The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-10 00:00:00

LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the
Order of the Day for the third reading of the
Libel Law Amendment Bill, upon which
Mr. HUME rose to put a question to the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman. He had understood that
the clemency of the Crown had been extended to
various capital offenders under sentence. He thought
there were some minor offenders to whom mercy
might also be advantageously extended, without any
detriment to the administration of justice. He
wisliel to know whether pardon was likely to be
given Mr. Alexander, who was in confinement for
libels published in the Morning Journal newspaper ?
He really thought that when murderers were par-
doned, he might well become an object of clemency.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL made two or
three observations, only one of which could be heard.
It was understood to be to the effect, that he had
nothing whatever to do with the subject to which
the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had called atten-
tion. He had only to add that his own opinions
were unchanged.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that when the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen spoke of murderers having
been pardoned, he must have been misinformed—.
indeed the whole of what he said appeared to have
been founded upon very imperfect knowledge of
the facts.

Mr. lIUMT said that several persons convicted
of capital offences had been pardoned, and lie un-
derstood that some murderers were amongst the
number.

Sir H. PEEL resumed—lt happened that on
the first occasion on which a report hud been made
to his Majesty since his accession, his servants had
thought it their duty to advise his Majesty that the
capital sentences should not be carried into execu•
lion. But they should have been guilty of a very
improper exercise of the discretion entrusted to
them if they had advised the Crown to remit any
punishment except such as, from the circumstances,
warranted such a remission. The Hon. Member
was not to suppose that they had advised the course
of the laW to be suspended in any case wherein it
ought to have taken effect.
On the question that the Bill be read a third
time,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed an
amendment; but its purport could not be caught,
owing to the inaudible manner in which it was read.
Lord MORPETH said that though the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman might have found it per-
fectly satisfactory to himself not to explain more
particularly the nature of his amendment, yet it was
scarcely decorous to the House. He should not, how-
ever, then enter into any discussion of the question.
Lord HO WICK professed that he did not know
the nature of the proposed amendment.

Lord MORPEtIi adverted to the former debate
upon this subject, and to his having succeeded in a
motion for preventing the increase of the recogni-
anew; to be entered into by Newspaper Proprietors.
He understood the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman was to restore the Bill to its original
state.

Lord NORMANBY observed that the manner
in which the Bill had been introduced perfectly cor-
responded with the whole conduct of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman in office ; and for his own part,
he declared that Hon. and Learned Gentleman was
one of the last to whom he should agree to intrust
any additional power over the liberty of the press.
He was the more anxious to make that declaration
as throughout the country he and his Hon': Friendi
around him shared much of the unpopularity of the
Whig Attorney-General.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would
not give expression to any feelings of resentment
which the attack just then made on him might
naturally be expected to occasion. He had seer? no
reason to repent or retract any part of what he had
said or done, though he by no means felt himself
accountable to the Noble Lord for the course of his
official conduct, yet he professed himself ready, at
a proper time and place, to vindicate the whole of
that conduct to the full satisfaction of every im-
partial man. In making that observstion he begged
to assure the Noble Lord, that what had occurred
would not in the slightest degree alter the sentiments
he entertained towards his Lordship. in the manner
in which he had brought forward the amendment
he certainly meant no disrespect to the House; and
be must be allowed to say, that the application of
the words " not decorous" was undeserved. He
should now more particularly explain the nature of
the amendment which he meant to propose. His
object was to restore the Bill to its original shape.
hen the Bill was committed be expected nothing
less than a division on it in so small a House. To
remedy the effects of what he would call a surprise,
he wished again to take the sense of the House
upon the question, observing, that there was then
a fug attendance. lie wished it to be understood,
that, with his consent, the Bill should not be cm,
vied, unless it were restored to the form in which
he had introduced it. The object be had, in view
was to enable individuals libelled to recover such
damages as might be awarded them, and such costs
as they might be entitled to. He wished to put an
end to the systeM by which die real parties con-
cealed themselves behind men of no substance or
responsibility, of whom they made scape-goats. It
had often come to his knowledge that publishers of
newspapers were not able to pay either, when de-
feated in actions for defamation, and to remedy
that evil was his sole object in bringing for.
ward the clause; end he' hoped that for the
manner of doing so, he should not be held
amenable to the Noble Lord, or to any of his
Right Honourable Friends—his sole wish was to
protect individuals from the effects of private libels.
He had even known instances where there were
publications of debates in that House, which were
mere matter of invention, and which were calculated
to do injury not only to the parties against whom
they were directed, but against the speakers, into
whose mouth language might have been put which
they never uttered. His further object was to put
an end to some portion of the private slander of
which there was so much and general reason to
complain, anti in doing that, he felt that he did not
deserve that reprehension to which he had been:ex-
posed. There was no one who had the slightest
acquaintance with eases of the nature in question,
who must not feel the necessity of a change in the
law. Ile instanced the case of the Age newspaper,
as furnishing a striking illustration of the principle
for which he was contending. lie concluded by re-
peating, that his object in bringing forward the Bill
—an object which he hoped was no crime—was to
give any person who brought an action a fair op-
portunity of recovering his costs,
Mr. POULEr I.` THOMPSON was anxious to
put out of view any muff of is merely personal na-
ture, and merely look at the Bill as it stood. He
acquitted the Hon. and Learned Gentleman of any
desire but that which lie professed —namely, that of
giving relief to the parties concerned frqm the chill-
culties to which they were at present exposed in the
recovery of damages and rests. The course of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman went to increase the
recognikances from 3001. to 4001, To that alteration
in what was previouely alluded to, he certainly could
not give his assent--he conceived that power enough
was possessed without the extension proposed by the
present Bill.

