THE PRIVILEGES OF THE BAR AND THE PRE (Daily Telegraph.

Waikato Times, Volume VI, Issue 319, 30 May 1874, Page 2

THE PRIVILEGES OF THE BAR AND THE PRE (Daily Telegraph.

Mr Justice Mellob, in his address to the jury, at the o of the Tichborne case, offered some remarks on the systei commitment for contempt of Court, which touch tipon a t jeet that can hardly have failed tv suggest itself irajue) to the public mind throughout the course of this memori trial. We allude to the moot question how far the rest tions placed at present upon the press, with reference to discussion of legal proceedings pendente lite, are or are conducire to the interests of justice. The topic is ont are especially entitled to discuss, from the fact that w almost alone among our contemporaries— have never recei any censure or admonition from the Bench for our repi or comments upon the case just concluded. Through the whole course of the prolonged investigation we have i nished our readers with singularly full and graphic si maries of the evidence adduced on either aide, the aspefl the Court, the incidents of the trial ; and yet we hare b] skilful enough to steer clear of any breach of the rule? witl which, according to the receivedjudicial theory, the latiti of comment allowed to journahem should be restrain Under these circumstances we are at liberty to question correctness of the theory so clearly expounded by Mr Just Mellor, without exposing ourselves to the charge of be influenced by any personal animus. To the broad princi laid down by the learned Judge, that ' some restraint sboi be placed upon the press,' we, in common with all • spectable journalists, express our most hearty assent. 1 dangers to social order and pmale security inseparable fr< a licentious press are more patent to persons intimately c< nected with newspapers than they can be to the oJ side public ; and, bearing in view certain recent develi ments of modern journalism, we should be the last to advocS any relaxation of the healtliy rules by which the press England is debarred from scurrillous and libellous intrusio upon the domain of private life. The point which in o judgment is open to dispute is not whether restrictions up< the press are needed, but whether the restrictions at preie 1 in force effect the end they have in view. Now, in all < dmary cases the law of libel, as interpreted by the Cour affords an adequate protection against any intentional abu of power, or indeed against aay unintentional indiseretio on the part of the press. A newspaper which makes any i 9inu«tion ngainst the character of a private individual do so at its own serious risk and peril. For instance, it basbei patent for many months past, to all intelligent persons wl have followed the Tichborne case, that the Clwtnant was i arrant impostor. Yet if we had rtated this fact in print, 9c had declared our conviction that he was Arthur Orton, it Wappmg butcher, and the case for the prosecution ha broken down, even through a technical miscarriage of justic we should undoubtedly have been open to an action forlibe and should have been fortunate if we had escaped withoi having to pBy very heavy damages. Of this liability to the civil law we make no complain The injustice which might be perpetuated if any paper toe upon itself to decide issues affecting individual character c its own authority, is so serious and so cruel that we think better for the public at large the Courts of Law, in decidin charges of libel against the press, should err, as they occi sionally do, on the side of severity. Nor, though the pn cess of criminal information is open to grave objections, do< it seem to us unreasonable that persons greatly aggrieved b newspaper attacks on their private life should possess a ver summary and effective remedy for protecting themselve against such licence. Tbe question we would raise is whethe the restrictions we have alluded to are not sufficient to pre tect the public against any breach of duty on the part o newspapers, without the vague and unsatisfactory junsdic tion exercised under the Dame of contempt of Court. Tha some \ery wide power of upholding aud enforcing their a 4 thority should be intrusted to our Judges is beyond dispute The reputation and dignity of the Judicial Bench 4t* tot dear to Englishmen for any attempt to bring that high \fic< into disrepute <vnd obloquy to be lightly tolerated. Any news* paper, for instance, which had adopted as its own the language employed by Dr Kenealy in addressing the Court oi Queen's Bench would have been most justly subjected to the virtually undefined power of punishment a" Court assailed in the dignity of its members has the right to inflict. In more than one instance during the late trial the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues exercised the jurisdiction intrusted to them to tho complete satisfaction of the public ; and we should be s)rry to see any curtailment of a power by which such scandals as Mr Wlialley's interference with the due administration of justice were brought to an abrupt close. But tho propriety or impropriety of the power given to our tribunals of punishing any contempt of Court is entirely ir^ dependent of the question whether certain acts do or do not constitute the oit'ence under consideration. It is only by a forced and strained interpretation that the act of a newspaper writing an article on a case which is not yet decided can be described as an act calculated to bring justice into contempt. Indeed, no judge would seriously argue that such is the case. If we understand Mr Justice Meltor's words correctly, his lordship does not intend to assert that an article published in our columns during the course of tbetnal, and anohzing the weight of the evidence adduced for or against, the Oi-ton theory, would have been an insult to the Bench, and, as such, would have called for the intervention of the Court. As we gather, all Mr Justice Mellor would assert is that it is desirable in the interests of thepublic such criticisms should not be written ; and that, a» the power of committal for contempt enables the judge tostop any article of the kind from being published, it is welL this power should be maintained. In fact, the reason by which the existing system is upheld is based on the necessity of protecting the jury from external influences rather than the Judges from insult. Mr^ Justice Mellor's argument, put briefly, amounts to this : Ifl newspapers were allowed to discuss triuls still pending, all cases commanding public interest would be commented upon in the press. Articles would appear on one side and on the other. The jury's minds would be insensibly based by what they thu« read, and 'trial by jury would become trial by press.' We confess this argument seems to rest upon a fallacy. As a matter of fact, the very diversity of opinion that is certain to prevail among the members of a free press is an antidote to its power of influencing the public mind. 4

1 What a nuisance ! ' exclaimed a gentleman at a concert * as a young fop in front of him kept talking in a loud voice- " to a lady at hu §ide. 'Did you refer to me, sir? 1 threateningly demanded the fop. ' Oh, no ; I meant the musicians there, who keep up such a noise with their instruments that ' I can't h *ar your conversation.' A gentleman, visiting an Irishman, observed a monster pig strutting about the house, and osked how they got " eurh • brut« up those two stairs." " May it pleajft your honour," said Paddy, " it wti never down to be tuk up.