The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-19 00:00:00

be able to state the circumstances connected with it cor-
rectly. A young woman had in early life been seduced
by a man of title; but alter livina with him for a certain

time she became a-liamed of Ile course of life she was
pursuing, and taking the ()pint tuniry of e-caping from it,
she retired into a distant part of the country, where her
seducer was unable to discover her. She obtained a
situation, in which she conducted herself with so much
propriety that she not only g iined the goodwill of her
employers, but was appointed to another situation in a
public establishment. Several years after her seducer
discovered the place of Her retreat, and having in vain
made proposals for the renewal of their intercourse, he hit
upon the expedient of depriving her of the means of sub-
sistence, thinking that be sheribl then succeed in his at-
tempt to possess himself again of her person. He there-
fore published in the town where she resided the his-
tory of her early life. The consequence was that the un-
fortunate woman lost the esteem of the friends her good
conduct had procured her, and she was deprived of the ap-
pointment by means of which she obtained her livelihood.
Was net this woman entitled to compensation?—(Hear.) '
Yet, if she hail brought an action against her persecutor,
he would have justified and she would have been turned out
of court, with the aggravation to her misfortuneof having in-
curred a useless expense. There was another point to
which it was important that the attention of the com-
mittee should be directed. Much had been said on the '
subject of ex officio informations, and it must be admitted
that the power which the law officers of the Crown ex-
ercised on this point, was calculated for had as well as '
good times. It would be for the committee to inquire
whether this power could be altogether abolished; but
his own opinion was, that it would not be safe to prevent
the law officers from having recourse to it in certain cases.
It was possible, however, that some arrangement might
be devised by which the subject would be protected against
any hardship in this mode of proceeding. Perhaps the
course which was pursued in Ireland might be adopted in
this country with advantage. In Ireland it was the
practice, he understood, for the Attorney-General to call
the parties before him previously to filing an information,
which afforded an opportunity for explanation of the cir-
cumstances under which the publication bad taken place.
This practice also operated as a protection against the
adoption of proceedings by the Attorney-General without
due consideration. There was another course of proceed-
ing which had been the subject of much animadversion,
and he was rather surprised at that circumstance,because,
as it was administered in this country, it was less objec-
tionable than any other mode of criminal proceeding—he
alluded to criminal informations granted by the court. In
such a case the defendant bad this peculiar protection,that
the court would not grant the information unless the
prosecutor was able to negative the truth of the libel,
and thus the prosecutor was deprived of the advantage
which he would obtain by proceeding by indictment—
(Hear, hear, bear.) Another advantage attending
this mode of proceeding was, that the court having all
the circumstances of the case before it, could interpose its
advice and probably terminate the dispute without the
case proceeding to trial. No person who reflected on the
subject for a moment could doubt that it was much more
easy to get a grand jury to return a bill than it was to
prevail upon the court to grant an information. The
grand juiy examined only the prosecutor's witnesses, but
the Court of King's Bench compelled the prosecutor to
negative the truth of the libel before it would grant an
intormatien. Another point to which it was desirable the
attention of the committee should be. applied, was the
construction which judges bad put upon Mr. Fox's act.
That act constituted the jury the judges of the law as well
as of the fact, and yet, until latterly, when the practice
had somewhat altered, the judges seemed to think that
they had a right to perform the duty which the law im-
posed upon Jurymen. In early life he had frequently
their
judges tell juries they were bound to state that in
opinion the publications which formed the subjects
of
prosecution were gross and scandalous libels. if any
advis-
ablelegitd toht
oat r
ei.t s hTohueldrebur%sse t
aa t rtiestrbayets (Mat
hee
doubt existed with respect to Mr. Fox's act, it was
enactmentG oefortghe
lll.—one of the Six Acts e
6 t h of
n—o tv'ebich oleo required conside-
ration. By that act a very severe penalty was inflicted
upon a second offence, and, as the law now stood, it was
probable that the consequences of the second convic-
tion would fall on the innocent party. He hoped that an
alteration would be made upon this point without being
productive of any danger. The committee might also
take into consideration another provision of the name
act, which authorised the seizing of copies of the pub-
lication in the possession of the defendant after convic-
tion of libel. It might not perhaps be considered unjust
to prevent the circulation of what a jury had declared
to be libellous, but it would be the duty of the commit-
tee to suggest some plan by which the exercise of the
power in question should be attended with as little danger
as possible to the rights of property. The points to which
he had adverted were those which bore upon persons en-
gaged in printing and publishing, but it must not be
supposed that the inconveniences of the law were all on
one side. Experience proved that, in many instances,
the law was insufficient to afford protection to the public
or to private individuals. Great difficulty was at present
experienced in getting at the parties who ought to be re-
sponsible for libels. The writer of the libel was unknown,
and some nominal and fictitious party was put forward to
bear the responsibility. This was a grievance, not only
to the party libelled and the public, but also to the re-
spectable part of the press—to those persons who intended
honestly and honnurably to discharge the duties of the
profession to which they belonged. If, by inadvertence,
one of the latter description of persons should admit
libellous matter into his publication, he must abide the
consequences ; but in the other case the publishers of the
libels enjoy impunity. Some plan might perhaps be
devised to provide greater security for the punishment
of persons engaged in the habitual publication of libels.
