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

VAGRANT ACT, JAMAICA.

The Earl of CARNARVON laid upon the table a
copy of the Vagrant Act passed by the Assembly of
Jamaica which had been moved for by Lord Brougham.
The bill contained some good provisions, but some of the
clauees which affected emigrants were most objection-
able.

PROBATE ACT.
Lord LYNDHURST, referring to the Probate Act
of last session, said one of its clauses
gave an appeal to
the House of Lords, which might have the effect of
keeping creditors and legatees for some time out of their
money. He thought it would be advisable that Glances
of the kind he had referred to might be kept separate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thanked the noble
lord for the suggestion, but he thought it was one that
ought to be made to the late Lord Chancellor, who had
now a bill in preparation to amend the Act referred to.
CUSTOMS' ACTS.
The Earl of DERBY laid upon the table the second
report of the Commissioner of her Majesty's Ca,toras.
LIBEL BILL.

Lori CAMPBELL said that, in asking their lord-
ships to give this measure a second reading, he would
occupy but a small portion of their time, for it seemed
to him that he ought rather to apologise for not going
further with the proposed alteration of the law than to
combat the objections that bad been urged against mov-
ing in this matter. The law of libel was by no means in
a perfect state. Recent legislation had, however, effected
a great improvement in it. Above ail, the enactment
which upon an indictment for libel allowed the truth of
the allegations to be proved by evidence, if the publica-
tion had been made bona fide with a view to the public
good, had operated most beneficially in discouraeitig
slander, notwithstanding the predictions which bad at-
tended its passage through Parliament. Still, much re-
mained to be done to place the law of libel in a satisfac-
tory state. The distinction between verbal and written
slander could not easily be defended. As the law now
stood, to say at a public meeting that a man was a
coward, a liar, and a scoundrel afforded no cause of ac-
tion unless some special damage had been sustained. So
a,so a woman, if assailed by the coarsest language that
could be used, could obtain no redress unless she could
prove that she had suffered some special injury. He had
himself tried most strenuously in the year 1843 to re-
deem our law from that reproach, but he bad failed ;
and he did not now feel encouraged to renew his attempt.
He feared that the present bill would cause great disap-
pointment to those who had petitioned in its favour.
They had asked for a great deal more than he proposed
to grant. This movement owed its origin to the action
of "Davidson and Duncan," which had been brought
in the Court of Qieen'er Bench against the proprietor of
a respectable journal in the county of Durham, because
he err published an account of what took place at a
public meeting held under a local act appointing com-
missioners with large powers arid authority to impose
taxes for public objects. It was pleaded in that action
that a true and faithful report had been given of what
occurred at the public meeting, but on the case being
argued on demurrer this was held to be an insuffi-
cient justification. Great sensation was produced by
the ultimate result of the action, for the demurrer being
overruled, the parties went to trial, and the jury found
that it was a good and true representation of what was
spoken in public, and that it bad been published without
any malice. The jury, however, were told, and very
properly, by the judge, that they must find a verdict for
the plaintiff. They accordingly found a verdict for the
plaintiff, with one farthing damages. The defendant
bad not to pay the costs of both sides, but his own costs
in the action amounted to about 4001. Upon this peti-
tions came in from various parts of the country, praying
that there might be complete immunity to the proprietor
and publisher of every public journal for everything
which they could show to have been spoken at a public
meeting, that the only remedy should lie against the
person by whom the words at which offence was taken
had been uttered at such meeting, and that if it were
proved that the party had spoken anything however ca-
lumnious, the individual injured should have no redress
whatever against the publisher. Teat appeared to Lim
to be an excessive and unreasonable demand and it pur-
ported to be based on a misconception of what was called
