The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-26 00:00:00

975
904

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

( Front the Moriting Post.)

To-day
Lord Campbell has undertaken to brine
under the notice of. the Howe of Lards a subjecl
which intimately affects the newtpaper press of this
country. It is not often that the journalist has to
complain of a real and substantial grievance touch-
ing his own vocation. Everybody's business forms
the staple of h s daily and nightly labours—every-
body's grievance finds a place in his columns—and
he is more frequently found fault with for picking
holes in everybody's conduct than for suggesting ap-
propriate and convenießnits=itizot everybody's
misdeeds misdeeds and errors.
absorbed in the political influence which he exer-
cises, and scarcely one of his thousands of readers
can suspect that he who directs an engine so power-
ful, so generally respected, and so highly appre-
ciated, should be subject to restrictions which, if
rigidly enforced, would largely impair his efficiency
and usefulness. The English press is an institution
which has ever kept the van in that marvellous
progress of improvement which, for the last half-
century, has marked the history of this country.
We have no desire to disparage steam, the electric
telegraph, sun painting, or other triumphs of
science and art ; but we, without hesitation, affirm
that a daily paper, with its wonderful union of in-
tellectual labour and mechanical skill, can fear no
comparison with the most successful invention to
which this teeming age has given birth.
Lord Campbell, speaking on behalf of the press,
proposes that the following matters shall be referred
to a select committee—to consider whether the
privilege now enjoyed by reports of the proceedings
in courts of justice might be safely and properly
extended to reports of the proceedings of the two
Houses of Parliament, and of any other assemb'i, s
and public meetings, under any and what conditions
or restrictions. We will now make a few observa-
tions on the three points mentioned in the motion of •
the noble and learned lord. A true account of what
passes in a court of justice is protected on this
ground—that, "though the publication of such pro-
ceedings may be to the disadvantage of the parti-
cular individual concerned, yet it is of vast impor-
tance to the publiethat the proceedings of courts
of justice should be univeraaly known." A court,
however, has the power of restraining the publica-
tion of a trial during its progress, to prevent the
eue.t.a— et
,parte statements, which might
seriously affect the character of Due
the general rule, which we have cited in the words
of Mr. Justice awrence, is open to abuse. At the
commencement of the present session Lord Broug-
ham mentioned a case in which an action had been
brought for the sole and express purpose of libel-
ling. The counsel for the plaintiff, acting upon his
instructions, made a most malignan t attack upon the
defendant, and, immediately atter he had cloQed his
address, the plaintiff was nousuited. Every word
of the counsel's speech was published in the news-
papers ; and the report being " a true account of
what had passed in court," the unfortunate
defendant was left enfrely without remedy. In a
case of this kind, the judge, we submit, should be
authorised to state openly that he would not permit
the publication of any report wha'ever.
Bobh Houses of Parliament consider a public etion ,
of their proceedings a breach of privilege. The order
of the House of Commons declares "that it is an in-
dignity to, and a breach of privilege of, this House,
for any person to presume to give in written or
printed papers, any account or minute of the de-
bates or other proceeling:." We all know that
by sufferance reports of debates are allowed to ap-
pear in the newspapers, and that both houses have
taken great trouble tJ provide accommodati-m
for the gentlemen who are engaged in the arduous
and responsible duty of recording the proceed-
ings of Parliament. When reports are accurate,
the privilege is never enforced ; but cases cf
scandalous misrepresentation have sometimes oc-
curred, and then the delinquents have been com-
mitted to the custody of the Black Rod or of the Ser-
geant-at-Arms. But every me uTher may exercise the
right of turning strangers out of the house without
assigning any reaQon, or having the question
put to the vote. In the very valuable collection
of Parliamentary precedents, recently published.
I.y the Hon. Robert Bourke, we find that the pre-
sent Speaker laid down the rule in the following
words :—" It is an inherent right, arising out of the
ancient usage and practice of the House, and analogous
to the right also enjoyed by members of calling the at-
tention of chair to the absence of 40 members,
upon which the Speaker is required to see whether
that number of members are present, and if such
is not the case to adjourn the House." By the
ninth article of the Bill of Rights it is declared,

" That the freedom of speech, and debates or pro-
ceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeiched
or questioned in any Court or plc out of Parlia-
ment." Every member is therefore protected, by
his privilege, from any action for libel ; but if• a
member publishes his speech, his printed statement
is oonstaered to be asepa.rate publication, and in.the
case of Lord Abingdon and Mr. Creevy, whose
speeches, corrected by themselves, and inserted by
their request it, the newspapers, the defendantiwere
held guilty of libel, and finel accordingly. In re-
ference to the publication of Parliamentary debates,
it would be sufficient to rec,gnis the right of
strangers to be present, and to protect all reports
which gave a true account of what has passed izi
Parliament.

The third point involves a question of great diffi-
culty. In the recent case of Davis-on v. Duncan,
an action was brought for a libel publishPd in the
Durham County Advertiser, the alleged libel con-
sisting of a report of speeches delivered at a meeting
of the West Hartlepool Improvement Commission-
ers. The defendant pleaded thatthe report contained
a tine and fair account of the speeehes•made at such
meeting, and that the same was published without
malice. Lord Campbell, with the concurrence of
the other Judges cf. the Queen's Bench, held that
the plea was bail, observing that, if he hal come to
any other conclusion, "the publication of every-
thing affecting private character might be justified
which was spoken at any public meeting, from a
meeting of a county to address the Crown to
a meeting of a town-council or a vestry to
consider the removal of a pauper." This
decision, undoubtedly right in law, constitutes
the grievance of which the newspaper press
has a right to complain. By the existing law
every malignant libeller may gratify his propen-
sity by miking a speech at a public meeting, and
procuring, by fair or foul means, its insertion in some
paper. The topic chosen may be somewhat more
attractive than the removal of h parish pauper, and
the report, we will assume, is strictly accurate. The
speech may be copied in a journal of larger circula-
tion, publiabed at a distance, which renders inquiry
altogether out of the question, and the innocent
disseminator, at second hand, of an accurate report,
is to be amerced and fined, whilst the real delin-
quent is to go scot free. Public meetings, the
natural vents of the sentiments of the English
people, will, unless the law be altered, b?come a
name of terror to the press. Discussion will either
be silenced, or the owners of newspapers will be
required to run a risk for the benefit of the public,
the extent of which cannot be measured. Some
change must be made, and we would suggest that
the action, in the first
place, should be brought
against the alleged libeller, who would have an
opportunity of proving whether the report was
accurate or not, and, failing to establish its inaccu-
racy, then the newspaper should be held free from
all responsibility. We are glad that the whole
subject is about to undergo investigation, for it is
one that conceins not only the security and useful-
ness of the press, but that freedom of speech which
is the boast of Englishmen.