Commons Sitting of 6 June 1888

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Enniskillen, Bundoran, and Sligo Railway; Staffordshire Potteries Water.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment* [230].
Committee—Libel Law Amendment [17]—R.P.; Reformatory Schools Act (1866) Amendment [161]—;Distress for Rent (Dublin) [159]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Victoria University* [198]; Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2)* [203].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (No. 12)* [283]. Third Reading—Pier and Harbour* [221]; Water* [227], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ENNISKILLEN, BUNDORAN, AND SLIGO RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. JORDANsaid, he wished to know, before the Bill passed a second reading, whether all the notices had been served; and whether all the necessary preliminary steps had been taken with regard to the Bill?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the hon. Member asked as to the fact whether all the necessary steps had been taken. The Bill would certainly not be remitted to a Committee until it had been certified to the Examiners, and all the Standing Orders of the House had been complied with.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 17.]
  (Sir Algernon Borthwick, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Jennings, Dr. Cameron, Mr. John Morley, Mr. B. Dwyer Gray.)
  LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 17.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1. (Interpretation, 44 and 45 Vict. c. 60) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Repeal of Sec. 2 of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 60).
    MR. KELLYsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of the clause. He was quite aware that if he were to succeed with his Amendment it would virtually
    1238
    amount to the defeat of the Bill, and he was also aware that it was a somewhat inconvenient course to take; but he must say that the promoters of the Bill had only themselves to thank. The Committee had really no knowledge of what the Bill was to be until that morning; they had never had any explanation from the promoters of the measure as to what its objects were, and they had had no notion as to what Amendments would be put down until they saw them on the Paper that morning. Under these circumstances he felt he had no alternative but to go to a Division on this clause, notwithstanding the fact that its rejection would defeat the whole object of the Bill. The clause itself might be said to raise the whole question whether it was necessary to give any further protection to newspaper proprietors at all. Personally, he had had considerable experience in the matter, and he believed that it was unnecessary and would be absolutely wrong in the interest of the general public. The question was, what protection did the newspaper proprietor now enjoy? If he published a fair report of a matter of public interest—a bonâ fide report, and without malice, he was absolutely protected. What further protection could he require? He admitted that there were some few cases in which newspaper proprietors were made to suffer rather cruelly; but they suffered in consequence of the negligence of their own servants. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] He begged the hon. Member's pardon; the fact was as he had stated it. Most of the cases that were brought before the Courts were brought because the reporters were either ignorant or careless people, and sent in improper and unfair reports to be published. On what principle was a newspaper proprietor to be held not to be liable for the negligence of his servants? In all other cases the employer was properly made liable, and he failed to see why the newspaper proprietor should go scot-free. As the Committee was aware, in every case that was brought before a Court the question raised was whether the privilege enjoyed by the Press had been exceeded or not. In almost every case which he had heard brought against a newspaper proprietor privilege had been very properly pleaded, and in a large number of cases pleaded successfully. The only

    1239
    question, therefore, was whether or not there had been malice. He would point out that the Bill, if it became law, would be of little or no value to the good and high-classnewspaper, and would be of immense benefit to scurrilous and personal society papers. It was for the Committee to consider whether the sanctity of individual reputations were to be swept away in order to secure the pecuniary interests of newspaper proprietors; because that, undoubtedly, was the matter which was at issue. He might repeat the words of an able, respected, and well-known Judge, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, in regard to this matter. That learned Judge asked this pertinent question—
    "Is there any reason why cruel libels should be published with impunity? I should like to hear some reason given for allowing such a state of affairs to be brought about in this country. I believe it will be some time before Parliament consents to pass a measure of this kind."
    He certainly doubted whether the House would be willing to give encouragement to the scurrilous paragraphs which at present disgraced the society newspapers. What was the evil they were asked to deal with, and what was to be substituted for it? Under Section 2 of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act of 1881, any report of a public meeting was privileged, if such meeting was convened for a lawful purpose and was open to the public, provided that the report was fair and accurate, and the matters—the publication of which was complained of—were published for the public good. Sufficient protection was now afforded both to the newspapers and the public; and if Section 2 of the Act of 1881 were repealed, individuals would be at the absolute mercy of a certain class of newspaper proprietors. He guarded himself against saying one word against the proper organs of the Press; they were amply protected now in ordinary cases, and were ready to meet in a fair spirit any claims that might be made upon them for libellous paragraphs which might appear in their papers through negligence. It was on the ground that this clause would open the door to a flood of scurrilous and libellous paragraphs that he asked the Committee to pause before agreeing to it. It might be said that there were some matters in which protection should be given to the newspapers, He wished to point out
    1240
    that there were two classes of actions of libel—cases in which serious libels had been committed, and others in which the insertion of defamatory matter, causing little or no injury, was used got up for the purpose of extortion. He remembered the case of an action being brought against a paper in which a solicitor, in opening a case, had said that he would prove certain facts against a man whose character was unquestionably most indifferent. The reporter, in reporting the case, instead of saying that a certain charge rested only upon an allegation made by the advocate, said that the evidence went to show that such and such was the case. Thereupon an action was brought against the newspaper. It was unsuccessful on the first trial; but on a second trial a certain amount of damages was recovered from the newspaper. That was a hard case, in some respects, no doubt; there had certainly been no malice, and the libel was the result of a pure accident. It contained simply a reflection upon a man whose character was not of a very high order; but he ventured to think that the newspaper proprietor, as the employer, should be made responsible for that kind of carelessness. If a plaintiff had been libelled, the jury had nothing to do with the question of malice. What did it matter to a person whose professional character was ruined by such means whether the person who had libelled him acted with malice or not? The only question was what damage he had suffered, and, in his (Mr. Kelly's) opinion, that was a matter which might safely be left to a jury. There were cases in which vindictive damages against a newspaper had been awarded by a jury; but such cases were very rare, and what he wished to impress upon the Committee—and he had paid a great deal of attention to the matter, having for a long time occupied the humble position of reporter in that Division of the High Court of Justice in which actions for libel were most frequently brought—was that there were very few cases in which the newspapers proceeded against had not been in the wrong, principally in consequence of the employment of careless and inefficient reporters. He would also state, unhesitatingly, that in his experience very few cases had occurred in which a newspaper proprietor had been treated

    1241
    hardly. Such cases were so insignificant in number and in character that they could not fairly be taken into consideration. He would not detain the Committee longer; but upon the grounds he had brought forward he trusted that hon. Members would support him and reject the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 2.—(Mr. Kelly.)
    Question proposed, "That the Cluase stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he was extremely sorry that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kelly), whose experience in the matter no one could doubt, should have given the advantage of his powerful advocacy to a class of action to which he would have hoped and expected the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been one of the first to desire to put an end. He (Mr. Addison) also had had considerable experience, and the result of that experience was to satisfy him that, so far from these actions being brought in any way to maintain or clear the character of a person who had been unjustly assailed, they were usually brought by people whose character was of no value at all, or rather whose character had no value except the factitious value given to it for the purpose of obtaining damages in an action of that kind. His hon. and learned Friend was of opinion that the repeal of the 2nd clause of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act would be of advantage to society newspapers in regard to the publication of scandalous and frivolous paragraphs; but, so far as the society newspapers were concerned, these proposals made no difference whatever. He could not remember any society paper having been punished for publishing reports of proceedings in any Court exercising judicial authority, or the proceedings of public meetings, such as those mentioned in the 4th section of the Bill. It was not by giving such reports that these papers made their money, but by little paragraphs sometimes amusing, generally scandalous, often frivolous, and perhaps foolish; what ladies had worn, or what gentlemen did in their homes, or had said on some particular occasion. That evil was not affected in the least by this section, but what was affected was that class of action with regard to slips made by reporters which was often brought
    1242
    against high-class newspapers who were perfectly anxious to set the matter right, and would be willing to make compensation for the mistake. But instead of that an action was brought against them. And what happened? It often happened that, even where the jury only gave a farthing damages to the plaintiff, it had lately become the practice of the Judges to allow the plaintiff his costs, so that the newspaper proprietor was put to a considerable expense, even where the damages were assessed at a farthing. He regretted the tone which, in many instances, had been taken recently by the Judges with regard to the Press. He was bound to say—and he did not say it unadvisedly—that the notion had appeared to have come into the minds of many of the learned Judges and of his learned Friends that newspaper proprietors were a part of the community who had no duties or rights whatever. Juries were sometimes told, and he had heard it over and over again, that they ought not to pay any respect or regard, or show any mercy whatever, even to the most respectable newspaper, because it only published such things for its own profit. With this magnificent contempt for the Press, if the matter were left to the Judges of the time of Lord Mansfield down to the present, newspapers would have no rights and privileges, but would be held up to the odium and contempt of the community. In his opinion, it was their duty in some respects to support that which was a most useful, admirable, and beneficial institution. The 4th clause would extend the privilege of newspapers in regard to the reports of proceedings of public meetings, or of meetings of Vestries, Town Councils, School Boards, and Boards of Guardians. He asked whether privilege ought not to extend to the proceedings of Local Authorities in which everybody was interested? No doubt, by the 4th clause, the definition of what were public meetings was much enlarged. It was said that the words "public meeting" required no definition, because everybody knew what they meant; but in regard to the reports of the proceedings of Town Councils, School Boards, Boards of Guardians, and Vestries, he himself knew a case in which a most respectable newspaper had been put to great expense in consequence of actions of that kind.
    MR. ANDERSONrose to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison) was now discussing the 4th clause; but he (Mr. Anderson) understood that the Committee were considering the propriety of repealing Section 2 of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881.
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he did not propose to detain the Committee much longer, and his hon. and learned Friend would then have full opportunity of stating all that he had to say in reply. The words "public meeting" nobody meant to define closely, and with regard to the meeting of Town Councils, School Boards, Boards of Guardians, &c., he could only say that a most respectable newspaper in the North of England was put to the expense of a law suit, in which a nominal verdict was found against it, not because an unfair report had been published of what had happened at a meeting of a Board of Guardians, but because it was held that privilege did not extend to members of the Board of Guardians. His own opinion was that privilege should be extended to the proceedings of Boards of Guardians, Railway Boards, and Local Authorities under statute, in the proceedings of which everybody was interested. Exception was taken to the omission of the words "for the public benefit;" but he asked how was a respectable editor of a newspaper, receiving a report of a meeting, to decide whether all the statements of the report were for the public benefit or not? There was a meeting on Saturday last in Hyde Park, at which speeches were delivered by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and others. Would it have been right for the editor to go through all the speeches delivered there in order to determine what was for the benefit of the public or not? [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Then, if that were so, if he were editor, he should strike out five-sixths of the speeches altogether as not being for the public benefit at all. If the reporter reported fairly and honestly what took place at a meeting, it was not for the editor to decide what was or what was not for the public benefit. It should be left to the public to say that. It was often suggested that the privilege of newspapers ought not to exceed those of the person
    1244
    who circulated handbills; but, surely, there ought to be a distinction between what was circulated for one person's benefit and gratification and the publication of a newspaper. There certainly was a wide distinction between the publication in a newspaper of a report supplied by its own reporters in the way of business and the distribution of libellous matter distributed for a special purpose. He supported the Bill, because he was of opinion that it was necessary to extend for the public advantage the fair rights and privileges of newspapers; and, secondly, that it was unfair to impose upon the editor the duty of expurgating the proceedings of public meetings, and of making them a sort of index as to what ought or ought not to have been said. He could not help thinking that the proposal of the Bill was very fair indeed. He was sorry that certain hon. Members approached these matters with a notion that newspapers were not a public benefit, and that their position ought to be made as uncomfortable as possible. Well, such persons would, of course, vote against the Bill; but he could not help thinking that the great majority believed that the newspapers were of benefit, and that the old notions of Lord Mansfield were a little out of date.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had not risen to a point of Order for the purpose of curtailing the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Addison), which were, no doubt, very valuable on a question of this kind, but he thought that they were more applicable to the 4th clause than the one now under discussion. What had already occurred showed the great inconvenience of the course which had been pursued in regard to the Bill. The protection it was now proposed to give to newspaper proprietors was of great importance; but up to the present moment there had been no statement from anyone showing why the section referred to ought to be repealed. That was a most inconvenient and unusual course, and he thought the promoters of the Bill should have brought forward that case which the House invariably required to be brought forward when it was proposed to repeal an enactment. Nothing, however, of that kind had been done, nor had any cases been brought

