Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (15)

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

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

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING [sic] ASSIZES.

  

LIBEL.

WHEATLEY v. PEILE AND GIBSON.

 

[continued]

 

Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defendants:—In the course of my experience I have had to witness many an action for libel, but I do not remember one where the labour of the counsel was so great, and the libel charged so little, as in the present case. My Learned Friend, Mr. BROUGHAM, is like the mountain that laboured, and laboured, and at last brought forth a mouse. If I had not read the paragraph before I heard the opening part of my friend's speech, I should have expected to have seen him produce a case of unparalleled atrocity: instead of which, what have we? why absolutely one of the weakest questions of libel ever introduced to the attention of a court of justice—a libel which scarcely anybody has read, and which fewer still have paid attention to,—but if, by this ill-advised action, it shall now acquire greater publicity, the plaintiff has no one to complain of but himself. My Friend talks of the "polluted part of the press." I don't exactly know what he intends by that expression. Perhaps he means that part of the press which differs with him in politics; but I can hardly think he would wish us to infer that that which is opposed to him is necessarily impure. I should like to know what part of the press it is that has lately charged Mr. BROUGHAM and myself with having used Billingsgate language to each other? I have not seen the papers, yet I understand that such a charge is made. Nevertheless I am not conscious of having so offended against good manners. I am quite sure that I am not capable of using Billingsgate language on any occasion; and I feel equally sure that Mr. BROUGHAM would not descend to it. But the shoulders of lawyers are broad, and they can bear it all. (A laugh.) Mr. WHEATLEY, it seems, is more delicate. He is wrapped up in cotton; his skin is thin; he cannot bear to be handled but in the most gentle manner. But while deprecating the conduct of others, Mr. BROUGHAM has himself thought proper to attack the Cumberland Pacquet, and to fall foul of its motto, which he is pleased to read as one long line of prose. Are we to suppose that my learned friend does not know the difference between prose and poetry? Let us see if we cannot make something different of it. Instead of one long line, let us read it in four, as any man who understands it would read it, and we shall find that it is not quite so ridiculous as Mr. BROUGHAM supposes:

 

          "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."

 

This is the way Mr. WORDSWORTH and I should have read the quotation at Cambridge. We should have had no doubt about the method at that University. But my learned friend is himself the founder of a New University, and there probably intends to introduce his new plan of reading poetry (A laugh.)—there perhaps the poets are to be read all in one long line, like the productions of Homer and the bards of old, as found written in ancient manuscripts—yet these great authors would be not a little surprised were they to rise from the dead and visit the New University, and there find that what they had written for poetry was discovered to be something else: they would feel something like the footman in the play, who had spoken prose all his life without knowing it. (Laughter.) My friend has said that the paper is dull. Is that true. If so, there is an answer to at least a part of his declamation—so much the better for his client. It is against Mr. BROUGHAM's own argument to talk thus; but the Editor differs with him in politics, and he could not avoid a passing fling at him. He had better have said that the alleged libel has not been much seen out of Whitehaven, where Mr. WHEATLEY is known, and there, because he is known, no evil effects could flow from it. Now let us see what it is that is so loudly complained of. As an attorney the plaintiff is said to have been reprimanded for "rudeness" and "officiousness." I never heard that an attorney was expected to be the pink of courtesy; certain I am that his clients would be no gainers by it. He could not get on in the world without a tolerable degree of assurance. Counsel, learned in the law, often find the use of a good face. I myself am obliged to bustle and lay about me; and every one will admit that my learned friend is very "officious" and "widespreading." (Laughter.) What imputation is there here? How can Mr. WHEATLEY object to those qualities which distinguish his betters? Officiousness means nothing more than that a man is a little over-zealous in the performance of his duty; and who would like an attorney the worse for that? I am sure that I should not—I would not employ one without it. (Ah! ah! from Mr. BROUGHAM.) My learned friend says ah, ah! Can any one say that Mr. BROUGHAM shews any "very special regard to delicacy" in such interruptions; still less can they say that an attorney displays very strong symptoms of that quality who hints, as Mr. WHEATLEY has done, that his chief purpose in coming into Court is the getting of costs? The only charge in the whole paragraph is that of rudeness and officiousness; and this, as we have seen, when examined, is no imputation; at any rate, not such as a jury should give damages for, nay, not even a verdict that would carry costs. If a precedent were once set for such verdicts, there is an end at once of all free discussion. Not a day passes over our heads in which every newspaper printed does not contain greater libels. Make this a libel, and you may make even the commonest advertisements libels. I scarcely take up a public print without seeing my name affixed to matter infinitely more offensive. I often see speeches published as mine, which, had I really made them, I could never again have held up my head in a Court of Justice: and I have as often seen my learned friend's name attached to speeches which I could swear he did not make. It was but a short time ago that a friend in London seriously asked me if it were true that I and Mr. BROUGHAM had quarrelled at Lancaster and thrown our briefs at each others' heads. (Laughter.) I answered that if such an event had occurred, I was not aware of it. Bless my soul, said my friend, who should have thought it; I actually read it in the Courier! (Laughter.) See then, Gentlemen, how these things find their way into the newspapers; and if we don't complain, why should the little attorney of Whitehaven make such a fuss? But let us examine the other parts of the paragraph. It is not false that Mr. WHEATLEY was at the public-office—and it is not false that he was professionally defending the smugglers. Then as to the "rebuff." Why I meet with twenty a day from Mr. BROUGHAM, and am obliged to sit down patiently under them. And as to making "a noise in the world." How could it be said that a young attorney, just entering into business, could do a better thing? Mr. BROUGHAM constantly makes a noise. (Great laughter.) His name is in all the papers; we shall even find there, most likely, the speech he has made here to-day in this very case. "Vast ability." Mr. BROUGHAM says this is ironical. Mr. WHEATLEY does not think so. (Laughter.) He takes it all in—he does not say in inuendo, that it means no ability at all. (A laugh.) "Would shine were there but room": that is to say, in London, alluding to the confined sphere of Whitehaven for the "vast ability." He "shoulders and bustles." Well, don't we all do that? My learned friend has done it to-day; and what am I but shouldering and bustling to get your verdict in this cause, and I entertain a pretty confident hope that I shall get it. (Laughter.) "Without any very special regard to delicacy." This is not libel, but good advice. It is good counsel to exhort him never to offend a bench, a court, or a jury. As to his breaking down the barriers "which guard the decencies and dignities of society," my friend says it is all nonsense, and if so, I apprehend it is not the greater libel for that. (Laughter.) I agree with him that it has not much meaning when applied to a poor country attorney. It is rather out of place—it may be called an attempt at fine writing, and I dare say the person who put the paragraph in thought it so; but to say that it is a libel is an abuse of terms; if it is one, I don't know what is not libel.

 

 

[to be continued]