The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS (THIS DAT.)

The SPEAKER entered the house at 12 o'clock, but it was
not until nearly ball-past that hour before a sufficient
number were present to constitute a house.

LIBEL BILL.

Sir C. O'LOGHLEN moved the second reading pf this
bill, which was identically the same as that he introduced
last session. He regretted that an opposition was to be
raised against his motion, but ho was quite willing
if the bill was real a second time now to postpone
the committee until February next. The bill had tpoil
fully discussed in a select eutinnitteo, and its principle had
been assented to on a foram occasi.,n by 78 to
18. He had heard it said that certain hoaourablo
members opposed the clauses of the bill, because they
were afraid of the press, but ho did not see much ground
for that, because out of the 16 clauses composing the bill
only 3 related to the pees , the rest relating entirely to the
'law a libel. He felt it right to say that he brought iti.t he bill
without the slightest communication with the press, but
since it had been laid on the table it had received the
approval of a considerable number of newspapers of all
shades of opinion. One of the provisions of the bill was
to extend the privilege which now existed with respect to
proceedings iu courts of justice to true and fair reports
at public meetings published in the newspapers. There
were many meetings, for instanee those of joint-stock com-
panies, boards of guardians, and other bodies having the
power of taxation, which 'it was most important should
become fully known. The bill effected that, and
also rendered the speaker liable fur the words
spoken. Another provision of the bill was to abolish
the difference which now existed between libel
and slander. It also made it compulsory upon persons
instituting a criminal prosecution for libel against a news-
paper proprietor to give security for costs, supposing the
suit should go against him. These were the principal
points of the bill as related to newspapers, and, as he
thought they were only those which as a matter
of justice they ought to receive, he hoped
the house would give its assent to the second reading of
the bill. The effect of a postponement of the considera-
tion of the bill for a fortnight would only be to delay the
consideration of the bill from being considered by the
House of Lords early in February. ,
Mr. NEWDEGAT.E'oppeged the motion. He said the
House had met for a particular purpose, and as there was
no urgency calling for the pressing forward of the bill, he
objected to its second reading at that period of the session.
The bill only came into the hands of members yesterday,
and that was another reason why the bill should not be
proceeded with at that time, because going on with it that
day would be in opposition to the practice of the house,
and against the spirit of the standing orders.
Sir R. COLLIER said if the bill had been limited to
afford protection to repotters he should have Supported it;
but it contained another important provision, which, in
his_opinion, would tend to restrain the freedom of discus-
sion at public meetings, as it proposed to make a speaker liable
for the words uttered to the cauaeeitent as he had written
them. There washe thought an essential difference between
and after what had taken place in,former sessions; he thought
it would be better to postpone the consideration of the bill
until it could be discussed in a full house.
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN said, that after the expression of
that opinion by his hon. friend he would, if the hon. mem-
ber for North Warwickshire withdrew his motion, defer
the further consideration of the bill until the 12th of
February.
The motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE was then by leave with-
drawn, and the second reading of the bill was postponed
until the date mentioned.