The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-20 00:00:00

LIBEL BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Sir C. O'LOOHLEN appealed to Mr. Newdegate not
to oppose the motion for going into committee, but to rain
any discussion that he might th nk necessary on the clauses
of the bill in committee. He could assure his hoc, friend
that the bill was in no way connected with religion.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said that he was unwilling to dis-
turb the principle of Lord Cerupbell's Act, which made the
publisher of a libel responsible. He moved that the bill
be committed that day six months.
Mr. ROEBUCK believed that the bill was a just
one. If it was desirable to tell the truth, it
was (Irritable to tell the whole truth. If a man
said whet was false, or slandered another, he and not
the publisher should be mule responsible. The re-
porter who merely reported what was actually said, or
the editor who allowed it to be inserted should not be
made responsible. They should go to the funs ct orifp
mull—the original titterer of the falsehood or slender.
' Mr. T. CHAMBERS denied the principle that it was
always good to tell the whole truth. It would
sometimes be very mischievous to tell what was
true as a matter of fact. He admitted the ability
and honesty with which the newspaper press was
conducted ; but he was not prepared to relieve the editors
of newspapers from the responsibility of inserting, and
therefore of propagating, slander.
Mr. NEATE supported the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL pointed out that the
responsibility of the editor was not wholly taken away by
the bill. If he inserted slanderous matter which was not
in the ordinary way of business he would still be liable.
(Hear, hear.) There were advantages and disadvantages
on both sides of the question, but he thought the advan-
tages were on tke side of the bill. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. GOLUSDIII) supported the bilL
Mr. WHALLEY said the real change now proposed was
to er.nvert slander into libel. There was no ground for
making such a change in his opinion.
Mr. Serjeant ARMSTRONG believed the knowlege that
the utterer of slander would be made more cautious if
he knew that he would be made liable to an action and
not the publisher.
Mr. COLERIDGE believed that the proposed change
was in the wrong direction. It called upon persons to
defend themselves from libel upon whom that responsi-
bility ought not to be thrown, and— if the third clause
purred—it gave the right of action against the speaker, to
whom it might be difficult to bring home tho words
spoken.
Mr. WARREN considered the proposed alteration to be
mischievous, and not required.
Lord ABIBERLEY admitUd that the bill proposed an
alteration in the law by making the speaker, not the pub-
lisher of a slander, responsible. Now, who ought to be
made responsible ? In his opinion the person who spoke it.
(Hear, hear.)
[The discussion of the bill was going on when we went to
press. )

THE PROSECUTION OF EX-GOVERNOR
EYRE.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)

The hearing of this case was resumed this day
before Mr. Vaughan.
There was a somewhat fuller attendance than yesterday.
The Jamaica oom mitts* was represented by Mr. A. Tailor
,
who cosy pied a seat on the bench oind the Eyre defence by Lord
de Blaquiere, the Hon. Major Anson, and Sir Roderick
Murchison, who (as yesterday) found places at the solici-
tors' table.

Sir H. P. Collier put in certain documents which be had
prepared as evidence previously, but which were not then
produced, Mr. Fairfield not having at that time Leen able
to fiud them at the Foreign-office.
Mr. Vaughan said that with regard to the portion of
the blue book which he yesterday undertook to read over,
be had come to the conclusion that some portions of it were
not evidence in this case. He held that for the defence Mr.
Gifford was entitled to put in all documents which
were written by official persons in the island to
Mr. Eyre, sad all documents written by Mr. Eyre to
the Secretary of State. He bad marked the passages which
he considered could be legally admitted.
A long discussion took place as to whether other portions
of the evidence should be admitted. Ultimately a few of the
excluded passages were admitted, but the rule laid down
by Mr. Vaughan was substantially adhered to.
Mr. Gifford then proceeded to open the case for the de-
fence. He complained of the manner in which the pro-
secution was couducted. Though Sir It. P. Collier repu-
diated any imputation of corrupt motives to Mr. Byre,
and declared that the only object of the proceedings was
to obtain a judicial decision on an abstruse point of law,
yet the prosecutors continued to circulate atrocious calum-
nies against him.
Sir R. P. Collier said there had been a good deal of abuse
in the papers, more abuse, indeed, of the prosecutors than
of Mr. Eyre. But he had carefully refrained from allud-
ing to it, and he thought his learned friend ought to do
the same. _ _ _