    1245
    forward to show that the law, as it stood, prevented free discussion. No one was more in favour of the freedom of the Press than he was; but he thought the Committee had a right to complain of being kept completely in the dark as to the necessity of the Bill. All they knew was that the Bill was brought forward by hon. Members connected with the Press, and that created a suspicion at once that it was to avert inconvenient actions which they thought ought not to be brought against them, and therefore that it was a purely interested measure on the part of the Press, and not brought forward, or intended to be brought forward, in the interests of the public. As far as he knew, if they went into the questions that ought to be gone into, he was not aware that the existing law was complained of on the part of the public. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to place before them what the existing law was which the hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) proposed to repeal. It provided that any report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a public meeting should be privileged if such meeting was lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and open to the public, and if such report was fair and accurate, and published without malice, and if the publication of the mattor complained of was for the public benefit. Provided always that this protection given by the section should not be available as a defence if the plaintiff or the prosecutor could show that the defendant had refused to insert in the newspaper a reasonable letter, statement, or explanation of such report on behalf of the plaintiff or prosecutor. He would call the attention of the Committee to two material parts of that section. It was proposed now by the Bill to omit words of the highest importance—namely, "if such meeting was lawfully convened for a lawful purpose, and open to the public." Those words did not appear in the 4th clause of the Bill—that was to say, that at a meeting convened for a criminal or an immoral purpose, people might make statements of the most immoral and criminal character, and a newspaper was to be permitted to publish them, and spread them all over the country without rendering the proprietor liable to an action. He should like the Committee
    1246
    to consider what that meant. It meant this—that public morality and private character were to be at the mercy of anyone who chose to get up what he was pleased to call a meeting, at which anyone could be libelled. That was brought forward in the interests of the freedom of the Press. [Mr. ADDISON: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Member said "Hear, hear;" but he did not think of private character. [Mr. ADDISON: Oh, no!] Of course not, and the newspaper proprietor was to be protected from all action for damages, however criminal or immoral the statements to which he might have given currency, and whatever private reputations were attacked. So long as the meeting came within the 4th clause, and the statement appeared to have been made without malice, the newspaper proprietors were to be free from responsibility. The words "without malice," however, were a mere sham. It was impossible, and the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the Committee knew how difficult it was to prove malice against a newspaper proprietor. The question was surrounded with all sorts of technicalities, and, above all, it was surrounded with such great difficulties that it was impossible to get at the malicious person who uttered the libel. In most cases, the newspaper proprietor was put in motion by some person who had private objects to serve. [Mr. ADDISON said, the Bill included "reckless statements."] The question of malice was one which was well understood, but it was very difficult to prove it. His hon. and learned Friend spoke of a reckless man who might go to a meeting and make reckless and violent statements attacking the character of a private person. No doubt, such person would be liable to an action for malice, because he had acted maliciously; but the newspaper which published the libel would not be liable, because there was no malice. Therefore, they had this extraordinary state of things—that some person who might be a man of straw could be bribed by somebody else to make a malicious, unfounded, venomous, and violent attack. The man who made the attack was not worth proceeding against, and the newspaper which published an accurate report of the speech was privileged. All the reporter would have to say was that he heard the speech made, that the re-

    1247
    port was a faithful report of it, and, as there was no evidence of malice against the proprietor, he would be protected by the 4th clause. Then the words "open to the public" were omitted from the 4th clause. To his mind, it was very important that no privileges could attach to a meeting that was open to the public. He could not imagine what the object of the promoters of the Bill was. They put in the 4th clause the words "public meeting," but left out the words "open to the public." There were many meetings, such as those of the Unionists and others, which were ticket meetings, and were not open to the public. He could describe a great number of so called "public meetings" which were not open to the public. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to the Hyde Park meeting on Saturday, and he (Mr. Anderson) might tell him that that meeting, although it had been made the subject of satire, afforded a very favourable contrast to the meetings held by certain political Parties in that House, which were described as public meetings which were not open to the public. The next important omission was of the words "and if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit." Why were those words omitted? He thought it was one of the great safeguards they had against licentious practices. It was the section of an Act of Parliament containing provisions of that salutary character which the Committee were now asked to repeal. He hoped the Committee would think several times before they entered upon any such course. He believed that if they allowed this section to be repealed, they would embark upon a task of great difficulty in dealing with the 4th clause because it took upon itself the specification of the meetings which were to be protected. But where were they to draw a line? That was the difficulty. He trusted they would reject the 4th clause. He hoped that clause would not be carried, and it would not then be necessary to proceed with the Bill. The Bill was drawn without due consideration, and drawn solely in the interest of one class—namely, the newspaper proprietors, and not on account of any public want. He trusted that the Committee would reject the clause.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he trusted that
    1248
    the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) would be rejected, and the Bill would be allowed to proceed. He did not intend, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had done, to discuss Clause 4, but he would confine his observations to an outline of the scope of the Bill, which was not at all brought in in the interests of the newspaper proprietors, but directly for the benefit of the public.
    MR. KELLYrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was regular in entering into the scope and general object of the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment went to the root of the Bill, and the hon. Baronet was not out of Order.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he had no desire, as his hon. and learned Friend seemed to fear, to go into the whole merits of the Bill, but he simply intended to make a short statement of his reasons for resisting the Motion now before the Committee. It was found under the existing law, that, the Press generally were not privileged at present, and the County Councils it was proposed to establish would be in a similar position. The local Press of England, which would have to report these County Councils, was one of the great features of the public life in the country, and threw as much sound light upon that life as could be obtained. The object of the Press was to shed light upon everything that went forward, and to do it fairly. So fair as the protection of the newspaper proprietor was concerned, he said distinctly that if there was anything in the Bill which protected the libeller, he would be the first to consent to excision. There was nothing of the kind. The Press was perfectly willing to accept the consequences of its misdeeds when it misconducted itself. It was willing to accept the consequences of negligence wherever shown, but under the existing law there were actions brought against the newspapers for which there was no justification whatever. When a newspaper committed a libel, it could always be had up and punished in a Court of Law, but the public were so satisfied with the fairness of the Press generally that when a mistake was made an action was seldom pressed, and an explanation and an apology were accepted. But there were persons

