The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-14 00:00:00

CUSTOMS' ACTS.

The Earl of DERBY laid upon the table the second
report of the Commissioner of her Majesty's Ca ttom,.

LIBEL BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL said that, in asking their lord
ships to give this measure a second reading, he would
occupy but a small portion of their time, fir it seemed
to him that he ought rather to apologise for not going
further with the proposed alteration of the law than to
combat the objections that had been urged against mov-
ing in this matter. The law of libel was by no means in
a perfect state. Recent legislation had, however, eff cted
a great improvement in it. Above all, the enactment
which upon an indictment for libel allowed the truth of
the allegations to be proved by evidence, if the publica•
tion had been made Lona ficle with a view to the public
good, bad operated most beneficially in discoura_ing
slander, notwithstanding the predictions which had at-
tended its passage through Parliament. Still, much re-
mained to be done to place the law of libel in a satisfac-
tory state. The distinction between verbal arid written
slander could not easily be defended. As the law now
stood, to say at a public meeting that a man was a
coward, a liar, and a scoundrel afforded no cause of ac-
tion unless some special damage had been eustained. Si
st,so a woman, if assailed by the coarsest language that
could be used, could obtaiu no redre-s unless she could
prove that she had suffered some special injury. He had
himself tried most strenuously in the year 1843 to re-
deem our law from that reproach, but he had failed ;
and he did not now feel encouraged to renew his attempt.
He feared that the present bill would cause great disap-
pointment to those who had petitioned in its favour.
They had asked for a great deal more than he propesed
to grant. This movement owed its origin to the action
of "Davidson and Duncan," which had been brought
in the Court of Queen's Bench against the e.roprietor of
a respectable journal in the county of Durham, because
be Lad published an account of what took place at a
public meeting held under a local act appointing com-
missioners with large powers and authority to impose
taxes for public objects. It was pleaded iu that action
that a true and faithful report had been given of what
occurred at the public meeting, but on the case being
argued on demurrer this was held to be an insuffi-
cient justification. Great sensation was produced by
the ultimate result of the action, for the demurrer being
overruled, the parties went to trial, and the jury found
that it was a good and true representation c f what was
spoken in public, and that it had been published without
any malice. Tee jury, however, were told, and eery
properly, by the judge, that tbey must find a verdict for
the plaintiff. They accordingly found a verdict for the
plaintiff, with one farthing damages. The defendant
had riot to pay the costs of both sides, but his own costs
in the action amounted to about 4001. Upon this peti-
tions came in from various parts of the couutiy, praying
that there might be complete immunity to the proprietor
and publisher of every public journal for everything
which they could show to have been spoken at a public
meeting, that the only remedy should lie against the
person by whom the words at which offence was taken
had been uttered at such naeetiug, and that if it were
proved that the party had spoken anything however ca-
lumnious, the individual injured should have no redress
whatever against the publisher. That appeared to irn
to be an excessive and unreasonable demand and it pur-
ported to be based on a misconception of what was called
Lord Northampton's case, which was supposed to have
established the rule that one mightsay or write anything
respecting any man, woman, or child, provided one gave
the name of the author of the slander. Teat was certainly
a very alarming doctrine ; but it bad no foundation in
law. In the discharge of his duty he had last session
moved for a select committee to consider whether the
same immunity might not be given to reports of the
proceedings of both houses of Parliament which was now
given to reports of the proceedings in c urts of justice,
and whether it might not also be extended to other
public meetings. A select committee was appointed,
composed of some of the most distinguished members of
their lordships' house, cnoseu from all shades of politics.
Some most eminent members of the committee thought
that nothing ought to be done ; that there was no
grievance to be complained of, and that the law was
perfect. But a considerable majority were of a different
opinion ; and they recommended that the same
immunity should be granted to reports of the proceed-
ings of both Houses of Parliament as was now granted
to reports of the proceedings of the courts of law. And
they further recommend that there should be a certain
concession made to those who complained of the present
law respecting reports of pubdc meetings—viz., that in
the case of reports of public meetings called by lawful
authority, where there was every reason to suppose that
nothing but what was lawful would take place, and
where the report was published fur the public good, be
publisher of the report should net euj )y an immunity;
but if the fury should be of opinion that no injury what-
ever had been suffered by the party complaining, se that
they would only give, if required according to the pre-
sent law, one farthing damages, they should beat liberty
to find a verdict for the defendant, which would relieve
him from any damagearising from the action, and throw
all the costs upon the pettifogger who got up tile pro-
ceedings. The bill cansistel only of three clauses—two
of them referring to reports of proceedings of the two
Houses of Parliament, and the third to reports of pub•
tic meetings called by public authorities, by the publi
cation of which no damage could he proved to have been
occasioned to any person. It would not give any immu-
nity whatever to the reports of any other proceedings.
Ha could not understand on what ground a tlefference
was made between the reports of the proceedings of the
two Houses of Parliament and the reports of public
meetings sanctioned by public authorities. It had been
solemnly determined that a fair and faithful report of
what took place in a court of justice afforded no around
whatever for an action of libel. In the case of " Currie
v. Walter," dec,cled more than 70 years ago, it was so-
lemnly declared that such was the law of England. That
had been called judge-made law. It was true there was
no act of Parliament for it, but bethought the Court was
well authorised in coming to that decision. Why, then,
should riot the reports of the proceedings of the two
Houses of Parliament be put upon a eireilarfooting? Was
it not for the advantage of the public that they should
be done ! Some of the witnesses examined before the
select committee upon this subject went so far as to
claim even for the reports of public meetings in Hyde
Park on a Sunday for seditious and mischievous pur-
poses the same immunity as was given to the reports of
proceedings in a court of justice. He had authority in
favour of his eroposition, but ho would only trouble their
lordships with the opinions of two distinguished men.
Mr. Justice Lawrence, one of the greatest judges that
had ever adopued the bench in this country, in the case
of " Currie v. Walter," said :
" Though the publication of such proceedings may be to
the disadvantage of the particular individuals concerned, it
is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings iu
mitts of justice should be made universally known. The
general advantage to the country of having those proceedings
made public more than :tounterbalances any inconvenience to
private persons whose conduct may be the subject of inves-
tigation. The same reason elso applies to the proceedings of
Parliament. It is of advantage to the public, and even to
the Legislative body, that due accounts of their proceedings
should be generally circa ate! ; and they would be deprived
of that advantage if no persou cooed publish them without
being punished as a libeller."