Lord Northampton's case, which was supposed to have
established the rule that one might say or write anything
respecting any man, woman, or child, provided one gave
the name of the author of the slander. Teat was certainly
a very alarming doctrine ; but it had no foundation in
law. In the discharge of his duty he had last session
moved for a select committee to consider whether the
same immunity might not be given to reports of the
proceedings of both houses of Parliament which was now
given to reports of the proceedings in courts of justice,
and whether it might not also be extended to other
public meetings. A select committee was appointed,
composed of some of the most distinguished members of
their lordships' house, chosen from all shades of politics.
Some most eminent members of the committee thought
that nothing ought to be done ; that there was no
grievance to be complained of, and that the law was
perfect. But a considerable majority were of a different
opinion ; and they recommended that the same
immunity should be granted to reports of the proceed-
ings of both Houses of Parliament as was now granted
to reports of the proceedings of the courts of law. And
they further recommend that there should be a certain
concession made to those who complained of the present
law respecting reports of pubic meetings—viz., that in
the case of reports of public meetings called by lawful
authority, where there was every reason to suppose that
nothing but what was lawful would take place, and
where the report was published for the public good, The
publisher of the report should not enjoy an immurity;
but if the jury should be of opinion that no injury what-
ever had been suffered by the party complaining, so that
they would only give, if required according to the pre-
sent law, one farthing damages, they should be at liberty
to find a verdict for the defendant, which would relieve
him from any damage arising from the action, and throw
all the costs upon the pettifogger who got up the pro-
ceedings. The bill consisted only of three clauses—two
of them referring to repot ts of proceedings of the two
Houses of Parliament, and the third to reports of pub
lie meetings called by public authorities, by the publi•
cation of which no damage could be proves to have been
occasioned to any person. It would not give any immu-
nity whatever to the reports of any other proceedings.
He could not understand on what ground a difference
was made between the reports of the proceedings of the
two Houses of Parliament and the reports of public
meetings sanctioned by public authorities. It had been
solemnly determined that a fair and faithful report of
what took place in a court of justice afforded no ground
whatever for an action of libel. In the case of " Carrie
v. Walter," decided more than 70 years ago, it was so-
lemnly declared that such was the law of England. That
had been called judge-made law. It was true there was
no act of Parliament for it, but he thought the Court was
well authorised in coming to that decision. Why, then,
should not the reports of the proceedings of the two
Houses of Parliament be put upon a sirnilarfooting? Was,
it not for the advantage of the public that they should
be done Some of the witnesses e xamined before the
select committee upon this subject went so far as to
claim even for the reports of public meetings in Hyde
Park on a Sunday for seditious and mischievous pur-
poses the same immunity as was given to the reports of
proceedings in a court of justice. He had authority in
favour of his proposition, but he would only trouble their
lordships with the opinions of two distinguished men.
Mr. Justice Lawrence, one of the greatest judges that
had ever adopned the bench in this country, in the case
of " Currie v. Walter," said :
" Though the publication of such proceedings may be to
the disadvantage of the particular individuals concerned, it
is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings in
courts of justice should be made universally known. The
general advantage to the country of having those proceedings
made public more than tlouuterbalances any inconvenience to
private persons whose conduct may be the subject of inves-
tigation. The same reason also applies to the proceedings of
Parliament. It is of advantage to the public, and even to
the Legislative body, that due accounts of their proceedings
should be generally eircu'ated ; and they would be deprived
of that advantage if no person cou!el publish them without
being punished as a libeller."

