The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-09 00:00:00

THE LAW OF LIBEL,

(From the Times.)
Lord Campbell has promptly fulfilled his promise of
bringing the Law of Libel again before the attention of
Parliament. As we are entirely convinced of his lord-
ship's impartiality, and as we are ourselves conscious of
our own desire to see this subject considered, not in the
assumed interests of journalism alone, but on behalf of
the public at large, we should rejoice at nothing more
sincerely than to find ourselves coinciding with Lord
Campbell in his estimate of the question. We hope,
indeed, and believe that this may ultimately prove to be
the case, for the opinions which his lordship has ex-
pressed admit of a very near a:proxincation to the immu-
nities with which journalism could afford to be content.
Our argument is, that the practice of reporting
the speeches and proceedings of public meetings,

being notoriously recognised in fact, and con-
feesedly beneficial in operation, should not carry with it,
when faithfully, duly, and properlyexercised, any liability
arising from the matter reported. We are content that
the character of the meeting and the general colour of the
report should be open to strict scrutiny. If the meeting
could be pronounced not really a public one ; if the pro-
ceadiugs were not intended to be reported ; if the report
was affected in any manner by private instead of public
interests ; or if, in short, any motive whatever, apart
from the performance of professional duty, could be shown
to have operated in producing or qualifying the publica-
tion, we are content that professional privilege should no
longer be pleadable, and that the consequences should fall
on the head of the offender. We take our stand
upon the publicity of the meeting, and the bona fide
character of the reporc, fairly appreciated. If these points
cannot be substantiated let the responsibility rest with the
newspaper ; but if they can, let the speaker, and not the
newspaper be accountable for what is said.
A man who speaks in public now-a-days dictates to a
reporter. The publication of his speech is es muchhis own
act, as its delivery. He addresses himself to the whole
country as completely and as deliberately as if be took his
speech to a printer and sent it out as a pamphlet, with his
name on the titlepage. He knows that reporters are pre-
sent for the express purpose of committing his speech to
peper, and sending it to press for circulation. He sees
them at their work, and not only does he accept the condi-
tion with all its consequences, but in many instances his
speech is addressed more to these functionaries than to any
part of his audience. We admit all the difference between
speaking slander and printing it; between the possible
smallness of the injury in the former case and its possible
magnitude in the latter; between the freedom which may
be claimed for private conversation and the restrictions
which ought to attend a public harangue. What we say is
that the whole of this difference, be it what it may, is
chargeable to the speaker himself, and to no others.
He, anti h 3 alone, in every sense of the word, is
the utterer. The reporter represents nothing but a speak-
ing-trumpet, through which, by the aids of science, a
single voice can be made to echo over the entire kingdom.
And now what harm, we ask, would be likely to accrue
to society or to any class or institution of society if these
principles were recognised ? We have already said that we
are willing to have the subject considered independently of
any interests which might bo supposed peculiar to the
Press itself. We are ready to appeal to the common advan-
tage—to the public good, and from this point of view we
ask to be shown any mischief that can arise from the pro-
tection of reporters honestly engaged. Would speakers be
more careful inespeaking ? That, certainly, could be no
disadvantage. The question concerns offence given by words
injurious to public order or private reputation, and the
argument is, that this offence becomes greater when the
words are printed. But an offence it is in either case, and
if, therefore, the chance of committing the greater offence'
should induce the speaker to avoid even the less, it would
clearly be so much the bettor for all. But Lord Campbell
appears to think that these privileges of reporting might
lead to wrongs without remedie'. If the publication of
seditious or libellous matter is visitable on a journal, the
offending parties are always to be reached by prosecution,
whereas the original utterer of the matter might take him-
self out of the way while his words were circulated, and
the evil wrought, with entire impunity. His lordship has
even suggested that a public meeting might be got up for
an occasion, that a man might utter his sedition or his
slander, put it in course of publication, and then fly the
country, while the law was left at fehlt and powerless. But
now, to take this extreme case of a joint offenceby some des-
perate revolutionist and some equally desperate print, what
would b 3 the probable results of such an operation ? Why,
by Lord Campbell's own assumption, the country would
be rid of a mischief-maker on remarkably easy terms.
Observe, that as even the print supposed to be at his ser-
vice is obliged to publish his name and fix him with the
responsibility of the speech, he is at once identified as the
offender. His words are brought home to him without the
troublesome instrumentality of a • Government shorthand
writer, such as used to be employed, and he must either
remain to abide the consequences, or rid society of his pre-
sence and agitation once and for all. What more could be
dono if he had been caught and convicted ?
Let us be permitted, however, to add one word from our
own point of view. Assuming still this extreme case sup-
posed by Lord Campbell, what would be the probable cha-
racter of a journal which should lend itself to this style of
reporting—for, of course, if a meeting is to be "got up" in
the manner imagined, the conductors of a journal could
hbrdly be in ignorance of the circumstance? And, if the
character of a journal is pot worth much,'what is its influ-
ence worth ? In other words, what would be its powers of
mischief, or the real harm of the publication at all? It
cannot be too constantly recollected in these discussions
that' when a journal offends against the good sense and
good feeling of the country it exposes itself to punishment
far more condign and more summary than could be admi-
nistered by any court of law. Its very existence is at
stake, for a journal is the mere creature of circulation, and
circnlation is the expression of public approval. There is
no obligation upon a newspaper to consider every meeting
a public meeting which so entitles itself, or to report every
speech which a speaker wishes to be reported. If the
speaker, the subject, and the occasion do indeed possess
pub is importance, then of course the proceedings deserve
publicity, and under such conditions publicity would pro-
bably do far less harm than suppression ; but in ordinary
cases the conductors of a journal can exercise their own
discretion, and it is by such discretion, among other quali-
ies, that a journal is judged. We venture to say that the
end of any such proceedings as Lord Campbell has ima-
gined would be the speedy nullification of the speaker and
newspaper together.
To what conclusion, then, must we come.? At present
reports are protected in the cases of Courts of Law, and
Lord Campbell avows his very honourable desire to extend
the priyilege to Parliamentary reports also. He has fur-
ther suggested that the ,protection might reach, perhaps,
to the reports of Convocation, to those of county meetings,
and of town council meetings in boroughs ; so that the
ground for drawing the line would constantly recede--a
difficulty which we imagine his lordship must have felt as
be proceeded; for, at last., though he observed that "it
would be unsafe to extend the privilege without some limi-
tation," he said that it "might be given to reports which
were for the public good, leaving that point for a jury to
decide." Now, with this last condition, construed, as we
have no doubt it is meant to be, in a liberal sense, we are
disposed to close. It is putting a good deal in a jury's
hands, but by the honest opinion of our countrymen we
should te prepared to abide We are willing that a jour-
nal should be put upon its defence for any charge of malice
or imputation of any motive not included in fair profes-
sional obligation ; but when it can be shown that this duty
has not been exceeded, we ask to be relieved at once and
altogether from liabilities which in justice can only attach
to others.

(From the Daily News.)
Lord Campbell has renewed his motion for a Select Com-
mittee on the LaW of Libel, especially as it affects the pub-
lication of the reports of proceedings at public meetings.
It is high time that the law in question should be
thoroughly sifted. The real principle on which is based
' the whole law of libel is simply this—that every man of