COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 25 June 1867)

§ MR. NEATE
proposed to add the following words to the clause: — Provided that no meeting shall be deemed a public meeting within the meaning of this clause unless it be held, if in a county, with the written permission of the sheriff of such county; if in a city or borough, with the written permission of the mayor of such city or borough; if in a place not within the limits of any county or borough, 540 then with the permission of the local public authority in whom is vested the management and control of the place in which such meeting is held; and no meeting held beyond the limits of any county or borough shall be deemed to be a meeting within the meaning of this clause if held in any place being private property, whether with or without the permission of the owner. He wished to know how much beyond those words the hon. and learned Member (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who had made no statement as to the general scope of the Bill, wished to carry his definition of a legal meeting. In his opinion this was not a time in which the immunities of the press could properly be extended. The press, under existing regulations, was all that it ought to be; but it was impossible to say, until it had been tried, how far the propriety of its conduct was owing to a sense of legal responsibility. In ordinary private life the sense of legal duty was increased by a sense of legal responsibility, and in his opinion it would be a matter of considerable danger to exempt the press from all its legal responsibilities, more especially at the present time, when newspapers were read more and more by a lower and more ignorant population, who might easily be guided or misguided by what they read in those publications. By adopting the clause as it stood there would be danger of calling into existence a press of a less high moral character than that which existed at present; and, in his opinion, this was not a time when Parliament should allow the reins to slip out of their hands. This was a question that should be taken up by Her Majesty's Government, as individual Members were liable to pressure from the various local newspapers. He had himself received a letter on the subject from the Association of Provincial Newspapers, which comprised representatives from every county in England, and such an association was likely to be able to put considerable pressure upon individual Members. Under these circumstances private Members were entitled to demand from Her Majesty's Government a decided expression of opinion upon the question; and if Her Majesty's Government stated that, in their opinion, the press of this country could be safely trusted with the liberty conferred upon them by the clause now before the Committee he should be willing to withdraw his opposition to it; but until a decided opinion to that effect was expressed by them he should feel bound to press his Amendment. It was also of the first importance that Her Ma- 541 jesty's Government should state what in their opinion was, and what was not a legal public meeting. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
explained that the reason he had made no statement in moving to go into Committee upon the Bill was that its general scope had been fully debated on the second reading, and, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, it had been referred to a Select Committee, composed of fifteen Members, among whom were the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, the right hon. Member for Calne, the hon Member for Sheffield, the late President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord the Member for Nottingham, the late Attorney General, the late Solicitor General, and the late Irish Secretary. That Committee went deliberately through the Bill, which they canvassed line by line, and eventually agreed to in its present shape. Under these circumstances he had felt it unnecessary to make any statement in moving to go into Committee upon it. He would now confine himself to the objection which had been taken by the hon. Member for Oxford, that the clause before the Committee was too general, and that some definition should be drawn as to the meetings at which speeches might be reported. The matter was fully discussed by the Select Committee, and several attempts were made to put a definition upon the words, and, eventually, it was decided that the words of the clause were the best that could be adopted. The subject had come under discussion in the House of Lords upon the introduction of Lord Campbell's Bill in 1858, when an attempt was made to define what meetings came under the words "legal public meeting." On that occasion Lord Lyndhurst defined the meetings to be "public meetings lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose." He admitted that in the clause the word "public" had been omitted; but that was so as to embrace railway, joint-stock companies, and other meetings which were not strictly speaking public meetings, although it was very important that reports of their proceedings should be published. The words inserted in the clause were "meetings lawfully assembled for lawful purposes, open to reporters, and at which reporters are present." It would be for the Judge and jury at the trial to deter- 542 mine whether the meeting came under that definition.