    1249
    who were perpetually on the watch for some error, and then went to a class of attorneys who were always on the look out for such matters. From his own personal knowledge he might state that many newspapers never appeared in court; they nearly always compromised libel actions. Many newspapers suffered great loss in defending these actions, for when they were successful they were not able to recover costs. He knew of one newspaper which spent something like £2,000 last year in resisting small actions, although it won nearly all of them. The actions were brought by men of straw, who had no genuine case at all. It was only fair to say that the great Press of the country was a valuable public servant, which did its best for the advantage of the public. He hoped the House would recognize that the 1,200 newspapers of England were conducted with great care and honesty, and with a general determination on all sides to work for the public good. As to any paragraphs of a scurrilous nature, this Bill did not give any protection whatever, but the law remained exactly where it was. In such cases persons would have no difficulty in recovering damages, and if they did not take advantage of the law, that was not the fault of the respectable portions of the Press. The persons libelled were only deterred by the cross-examination to which they would be subjected in regard to their antecedents and the whole history of their lives. The promoters of the Bill were asking merely for a measure to enable the Press to transact its business in a more efficient way than it could do under the present law. He thought the Committee, if they decided upon entering upon the consideration of the various clauses of the Bill, would see that there was nothing contained in them but what was perfectly fair. It was not a Bill to protect newspaper proprietors. There was only one clause affecting them, and that was the clause concerning the punishment of the proprietor himself by commitment to prison, which he thought the Committee would agree was a perfect anomaly and a great blot in the present law. If a newspaper committed a libel, it was undoubtedly right that it should be punished by a fine, even to the extent of £5,000; but
    1250
    he failed to see why the proprietor or the publisher, who had nothing to do with the editing of the paper, should be the persons who were punished by imprisonment. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell would withdraw his Amendment. If not, then he should have to take the sense of the House, and see whether the Bill was to be proceeded with or not.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, there was one suggestion he wished to make to the promoters of the Bill, and if it were not adopted he should have to vote against the clause which was now under the consideration of the Committee. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from above the Gangway had struck the real blot in the Bill when he called attention to the omission of the words "if such a meeting be lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and open to the public." Unless those words were retained, he should vote for the Amendment.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKadmitted that the words "public meeting lawfully convened" were desirable, but the hon. Member must really understand that it should be a lawful meeting. For instance, if after the declaration of the poll an hon. Member hurried off to address his constituents, that would not be a meeting lawfully convened.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he rather disagreed with the hon. Baronet in that, but as he was only a layman he would not dispute the point. He did not think any objection could be urged against retaining the words "public meeting lawfully convened," which simply meant a lawful meeting of which sufficient notice had been given. Unless the promoters of the Bill agreed to insert those words in line 15 of Clause 4, he should vote against the Bill.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    MR. JENNINGSsaid, the hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly), who moved the rejection of the clause, appeared to object to the whole of the Bill because he had had no opportunity of making himself familiar with its provisions. Now the Bill had been in print for some time, and had been before the House, so that the usual means were afforded to the

    1251
    hon. and learned Member of making himself acquainted with the objects of the Bill, and if he failed to do so, the promoters were not to be censured.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he had not intended to assert that no opportunity had been afforded to hon. Members of making themselves familiar with the provisions of the Bill until yesterday morning. He had not said anything of the kind, but what he had said was that the Amendments put down last night, and which had not been printed until this morning, altered the whole scope of the Bill, and that sufficient time had not been given to consider them.
    MR. JENNINGSsaid, the hon. and learned Member had misrepresented, no doubt unintentionally, the real scope and objects of the Bill, and the reasons for passing it into law. The hon. and learned Member had asserted—on the strength of what he said was a considerable experience in the Law Courts—that genuine and honest reports of trials were invariably privileged, and that newspapers never suffered for giving publicity to them. He must say that the hon. and learned Member's experience must be extremely limited; indeed, the whole history of the Press and of actions for libel tended to disprove the assertion he had made. The most recent action of this kind which he could call to mind was against a highly respectable newspaper, The City Press, in February last. It was not denied that the newspaper had published a fair and accurate report of certain proceedings in the Lord Mayor's Court. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Manisty, who directed the jury that the report was fair and reasonably accurate, and that although it might reflect upon the character of some persons, the newspaper ought not to be made liable. Nevertheless, in the teeth of that direction of the learned Judge, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of £20. This Bill would prevent such a state of affairs as that. Surely it was desirable that a newspaper should be privileged if it published a fair, reasonable, and accurate report of the proceedings in a Court of Justice, or in a lawfully constituted meeting. The hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell had made a strong assertion which was denied by the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison)—
    1252
    namely, that there had never been a case in which a newspaper, when proceeded against by an action for libel, was not in the wrong. The case he had instanced was that of a newspaper which did no more than publish an accurate report of certain proceedings in a Court of Justice, and yet was fined £20 for doing so. That case confirmed the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that, as a rule, lawyers and Judges were adverse to the Press and to the removal of any restrictions upon its fair liberties. The history of the Press had been a long history of resolute opposition to the means taken by Judges and lawyers to keep it down, and to suppress even the liberty which it possessed now. So far as his experience had gone, there was no class of the community more obsequious to the Press than Judges and lawyers when they needed its aid, and no class was so ready to kick at it when they no longer required its assistance. The newspapers were exposed to actions by men of indifferent character or of no character at all; and it was contended that in such cases the newspaper ought to be liable. The Press had certain duties to perform in the interests of the public, and it generally performed them fearlessly. Now, the 2nd clause, while repealing a section of the existing Act, substituted for it one having precisely the same object in view, and not conferring any privilege for the publication of false and scandalous stories. The society papers had no more to do with the clause than with the Book of Genesis. What the clause proposed to do was slightly to enlarge the liberty of the Press as regarded the publication of fair and reasonably accurate reports. It had already been stated by the promoters of the Bill, that if there was anything in the measure which opened the door to libellers wider than now they were ready to amend it. But, in point of fact, there was nothing of the kind, and anybody who examined the Bill would see at once that it merely protected newspapers which published proper, reasonable, and accurate reports. The objections raised to the clause were so slight that it was almost impossible to close with them. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) objected to the Bill, because he said it had been

    1253
    framed largely by persons connected with the Press. But why in the world should not persons familiar with the hardships inflicted upon newspapers be as free to bring a Bill into the House as lawyers, who fattened on actions for libel, were to attack it? There was a certain class of lawyers who lived largely by spurious actions for libel. One of the best things that could happen to some persons was to have three or four inaccurate lines published about them in a newspaper; they would make it worth more to them than a Government annuity. He knew of one case in which 65 actions were brought by one person against as many newspapers through a report transmitted through a foreign Agency, published with innocence of its intention, and without any malice whatever, and, he should think, with no power of inflicting serious damage on the person's character. Yet from year to year the man in question kept on bringing these actions, until at last one of the Judges, moved he need hardly say by no sympathy for the Press, but by a sense of indignation at what was evidently becoming a public scandal, pronounced an opinion that money enough had been got by the man out of this particular report. Was that a state of things that the hon. and learned Member desired to perpetuate? Did he desire to abridge and restrict liberties of the Press in order that actions for libel might continue to flourish? The general public had no such desire, but, on the contrary, wished to keep the Press free, because they knew how much they owed to it already. He thought the House would see that the object of the Bill was nothing more than to authorize the publication of reports which it was of advantage to the general public to have placed before them.
    MR. WATTsaid, he had listened with entire impartiality to the statement which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) who introduced the Bill, but he was sorry to say that he was not at all satisfied as to the necessity of the Bill. Nor had the statement of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) satisfied him as to the necessity of the measure; or that, in the second place, hon. Members had had a fair and reasonable time to consider the provi
    1254
    sions of the Bill. His great objection to the Bill was, and it was impossible for hon. Members to arrive at any other conclusion, that it did not apply to the law of libel generally, but simply to the Act of 1881 as far as it related to newspapers. In his opinion, it was very much to be regretted that a Bill containing such drastic provisions should be allowed to pass a second reading without any discussion or any explanation of its character whatever, and he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kelly), who moved the Amendment, should have thought it desirable to interfere with the hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill in any explanation he desired to make to the Committee. As the Amendment struck at the whole Bill, it was only fair to the hon. Baronet who introduced it that the Committee should be placed in possession of every information which could be given in support of it before it proceeded to reject the measure in tote. He confessed, however, that the statements which had been made by the hon. Baronet and by the hon. Member for Stockport did not satisfy him that there was any necessity for altering the Act of 1881, and, therefore, he should support the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He thought most hon. Members would admit that some clearer definition was necessary in regard to public meetings than was contained in clause 4. Since he had placed Amendments on the paper, to leave out clauses 5, 6 and 7, the Attorney-General had done the same yesterday, and therefore he thought the Government ought not to have allowed this Bill to be smuggled through as it had been. The Bill was badly drafted, and clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would practically give newspaper proprietors and editors immunity from libel. The hon. Member was then proceeding to refer specifically to clause 4, when—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the discussion was taking a very inconvenient turn, owing to the way the Bill had been drafted, and he must ask hon. Members to confine themselves to arguments which applied to the clause now under the consideration of the Committee.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he regretted that this clause, which repealed the old law, had not been in-