His distinguished predecessor, Lord Denman, when ex•
amined baore a select committee on the law of libel,

said,—
" The result of my consideration of the subject generally
is, that a faithful report of all proceedings in a court of jus-
tice ought not in any case to be considered libellous, unless it
tends to corruption of manners; I extend this even to ex parte
applications with a view to ulteri,r proceedings, be ause
I think that on the balance of evils that evil is much less,
and that it is upon the whole the more desirable course even
for parties publicly questioned. I have no doubt that the
publication of police reports is extremely useful for the de-
tection of guilt, by making facts notorious, and for bring-
ing those facts more correctly to the knowledge of all parties
interested in unravelling the truth. The public, I think,
are perfectly aware that those proceedings are cx parte, and
they become more and more aware of it iri proportion to their
growing intelligence; they
.know that such proceedings aro
only in course of trial, and they do not form their opinion till
the trial is had. Perfect publicity of judicial proceedings is
of the highest importance in other points of view, butcr
its effects on character I think it desirable. The state;
made in open court will probably find its way to tl
of
all in whose good opinion the party assailed_o feels.
an 1O
terest, probably in au exaggerated form, andtthliesou.F
utation
evils are
may often rest ou the wrong person ; both t
the
prevented by correct rep,rts. With regaleertaining a strong
reporters
of debates in Parliament, I cannot helpbeauto
ought to expose
opinion that no faithful report of a c
• pdi„a; proceeding. This
the publisher to an action or to a 1.
is a question involving privilege, lierefore One of great
,aacti::l: tare practically public,
delicacy ; but as long as the debates
ineonsi,tent with public
it seems to be unjust and
Promulgation to punishment."
freedom to subject theiL;bea)
was a mewber of the other
When be (Lord
Parliament,Campbell) e
on
all fitting
occasions reso-
lutely House of
dit privileges, and if the privileges of
defended
their lordships should aver be invaded he shoui.d defend
thew with equal zeal. This bill would nogin the re
tat degree interfere with the privileges of either
Souse of r
parliament. 'me was when there was an
both houses that the proceedings should not be
published by their own members or by public journal;.
order in
He would show that it this bill passed it would not be
necessary for either house to alter one single syllable t f
its existing standing orders. He would give their 1..,rd
ships a history of the origin of the supposed privileges of
Parliament with reference to publication of their pro-
ceedings. On investigating the subject he was unable to
CIiSC9TIr any ream for the executive Government sup-

1 posing that a public.e!ioe of the proceediege iii Perlia
ment was a grievance that ought net to be tolerated. He
knew very well that sonic of the greatest orat -re and
lawyers of antiquity—Cxero, ter example—published
ith great epeleuse and effect their speeches befere Sc.
Dates and , of justice imnawliately after their deli-
very. Why 11 nos we in England enjoy the same
prieilego I Ding the progress of the struggle
between the Cr, vn and the two Houses of Par-
itatnent every effect was made by the two houses
to prevent the Crown from exercising the illeg a power
which is had usurped of punishing elsewhere for what
they spoke is Parliament, and it was then that Vies*
orders were made. Sscrecy was then of great conse-
quence, because when the Crs wn heard that proceedings
which it disapproved were going on in the House of
Commons neat morning the Black Rod would knock at
the door and summon the Commons to the Upper House,
and Parliament was prorogued. Sometimes matters wett
further than this. Members were sutnrnoned before the
Privy Council and ex erniued as to their speeches, and if
they could not give a satisfactory explanation they were
sent to the Tower, there to pass their time until the pro-
rogation. It was to prevent the Crown from getting
notice of what was going on in Parliament that these
orders were made, and they were chiefly directed against
thetbe plu3llliejeutily,
onibcy4o rn_elleteriss
go
Gftfhuerirthe
r a
own sckpelc
thhees .
Oa
Cutn-
mons ordered that "No member shall either give a
copy or publish in print anything that ha shaallll p
sou-e;" s eak
here, without leave of the ou-e;" arid on the d
of March in the same year
mem-
bers of the house shall deliver copies or notes
of anything brought forward or accepted in this house."
On March 23, 1642, the Commons ordered that " what
pet son soever shall print or sell any act or proceedings
of this house, under the name of a journal or otherwise,
without the license of this house, shall be reputed a high
contemner cf the privileges of Parliament, and shall be
punished accordingly." Their lordships followed the ex-
ample of the Commons, and made similar orders ; and
they summoned persons before them for publishing their
Proceedings. But, as their proceeeines were more mode-
rate and discreet than those cf the Commons, they had
nut the same dread of punishment, and their orders
were not so frequent. On March 13, 1647, a message
came up from the Commons with a vote for inhibiting
the publication of Parliamentary proceedings, in which
the Lords were desired to concur. They did not, how-
ever, immediately concur, but replied that they would
send an answer by a meseerger of their own. After the
Revolution, when a constitutional government was esta-
blished, it might have been expected, as the reason fur
the rule had ceased, the rule also would haveceasod ; but
this was not the only instance in our history of old cue-
tome and laws remaining in force long after the cause for
them had ceased. It was just at this period that their
lord-hips made the standing order which was now the
only one remaining on their books with reference to this
subject. In 1698 there was published by one Churchill
a book which called in question the very jurisdiction cf
their lordshi,le, whereupon it was resolved that " it is a
high breach of the privileges of this house for any per-
son whatever to print an account or to publish anything
relating to the proceedings of this house without the
leave of this house." Until the year 1771 both houses
set their faces against any publication of any part of
their proceedings ; but the rule was violated by re-
ports under fictitious names. There were reports,
for instance, of the proceedings of the Parliaments of
Lill;put and of Utopia, in which the speeches of
Bolingbroke and other groat speakers of the reigns of
Anne and the first two Georges were given under ficti•
tious names. But there was great apprehension that
the publisher of these might at any time be sent to prison.
In 1771 there wasa rnemorablectisis, of which an excellent
account was given in Lord Mahou'a history, when tl
House of Commons tried to enforce their order to pre-
vent the publication of debates ; but though they arrested
a publisher and seat him to Gltspur-street Compter,
they were in the end disgracefully defeated, and from
that day any person could publish without fear the de-
bates of either house. The question was whether the
was anything upon the records of either house to prevent
this bill obtaining the approbation of the Legislature.