§ MR. AYRTON
observed, that the object of the Bill was to place society at large at the mercy of the excellent persons who conducted public journals. The word "public" was the very essence of Lord Lyndhurst's definition. Under the clause as it stood anything that was uttered by three persons who met together to drink tea, and who chose to call in a reporter, would be privileged, and might be published with impunity by a newspaper. He thought the addition proposed by his hon. Friend was necessary to give force and character to the proceeding. What was meant by a lawful assembly for a lawful purpose? How many persons would constitute such an assemby? Any purpose was lawful which was not malum in se or malum prohibitum. He should like to hear the Solicitor General define what was meant by a "lawful assembly for a lawful purpose."

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets took an extreme view of the case. He seemed to think that a meeting in the Tea-room, where two or three were gathered together, and a reporter was called in to report the proceedings, would bring the meeting within the description of the clause. But the words of the clause were— A meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose, open to reporters, and at which reporters were present for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for the public newspapers. The Judge and jury must decide in every case whether it was a lawful meeting; and to ask a Solicitor General to define beforehand what constituted a public meeting was such a thing as no Solicitor General who had ever eat upon that Bench had ever been called upon to do. But why should not a newspaper be protected in reporting the proceedings of meetings? Take a railway meeting, for instance, where they all knew disagreeable things were sometimes said; one man charged another with false representation and cheating, and going on in a way that was perfectly disgraceful. Why should the newspaper proprietor who reported those speeches for the information of those who were interested be held responsible for any untrue statements, instead of the speaker who made the statement? They ought not to consider what peculiar meetings might be manufactured, but should look at the everyday meetings that took place; 543 and decide whether the newspaper should be liable for the offence which had been committed by some one else.

§ VISCOUNT AMBERLEY
thought the first clause should be taken in connection with the third, which considerably modified it. The principle was to take the responsibility from the newspaper, and place it on the person who uttered the libel. If that principle was right, they ought to make the definition of "public meetings" as large as possible. If it was wrong, they should throw out the Bill altogether. He hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he had no intention of discussing what was the meaning of the term "lawful meeting assembled for a lawful purpose." The Select Committee had left out the word "public" because there was so much difficulty in determining what was a public meeting; and he thought that there were sufficient words in the clause to exclude those imaginary meetings of two or three persons which had been referred to. He thought that it would be better to adopt some such phrase as that in the Bill rather than pursue the course of an attempt at definition such as was recommended by the Amendment. If there was any definition it would be found that certain meetings would not come within the definition, though there was no intention to keep them out of it; and that in respect of them, persons whom it was intended to protect would not be protected. He hoped the Amendment would be negatived.

§ SIR WENTWORTH DILKE
was understood to say that the clause would not apply to the case of some literary and scientific meetings.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
proposed to add at the end of the clause words to the following effect:— And in the case of any action for libel for words spoken the defendant shall have the same privileges as he would have in an action for Blander.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, it seemed to him somewhat unreasonable to make a man responsible for words which he was reported to have used, although he might deny the accuracy of the report.

MR. GLADSTONE
contended that it was open to the person who was reported to have used certain language, to impugn the accuracy of the report in the event of having been misrepresented.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
also maintained that it would be a sufficient answer in an action for libel under the Bill for words spoken to prove that they had never been uttered.

§ MR. NEATE
put the case of a man going to a meeting who had no wish to address the public but merely to influence those present, and suggested that it would be somewhat hard to make him liable to an action for libel for words so used, merely because a reporter chose to lay hold of them and publish them to the world.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
proposed the following new clause:— No action or prosecution shrill be maintainable for the publication of any defamatory matter contained in any report, paper, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament, which either House of Parliament shall have ordered to be published; nor shall any action or prosecution be maintainable against a printer or publisher for the publication of any defamatory matter in any periodical or other publication, if such defamatory matter shall be a true and fair report of the proceedings of either House of Parliament. He mentioned that Mr. Hansard had had two actions brought against him in consequence of the publication of the reports of speeches made in that House; and, though the parties did not proceed with their actions, he had been put to considerable expense. They were all indebted for the reports which appeared every morning in the newspapers, and yet the persons publishing them were liable to have legal proceedings taken against them. Mr. Rigby Wason had that year brought fourteen actions for reporting proceedings which took place in the House of Lords upon the presentation of a petition from himself, and applied for a summons against the publisher of The Times newspaper, but the magistrates decided against the application. It was desirable that the principle which the House had adopted with respect to the reports of the proceedings of public meetings should also apply to the reports of the proceedings of Parliament.

