Englishman newspaper, and that he believed, from the views he had naturally adopted and expressed upon the evidence given before the Government Commission to enquire into the unhappy disputes between the planters and ryots, that it was to his paper that the libel pointed. The Jury must not look at this question in a quibbling manner, but as they would view the ordinary affairs of life. They must exercise their common sense, and he would ask if there could be any doubt on the evidence that the Englishman and Hurkaru were the papers pointed at. That was one question which had been raised for the defence for other considerations. The Counsel for the defence had examined Mr. Brett as to whether there were other daily papers in India, and he had answered that certainly there were others at Bombay and Madras, but the contents of the pamphlet shewed that they could not have been referred to. Had newspapers in Madras and Bombay nothing of more immediate interest to their local interests and constituency to write about than the cultivation of Indigo in Lower Bengal? In His Lordship's opinion it was trifling with their understanding to say that the Englishman and Hurkaru were not the papers pointed at. Then, if that question were answered in the affirmative, it remained to be seen whether or not the language adopted amounted to a libel. They must judge if it cast a doubt on the honor and integrity of those who had the important duty of conducting these journals, whether they were men likely to be attracted by filthy lucre to advocate any side of any opinion, whether or not they were men capable, for the sake of gain, of being corrupted to advocate any set of views, to the injury of others, and to abstain from giving vent to the honest opinions which their conscience might dictate. It was important to the interests of public liberty that rights of the Press should be amply shielded.
The second part of the passage ran as follows:—(It was here read by His Lordship.)
Did that mean, or did it not mean that those respectable gentlemen who conduct newspapers in Calcutta would sell the best interests of society for Rs. 1000, that they would sacrifice the welfare of society to the promotion for a corrupt purpose of private interests? If it meant that, would it not be a libel! That the jury had to determine. His Lordship had a right, according to the law, to express his opinion, as a matter of advice to them in
148