Their lordships were governed by the order of 1698,
which forbade the publication of any of their proceed-
ings without the leave of the House, and he maintained
that their lordships had given this leave in the most
ample aed authentic manner. In 1849 a committee was
appointed, at the instance of Lord Beaumont, to con-
sider the aecommodation of the new House, to which
were referred several petitions relative to the reporting
of Parliamentary proceedings. That committee made the
following report :
" The committee have examined witnesses respecting the
facility of hearing in the temporary gallery erected for the
convenience of strangers connected with the public press,
and in consequence of the evidence given by them the com-
mittee feel themselves justified in recommending a permanent
structure on the plan euemitted to them by Mr. Barry, Mr.
Dod, the senior reporter, and secretary to the reporters'
committee, states that they hear in the present gallery of the
House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons, or as
well as they ever heard in any House of Parliament. Other
witnesses corroborate Mr. Dod's evidence. But, notwith-
standing the success which has attended the experiment made
by Mr. Barry, neither the strangers who are allowed to be
in the precincts of the house, nor even the members I resent
in the house itself, can expect to hear distinctly unless strict
order is preserved both below the bar and ou the steps of
the throne. The committee recomm:ind that a portion of
the space at the foot of the throne be railed off."
Again, on the 30th of July, a resolution was carried
f r an address to the Crown, praying that a gallery ac-
cording to the recommendation of the select committee,
and upon the plan of Sir C. Batry, should be erected.
The addre a was presented, and upon that address,
gullet,' was erected which was now occupied by the re-
porters. Until 1845 there were positive orders of the
House of Commons against the a ,rni,sion of strangers :
" Ordered that the Sergeant-et-Arms attending this House
do from time to time take into his custody any stranger
whom he may see, or who may be reported to him to be, in
any part of the house or galleries."
It was forbidden to any stranger to come into any part
of the house or gallery belonging to the house. It was
also ordered—
" That no member of this house do presume to bring any
stranger into any part of the house or ga.lories."
In consequence of a motion of his friend Mr. Christie
those orders were reformed in 1845, and now stood in
this shape—
" That the Sergeant•at-Arms attending this house do from
time to time take into his custody any stranger whom
he may see, or who may be reported to him to be, in
any part of the house or gallery appropriated to the
members of this house.
" That no member of this House do presume to bring any
stranger into any part of the House or gallery appropriated
to the members of this House while the House or a committee
of the whole House is sitting."
The smallest alteration in the standing orders of either
house of parliameut was not necessary. He agreed that
the house might upuu any occasion issue an order that
strangers be nut admitted, and it any person published
an account of these proceedings he might then be justly
punished. Another objection was that there was no
practical evil, because no one suffered, but as the law
now stood uo action might be brought or an indictment
preferred for anything which appeared in the reports of
their 1 wdships' proceedings disrespectful to private indi-
viduals, and in a very recent ca:e, "Sheddon v. Patrick,"
which WAR brought under their 1 rdshipe' notice by a
noble earl, and replied to by the then Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, imputations of the gravest nature were
cast upon private characters. It would be seen
whether it way true that no one suffered by the
evidence given before the select committee. Oue of
the first witnesses was Mr. Dubie, a very respectable
solicitor, who was the solicitor for the Times newspaper.
Mr. Dobie gave this evidence :
Will you he good enough to state any facts which have
come within your experience bearing upon this subject ?—•
I consider that this fact will arise from the experience
which I have had in defending the proprietors of the
limes newspaper from the consequences of actions for
damages in reporting proceedings of the House of Commons
and proceedings in public meetings:--If the press had the
same immunity for protection in publishing the reports of the
proceedings of Parliament and public meetings as they enjoy
with regard to courts of justice, it would be a great benefit
to them and a great advoutage to the public.
" Have you known any actions brought against the Times
newspaper for reports of proceedings in either House of Par-
lianaeut?—l defended one action for a speech of Dr. Lashing-
ton's, and another for a speech of Lord Geo. Bentieck's, and
the proprietors of the Times were put to very considerable
expense iu justifying the truth of those two speeches, as well
as proving that they were true reports."
One of those instances was a speech of his learned friend
Dr. Lushiugton, who, in representing the misconduct of
an individual said he had been suspended as a. proctor three
times. It turned out that the man had really only been
suspended twice, but Dr. Lushicgtoo said three times,
and was correctly reported ; but for this inaccuracy an
action was brought against the Times, the proprietors of
Lord
that newspaper were harassedlbnytlheegaolthperrocoeaeßdeiwnoagfnhedo,
hadhad
they had to pay some ousts,
tom actions upon an
raked
Be
de nutpi nac lel tnhge re
forgottenw a s a scandalousA ctf
. finformer
Parliament,
brought an immense number
n G. old
eAnctitnookf qua
Psaaird-
Benotieck very properly spoke
obsolete statute. Lord G.
strongly of Furth scandalous,.f
ocidoeepndl
should 96 the Times. If it had oc-
h.t againthere w
huaste Loofr da
ld h b
f .essice ou ave een cum-
ibrraoaumrgeaptoferrt was discussed in Parliament I
- and why h Id th b
.w
s ou ere not e the same
plate immunity,
gme well known to their lordshi after
cal iunarLura ecedt"i 'nnaanwdcaosfu rt o e
_misfire, n
t h d h
bad no- a actions erought, but had
immrmunn ity w ea
stating that
o em, gave this evidence :
" Your lordships ate voy well aware that my publica-
. th. only publication which professes to record the pro-
been constbaent dre, f,t.h
t
gs of Parliament in extenso, and with very considerate
but that I am not in any wayrecogniaed—that I have
ritonsytection whatever more than any other person who
publish in extenso or otherwise any reports of debates
in your lordships' house or of debates in the other house.
Now, the consequence of the present state of the law of libel
is this; that if matter is uttered in debate iu either house
consider;auaif
Iw am
whether
clearly
rrliyt
which would be libellous and would be unprotected if pub-
lishedwould outbo
safeof t
for
rhouse,lP taiimn t t obligedhat
mattert
of opinion that it would not be safe for me do so, inasmuch as
the publication is not of such a nature that I could stand the
expenses of a prosecution, the result is that I strike the mat-
ter out without any attempt at modification or otherwise.
" That apprehension induces you to suppress that which
ought to appear if the report were fully accurate f—That is
advisedly and systematically so.