His distinguished predecessor, Lord Denman, when ex-
amined kijore a select committee on the la,w of libel,
said,—

" The result of my consideration of the subject generally
is, that a faithful report of all proceedings in a court of jus-
tice ought not in any case to be considered libellous, unless it
tends to corruption of manners; I extend this even to ex parte
applications with a view to ultericr proceedings, be.auec
I think that on the balance of evils that evil is much less,
and that it is upon the whole the more desirable course even
for parties publicly questioned. I have no doubt that the
publication of police reports is extremely useful for the de-
tection of guilt, by making facts notorious, and for bring-
ing those facts more correctly to the knowledge of all parties
I.t.sct.a::octrim
interested in unravelling tile truth. The public, I think,
are perfectly aware that those proceedings arc cx
they become morn and more aware of it iu prop
growing intelligence; they ,know that such 0
Pr their opinion till
only in course of trial, and they do not form
tlheiroceedings is
the trial is had, Perfect publicity of judiciaofPiiew, but iu
of the highest importance in other• Ptets. The statemet t
its effects on character I think it desiirt:
way to the ears of
made in open court will probably find
assailed feels an
all
-
all in whose good opinion the party _ , 0 r t iPmdia :flitgoe'st haerier
both these evils are
am, the imputation
m y tercet,of
often
restprobably
o on nt
the exaggerated
raPticei,r,dai xi rine g'a r d to the
help entertaining a strong
of debates in Parliament, prevented by correct rep
criminal proceeding. This
ort of a debate ought to expose
holly and therefore one of great
the publisher to a_ring
privilege,
as the debates are practically public,
iuconsi)tent with public
is a question 01
opinion that no ftatiathetfttuaolnuravoptw
subject their promulgation to punishment."
freedom to SU ,
he (Lord Campbell) was a member of the other
When
House of Parliament, he on all fitting occasions resc-
idteslieceags ;t
to übtienaysUlVl°.:iif
lady defended its privileges, and if the privileges of
their lordships should ever be invaded he should defend
them with equal zeal. This bill would not in the re
naotest degree interfere with the privileges of either
House of Parliament. Time was when there was an
order in both houses that the proceedings should not be
published by their own members or by public journals.
He would show that if this bill passed it would not be
necessary for either house to alter one single syllable of
its ex.sting standing orders. He would give their lord
ships a history of the origin of the supposed privileges of
Parliament with reference to publication of their pro-
ceedings. On investigating the subject he was unable to
discover any reae94 for the executive Government sup-

