A Slander Trial (Marx, 1861)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

London, December 19

The ancient Egyptians are known to have developed the division of labour to a high degree, so far as it extended to the whole of society and not to the individual workshop. With them almost every particular part of the body had its own special physician, whose therapy was confined by law to this particular region. Theft was the occupation of a special trade, the head of which was an officially recognised person. But how inadequate the ancient Egyptian division of labour appears when compared to that of modern England! The strange nature of some trades in London amazes us no less than the extent to which they are carried on.

One of these curious industries is espionage. It divides into two big branches, civil espionage and political espionage. We leave the latter entirely out of account here. Civil espionage is again broken down into two large subdivisions—official and private espionage. The official sort is carried on, on the one hand, by detectives, who are paid either by the government or the municipal authorities, and on the other hand, by common informers, who spy on their own and are paid by jobwork by the police.

The business of private espionage breaks down into many subtypes, which may be united under two major headings. One comprises non-commercial private relations, the other commercial. Under the first heading, in which espionage on marital infidelity plays an important part, the establishment of Mr. Field has won European fame. The business of commercial espionage will be better understood from the following incident.

Last Tuesday the Court of Exchequer dealt with a suit for slander, in which a local weekly paper, Lloyd’s Weekly News, was the defendant and Stubbs and Comp, the plaintiff. Stubbs and Comp, publish a weekly under the title of Stubbs’ Gazette, the organ of Stubbs’ Trade Protection Company. The paper is sent privately to subscribers, who pay 3 guineas a year, but is not sold by single copies, as other newspapers are, in stationers’ shops, on the street, at railway stations, and so on. Actually, it is a proscription list of bad debtors, whatever their position in life. Stubbs’ “Protection Company” spies out the solvency of private individuals, Stubbs’ Gazette records them in black and white. The number of subscribers runs to 20,000.

Well, Lloyd’s Weekly News had published an article in which the following statement appeared: “It is the duty of every honourable man to put an end to this disgraceful system of espionage.” Stubbs demanded judicial revenge for this slander.

After the attorney for the plaintiff, Serjeant Shee, had poured out the stream of his Irish eloquence, the plaintiff Stubbs underwent a cross examination (in effect, the cross fire to which the witnesses are subjected during the hearing) by Serjeant Ballantine, the attorney for Lloyd’s Weekly News. The following comical dialogue ensued.

Ballantine: “Do you ask your subscribers for information?” Stubbs: “I invite the subscribers to send me the names of persons they consider to be swindlers. We then investigate these cases. I do not investigate them myself. I have agents in London and other large cities. I have 9 or 10 agents in London, who get a yearly salary.”

Ballantine: “What do these gentlemen receive for hunting out information?”

Stubbs: “From 150 to 200 pounds sterling.”

Ballantine: “And a new suit? Well, when one of these well-paid gentlemen catches a swindler, what happens then?”

“We publish his name.”

Ballantine: “When he is a thorough swindler?”

“Yes.”

“But if he is only half a swindler?”

“Then we enter it in our register.”

“Until he is in full bloom, and then you publish it?”

“Yes.”

“Do you publish autographs of swindlers?”

“Yes.”

“And you go to even greater expense for the benefit of trade. You publish photographs of swindlers?”

“Yes.”

“Do you not have a secret police agency? Are you not connected with Mr. Field?”

“I am glad to be able to say No!”

“What is the difference?”

“I decline to answer that.”

“What do you mean by your ‘legal agents’?”

“That concerns collection of debts. I mean by it solicitors (something between attorney and bailiff) who take care of subscribers’ business according to the conditions stated in the prospectus.”

“So, you are a collector of debts, too?”

“I collect debts through 700 solicitors.”

“Good Lord, you have 700 solicitors, and the world still exists! Do you keep the solicitors or do the solicitors keep you?”

“They keep themselves.”

“Have you had other court cases?”

“Yes, half a dozen.”

“Did you ever contest them?”

“Yes.”

“Was the decision ever in your favour?”

“Once.”

“What do you mean by the heading in your paper, ‘Addresses Wanted’, followed by a long list of names?”

“Absconding debtors whose whereabouts neither we nor our subscribers could trace.”

“How is your business organised?”

“Our central office is in London, with branch offices in Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dublin. My father left me the business. He carried it on in Manchester originally.”

Attorney Ballantine in his plea pounced mercilessly on Stubbs, whose “smiling and self-complacent attitude during his testimony proved at any rate that he had no more idea than a dung-beetle of the filth of the material he moved in”. English trade must have sunk deep indeed, if it needed such a protector. This unworthy spy system would give Stubbs a fearful weapon for extortion, etc.

The Lord Chief Baron, who was sitting as judge, threw his summing-up into the balance for the defence. He concluded with the words:

“The jury owe much to the freedom of the press; but juries are not independent because the press is free, but the press is free because the juries are independent. You must consider whether the incriminated article goes beyond the bounds of honest criticism. Stubbs is a public character and as such is subject to criticism. Should you believe that Lloyd’s Weekly News has gone beyond the bounds of honest criticism, then it is up to you to award the plaintiff appropriate damages.” The jurors withdrew to the jury room to deliberate. After debating for a quarter of an hour they reappeared in the courtroom with the verdict: Plaintiff Stubbs is in the right; damages for his wounded honour—one farthing. The farthing is the smallest English coin, corresponding to the French centime and the German pfennig. Stubbs left Guildhall amidst the loud laughter of the large audience, escorted by a number of admirers, from whose urgent ovations only speedy flight could save his modest dignity.