    1255
    sorted in the proper and usual place—namely, the end of the Bill. As it was, the Committee were discussing the subject the wrong end upwards. A great deal had been said in the course of the discussion, but no hon. Member had yet drawn attention to what it was that was really proposed to be done. The repeal of the 2nd section of the Act of 1881 would be merely a preliminary process. At present, under that section, full protection was given for fair and accurate reports of public meetings. The object of Section 4 was to extend the same protection to School Boards, Town Councils, Boards of Guardians, and various Public Authorities which were in the habit of discussing their affairs in open meeting. That was the primary and essential object of Section 4, and whatever defects might be found in it could easily be remedied when the section was reached. The question which the Committee were now asked to decide was whether the same protection should be given to newspapers in regard to the reports of the proceedings of these Public Bodies as was now given in regard to reports of the proceedings at a public meeting which might be convened by any person for a public purpose.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, it had been disputed that any alteration in the law was necessary since the 2nd section of the Act of 1881 conferred its privileges upon newspapers. But let him point out that, almost directly that Act was passed, it was discovered by a gentleman—whose authority was as high on legal matters of this kind as that of any Gentleman in the House—that Section 2 of the Act of 1881 really gave no more protection to newspapers than newspapers already had at Common Law. The work of Mr. Odgers—the gentleman to whom he was alluding—was a work well known as the best existing book on the Law of Libel. Mr. Odgers set out the 2nd section of the Act of 1881, and then went on to say—
    "I do not think this section will afford much protection to the newspaper. The privilege conferred is very cautiously guarded."
    And then, further, he went on to say—
    "I think that at Common Law, without this section at all, the report which complies with all the above conditions would be held to be no libel. For, I presume, no publication will be held to be to the public benefit unless it relates to some matter of public interest."
    1256
    Although the Bill omitted the words "public benefit," it provided that the matter should be of public interest; that it should be a matter which newspapers might fairly take to comment upon, and, therefore, it was unfair to say that the Bill as drawn merely repealed the law, and put nothing in its place. It had been alleged that there was no sufficient reason for altering the law as it stood; but he thought that it could not be gainsaid that, within a few years of the Act of 1881 being passed, it was found that it really conferred no benefit on newspapers. Hon. Members would admit that, somehow or other, the Parliament of 1881 failed to carry out the intention it had before it. Now, the omission of this clause was really an intricate way of moving the rejection of the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) said that he had only just become aware of what the Bill actually proposed. As a matter of fact, the Bill was printed some time ago, and he (Mr. Darling) himself put down Amendments on the Paper on the 10th of last month. His hon. and learned Friend had paid very little attention to those Amendments, for he had actually gone to the trouble of putting down one Amendment at least which was already on the Paper nearly three weeks ago. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware until yesterday morning of the purport of the Bill, he obviously had denied himself the gratification of reading The Times, or any other newspaper, for the last fortnight. His hon. and learned Friend complained that the Bill was either at fault or not at fault—he (Mr. Darling) could not make out which—because it did not in some fashion deal with what he (Mr. Kelly) called society papers. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) had no feeling, nor had hon. Members, he hoped, for the society papers which would prompt them to make especial laws for those papers. In respect to those papers they could not have better laws than at present existed, and if the law was not put in force it must be that, for some reason or other the people libelled did not care to go into a Court of Justice. This Bill proposed to deal with matters some of which were grievances which had been left unredressed by the Act of 1881, and

    1257
    some of which were grievances which were unredressed by that Act, because they had arisen since. There was the question of public meeting. The question of public meeting had immensely developed since 1881. The franchise had been enlarged, and there were more public meetings. New bodies had been created, and more were about to be created, and it was necessary that those should be protected. Parliament would have to pass this Act next year, if they did not pass it now. He could not help feeling that there had been several recent instances which brought home to the minds of hon. Gentlemen that a newspaper stood in need of protection where it reported what was said, sometimes by eminent people, at public meetings, because everybody expected to have the words of such people reported. There would probably be a revolution if the words of eminent men were not reported, yet it was quite possible that those words might be slanderous. If those words were printed, and they proved to be slanderous, the newspaper was open to an action at law. There had been numerous instances of this, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen whether a remedy was not necessary? If, for example, an eminent man in the course of a speech accused a colonel—in every sense a colonel—of attempting to assassinate a boy—in every sense a boy—by presenting a gun at him, the newspaper which printed that statement would become liable to a criminal prosecution as well as to a civil action, whereas no sort of criminal proceeding could be taken against the gentleman who gave utterance to that pleasing fiction. So that hon. Members would observe that if two persons did an injustice, as in this case, one would be liable to be twice punished, while the other was hardly liable to be punished at all. Therefore he thought that the Committee would see that this, on the whole, was a reasonable Bill. It should not be argued as if there were nothing done except repealing Section 2 of the Newspaper Act of 1881. Since the Bill was drawn many Amendments to it had appeared on the Paper. The Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had been set down by the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) in charge of the Bill. The hon. and
    1258
    learned Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) had put down Amendments to the Bill, and it was notorious that the hon. Baronet was prepared to accept every one of the Amendments. If hon. Gentlemen would look at the Paper of Amendments, they would find that in the case of nearly every clause the hon. Baronet had himself put down Amendments more drastic than those he (Mr. Darling) or any of his hon. Friends had put down. There the Amendments were, and they must be moved by the hon. Baronet or by someone else. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kelly) want a week to consider the putting back into the Bill of matters which were the law of the land already? The Amendments put them into the Bill, and when they were there his hon. and learned Friend himself must recognize them as portion of the present law of the laud. If this Bill passed it would pass with these Amendments and not without them, and therefore it was wholly unfair to discuss the Bill without looking at the Amendments on the Paper.
    MR. R. T. REID (, &c.)said, he was certainly one of those who did not notice this Bill, or, if he had seen it, he certainly should not have allowed it to be read a second time without strenuous opposition on his part; for, in his opinion, the Bill—he was not going to discuss the whole of it—was simply a Bill to enable the newspaper Press to libel with impunity. What was the point they were now considering? It was whether the 2nd section of the Act of 1881 should or should not be repealed. Something, of course, was to be put in its place if it was repealed. What that something should be he was prepared to discuss if over they got to it. Was it not fair that when a privilege was given to newspapers alone, it should be limited to cases where the meeting was really open to the public? Was it not fair also that the privilege should be limited to the case where the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit? It was proposed by this Bill absolutely to remove that restriction which existed in the law of the land at the present time, and which, he believed, was absolutely essential for the safeguarding of private rights. The private individual could not bring an action for

    1259
    libel unless some lie had been told about him. They were dealing altogether with statements which were lies with regard to the characters of private individuals. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; if the statement were not a falsehood the newspaper could justify it and get off. He asserted with the greatest confidence, and any lawyer of any experience would not deny for one moment that, if they could show in a civil action that the statement complained of was not a falsehood, it was no libel; and, therefore, what they were dealing with, and what the gentlemen of the Press were trying to get, were facilities for escaping the consequences of telling lies about the private life and conduct of individuals. He maintained that, before they put privileges in the hands of the newspaper Press, for the purpose of circulating falsehoods about the character or private conduct of individuals, it was at least necessary to show that it was not mere idle gossip inserted in the paper for the purpose of making money, but that it was inserted for the public benefit. It was essential to the protection of the newspaper Press in these matters that the statements which were admittedly necessarily false statements should have been made for public benefit. The subsequent provisions in the Bill were still more objectionable, for further licence was given to newspapers. The only excuse he could offer for not having adverted to this Bill at an earlier stage was that the honoured name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) appeared on the back of the Bill. He had no objection to hon. Gentlemen who were deeply interested in the Press, and who, no doubt, were ornaments of the Press, and exemplary in the manner in which they conducted their business, putting their names on the back of the Bill. But what they had come to Parliament for was to ask for unfair and perfectly unnecessary privileges for the newspaper Press, not for other persons, not for private individuals. When the Committee remembered what the newspaper Press could do, they ought to be very chary in extending its privileges. There were 20, 30, or 40 newspapers, if their own advertisements could be believed, circulating some of them 80,000 and 90,000 copies daily, and
    1260
    a lie that once got 10 minutes' start was very different to catch up. Was a man's reputation to be liable to be blasted by an anonymous scribbler, who declined to give his name, sheltering himself under the editorial "we." He had no words too strong to express his entire sympathy with the liberty of the Press, liberty to discuss all public affairs and questions of public interest in the fullest and freeest way. No one would go further than he in that direction; but he would not go one single step in enabling the Press, which was too powerful as against individuals as it was, to slander the characters of private individuals with impunity. The only good clause which he could find in the Bill was that providing that the Bill should not apply to Scotland.
    DR. CAMERONconfessed that he did not see what the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) had to do with the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of inaccuracies; but his own speech was one string of inaccuracies. He told them that this was a Bill to enable newspaper proprietors to libel people with impunity. The Bill did not enable newspaper proprietors to libel at all. Where was there any clause in the Bill giving any privilege for a libel to be perpetrated by the proprietor of a newspaper, or by his servant editorially? What the Bill provided for was immunity in the case of the publication of incorrect statements, made in public bodies; but that was only an extension of a well recognised principle in the present law. His hon. and learned Friend held up as open to tremendous opprobrium a proposal to confer any privilege upon reports of meetings not open to the public. Did his hon. and learned Friend ever hear that the reports of the proceedings of this House were privileged, and that the privilege of reports did not depend upon whether the public were admitted or not—the privilege extended to reports of proceedings after the public and reporters had been ordered to withdraw? The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a libel action could only be sustained where a lie had been told?
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that what he said was, that unless a statement was false it was not actionable. If a news-

