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

uttered in and debate published, an action might now be
brought against the newspaper, and the party aggrieved
would have an opportunity of vindicating his character,
or the newspaper might justify the alleged slander. If
the statement were correct the newspaper might
plead the truth in justification, and it would be an
answer to the action. He could suppose a member
of Parliament acting honourably and faithfully in
the discharge of his duty, and yet if this bill passed he
might commit a great wrong and au irreparable injury
against an individual. He might mention a case which
had recently occurred before the Privy Council. Pro-
ccedinge were taken there in which certain respectable
merchants of the City of London were charged with hay •
ing been implicated in certain slave trade transactions.
The matter was discussed before the Privy Council,
which took time for consideration. He had reason to
know that the publication of these proceedings was in-
jurious to the credit and character of these persons, and
it was only when they were entirely acquitted from all
partic'pation in this infamous traffic—when strong obser
vations were passed upon the proceedings of the Crown,
which was saddled with the costs—that their character
was vindicated. Now, suppose some member of their
lordships' house, whose bosom burnt within him at any
mention of the traffic in slaves, should assume that some
re.pecfahle merchant had been implicated in the traffic,
and should break out ii ter indignant reproach at the con-
duct of that party. As long as it was confined to that
or the other House of Parliament the injury would not
be great, but on the following morning all that had
been said flew to every part of the c, untry, it was taken
up by all the country newspapers, and the character of
these perfectly innocent persons would be completely
destroyed, and they might be irreparably injured. If
this bill were passed they would have no opportunity of
vindicating their characters, and all the redress that
could be afforded to them would be the insertion in all
the newspapers which had published the slander of some
letter contradicting it. Perhaps the newspapers might
say that from press of matter they were unable to insert
such a letter, and the consequence of this measure which
his noble and learned friend deliberately proposed to that
house would be that the persons would be irretrievably
ruined, and wholly without a remedy. He could n but
feel that Chit would be a most dangerous innovation and
a most mischievous change of a law which, even accord-
iug ti. the evidence adduced before the select com-
mittee of their lordships, had afforded sufficient protec
tion to the proprietors of newspapers, at the same time
that it had not left the characters of individuals wholly
defenceless. (Hear.) With reference to the other part
of the bill, which related to the reporting of proceedings
at public meetings, it was necessary to advert to the
distinction between oral and written slender. It was
perfectly true that for words spoken no action could be
maintained unless they charged some indictable offence,
with the single exception of cases in which it could be
shown that special damage had resulted frem the speak-
ing of the words. His noble and learned friend did not
propose to abolish that distinction ; indeed, the report of
the select committee condemned any such alteration.
That report said,—
To meet this objection it has been proposed to do away
with the distinction between verbal and written slander, or I o
make the speaker at a public meeting al says liable for all
true printed reports of his speech, but we think that such al-
terations of the law are unnecessary and would be inexpe-
dient."

He must be permitted upon the subject of these reports
of public meetings to quote the words of his noble and
learned friend (Lord Campbell) himself—words not ut-
tered in that house, but used in the course of the inquiry
which had given rise to this discussion. His noble and
learned friend said,—

" If this plea is good, a fair account of what takes place
may be published, whatever harm the publication may do -to
private character, pr,vided it take place at a meeting of a
public nature—a aide description, embracing all kinds of
meetings, from a county meeting to a parish meeting. At
such meetings things m
y well be said very irrelevant to the
subject in hand, yet very calumnious. In what an unhappy
situation a calumniated person would be if a calumny might
be) üblished, and yet he could not bring an action and chal-
lenge t he publisheis to prev.: its trials I"
-- •

litar.) That was the opioionof his noble and learned
fiend, who now proposed to legalise the publication of
all repo is of what took place at a meeting lawfully as-
semisled.

