Mr. Eglinton in dismissing it so abruptly from their notice. How far it was wise for those respectable gentlemen who conducted public journals to enter into a question of libel was not for the Jury to determine. That was beyond their province and beyond his. They had to consider the proprietor of a newspaper as an ordinary individual, for though an editor was necessarily possessed of great power and influence, yet every individual had the same right to freedom of discussion; and, on the other hand, if an editor was maligned he had as perfect a right to seek redress from the Courts of Justice as any other person, His Lordship would give no opinion, nor would he invite the Jury to do so, as to how far it was wise in those who should place themselves in the foremost ranks to contend for the liberty of the press to come into that Court as prosecutors in a case of libel. The only question for their consideration was whether the publication was a libel or not. There was no disguise in the fact that the first count stood on quite a different footing to the second; and His Lordship must say that this mode of indictment, so far as it related to the second count, did not entirely meet with his approbation, because a personal wrong and injury was, to a certain extent, mixed up with a public one. If the gentleman who conducted the Englishman felt himself aggrieved, his redress might have been a civil action ; but if he preferred, instead of putting damages in his pocket, to vindicate his character by a criminal prosecution, he had a perfect legal right to do so. The first count referred to a libel or supposed libel on the two leading journals of the city of Calcutta. He did not wish unduly to influence the Jury in giving their verdict, but it remained for them to say if those two papers were meant by the allusions in the preface to the pamphlet. There was at present, that is to say, as regards the first count, only one part of the book relied on by Mr. Peterson, viz. the author's preface. There had been no observation made on the first part, and he would read the passage complained of. (His Lordship here read the preface). The Jury had to deliberate if that was a libel. They must first consider if the Englishman and Hurkaru were the papers alluded to. How did the evidence bear on this point? Mr. Brett had stated in his evidence that he had been for two years managing proprietor, and was formerly joint editor, and was now sole editor of the
147