    1261
    paper held a man up to ridicule and contempt, the truth of the statement could be pleaded, and was a good defence.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that that, however, was a very minor point. He thought the discussion had travelled rather wide of the subject before the House. He was a Member of the Select Committee which considered the Law of Libel prior to the introduction of the Bill of 1881, and perhaps he might say a word or two in regard to the way in which the Bill came to be brought forward. Evidence was given before the Committee which led them to consider what they had to regard as the benefit of the public in the publication of certain reports. The Courts of Law had taken the matter into consideration, and had over-ridden the Common Law of the land, and declared the reports of the proceedings of certain bodies privileged. They declared, for instance, the reports of proceedings of Parliament and fair reports of the proceedings of the Law Courts privileged. The question was whether that privilege should not be extended. It was resolved by the Committee to extend it by the adoption of the words which were found in the Bill of 1881—namely, "That the privilege should extend to the reports of meetings lawfully convened for lawful purposes, and open to the public," and so on. Some Members of the Committee wished to specify more particularly the bodies the reports of whose proceedings should be held to be privileged; but others—he thought it was a principle which was very much favoured by draughtsmen—thought it better to give a general description which they believed would be interpreted by the Judges to include all the Committee wished to include, and accordingly the words he had quoted were adopted. The result was that the words had been interpreted as not including the reports of all bodies which were certainly, to all intents and purposes, as public, and whose proceedings it was as desirable should be published, as those of the Houses of Parliament, or of the Law Courts. The hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) proposed to amend the interpretation which had been put on the words; he proposed to include among the privileged reports the reports of the proceedings of a number of statutory, administrative, and other bodies which he enumerated in Section 4 of the Bill.
    1262
    Something had been said as to the Bill being backed only by interested persons. He had no interest in the Bill, because it did not apply to Scotland; but in order to dissipate the bogey raised as to the terrible consequences which would ensue if the Bill became law, he might say that what was decreed under Section 4 was practically the law of Scotland at the present time. Evidence to that effect was given before the Committee; the Committee were told that it was not necessary to deal with Scotland, because the reports of the proceedings of those bodies were held by Judges in Scotland to be privileged. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) was a Scotch Member, and he and the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) had, without knowing, been living under this terrible state of the law in Scotland long before they entered the House.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that this discussion had been raised and continued for two reasons. The first was, that the Bill was badly drafted; and the second was, that Amendments had been put on the Paper so very recently which entirely altered the character of the Bill, and which deprived it of all those harmful characteristics supposed to exist in it by certain hon. Members. It was to be regretted that they had not been allowed to go straight through the clauses of the Bill, because, in that case, they would have found in what way the hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) proposed to alter the Bill, and what the effect of those alterations would have been. Already the hon. Baronet had said he would accept the words "lawfully convened meetings, and open to the public." What were the drastic changes which Clause 4 was supposed to make in the law of the land? Nothing but this, that certain public meetings, the reports of which were always inserted in newspapers, and which not to insert would destroy their circulation—reports which everyone who read newspapers expected to find in newspapers, should be privileged. That, he ventured to say, was the only change. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) had spoken of the words

    1263
    "actual malice and gross negligence" as something new. As a matter of fact, they were in Lord Campbell's Act, which was now upwards of 40 years old. Many of the objections which had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) actually applied to words which had existed almost as long on the Statute Book, and had never, so far as was known, been objected to. He hoped that they would forthwith proceed to a vote on this Motion, which was aimed, as his hon. and learned Friend admitted, at the vitality of the Bill itself, so that, in the event of its being rejected, they might go on clause by clause to consider the measure, which might be deemed by some to effect considerable changes in the law. So far as he had studied this particular branch of law, the changes effected would be very small indeed when the amendments proposed in the Bill were made.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid) would pardon him if he expressed a doubt as to whether he had read the Bill. He was persuaded that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Bill, he would hardly have given such an extraordinary account as they had heard from him of the character of the Bill and the motives of its promoters. He hoped, too, that his hon. and learned Friend would excuse him if he said that his sneer at newspaper men was a little unworthy of him. This Bill was not brought in any more in the interests of the Press than in the interests of the public. It had been pointed out several times that the privileges suggested in regard to the reports of meetings and proceedings of public bodies, which, as had been said, were about to be multiplied, were to be given, because it was of the utmost interest—of course, it was as much so in London as elsewhere—that they should be constantly presented for public discussion and consideration. He could not understand the line his hon. and learned Friend took when he talked of the extension of the editorial "we;" there was no shelter given in the Bill for matters of comment. The Committee would understand, he hoped, that Pressmen would not have any greater scope for libelling, by way of comment, in articles
    1264
    or paragraphs, than they had now, and, therefore, what his hon. and learned Friend said about the editorial "we" had no application whatever. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted the words "for the public benefit" to be inserted, let him propose an Amendment to that effect, and not oppose the Bill as a whole. All that was wanted was to secure the privilege in matters which were of public interest and a fair subject of newspaper report. Such were the words used in the Bill, and he did not think that those words could meet with any legitimate objection. To talk of the Bill as one for promoting promiscuous libel was a travesty, which he hoped his hon. and learned Friend now realized.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that he had been unwilling to interfere earlier in the discussion, because it seemed the desire of the Committee that there should be a general discussion as to whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed or not. Some complaint was made against the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) because there was no discussion upon the second reading of the Bill. Of course, it would have been competent for any hon. Member to oppose the second reading. He was free to confess that had the Bill been intended to stand in the shape in which it was introduced, he personally could not have supported it; and, while he desired to say a word or two in favour of the Amendment now under consideration, it must be understood that upon this occasion he did not speak as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, because this was a matter for the judgment of Members of the House themselves. There had been a great deal of misunderstanding underlying the discussion, and he thought the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Algernon Borthwick) had hardly been treated with perfect fairness. The Amendment would absolutely take away all special privileges from newspapers, and therefore the argument of those who supported the Amendment was somewhat inconsistent. The real question was—Whether the House would or would not assent to that which is proposed by Clause 4 of the Bill, and he had already stated that if Clause 4 was intended to stand as it was originally introduced

    1265
    he could not have supported it. One of the gravest attacks upon the Bill had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid), who made a very remarkable speech with reference to the importance of the words "matters of public interest." He (Sir Richard Webster) entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the importance of those words, but he thought it would have been fairer to the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) if the hon. and learned Gentleman had allowed himself five or six minutes leisure to look at the Paper of Amendments, and to see what Amendments to the Bill the hon. Baronet had put down. For instance, the hon. Baronet proposed to add to the Proviso at the end of Clause 4, the words "or shall privilege the publication of any matter not of public interest." Although he should have been unwilling to allow Clause 4 to pass without those words being inserted, still it did seem to him, as the hon. Baronet had expressed his intention of moving the insertion of those words, it was scarcely fair to him to attack the Bill, and to attack him as though he was not willing to insert such words. Then he would call attention to another matter. The question was not whether a particular privilege should be given to a newspaper, but in respect to what meeting it should be given. Hon. Members would observe, that practically speaking, all the protection of Section 2 of the Act of 1881 was restored by the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. For instance, there were words in the Bill which forced a proprietor to insert "a reasonable letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation to such report or other publication." And when the hon. Baronet's attention was called to the words "public meeting," he at once indicated that he was ready to adopt not exactly the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling), but one which almost amounted to the same thing—namely, "meeting for lawful purpose and open to the public." Therefore, it was scarcely fair to suggest that the hon. Baronet desired to get a number of fresh privileges for newspapers, when what he did desire was to get the same privileges for different meetings. Hon. Members would note that the hon. Baronet had
    1266
    put down an Amendment whereby he proposed to take out the very general words—
    "Or of any other duly and legally constituted body, or persons acting in a public capacity and for public purposes, and the publication by any newspaper of any notice or report issued for the information of the public by, or by order of any Government Office or Department, Officer of State, Commissioner of Police or Chief Constable, or by any of the bodies or authorities hereinbefore mentioned, or of any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report."
    The hon. Baronet therefore suggested that the report of the proceedings of a public meeting or of any meeting of a Vestry, Town Council, School Board, Board of Guardians, board or Local Authority, should be privileged, subject to the condition that there was no malice, and that it was a matter of public interest, and that the proprietor should be compelled to insert in his newspaper a letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation of the report. Therefore, the sole question for the Committee was, did or did they not consider that the general scope of the clause the hon. Baronet suggested extending the privileges of the Act of 1881 to other meetings ought or ought not to be adopted. He submitted to the Committee that whatever might be their view in reference to the propriety and sufficiency of Clause 4, at any rate, there could be no object in declining to repeal Clause 2 of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act of 1881. The repealing of that section certainly could do no harm.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, that that was the first time that he had ever understood that matters of public interest and matters for the public benefit were identical. He thought that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Darling) who used the expression in the first place would have stood alone in that respect; but it seemed to him it had been adopted by the highest legal authority in the House that matters of public interest and matters for the public benefit were identical. He (Mr. Howell), however, thought that the speeches which had already been made showed that matters of public interest and matters for the public benefit might be at any rate very divergent. There were often in society journals exciting or sensational paragraphs which were matters of public interest, no doubt, to certain