posing that a publication of the proceedings in Parliaa
ment was a grievance that ought not to be tolerated.
knew very well that some of the greatest orators and
lawyers of antiquity—Cicero, for example—published
with great applause and effect their speeches before Se-
nates and courts of justice immediately after their deli-
very. Why should not we in England enjoy the same
privilege f During the progress of the struggle
between the Crown and the two Houses of Par-
liament every effort was made by the two houses
to prevent the Crown from exercising the illegal power
which it had usurped of punishing members for what
they spoke in Parliament, and it was then that these
reoinlreddedprosaorrwliaeanrmedemn summon
Secrecy was then of great conse-
quence, because when the Crown heard that proceedings
which it disapproved were going on in the House of
tC_ommons next morning the Black Rod would knock at
was prorogued. theC o m osnosmt
Sometimes
ithe e
sUpper matters House,went
further than this. Members were summoned before the
Privy Council and examined as to their speeches, and if
trhogeyatci
oonu.l d
Into tvvgaigv et
oa spartei svfeatc,
ttortyh
eexplanationo
mt they
twtienrg
notice of what was goin e sent to the Tower, eh • ere to pass their time until the pro-
on in Parliament that these
g
orders were made, and they were chiefly directed against
the publication by members of their own speeches Oa
the 13th July, 1640—not to go further back—the Com-
mons ordered that "No member shall either give a
copy or publish iu print anything that he shall speak
here, without leave of the Hou,e;" and on the 22d
of March in the same year " that all mem-
bers of the house shall deliver copies or not,s
of anything brought forward or accepted in this house."
Oa March 28, 1642, the Commons ordered that " what
person soever shall print or sell any act or proceedings
of this house, under the name of a journal or otherwise,
without the license of this house, shall be reputed a high
contemner of the privileges of Parliament, and shall be
punished accordingly." Their lordships followed the ex-
ample of the Commons, and made similar orders ; and
they summoned persons before them for publishing their
proceedings. But, as their proceedings were more mode-
rate and discreet than those of the Commons, they had
not the same dread of punishment, and their orders
were not so frequent. On March 13, 1647, a message
came up from the Commons with a vote for inhibiting
the publication of Parliamentary proceedings, in which
the Lords were desired to concur. They did not, how-
ever, immediately concur, but replied that they would
send an answer by a messenger of their own. After the
Revolution, when a constitutional government was esta-
blished, it might have been expected, as ate reason for
the rule had ceased, the rule also would have ceased ; but
this was not the only instance in our history of old ens-
toms and laws remaining in force long after the cause for
them had ceased. It was just at this period that their
lordships made the standing order which was now the
only one remaining on their books with reference to this
subject. In 1698 there was published by one Churchill
a book which called in question the very jurisdiction r f
their lordships, whereupon it was resolved that " it is
high breach of the privileges of this house for any per-
son whatever to print an account or to publish anything
relating to the proceedings of this house without the
leave of this house." Until the year 1771 both houses
see their faces against any publication of any part of
their proceedings ; but the rule was violated by re.
ports under fictitious names. There were reports,
for instance, of the proceedings of the Parliaments of
Lilliput and of Utopia, in which the epeeohee of
Bolingbroke and other great speakers of the reigns of
Anne and the first two Georges were given under ficti•
tious names. But there was great apprehension that
the publisher of these might at any time be sent to prison.
In 1771 there was a memorable crisis, of which an excellent
account was given in Lord Mahon's history, when the
House of Commons tried to enforce their order to pre-
vent the publication of debates ; but though they arreeted
a publisher and sent him to Gdtspur-street Compter,
they were in the end disgracefully defeated, and from
that day any person could publish without fear the de-
bates el either house. Tile question was whether thei •
was anything upon the records of either house to prevent
this bill obtaining the approbation of the Legislature.
Their lordships were governed by the order of 1698,
which forbade the publication of any of their proceed-
ings without the leave of the House, and he maintained
that their lordships had given this leave in the most
ample and authentic manner. In 1849 a committee was
appointed, at the iestant e of Lord Beaumont, to con-
sider the accommodation of the new House, to which
were referred several petitions relative to the reporting
of Parliamentary proceedings. That committee made the
following report :
" The committee have examined witnesses respecting the
facility of hearing in the temporary gallery erected for the
convenience of strangers connected with the public press,
and in consequence of the evidence given by them the com-
mittee feel themselves justified in recommending a permanent
structure on the plan submitted to them by Mr. Barry. Mr.
Dod, the senior repor,er, and secretary to the reporters'
committee, states that they hear in the present gallery of the
House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons, or as
well as they ever heard in any House Parliament. Other
witnesses corroborate Mr. Doris' evidence. But, notwith-
standing the success which has attended the experiment made
by Mr. Barry, neither the strangers who are allowed to be
iu the precincts of the house, nor even the members 'resent
in the house itself, can expect to hoar distinctly unless strict
order is preserved both below the bar and on the steps of
the throne. Thu committee recomm rid that a portion of
the space at the foot of the tiros() be railed off,"
Again, on the 30th of July, a resolution was carried
for an address to the Crown, praying that a gallery ac•
cording to the recommendation of the select committee,
and upon the plan of Sir C. Barry, should be erected.
The addries was presented, and upon that addles t' e
gallery was erected which was now cccupied by the re-
porters. Until 1845 there were positive orders cf the
House of Commons against the admission of strangers :
" Ordered that the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House
do from time to time take into his custody any stranger
whom he may see, or who may be reported to him to be, in
auy part of the house or galleries."
t was forbidden to any stranger to come into any part
of the house or gallery belonging to the house. It was
also ordered—
" That no uiember of this house do presume to bring any
stranger into any part of the house or ga levies,"
In consequence of a motion of his friend Mr. Christie
those orders were reformed in 1845, and now stood in
this shape—