MR. HENLEY
believed the clause now proposed to be exactly contradictory to the other parts of the Bill. The party ag- 545 grieved was to have a remedy against the party uttering defamatory language. But the clause now under consideration would enable any hon. Member to abuse any one to his heart's content. He did not think that a Member ought to be allowed to state things which might be published all over the world without the party aggrieved having a remedy. So long as the matter stated was confined within the walls of the House the party was not injured, unless he was present to hear what was said; but if it got into the papers, and was thus disseminated over all the world, the person aggrieved would have no remedy. It would be almost tempting people to do a good stroke of abuse, and give it a wide circulation, He did not think such a course of proceeding would tend to the amendment of the manners of hon. Gentlemen, or to promote good feeling, and he should therefore vote against the clause.

§ MR. NEATE
also opposed the clause, The House, in the action which it took upon the case of "Stockwell v. Hansard," only assumed to assert its privilege as a body, and did not claim to protect individual members against the indiscreet abuse of the freedom of speech.

§ MR. POWELL
observed, that although the "Reports, Papers, Votes, or Proceedings" of the House might not be injurious to the character of any person, paragraphs taken from those Reports might be injurious, and charges might be published to all the world without a syllable of explanation or defence. He suggested that words similar to those which were used in the case of Reports, and which required that they should be "true and fair," should be inserted in the part of the clause which related to the publication of Parliamentary Papers.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) did not fully appreciate the effect of the Amendment, which was to put a periodical on the same footing as a newspaper. The first part of the Bill was artificially confined to newspapers, and did not embrace periodicals. The right hon. Member's objection to the clause was an objection to the Bill.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, there was no doubt that the principle of the Bill was to transfer from the reporter to the speaker the responsibility for what was said at a public meeting; but if a speaker could plead privilege he was protected, and no liability attached to him. The privilege of Par- 546 liament exempted a speaker from any legal liability. The objection to the clause was founded on this fact, which seemed to have been overlooked, and the matter was therefore one which was altogether outside the Bill.

§ MR. J. STUART MILL
said, the first part of the clause provided that there should be no remedy for any defamatory matter contained in any document ordered by the House to be printed. Remembering the multifarious sources of the documents which the House ordered to be printed, he could not help thinking that if there was to be no remedy against the public, as them could be none against the House, for the circulation of any defamatory matter, the House could not do less than appoint some person to look carefully over all documents and see that no defamatory matter was needlessly introduced.

§ MR. SANDFORD
observed, that a speaker in the House was in a different position from a writer in a newspaper. The speaker was responsible for what he stated; and if the writer in a newspaper desired to be responsible he had nothing to do but to put his name to an article written by him. The party ought to be able to plead that the report was an accurate report.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, that he should be willing to insert in the clause words which would prevent the selection for publication of defamatory matters from Parliamentary Papers. The necessity for making the reports of Parliamentary proceedings privileged was obviated by the circumstance that the jury would say that Parliament was a lawful assembly, for a lawful purpose; but that consideration would not apply to Hansard's Debates, and it was with a view to legalizing them that the clause was framed.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, that as this clause had not been before the Select Committee, the House ought not to be asked to adopt it.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that no doubt the press was to a certain extent in an exceptional position, and the fair way was to place newspaper proprietors in the same position as other persons. The tendency of legislation had of late been in that direction, by doing away with the necessity of giving recognizances. He asked his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the clause, because it would close Courts of Justice against humble individuals who happened to be libelled. The better way 547 would be to apply the principle as contained in the Lords' Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
suggested the withdrawal of the clause. The Bill was intended to apply to newspapers only; but it was now proposed to add a clause that was rejected by the Select Committee, to make every document containing libellous matter privileged.