    1267
    sections of the community. Besides, they often saw paragraphs in respectable newspapers of a similar kind. No doubt they were matters of public interest to a certain section of the people, but whether they were matters for the public benefit was a question as to which there might be disagreement. He thought it was altogether unwise to repeal the section of the Act of 1881, which had already, in his opinion, worked tolerably well. The Act of 1881 had given to newspaper proprietors greater latitude than they deserved. Respectable newspapers were getting in the habit, just as well as society journals, of feeding the public taste with sensational articles in which the personal character of individuals was largely criticized. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Gentleman who had some experience as a newspaper conductor, if not as proprietor, cried "No, no!" He (Mr. Howell) had some experience of the matter from another point of view, and he was painfully aware that a section of the men he represented to some extent in the House of Commons had had to suffer over and over again from attacks made upon them in newspapers. He and some of his Colleagues had been able to understand, more perhaps than any other Gentleman in the House, the extent to which a newspaper could libel a certain section of the people, and libel them with impunity. Reference had been made to the word "malice" in the Bill, but it was well known that it was almost impossible to prove malice. Take the case of a respectable newspaper, a newspaper as respectable as that in which the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) himself was interested. Reports apparently of a bonâ Fide character were sent to it, and inserted, Of course there was no malice on the part of the editor or proprietor, and yet it might turn out that the report was of a most libellous character. Who was to be held responsible? Some penny-a-liner might have supplied the paragraph or report, and the newspaper editor or proprietor or publisher would plead there was no malice. The person who supplied the report was perhaps a man of straw, and the jury would refuse to convict him of any criminal libel. How, in such a case, would the aggrieved party even get his costs? But in the case of public meetings a great
    1268
    evil had of late grown up. During the last 14 or 15 years absolutely bogus meetings had often been reported in the newspapers. They might have the name of a public-house in some locality given, or they might not have the place given at all, and all the particulars of the alleged meeting would be clearly set forth. Paragraphs purporting to give particulars of so-called meetings, but which meetings had no existence in fact, were constantly going the rounds of the Press, and those paragraphs frequently contained attacks upon the characters of private individuals. There was scarcely a respectable newspaper in the Metropolis, and that was going a long way, that had not inserted paragraphs of that kind. Against whom could actions be brought, and malice proved in such cases? Perhaps the Committee would bear with him while he reminded them of a case which occurred at the Central Criminal Court a short time ago. A case in which he (Mr. Howell) was concerned came on at that Court, and a farmed report was offered to all the London newspapers. Only two newspapers in London, The Times being one, refused to accept such a report, preferring to be directly represented at the trial. As a matter of fact, the farmed report was a very garbled account of what occurred. On the second day of the trial the person aggrieved complained, and the newspapers had to publish a contradiction. In that case, of course, there was no malice. The editors of the papers accepted the report as a bonâ fide record of the proceedings in Court. What use would it have been to have proceeded against the person who sent out the report? What was wanted was not that the liberty of the Press should be curtailed, but that the licence of the Press should be prevented. Again, in some of the vestries, peculiar scenes had taken place during the last year or two. An individual was able to get up at vestries and make speeches against men or firms without being held responsible. The owner of the newspaper in which the remarks were given a wider area ought to be held responsible. What was wanted was that there should be protection of private characters. It was of greater importance to protect individual character than it was to protect the purses of some 1,200 newspaper

    1269
    proprietors. He did not wish, and he presumed none of those who had preceded him in the discussion wished, to insinuate in any way whatever that the great majority of the editors or proprietors or reporters of newspapers desired to libel individual men or women. What, however, he and his hon. Friends asserted was that the Press of the country was of immense power, and it was absolutely necessary for the protection of individual character that proper restraints should be placed on the exercise of that power. Holding these views, he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly).
    MR. COGHILLsaid, he was asked a short time ago by the editor of a newspaper to support the second reading of this Bill, and he said he would do so. After examining the Bill, however, he found there were one or two clauses which he could not possibly support, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kelly) went to a Division he should go with him into the lobby. It was as well to point out that an apology published in a newspaper subsequently to a libel was really no reparation at all to a private individual. It might happen that the libel was read by one set of people, and that the apology was read by another set of people. In recent years a good many laws had been passed in favour of the Press. The law was placed on a satisfactory basis by the Act of 1881, and if they were to go further in the way of privileged legislation for the Press, they would soon find the Press were like the Irish tenants—always coming forward with a request for more. This was a contest between the rights of the public and the rights of a privileged class, and, as a Member of the public, and not a Member of that privileged class, he should vote for the rights of the public. The hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had told them this Bill was really to be passed on behalf of the public. If so, it was a great pity the names of some Members of the public were not to be found on the back of the Bill. As a matter of fact, every Gentleman who had backed the Bill was more or less intimately connected with the Press. [Cries of "Morley!"] He under-
    1270
    stood that the right hon. Gentleman was connected with the Press; certainly ho had been more or less in the past. It seemed strange to him that the two classes who now came to the House clamouring for protection were the two classes who were most prosperous and best able to protect themselves—namely, the Press and the publicans. He hoped the Committee would view this Bill with the greatest suspicion.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, that at present, newspapers were privileged in certain instances to publish defamatory matter without incurring any liability to punishment. An individual might get up in a public meeting, and might utter the grossest slanders upon the character of some person. The slanderer would escape without any punishment [Cries of "No!"] Yes; unless he charged an individual with some professional misconduct or some crime, he was free from any action for slander. The question was whether they were to extend that protection—were they to allow newspapers to spread with impunity slanders uttered in public meetings. The Committee ought to be very careful in extending any further the privileges of the Press. He had known the grossest slanders uttered by irresponsible persons in public meetings circulated widely through the agency of newspapers. It had been said that newspapers were persecuted by actions for libel. Why did they publish libels? Nothing was easier than to prevent the publication of libels. What was an editor for? He understood that the business of an editor was to see what was to be kept out of a paper, rather than to see what was inserted. Newspaper people simply wanted the privilege of publishing libels which other people uttered, and to be protected from the legal consequences which now attached to their action. He was very jealous of any extension of the privileges of the Press. This was not a question of the freedom of the Press. It was a question of the freedom to propagate libel, and such freedom ought not to be given, unless substantial reason was shown.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it seemed to him that a great deal of time would have been saved if hon. Members who had spoken had been more careful to distinguish

    1271
    between newspaper articles and newspaper reports. He could not gather that there was anything whatever in the Bill in respect to editorial paragraphs or comments of any kind. The Bill simply had reference to reports.
    MR. HOWELL: There are the words "or of any other matter of public interest."
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, they were not now discussing Clause 4. They were considering whether Clause 2 of the Act of 1881 should be repealed. It seemed to him that every provision of Clause 2 was proposed to be re-enacted with the single exception of the words "if the publication is for the public benefit." The hon. and learned Attorney General had referred them to the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) to insert the words "or shall privilege the publication of any matter not of public interest." He thought the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) was a perfectly sound one. "Public interest" was not the same as "public benefit." He (Mr. Conybeare) himself had suffered from libel, and he was exceedingly anxious to protect individual characters. He, therefore, suggested that the hon. Baronet should accept the words "public benefit." Of course, Clause 4 needed other improvements; but he would not deal with them now. There was, however, one further remark he had to make. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) spoke of garbled reports, and complained that such reports of official proceedings or otherwise should be circulated to the detriment of private individuals. But both the Act of 1882 and Clause 4 of this Bill protected anyone against garbled reports, because an essential thing was that the report should be a fair and accurate report. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) had spoken of discretion being left to the editor of a newspaper to omit matter the publication of which he did not consider would lead to the public benefit. It seemed to him (Mr. Conybeare) that if it were left to the discretion of a newspaper editor to cut and carve reports, to leave out what he considered would not lead to the public benefit, the public
    1272
    would get the garbled reports which the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green had just denounced. If the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) would accept the re-introduction into the Bill of the words "public benefit," it would, he was sure, greatly facilitate the progress of the measure. He should suggest, too, that the question of reports being for the public benefit or not should rest, not with the editor, because that would constitute every editor a censor of the public Press, which no one, he was sure, desired, but with the jury who had to try any particular case in which the question arose.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 99: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
    Clause 3 (Newspaper reports of proceedings of Courts exercising judicial authority privileged).
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "published."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stands part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    MR. KELLYproposed to omit the words "of and," in line 12, and insert "heard before." In putting down the Amendment, he had before his mind a case which recently occurred in Scotland. A wife made the gravest possible charges against her husband and a lady, and these charges a paper in Glasgow published. The charges were baseless, and it was shown that the reporter had copied them from the printed pleadings, which had never been used in Court. He believed that, under the words of the clause, there would be power to publish defamatory matter before a case came before a Court. His desire was to limit the publication to what actually came before the Court.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "of and," and insert the words "heard before."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'of and' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)suggested that the promoters of the Bill