" That the Sergeant•at-Arms attending this house do from
time to time take into his custody any stranger whom
he may ree, or who tnay be reported to him to be, in
any part of the house or gallery appropriated to the
members of this house,

" That no member of this House do presume to bring any
stranger into any part of the House or gallery appropriated
to th• members of this House while the House or a committee
of the whole House is sitting,"
The smallest alteration in the standing orders of either
house of parliament was not necessary. He agreed that
the house might upon any occasion issue an order that
strangers be not admitted, and if any person published
an account of these proceedings he might then be justly
puuishcd. Another objection was that there was no
practical evil, because no one suffered, but as the law
now stood no action might be brought or an indictment
preferred for anything which appeared in the reports of
their 1 rdships' proceedings disrespectful to private indi-
viduals, and in a very recent cave, "Sheddon v. Patrick,"
which was brought under their lordships' notice by a
noble earl, and replied to by the then Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, imputations of the gravest nature were
cast upo❑ private characters. it would be seen
whether it was true that no one suffered by the
evidence given before the select committee, One of
the first witnesses was Mr. Dobie, a very respectable
s licitor, who was the solicitor for the Times newspaper.
Mr. D,,bie gave this evidence :

• Will you be good enough to state any facts which have
come within your exporienco bearing upon this subject ?
I consider that this fact will arise from the experience
which I have had in defending the proprietors of the
limos newspaper from the consequences of actions for
damages in reporting proceedings of the House of Commons
and proceedings iu public meetings:--If the press had the
same immunity for protection in publishing the reports of the
proceedings of Parliament and public meetings as they enjoy
with regard to courts of justice, it would be a great benefit
to them and a great advontago to tho public.
" Have you known any actions brought against the Times
newspaper for reports of proceedings iu either House of Par-
liament 1-1 defended one action for a speech of Dr. Lushing-
' ton's, and another for a speech of Lord Geo. Benti .ck's, and
the proprietors of the Times were put to very considerable
expense in justifying the truth of those two speeches, as well
as proving that they were true reports."
One of those instances was a speech of his learnedfrienudf
Dr. Lushingtou, who, in representing the
misconduct
an individual said he had been suspendedad as a
really
onlyt thbeen
suspended twice, but Dr. Lubsaht for ing
t°n said three times,
this inaccuracy an
oc orree
times. It turned out that the man h
and was correctly reported ;
the
Times,
the proprietors of
they had to some
costa.
nby l:
legal proceedings, and
In the other case of Lord
s a
scandalous informer who had
thatact i o nne was
wsp
abpr
aoru g
were ht againstuats
• a"V
e
G. Bentinck there was
tt,3
Act of Parliament, and had
brought
raked
an immense a long forgio,,,nber of qui tans actions upon an
obsolete statute. ord G. Bentiuck very properly spoke
scandalous use of an old Act of Par-
of bu
-11:report Cf what Lord G. Bentinck said
and for
brought against the Times. If it had oc-
iiatn stronglyt,
an action was
currediin a court t of justice there would have been corn.
Plate immunity,
and why should there not be the same
;4.when
y a matter was discussed in Parliament ?
Mr.immunity
d a name well known to their lordships, alter
stating that he bad not had actions brought, but had
been in constant dread of them, gave this evidence :
"lour lordships are vary well aware that my publica-
- co
tion is the only publication which professes to record the pro-
ceedings of Parliament in extenso, aud with very considerate
fidelity, but that I am not in any way reo4gnized—that I have
no protection whatever more than any other person who
should publish in extenso or otherwise any reports of debates
in your lordships' house or of debates in the other house.
Now, the consequence of the present state of the law of libel
is this ; that if matter is uttered in debate iu either house
which would be libellous and would be unprotected if pub.
lished out of the house, 1 am obliged to consider whether it
would be safe for me to print that matter ;aud if I am clearly
of opinion that it would not be safe for me do so, inasmuch as
the publication is not of such a nature that I could stand the
expenses of a prosecution, the result is that I strike the mat-
ter out without any attempt at modification or otherwise.
" That apprehension induces you to suppress that which
ought to appear if the report wero fully accurate I—That is
advisedly and systematically so.
" Earl Stanhope.—Am I to understand you to say
those instances occur often 'I
--Not often ; but they
do thatcur
with sufficient frequency to be, as I conceive, of material
occur
consequence."
it had been said that if his bill were passed into a law,
and if immunity were given, persons
public meetings and deliver libellouss
speeches, which
wouldlibelling their
then be published with a view
to
Ktng
tg
hat vha
Lord Abingdon."
in libelling 114
steward, which speech
he afterwards published. For
that offence don was very properly indicted,
the
convicted, aud punished ; and if parties followed Lori
Abingdon's example
.the tame result would occur, for

the publication of such a speech would not be a fair or
bona gde use of the privilege of publication. Their lord-
ships need be under no apprehension that such an abuse
could possibly occur if tiais bill should pass. It was
argued that as no action would lie against a member of
Parliament for what he had spoken in his place in Par-
Lament, so an aggrieved man would be deprived of all
remedy if he could not proceed against the journal which
published such a speech. But the same thing took place
daily in the courts of justice. No action could be main-
tained against a counsel for a speech made in a cause, or
against a judge fora charge to the jury, or against a wit-
ness for what he might say in evidence. Therefore it
might be said that a person whose reputation suffered
was left at present without any remedy for the loss he had
suffered. But what loss could thus be sustained which
could counterbalance the infinite advantage offered by
the publication of the proceedings of courts of justice
He trusted that their lordships would permit the bill to
be read a second time. His great object in bringing it
forward had been to protect the public press from vexa-
tious and pettifogging actions, which were now sometimes
brought where no injury had been sustained. This object
had been in some measure facilitated by a recent act of
Parliament, enacting that if the damages were under
forty shillings, costs equal to the damages should
alone be given, but this act had not afforded that
protection to the press which it was entitled to. The
press had a right to expect that where actions were
brought against them without foundation was e
costs
should be thrown upon the defendants. It was eupposed
that some of the journals had declared that his bill would
be of no advantage to the press, but he believed that
journalists looked to the bill with great expectations, and
two witnesses who were examined before the Eelect com-
mittee stated that they should gratefully accept such a
measure. A. most respectable witness, Mr. Baines, pro-
prietor of the Leeds Mercury, gave the following
evi-

