The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-19 00:00:00

SESSIONAL ORDERS.

Upon the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESI3URY, it
was resolved that the House should not receive any peti•
tion for a private Bill after Monday, March 24; nor any
report from the judges on such petition after Monday,
April 14.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the
Lord Steward (the Duke of Argyll), who bad met with
a serious accident in consequence of a fill from his horse,
on his way to the House, stated that his Majesty, in
answer to the several addresses be bad received, had
ordered the various papers to be laid on the table of the
House.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. BERNAL, and other Members of the House of
Common, brought up the Turnpike Road Continuation
Bill, which, on the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND,'
was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on Thursday next.
The House then adjourned to Thursday next at half-
past three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS', FEZ. 18.

A message from the Lords, respecting the Court of
Chancery, was brought up.
Mr. Alderman WOOD moved for leave to bring in a
Bill for the regulation of the metropolitan stage coaches.
Mr. WASON gave notice of a motion for bringing in
a Bill to allow the votes of the electors of the borough
of Saffron Walden, to be taken in one day.

Mr. POLLOCK moved for a return of copies of all
charters and orders in council issued in New South Wales.

Mr. FINN gave notice of a motion for bringing up
the report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the condition of the poor laws in Ireland.
Mr. WALL took the opportunity of asking the Noble
Lord (Althorp) whether the funds of the Savings Banks
bad been appropriated to the payment of the West In-
dia loan ?

Lord ALTHORP replied that there had been some un-
necessary alarm about the safety of the deposits in the
savings banks, but such alarm had originated in an entire
mi,conception of the intentions of Government.
Mr. WALL said, that it was not his intention to inquire
into the security of the deposits in the savings banks,
he quite agreed with the Noble Lord, that any appre-
hension on the part of the owners of these deposits would
be quite absurd. What he wished to ask was, whether
the twenty millions granted to the West Indians last
session had created any decrease in the stock of the savings
banks ?

Lord ALTHORP was understood to reply, that what-
ever bad been done had not bad such an effect upon the
funds alluded to.

THE PRESS.

Mr. O'CONNELL rose, according to the general
expectation of the House, to bring forward his motion
fur " establishing the liberty of the press." He com-
menced by observing that the law of libel was at present
in so unsatisfactory a state, that he did not see that there
could be any objection to give him leave to bring in a
Bill to amend that law. It might be a matter of
consideration as to how far his Bill might remove
the evils to be complained of, but that would be
a matter for future discussion ; it would not affect the
question as to whether he should bring in a Bill or not.
He therefore bad to apologize to the Hon. Member for St.
Aligns for introducing his Bill, which he would not have
done if lie had not the advantage of practical knowledge
acquired in courseof the discharge of his professional duties.
The basis of his plan was to secure the freedom of dis-
cussion—to increase the facilities of freedom of discussion,
by taking away many of the impediments to that freedom
which at present existed. The object of the low of libel was
to protect public and private character. His object on the
contrary was to give increased power to the tribunal of
public opinion. While he would protect public and pri-
vate character, he considered that it would be right to
give full facility to the public mind to display itse f
upon delinqueucies both public and private. He
knew of no power so great upon the public mind
as that of the Press, and therefore his object was to strike
down those parts of the libel law which inre:•fered with
public discussion, while he would give full protection to
charac er. If he could unite both these onj•'cts, giving
sufficient facilities to the display of public sentiment and
morality by means of the press; if he could do that, and
at the same time leave sufficient remedies and sufficient
protection to individuals, he would have obtained his
object. He had stated it was his intention to be brief,
and he would not, therefore, venture at any length into
the anomalies of the law of libel, but it would
strike Honourable Members at once that there existed
this anomaly in the law of England—•hat fats-hood was
not punishable it it were of a particular nature, and that
truth was punishable no matter what its nature might he,
whether relieious, political, or moral. The falsehood of
flattery was not punishable ; the worst of Governments, and
the worst of men, might be praised. The greatest
miscreants might be deified—and yet such conduct would
be perfectly justifiable, though it really lessened the
importance of private character, which he considered
the most important thing of all. The other anomaly was
that truth was punishable, and some of the Judges had
gone the enormous length of saying that the greater
the truth the greater the libel. By the libel law in crimi-
nal matters, the truth was put upon the record, if likely to
provoke a breach of the peace, but no libel was so likely
to excite to a breach of the peace as that which con-
tained a string of truths.—(Hear, hear.) This was
a legal fiction and absurdity ; and thus if a man
were guilty of a breach of the peace, he was punished with
a fortnight, or a month, or six weeks' imprisonment, and
a fine of 5/., 101., or 201., but if he was guilty of a con.
structive breach of the peace, although the principal crime
was visited with little punishment, the accessorial one was
punished by six, twelve months, or even two years' im-
prisonment, and heavy fines for publications merely
tending to provoke a breach of the peace.—(Hear.)
If a man made a speech, or published a document, he
might show that he was justified in doing so ; he might
be a Judge or Commissioner, or be discharging some
ofhcial situation under Government ; or perhaps it
might be the speech of a lawyer in a court of justice.
Now, many circumstances might occur to mitigate the con-
tingent fault of publishing in such manner ; but strange
to say, the truth of the publication was the only
circumstance that did not tend to palliate the
accidental offence that a publication might give. This
was very extraordinary. The general rule for arguing on
libels was the improper intention in publishing the libel.
Wel!, what better or so good criterion was there for inferring
the intention of the publisher than the truth of the state-
ment made? If it were true, it was a conclusive argument
that there was no inducement or motive to exaggerate the
original fact ; and the intention might be easily come at by the
ebsence of any exaggeration. What most of all contributed
to open the eyes of the public on the law of libel, was
the absurdity of punishing innocent persons. The law of
libel was so indefinite, so indescribable, that any one might
find a libel against his character, provided a speech or
publication contained anything offensive to his individual
feelings. Nothing but praise was exempt from the construc-
tion of a libel. That was the legal description of it.
Lord Redesdale had been called a thick-and-thin special
pleader, Lord Hardwicke a sheepfeeder from Cambridge-
shire, and each of the documents were held to he !ihel•
ious.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) bad never
looked at a newspaper in his life without seeing a libel
hi it in point of law. When a newspaper took
one side of a question, it was sure to libel those
who were of an opposite way of thinking, and he verily
believed that if it were to be at all scrutinised it would be
felled to libel both sides.—(Laughter.) What was
the next consequence ? Why, that every seller and
newsreader was equally liable to be indicted for libel ;
for it had been gravely held that it was the duty of
every newsvender to take care that he did not circulate
libels. Hence no roan was at liberty safely to sell a news-
paper, without first reading it through, and next ~scerc-
oining legally that it contained nothing lit ellous.
But another thing that affected gentlemen much snore—
it was not necessary coat the party circulating*, a libel
should receive money, because if aoy Hon. Member
of that House went into a club-house, read a newspaper
with a libel in it, and handed it tactless to another gentle-
m in, he was equally guilty, and liable to he prosecuted
with tie person who might have sold the paper. He defied
any lawyer to say that that was not the case ; and lie l:ad no
doubt, if about ball a dozen Hon. Gentlemen, Members of
,he conservative Club, were indicted for libel in this way,