" Earl Stanhope.—Am I to understand you to say that
those instances occur often f-- -Not often ; but they do occur
with sufficient frequency to be, as I conceive, of material
consequence."
It had been said that if his bill were passed into a law,
and if immunity were given, persons would come to
public meetings and deliver libellous speeches, which
would then be publiela d with a view to libelling their
enemies. But no such thing could happen. There was
a case in the books—" the King v. Lord Abinfd o u.i
Load Abingdon made a speech in that libellinghouse h■
steward, which speech he afterwards published. For
that offence Lord Abingdon was very properly indicted
convicted, and punished ; and if parties followed Lord
Abingdon's example
.the eafiee result would occur, for

the publication of such a speech would not be a fair or
bona fide use of the privilege of publication. Their lord-
ships need be under no apprehension that such an abuse
could possibly occur if this bill should pass. It was
'argued that as no action would lie against a member of
Parliament for what he bad spoken in hie place in Par-
lament, so au aggrieved man would be deprived of all
:remedy if he could not proceed against the journal which
published such a speech. But the same thing took place
daily in the courts of justice. No action could be main-
aeseeo against a counsel for a speech made in a cause, or
-against a judge fora charge to the jury, or against a wit-
ness for what he might say in evidence. Therefore it
might be said that a person whose reputation suffered
was left at present without any remedy for the loss he had
suffered. But what loss could thus be sustained which
could counterbalance the infinite advantage offered by
the publication of the proceedings of courts of justice ?
lel:es trusted that their lordships would permit the bill to
be iead a second time. His great object in bringing it
forwat'el had been to protect the public press from vexa-
tious and pettifogging actions, which were now sometimes
brought lifter° no injury had been sustained. This object
bad been in 8014 e measure facilitated by a recent act of
Parliament, enacting that if the damages were under
forty shillings, costs equal to the damages should
'eassne be given, but this act had not afforded that '
.pretesetion to the press which it was entitled to. The
press Isi:d a right to expect that where actions were
brought against them without foundation all the coed
Should be thrown upon the defendants. It wassupp
that some of the journals had declared that his
be bill would°8
lieved that
be of no advantage to the press, but he
pectations, and
jeumalists looked to the bill with
two witnesses who were examined y accept such a
greatbeo
ireitsx the select com-
mittee stated that they should gratefu Baines, pro-
measure. A most respectable wit neses Mr.
, gav the following evi-
prietor of the Leeds Mercury.
H
.de" ece
Has it ever suggested itself
ntVe•
ezur mind that it might be
a relief if, under such circumstances, P
to pay the costs of the defend
farthing
niagegre
that the plaintiff had no
noon, by iinding.a farthi
real cause of action.
.? It, would be a very important relief to
the press is the plaintiff were thus rendered liable.
" In that case the danger of vexatious actions being;
brought would be very much lessened I—lt would be ex-
ceedingly lessened,"
Mr. Dobie was asked
"Do not you think it might prevent actions from being
brought where there has been no real damage sustained if
the law were to be that upon the jury finding only the nomi-
nal damages of a farthing the defendant should be entitled to
recover costs from the plaintiff?"
He replied,—
" Certainly it would be a very great assistance to the de-
fendant."
That would be the exact result of the second clause, be-
cause it would allow the defendant to plead in bar to an
action that it was a faithful report, and then the jury
might find a verdict for the defendant, and all the costs
would fall upon the plaintiff. Who would be injured by
such a clause ? If any real dakeage had been sustained the
remedy was untouched, but if no damage had been sus-
tained so one could say that the party to a pettifogging
action would be at all aggrieved if he had to pay the costs
that had been incurred by the defendant. He now came to
the definition of public meetings in the bill, to which he
was not aware that any objection had been made.. In
the category of public meetings were comprehended
all meetings the publication of the proceedings of
which was likely to be of service to the public, such
As the meetings os the election of members of
Parliament, meetings of town-councils, of local
boards, and generally of all bodies constituted under
Acts f Parliament. It was of as much advantage
to the public that the proceedings of such bodies
should be reported as that the debater in Parlia-
ment should be published. 'Th Ca were, too, meetings
of bodies at which decency would be observed, and over
which some control would always be exercised. He bad
never contemplated giving an unrestricted liberty of pub-
lishing all speeches without any remedy for parties ag-
grieved. His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst)
was of opinion that the speaker at a public meeting
ought to be equally liable for what he said when his
speech was faithfully reported and published in
print as he would be if he himself had published
it, or caused it to be printed and published. Ob-
jection might be taken against thus doing
away with the distinction between written and spoken
slander, but such a distinction seemed preposterous, for
if a man knew that his speech would be taken down by
a good shorthand writer with a view to publication, and
if be spoke the speech with a view to its publication,
then he ought to be liable for it. This would enable the
party aggrieved to resort to the Speaker in all cases,
and there would be an apology fur the person who said
that he was injured by words spoken at a public meet-
ing not bringing his action against the person who made
the speech. The change might be made without ioj ury
to any individual, and with a mo,t beneficial effect.
With these observations he must leave the bill in their
I irdships' hands, and trusted that they would give it a
second reading. No doubt they would hear many pre•
dictions of evils which would follow the change which he
proposed. Such predictions had been made before, and
had always been falsified. There was no record of what
occurred when the application of the peine forte a dure to
persons who refused to plead was abolished; but no doubt
that alteration of the law was not made without many
predictions as to the evils which would follow it. Simi-
lar predictions were uttered when the law was altered so
as to allow witnesses to be sworn for prisoners, and to
give to accused persons the benefit cf counsel. Many
persons whose opinions were entitled to great respect
were much opposed to the latter of these two measures,
and apprehended that it would produce the most serious
consequences. The last great improvement which was made
was allowing parties to a cause to be examined as wits's. ssee
His noble and learned friend opposite was at the time
opposed to that measure, but he had since given to it his
important sanction, and had admitted that it had been
productive of great advantage to the administration of
justice. His noble and learned friend disapproved this
bill as he did of that, but he trusted that he would live
to see the day, and that not a distant one, when it would
be shown that his apprelieneions in this case were as
groundless as those which he entertained in the other.
The noble and learned lord concluded by moving that
the bill should be read a second time.
NEWS FROM INDIA.
The Earl of DERBY trusted that their lordships
would excuse his interrupting this debate to read a
telegram which had just been received from Malta,
giving intelligence of the fall of Lucknow. The noble
earl then read the telegram, which was received with
cheers, especially that part which referred to the rescue
of Mrs. Orr and Miss Jackson.
