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

THE SUN,' LONDON, WEDNESDAYI---'EVENING,

nesses altogether failed to show that ❑ewspaper 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 hithcrto 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 perfectly 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 pro-
ceediegs should be reported. He had seen complaints
from a member that his speech had been too much com-
pressed, and from another that he had 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 perfsctly 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 of 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, eo
that he might refute it in any of the thousand different
ways in which it could be refuted. (Hear.) He did not wish
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 had brought the matter before the atten-
tion of the house. It was agreed to refer it to a select
committee, and this bill was founded upon their report.
Under these circumstances ho 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 thepurpose
of referring it to a select committee, because the noble
and learned lord had not established any 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 friend the Chief Jestice
that 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 cora
siderable weight and authority, and he was the author
of many very excellent laws, particularly one upon the
law of libel. (Hear, hear.) And if his noble and
learned friend bad never passed any other measure than
the recent 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 et the law
the question to be asked was whether there was any
necessity fd• the change ? His noble and learned friend
in this instance had failed altogether in establishing any
case in support of an alteration. Tae law was perfewly
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-
stale sly acting under a sense of it. A case arose which
seemed suddenly to arouse them to a sense of their
danger. A report was published in the Durham Adeer-
ttger 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 the paper in 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 I
plaintiff demurred. He 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 weP-known law upon the subject. This decision,
however, appeared to have excited 2% gr.?at deal of atten-
tion, and though he would not say in consequence of
what appeared in the 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 cf 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 lordship? 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 hew
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, toe 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 putt) him,
" Then no practical evil has "risen 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 bad been brought
against newspapers The answer was to be found in the
evidence given before the committee, that the j -)nrnalists
had Fxerci,ed care and caution in what they had pub-
lished. (Hear.) Mr. Hargrove, in tis evidence, stated
rather emphatically, " In the existing [tats 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 should cent:ens
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 follow. 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 lordship 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 enjoy 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 class likely to be anything but guarded and care-
ful in respect to inflicting injury upon private character?
(Hear.) When he looked to the resolutions ultimately
adopted in the select committee, and to the names of
those who were present, he regretted the absence of
noble lords whose opinions would have been extremely
valuable. 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
clauses, bat 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 individuals. His noble and learned friend
proposed that any person who was injured, and who
might be ruined by reports of debates which had taken
place, in which private character had been as,ailed,
should be left utterly remedilese, and that the proof
hat the report was a faithful one should be a com-
plete answer to any action against the newspaper.
But a little difficulty might arise upon the terms
of the clauses as to the report being faithful.
How was its fidelity to be established Upon
whom was the burden to lee ? Was it sufficient for a
jeurnal to as,ert that the report was faithful? If, on the
other hand, the proof was thrown upon the journalist,
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 had compared the debates in Parlia-
ment with the proceedings in courts of jusitce; but there
was a marked and strong distinction between the two.
The proceedings in courts of justice were not ex payee.
The case was heard on both sides, and the whole was
afterwards published for the information of the public,
tlhdoordaoge couldr
t b
o e
wii given
oh
but a slander utters fin debaie in Parliament wotale be
a mere ex parts statemeet, to which probably no answer
w
time.
wouldL ebtotleixepirosloorddisfhtiphos
Gee would
at
the
persona
bill should pass. He could not suppose, from the deco-
rum prevailing in their lordship? house, that any noble
lord would take advantage of the altered state of the
law to find in speeches in that house a vehicle for pri-
vate malice. But could imagine that members, nut of
that, but of the other house, might take advantage of
the opportunity afforded to them by the law proposed
to be altered, and, knowing that what they stated would
be sure to be circulated through the country the follow-
ing morning, [night 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 Ahiogdon. Bit the cases of Lord
Abing lon and Mr. Creevy, which his noble and learned
friend might also have cltec, we, e cases in which the
persons who had made the speeches had themselves pub-
lished them. The bill, he admitted, would make no al-
teration in the law in such a case, If any slander were