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 cf 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 imit of a very near a:proximation 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-
fessedly beneficial in operation, should not carry with it,
when faithfully, duly, and properly exercised, any liability
arising from the matter reported. We are content that
the character of the meeting and the general col Our of the
report should be open to strict scrutiny. If the meeting
could be pronounced not really a public one ; if the pro-
ceedings 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 pet formance of professional duty, could be shown
to have operated in producing or qualifying the publica-
tion, we are content that professional privilege should no
loner 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 report, fairly appreciAed. 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 as muchhis own
act as its delivery. He addresses himself to the whole
country as completely and as deliberately as if he 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
paper, 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, and he 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 be 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
inure careful in speaking? 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 better for all. But Lord Campbell
appears to think that these privileges of reporting might
lead to wrongs without remedies. 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 bo 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 feult and powerless. But
now, to take this extreme case of a joint offence by some des-
perate revolutionist and some equally desperate print, what
would be 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 bo at his ser-
vice is liged to publish his name awl 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 Gorernment 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
done 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
herdly be in ignorance of the circumstance? And, if the
character of a journal is not 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 more creature of circulation, and
circulation 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
public 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 privilege 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 wo imagine his lordship must have felt as
ho proceeded; for, at last, though he observed that "it
would be unsae 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
haniis, but by the honest opinion of our countrymen we
should Fe 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 mice 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 =au of

whom another maliciously speaks or writes defamatory
matter should have civil, or, in extreme cases, a criminal
remedy against the defamer. In as far as the defamer is
concerned, the essence of the thing is malice, either ex-
press or implied ; in as far as the defamed is concerned,
the ground of his claim for redress is the damage his cha-
racter has sustained, or is necessarily placed in jeopardy of
sustaining, by reason of the defamation; and the estimated
extent of such damage affords the measure of his com-
pensation. Th_ss are the first principles on which
rests the whole theory of civil redress by an action
for damages in cases of defamation. In order to sus-
tain such an action there must be proof of malice in the
defamer, damage to the defamed. If either ingredient be
wsnting, the requisiteproof fails, and the claim for redress
is not made cut. There are, no doubt, numerous oases
where the mere nature of the defamatory language em-
ployed is such as to imply malice in the speaker or writer,
so far, at least, as to throw on him the burden of showing
that, in point of fact, no malice existed. There are other
cases where this presumption is so strong as not to admit
of being thus rebutted—cases where the language used is
so flagrantly and grossly vituperative as not to be palliated
by any alleged rectitude of intention. or explained away
by any circumstance of extenuation. Again there are cases
and they are by no means unfrequent, wliere the occasion
is reasonably and properly held to justify the use of lan-
guage, whether in writing or speaking, which is in itself
unquestionably defamatory, in as far as it has a tendency
to detract from the character of another to his damage.
Among the most familiar cases of this class are those of
public comments on the character and conduct of public
men. A very considerable degree of latitude is here mast
properly allowed; on the clear principle that it is to the
publiointerest that such comments should be freely made,
and unless manifestly prompted by personal malice, qt
other sinister motives, should not be rendered amenable to
the penalties of the libel law. Another familiar instance
of the same principle is the protection thrown round the
master in giving the character of adoucestic servant. This
is an, occasion in which the general interest requires that
the truth should be told at whatever cost to personal cha-
racter, and accordingly, unless clear proof be given that
truth has been wilfully departed from and malice wan-
tonly indulged, any statement whether written or verbal
regarding the qualification of a servant, however disparag-
ing, is protected as a privileged communication.
All these applications of the law relating to defamation
are manifestly based on the one principle from which the
whole proceeds, viz., that to constitute such defamation as
can alone give a ground for claiming civil redress two
things must concur—malice in the defamer, consequent
damage to the defamed. Now, apply these principles to
the state of the law brought before the attention of the
house by Lord Campbell. Parliament, let it be supposed,
is in session; a grave inquiry is pending on a subject of
the highest public importance; the results of that inquiry
—all the steps by which those results are attained—are
matters on which the public have the highest interest, and
therefore the best right, to be accurately informed. As a
necessary part of that inquiry disclosures are made dis-
paraging to the conduct of an individual. Tho report of
the inquiry is published by the authority of Parliament;
the disparaged individual! brings his action against the
printer; and as long as " Stockdale v. Hansard " is law,
in that action he must succeed, for the privilege now en-
joyed by reports of proceedings in courts of justice is not
enjoyed by reports of proceedings in Parliament. Take,
again, the case which arose the other day. Suppose the
publication by a public journal of thereport of proceedings
at a public meeting which is alleged by a plaintiff, and
found by ajury, to contain statements disparaging to his
personal character. Here, again, it is now conclusively
settled, by the case of " Davison v. Duncan," that the
plaintiff must retain the benefit of his verdict. It is no
defence for the proprietor of the journal that the meeting
was public—that the subject discussed was one of general
interest—that the report was truthful and trustworthy.
We suppose there is no rational person in these realms
who will not agree with Lord Campbell that this state of
things is eminently absurd and unsatisfactory. On princi-
ple, there is no reason whatever for extending the privi-
leges of immunity to the reports of the law courts which
does not equally apply to the reports of proceedings in
Parliament and all bona fide public meetings--meetings
called, not only colourably but really for the discussion of
subjects possessinc, other than a mere personal interest. In
fact, so utterly does all valid ground of distinction fail
in favour of conferring the privilege exclusively on the law
courts, that we are driven upon the conclusion that judges
.of the superior courts, by whom this portion of our libel
law was in fact made, established the rule without any
reference to principle at all, solely for the protection of
the tribunals in which they themselves presided. Lord
Campbell suggests that there may be a difficulty in detin
ing the kincr of public meetings to which the privilege
should be extended. But surely the difficulty would not
be insurmountable. A fair and truthful report of any
public meeting, bona fide called for the purpose of discuss-
ing matters of other than mere personal interest, ought cer-
tainly to be protected from the penalties of the libel law.
There is no malice in the, reporter, if the report be correct
and truthful. If there be malice in the speaker, the re