THE LIBEL BILL.—DEBATE CONTINUED.
Lord LYNDHURST—My noble and learned friend in
closing his address referred to something which fell from
me with respect to this measure on a former occasion,
and I therefore feel called upon to state as shortly as
pos-
sible the views which I take of it. I need hardl
saythat I entertain all proper respect for ray noble' and
learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, and also for
the select committee to which he has referred, ,
and upon the resolutions of which this bill, as I '
understand, is based. At the same time, I must
recall to your lordships' recollection the fact that only
one-half of the committee was present when these
resolutions were agreed to, and that less than one-third
of the committee voted in their favour. (Hear, hear.)
The committee cansisted of sixteen members, of whom
eight were present when the resolutions were dis-
cussed. and five voted in their favour. I therefore feel
that I am perfectly at liberty to entertain my
own opinions upon this subject without being
charged with being presumptuous. I must
say that I entirely dissent from the conclusion at which
the committee arrived.. With all deference to my noble
and learned friend, I think that, if it is necessary to
legislate at all upon this subject, the measure which he
has brought forward is most insufficient for the purpose,
and ought to be greatly extended, As the bill stands at
present it would be almost wholly inoperative. Every
one of your lordships will admit the importance of the
indeed
marvellous to which the measure relates. They are
marvellous for their accuracy. Every man without
wiathllout stir-
ring from his home is made acquainted w
ounnstances attending all these public meeting the
hecilr
meetings—held
not only in the metropolis, but in every part of the
kingdom—and with all the facts and arguments which
are discussed at them. It is hardly possible to overrate
the advantages which result from this system, and it is
our duty as far as possible to do justice to those persons
to whom we are indebted for these advantages. Now,
my lords, a word upon the law. My noble and learned
friend very properly drew a distinction between libellous
and defamatory words spoken and those words when re-
duced to writing. With two or three exceptions, per-
sons may calumniate and defame by word of moot* to
almost any -extent with perfect immunity, and withou
being subject to any punishment ; but the same words,
when reduced to writing, may subject a party to a
prosecution, and to the payment of damages to the
person injured. The principle upon which this distinc-
tion is founded I imagine is this. Words may ba
n'tered hastily, in a moment of passion, and without con.
sideration ; they may have been misreported, and may
be forgotten ; whereas, writing denotes premeditation,
• care, opportunity for consideration. The libel is per-
manent, and may be extensively circulated. Now,_
_ap-
ply the principle on which this distinction is founded to
the meetings which are the subjects of this A man
attends a public meeting, and from the most malicious
motives makes a speech defamatory of the character of
another person. He knows it will be taken down in
writing; he sees the reporter before him. lie knows
that it will be published ; the very object for which ke
speaks it is that it may be published. Yet that man
passes with impunity ; the law cannot take bold of him.
On the other hand, the reporter, whose mind is intent
Neon one object only—taking down accurately what he
bemire—who has no time for consideration, who sends his
sips off one after another as fast as they are completed;
ys
.batote when he revi,,ee them revises them in the utmost
because they must be published immediately and
tboat
delay
;!tich a man, under such circumstance,avin
pintgonnomlawhicalit itoheus motive, perhaps not kuowieg :h
teaoaiv
ltagahbt, 'y
en
ture, is made the scape-
goat ; ea ction is brought against tlgaiust h, and he is flied
in dame& inr s, or he ti
indicted for the libel, a d
runiatied.4.rei
a criminal: What can be more unjurt than
that atatetf things My lords, when you come to cos-
adder the circumstances attending a public meeting such
as I havn described, the principle
al
aonnd
ewrhii:h the distincttion between written and oral
applies. A man goes to a meeting preparedwdwail hardly
der. He sees it taken down ; he speaks it for thaatßpulan-
pose ; he knows it will be published. Take anotherr
illnetration. Supposing I dictate words detracting from
tl'.e character of another man to a person who pots them
',down, and I wish him to publish them. In that case I
sin responsible, and may be indicted for the libel. It is
true that in the example we aro now considering there
is to authority given—no expression of a wish that it
should be published. But everybody knows that it
is the intention of the speaker that it should be pub.
lashed ; and therefore I say the distinction between

oral and written slander does not apply to the case we
are now dealing with. A. very trifling link in the chain,
if supplied, would do justice to the parties. I mention
these facts in the presence of my noble and learned
friend, to give him an opportunity of considering them,
with a view to giving effect to the principle I have stated.
But if he should think it impracticable to adopt that
principle, still, looking at the bill in its present shape, I
must hold it to be very inadequate and imperfect. The
second clause provides that if an action be brought to
recover damages for the publication of a report the de-
fendant may answer that " this is a faithful report of
what passed at a public meeting lawfully assembled for a
lawful purpose." And if the jury under these circum-
stances should be of opinion that the plaintiff has sus-
tained no loss or injury the defendant will be entitled to
a verdict. The consequence of his being entitled to a
verdict is that all the costs of the proceedings must
be paid by the plaintiff. No doubt, this would
afford great relief to the publisher, because as
the law now stands, if the publication be in strict
law a libel, however small the damages, be they
only one farthing, the plaintiff has to pay no
costs, and in the case of " Davison and Duncan," to
which my noble and learned friend has so repeatedly re-
ferred, we have an instance of the costs under such cir-
cumstances amounting to between 4001. and 5001.
Therefore, if the bill stopped here, it would give a very
great relief to the publisher ; but, unfortunately, it does
not stop here. The very next clause quite neutralises
the provision which precedes it. Clause 3 defines the
meetings which are to be deemed lawful meetings, law-
fully assembled within the meaning of the act. Never
was there 53 extraordinary a definition ! - My noble and
learned friend gives, under four heads, meetings convened
by lawful authority for presenting petitions to either
house of Parliament or to her Majesty ; meetings of town
councils ; meetings for the election of members of Par-
liament; and, lastly, meetings held under any local
act for the purpose of imposing any rate or transacting
any business with respect to a parish or a district. On
first seeing this limitation I turned it over and over
again in my mind fro discover upon what principle it pr. -
ceeded. Is it that these meetings are meetings where
order and decorum preeminently prevail ! If I
wished to select any meetings of a contrary character I
should select one of the very heads inserted in this bill.