the law of libel would very soon be altered. Such being
the law of libel, it being penal in all cases to say anything
with respect to Government, to circulate anything where
private feeling was hurt, and the truth not being allowed
to he given in evidence, it was clear that the law of libel
had existed to the present day, only because of the im-
practicability of cerryine it into effect in most c e,ee.
There was a law of public opinion to counteract the law
of libel; there was a power of the press which was
exceedingly great in this country, and which was di-
rected against every man who put the law of libel into
execution. In support of this position he would only
mention the instance of Lord Durham. In a newspaper
his conduct with respect to his private property had been
represented as exceedingly tyrannical, and falsely so. His
Lordship resorted to a criminal prosecution, upon which an
outcry was raised against him, as if he had been guilty
of the vilest and most oppressive tyranny which had ever
degraded any man. What would be the use of the law of
libel if it could not be had recourse to in such a case as that?
As long as the law of libel remained as it was at present,
no one could resort to it without being coveted with the
filth and mud with which it was encumbered, and that
law required amendment if it were only in order to be
cleansed from that fill]. Counsel were not at liberty
to prove the truth, but they could make insinuations
which were far worse. He had known a man get 5001
damages for a libel, and yet from what was said or insi-
nuated he was obliged to leave the country. There was,
in fact, at present, no remedy nor any redress, for the law
was a bad one. The Counsel dared not to speak the
truth, and complained how cruel it was that he should not
do so; but a counsel could say, " If I could but tell this or
that," mentioning then certain circumstances, and thereby
insinuating the whole truth. The law at present was
so bad, that its effects had, in fact, re-acted upon
itself. It eves from that consequence that he wanted to
vindicate the law. The present law of libel was founded
upon the Westminster Statute and that of the 211 of
Richard 11., which made it punishable to circulate
false rumours. It might be said that juries would
give but small damages i❑ cases of newsvenders
or newspapers that merely copied the libels. For
those he intended to provide. But in Ireland merely a
farthing damages carried costs, and the judges had no
discretion. In England the judges had a discretion, but
in many cases, as in the recent instance of Mr. Hunt's, the
defendant's costs amounted to 801. There was no Peet),
for the proprietors of newspapers. The was one subject
with which he did not intend to meddle, and that was
that part of the law relating to blasphemous libels ; but
the reason was that he did not wish to excite any
opposition to his Bill ; therefore he thought he
acted wisely in not involving himself with those who
were of opinion that the law in that respect ought to
continue. His own private opinion was, that it ought
not to exist, and that there ought to be no law prohibit•
ing paragraphs respecting Christianity. He merely slid this
much in order to protest against its being supposed that he
did not believe the law required alteration in that respect.
He would confine himself to prosecutions and actions. He
begged to call the attention of the House to the distinc-
tion between the law of libel and the law of slander. The
definition of libel in our law was written calumny, and
that of slender was oral calumny. One would have
thought tbat the one being the foundation of the other,
the law would have been equal in both cases.
Now, no man could bring an action for slander unless it
imputed to him some crime—something dishonest of
him in his business—or unless there had some special
injury resulted from it. Ia every one of those eases there
was comp actual damage, but in written slander the case
was quite altered, and the law in the former cases was
entirely broken through. It was an absurdity that
such anomalies should exist, and he trusted the House
would now see the necessity of altering it. In order to
afford, as it was called, relief, be knew it was at one
time the intention of an Honourabie Gentleman to
bring in a Bill for raising up the law of slander
to that of libel—be bad very great respect for the gentle-
man with whom that opinion originated, but that
was not his plan; be wanted to cut down the
law of libel to that which at present existed in
regard to slander—(Hear, bear)—and then there would
be a tangible and a definite rule. He would take the
liberty of trespassing a little longer on the time of the
House, but he trusted it would be for only a short
time, as he meant to make his statement as short as pos-
sible. He would then come to the prosecutions for libel.
There were two kinds of those; first, public prosecutions, and
second, private ones. Anything that was thought to
disparage the Government—that, even by themselves, was
thought to bring them into disrepute, was now the subject
of a public prosecution. Now, he meant to put an end to
that.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He proposed to sub-
stitute in place of it a very simple machinery
—be proposed to alter the law as it now
stood with regard to accessorial matters. In former
laws it was enacted that no man should be tried , as an
accessary unless the principal was first convicted ; now
the law was altered, and an accessary might now be tried
although the principle should nut Fe found. He pro
posed to extend that principle to the law of libel, so that
any man who had counselled or advised a crime to be com-
mitted should be punished, without waiting for the clime
being committed—without waiting for the publication of
the libellous matter. He proposed, therefore, almost to
strike at the root of the crime altogether. The liberty of
the press could never be secured unless as he proposed, the
eider, abettor, and counsellor of the libel could be got et
without the fact of the publication being in proof. He
would then touch upon private libels, and as to them
he would not have anything called a libel except the
matter was the same as would now be actionable as oral
slander. The next step he proposed to take was to do away
with all ex officio informations.—(Cheers.) The
prosecutions for libel should be on the same
grounds as those on indictments.—(Hear, hear.)
The Court of King's Bench should not grant a criminal
information unless the party making the application should
have Met denied the truth of the allegation. This
was curious. What a man was not allot; ed to urge
is his defence was made a preliminary stage far his
accuser. It was a strange anomaly, and one which in
his opinion well deserved reproach. Then the fact came
to be tried upon affidavit, which was the worst possible
way ; in the absence of witnesses, without cross-exami-
nation, and in the clumsiest and worst way, the fact
came to be tried, and when once an information was
granted they might as well sentence the party at one,.
The Court had already decided, and he did not know one
instance out of fifty thousand in which a party having had
a criminal information granted against him bad been ac-
quitted.—(Hear, hear.) There might be some rare
cases, but they only proved the efficacy and strength of
the general rule. The next point in his Bill
would relate to the improper jurisdiction of the Ci own,
and he would take away, for instance, the right of reply
where the defendant gave no evidence. He would reduce
it to the rationale of other cases, and if the defendant's
Counsel merely commented on the evidence of the Crown,
he would not allow the Counsel for the Crown a
second speech. lalut where the defendant gave evidence
he would go further, and though he would allow the
Counsel for the Crown a second speech, he would give
the defendant the last word.—(flear, bear.) This might
be called disputation. Many might agree in it, and others
might oppose it. He would not suffer it to prevent
blue from bringing in his Bill, as it might
be matter for future consideration. With regard to spe-
cial juries, he would take the case of Mr. Cohen as an
instance. He hoped that Honourabie Members had
read the species of libel for which that gentleman
had suffered. There had been several incendiary
fires, and that gentleman had published a passage in
his paper respecting them. A criminal information was
not applied tor, but the magistrates who were his judges
got angry at the publication. The case had been brought
before a special jury, consisting of magistrates who were
both judges, grand jurors, and in this case special-
jurors, with the view of trying a publication
which they considered to be directed against themselves.
This jury decided that the publication was intended, as
laid in the indictment, to continue the incendiary
fires. This was horrible, and deserving the severest
unisl•mcnt. The Jury convicted, but what did
the Judge say to the prisoner when brought
up for judgment? Why, be told him that he had been
convicted by the jury, but that he (the Judge) who tried
the case was convinced that the prisoner had no such inten-
tion, and only sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
lie would say, therefore, that these distinctions should
exist in all prosecutions for libel, that if the defendant
chose to have a Special Jury he should have it, but that
the prosecutor should nut. What he wanted was to pug
guards round the press, as he had high notions of
the value of public discussions of alt kinds. He
begged it to be. recollected that the adoption of the course
he suggested would not at all interfere with the right of
action, because if any man was injured he would
have his right of action. Still any party would have
tffe right of having a special jury if they pleased. The object
was to proceed by indictment instead of criminal informa-
• non; and for this reason—the Attorney General could
only fie his intormation in Term, and judgment only could
be given in the same pericd. The proceeding would be
different by indictment. T,iese were the principal fea,ur es
0: his plan for a reform of the libel law, adding the al •
i low,nce of the truth of the allegation to be given in
evidence in criminal cases, his opinion being (he knew

