The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-04-20 00:00:00

imperial Parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY.

Their Lordships met at 5 o'clock.
On oonsidering the Report of Amendments on the
Transfer of Estates Simplification Bill, Lord CHAR-
WORTH moved the rejection of the first clause of the Bill,
and the 12 clauses following and depending on it. After
some discussion, in which the clauses were opposed by
the Lord CHANCELLOR and the Earl of DERBY, they
were negatived without a division. The report was
then received.

The order for going into committee on the Law of
Property Amendment Bill was diachared, on the motion
of Lord Sir. LEONARDS.
Their Lordahipe then adjourned.

TUESDAY.

Their Lordships met at Co'Clo'ck.
Lord CLIIPBELL moved the second reading of the
Libel Bill. He stated that the Bill was founded on the
recommendations of the committee to which, during the
last year, some defects of the present law had been
referred. The measure consisted only of three clauses,
one relating to the immunity from actions for libel to be
given to the publication of the debates of Parliament;
the other two clauses defined the protection to be ex-
tended to reports of ordinary public meetings. At pre-
sent the law gave such a protection only to the published
proceedings of the courts of justice ; this immunity the
Bill proposed to extend. He quoted an opinion of the
late Lord Denman, advocating the fullest publicity of
reports of the courts of law and the proceedings of the
Legislature as most advantageous to the public. The
measure would not in the remotest degree interfere with
the privileges of Parliament. The restriction of the
publication of its proceedings was adopted as a means of
defence against the power of the Crown, in the strug-
gles between the Sovereign and Parliament in the 17th
century. But for that conflict there was no reason why
the speeches of Pym and Hampden should not have come
down to us, as well as the orations of Cicero in the
Senate of Rome. This restriction was, however, con-
tinued long after it had ceased to be necessary; but an
attempt on the part of the House of Commons to enforce
it in 1771 was signally defeated, and from that time
the publication of debates had been a constant practice.
He contended that both Houses, by providing separate
galleries for the reporters, had formally sanctioned the
publication of their proceedings, and the Bill would
make no change whatever in their orders on the subject.
But the proprietors of newspapers were still liable to
prosecution for publishing words spoken in Parliament
if they were libellous. If the same matter transpired in
a court of law the publisher would not be liable to any
action for recording it if done faithfully and without
nualice. Why should he not have an equal degree of
immunity for reporting the debates of the Houses of
Legislation? The third clause of the Bill defined the
public meetings to which he wished to see the same
principle applied.
On the question that the Bill be read a second
time,

—Ti;e Earl of DERBY rose and read to the House the
telegram the Government had just received from Alex-
andria, announcing the fall of Lucknow.
Lord LYNDHURST resumed the discussion on the
Libel Bill; he condemned it as inadequate, and parti•
oularly objected to the attempt to define, in the third
clause, what should be considered lawful meetings. The
Houses of Parliament were omitted from the definition,
and, according to the Bill, might be considered unlaw-
ful assemblies. There were many purposes for which
public meetings were called—of a religious, ecientifio,
and social character. They were attended by such
quiet and orderly men u the right rev, prelates, yet
those meetings were excluded from the definitions of the
clause. Were they to be considered unlawful. Lord
Lyndhurst suggested that the third clause should be
struck out altogether, leaving the Bill to apply, if
enacted, to all meetings celled for a lawful parlous,
without any attempt to define them. He would not
oppose the second reading, u he wished the Bill to go to
a select oommittee for amendment.
Lord WINBLZYDALZ strongly objected to the Bill, and
moved that it be read a second time that day six
months.

The LORD CRANCILLOR thought that, as the meant*
wee founded on reoommendations not agreed to by the
majority of the select committee to which the
state of the law was referred, and that as very few wit•
name bed been examined by that oommittee, there woe
no sufficient evidenoe of a wrong so general as to cell for
legislation.
Lord CRANWORTII contended that the inoonvenience
of the preeent law in certain cases had been distinctly
proved, and that some alteration was necessary. He
thought that any man speaking slanderous words at a
meeting, knowing that what he said would be published,
ought to be regarded as really the publisher, and to be
mule solely responsible. The House was bound to in.
terfere by legislation when the law might inflict injury,
even if there had not been • large number of persons so
aggrieved.
orCAIIPBRLL replied, and the House divided. The
numbers were— .

For the mond reading—
Non-Contente