(A. laugh.) A vestry meeting for the purpose of making
i a church-rate—is that the kind of meeting which is pe-
culiarly marked by order and decorum and by an absence
of personality ? (Laughter.) My lords, I have seen a
vestry meeting presided over by the clergyman of the
parish. Argument goes on, turbulence succeeds to argu-
ment, the clergyman is obliged to abandon the chair ;
, some other person takes his place, when renewed con-
fusion and perhaps tumult ensue, and certain resolutions
are passed which are probably of a most objectionable
description. And this is one of the special, or aceording
to the phrase of my noble and learned friend, one of the
"favoured" Meetings to which his measure extends. He
has condescended to include the meetings of this house
and of the other house of Parliament. We, too, are " fa•
voured" meetings, we are "lawful meetings," and are
to enjoy the benefit of my nobleand learned friend's bill.
(Laughter.) We shall not be turned out of this house, he
does us the honour, and I am grateful to him, of styling
us a lawful meeting within the operation of the act.
But, my lords, what will the sight rev. bench say to it !
( Laughter, which was sensibly increased by the circum-
stance that there was not a single right rev. prelate in
the house at the time.) The right rev. bench remained
present during three-quarters of an hour of my noble and
learned friend's speech, but they abandoned their places
before its conclusion. What, however, would they say
if they were here and heard that Convocation is not a
"Lawful" assembly I (Laughter.) Neither the Lower
nor the Upper House of Convocation is included in the
bill. In the Lower House, indeed, perhaps, a few sharp
words might be exchanged. (Lord Campbell here wade
a remark which did not reach the gallery.) My noble
and learned friend will have an opportunity of replying.
(Hear, hear.) But the Upper House, presided over by
the Most Rev. Prelate, and consisting of right rev. pre-
lates, the dignitaries of the Church, sits sober, quiet,
calm, unruffled. What does my noble and learned friend
say to it ! Why, he excludes it entirely from his bill.
There really never was such a measure. A select com-
mittee meets day after day to consider it, and at last
they come to the conclusion that Convocation is an un-
lawful assembly. (Laughter.) Certain meetings, held at
Exeter-hall, are presided over by a right rev.—l mean
by a noble friend—(a laugh)—of mine who has a seat iu
this house. Those meetings, which occur three or four
times a week, are of a religious character, or for a chari-
table purpose; sometimes they are meetisgs on behalf
of schools, and are attended by clergymen and Dissenting
ministers. Thespeechesare sometimes of great eloquence
and the questions discussed most important. Yet they
are not lawful assemblies within the meaning of this
bill. Tney are all unlawful I What a bill it is ! (Laugh-
ter.) I wish that a noble and learned friend of mine—
a walking cyclopedia, who is now doing suit and service
in a neighbouring country, were now present. I re-
member reading the report of an address which he
delivered last autumn at Birmingham. The meeting
on that occasion was held to consider very important
subjects, most interesting to society, and it comprised
members of Parliament, literary and scientific men, and,
in fact, the elite cf the population of this country. I
don't know whether the attention of my noble and
learned Mend opposite was directed to that meeting. I
hardly know how to characterise it. I am not quite sure
that I have organs sufficient to articulate- the name of
it. (Laughter.) It was called a Sociological Sociriey—
(loud laughter)—and I am not sure whether a noble
friend of mine opposite was not present on the occasion.
(Laughter.) At all event., this combination of Latin
and Greek is, I think, most amusing, and the objects of
the society appear to be very comprehensive. (A laugh.)
That society, however, if it should still be continued, will
not be a lawful society under this bill. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) Need I go further, my lords ? It
may be remembered that about this time lest sear a
meeting e as he? d presided cvor by a noble and learned
friend of mine, whose absence I greatly regret, upon
a subject of the utmost possible consequence to a
commercial country. It was, I believe, attended by com-
mercial men from the large towns in the north, and, if
I am not mistaken, some countrymen of my noble and
learned friend were present. I refer to the great meet-
ing held for the purpose of considering the law of bank-
ruptcy. What could be a more proper subject for a pub-
lic, meeting ? Yet that would not be a lawful meeting
within the terms of this bill, (Hear, hear.) What does
the bill mean ? What does it include 1 It excludes every-
thing; it includes literally almost nothing. Before I
left hone this morning I noted upon paper a number of
cases that were not included in the bill. I came to
104, and then I stopped. (Laughter and cheers.) The
proposition of my noble and learned friend (Lord
Campbell) seems to me most extraordinary. If a jury
are of opinion that there is no damage, how can it be
material at what kind of meeting the alleged libel was
uttered 1 Mark how the bill will operate. An action
is brought for libel. It is proved that the meeting at
which the alleged libel was uttered ,was a lawful meet-
ing, assembled for a lawful purpose, and the jury say,
" We are of opinion the plaintiff has no damage." The
defendant says, "Oh, then, I am entitled to a verdict""Oh, no," exclaims the judge, " this was not a vestry
e; ti—t wasa
notcarefully
alawdf raal
meetingbell's A wmneemtineagaworietli,in L(A.erdlCaeagmhp.)
The meeting might have been told to consider the pro-
priety of raising a monument to one of the best and
bravest heroes of modern times—General Havelock, but
the judge must direct a verdict for the plaintiff, who
may have his farthing damages, while the defendant is
saddled with costs amounting to 3001. or 4001. (Hear,
hear.) What foundation, then, is there for this restric-
tion ! The noble and learned lord said, as I understood,
in the committee, that it would not do toinclude all meet
ings in the bill, because then the proceedings at Bt ditiCll
or treasonable meetings would be protected. Seditious
ineetingrO treasonable meetings I—it is impossible, my
lord, fr they are not lawful meetings, assembled for a
lawful purpose. (Hear, hear.) Such a ground, then,
is no pretence for supporting the bill. What I would
suggest to my noble friend, if he does not choose
to assent to the first instance, is, that he should agree t>
strike out the third clause altogether in committee, and
leave the second clause as it is, applying to any "public
meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose.', Is
not that protection enough ! I wish the bil to be read
a second time, and to go into committee upstairs, in
order that we may ascertain whether this bill is not to-
tally inefficient and inoperative, and that we may devise
a measure marked by some common sense. (Laughter )
Lord WENSLEYDALE, who spoke from the cross,
benches with his back to the gallery, and was very im-
perfectly heard, said that ha had always been an advo-
cate for useful reforms in the law, and scarcely any mea-
sure with that object had been brought forward by his
ant
vary great
a t
Any h
is
noble and learned. friend (Lord Campbell) to which he
not givea
therefore,his a cti ve support.that
tit
was
Hweith v e)
uld
ryassure
l'nad
chicfriend,
re-
luctance he felt obliged to oppose the pre:
one who contemplated the history of Esglish law f or the
last quarter of a century must be struck with the
tmaandcee aiondthexetenootmotef
common
oe
liamarp,roivaemoertiimtsiowahl
equity law ; and if the noble earl (Stanhope)
he would undoubtedly refer to that el.'
