Friday 20 May 2011

James Harvey d'Egville: Before Super Injunctions

— Our libel law, under the auspices of the best of judges, and administered by most sapient juries, is making noble strides. M. D'Egville, the gentleman who deserves the thanks of all the saints on earth, for having cured the young men of the present day of the sinful taste for ballets, brought an action against The Age newspaper for this paragraph:—
"The ballet at the opera on Tuesday last was impudently asserted in the bills as the composition of M. D'Egville, Siege de Cythere, when it was originally composed and produced by M. Dubervalle.The only credit due to D'Egville is the extraordinary memory to have so closely followed the original in every scene, group, and action, unless he made memoranda at the time, which I presume was the case. The writer of this was in Dubervalle's ballet when first produced at the old Pantheon, and thinks D'Egville can only copy, not compose. For example, his previous ballet of Rose Blanche was originally performed at Odenot's two-penny theatre on the Boulevards, expressly for the revolutionary gentry of 1792, about the time of the martyrdom of the Princess Lambelle and others, when D'Egville was very conspicuous in Paris, and accused of being the bosom friend of the murderer that carried that unfortunate princess's head on a pole."
The first allegation is, that the ballet was not Mr. D'Egville's work, and it is therefore one for which he ought to be especially grateful. It would be well for him indeed, if his enemies would deprive him thus of the discredit of the different dull performances with which he has vexed our eyes. The second charge, if charge it can be called, which carries no imputation with it, is that monsieur was conspicuous in Paris, at the time of the Revolution. Being conspicuous is hardly in itself a crime, we presume. But lastly, he was accused of being the bosom friend of the murderer of the Princess Lambelle.
" The learned counsel (Mr. Phillips) said, that this was the libel for which the plaintiff sought compensation at the hands of the jury, and he believed that a more atrocious and unprovoked attack never was made on a respectable man. It was as false, too, as it was calumnious. The plaintiff, so far from being active in promoting the Revolution, was conspicuous in the ranks of loyalty, and had hazarded his life in the service of the unfortunate monarch who then filled the throne of France. He put it to the honour of the jury, as to what must be the feelings of the plaintiff when he saw himself represented as the bosom friend of the greatest monster and most blood-thirsty wretch that figured at that sanguinary period."
We are extremely glad to learn, that a more atrocious and unprovoked attack (than the above quoted) never was made on a respectable man. We rejoice to discover that respectable men, from the beginning of things down to the present time, from Adam to D'Egville, have had nothing worse to complain of. "But what," asks the counsellor, (Phillips,) "must be the feelings of the plaintiff, when he saw himself represented as the bosom-friend of the monster," &c. The inquiry is beside the question, simply because Monsieur D'Egville never saw himself represented as any such thing: the terms of the libel are, that he was accused of being the bosom friend, &c; and there is a wide difference between the representation of an accusation, and the representation of the fact, though it may escape the clear logical perception of an Irish orator.
" The Chief Justice [of the Common Pleas, be sure] summed up the case. To charge the plaintiff with being the intimate friend of a man concerned in one of the most sanguinary murders that was recorded in the history of modern times, was a gross libel, the defendant having admitted the falsehood of the statement by not pleading the truth of that statement. The jury would say what was a failcompensation to the plaintiff for the injury."
Again we observe that the libel did not charge; it merely alleged that the party was accused of an intimacy with a detested character. No defence was made; and the jury, under the circumstances, with the wisdom and moderation which now distinguish juries in libel cases, brought in a verdict of 150l. damages for the dancing master, who has not in the whole course of his professional life taken a more profitable step than this prosecution. In these remarks we are far from intending to justify the paragraph in The Age; it was of the customary complexion of that paper, which we have ourselves more than once described with the natural expressions of disgust; but we do contend that 150l. or a hundred and fifty shillings damages for it, is a sum utterly disproportioned to the injury. There was no defence, however, and the jury perhaps acted on that common principle which caused the chimney sweeper to be " thrown over" from the one shilling gallery, his abrupt ejection accompanied with the sound reason, "he ha'nt got no friends." Being in no degree better than the rest of the world, we should possibly not trouble ourselves much about this manner of disposing of chimney sweepers, were it not that we sit in the pit below, and we have our fears lest the fall of the chimney sweeper should touch our own heads. Therefore, though by no means partial to the chimney sweeper, we protest against throwing him over, even though he "ha'nt got no friends." He is a dirty sooty fellow by trade, but in punishing him beyond his offence, you may, most worthy jurors of the one-shilling gallery, lead to the injury of others who have not offended at all. You are encouraging, nay, actually rewarding a morbid sensitiveness which may be extended to the annoyance of you all. You begin with throwing over the chimney sweeper: well and good, we are all afraid of being befouled, and will not quarrel about him. But there is the baker, who is not an agreeable neighbour to the gentleman in black, and he will go over next; and there is the tallow chandler, who is not redolent of frankincense, who will follow; and the greasy butcher, and one man has a bad breath, and another's pores are too open, and another occupies more than a fair allowance of room, and another has a cough which interferes with your hearing; in short every one has some little annoying quality, and getting on from the greater nuisances to those next in degree, you will at last find that you yourself are in danger of suffering under the law you have put upon others. You say that you are safe, John, because you don't write; but you speak, man—great folly to be sure, but still speech, such indeed as it is ; and if calling a bailiff a bum is declared a wicked and malignant libel, according to the best doctrine, I should like much to know what may not be considered as calumny. There are actions for words as well as for letters.
But what will be the issue of the present blind rage against the press? Verdicts will encourage actions out of number, on slighter aud slighter provocations, till Mr. Bull grows weary of convicting libellers, and then a reaction will take place. A cold will succeed a hot fit, and after having found every thing libellous, our juries will find nothing libellous. The press will then, after a term of persecution, enjoy a term of tyranny. It will say and do what it likes with complete impunity. There are with John Bull fashions, in justice, as in all other things. It is the fashion just now to find verdicts of guilty in cases of alleged libel; it will be the fashion soon to give verdicts with a not before them. Reason has no voice in either decision. It is the mode—the mode, the mode's the thing!
In the report of M. D'Egville's action, it is said that a witness proved that Monsieur had produced, among other successful ballets, the Siege de Cythère. We certainly had not the slightest idea that the success of all or any of M. D'Egville's ballets could be proved in evidence. A pit more than half empty before the ballet is half over, was doubtless one of the facts instanced.
The London Magazine July 1827
Diary for the month of June (9th)

No comments:

Post a Comment