• Lord 110 WICK said that the Hothead Learned
Gentleman had brought forwarsl no proof—no fact,
to show the necess=ity of such a change 114 be pro.
posed to make—it was, therefore, that he (Lord li.)
could not acquiesce in the amendment—the effort
of the change would be to double the amount of tbe
security.

TheATTORNEY-GENERAL 'Was Understood
L
to deny tout assertion.

Leta HOWICK repeated that there was no feet,

no proof of the necessity of the change. The Noble
Lord then referred to the debates on the iubject of
the law of libel in the year 1819, and then adverted
to the case of Mr. Alexander, observing that there
it was found that the law proved powerful enough
to overwhelm an individual. What he wished to
resist was any attempt to increase the power of the
Crown, but he was a friend to every reasonable pro-
tection which individuals might require.
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the clause as
likely to discourage the establishment of new Jour-
nals—the old were of necessity in the possession of
great capitalists, as a well-established newspaper in
great circulation was worth 100,0001. Now, he
contended that their duty was rather to give en-
couragement to new journals than unduly to favour
those already established.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY would vote against the
amendment, but he should do so entirely on prin-
ciple—he was not
.influenced by any motives of a
personal nature.
The House then divided—.
For the amendment.........
Against it 47
Majority 2l
On our re-admission we found,
Mr. HOBHOUSE saying that this was another
manacle placed upon the liberty of the press. In his
opinion it would be quite time enough to punish the
offence when it had been committed. The Bill
before the House would produce no detrimental effect
to men of capital or power, but merely do injury to
persons of small pecuniary means—it would not
make persons of wealth or influence conduct their
papers in any respect better than they had done—it
would affect no great paper ; but it would merely
operate -against journals of minor influence and cir-
culation—it would not operate as a restraint upon
any newspaper at a formidable rate. He was, how-
ever, willing to admit that something had been at-
tempted by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and
for the attempt he deserved some credit; but it was
to be regretted that he had contented himself with
allowing the vote of the House on a former night
to remain undisturbed. It was likewise to be re-
gretted, that not only the clause in question but
parts of the Bill operated to the disadvantage of
persons engaged in the business of publication, who
were only possessed of small pecuniary resources—
persons already exposed to no inconsiderable hard-
ship. In the department of pamphlets alone, he was
enabled to state that there had been no fewer than
147 prosecutions within a short period. The Bill of
the Hen. and Learned Gentleman, if meant us a
boon, was certainly not understood as such and
though powerful for bringing about evil, it would be
totally ineffectual for the production of good.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—I am sorry that this dis-
cussion--I mean the earlier part of it—should have
been distinguished by any reflections of a merely
personal nature, and I shall not say any thing likely
to renew them further than to observe that the
course adopted by my Hon. and Learned Friend
will, by all well-judging people, be considered to
have reflected honour upon him.—(Cries of Hear,
hear, hear," from the Opposition.)—Yes, I repeat—
it does reflect honour upon him.—(Cheers from the
Ministerial Benches.)—His object was not to culti-
vate the favour of the Press or of the'people—his-
object was to do what he conceived to be right.
indifferent in the first instance as to, what might be
thought of his conduct, for he cannot but be confi-
dent that the time will come when his motives will
be justly appreciated. In the state of the law of
libel, as it stood, there were two grounds of com-
plaint. The first was, that banishment for the se-
cond offence was too severe, and there was no one
who reflected upon the state of the law, who was
not perfectly aware that it was not valid for the pur-
pose of deterring persons from the commission of
the offence, and there were those who thought that
the extreme infliction of such a punishment
amounted to nothing less than the perpetration of
injustice. The other complaint was against the li-
centiousness of the Press in its publication of ed-
lumnies affecting private individuals. Can any man
deny that the prevailing evil of the Press at the pre-
sent day is the prurient examination of the conduct
of private individuals, from which not even females
are protected. Now I will call upon the House to say
ought not the law to afford a remedy for that evil—
ought fictitious characters to be allowed to be entered
in the Stamp-office, for the purpose of screening the
calumniators of men in private life, and of femalrs
who have hitherto looked in vain for that redress to
which they are justly entitled, and which, I think the
House will agree with me, the Legislature is bound
to afford. It has been said that the present Bill is
directed against persons of small capital, or little er
no pecuniary means; but theie are the very parties
most likely to be guilty of the offences against
which this Bill is directed. Papers like the Times
tire not at all likely to indulge in the publication of
private libels • the character which such a paper has
to support affords abundant security against the com-
mission of those offences, but minor publications, are
not likely to be restrained by similar considerations.
True it is that we may despise those publications,
hut females, and many men, too, are placed in situa-
tions which will not permit them to despise calum-
nies of that nature. Whether the measure be
, a
boon or not, it will be for the public in time to
judge, but I consider it a decided improvement to
diminish undue severity, and at the same time to
take security against the publication of private libels.
Mr. LENNARD considered those who patronized
publications of the nature spoken of were the parties
most to blame. As. to Mr. Alexander, he did net
thick him a legitimate object of clemency—his libels
were most atrocious, and, if possible, his defence
was more culpable. As to the Bill under consi-
deration, he thought it insufficient to effect the ob-
jects at which it was aimed, while it was likely to
prove highly inconvenient to persons of small means.
It would have been really a valuable measure had it
been confined to the mere repeal of the penalty of
banishment.

