The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-27 00:00:00

ceedings without actual malice, or such culp-
able negligence as may be fairly taken to
amount thereto ! or, should the present peremp-
tory gentleman who takes his angry passion as his
only guide, be permitted to indulge his matevo•

lence and vindictive feelings at the expense of the
Fourth Estate ? This is the real question, and to
this the Select Committee of the House of Lords

will have to return a suitable answer.
The whole mischief has arisen from a legal fic-
tion. "Malice" is an indispensable requisite in
every proceeding, and if the word be omitted from

;he indictment or declaration, it cannot be sus-

tained. But this fact, which indicates the natu-
ral and constitutional law, is evaded by that which
may be properly termed " Judge-made" law. It

is considered that the "Malice" need not be ex.

pressed. The mere fact of the publication implies
it, although it may bo clearly and distinctly re-
butted by the most conclusive evidence.
This evil would be completely averted by render-
ing the question of "malice" one to be decided
by the jury on the actual facts of the case, and
not by the Judge according to fixed rules. We
believe that no respectable journalist, who desires
conscientiously to discharge his duty, would ask
more than that the whole question should be sub-
mitted to the jury, and that their decision, when
given in accordance with the weight of evidence,
should be final.

Lord CAMPBELL has expressed some doubts as
to the length to which the privilege of reporting
public proceedings should be sanctioned. We re-
spectfully contend that there should be no limita-
tion. The mere fact that they are intended to be
public is sufficient to render the speaker justly
responsible for every statement that he utters.
If there be any valid distinction be-
tween " slander" and " defamation," or
between written and oral accusations, it should be
abolished, when the party prefers his accusations
with the knowledge that they will in all human
probability be subsequently published. In such
a case he should be held responsible for the natu-
ral consequences of his facts, and it is rather a
far- fetched supposition to imagine that he would
commit the offence with the intention of evading
its consequences by absconding from his home
and country. Times have greatly changed. In
the olden times journalism was unknown. The
man who took the trouble of writing or of print-
ing since its introduction into England—for pre-
cedents still recognised are older than the days of
CAlTON—anything about another must have
had some peculiarly vindictive feeling to gratify.
The " malice" was therefore reasonably preserved,
but circumstances have greatly changed, and
the law should vary in accordance with these
alterations. Now, it is a matter, of course, that
proceedings of public or local interest should be
reported, and the journal by which the duty is
performed has seldom if ever any feeling beyond
that of rendering a faithful account of what has
taken place.
If any limitation, however, should be deemed
essential, the best test would be that indicated
by Lord CAMPBELL, viz., leaving it to the jury to
decide " whether or not the publication were for
the public good." Even this moderate concession
would be a very acceptable boon to journalists,
and save them from purely vexatious actions.
We trust the Committee may speedily enter on,
and conclude their labours, so that the much re-
quired legislation may take place within the pre-
sent session. We should scarcely suppose that
there could be much doubt or difficulty on the
subject, on which we anticipate complete unani-
mity from men of all parties and grades, and of
every shade and variety of political opinion.