LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 21 February 1865)

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of libel, and for more effectually so-curing the liberty of the press. The subject of legislation upon the law of libel was no novelty in that House. In the last century a Bill, known as Fox's Act, made a great change in the law of libel, and introduced many valuable improvements. From that time down to the year 1843, though various attempts for the purpose had been made, there was no substantial change in the law. In the latter year, however, on the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Lords, an Act, commonly known as Lord Campbell's Act, was passed, and since then the law had remained unaltered. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) did not intend to alter the law as to what should be held to be a libel, but to introduce such alterations in it as would conduce to the public advantage and to the liberty of the press. There was an anomaly in the present law, differing from, as it did, most other remedies for wrongs in that respect, that the person complaining of libel had the power either of resorting to a criminal court, or bringing an action for damages. Many persons who had considered the subject had recommended that the power of proceeding in a criminal court should be taken away. No such power existed in Scotland. He, however, was not prepared to abolish criminal proceedings for libel, 562 but he thought they ought to be regulated, and for this purpose he proposed that no indictment should be allowed to be sent up for libel without the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. That provision would prevent the power of indictment being abused, whilst it would not take away what he considered a salutary provision in the present law. He also proposed that on the trial of an indictment the defendant should be admissible as a witness. These were the two principal changes he proposed to make in criminal proceedings in libel. With respect to civil proceedings the House was aware that, according to the present law, newspaper proprietors were liable for any defamatory matter appearing in a report of a public meeting, the person uttering such defamatory language being neither civilly nor criminally answerable. That was a state of the law which ought no longer to exist. If a man came deliberately to a public meeting, knowing that reporters were present, and there purposely made a defamatory speech against another person, he ought to be considered as guilty of a libel as if he had written and published what he said, and the after publisher of it ought not to be responsible for the defamatory language used. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), therefore, proposed that if a person at a public meeting made a defamatory speech against another he should be criminally and civilly answerable for so doing. No action should be brought against newspaper proprietors for publishing such a speech, but the person making it should alone be liable. This would not affect the privilege of Parliament, or of the courts of justice, or of any bodies to which the privilege as to reports extended. It was impossible for reporters at public meetings always to decide what was or was not defamatory matter, They Bent off their slips with the greatest possible haste, and they were printed with the same haste, and he thought that it was monstrous that the newspaper proprietor should be liable for the publication of defamatory matter uttered in a speech at a public meeting, when the person who made the speech was not liable. If a man of straw should make such a speech he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would enable the party libelled to proceed criminally, with the sanction of the Attorney General, either against the proprietor of the newspaper or against the party who made the speech. He also proposed to make another alteration with regard to what should be a defence to 563 a charge of libel. At present the truth of a libel was the only or at least the chief defence known to the law, but there were cases in which a bonâ fide belief in the truth of a statement ought to be a defence, provided defamation was not intended; such as if the publication was for the public benefit, and he had prepared a clause to that effect. According to the present law, newspaper proprietors were subject to most vexatious actions, and every part of a justification must be proved, and though the party did not recover more than 40s., each party had to pay his own costs. He proposed that if the party did not recover more than 20s., he should not only pay his own costs, but the costs of newspapers against which the action was brought, and that if he did not recover more than 40s, he should not be entitled to a larger amount of costs.