The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-03 00:00:00

THE LA W OF LIBEL.

(From the Times.) .
In the House of Lords on Friday last, when
Lord Campbell postponed the second reading of the
Law of Libel Amendment Bill, Lord Lyndhurst
suggested that " the noble and learned Lord should
take advantage of the postponement to make the
Bill more extensive in its operation."—a remark
which was accepted with thanks. We trust we
may entertain a hope from these observations that
the justice which it was proposed to extend to the
press in the discharge of its professional duties will
be measured still more liberally than was at first
designed, and that the able advocacy of Lord
Lyndhurst will he given to our claims upon the
consideration of the Legislature.
The public has been already made acquainted
with our position in this matter. It is expected of
the newspaper press that it shall furnish the country
with true and faithful reports of all public proceed-
ings, and especially of all debates and speeches
bearing an important public character. This duty
is performed by the agency of gentlemen whose
skill and accuracy are often made the subject of
admiration, and the whole community is thus en-
abled, infinitely to its advantage, to take a share, as
it were, in every great or interesting discussion.
All that Mr. Disraeli or Lord Stanley, for instance,
may presently have to say to their constituents will
to heard, through the instrumentality of trained
reporters, in every corner of the country, and the
views and intentions of the new Ministry will be
pit re 1 fee lv before the public as soon as they are
expresser'. This duty, however, ye can only under-
take at our own proper peril. If it happens on any
occasion that a public speaker utters words defama-
tory of another person, and that person should
think fit to demand redress, it is competent to him,
as the law now stands, to bring an action against
the journal containing the report, although the re-
port may be true, faithful, free from any suspicion
of malice, and published simply in the performance
of a recognised professional duty. Iu one case only
are we protected—that of t ;e reports of proceed-
ings in a court of justice ; in all the le st, however
plainly innocent we may be, we are exposed to
penalty.for the sayings of others. L Campbell's
hill proposed to extend our immunity to reports of
proceedings in Parliament, and to give us also
partial protection in the case of certain other m.et-
ings, carefully defined. For these intentions we
repeat our acknowledgments, but that the opera-
tieu of the act may b 3 rendered more extersive
without damage to any interests whatever we mus.
sincerely maintain.

We at e prepared to put aside all special claims
in this matter, and to leave the question to be
argued on the broad grounds of public interest
alone. We need not insist on the fact that the
sysiem of reporting is beneficial to the community.
.Ist,, one would think of controverting the point.
Even a man who makes a dead set at the
Times desires and expects that we should report
his speech in full, and publish to the world the
character he gives us. This is a function of our
profession which all men concur in esteerniog,
and it supplies, indeed, the best corrective—if any
such element should be thought wanting—of any-
thing like an overbe'aing influence on the part of
:he press itself. Our own- opinions are not the
only opinions which are read in our columns. If
we differ from Lord Derby, the reader has only to
turn the page over, and he will find Lord Derby
speaking for himself. If he chooses to con the
debates and skip the leading articles, he can do so.
If he is struck with the comments upon any public
proceedings ho has nothing to do but to refer to
the report, and he at mice becomes qualified to test
our judgment by his own. Besides, the very fact
that we already stand protected in one instance,
and that it is designed to protect us in others, suffi-
ciently shows the recognition which the system re-
ceives. But between the cafes thus privileged and
others the difference is of ly one of degree. Admit-
ting that the proceedings in a court of justice and
the debates in Parliament are of more consequence
in this respect than ordinary transactions, yet there
are very many instances besides in which this agency
of the press is of the greatest importance. Even
Ministers now-a-days make speeches of something
like official interest at meetings not of an official
character. Probably we shall see some exempt, sin
the course of a few days, and during a Parliamen
tary recess it is common enough fur leading states-
men to communicate with the public on occasions
which would hardly fall within the rigorous defini-
tions of Lord Campbell's Bill. Apart from these
more signal specimens, many transactions of the
utmost importance to the welfare end progress of
society are conducted through public meetings and
speeches made public property through this func-
tion of the pres-.
These considerations are so plainly sound and
reasonable that nobody, we think, would be found
to gainsay them. If we rightly understand L Ord
Campbell's persuasions in this matter he is deterred
from giving greater latitude to the provisions of his
bill, not by any injustice attaching to our clams in
the abstract, but by apprehension of the abuses
which might ensue. If any journal could justify
the publication of any matter upon the plea that it
was a true report of what was spoken at a public
meeting there would no longer be any hold cn the
possible excesses of the press, for anybody might
call or pretend to call a meeting and secure immu-
nity for a blasphemous, seditious, or defamatory
publication by pretending to speak it, or getting it
spoken beforehand. This, we presume, has been the
view taken of the consequences which might be en-
tailed. In reply we beg to represent what we have
already avowed—that we are willing to have the
bona fide character of our proceedings estimated
and tested at every successive stage. With the
principles involved in Lord Campbell's definitions
we are perfectly prepared to close, and stand or
fall by the true lawfulness and publicity of the al-
leged occasion. It would be hard, we think, to
prove to the satisfaction of a judge and jury than
such a meeting as that imagined above was a lawful
public meeting. Surely it could not be difficult to
detect any collusion or trick, and to sweep away in
au instant any pretexts founded on such a sham.
We have no objection to accept the onus of proof.
Wo are willing to be called upon for demonstration
of our genuine and recognised professional position
in any case. If any report appearing in our
columns is made a subject of prosecution, we should
that the report is true and devoid of all malice,
asked to prove not only
not reclaim against being
but that the occasion on which the reporter
attended was a public occasion, a lawful occa-
sion, and an occasion where this agency of the
press was fairly and naturally to be expected.
Lawfulness or non-lawfulness is an issue which a

Court would surely not have much difficulty in try-
ing, just as they may try the malice or non-malice
of any particular publication. We do not believe
that it would be possible for any journal to turn
this protection to bad purvoses with impunity.
Although this country is proud of its press, and we
Elope with some reason, there is never a disposition ,
to countenance it in anything like licence ; indeed,
the good taste and good sense of the public furnish
the best possible safeguards against abuse. We are
speak,
our
too,columns
we
think t to
ireot others not asking, be it always remembered, for any im-
munity or latitude in giving expression to opinions
our own. For all that we say on our own autlio-
rity we accept all possible responsibility, but when
bowreed relieved lr ite ehvametdetrthereloyym lendingay
si
all obligation except that of pro_
fessional good faith, We cannot but hope that