The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Libel Bill, which passed through
committee on Tuesday night with little alteration,
embodies no principle which need alarm the most
jealous censor of the newspaper press. It is, in
fact, little more than an extension of certain dis-
tinctions already ;auctioned by the Act of 1843.
Under the old law, the editors and proprietors of
newspapers were " held liable, absolutely and with-
out qualification, for all libels therein inserted,
though inserted without their knowledge." The
hardship of such a rule was justly felt to be into-
lerable, and experience has amply justified its aboli-
tion. The defendant in an action of this kind,
after payinga sum of money into court by way of
amends,
has now the privilege of
pleading that the
libel was inserted without actual malice or gross
negligence, and that a full apology was subse-
quently published at the earliest opportunity.
Where the defamatory matter is contained in au
independent article or paragraph, and thus circu-
lated, prima facie, on editorial authority, the relief
thus granted is probably sufficient. Where it occurs
in a bond fide report of the proeeedings at a lawful
meeting, the law still operates harshly. The con-
ditions under which the reporting system is carried
on at present are such that an occasional lapse into
libel is almost inevitable. Of course it may be said
that, although inevitable, it should be visited with
a penalty for the protection of the community when-
ever it is committed. The question, however, is
whether, in the first place, the community gains or
loses most by vexatious checks on the publi-
cation of faithful reports, and whether, in the
second place, the responsibility for libellous utter-
ances may not be profitably transferred from, the
newspaper to the speaker. The bill, introduced by
Sir Colman O'Loghlen, was chiefly directed to this
last object, in the interest, not of the press, but
of the public. It was referred to a select com-
mittee, where it underwent some modification, and
has now assumed a final shape which, as we ven-
ture to submit, is open to no reasonable objection:
The clause which attracted most criticism on Tues-
day night was the first, to which Mr. Neate moved
an amendment, or " rider," designed to render it
nugatory. By the original draught of this clause
it had been provided, in substance, that a true re-
port of speeches made " at any public meeting law-
fully assembled for a lawful purpose," and open to
reporters for the press, should cease to be action-
able if published " bona fide, without actual malice,
and in the ordinary course of business." This de-
finition of the meetings contemplated by the bill
appears to have been borrowed from the comments
of Lord Lyndhurst on a measure brought forward
by Lord Campbell in 1858. It was found, how-
ever, that it might exclude the meetings of railway
and joint-stock companies, as well as other meetings
not open, strictly speaking, to the public, yet of
great public importance. It was therefore amended
by the select committee, and the cause, as it now
stands, applies to the proceedings at any "meeting
lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose, open to
reporters, and at which reporters were present for
the purpose of reporting such proceedings for the
public newspapers." Mr. Neate professed great
alarm at the latitude given by these words, and pro-
posed that no meeting should be entitled to the
benefit of the act unless held with the written per-
mission of the high sheriff of a county, the mayor
of a city or borough, or the " local public authority"
exercising control over a country town or village.
No doubt it is possible to imagine cases, within
the letter of the section, in which no report at all
would be far preferable to " a true and fair report."
Mr. Ayrtou suggested that " anything that was
uttered by three persons who met together to drink
tea, and who chose to call in a reporter, would
be privileged, and might be published with im-
punity by a newspaper." Happily there is more
than one way of escaping this formidable conse-
quence. It would be for the judges to say what
degree of formality is essential to a meting,
and whether the supposed gathering of gossips
round a tea-table could, under any circum-
stances, deserve that designation. What can
admit of little dispute is that amateur reporters
would fail to satisfy the last words of the section,
and that professional reporters would not be com-
missioned by the editor of any public journal to
chronicle the scandalous conversation of Mrs.
Gamp and her neighbours. Moreover, as Lord
Amberlev pointed out, the remedial provisions of
the first section must be construed together with
the restrictive provisions of the third, and, we may
add, of the second. Not only will the publisher of a
newspaper in which the report of a libellous state-
ment shall have appeared be compelled to print in
a conspicuous place an explanation or contradiction
thereof on demand from the party aggrieved, but a
new remedy is given against the speaker. Defa-
matory language which does not amount to slander,
as now understood, will henceforth constitute a
libel if reported in a newspaper, and the person
using it will be liable to an action. Now, it is well
known that a great many offensive imputations be-

long to this class, and that much which passes at
stormy meetings, yet falls short of legal slander, is
discreetly omitted by reporters, because it comes
within the limits of libel. We may safely predict
that personal abuse which is now exchanged, almost
without protest on such occasions, will become far
less common when people feel themselves directly
answerable for what they say. If so, it is surely
far better to suppress libel at its source than to
punish those who innocently circulate it. No re-
spectable journal would, under any circumstances,
deliberately give publicity to scurrilous abuse, with
the risk, too, of having to insert a reply to it, any
more than we think it necessary to record the gross
expressions and revolting details that our reporters
are forced to hear in courts of law. If is only where
the language employed trembles on the line between
libel and no libel that any doubt can well arise, and
the penalty of transgressing that line ought, in jus-
tice, to fall on the speaker rather than on the re-
porter. The new clauses, moved respectively by Sir
Colman O'Loghlen himself and by Mr. Locke, were
properly rejected by the committee. The one would
have exempted altogether from the Law of Libel
the publication of Parliamentary proceedings and
papers ; the other would have obliged the plaintiff,
in all actions for libel against newspapers, to give
security for costs, under a Judge's order. Mr.
Henley's objections to the former proposal were
quite conclusive. The policy of the bill is not to
deprive the public of security against defamation,
but to substitute, with certain safeguards, the lia-
bility of the publisher. But members of Parliament
are protected by their constitutional privileges from
all liability in respect of words uttered in debate,
and a vast number of Parliamentary papers cannot
be fathered upon any compiler in particular. There
would, therefore, be no one responsible for any
libellous matter contained in publications of this
kind, and nothing to prevent what Mr. Henley calls
"a good stroke of abuse" from being originated in
Parliament and disseminated over the whole world.
The concession is the less necessary because Messrs.
Hansard, on whose behalf it was specially advo-
cated, are not, like ourselves, expected to produce
an expurgated edition of speeches within an hour or
two after their delivery. On the other hand, we
claim no exceptional protection against malicious
actions. This journal, indeed, offers a broader
mark for such attacks than a private individual, but
then Mr. Locke's " speculativQ attorney" is well
aware that menaces are lost upon us. Malicious
actions are seldom brought without the hope of
getting bought off, and those who can and will de-
fend themselves are the least likely to be harassed
by them. For ourselves we have nothing to de-
mand, nor is it for our own sake that we rejoice at
these changes in the law of libel. The meetings
whose proceedings it is our duty to report are just
those in which gross breaches of courtesy are very
rare, and some of our provincial contemporaries
have probably much greater reason to welcome the
proposed limitation of their liability. We are far
from doubting Mr. Neate's apprehensions that in-
creased liberty will be abused. After all, it is public
sentiment, far more than legislation, which deter-
mines the tone of journalism in all its forms. It
was never more truculent in this country than in
days when the press was under stringent regula-
tions, and the secret of its present moderation is to
be sought in the improved temper and taste of
society.