deuce
" Has it ever suggested itself to your mind that it might be
a relief if, under such circumstances, the plaintiff were liable
to pay the costs of the defendant if the jury should be of opi-
nion, by finding a farthing damages, that the plaintiff had no
real cause of action ?—lt would be a very important relief to
the press if the plaintiff were thus rendered liable.
In that case the danger of vexations actions being
brought would be very much lessened'?—lt would be ex-
ceedingly lessened."
31r. Dobie was asked :
" Do not you think it might prevent actions from being
brought where there has been no real damage sustained if
the law were to be that upon the jury finding only the nomi-
nal damages of a farthing the defendant should be entitled to
recover costs from the plaintiff?"
He replied,—
" Certainly it would be a very great assistance to the de-

fendaut."
That would be the exact result of the second clause, be-
cause it would allow the defendant to plead in bar to an
action that it was a faithful report, and then the jury
might find a verdict for the defendant, and all the costs
would fall upon the plaintiff. Who would be injured by
such a clause ? If any real dn-i.age had been sustained the
remedy was untouched, but if no damage had been sus-
tained so one could say that the party to a pettifogging
action would be at all aggrieved if he bad to pay the costs
that bad been incurred by the defendant. He now came to
the definition of public meetings in the bill, to which be
was nut aware that any obj action had been made. In
the category of public meetings were comprehended /
all meetings the publication of the proceedings of
which was likely to he of service to the public, such
as the meetings or the election of members of
Parliament, meetings of town-councils, of local
boards, and generally of all bodies constituted under
Acts of Parliament. It was of as much advantage
to the public that the proceedings of such bodies
should be reported as that the debates in Parlia-
ment should be published. Th rc were, too, meetings
of bodies at which decency would be observed, and over
which some control would always be exercised. He had
never contemplated giving an unrestricted liberty of pub-
lishing all speeches without any remedy for parties ag-
grieved. His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst)
was of opinion that the speaker at a public meeting
ought to be equally liable for what he said when his
speech was faithfully reported and published in
print as he would be if he himself had published
it, or caused it to he printed and published. Ob-
jection might be taken against thus doing
away with the distinction between written and spoken
slander, but such a distinction seemed preposterous, for
if a man knew that his speech would be taken down by.
a good shorthand writer with a view to publication, and
if he spoke the speech with a view to its publication,
then he ought to be liable for it. This would enable the
party aggrieved to resort to the Speaker in all cases,
and there would be an apology for the person who said
that he was injured by words spoken at a public meet-
ing not bringing his action against the person who made
the speech. The change might be made without injury
to any individual, and with a moot beneficial effect.
With these observations he must leave the bill in their
lordships' hands, a❑d trusted that they would give it a
second readine. No doubt they would hear many pre•
dictions of evils which would follow the change which he
proposed. Such predictions had been made before, and
had always been falsified. There was no record of what
occurred when the application of the peine f.rte el dure to
persons who refused to plead was abolished ; but no doubt
that alteration of the law was not made without many
predictions as to the evils which would follow it. Simi-
lar predictions were uttered when the law was altered so
as to allow witnesses to be sworn for prisoners, and to
give to accused persons the benefit of counsel. Many
persons whose opinions were entitled to great respect
were much opposed to the latter of these two measures,
and apprehended that it would produce the most serious
consequences. The last great improvement which was made
was allowing parties to a can ie to be examined as witne sees.
His noble and learned friend opposite was at the time
opposed to that measure, but he had since given to it his
important sanction, and had admitted that it had been
productive of great advantage to the administration of
Justice. His noble and learned friend disapproved this
bill as he did of that, but he trusted that be would live
to see the day, and that net a distant one, when it would
be shown that his apprehensions in this case were as
groundless as those which he entertained in the other.
The noble and learned lord concluded by moving that
the bill should be read a second time.
NEWS FROM INDIA.
The Earl of DERBY trusted that their lordships
would excuse his interrupting this debate to read a
telegram which had just been received from Malta,
giving intelligence of the fall of Lucknow. The noble
earl then read the telegram, which was received with
cheers, especially that part which referred to the rescue
of Mrs. 0:r and Miss Jackson.