Mr. HUME was willing to give the Hon. end
Learned Gentleman opposite credit for sincerity,
but he would put that sincerity to the test of asking
him to confine the increased security to cases of pr -
vote libels, since he merely profeased to have in
view the suppression of that class of publications.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that
his object had been to obtain additional security for
private individuals in their actions for libels,and in
no respect to increase the power of the owe in
its pro3ecutions. He was well aware that an At-
torney-General was seldom popular, and whenever
an opportunity offered there were many in the
House ready to press him ha he did not blame
them for it--and he always Feceived their attacks
with the most candid interpretation. It was not his
wish by this I id to cajole any person; but while re-
pealing the punishment of banishment he thought he
could increase the security of private parties. What-
uver might be the case with the respectable part of
the press, there were persons who founded their whole
claim to the circulation of their newspapers upon the
belief that they regarded no decorum, and violated
all the decencies of private life. This practice he
had been desirous of checking, although he could
not hope to change the public appetite, gratified as it
was, and would be, by scandal and slander. All en-
joyed attacks, even upon their best friends; and it
was obvious that personal questions in Parliament
always excited much more interest, and procured a
fuller attendance than any topic of general principle
or national finance. The disadvantage of the law a 4
it before stood was, that parties who recovered du-
fringes by verdict could never obtain them, us mere
adventurers were sometimes put forward as the pro
prietors of newspapers. Ks design had been to
remedy this defect ; he thought he had done so; but
if not, he trusted that he merited, and should receive
no blame.

Mr. O'CONNELL pointed out some defects in
the present Law of Libel beyond those noticed by
the 'tight lion. Secretary of State. One of them
was, that what was or %as not a libel was nowhere
defined; and a Judge who stated his opinion that a
publication was a libel, was sure to find a very aim-
plitisunt Jury; accordingly, it had been found a libel

upon an Earl, before the late Lord Ellenborough,
that he was called' a sheep-feeder from Cambridge.
shire ;" and another man had been convicted of a
libel upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for saying
that he was " a stout-built special pleader." He
agreed that the libel of which Mr. Alexander had
been found guilty was most gross ; it was false and
scandalous; but, had it been true, the verdict must
have been the same; and this was another flagrant
defect in the existing Libel Law. It was equally a
libel to publish truth of a corrupt Lord Chiincellor,
as falsehood of a pure one.
Mr. H. BATTLEY expressed his disapprobation
of the Bill.

On the question that it be passed,
Lord MORPETH said that, in bidding adieu to
this measure, he neither wished, nor had a right to
find fault with the motives of the Attorney-General.
All he objected to was, the principle of his legisla.
tion. This he must add, that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman never seemed, disposed to do anything
agreeable to the people,. without doing something
disagreeable to them at the same time.
The rßill was then passed, and ordered to the
Lords.
STAGEt6ACII PROPRIETORS BILL.
Sir T. AULAND moved thithirdieading of the
Stage Coach Proprietors Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD wished some chime to
be introduced, giving a poor man a. summery remedy
against a coach proprietorifor the loss of a parcel.
Mr. SPOTTISWQODE objected to the whole
principle oft he'Bitl, which gave a premium to stage.
coach proprietors for carelessness.
Colonel TRENCH proposed a clause, afterwards
withdrawn, limiting the time for commencing the
action to six months after the loss of a parcel.
After a few words from Mr. HUMS and Sir T.
ACLAND, the Bill was read a third time and passed.