The Express.
London, England, 1868-04-01 00:00:00

LIBEL BILL

""ir C. 01.00RLEN having moved the second reading
of this bill,
fir R. COLLIER said, in sainting to the second
-eliding, he wished to guard himself against being sup-
posed to approve of the clause which made speakers at
public meetings legally responsible for their words instead
of persona who published them. If that clause were not
given up by the promoters of the bill, he should hereafter
move its omission. . . . .

Mr. WHALLBY denied that there was any injustice in
the law as it stood. . • .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was not going to
oppose the Noted reading, it being a fair matter for die-
cuanon in committee whether it was right in principle.
On more than one occasion it had been shown in the courts
of law that hardship had arisen from the illegality of
nod fide reports of public meetinp. (Hear, hear.) If a
person went to a meeting at which reporters were pre-
sent, it could not be assumed that he did not know
that the speeches would be publialied. (Hear, hear.) The
distinction between words spoken and words written had
to a great extent vanished, and it appeared to him that
if statements against a person were made in public, that
person oight to have an opportunity of showing in a
court of law that they were unfounded. (Hear, hear.)
There was nothing in the bill, as he understood, to inter-
fere with freedom of speech.
Mr. AYRTON was of opinion that the bill passed
through the house last session in consequence of the assu-
rance of his bon. and learned friend that he did not mean
to carry it any further, it being regarded as one of his hon.
and learned friend's many efforts to benefit society.
(Laughter.) A member of the committee which sat on
the bill had assured him that he considered it mischievous
in its present shape. He (Mr. Ayrton) would consent to
the second reading on the understanding that the leading
provisions would be well considered in committee. The
great question was whether newspaper proprietors were
to hive the same responsibility as all other persons en-
go:,ind in similar occupations, or whether they should be
iranteed against the consequences of their own negli-
gence. In his opinion, this was an attempt to degrade re-
porting, which was one of the most honourable of pro-
down to the level of a mere mechanical
erooess. (Hear, hear.) If the bill passed, • news-
paper proprietor might employ Si • reporter a mere
writer at a few shillings a week instead of a gentleman of
~nd intelligence, capable of exercising a just
(Hear, hear.) The question must be con-
sidered more deeply than it had been by the hon. and
learned gentleman.
Mr. M. tiIBSON said, as a member of the committee
which considered this subject, he came the conclusion

!list it was necessary the Prelia should be defended against
vexatious actions. (Hear, hear.) But ho was not pre.
li;,red to say that newspaper proprietors should be
-tempted from the necessity of exercising • wise
discretion. As the bill stood, if a report were
..ccurste that was to be a sufficient defence. In
Mx opinion accuracy should be admissible as part of the
evidence, the court being left to say what was its value ;
'out mere accuracy should not be • sufficient defence
.done. A person might by ordering a large number of
papers secure a report which would do great injustice.
The yin. scion whether Meta should be allowed in certain
simils of actions was a material one. He was not pre-
pared for that alteration in the cue of slander which was
now proposed, wishing freedom of speech to be main-
:Ailed. He should, however, vote for the second reading.
Mr. HENLEY admitted that the difficulty of this

wßte: way very great. The question was in whit manner
the freedom of the press WAS to be seemed. On the first

ntroduction of tberbill he saw no safety it the change
there proposed. It was much modified in the select com-
mittee. He thought words uttered wish the knowledge that
they would be taken down were very different from words
spot en under different circumstances. (Hear.) Consider.
ing the rapidity and excellence of reports, it was not to be
supposed that reporters would not make an accurate re.
cord ; but the question was whether what they wrote
should be published—whether, on a balance of wove-
!dances ►nd inconveniences, it was more just that a pub-
lisher should suffer or the person who uttered the words.
The question was one of great difficulty. It did
not seem to him just that a man who uttered
words in the presence perhaps of 5,000 persons should
go scot free, while the publisher of his words was punished.
Mau, hear.) He thought that in the committee he
'.hould be disposed to support some such protection for
newspaper proprietors as was now proposed. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. Olt )CHLEN, adverting to the remarks et Mr.
Ayrton, denied that he said anything last mainion im-
plying that be did not intend to carry the bill beyond that
Louse. He was prepared to defend the clauses of the bill

31r. HI:ARDEN felt great plesaure in sup the
second reading, Laving been for 35 years •rd of news-
papers. (Lttighter.)
The bill was then read a wasond time, and the oosn-
mittee i.xed for the 20th of May.

ARTISANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 6, empowering the officer of public health to
.:;:or: on the condition of houses in any street,
Ar. H. LEWIS objected to the authority conferred as
excessive.

..Ir. GASELEE took the same view, aliening that it
epited that the officer should be not merely a builder but
„iso a physician.
317. Lee,LIN defended the clause, and Mr. T. CRAM -
t' K.. opposed it.
Mr. TORRENS remarked that the principle of the bill
-al ieen already approved, and this clause was neesweary
c ary it out.
Mr. H.kP.DY observed that it was not made impera-
t'w: that the officer's report should be carried out, or that
:Ler.: should be any order at all. Nothing could
Actually done without the emotion of the
.•,t..orities. The house having twice sanctioned the
the bill, it appeared to him desirable that it
:1.1 now endeavour to bring it into a proper shape eon-
a.ch that principle.
[Left sitting.)

.1 ;ram from Havana dated March 18,
P• net i the New York papers, says :—" The governor.
op of Kitt's is reported to hays been offered to lir.
'"t• The present governor of that island has been
~emoted to the governorship of the Barhadoes, Governor
',tidier laming been relieved." _ _

TWAkL' BOMBAY MAIL Or MARCH 14-20.-
- /, mlk,ki 30.—The Delhi sailed at midnight yesterday
liombay.
" aY Oa. SONG."—This oft repeated symbol of
*erthieteness is sometime remarkably belied. This was
tile ease at Messrs. Putt& rod enispiesesm/e
ehus the t Cherry's song, "BhalL of the
• , wbateeer may be its merits, does not rank
en,ongst the novelties of the day, sold for the large pries