complete the history which he had should
oil s o commenced,
di te-
guiihed by the most valuable improleptuelincltahswb
ever been effected in the legal institutions of this coun-
try. He entertained very strong objections, however,
to the present bill, and he did not agree with his nulls
and Lamed friend who last addressed their lerdsh.
that it ought to be allowed to pass a second reading.' IPl't
had long been established a 3 the law of this country,
bad
daanat ' bdPeirnnd.
that with respect to verbal slander an action could only
be maintained when criminal offences were imputed, or
when charges of malversation in offices or of insolvency
in trade had been made. Indeed, the cases in which
such actions could be maintained were very limited ;
but an action would lie for any slan&r in writing or in
because this wr:tiog or printing gave the slander
print,
a character of perpetuity, and also ex ended it far more
widely than it ceul I be spresd by vsr1)•1 publication.
The injury inflicted by a written or printed report we'
to that done by verbal ,dend.r.
j
therefore ranch greater th.
r (se, 'reports cf the
peif-mt liberty to publish fair and cu r b i b
Tne proprietors of public ournals were undoubtedly at
two Houses of Parliament; and the public a, eel,
greatly benefitted by such reports. But the bill raised
permitted to publish with impunity s,pe o'ies vilifying
the question, whether newspaper proprietors should be
the character of individuals o i the ground that these
speeches bad been male in Parliament. That certainly
ought not to justify the publication of slander. Ar, 0 1.:
several witnesses examined before the select committee
was the solicitor to the Times, who stated that
the proprietors thereof were sued for havirg printer I
a speech made by Dr. Luehington in the House of
c,
broughtmm"s'
himself
f
they the
r e
and bad to pay the costs of the action
aagggarinieevtedthebray b
poarrtty whohit
hhceo nsspideeereebd.
That, in fact, wise the only instancep in of w
Iwas brought against the Times for printinge reportsaction,
the proceedings in Parliament; and, in fact, the wit-

nesses altogether failed to show that newspaper pro-
prietors suffered any practical inconvenience from the
law of libel as to reports of Parliamentary proceedings.
They admitted that the law made them act with great
caution with reference to speeches in Parliament of a
libellous character. The law at present gave ample
privileges to every person to express his opinion upon
all subjects, so long as it were done fairly and without
malice. The bill introduced a new provision into the
law which had hitherto been unknown. At present every
man had a right of action whose character was injured
by slander, but the noble and learned lord wished to lay
it down that a man must have suffered some pecuniary
loss or damage before his action for slander would lie.
No sufficient reason had been shown for these innova-
tions on the ancient law, and he should therefore move
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Earl GRANVILLE thought it would be most de-
sirable to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned
lord opposite (Lyndhurst) and read the bill a second
time, on the understanding that it should afterwards be
referred to a select committee. No doubt there was a
great difference between the injury done by a slander
merely spoken at some district meeting by a person
not perhaps of much weight, and cheered by a small
number of persons equally unimportant, and a slander
which was printed in a newspaper and circulated all
over the kingdom. With regard to Parliamentary
proceedings, it appeared to him ptrfectly mon-
strous that such a responsibility should be thrown
upon the press after the house had given every
possible encouragement to the reporters to report their
proceedings, and after the public expected that their prc-
ceediugs should be reported. Ho had seen complaints
from a member that his speech had been too much com-
pressed, and from another that he bad not been reported
at all—(a laugh)—but the general feeling of Parliament
was one of gratitude to the reporters that their duties
were so perfectly and thoroughly performed. As to the
safeguard to private character, by causing the reporters
to exercise discretion, that which affected the character
of one man was often another man's only defence, and it
was much better that the public should have the whole,
instead cf garbled extracts, through fear of penalties
which might be incurred by a bona fide faithful report of
these proceedings. If an imputation were made against
an individual in either house, it was an advantage that
the accused should not depend on the casual report of a
friend that the charge should be distinctly brought, so
that he might refute it in any of the thousand different
ways in which it could be refuted. (Hear.) He did notwish
to go into the merits of the bill itself, but it was for the
dignity of the house that they should give the bill a
second reading. The noble and learned lord, in the exer-
cise of high judicial functions, had observed a deficiency
in the law, and bad brought the matter before the atten-
tion of tire house. It was agreed to refer it to a select
committee, and this bill was founded upon their report.
Under these circumstances he hoped the house would
read the bill a second time, adopting the suggestion of
the noble and learned lord to refer it again to a select
committee to correct the details with the advantages
which this discussion would confer, whereby a fair re-
medy might be devised for the blot which had been dis-
covered in our legislation. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not accept
the proposal to read the bill a second time for the purpose
of referring it to a select committee, because the nob'e
and learned lord had not established tiny case whatever
for the principle of his measure. He had been so ac-
customed for years to pay implicit deference to the
opinion of his noble and learned fiend the Chief Justice
Viet he felt as if he were guilty of some impropriety in
venturing to put forward his opinion in opposition to it.