    1273
    should accept the Amendment, because otherwise matters might be published before they ought to be. The matter referred to by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kelly) might, however, in his opinion have been treated as contempt of Court. He did not suppose the promoters of the Bill wished to give power to publish proceedings which might be compromised or never come before the public at all.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not think it was sufficient to say "heard before any Court." In the first place a report of proceedings heard ex parte ought not to be privileged in the way suggested. The law relating to ex parte proceedings was different to that existing in cases in which both sides were heard. He thought the words ought to be "publicly heard before any Court."
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Camberwell.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERthought that what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries had said was also worthy of consideration. The words "publicly heard before any Court" might very properly be accepted.
    MR. R. T. REID: And ex parte?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think it was desirable to insert those words.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Those words would form a subsequent Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'publicly heard before' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. R. T. REIDproposed to insert after "report" the words "not being ex parte. "He hoped these words would be accepted. He moved them for the purpose of preventing what he thought hon. Gentlemen desired to prevent, the publication of matters which were heard at a time when the party incriminated had no opportunity of reply.
    Amendment proposed after the word "report" to insert the words "not being ex parte."—(Mr. Reid.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKunderstood there were many cases which were only heard ex parte.
    MR. KELLYremarked that there were many cases in which the incriminated person would not appear, and which ought to be known to the public, but this could not be the case if the proposed Amendment were accepted.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he did not think the proposal made would be quite sufficient, because they knew there were cases in which evidence was brought from abroad in manuscript form, and had to be read. That evidence, although not taken in open Court in this country, should be reported. The mere fact of a name not being mentioned did not seem to him to be sufficient to justify cutting that evidence out of the proceedings. He was bound to say that he thought there were a good many ex parte statements which ought to be reported, with respect to which it could not be said that any moral or legal wrong would be done by reporting them—statements which often led to reparation being made to the parties by whom the Court was moved. Therefore, while he went with the hon. and learned Gentleman to the extent that newspapers should only report cases for the public benefit, he did not think it was wise to go the whole length the hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to go.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper—namely, p. 1, line 12, after "shall," to insert "if published contemporaneously with such proceedings." The object of this Amendment was to provide that newspapers should only report proceedings on the day they occurred—that was to say, absolutely contemporaneously, and to prevent the raking up of old trials which might be highly disagreeable and injurious to individuals. If this Amendment were not accepted, a newspaper wishing to annoy some person would be able to rake up the circumstances of a trial which took place 10 or even 50 years before, and claim protection under this clause. The Amendment would put a stop to any such nuisance as that.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "shall," insert "if published contemporaneously with such proceedings."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he fully appreciated the object of the hon. Baronet in his Amendment, but must confess he could not understand what was meant by "publishing reports contemporaneously with proceedings." It was not possible to do that. In the nature of things it was necessary that the report of certain proceedings should be published after those proceedings had taken place, it might be a day, a week, or a month, in the case of daily, weekly, and monthly papers respectively. The only contemporaneous report or reports which most nearly deserved that name were those they sometimes saw on tapes at the clubs. He should think it would be better to say, "within a reasonable time," or "in due course," instead of contemporaneously with the proceedings. He should like to know, as he did not like to vote against the Amendment unless it were absolutely necessary, whether the words of the hon. Baronet would have an intelligible meaning.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he had carefully examined the Amendment, and he must say it seemed to him the exact point it was desirable to deal with. They all knew what "contemporaneous publication" meant. Contemporaneous publication in the case of a weekly newspaper would mean the publication of proceedings which had transpired during the week prior to the day of publication, and contemporaneous publication in the case of a daily paper would be the publication of proceedings which had taken place on the day of publication, or the day before publication, or within a reasonable time of publication. The words "within a reasonable time," or "in due course," might give a wider construction to the clause, and might enable a newspaper to go back upon proceedings which had taken place six weeks or three months before. He did not think any lawyer could have a doubt upon this matter, but if it were thought desirable to make the meaning of the Amendment clearer than it was, he should be prepared to suggest words for that purpose.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, The Times reports, for instance, were very frequently held over for a day or two; but the hon. and learned Attorney General had said that in the case
    1276
    of a daily newspaper, contemporaneous publication would mean publication on the day the proceedings occurred.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I said the day of the proceedings, or the day after.
    DR. CAMERONsaid that, if on consideration some more elastic words could be devised, it would be better. He did not wish to permit newspaper proprietors to publish reports of proceedings six weeks after they had occurred, but surely they should be allowed to publish a thing a couple of days old without losing the privileges of the Act.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he should like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General what his opinion was as to the effect of the Amendment on weekly and monthly newspapers.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had evidently not caught what he had said. His view was that "contemporaneously" must be construed with reference to the issue of the paper. A contemporaneous report by a weekly paper such as, for instance, The Illustrated London News, published on Saturday, would be a report of anything which had taken place in the week preceding the publication—that was to say, since the last issue.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, the next Amendment was in his name. The wording of the clause as drafted was that these reports should be "absolutely privileged." He thought, however, that the word, "absolutely" should be omitted, and he begged to move an Amendment to that effect.
    Amendment proposed in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "absolutely."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he should be very sorry if the hon. Baronet omitted this word, and he was sure that the hon. Baronet's attention had not been carefully directed to the point. The proposal of the hon. Baronet, if accepted, would enable any cantankerous person to bring an action on the ground that the way in which a report had been put together showed that there had been, what amounted in law, to what was

    1277
    called malice. The effect of the Amendment did not really cover all that the hon. Baronet meant, or that the Committee would desire. The words "absolutely privileged" were well known at the Bar. There was privilege in this House, there was privilege to a witness for what he said in a Court of Justice, there was privilege for a Judge, and he submitted that it should not be in the power of a plaintiff to get rid of the privilege of a newspaper proprietor, by pulling a report to pieces. He could not help thinking that if, in the first words of this section, a report was "fair and accurate," that such report ought to be protected from the power on the part of the plaintiff of pulling it to pieces by all sorts of suggestions of negligence and malice.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) out-Herocled Herod altogether. He appeared to be prepared to say that a newspaper, which published a report for malice, should be absolutely privileged. All he (Sir Richard Webster) could say was, that if he knew that his hon. and learned Friend desired to press protection of newspapers so far as that, nothing would have induced him to support the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments so far as he had done. If the words "absolutely privileged" remained, reports published with malice would be protected, but according to the Amendment the protection would only be given where no malice was shown. If the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed his view of the matter to a Division, he (Sir Richard Webster) should not vote with him.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he thought that the hon. Baronet was well advised in modifying his Bill by that Amendment. He did not think it was desirable to make the provision too strong in the interests of the Press itself, for otherwise it might be the duty of the House to discuss these questions again at no distant date. He (Sir Albert Rollit) had known cases in which the sting of a libel had absolutely been in the heading, which was not a part of the legitimate report, and it was not desirable that privilege should be granted in such a case.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, the next Amendment which stood stood in his name was a very important one. It stood on the Paper in these words—
    "To insert, in line 13, after 'privilege' the following Proviso: 'Provided, That nothing in this section should authorize the publication of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter, or of any legal proceedings the publication of which is prohibited by a Court or a Judge.'"
    He would prefer to leave out the last of these words—namely, "or of any legal proceedings the publication of which is prohibited by the Court or a Judge;" because the Court or Judge, he took it, had full power to sit in camera, or to sit in private, or in various other ways, or to clear the Court. It seemed to him (Sir Algernon Borthwick) that these last words of the Amendment would give a Judge power to stop reports at any stage in the evidence, although those reports might be of public interest. The Judge would, in fact, become a censor over the reporters in his own Court. There were cases which could be easily imagined in which a Judge could become a censor of the Press in cases of great public interest, and capable of suppressing the publication of proceedings. It appeared to him, therefore, that the Proviso would be quite sufficient if it declared merely that nothing in the section should authorize the publication of blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet move the Amendment or not?
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK: I move it, with the omission of the words I have referred to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, after the word "privileged" to insert the following Proviso: "Provided, That nothing in this section should authorize the publication of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter."—(Sir Algernon orthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he was sorry the hon. Baronet had not moved the Amendment in its original form, and he should feel it his duty, if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was agreed to, to move, on his own behalf, the addition of the words omitted. He thought that those concluding words ought to be added.
    MR. S. SMITHthought the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was a most important one, and trusted that the Committee would agree to it. He wished to call attention, however, to the fact that it was necessary to pass a similar Amendment in Section 4. He had put down an Amendment to that section carrying out that principle, and he trusted that when they came to it it would be agreed to.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he now begged to move the addition of the words omitted from the last Amendment—namely, after the word "matter" to insert "or of any legal proceedings the publication of which is prohibited by the Court or a Judge." They were dealing not only with the case of the law as it stood, but as it might probably stand in the future. It was always possible that the Court might alter its rules. He had pointed out on a Bill in which hon. Members took great interest last year, that at the present time the Court sat in public, unless the Judge otherwise ordered it. It was possible, however, that a Judge might order that proceedings should be taken in camera, and if a Judge so decided, it would be unfair if newspapers had the privilege of reporting those proceedings. If a Judge made an order that the Court should be cleared, the newspaper reporters should be required to leave with the rest of the public.
    Amendment proposed,
    To insert after the last Amendment the words "or of any legal proceedings the publication of which is prohibited by the Court or a Judge."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he desired to offer his strongest opposition to the Amendment just moved by the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was introducing a power into the English procedure, which he trusted might never become part of the law of the country, and which, if introduced, should only be introduced after full Notice and with that kind of gravity in the discussion of it which would follow from the subject being thoroughly understood. It should not be sprung upon the House by an Amendment put
    1280
    upon the Paper that morning in a Bill of this kind. So far as he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was aware, there was at present no power in any Judge of the Realm to prohibit the publication of legal proceedings openly heard in his Court. This Amendment did not apply to matter described as blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous, which had already been dealt with by the previous Amendment the Committee had accepted. He trusted there would not be such a thing adopted in their proceedings as to render it possible for any Judge, on any trial, no matter what its nature, to make an order that the proceedings should not be published. It was a monstrous proposal, which he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General or the Committee would reject.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had not only misunderstood the present law, but the effect of the Amendment. What was proposed would not enable a Judge to prevent the publication of anything whatsover, but would simply build up the Common Law as it existed at present. The effect of the introduction of these words into the third clause would be simply to prevent the Bill from conferring privilege upon the report of a case under particular circumstances. They would be simply saying that the Bill should not confer that privilege to proceedings which were reported, in spite of the fact that the Judge had prohibited their being reported.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Reid) would permit him to say so, his words presumed some legal power on the part of the Judge to prohibit and the making of an order in the exercise of that power.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, on the contrary, that such a legal power existed was a fact known to everyone connected with the Bar. He would give two illustrations. In the first place, proceedings in Judges' Chambers, where the Judge perpetually prohibited the publication of proceedings and treated them as private; and, secondly, proceedings heard in camera—proceedings in the Divorce Court, which, he was sorry to say, were matters more nearly to daily than to weekly or unfrequent occurrence. He thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bradlaugh) had misunderstood the

