HC Deb 01 April 1868 vol 191 cc664-72

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

moved the second reading of this Bill.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

wished to guard against its being supposed that he assented to a portion of this Bill, which some persons thought was a very essential part of it—namely, the third clause, by which it was proposed to make every speaker at a public meeting liable for words spoken to the same extent as if he had sat down and deliberately written and published them. He did not wish to discuss the question on the second reading of the Bill; but he begged to give notice that in Committee upon the Bill he should move that the clause to which he referred be struck out. In the Committee the question could be fully discussed.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he would also abstain from discussing the Bill at its present stage. He hoped there would be a discussion of the principle of the Bill, to a certain extent when it was in Committee. The law of libel affected the liberty of the subject almost more than any oilier branch of law. So far as he had heard every one of the petitions in favour of this Bill had originated, if not directly emanated, from parties who were interested in the matter—namely, the representatives of the Press. If there was any injustice whatever in the present law of libel, such was the elasticity of the Common Law of England that any man could go before a Court of Law and say, "Here is an unjustice, it is not right that a man should be punished for this transaction." If that could be made clear to the common sense of those who presided over the Court, they could adapt their decision according to the circumstances. If this Bill were passed, it would be impossible for any man to understand the law of libel. The Bill, which had been prepared in Ireland, struck at the root of freedom of speech. The Courts of Law, having administered the law of libel for centuries to the satisfaction of the country, the House was now called upon, for no valid reason, to take the matter into its own hands. He implored the House not to allow the laws of England to be hampered at the caprice of any hon. Irish Member, however learned or however eloquent, more especially if that hon. Member must be supposed, in his attempts to introduce such alterations, to be influenced by a spirit of favour to another system of laws which was in direct opposition to the laws of this country.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was mistaken in supposing that this Bill had been prepared in Ireland in the form in which it now came before the House. It underwent considerable examination and alteration last year in Committee of that House and in Select Committee. He did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, although it was a fair matter for discussion in Committee, whether the measure ought to receive the sanction of that House or not. There was an important principle involved in the Bill—he should rather say in the first section, by which it was proposed for the first time to allow an editor or proprietor of a newspaper to show that an alleged libel was a true and fair report of the proceedings at a meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose, open to reporters for the public newspapers, and at which a reporter was present for the purpose of reporting the proceedings of such a meeting for a public newspaper, and that the report was published in such newspaper by the defendant bonâ fide, without malice, and in the ordinary course of business, and to allow "not guilty" by statute to be pleaded, under these circumstances to an action. It was a fair matter for discussion whether it was expedient that such an extensive alteration in the existing law of libel should be made. It was said that the Bill had been promoted merely in the interest of newspaper proprietors; but he should rather say that it had been introduced for the purpose of protecting the proprietors of newspapers from being liable to actions for libel in cases where they had admitted reports of speeches which, as far as they were aware, contained accurate statements of fact, and where they had published them without malice, merely for the purpose of informing the public upon matters of interest. It had been shown that, on more than one occasion, proprietors of newspapers had sustained considerable hardship in consequence of such reports not being privileged. The principal object of the Bill was to allow newspaper proprietors to publish the proceedings of meetings lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose with a certain amount of impunity, and to enable them to plead in the form pointed out by the Bill that the report was an accurate report of those proceedings, published without malice and in the ordinary course of business. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) had objected to the third clause, by which a speaker of defamatory words at the description of meeting contemplated by the Act was rendered liable to an action for libel. Now, the speaker at such a meeting would be perfectly well aware that his words would be reported in the newspapers and circulated, and that was very different from the case of a man making use of hasty words under circumstances where he could not suppose they would be published. He knew that there was a marked distinction between the law of slander and that of libel, but it was all founded on this—that words uttered orally were fleeting, and were not intended to be permanent. But the distinction in fact between slander and libel was much modified at the present day. At all events, if the first clause of the Bill was carried, and they allowed reports of the proceedings of public meetings to be privileged, they should afford a person defamed by a speaker some opportunity of coming into Court and showing that the charges that had been brought against him were false. The subject was a fair one for discussion in Committee, when he should state at greater length his reasons for believing that some clause should be inserted in the Bill giving the person prejudiced by words published an opportunity of disproving the truth of the charges made against him.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) in introducing this Bill in November last, intimated that the Bill would have been passed into a law in the previous Session had it not been for his (Mr. Ayrton's) opposition to it, and, in truth, the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, instead of being addressed to the merits of the Bill, had rather been addressed to his demerits. In his opinion the Bill had passed through that. House last Session in consequence of an assurance that it would go no further. Being one of the many efforts of the hon. and learned Member for the benefit of mankind it was suffered to pass in the full conviction that it never could be recognized as part of the law of the land. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Bill had been approved by an illustrious Committee; but, as far as he could test the opinion of that Committee, he did not think that they had been so highly in favour of the Bill as the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. A very eminent Member of that Committee disapproved of one fundamental principle of the Bill, while another had told him that he regarded the Bill as most mischievous. It was clear that some distinguished Members of the Committee did not appreciate the legal difficulties of the Bill. He was prepared to show that, even upon the principles which had been laid down, the leading provisions of the Bill ought to be struck out. He was, however, willing to permit it to be read a second time on the understanding that he should take the opportunity of examining into the character of its provisions in Committee. He was ready to admit that the Bill contained some clauses which, when amended, might be useful; and that the clause which placed prosecutions for libel upon the same footing with another class of prosecutions would effect a desirable amendment in the law. The remarks of the Attorney General would be found on examination to furnish no satisfactory reason for adopting the provisions of the Bill. It was said that the Bill was introduced for the benefit of newspaper proprietors. That might be so; but the question was, whether newspapers proprietors ought not to be treated like others who entered into commercial enterprises for their own profit and advantage, and whether they should not incur the responsibility that naturally attached itself to such enterprises. He could not understand how Parliament could pass a law by which a man deriving profit from an undertaking should be protected from all the consequence that might arise from his own negligence in the conduct of that undertaking. If he were to sum up in a few words his opinion of this Bill, he should say that it was an attempt to degrade by law one of the most honourable and useful, and, at the same time, most intellectual professions—that of reporting for the public journals—to the level of a mere mechanical process. The effect of the Bill if carried would be to induce newspaper proprietors to employ mere mechanical reporters, mere stenographers, at a salary of a few shillings per week, to take down the words of a speaker, and write them out just as they were uttered, instead of engaging gentlemen of education, intelligence, and discrimination, who were competent to perform the task of reporting a speech in conformity with decency and with law. The Bill was just such a one as the most ignorant and ill-disposed members of trade unions demanded, in order to enable them to escape the consequences of their illegal acts. It would be a great misfortune if a class of ignorant and incompetent persons were, by an Act which afforded them protection from the responsibility which naturally attached itself to their profession, placed upon an equality with gentlemen of education and intelligence. He thought the subject was a very grave one, as it involved the high character of the press of this country. If this Bill were passed he was afraid it would prove but the first step in a course of legislation which would be likely to endanger that freedom of the press which we at present enjoyed. He had used his best efforts to free the press from the fetters imposed upon it by taxation, and he should deeply regret to see it oppressed by a censorship of any kind. On a future occasion a much wider view of this subject would have to be taken than that suggested by the Attorney General, whose address upon this Bill, instead of being that of a statesman, had been that of a nisi prius lawyer fresh from the defence of his client. And before the Bill was passed he should like to see some one on the Treasury Bench — if such a person ever sat there—capable of grappling with great public questions, who would enter into this grave question with earnestness, instead of allowing the time of the House to be frittered away in listening to legal quibbles.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he was convinced, from the evidence which had been laid before the Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill, and of which he was a Member, that the Press of this country was entitled to some legislative protection against vexatious actions for libel, which were frequently brought by speculative attorneys and involved costs amounting to hundreds, if not thousands of pounds, even although only one farthing damages might be awarded to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances he was prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that several material alterations should be made in it in Committee. Although he was willing to give reasonable protection to the proprietors of newspapers against vexations actions, he was by no means prepared to go the length of exempting them altogether from the necessity for the exercise of that discretion which everybody was bound to use in dealing with the affairs of other people. The first clause of the Bill proposed to give newspaper proprietors the opportunity of pleading that the report complained of was published without malice, and that it was a true and faithful report, produced in the ordinary course of their business. It further provided that the proof this plea should amount to a defence. He thought it would be an improvement that such plea should be received in evidence, but that it should be left to the Court to decide whether such proof in all cases constituted a defence. He confessed he was unwilling to take from the Court a discretion upon this point. It might so happen that though there was no malice on the part of a newspaper proprietor in publishing a certain matter, he might nevertheless be made the means of circulating the malicious statements of others. The provision in the third clause requiring the person uttering the defamatory words to publish a retractation of them in the same newspaper in which his speech had appeared was, in his opinion, not quite satisfactory, seeing that a large number of the edition containing the libel might be circulated throughout the country, while a limited number of copies of the paper only might be published containing the retractation. Something ought to be done to secure the defendant, in a vexatious action, his costs. While he was of opinion that the Press should be free from all previous restraints, he had never gone the length of saying that it ought to be exempted from those penalties which justly fell on it, for the careless or culpable circulation of calumnious and libellous matter. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) that it was not advisable to alter the law of slander in the way proposed by the Bill, nor in any way to curtail the liberty of speech, for the sake of giving protection to the newspaper proprietors. It might frequently happen that at vestry and other meetings a speaker might properly, on public grounds, bring against a person provisional charges which called for investigation; and it would be unfair, in such a case, to render the speaker at once liable to an action for libel. He should give his assent to the second reading of the Bill, with the view of agreeing to such Amendments as the discussion in Committee might show to be right.