§ MR. LOCKE
rose to move the following new clause:— In any action for libel in a public newspaper the court or a judge may, on the application of the defendant at any time during the proceedings, order that the plaintiff shall give to the defendant security for the payment of defendant's costs, and that all proceedings in the cause shall be stayed until such security shall be given. He said, the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill into the House of Lords for the purpose of requiring that, in certain cases of a doubtful character, security for costs should be taken; and in cases arising under this Bill it seemed right that there should be power to take security for the costs of defence. If the party alleging that he was libelled declined to proceed against the person who libelled him, and elected to bring an action against a newspaper, he should be compelled to give security. This course would put a stop to vexations actions, which there were several speculative attorneys only too ready to institute. The plaintiff might not be worth a penny, but the newspaper proprietor was obliged to lodge security at Somerset House. A verdict for 40s. would entitle the speculative attorney to his costs; but on the other hand, if the defendant succeeded, he had no hope of recovering from the plaintiff the expenses to which he had been, however vexatiously, put. If newspaper proprietors performed their duty fairly, they were entitled to the protection which the clause sought to obtain for them.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the question raised by the clause had been discussed in the Committee, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would be most unfair that the proprietors of newspapers should possess a privilege which was not enjoyed by any other class of persons. He could not understand why a person who brought an action against a newspaper should be required to give security for costs because a sum of money had been deposited by the newspaper at Somerset House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were prepared to say that, in all 548 cases, persons who brought actions should be compelled to give security for the costs, that was a totally different and much more comprehensive question; but, for his part, he could certainly see no reason why an exception to the ordinary rule should be made in cases where the defendants were proprietors of newspapers.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, there was a difference between newspapers and ordinary defendants, because the former were obliged to deposit a sum of money at Somerset House, whereas the latter gave no security whatever for the payment of costs. There were, however, many arguments in favour of a general measure on the subject of security for costs being given by plaintiffs; and he might mention that a Bill relating to the County Courts had already passed the House of Lords, containing an express provision to the effect that when an action was brought for malicious prosecution, libel, &c., the defendant might make an affidavit that the plaintiff had no visible means of defraying the costs, and that the judge might thereupon make an order that the plaintiff should give good security for the defendant's costs. If that Bill had passed this House of course the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark would be unnecessary; but, under existing circumstances, be thought it would be desirable to incorporate the proposed Amendment in the Bill.

§ MR. SANDFORD
trusted that the Committee would not agree to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because if it were carried it would have the effect of placing the press in a different position from that occupied by private individuals. He hoped the Committee would not condescend to the low position of "toadying" the press. In his opinion an anonymous press was one of the greatest evils of modern times. He might add that this proposition was fully discussed by the Committee of which he was a member, and that it was unanimously rejected.

§ MR. AYRTON
was of opinion that the proprietors of newspapers ought to be placed in exactly the same position as other people, and he trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. The result of its adoption would be to close the Courts of Justice against the humbler classes of society.

§ MR. O'BEIRNE
felt certain that no one inside or outside the House had the 549 slightest disposition to "toady" the press, and he was sorry such an observation had fallen from the hon. Member for Maldon. This country might regard its press as one of the finest institutions in the universe, and one of its main features was its unanimous character.

§ MR. LOCKE
did not think the Solicitor General had met his proposition fairly; but as it appeared that his clause had been considered by the Committee upstairs, he begged to withdraw it.

§ MR. AYRTON
called attention to the fact that as the speakers at all assemblies of a privileged character, such as the meetings of joint-stock banks, were to be privileged, and as the newspapers were to be privileged, there would be no one to proceed against for a libel spoken at one of those meetings.