medy ought to be against him ; and as to the supposed de-
triment to the individual, in so far as it arises from the
report, the journal in which the report has appeared is
equally open, and in the present state of the law is bound
to give admission, to the contradiction.
There was one matter thrown out for consideration by
Lord Campbell which is deserving, we think, of very great
attention. His lor.lship's suggestion vas, that wherever
in in action for libel against a journal :n consequence of a
report of a proceeding at a public meeting, it could be
made out that the report was a fair one, and that no real
damage had been sustained by the plaintiff, the jury might

be entitled to give a verdict for the defendant. This would,
'no doubt, be a very small rule to establish; it is, in fact,

merely the application of the same priociplas to newspaper
reports of the proceedings of public meetings which we
have already stated to be applicable to all cases of oral or
written slander in the case of private individuals. If the
report is a fair one, there is no malice in the journalist ;
if the character of the plaintiff has not been injured by the
report, there is no damage. The two elements necessary
fur giving a claim of redress on the ground of defamation
when a private individual is the defamer are both want-
ing in such a case ; and there is really ro reason why there
'should be ono law for the journalist, especially when he
merely acts as a reporter, and another law for every other
class of the community. We trust that the committee to
be appointed on Lord Campbell's motion may speedily pre-
pare the way for a thorough amendment and reconstruc-
tion of the kw of libel as it affects the reports of proceed-
ings in Parliament and public meetings.

ROYAL COMMISSIONr-MEDICAL DE-

PARTIIIEBT OF THE ARMY-.

(Prom the London Gazette of last evening.)
WAR-OFFICE, MAY 8.
The Queen has been pleased to issue a Commission under
her Royal Sign Manual, of which the following is a copy,
to enquire into the organization, government, and direc-
tion of the medical department of the army :
Victoria, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of
Gr..iat Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the
Faith,

To Our' right trusty and well-beloved Councillor, the
Right Honourable Sidney Herbert; and to Our trusty
and well-beloved Augustus Stafford Stafford, Esquire ;
Sir Henry Knight Storks, Knight Commander of the
Most Honourable Order of the Bath, a Colonel in
Our Army, and Secretary for Military Correspondence
in Our War Department ; Andrew Smith, M.D., Di-
rector - General of Onr Army Medical Department ;
Thomas Alexander, Companion of the Most Honourable
Order of the Bath ; Sir Thomas Phillips, Knight ; James
Rancid Martin, Esquire, F.R S. • Sir James Clark, Bart.,
M.D. ; and John Sutherland, 11LD , greeting :
Whereas it hath been humbly reprelented to us that, con-
sidering the great importance of maintaining and improving
the health of all ranks of our Army at home and abroad,
and of providing for their medical care and treatment in
cases of disease, wounds, and other casualties whatsoever,
in the most approved manner, it is expedient that certain
inquiries should be made into the constitution of the Me-
dical Department of our army, the mode of appointment
of its officers, and the system which regulates their rank,
pay, promotion, and retirement ; likewise it is further ex-
pedient to examine into the condition and administration
of the hospitals of our army, with a view to their increased
efficiency.
Now know ye, that we, having taken into our conside-
ration the premises, do hereby order and direct you
the raid Sidney Herbert, Augustus Stafford Stafford, Sir
Henry Knight Storks, Andrew Smith, Thomas Alexan-
der, Sir Thomas Phillips, Sir James Clark, James Renal('
Marti*, and John Sutherland, to inquire into the organi-
sation, government, and direction of the Medical Depart-
ment of our Army.
And firstly, to enquire into the mode by which candi-
dates for first Commissions are selected, and the
system adopted for their promotion and routine of
service ; also the mode adopted in regard to their pay and
retiring allowances.
And further, We do order and direct you to enquire
into the means now adopted for acquiring, keeping up, and
adding to the professional knowledge of the officers of Our
Medical Department, and to consider whether it will be
expedient to encourage them to combine civil practice
where comeatible with military duty.