THE LIBEL BILL.—DEBATE CONTINUED.
Lord LYNDHURST—My noble and learned-L friendUE D.
in
closing his address referred to something which fromfell
me with respect to this measure on a former occasion,
and I therefore feel called upon to state as shortly
pos-
sible the views which I take of it. I need hardly say
that I entertain all proper respect for my noble and
learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, and also for
the select committee to which he has referred,
and upon the resolutions of which this bill, as I
understand, is belied. At the same time, I must
recall to your lordships' recollection the fa:_t that only
one-half of the committee was present when these
resolutions were agreed to, and that lees then one-third
of the committee voted in their favour. (FLar, hear.)
The committee consisted of sixteen members, of whom
eight were present when the resolutions were dis-
cussed, and five voted in their favour. I therefore feel
that I am perfectly at liberty to entertain my
own opinions up.m this subject without being
charged with being presumptuous. I must
say
that
I entirely dissent from the conclw-ion at which
the committee arrived. With all deference to my noble
and learned friend, I think that if it is necessary to
legislate at all upon this subji'necsut,ffit,he measure which he
has brought forward is most dent for the purpose,
and ought to be greatly extended, As the bid stands at
present it would be almost wholly inoperative.' Every
one (f your lordships will admit the importance of the
reports to which the measure relates. Theyw
iatrhen indeed
marvellous for their accuracy. Every man
ring from his home is made acquainted with a'l tuh.'esetilrri
—of htehlde
oumstances attending all these public
not only in the metropolis, but in everyeepanrgss
kingdoms—and with all the facts and arguments
are discussed at them. It is hardly possible toovwerhriantlei
the advantages which result from this system, and it is
our duty as far as possible to do justice to those parsonsn
to whom we are indebted for these advantages. Now,
any lords, a word upon the law. My noble and learnedw
friend very properly drew a distinction between libellous
and defamatory words spoken and those words when re-
duced to writing. With two or three exceptions, per-
sons may calumniate and defame by word of mouth to
almost any extent with perfect immunity, and withon
being subject to any punishment ; but the same words,
When reduced to writing, may subject a party to a
prosecution, and to the payment of damages to the
pergola injured. The principle upon which this distinc-
tion is founded I imagine is this. Words may be
uttered hastily, in a moment of passion, and without con-
sideration ; they may have been misreported, and may
be forgotten ; whereas, writing denotes premeditation,
care, opportunity for consideration. The libel is per-
manent, and may be extensively circulated. Now, ap-
ply the principle on which this distinction is founded to
the meetings which are the subjects of this bil. A man
attends a public meeting, and from the most malicious
motives makes a speech defamatory of the character of
another person. He knows it will be taken down in
writing ;he sees the reporter before him. He knows
that it will be published ; the very object for which he
speaks it is that it may be published. Yet that man
passes with impunity ; the law cannot take hold of him.
On the
one
other hand, the reporter, whose mind is intent
tpo
ne object only—taking down accurately what he
hidejap:l7ftw.:l3anoeh_as,. no time for consideration, who sends his
who,
when after another as fast as they are completed;
such
them revises them in the utmost
haste because they uast be published immediately and
without delay ;
man, under such circumstances,
having no malicious motive, perhaps not knowing the
point on which the calumny' turns,
is made the scape-
goat ; an action is brought
against him, and he is fined
in damages, or he may be
dij
What eare more un ust than
;d for the libel, a-id
when
punished as a criminal.
a public comej to con-
that state of things I My lords,
meetingd such
eider the circumstances attending
as I have described, the principle on whichth the
Lion between written and oral slander is made hardly
applies. A man goes to a meeting prepared
with a
slan-
der, Ile sees it taken down ;he speaks it for that pur-
pose
; he knows it will be published. Take another
Supposing I dictate words detracting from
the character of another man to a person who pets them
down, and I wish him to publish them. Iu that cwie I
am responsible, and may be indicted for the libel. It is
true that in the example we are now considering there
is no authority given—no expression of a wish that it
should be published. But, everybody knows that it
is the intention of the speaker that it should be pub,
belied; and therefore I say the dii•tinction between