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

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 assemt led 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 tewt
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 bore, 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 b© deemed lawful meetings, law-
fully assembled within the meaning of the act. Never
was there se 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 respeA to a parish or a district. On
first seeing this limitation I turned it over and over
again in my mind to discover upon what principle it pro-
ceeded. Is it that these meetings are meetings where
order and decorum pre-eminently 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
a church-rate—is that the kind of meeting which is pe-

culiarly marked by order and deccrum and by an absence
of personality ? (Laughter.) My lords, I have see❑ a
vestry meeting presided over by the clergyman of the
parish. Argument goes on, turbulence succeeds to argu-
ment, the clergyma❑ 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 cf my noble and learned friend, one of the
" favoured" meetings to which his measure extends. lie
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, be
does us the honour, and I am grateful to him, of styling
ns a lawful meeting within the operation of the act.
But, my lords, what will the right 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 made
a remark which did not reach the gallery.) My noble
and learned friend will have an opportunity of replying.
(Hear, hear.) But the Upper Rouse, 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 in
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 meetings on behalf
of schools, and are attended by clergymen and Dissenting
ministers. Thespeeches are sometimes of great eloquence
and the questions discussed most important. Yet they
are not lawful assemblies within the meaning of this
bill. They are all unlawful ! What a bill it is ! (Laugh-
ter.) I wish that a noble and learned friend of mine--
a walking cycloreelia, who is now doing suit and service
iu 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 aiite cf the population of this country. I
don't know whether the attention of my noble and
learned filtered oppo-ite was directed to that meeting. I
i hardly know how to characterise it. lam not quite sure
1 that I have organs sufficient to articulate the name of
it. (Laughter.) It was called a Soeiological Society—
(loud laughter)—and I am not sure whether a noble
friend of mine opposite was not present on the occasion.
(Laughter.) At all events, 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 Igo further, my lords ? It
may be remembered that about this time last year a
meeting vi as hel fi presided over 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
lie 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 I It excludes every-
thing; it includes literally almost nothing. Before I
left home this morning I noted upon paper a number of
c ises that were not included in the bill. I came to
104, and then I stepped. (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 ? 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 ray,
". 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
meeting ; it was not a lewful 'electing within Lord Camp-
lAA's Act—a carefully drawn measure," (A. laugh.)
Tile meeting might have been told to consider the pro-
priety of raising a monument to one of the best and
b: avast heroes of modern times—General lelaveleck, but
the judge mast direct a verdict for the plaintiff, who
may have his farthing damages, while the defendant is
eaddleti with costs amounting to 300/. or 400/. (Hear,
h' are) 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 to include all meet
ings in the bill, because then the proceedings at sAlitienr
or treasonable meetings would be protected. Seditious
meetings ! treasonable meetings !—it is impossible, my
lords, far 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 to
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 bile 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 he hal always been an advo-
cate for useful reforms in the law, and scarcely any mea-
sure with that object bad been brought forward by his
noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) to which he
hail not given his active support. He could assure his
noble friend, therefore, that it waswEith„gvlieshryiag:efaotr
trhee-
luctance he felt obliged to oppose the present bill. Any
one who conteroplated the history of
last quarter of a century must be struck with the impor-
tance and extent of the improvements which had been
made in the common law, in criminal law, and in
equity law ; and if the noble earl (Stanhope) should
complete the history which he had commenced,
he would undoubtedly refer to that period so distin,
guiihed by the most valuable improvements that had
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 noble
and learned friend who last addressed their lordship,
that it ought to be allowed to pass a second reading. It
had long been established as the law of this country,
that with respect to verbal slander an action could only
be maintained when criminal offences were imputed, or
when charges of malversation in office, or of insolvency
in trade bad been made. Indeed, the cases in which
such actions could be maintained were very limited ;
but an action would lie for any slander in writing or in
print, because this writing or printing gave the slander
a character of perpetuity, and also extended it far more
widelythan it could be spread by verbal publication.
written
done, or
by v
printeder
b verbal
lndr.
reportaweas.
thanTthheerefionjreurmyuinchfligcrteeadtebrya
that
The proprietors of public
perfect liberty to publish fair and correct
journals wereeporti of undoubtedlythaet
freports
two Houses of Parliament ; and the public had been
greatly benefitted by such reports. Bat the bill raised
the question, whether newspaper proprietors should be
permitted to publish with impunity speehes vilifying
the character of individuals on the ground that those
speeches had been made in Parliament. That certainly
ought not to justify the publication of slander. Am() a:
several witnesses examined before the select committee
was the solicitor to the Times, who stated that
the proprietors thereof were sued fir havirg printed
a speech made by Dr. Lu,hing ton in the House of
Commons, and had to pay the costs of the action
brought against them by the party who considered
speechonsidered
himself aggrieved by the report w
of th
That, in fact, was the only instance in which an
action
1 war brought against the Tintee for printing reports of
the proceedings in Parliament ; and, in fact, the wit-