Mr. Vaughan said that so far as the case had been before
him, he had nothing to do with any of the imputations
alluded to.
Mr. Gifford would not refer to the calumnies circulated
elsewhere by anyone not connected with these proceed-
ings. What be had a right to refer to, and Mr. Eyre
had a right to complain of, was that Mr. Mill, the prose-
cutor, whom be lamented not to see on this occasion in his
usual plate beside the magistrate, had sent to the
newspapers for publication a document, written, as
its date showed, on the 20th of April, after the
commencement of these proceedings, and that Mr. Sheen,
solicitor to the prosecution, forwarded it, and that that
letter reiterated the calumnies which Sir P.. P. Collier,
acting on their instructions, disclaimed. Thus charges
which they dare not attempt to prove in court were cir-
culated with a view to influence the case. What would
have been said it in the late Fenian prosecution some
one connected with the Treasury had written
and published in the papers a letter denouncing
by name a person then on his trial' If that letter bad
been written to Mr. Vaughan himself, it would have been
an undoubted contempt of court. He did not understand
what right the gentlemen now prosecuting had to assume
a position as if they commanded the jurimprudenos of the
country, in order to carry out the pestilent malignity of this
prosecution. This case had not been prosecuted in an
ordinary way. The dismal catalogue of floggings and
executions had been gone over to produce prejudices as to
the alleged oppression.
Sir R. P. Collier said he was sorry to interrupt his
learned friend, who, however, be wan certain, could
not have intended to misrepresent him. What he
had said was that the issuing of an illegal pro-
clamation was an illegal act, without reference to
corrupt motives, and that he did not attribute to Mr.
Eyre any corrupt motive in that act. That was what he
said with reference to the proclamation. Then he went
on to say that he charged Mr. Eyre with certain oppres-
sive acts done under that proclamation. It was not for
him to impute motives, but he thought himself justified
in saying that all acts of oppression assume an arbitrary
disposition and intention.
Mr. Gifford said that, as his conduct had been to some
extent influenced by the disclaimer of Sir R. P. Collier, it
was somewhat embarrassing to find that it was now with-
drawn, or, at all events, they were given to understand
that it did not go so far as he had at filet unierstood.
Referring to the evidence, he observed that it went to
show that Mr. Eyre knew nothing of the acts of cruelty
alleired to have been committed. . .

Sir R. P. Collier said it was proved that Mr. Eyre was
lv .ent in the places where the execrations took place.
Mr. Gittard said he was present in the island, but he did
not know for what offences, or on what evidence they had
teen convicted. He knew only that they had been con-
victed by courts-martial, it one of which the Attorney-
General of the island presided.
Mr. Vaughan observed that he was not sitting here as
a jury.
Mr. Giffard maintained that in 00610 respects Mr.
Vaughan was sitting as a jury.
Mr. Vaughan said he should not sit es a jury in this
Cabe. If be thought there was • prima facie case, he should
feel it to be his duty to commit Mr. Eyre for trial.
Mr. Gifford said he was about to argue that there was no
prima fade ewe. And as one of the reasons why he should
contend that the ease should not go forward, why, in fact,
the magistrate should consider the question whether he
would assist these proceedings (by refusing to do which he
would not prevent the prosecutors from preferring a bill)
he should have to submit that this was a State prosecu-
tion.

[The cue WS/ proceeding when our report left.]

A vacancy has occurred in the representation of
the city of Dublin, in consequence of Fir Benjamin Lee
Gninneu's death, which took place last night.

Sweden is preparing an expedition to the North
Pole.

The Figaro states that communications have at
length been opened between the French and Italian go-
vernments with a view to rid Paris of little Italian
itinerant musicians. Arrangements have been made to
send the children back to their own country.

The Emperor of Austria has sent a sum of 2,000
florins to the committee at Trieste engaged in oolleoting
subscriptions for a monument to the Emperor Maximilian.
The Empress Charlotte has transmitted 1,0008.; the Arch-
duke Francis Charles, 1,5008. ; the Archduchess Sophia
and the Archduke Charles Louis, I,OOOE. each ; and the
Archduke Louis Victor, 500 A... . _

The celebrated philosophical writer, M. Jules
Simon, has been sleeted Pisiddint of the Sectieti des
Chao de Lettres ►y 103 yetis.