The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-05-13 00:00:00

occasion.

LORD CAMPBELL has again taken in hand the
Law of Libel. On Friday, his Lordship moved

for the re-appointment of the committee of last
session, to enquire into the expediency of
extending the privilege now conceded with regard
to reports of proceedings in courts of justice, to
the reports of debates in the Houses of Parlia-
ment and other public assemblies. It is certainly

1111 time that the law in question should be

maturely considered, and that its anomalies,
inconsistencies, and injustice be swept dway. The

well-known case of -DAVISON V. DUNCAN, has
induced his Lordship to press for an alteration

of the law, As the law now stands, a verdict
had to be given against the defendant in the case
just quoted, although it was- clearly shown at
the trial, that in the publication of the alleged

libel, there was not malice, either expressed or
implied, As we read and interpret the law of
libel, it is necessary, in order to sustain an
action, that there must be proof of malice in the

defamer, and real, not fancied damage to the
defamed. If any one of these elements be want-
ing, the case is improved, and the claim for

redress is not allowed. There are, however.
several instances in which the onus of proof

of an absence .of malice lies on the
defamer, and there are cases where the
alleged libel may tend to the public advantage,

and which, therefore, palliates the use of strong
offensive, and it may be opprobrious language

Again, there is the case of masters giving certi

ficates of conduct to their servants. In such

instances, the public weal requires the truth to be
told. In these latter cases, unless it is satisfac-
torily proved that there has been a wilful distor-
tion of facts, and instigated by malice, wantonly
indulged, any statement, whether written or
verbal, is protected as a privileged "communica-

tion. The case, however, which Lord CAMPBELL
brought before the House of Lords, on Friday, is
somewhat different to that of the above.

The case, STOCKDALE v. HANSARD, and the
more recent one of DAVISON v. DUNCAN, has
established that where speeches are delivered in
public meetings, or in bodies corporate, or even
the Houses of Parliament, and which contain in
them anything tending to disparage individual
character, the mere fact of publishing such
spoken language is held to be illegal, and renders
the publisher and printer liable to the pains and
penalties of an action for libel, civil or criminal.
Now, this is monstrous injustice towards the
proprietors of public journals. The reports, of
meetings form an interesting portion of intelli-
gence, which has been aptly termed the "news
of the day." The newspaper proprietor des-
patches his Teport,-_T to note the proceedings of
all public meetings. The speakers dictate what
they have to say, hence the publication of the
speech is as much his own act as its delivery.
And no matter how it may be argued that the
printing and publishing of the slanderous
matter is tenfold more injurious than its mere
utterance by the author, we agree with the
opinion of our metropolitan cotemporaries, that
" he, and he alone, in every sense of the word, is
the utterer. The reporter represents nothing
but a speaking-trumpet, through which, by the
aid of science, a single voice can be made to echo
over the entire kingdom."
The law as it now stands is indefensible, and
no rational person can disagree with Lord
CAMPBELL in considering that such a state of
things should be remedied with the least possible
delay. It is unreasonable to extend the privilege
of immunity to the reports of the Law Courts and
to deny them to reports of the proceedings of
Parliament ; to public meetings convened for the
discussion of matters interesting to the whole
community, and devoid of mere personal interest.
Had we such litiguous persons as Mr. Da.visoN,
who sued Mr. DUNCAN, in our Town Council,
or sitting among the West Derby Guardians,
the proprietors of the Liverpool press would
years ago have been ruined, or else much of their
local intelligence would have been sacrificed, so
as to comply with our absurd and unjustifiable
law, We have no other desire than that the
subject may `be fully investigated, but cannot
participate in the fears of Lord CAMPBELL as to
the power of allowing indiscriminate privilege of
publishing reports of what takes place at public
meetings, We contend that all public meetings
called for the discussion of public matters should
be reported, and if anything is said derogatory
and injurious to private character, let the
utterers of the said objectionable language be
held accountable. Neither the newspaper pro-
prietor nor his reporter have any malice in the
publication of an actual history of what took place,
and a faithful record of what was said.
The whole of' Lord CAMPBELL'S statement
shows that he is strongly in favour of • a more
extended liberty of the Press; and although we
cannot coincide in his imaginary views about the
impolicy of publishing meetings sowing sedition
for their character, relying as swe do that there
does not exist a single journal of the least
respectability, position, or influence in the
United Kingdom which would publish the
disloyal garbage, of seditious politicians. We
are extremely glad to find that the matter has
been brought forward, and we trust that his
Lordship's Committee will lose no time in
preparing the way for an early and an effective
alteration of the Law of Libel; that public
journalists may be relieved at once and entirely
from liabilities which in justice can only belong
to others. Let them answer to a charge of
wilfully and maliciously injuring others, but
shield the profession from the shafts of vindictive
and unreasonable men if in the performance of
their duties as journalists, they have merely
published the statements of other men in public
meeting assembled.

DIPE DIAL PARLIAMENT.

[Py Bri?ish and Irish ]Magnetic Telegraph]

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The house met at five o'clock.

THE BrAcx HOLE OF HONG KONG.

The Earl of Carnarvon drew attention to the statement..
in the China mail, that 42 persons were imprisoned in a
badly ventilated room, 15 feet sqlare, and to other state-
ments of cruelty to the Chinese. •
The Earl of 1-Purowby- read an Ontial statement to
show, that though 40 prisoners were confined in one room,
of the ilimensions mentioned, they were well accommo-
dated, and the room was well ventilated. • -
After a short conversation the subject dropped, and
after the transaction of some buSiness of a formal nature,
Their lordships adjourned at six o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--TUP.SPAY.
The Speaker took the chair at ten minutes to four.
The oaths were administered to about sixteen nAtober;,
including Major Sihthorpe, Lord Naas, Colonel LowthPr.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Mon,ell, Mr. IL Johnson, Major S.
Wortley, Captain Mag,an, and Mr. 11. Vivian.
ADMISSION OF JEWS INTO PARLIAMENT.
;,The sheriffs of London preented a petition in favour of
the abolition of the oath of abjuration.
THE ADDRESS TO TILE CROWN.
',Lord Castlerose brought up the answer to the aldress
in the ordinary font.,

CITURCH RAT'S.
Sir John Trelawney gar- notice that, on the'26th of
May, he should ask leave to bring in a bill for the aboli-
tion of church rates.