His noble and learned friend had a very great advantage
over him in discussion before their lordships. His noble
and learned friend's great abilities entitled him to con-
idera.ble weight and authority, and he was the authcr
ef many very excellent leers, particularly one upon the
law of libel. (Hear, hear.) And if his noble and
learned friend bad never passed any other measure than
the rscent one, by which he suppressed the sale of im-
pure and infamous publications, he thought he would be
entitled to the gratitude of every one who had the mo-
rality and well-being of society at heart. (Cheers.) But
his noble and learned friend must not be allowed to
draw too largely upon his stock of merit and influence
by calling on their lordships to take on trust, without
very careful examination, any proposal of which he was
the author. Upon every proposed alteration of the law
the question to be asked was whether there was any
necessity f,r the change ? His noble and learned friend
in this instance bad failed altogether in establishing any
ease in support of an alteration. The law was perfecly
well known and had been acquiesced in by the public
press for a great number of years. They knew precisely
the extent of their responsibility, and they were con-
stantly acting under a sense cif it. A case arose which
seemed suddenly to arouse them to a sense of their
danger. A report was published in the Durham. Adver-
tises of the proceedings at a meeting of the West Hartle-
pool Improvement Commissioners. Whether it was a
lawful meeting or not he would not stop to inquire, but
in thelcourse of that meeting some very injurious remarks
were made against the secretary of the Bishop of Dur-
ham upon the subject of the license of a chaplain to the
West Hartlepool cemetery. The secretary of the bishop
brought an action against tbepaperin the court over which
the noble and learned lord presided. The editor of the
paper pleaded that what he had published was a faithful
report of the proceedings of the meeting. To this plea the
plaintiff demurred. Ile admitted the truth of the state-
, ment that it was a faithful report, but denied that
that was an answer to the action. The Court of Queen's
Bench decided in favour of the demurrer according to
the well-known law upon the subject. This decision,
however, appeared to have excited a great deal of atten-
tion, and though he would not say in consequence of
what appeared in tine public press, but following upon
those publications, his noble and learned friend moved
for a select committee to inquire whether the same pri-
vileges could not be given to reports of proceedings of
Parliament and of public meetings as existed with re-
gard to proceedings in courts of justice. The committee
was composed of some of the most distinguished mem-
bers of their lordships' house ; but he might be per-
mitted to say, with great deference to them, that their
inquiry appeared to have been more directed to the con-
sideration how newspapers should be protected than h )w
the interests of individuals against slander and calumny
should be secured. (Cheers.) There were four witnesses
—and four only—examined by the committee :—Mr.
Baines, the proprietor of the Leeds Mercury ; Mr.
Dobie, solicitor of the Times; Mr. Hansard, the well-
known publisher of the Parliamentary debates ; and Mr.
Hargrove, the proprietor of the York Herald. None but
those concerned in the protection of publishers were
called before that committee. What was the result of
that inquiry ? Was any grievance established on the part
of the press? Was any inconvenience shown to have
arisen from the present state of the law ? Mr. Baines,
the proprietor of the Leeds Mercury, stated that for 30
years no action for libel had been brought against that
paper. Mr. Baines, upon the question being put t) him,
" Then no practical evil has arisen from the state of
the law!" replied, "None whatever." A similar infer-
ence might be drawn from Mr. Dobie's evidence with
regard to the actions brought against the Times. The
question, then arose, why no inconvenience had been
sustained, and why so few actions had been brought
againt newspapers ? The answer was to be found in the
evidence given before the committee, that the journalists
had exercised care and caution in what they had pub-
lished. (Hear.) Mr. Hargrove, in hiS evidence, stated
rather emphatically, " In the existing state of the law I
take care not to insert anything which has a libellous
tendency." (Hear.) Now, was it not for the advantage
of the public that that care and caution shout? conth ne
to be exercised, and that responsibility should still be
attached to the proprietors of newspapers ? It had been
suggested that if the law were changed the same care
and caution would be observed not to injure character.
But he must be permitted to doubt whether this result
would folio w. He knew how much easier it was to pub-
lish indiscriminately everything that had been taken
down, and how difficult it was, in the haste of publica-
tion, to select that which was fit for the public eye, and
to omit the rest. Their lordships must remember that
they were not dealing only with those respectable jour-
nals the editors of which were careful, but that the pri-
vileges they were to enjey were also to be extended to
every newspaper in the kingdom. (Hear.) He would ask
their lordships whether some of these newspapers were
not of a ekes likely to be anything but guarded and care-
ful in respect to inflicting injury upon private charairer?
(Hear.) When he looked to the resolutions ultimately
adopted in the select committee, and to the names cf
those who were present, be regretted the absence of
noble lords whose opinions would have been extremely
valueble. His noble and learned friend had, however,
based his bill upon a resolution carried by only five
votes against three. The bill only consisted of two
elairee, but these were of considerable importance. His
noble and learned friend first proposed to legalise the re-
ports of all proceedings in either house of Parliament,
however defamatory or injurious they might be to the
character of individuAß. His noble and learned friend
proposed that any person who was injured, and who
might be ruined by reports of debates which had taken
};lure, in which private character had been as ailed,
should be left utterly remediless, and that the proof
i, hat the report was a faithful one should be a ccm-
piste answer to any action against the newspaper.
But a little difficulty might arise upon the terms
of the clauses as to the r, port being faithful.
How was its fidelity to be established ? Upon
whom was the burden to lie ? Was it sufficient for a
j )urnal to assert that the report was faithful? If, on the
other hand, the proof was thrown upon the kiurnalist,
how could he prove that the report was a faithful one,
except by an invasion of the privileges of Parliament in
proving what had actually passed in debate ? His noble
and learned friend bad compared the debates in Perlis-
meet with the proceedings io courts of jusitce; but there
was a marked and strong distinction between the two.
The proceedings in courts of justice were not ex parte.
The case was heard on both sides, and the whole was
afterwards published for the information of the public,
h,.bvettiol:lutaelh,hiseooluerdilareddnu.sgkur,eal,rusi,tt.b.toee:e I in de')ate in Parliament wools be
a mere cx parts staternet t, to which prof ably no answer
time.ioeonts
swuop uploTiss
suppose, from
ft
rhonr exposedlordshipsth
di fe theeo -
wi He could givenci
l aptert
persons
lordthat,
th 1
e,,t 0, wprobpoauoultrile
toleut.tnatißleit,ye:
taoaffhtdh:ivrecadron:tdhal
odgtuoei :
imagine
gti
nh
ee t
h a altered
members, st ateof thet
trim prevailing in their lordships' house,' that any noble
law to find in speeches in that house a vehio'e for pri-
vate
h mightem
,y therase
law advantage
proposedn roaf
to be altered, and, knowing that what they stated would
be sure to be circulated through the country the follow-
leg morning, might u e their position to gratify their
private malice. His noble and learned friend had stated
that the law would punish such persons, and he had cited
the case of Lord Abingdon. But the cases of Lord
Abingdon and Mr. Creevy, which his noble and learned
friend tui2ht also have cited, were cases in which the
persons who
bad made the speeches had themselves pub-
lished them. The bin', he admitted, would make no al-
teration in the law in such a case. If any slander Were