CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5] — Page 146

CASAL

(20)

No such information has ever been filed said this was, and that unless the prosecn- in this Colony until these four informations, tor chose to go into proof of the falsehood which were filed three on one day and the of the libel, and not otherwise, the Defen- fourth within less than seven weeks after-dant could not give proof of its truth. The

Court was overwhelined with a number wards.

; and

I must remark that the Acting Attorney cases chiefly cited from before Elizabet General was not wanting in energy in the downwards to times preceding Lord Canip- I confess I was as- course he took. He meant what was right, bell's Act of 1845. but the tendency of filing three informa-tounded at the law thus propounded tions in one day againat one man, for two the able the marvellously ingenious argu- articles on the same subject, to the same jments against the Defendant only strength- purport, tended' unduly to depress the De-lened my astonishment.

I adjourned the argument to ascertain feudant, and by a sort of mental torture to! induce him to make the most abject apology! whether Mr Pollard had the sanction of the whether what he had said was capable of Acting Attorney General in his official re- being proved to be true or not, especiallysposibility for the doctrines be propounded, On the 10th of June, that officer appeara in this Colony where, as I believe, the costs

of litigation exceed the like costs elsewhere led, and said that there had been a mistake, in the British dominions or in the world, and he admitted in the most explicit terms Even success in three such suits may be that the Defendant had the right to plead ruin to a mau if he be not rich. Any apo-a justification, and he stated that the terms Under logy under such circumstances could not of the rule had been agreed on.

the rule the Defendant had one mouth's have been satisfactory to any party.

These informations were all professedly further time to plead, and he was at liberty framed on the precedent which Peltier's to justify under Lord Campbell's Act. The Mr Hayllar very plea was by arrangement to apply to all case in 1803 furnished. aptly remarked that the decision in Pel-three informations. tier's case and that in Wason v. Walter, And here I must take occasion to express decided in Nov. last, with an interval of my entire dissent from Mr Pollard's propo over 65 years between them, belonged to sitiou, and my assent to what I at the time two different worlds of thought. The dif-designated the constitutional exposition of ference well illustrates that admirable elas-jthe law as to Defendant's right to plead a ticity, to which Chief Justice Cockburn has justification, by the Acting Attorney Gene- referred, with which the Law of England rat Bali. adapts itself to the varying conditions of society.

Beyond question my public conduct has been as severely, as vehemently, of course Fortunately it is not necessary for me to think unjustly, criticised by the press express an opinion whether Peltier's case is repeatedly, and I may add by this Defond- still law. If it be law now, I am surprised ant, as that of any public nan anywhere; that the Attorney General in England is but I will not allow Mr Pollard's proposi

If a not daily induced to file cx officio information to pass for law without remark. tions against the press for attacks, not on man be libelled in his private character it Ministers of Foreign States only, but on cannot be for the public good, and it is not nearly every Crowned Head in Europe.protected; but it is different as to what Mr But if the English Government can say to Pollard called this, a public libel. When a all complainants, "Peltiera caso is no publie man is libelled in respect of his longer law." won possumus, that, and that public conduct it may be justified, for to only, is a sufficient explanation why there expose misconduct in public offices is for "It is true, and happy has not been one ex officio information for the public good. libel in England since 1843.

for us it is that it is true, that every man

Mr Saint, either not having had an op- "has a right to discuss matters of public A. Clergyman with his flock, portunity to explain or declining to explain "interest. on such compulsion, appeared on the 20than Admiral with his fleet, a General with of May last to all three informations, He his army, and a Judge with his jury, we was served with rules to plead, and there-are all of us, the subjects of public dis upon be obtained a rule nisi for a month's "eussion." This is what Brainwell B. time to plead, and for leave to demur and said in Kelly v. Sherlock, 1. L. R. Q. B. plead a justification, or as he should be ad-689, as Cockburn, C. J., at p. 701 affirmed vised. The rule was opposed by Mr Pol-with the most perfect propriety." The lard (the Acting Attorney General not ap-language of Mr Baron Bramwell is more pearing) on the 5th of June, and Mr Pol-pointed, but in sense it is only a repetition lard insisted that it was the universal prac-of the language of Mr Justice Coleridge in tice not to allow a justification to be plead- Guthercole v. Miall, 15 M. & W. 332, who ed to what be called a public libel, which he said, "I think it quite right that all matters

(a)

C

143

This is inaccurate - The costs of litigation here

here are

are less than in

Thanghai and I believe less than in any part of India . g

(b) The C. I. seems to confuse the question

of dry legal right of the Attorney General with that of the Policy of Gover

Government.

( c ) There is no record of any such

admission

Pollard

072

the

both by . Mz

it is distinoth the judges notes and

and by the Crown Solicitor-

his way to England.

Mr Ball is now on