The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-08-27 00:00:00

- I

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

ON Wednesday the Act for the Amendment
of the Law of Newspaper Libel, was read a
third time in the House of Lords and passed,
it having previously passed in the House of
Commons, and we may now look forward to
a removal of the evils of which the Press has

had just cause to complain. The Bill is
chiefly due to the exertions of Mr. Hutchin-
son, member for Halifax, who is himself a
journalist, seconded, as they have been, by
the Provincial Newspaper Society, but it has
recently been accorded the favour of the
Government. Considerable opposition was

threatened, and there was obviously a risk
that at this late period of the Session the
Bill might nevertheless be lost. However,
all points on which serious controversy
might be expect 3d were temporarily dropped,
and the framers of the measure addressed
themselves chiefly to the remedy of generally
acknowledged grievances rather than allow
another Session to pass without any altera-
tion of the law. The proposed changes have
been made in accordance with the reports of
the two Select Committees, and although
the proposals have yet to be put to the test
of practical experience, there is every pro-
bability that good will ensue to the com-
munity from the new regulations which will
shortly come into force. Up to the present,
newspaper proprietors have been liable for
any statement of any kind which might ap-
pear in their papers. No matter whether
the statement was true or false, whether it

occurred in the form of an advertisement or

news, whether it appeared by accident or
design, whether the proprietor knew of its
publication or not, he was responsible for it,
and liable not only to pay a heavy amount
as damages, but even to meet a criminal
charge. The injustice was generally ad-
mitted, and some of the pains and penalties
to which newspaper editors and proprietors
are subject under the existing regime are
about to pass away. The bill of Mr. Hutch- '
inson aims to secure protection from private
liability in the fair performance of important
public functions. The newspaper is now
almost as much of a necessity as our daily
bread; and it is certainly not for the public
interest that such a vast machine as the
Press should be crippled in its working by
restrictions and regulations which are simply
' vexatious. It is well known that inpolitical
life, and perhaps still more in municipal life,
jobs are perpetrated, and acts are winked at,
which if made known would materially
.in-
fluence the public judgment on important
subjects; yet if a speaker at apublic meeting
makes remarks reflecting upon any individual
in connection with such a matter, a news-
paper, under the existing law, cannot report
it except at the risk of acriminal information
against the proprietor. The responsibility
for the libel rests on the newspaper proprietor
instead of solely on the speaker himself. This
anomaly is to be removed under the present Bill
It expressly provides that if a public meeting
has been held, and if at that meeting certain
speeches have been made, and if those
speeches have been fairly reported, then a
report, so fairly made, shall not be open to
an action for libel. So long, therefore, as a
meeting comes under the denomination
"public," and the report is absolutely correct,
the newspaper proprietor will have nothing
to fear. The responsibility for any words
made use of will rest with the speaker.
Another important change is made in the
Third Section, which expressly provides that
"no criminal prosecution shall be com-
menced against any proprietor, publisher,
editor, or any person responsible for the pub-
lication of a newspaper for any libel pub-
lished therein, without the written fiat or
allowance of the Director of Public Prosecu-
tions in England or Her Majesty's Attorney
General in Ireland being first had or ob-
tained." Numerous instances have occurred
in which criminal prosecutions have been
resorted to on the most frivolous pretexts, and
often a journalist has been proceeded against
either for the purpose of extorting money,
or for the mere gratification of vindictive
feeling. This feeling will no longer be pos-
sible under the new law, and the Press will
be relieved from a great responsibility. These
are the most important changes in the law of
libel made by the new Bill, and although
they do not remove all the disabilities of
newspaper proprietors, they may be taken as
a substantial instalment in this direction.
The civil liability still remains, with certain
limitations, and it would be unfair that the
public should not have proper protection
against wanton and deliberate libels. In re-
gard to one matter, newspapers have to pay
compensation for the concessions which have
been granted to them. The Bill provides
for the registration of newspapers, so that in
this way some responsible person may be got
at in case of need. No respectable newspaper
will cavil at this restriction. A journal is both
a private enterprise and a public organ, and
in this double capacity it will be admitted
by journalists that it is fair to make it amen-
able to regulations of a general kind. But,
under just legal restrictions, a newspaper
may be safely entrusted to have due regard
to private character. A tendency to libel-
lousness on the part of a paper is no recom-
mendation to public favour, and we think
the general experience of journalistic enter-
prise in.this country is that newspapers are
so much interested in preserving their own
character that they are not likely to take
advantage of any change in the law by de-
veloping a tendency towards offensive per-
sonalities. Even if they do, the law will
still leave them civilly responsible, and there
will be a distinct public gain if, uncle- the
new Act, statements of facts mle at public
meetings, which the public ought to know,
may be reported without the fe-ar of criminal
Tosecution.