many differed from him on that point) that the truth of
the allegation ought to be a good defence.—(Hear,
bear, hear.) He did not go to the full length of say-
ing that the truth of the publication should in all
cases be a full satisfaction ; but he thought it ought
to be so in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred.
To attempt to prove the truth in such cases would only
be to irritate the Judge and Jury, and aggravate pu-
nishment. He feared he had trespassed too long upon the
time of the House, and was thankful for the patience
with which it had heard him. He would now turn to
actions for libel, and one of the first observations lie
should make was that he should he unwilling to touch the
principles of the existing law, but he meant to introduce
a clause which would tend to put an end to speculative
actions. The clause he proposed to introduce was, that if
any man did not recover more than 40s. damages, be
should not obtain costs—(Hear, hear)—but, on the con-
trary, should pay costs.—(Hear, hear.) If he should
recover only 20/. damages, he should receive no costs, but he
should not have to pay any. If he should recover 501.
damages, he should receive the same amount in costs; and
if he should recover more than 501., then he should obtain
ull coats against the person by whom it should appear to a
jury of his neighbours that he bad been slandered ; so
that the man who had libelled him would
be punished by the payment of all costs. These were
the principal heads of the Bill which he was about to
bring in. He should not trespass furthrr upon the time of
the House, but thanked them for the indulgence with
which they had favoured him. The Hon. and Learned
Member then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to esta-
blish the liberty of the press.
On the question being put from the Chair,
Sir F. VINCENT rose and said that he agreed with
the Hon. Member in the truth of many of his observations.
The Hon. Member observed that the case of Mr.
Cohen, the editor of the Brighton Guardian, was one
which would illustrate the question. Such was the con-
stitution of Grand Juries that whatever evidence a
witness gave before them, it was not possible to
indict him for perjury ; and in the event of a true
bill, forty-eight hours' notice of bail was given, and three
times out of four there was no prosecution. However,
these were points which would more properly be consi-
dered in Committee. He should be most happy to sup-
port the general principle of the Bill proposed by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, reserving to himself the liberty of
suggesting those alterations and additions which might
appear desirable.
Mr. JERVIS intimated that it was his intention to
propose that the whole matter should be referred to a
Committee.

