The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-13 00:00:00

DIPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tins DAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.

LAW OF LIBEL BILL.

Sir C. O'LOGHLEN moved the second reading of this
bill. He said the bill was substantially the same as the
ono he introduced in the year 1865. It was founded on
justice; it was quite sufficient to meet the exigencies of
the case, and ought to receive the sanction of the
house. Various attempts had been made to improve the
state of the law in the years 1833-4-5, but without suc-
cess. In the year 1843 a committee was appointed by the
House of Lords, the result of which led to the intro-
duction of a bill by Lord Campbell, which received the
assent of Parliament. That bill allowed defendants to plead
an apology, to lodge money in court, and to plead justifi-
cation ; but valuable as were the privileges conferred by
that measure, they did not effect the entire removal of

those liabilities which he thought proprietors of newspapers
ought not labour under. In the year 1838 the attention of
Parliament was again called to the state of the law of libo
by an action being tried, in which although the damages
only amounted to one shilling, the costs incurred by the
defendant amounted to over .ClOO. From that time down
to the present the law had been allowed to remain
without alteration. The bill he had now the honour
to propose to the house dealt with reports of
public meetings, the practice in libel cases, indict-
. ...

ments for libel, and other general matters. Ho pro-
posed to make speakers at public meetings liable for any
slander uttered, because when a person went to a meeting
knowing well that his words would be taken down by the
reporters present and published, he ought to be held as
resp.msible for the statements made under such circum-
stances as if he had written and published them himself.
The bill also sot forth that it should be a good defence to
any action for libel, provided the matter was truly and
correctly reported, and that the newspaper bad published
an explanation or contradiction of the libellous matter
furnished by the party complaining, if required so to do.
This latter provision was taken from the French law, in
which country there were very few actions for libel. The
second part of the bill applied not only to actions brought
against newspapers, but to libels of all sorts, and more
especially to the question of costs. In this country there
were no costs, providing the damages awarded did not
amount to 40s.,but in Ireland, if a verdict was returned giving
it carried costs with it ; and he proposed in the present
bill to assimilate the law in the two countries, and to set
down £5 as the sum which should carry costs against the
party losing the suit. Another provision was that a
plaintiff should be called upon to give security for costs,
because the law requires every newspaper proprietor to
give security for costs for any action that might be brought
against him. He did not see why one party should be
allowed to play on velvet, whilst the other stood only on the
position to pay costs, supposing a verdict to go against
him, whilst if the matter was decided in his favour he
had to pay his own costs, because the person proceeding
against hint was a man of straw, or one totally unable to pay
fur the trouble and expense he had incurred in carrying
action for libel should be commenced without the sa
on a speculative action for libel. The bill enacted tnhcattionne
of the Attorney or Solicitor-General. The measure, how-
ever, did not extend to Scotland.
hese thought
alteration thebill
a very good one,
The SO LIC lT
but
Gi t
prevent its being wrecked in its future stages
in another place. EwNoEulßdArrieqsauiirde
Mr. NE WDEGATE suggested that after the reading of
d time it should be referred to a select com-
mittee.second but he looked with great jealousy in leaving it to
Government to say when a verdict for libel might be in-
stituted. _ _

-----
Mr. BUXTON supported the motion for the second
reading.
- - - -

Mr. CHAMBERS agreed with the latter provisions of
the bill, but he thought the greatest consideration should
be given to the first proposal before any of the present
safeguards were relaxed.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought tho really honest man would
adopt the course laid down in the bill, and for those who
did not came under that denomination ho did not think it

proper to keep up protection. The bill was a good one
fcr the really honest nian, and therefore he should give it
his support.

Mr. BAINES thought the bill founded on strict justice,
and one that would fix the penalty on the right party in
ple.ccieof what was now the system of punishing the wrong
p trty. Ho felt much pleasure in hearing the Solicitor-
General's approval of the bill, because it gave him the
greatest hope that tho absurd injustice done to the news-
paper press would be removed.

Sir G. BOWYER thought that utterers of slanderous
statements at public meetings should be liable for their
statements ; but ho did not think that newspaper pro-
prietors should be absolved from all and every liability
they might incur by publishing such statements.
Mr. HENLEY had no objections to the first part of the
clause, but he was inclined to withhold his opinion for the
second part, because he was not yet prepared to say that a
man might be liable to an action for libel for words spoken.
They all knew something of standing on the hustings, and
that strong language was ussd there, bat ho was not pre-
pared to go the length of saying that for such language a

man should be open to an action for libel.
Mr. WALPOLE thought the hon. and learned gentle-
man would best attain his object b 1 allowing the bill to go
to a select committee, where the proper objections, which
appeared to relate to the first two clauses, could b 3 fully
dealt with.
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN adopted the suggestion, after
which the bill was read a second time.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
The O'CONNOR DON moved the second reading of
this bill.
Mr. DAWSON objected to the measure. Ile moved
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
After a short discussion the amendment was withdrawn
and the bill read a second time.
CRIMINAL LAW BILL.
The house then went into committee on thiq bill.
Clauses up to clause 5 were agreed to, when the chair-
man reported progress, cud obtained leave to sit again.
METROPOLITAN POOR BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY BILL.
This bill passed through committee. _ _

The other ordbrs of the day wore then disposed of atl4
the house adjourued,