New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-04-28
THE BRITISH LAW OF LIBEL.
THE PRESS HEAVILY sHACKLED:

IMPORTANT DISCUSSION IN The BRITISH HOUSE OF
CoMMONs-AN ATTEMPT TO COMPEL PROPRIEToRs
TO REGISTER THEIR NAMRs DEFEAreD-GLARTNG
INSTANCES OF INJUsTICE-DR. KENEALY CON-
PEELED TO APOLOGIZE.
IrRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE
LONDON, April 12.-Mr. Waddy. Q. c., NJ. p. for
Barnstape, is a man who is troubled in his mind
about newspapers, and wishes to protect the public
against them. He lately brought bill into Parla-
ment with the view of facilitating proceedings for
libel 1t may be briefly described as bill to COM
pei the registration of newspaper proprietOrs. At
present there is sometimes difficulty in discovering
who the real proprietor is person aggrieved by
libel may have to proceed against the printer pub
Usher of the paper-not always a rich or responsible
person. There used to be such a law as that
proposed, and Mr. Waddy appealed to n strong feel
ing when he told the House he was proposing no
thing, but only return to the former practice.
He further explainedsthat he had no intention of
altering the law of libel. His sole object was to
amend the existing prOcedure-ust to make it easier
to get at the owners of the paper in which
libel appeared He failed, for the House last night
threw ont his bill by majority of more than two to
one but his proposal has served the purpose of di-
recting attention to the law as it stands, and the
need of its amendment. The amendment it needs,
however is of different kind from what MIR. Waddy
wants.
Not little of the English law of libel as it now
stands is judge-made law; kind of law generally
and justly odious. And the whole body of it,
whether statutory judicial in its origin, is in
confused and difficult state; much of it surviving
from times when very different notions were enter
tanned about the Press from those now prevailing.
Some of its anomalies are of the most despotie kind.
Mr.. Cowen, owner of The Nercdsde Chronicle the
leading NOrth-Of-England paper, struck at one of
the chief blots by the amendment he offered to MIR.
Waddys bill proposing that the law which renders
newspaper propretOrs crminally as well rs civilly
responsible for the acts of their employees ought to be
repealed. Mr.. Cowen, though a rather new MEN,
Der he has been only three years in the House,, has
made himself position by his remarkable power as
a speaker and by the not less remarkable sincerity
and force of his character. Ii an inferior man had
made his speech, the facts in 1t would have sulced
to convince the House, almost to the extent OF say
ing as Mr. Cowen said, that any change in the law
of libel would be an improvement. / will quote
only of his examples, tho most recent The Nan
chester Courier, perfectly respectable paper pub
lished report of a discussion on the case of
a medical officer which took place at a
meeting of Board of Guardians. There was
no comment on the case, only report of what
had been said at a public meeting about public
officer No malice was alleged. The report was
published in the ordinary course as a matter of
news. But the proprietcrs are prOceeded against
for publishing libel. That seems hard enough,
but there is something harder. Three judges OF the
Common Pleas before whom the ease was argued,
pronounced the report libel the ground that the
ease was not one of public interest. The propre-
tors appealed and the Court of Appeal decided that
the Court below was wrong, that the case irGS one
of public interest but that the occasion was not q
proper one for publishing it so they condemned
the proprietors once more. Though the proprletors
were right in appealing and the Court below was
wrong. they had the enormous costs ofappeal to pay
in addition to all the rest. With the law in such
chaos as this, what is au honest man, who wants to
keen on the night side of it, to doi There is a too
familiar MAXIM often invoked agains. the layman,
that ignorance of the law excuses one. Suppose
if were applied to the Bar and the Bench; what
would happen then If a lawyer who had advised
his client wrongly, if n judge who had decided
wrongly were made to bear the burden which Their
ignorance now imposes on client and suItor, that
particular maxim would soon be judicIally declared
unsound.
But this is wandering from the subject
only meant to add that there can be no good
reason why the New-York statute on tins point
should not be enacted in Great Britain or rather IN
England and Ireland for the law of libel IN Scot
land differs as so many other Scotch laws ana Gus
toms differ from the law of libel in England. The
terrors of the criminal law have frequently been III
yoked of late in England to eXtort an apology Tor
libel or to punish the innocent printer or proprietor
In Scotland that cannot be done without the
currcnce of the Lord Advocate. and. as matter OF
fact said DR.. Cameron, Scotch member and
newspaper owner criminal proceedings for libel are
altogether unknown there. What may be done III
England is shown by the case of Mr.. Leng, one or
the proprlctors of The Sheffield Telegraph. libeous
paraRraph had been published i'll that paper by
subeditor who gave directions that it should be IN
serted without consulting Mr. Leng. When Nj.
Leng saw it next morning for the first time, he TOOK
every step III his power to remedy the evll recall
ing all the copies of the paper he could lay hod OF
and publishing an explanation ana apology. Inc
subcditor stated the facts and took all the Diane on
himself In spite of all this, Mr. Leng was prose-
cutcd crrnnally, and the prosecution was pushed 10
the bitter end This no case OF imperfect
pecunIary responsibility on the part ~ the actual
offender; it was seized upon as means OF private
vengeance and the judge seems to have been power
less TO prevent the criminal law being made use OF
for such purpose. He did not send Mr.. Leng I"
iai, indeed bat ne inflicted Oh him fine of $3.50;
which must have subjected him to costs OF twenty
times that amount Well does such law deserve
Lord Broughalns description of ancient law IN gen
eral as the twoedged sword of craft and oppression.
And Mr.. Waddy, knowing as barrister what 1t Is
would sharpen tie sword aud put new handle TO
IT, and make il still more serviceable instrument
than il is now of malice and revenge.
can supply from my own experience an instance,
not indeed of hardship. but Of the extraordinary
stretch Of jurisdiction claimed by tie EnsSh law.
I wrote from Egypt in 1869 letter which posted
in Florence, Italy. which you published Iii New
York. and on which was sued for libel in London.