Lord CAMPBELL.—Not
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—His noble and learned
riend meet forgive Lite. He would find it was so, be-
cause under hie qualification no party was entitled to
recover unlees he could prove loss and damage. Now,
that, as his noble and learned friend knew, meant pecu-
mary loss and damage ; the consequence of which would
be that in 99 oases out of no the person who was ca.
luwniated at a public meeting would be deprived of his
remedy, because he could not show that he had sus-
! tained such lose and damage. Suppose that a person not
in trade was charged with some gross breach of morality,
or with being guilry of some falsehood—an imputation
upon the character of an honourable man, which was
much more painful and much more destructive to his
reputation than if he could show that he had sustained
damage to the a.nount of thousands and thousands of
pounds by tie slander. Were they to take so mean a
visw of the value of reputation that it was to be weighed
by a quantity of gold ? He trusted that in this country
a (twee reputation would never be considered other than
the dearest of his possessions. It had been suggested
that the should be committed, with the view of intro-
ducing into it art amendment constituting the person
who published the agent of him who uttered the words.
Of such a course he could not approve. Alter the
humorous description which had been given by a noble
and learned lord who had left the House of the great
*umber of public meetings which had been omitted from
the definition contained in this bill, he thought that if the
bill ever went into commits: his noblefriend would find
that the difficulties in its way were so great as to be ir-
surmountable even by his great power of overcoming
obstacles. (Hear.) Under these circumstances he could
not consistently with his position give a silent vote on
this sulject, nor could he, after the most careful atten-
tion, accede to the suggestion of hii noble and learned
f iend. He del not find that there was any real grie-
vance in the existing state of the law. His noble and
learned friend had utterly failed to establish his case, and
therefore the bill ought not to be read a second time.
(Hear, hear )
Lord GRAN WORTH thought that although this bill
might not bs adopted in its integrity, it at least con-
tained the germ arid foundation of a proper remedy. As
to the reporting of Pat hamentary proceedings, he doubted
very much whether they were not proceeding altogether
upon a fallacy. He did not believe that the character of
a person calumniated in Parliament was likely to be
damnified by the slander being reported ' • on the con-
trery, the report was likely to afford him the best means
of refuting the charge. But for that report he might
never know of the calumny. With regard to the reports
of public meetings, it was said that there had been no
Glees of hardsh p. There had been one case, and, in his
opinion, it was the duty of their lordships, when the
principle of the law could nut be justified, to act upon a
single instance. It was a great hardship to the publisher
of a Durham newspaper that he should have to pay
4001. b. e tuse he had published something which was
actually stated at a public meeting held with reference
to the improvemeet of the town of Hartlepool. And
what had happened in that instance might, and most
likely would, hap; en in many others. He did not, how-
ever, think that oral should be treated in the same
manner as written slander. Such a rule would give rise
to disgraceful pett fogging, as was exemplified in the law
books of the reigns of James I. and Charles 1., when
many questions were raised as to whether such and such
words were not idanderous so as to subject the person
uttering them to an action. lie was glad that, whether
by judge-made law or otherwise we had escaped from
those difficulties, and, practically speaking, oral slander
was not a ground of action. It had been said that there
was little distinction between the act of directing libel.
lcus words to be published and that of uttering suci
words orally in public with the knowledge that they
would be published. But under this bill the injured
party would bring his action against the publisher, who
might plead that the report was a true and faithful one,
made without malice. He would not encourage the no•
tion that they ought to legislate on a mere theory ; but
when a certain amount of practical evil had already
resulted from the state of the law it would not be wise
to overlook what had occurred, and wait till further
mirchief arose before applying a remedy. He therefore
hoped that their lordships would read the bill a second
time.

Lord CAMPBELL rose to reply, when he was in-
terrup'ed by
The Errl of DERBY, who reminded the noble and
learned lord that he bad already addressed the house at
considerable ltn4th, and that on the motion fora second
readf a r it.
secondlie time,
reading he had no right to a reply.
Lord CAMPBELL was not aware of any instance in
which the courtesy of a hearing in reply had been refused
in such a case ; yet if the noble earl was not content with
having overwhelming numbers on his side, but insisted
that thrrs should also be no argument, of course there
billwas
the no
wasremedy o
c munittee ; but it should be t shouldo
referbe most willing,
it g
remembered that the
been carried by
measure had already a fair majority
aaio to a
f i
in the select committee. Under those circumstances
would their lordships affirm that it was so vicious in
principle that they could not hope to improve it at any
subsequent stage? The powerful speech of the noble
and learned lord, whose jocular observations had en-
livened a very dull
debate, was to a great extent
favourable to the measure It had pleased the noble and
learned lord to assume tbat all meeting-4 not included
in the third c'auie, and among others those of Convoca-
tion, were unlawful. Now it so happ rued t at in the
committee he had himself Proposed to include Convoca-
lion—(a laugl') —hut he was out-voted, on the ground
that it was disrespectful to suppose that anything
libellous could fall from the members of so grave
and venerable a body. His reply to that bad been that
he had heard right rev. prelates use very sharps words
in the House of Lords. To have enumerated meetings
for the purpose r f raising a monument to an illustrious
genera', or the meeting- at Exeter Hall, to which refer-
ence had been made, might, hethought, havebeen deemed
included
in but, if desirable, they might yet be
in the bill when in committee. His noble and learned
friend on the woolsack had (tone him the honour cf re-
ferring to some of the measures which be (Lord Campbell
had had the good fn-tune to originate and to carry into
law, and among others the act for preventing the sal* of
obscene publications. His noble and learned friend must
be aware am that measure was assailed even with more
bitter nes-4 than the bill now before their lordships, and
every means were adulated to cover it with discredit and
ridicule. That hill, however, received the sanction of
their lordships and of the other house, and it was admit-
ted by his noW and learned friend, and by other emi-
nent lawyers, that it had operated moat beneficially. If
the present bill should pass and become the law of the
land, Le beloved it wig) t receive as high commendation
from Roma future occupant of the woolsack. It was int-
osai to forcse) what might happen, anal in the course
of the • year this measure might receive the approval of