MR. HENLEY

said, he also had served upon the Select Committee upon this Bill, and fully appreciated the great difficulty that existed in dealing with this question. He agreed, on the one hand, that the Press should be freed from all undue restrictions, while, on the other, it should be rendered answerable for any abuse of its privileges. As to the question whether the provision in the Bill rendering a speaker amenable for the words he used should be retained, he must inform the House that the clause as it now stood was altered to its present form in Select Committee. The case of a man who deliberately used words at a meeting where he knew reporters were present for the purpose of publishing his speech was very different from that of the man who casually uttered words which he believed would, in all human probability, go no further, and it was worth the consideration of the House whether some difference should not be made in the law with regard to the two cases. The words of the Bill upon this point were very precise, as they strictly limited its operation to a certain class of meetings at which reporters were known to be present. On the whole was it not of great advantage to the public that publicity should be given to the proceedings at the vast number of public meetings at which reporters were present? The question must be judged by the balance of convenience. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had objected to relieve those who published newspapers from their responsibility, on the ground that by adopting such a course Parliament would be degrading the office of reporter. But when hon. Members recollected what the gentlemen of that profession—whose vast skill and accuracy in recording speeches he readily admitted — had to do they would see that it was hardly possible that they could think of anything except of making a faithful transcript of the speaker's words; and really this was all they had to do. It was, therefore, not the reporters, but the proprietors of newspapers, for whose relief the Bill had been introduced, and even they had but little time for exercising their discretion as to what should and what should not be published. It was sometimes extremely difficult to determine what was and what was not a libel, and frequently it puzzled both Judge and jury to determine the question, and yet newspaper proprietors were expected to arrive at a sound legal conclusion at a few minutes' notice. Under these circumstances, he thought that, trying the question by the balance of convenience, it was preferable that the newspaper proprietors should be protected when giving faithful reports of such meetings as were contemplated by the Bill than that they should be made defendants in actions whether real or vexatious, brought against them by those who felt aggrieved by the language of the speakers. It was not right that the newspaper proprietors should be subject to such actions while those who uttered the defamatory words in the presence, perhaps, of 5,000 people, with the foil knowledge that they would be reported and published, escaped scot free. He had assented to the Bill in the form in which it left the Select Committee, and unless he heard stronger reasons against it than had yet been adduced he should support it in Committee.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, he did not intend at that moment to enter into any general defence of the Bill, believing that the House was favourable to its second reading, and that it would be better to discuss it clause by clause when they got into Committee, as each of the first five clauses involved an important principle. Under these circumstances, he should fix the Committee for such a day as would enable the whole subject to be fully discussed. In answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he begged to state that he had not charged that hon. and learned Gentleman with having prevented the Bill from passing into a law, but merely with having prevented it from getting into the House of Lords in sufficient time for it to be carried last Session. The Bill was introduced last March twelvemonth, and after being read a second time, was referred to a Select Committee, which included among its Members the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), the Attorney General, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). Having been fully considered by that Committee, the Bill in an altered shape came down to that House, and was discussed clause by clause in Committee. On the third reading of the Bill the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets thought fit to put a Notice upon the Paper to read the Bill a third time on that day six months, but was beaten upon a division by 79 to 18. The effect of that notice was to delay the Bill in this House so long that it could not be considered in the Lords last Session. The first clause of the Bill was agreed to unanimously by the Select Committee, and Clause 3, which was objected to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir R. Collier), was the result of a compromise, and was agreed to by a large majority of the Select Committee. He should be prepared to defend the principles of these clauses in Committee.

MR. REARDEN

gave his cordial support to the Bill, which he believed was very much wanted. Newspaper proprietors had done their duty admirably, and should not be subject to such restrictions as at present. Being a great reader of newspapers, and a subscriber during thirty-five years to no less than nineteen of them, he thought he was entitled to express an opinion on the subject.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday, 20th May.