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

THE LAW OF LIBEL.

( From the Morning Post.)
To-day Lord Campbell has undertaken to bring
under the notice of the House of Lords a subject
winch datimately affects the newspaper press of this
country. It is not often that the journalist has to
.complain of a real and substantial grievance touch.
mg his own vocation. Everybody's business forms
the staple, of his 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 convenient remedies for everybody's
misdeeds and ern n. His own personality becomes
absorbed in the political influenc 3 which he exer-
cises, and scarcely one of his thousands of readers
can suspect that be who directs an engine B.° 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 au institution
which has ever kept the van in that marvellous
progress of improvement which, for the last ball-
century, has marked the history of this country.
We have no desire to disparage steam, the e!ectric
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 assemblies
and public meetings, under any and what conditions
or restrictions. We will now make a few nbserva-
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 public that the proceedings of courts
of justice should be universally known." A court,
f however, has the power of restraining the publica-
tion of a trial during its progress, to prevent the
circulation of ex parte statements, which might
seriously affect the character of individuals. But
the general rule, which we have cited in the words
of Mr. Justice Lawrence, 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
instructioas, made a most malignan t attack upon the
defendant, and, immediately after he had closed 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 entirely 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 whatever.
Both Houses of Parliament consider a publication
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 proceedings." 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 to provide accommodation
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 of
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 member may exercise the
right of turning strangers out of the house without
assigning any reason, or having the question
put to the vote. In the very valuable collection
of Parliamentary precedents, recently published
by 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 ofcallingthe at-
tention of the 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." B,y 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 impeached
or questioned in any Court or pbtce out of Parlia-
ment." Every member is therefore protected, by
his privilege, from any action fer libel ; but if a
member publishes his speech, his printed statement
Is considered to be a separatepublication, and in the
(
case of Lord Abingdon and Mr. Cieevy, whose
speeches, corrected by themselves, and inserted by
their requestin the newspapers, the defendants were
held guilty of libel, and fined accordingly. In re-
ference to the publication of Parliamentary debates,
it would be sufficient to recagnis 3 the right of
strangers to be present, and to protect all reports
which gave a true account of what has passed in
Parliament.

The third point involves a question of great diffi-
culty. In the recent case of Daviqin v. Duncan,
an action was brought for a libel published 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 that the report contained
a true and fair account of the speeches made at such
meetng, and that the same was published without
malice. Lord Campbell, with the concurrence of
the other Judges of the Queen's Bench, held that
the plea was bad, observing that, if he had 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 making 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 a parisn pauper, and
the report, we will assume, is strictly accurate. The
speech may be copied in a journal of larger circula-
tion, published 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, become 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
oagainst the al
unty
ofl alleged libeller,
gw w
he
th
eho ra
btwhl
ieos
hu
repo
de po h art re
wasa
accurate or not, and, failing to
its inaccu-
racy,
eewfhroomall le
givestigation, for it is
subject is about to und,rgo u
retspheonnstihbeilintye.wspvvapeerasriieo.ulid b
aedst
ethhaetl dt
hfre
but that
freedom of speech which
ness of the press,
is the boast of Engli-huien.
one that concerns not only the security and useful-

TEE HOUSE OF COMMONS AT CHURCH.

There was a delay of two hours yesterday in the meet-
kg of the House of Comm. one. On Wednesdays during
the session the practice is to commence business at 12
o'clock, with two exceptions—natnely, the Derby day,
when members invarably take a whole holiday, and Ash
Wednesday, when, instead of meeting at 12 o'clock,
Mr. Speaker takes the chair at two o'clock. The two
hours on Ash Wednesday are granted in order that
honourable members may not be interrupted in their re-
ligious observances, there being a pleasing fiction that
on Ash Wednesday the Speaker and the House of
Commons attend divine service in St. Margaret's
Church, on which occasion a sermon is preached by
ther
s
chaplain of the house. What became of
the
tv"itheocuer-
bestowed yesterday does not appear, but it ist
g 'qauChurch
tltin that they were not passed at St.
in the expression by hon. members ofM
I enjoin.
which the services of Ash Wednesday
car
no chaplain
There was no Mr. Speaker in attendance,
member of the
of the Rouse of Commons, sot a
single
read, and an ex-
upper or lower house.
Prayersi) ale Rev. William Cure-
too, sermon was preached
toyten or a dozen ladies and
atrkaactirselc; tri t. on
ton, the rector of the parish,
ra .
flanks
in,
gurgite
mato_
a stray gentleman or two— ri
to Parliament or its affairs,
but no allusion was
made
having for a moment appeared
snneivinistrati,us were to be honoured
tl'attendanceri of any kind. At one time
Parliament it was the custom of the
House" to attend the services of St.
ttohesur
Speaker andL',4 Church on the first day of Lent, but the
Margaret's died away, until at length Sir Robert
practice
Inglis. 4 pd Sir Robert Inglis died, I.aving Mr. Brut er-
and .Mr. Brotherton were the culy members
hwho
i by
in the a pe
legislativevpheoi rsete onrdty, hraoet tfch e
atten.... •
too,
to have
old custom. The death of Mr. Brotherton seems .
a Nonconformist, the only member who kept up the
two hours are still allowed.
put an end to the observance altogether, although the

The revision of the electoral lists has been commenced
for the las.t two months throughout -all France, in pur-
suance of au Imperial decree. A number of el,c:ors
who had hitherto abstained have now inscribed their
names, particularly in the large towns.