At present the person who was proceeded against was
usually either abroad or in prison. It might riot be an
easy matter to place this part of the libel law on
a more equitable footing, consistently with the
just rights of all parties concerned, and with that
freedom of discussion for good purposes which no
suggestion of his should ever tend to abridge ; but
he trusted that the committee would attempt to effect
such a desirable object. He wished it to be understood
that he was anxious to leave to those who were usefully
carrying on the profession of writing, printing, and pub-
lishing the utmost freedom of discussion, from which the
country had derived such great benefit, whilst he would
deprive another class of the power of covertly libelling their
fellow- subjects without being responsible for their proceed-
ings. He would briefly advert to another point connected
with the present state of the law of libel—namely, the
stamp duty on publications. The parties who evaded
the law regarding stamps found a ready means of circu-
lating libels, and he was bound to say that libellous mat-
ter was principally found in unstamped publications. It
would be for the committee to consider whether the
present state of the law as regarded stamps on publica-
tions did not tend to encourage licentiousness, and
whether it would not be proper to put all parties on a
level. Although the notice which be had given was
limited to the law of libel, it was obvious that it would
be necessary for the committee to take into consideration
the state of the law respecting slander, than which it was
scarcely possible to conceive any thing more absurd. Ira
looking over the catalogue of words which were slander-
ous, no reason appeared for their insertion, except that they
had been decided to be slanderous. Why should an affirma-
tion he slanderous in the city of London, and not slander-
ous out of the city ? He w.or anxious not to detain the
house longer than was necessary.—(Hear.) He had briefly
adverted to several points which he thought would pro-
perly become the subjects of investigation before the com-
mittee, and from whose labours lie sincerely thought
that m •
Lich good might result, nit only to those who were
engaged in printing and publishing but to the public,
for whilst he was desirous of protecting the utmost free
d
om of discussion within the limits in which it could be
safely permitted, he was at the same time desirous of re-
pressing that most odious system of persons obtaining
their subsistence by the injury and which pain they in-
flicted on others. (Hear h
aelair.). Whatever might. be
said as to the necessity
for the discussion of Political
aff:aiwrsintghetlr
‘eas no utmostilatituber
de
of that house who did not look with abhorrence on the
system of private libels.—(Hear.) At present it was
alwaysimputed to a man who proceeded against a li-
beller by a simple action that he did so for the sake of
obtaining compensation, and therefore persons were
forced, as it were, to proceed criminally, and then they
laboured under this disadvantage—that they might come
out of court with verdicts in their favour, but with all
the world believing the libels which they had prosecuted.
The lion. and learned gentleman conclude;] with moving
that " a committee be appointed to consider the present
state of the law as regards libel and slander."—(Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he did not rise to oppose
the motion ; on the contrary, he was extremely glad that
this important subject had
1, I been brought before the house
in order to be deliberately considered, and if the bill which
he had bron .ht in had acted as a stimulus to the govern_
ment—he did not say that it bad—he should be very
much gratified. By the hon. and learned member's clear
and able statement one thing was put beyond doubt, and
that was that nothing could be more atrocious than the
present state of the libel law. It would be intolerable
but that it was inoperative. The law was 40 atrocious