The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-04 00:00:00

another reason why he was opposed to the Bill hcivg sent to
`Acted r:4erninittee. It was well, when. they approved of a
meitsitre; tfiJ di-t.4.Ut.e ~,?:;e4siaerktien to its details ; but in this
Bill there ifeqsa str Mite/ claUseswhich were objectionable,
he.olving in theniselve teat he thought that
iestend i,f being sent to a Select Committee for decinior, it
origin tt by de6ided o'n by the House: To send the Bill to a
Select Committee sanction to those clauses
the principles of Which he cotild not approve. The course
he would reCoinmend to the Hon. and-Learned Gentleman
was to IviNidtew this Bill, relieve it. from what it contained
of an objectionable ellefakterand bring in another con-
laiuject on;,- those provisions %AA Vate generally approved.
lie eoeld not agree to the clause w4,::"41 abelished the
power of pi'Oeatiittg- by criminal information ; the prosccn-
' lien of parties by did pfeeese often led to a retractation
apo'logY • Which obviated the tieeeL•gitr for further pro-
ceeding, adrditted that the experf,et ititittrfed wag cm:-
siderable, but that li.gee One of the unavoid,tbie intern•
veniences to which parties wild offended against the few
remle'teti themselves obnoxious. Ile diiYlet not object to
individtials tidies liable for prosecutions for libel e,ho were
net liable to prosecution to slander, but it did not fOltew
that he shoadd not object to the lowering of the prosecution
for libel to the point at Which prosecution fer slander began.
With respect to the clati&l relating to the discovery of the
leOters of libels, he thought the objection to that was
that it would ee.able a man who might be content to lie
in prison to becotte the ostensible of all the libels pub-
lished.
Mr. POULTER considered that S 6 many changes were
requited in the law of libel, that he could not, think it a
sufficient gratin(' for the second reading of a Bill on the
subject that it contaiecd one or -two clauses that were not
objectionable. Lookine to the Tith clause, he thought that
it contracted the law of libel so much as almost to anni-
hilate all actions for libel. That Bill, if adopted as the
law of the land, would leave private character open to the
most calumnious imputations. it would. subject the most
honourable man in the community to reproach, and it
would leave him without redress. It was his opinion that
men should not with impunity be permitted to speak that
which was calculated to deprive others of their fair charac-
ter, and he called upon the House to alter the law of
dander, and assimilate it to the law of libel. There was, he
considered, one very material point omitted in this Bill : it
was, to afford protection to those who gave an honest and
faithful report of that which was said in a legislative as-
sembly and in courts of justice. The publication of such
matters ought to be exempted from the law of libel. He
wished also to exempt from actions of libel the poor
people who lived by selling_ newspapers, and who knew
nothing of the contents of the newspapers that they sold.
Those persons ought not to be punished who perhaps did
not know how to read, and who were not aware whether
that which they sold contained abuse or praise. ,It was his
opinion that in cases of libel the authors alone ought to be
answerable.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD intended, he said, to vote
against the second reading of the Bill. It was admitted
that there were great defects in the law of libel, but in this
Bill the attempt to afford a remedy was all on one side.
Everything was done to afford protection to those who
were disseminating slander ; and there was not one single
tittle of protection, from the beginning of the Bill 'to the
end of it, afforded to that character which the Honour-
able and Learned Member for Kilkenny must feel
was one of the dearest possessions that man could
enjoy, and the protection of which must be one of' the
greatest triumphs of modern legislation.—(Hear, hear.)
A man who committed an error in early life, and redeemed
it by his subsequent good conduct, ought not to be libelled
with impunity. He did not think that the giving up the
author on all occasions ought to be sufficient ; he who
made his paper the instrument of the malignant passions
of another ought to be punished. He who pandered to
the passions of others ; he who made a filthy trade in
libel, and profited' by slander, ought to be made an-
swerable for his misconduct.—(Hear, hear.) But in this
13111 everything was in favour of the slanderer. He was
to have the choice of his jury, he was to have the
right of reply, and everything was prepared for his im-
munity, comfort, and dignity. This he objected to. He
objected also to the defendant, in cases of libel, having costs
as provided by the Bill. In conclusion he declared that
he could not consent to the Bill going into Committee, as
such a Bill was not called for by the state of the pres-s.
Mr. MACLEAN, in objecting to the Bill, wished to
know from the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny
whether, in doing away with ca. (fficio and criminal informa-
tions, he provided a proper substitute for them ? He un-
derstood it was not done.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, assured the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oxford that he was quite mistaken in his view of the
14th clause.
The House then divided—
For the second reading 47 •
Against it -
Majority
On the motion of Mr. HAWES, certain returns were
ordered respecting the British Museum.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of ; and
on a motion for certain returns respecting Justices of the
Peace in Scotland,
An }lox. MEMBER moved that the House be counted,
when, there not being 40 members present, the House ad-
journed at half-past twelve.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

LAW OF LIBEL BILL.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

WEDNESDAY, MAT 3.

Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question
proposed,—" That the Bill be now read a second time:"—Amend-
ment proposed, to leave out the word " now" and at the end of the
Question to add the words " upon this day six months :"—Question
put,—" That the word now' stand part of the Question :"—The
House divided:—