Lord AiTHORP said be could not agree to the ap-
pointment of a Committee until he knew what course was
intended to be pursued ; at the same time, be thought it
was desirable that the law of libel should be amended.
He did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, but
to answer two or three principles laid down by the
Honourable Gentleman, with whom he agreed to a
certain extent, but could not go so far as he went.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that truth might
be pleaded in all cases of criminal prosecution. Yes,
but that was no inference for the same in regard
to truth in private life.—(Hear, hear.) The divulging
of it might be often imperious. He (Lord Althorp) did
not intend to go further into the subject at present, for
he would not follow the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman, who had gone into the arguments of the question
very minutely. He would reserve to himself the right
of objecting to any part of the proposed Bill, and dimi-
nishing it in all parts, as necessity might suggest.
Mr. FLEETWOOD wished to ask whether it was the
Hon. and Learned Member's intention to introduce a
clause into the Bill to prevent a civil action being brought
against more than one person for the same libel ?
Mr. O'CONNELL had no intention of limiting the
number of actions, but if the party bringing the action did
not recover more than 40 shillings damages, the party
would not only not get costs, but in all probability have
to pay them. _ _

FLEETWOOD could not refrain from ex-
pressing a hope that the Honourable Gentleman would
withdraw a clause, requiring that there should be regis-
tered at the Stamp-office or somewhere else, the bona fide
owner of every publication sent forth to the world, who
might be made at all events responsible, in the first instance,
for the libels that might appear.
Leave was then granted to Mr. O'Connell to bring in a
Bill to establish the liberty of the press.