And further, We do order and direct you to enquire in-
to the operation of the regulations now in force, with a
view to the prevention of disease in Our Army, both at
home and abroad, as regards barrack accommodation, en-
campments, clothing, rations, and other matters, relating
thereto, having regard to the various climates to which
our troops are exposed, and the duties and responsibility
of the medical authorities on these matters,

And further, Wo do order and dittet you to enquire
into the state and condition of military hospitals, both
general and regimental.
Also in the system adopted in the same, or the treat-
ment of our soldiers, and the powers possessed or exercised
by the medical superintendents or other functionaries iu
such hospitals, for providing diet, medicines, and every
requisite for the medical and surgical treatment of the
patients under their charge, together with the character
of the diet, medical comforts, furniture, and other hos-
pital supplies.

Also;"iVe do further direct you to inquire generally as
to the expenditure of such hospitals, and the financial
control now exercised in and over the same, and the rela-
tive authority of the various departments whose functions
aro exercised within the hospitals.
And further, we do order and direct you to enquire into
the rules and regulations, or the practice, in force for in-
validing and discharging the soldiers of our army, when
brought forward for discharge, as unfit for further service.
And further, we do order and direct you to enquire
into the system of management and treatment of, and the
provision made for, patients in civil hospitals, whether in
immediate connection with our army or otherwise, and to
consider whether such management or treatment, or any
portion thereof, can be introduced with advantage in the
medical department of our army.
And we further order and direct you to enquire into the
expediency of making provision in our military hospitals
for the officers of our army suffering from disease or acci-
dent incurred in our service, grid to consider whether it will
be advisable to provide in our military hospitals for the
treatment and cure of lunatic officers or soldiers, or to es-
tablish a separate military hospital or hospitals for that
purpose, or in any other manner to provide for the treat-
ment of such cases.

And we do further command and require you to re-
ort what changes you may consider it expedient to make

And it is Our further will and pler,sure that you, or any
five or more of you, do obtain information touching the
matters aforesaid by the examination of all persons most
competent, by reason of their knowledga, habits, or
experience to afford it, and also by ceiling fur all
documents, papers, or records which may appear to
you, or any five or more of you, calculated to assist
your reseArches and to promote the formation of a
sound judgment on the subject, and that you, or any five
or more of you, do report to us, under your hands and
seals, your several proceedings, by virtue of this our COLA
mission, together with your opinions touching the severe
matters hereby referred for your cons,deration.
Given at our Court at St. James's, this fifth day o
day of May, in the year of our Lord one thouaani
eight hundred and fifty-seven, and in the twen
tieth year of our reign.
By her Majesty's command.
(Signed)
•

STATE OF TRADE.

PANMIIRE.

MANCHESTER, MAY 8.

The cotton-market has been steadier this week, but
trade has been exceedingly dull in cloth, and sellers have
found it difficult to maintain the prices of last week. In
some instances further concessions have had to be made,
and; considering that the rates demanded were unremu-
nerative, this is reasonably enough a matter Irr greet
dissatisfaction among manufacturers. For T-cloth,,,
long-cloths, and heavy domestics there was little in-
quiry, and the sales effected have been mostly of very
limited extent. In printing cloth and shirting,: there has
also been a limited business, and the tendency of prices
is in favour of buyers. In yarns-the purchases have
mostly been for immediate requirements, but there bits
been rather more inquiry yeeter 3ay and this morning,
with a firmer feeling in prices, though hitherto this bas
not led to much actual business.

Of the linen trade Messrs. Richardson, Lee, and Co.
say in their monthly report that " the demand bas been
smaller than in the earlier months of the year ; but, con-
sidering interferences with regular trade caused by the
unsettled state of monetary affairs and by the election,
the amount transacted has been considerable. As respects
prices, the tendency is in favour of the buyer of coarser
kinds, while the finer sorts are held far full quotations,
aci stocks are small. The advanced prices for Leeds yarns
established during March are maintained, but a further
expected onecannot at present be realised, although the
quantity of yarns being sent to the continent is very
large. Future prices will depend much on the opera-
tions of buyers for the United States' fall trade, which
are likely to be considetable."