those I have just read to you; for who would like to receive a smart reprimand from the Bench in the management of a client's case? And there is not a tittle of foundation for this. If there had been even a shadow of truth in it, some apology might be allowed, some excuse divined, but there is not a shadow of truth in it. The Magistrates have uniformly declared that there was no foundation for the aspersion. But what happened was this. One of the Magistrates put a question, and Mr. WHEATLEY made an objection to it, as he had a right to do, and as his duty to his client in this instance demanded, and no magistrate expressed a single word of disapprobation. But, to be sure, there was person who demurred, and that person was an excise officer: he objected to answer a question put to him by Mr. WHEATLEY; and this the malignant slanderer, the author of the paragraph, knew well enough—he knew the lie, the barefaced lie, that he put forth;—he knew that it was the exciseman who objected to my client's conduct, as was natural, and not the magistrates, as was unnatural, but he sought to injure Mr. WHEATLEY, and therefore he thought he could not do it so effectively as by putting his attack forward in the name of the magistrates. He however adds that he received a rebuff from one of the excise officers, and goes on to say: "Mr. WHEATLEY seems to have seen little of the world. He would fain make all men's feelings and interests subservient to his petty purpose of making a noise, no matter on what subject, or at whose expense." Then comes another sneer. "He is perhaps a man of vast ability, and would shine were there but room; yet he should not forget that as in striving to attain his object, he shoulders, and bustles, and lays about him without any special regard to delicacy, he makes every man his opponent with whom he comes in contact." Agreeable sort of character this! Excellent advocate! A pleasant thing, and mighty advantageous to one who employs my client, to be informed that he makes every one his enemy by his own imprudence! But to proceed: "Great as are his talents, wide-spreading as is his knowledge, and powerful as is his strength, he is still mortal"—mortal in italics—"and may perchance fail in entirely breaking down the barriers which guard the dignities and decencies of society." That there is great nonsense in this last sentence I am willing to admit; I don't deny the stuff; but you, gentlemen, will readily perceive its purpose—that it is intended as an advertisment [sic] to the public not to employ Mr. WHEATLEY. Well, but if an apology had been made for this attack, flagrant as it is, it might have been overlooked. Instead of that, we find in the paper of the following week a continuation of the libel thus: "A paragraph which appeared in our last paper, in which the name of Mr. WHEATLEY, of this town, was incidentally introduced, seems to have produced a great effect upon that worthy Gentleman. We stated that he had received a smart reprimand from the Bench, and he appears to wince at the expression. We confirm we had not the slightest intention of misrepresenting, even in the slightest degree, any thing affecting him." Oh no! I dare say not! I suppose a man writes defamation without being aware of it. If some men were to fall asleep with a pen in their hand, a libel would be written when they awoke. (A laugh.) They proceed: "The following we believe to be a correct statement of what occurred at the public-office on the occasion referred to. On a question by the Rev. Alexander SCOTT, to Miss SMITH we believe, Mr. WHEATLEY said, 'I consider the question of no importance, and immaterial whether answered or not.' Mr. HEYWOOD, the magistrate's clerk: 'Do you, Sir, mean to dictate to the magistrates? Whatever questions they may think proper to ask they have a right to do so, without being directed to.' Mr. WHEATLEY apologised." This "correct statement," I understand, (said Mr. BROUGHAM) is most incorrect. Mr. WHEATLEY did not apologise. There is not a tittle of truth in the insertion. Mr. HEYWOOD said nothing of the kind attributed to him—he knows better. Then Mr. LITTLEDALE is brought in, and made to complain of irregularity with a view of fixing it on Mr. WHEATLEY, whereas the fact is, that Mr. LITTLEDALE never made any such complaint. "The rebuff," the paragraph continues, "Mr. WHEATLEY received from Mr. PAISLEY," who is the excise-officer before referred to. The whole of these assertions the defendants abandon as untrue; they dare not justify them, and therefore they admit that they are unfounded, for had they been true, we should have seen them ready enough to bear them out. And this is all they offer that in the remotest degree looks like an apology: "Let the reader judge for himself. If we ought to have said any thing else instead of "reprimand," we beg to be understood as withdrawing that term, and giving a carte blanche to our friends and our enemies to fill up the vacancy with what may please them better." This, I repeat, is all that they say by way of apology for one of the cruellest stigmas ever cast upon an unoffending individual. Nay, instead of an apology, it is an aggravation; for it is as much as to say that one may withdraw what they have already asserted, and substitute what is ten times worse. Here, then, is the way in which the polluted portion of the public press is conducted—that portion which brings the whole into disrepute, and makes the best friends of the press often shrink from defending it. If a man is to be attacked, it is not done in a manly open way; it is by a skulking anonymous note, dropped in at a slit in a window; and the publishers of such slander are more wicked than the writers of it, inasmuch as the give effect to the sting for the sake of gain. If the defendants had chosen to surrender the author, they would not have appeared here to-day. They would not do this when requested—perhaps they could not do it. But we see the consequence of such a system of publication. Some assassin wishes to stab in the dark. He has nothing to do but get pen, ink, and paper, indite his venom, and put it into the slit in the window, and the next week he sees it published in the paper with the long poem at the end of it. "Oh," say such persons, "we will get it published in Messrs. PEILE and GIBSON's paper all over the country." And now, Gentlemen, comes the question whether they shall do this with impunity. If only a part of the libel had been true, they might have pleaded it, and taken advantage of it, but they have abandoned the whole as untenable, indefensible, false. And the amount of damages. Nominal damages are out of the question. Trifling damages are also out of the question. There can be no difficulty as to the funds. The paper is well-established—so that if there was that alone, there are plenty of means. But Mr. PEILE, I understand, is well to do in the world; he is not only a man of property; he is in the employment of a nobleman of this county, doubtless of a lucrative kind. Mr. GIBSON is the printer and publisher of the paper. So you see, Gentlemen, there are ample means to enable you to do justice to the case; and that justice demands at your hands exemplary damages for the injury which Mr. WHEATLEY has sustained.

 

 

[to be continued]