    1281
    provision. They did nothing in the world, in this Amendment, but build up, in the words of an Act of Parliament, the Common Law as it existed at the present moment, and, for his own part, he maintained that, according to the dicta of many Judges, they could not confer privilege to reports in Courts of Justice where the Court prohibited the publication of the proceedings.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid), in correcting the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), had laid himself open to a criticism of the same description. He had given them instances of proceedings in private; but he had forgotten that the Committee were dealing with the fair and accurate report published in newspapers of proceedings "heard publicly." That removed from the argument all proceedings heard in Judges' Chambers and in camera, and the proposal now was to confer on Judges in this country a power which he ventured to say they did not possess at present. He attached so much importance to the clause and to this proposal that he had no hesitation in saying he would much rather see the Bill thrown out altogether than that those words should be accepted. He was anxious to see the Law of Libel amended; but he thought it would be a most dangerous thing for Parliament to sanction the suggestion that the Judges had power to prohibit the publication of proceedings, not on the ground that they were blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous, but because they thought they ought not to be published.
    MR. KELLYsaid, it should be in the power of every Judge of every Court to prohibit the publication of any evidence given in proceedings heard in public which he thought ought to be prohibited. In the interests of morality it was desirable that the Judges in our Courts should have that power in connection even with a certain portion of a witness's evidence. It would, perhaps, meet the objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite if the Amendment were qualified by the insertion of words expressly conferring upon Judges this power, which would unquestionably be in the true interests of morality. He should not object to
    1282
    the Amendment if modified in that way, and he could not see that it would be in any way the initiation of a dangerous doctrine in our Courts of Law.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) stated that he (Mr. Reid) was wrong in regard to the law; but he repeated what he had said, that the Court had and did exercise the power of prohibiting the publication of proceedings. The very first authority he laid his hand on was a book which had been mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) as a great authority, and he found there two cases laid down where reports of judicial proceedings, though fair and accurate, were not privileged, and were, indeed, illegal. The first was where the Court prohibited publication, as it very frequently had done in former days. Every Court had the power by the Common Law—[Mr. BRADLAUGH: Hear, hear!] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that the Common Law of this country was 700 years old. Every Court had the power to prevent the publication of proceedings pending litigation. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: Pending litigation!] Yes; it was in those cases that the Courts prohibited the publication of proceedings, and not otherwise. His point was, that if the Court did exercise that power without entering into the circumstances under which it might exercise it, that the Bill ought not to make those reports privileged which were published contrary to the prohibition of the Judge. He cited his authority.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries had rather harshly corrected him (Mr. Bradlaugh), and now endeavoured to bring forward some authority for his statement of the law, and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) should like to be permitted to say a word in his own defence, although he was only an ignorant layman. It was acknowledged that the Bill, as pointed out by the right hen. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), would not apply, as now amended, to either the cases heard in camera or cases heard in Judges' Chambers, and that the authority cited by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid) did

    1283
    not justify the proposition he had put before the Committee. The power of preventing the publication of proceedings pending litigation had never been held in this country, so far as he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was aware, to apply after hearing to proceedings at a trial which took place in open Court and in connection with evidence heard under circumstances to which the Bill generally would apply.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, there was an Amendment inserted in the clause a few minutes before which required the publication to be contemporaneous with the proceedings in order to be privileged. Now, if a Judge said that certain proceedings should not be published, say, for six months, until certain other proceedings had been completed, the privilege of contemporaneous publication would be a mere mockery. It would be impossible to publish proceedings contemporaneously if they were not allowed to be published until subsequently. The Amendment they had adopted was altogether inconsistent with the meaning the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries put upon the present proposal. A Judge might order that proceedings taking place to-day should not be published until proceedings which could not take place for some months had been completed.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he would ask whether the words they had already adopted in the last Amendment were not sufficient—namely, that the publication of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter should not be authorized? Should they not limit the power of the Judge to the publication of proceedings which the Court considered to come under either of those categories?
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, that the cases in which a Judge would be likely to prohibit the publication wore already provided for, and therefore the additional words were hardly necessary. It was laid down that the publication could be prohibited of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter. With reference to the general point raised, he would ask the Committee to bear in mind that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries had only mentioned in the authority to which he had referred that a Judge had power to prohibit the publication of proceedings. The hon. and learned Member had not,
    1284
    however, mentioned a single modern case at Common Law where the Judge had ventured to exercise that power. The prohibition in question was one which some Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House took great exception to.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he would venture to withdraw the Amendment, which was a matter he had not had an opportunity of considering before he had seen it on the Paper that morning. Though he thought it would be a good amendment of the law, under the circumstances, it might be well to withdraw it. If the question were to be considered, it, perhaps, ought to be from a wider point of view.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Newspaper reports of proceedings of public meetings and of certain bodies and persons privileged).
    MR. KELLYsaid, the first Amendment to the clause was in his name, and was in line 14, to leave out "fair" and insert "true." He did not, however, propose to move this Amendment.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he begged to move, in line 15, before the word "public," to insert the word "lawful," which would make the clause apply to a fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a lawful public meeting.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, before the word "public," to insert the word "lawful."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'lawful' be there inserted."
    MR. PICTONsaid, he objected to the introduction of the word, on the ground that it seemed to be introducing into the law of England a principle which was only at present in operation in Ireland. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!] Of course, he was not learned in the law, and all he could say was that the principle should not be introduced here, as it would be for the first time if this Amendment were persisted in.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, that the Amendment was to apply simply to lawfully convened meetings.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it seemed to be thought that some change was being introduced into the law; but he would point out that since the Act of 1881 the words bearing upon this point had been "if a meeting is lawfully convened."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK: I will accept the words "convened for a lawful purpose."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, that he would now move, in line 15, after "meeting," to insert "lawfully convened for a lawful purpose;" and if that were adopted, the first part of the clause would be to the effect that a fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a public meeting lawfully convened for a lawful purpose should be privileged. The words would have the effect of making the law differ from the law as it now stood. The law as it stood in the present Newspaper Act applied to "a public meeting lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and open to the public." He proposed to stop at the word "purpose," and not to use the words" and open to the public." He had no reason for omitting these words, except that he did not imagine that a public meeting could be a public meeting if it was not "open to the public." All hole-and-corner meetings which were not open to the public it appeared to him it was impossible to call public meetings, and he did not think such meetings should come under the privilege of this clause. He thought the whole case would be provided for if they accepted the words of this Amendment, and he begged, therefore, to move that these words be inserted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, after the word "meeting," to insert the words "lawfully convened for a lawful purpose."—(Mr. Darling.)
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he would move to amend the Amendment by adding the words "and open to the public."
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would be better to do that later on in the form of a new Amendment.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he would move to insert in the Amendment, after the words "lawfully convened," the words "or held." It was possible for a meeting not convened at all, but still held, to be legal, such as meetings to hear the declaration of the poll, after contested elections.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "convened," to add the words "or held."—(Mr. Gedge.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he would now move to add to the Amendment the words "and open to the public." He could conceive cases where the Press might be admitted and the public were not, and he did not think the privilege of the clause should be extended to the Press under such circumstances.
    Amendment proposed, after the words last inserted, to add the words "and open to the public."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he would point out to the Committee and to the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment that, in consequence of the enormous magnitude of the population of the Metropolis, even the largest meetings were always summoned by ticket. The meetings held at St. James Hall were not open to the public in the literal sense of the words, but people from different quarters of London were admitted by ticket. They were public meetings, although not open to the public. When it was found desirable to limit a meeting to the actual electors of a district they were obliged, in order to prevent outsiders from coming in, to issue orders of admission. Therefore, a meeting might be a genuine public meeting, although not open to the public, and he thought it would be undesirable to restrict the liberty of the Press in respect to such meetings.
    MR. ADDISONsaid, there was so much force in what

    1287
    had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras that he trusted the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment would be satisfied with the words "public meeting" as they stood in the clause. Those words would include such meetings as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had mentioned, whereas the words "and open to the public" would only tend to obscure the matter and raise a quibble which it was not desirable should be raised.
    MR. KELLYsaid, that what they were bound to legislate against were meetings held for the purpose of blackening a man's character and immunity being granted to a report of such meetings. "And open to the public" were the words of the old Act, and as they had never led to any trouble he did not see why they should not be adopted in this Bill.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, he did not see that anything would be added to the sense of the clause by the acceptance of these words. A public meeting open to the public would only be tautological and not a serious addition to the section. Apart from that, once they admitted that reports of large meetings were to be published without fear of libel by a newspaper, he thought the fewer restrictions and technicalities cast around the liberties of the people the better. As had been already pointed out, there were meetings in every respect public at which 4,000, 6,000, or 10,000 people were present, and yet the fact of three or four people, well known as disturbers of the peace, coming there with tickets and being refused admission, might, if the words proposed were accepted, enable persons dissatisfied with the character of the meeting to contend that the newspapers reporting the proceedings were outside the benefit of the 4th section of this Bill. He could conceive no tactics more likely and more easy to be adopted than those.
    MR. KELLYsaid, that be had been under the impression that in this Amendment he had been adopting the words of the previous Act, but it had been shown to him that he had been wrong in that supposition, the words having been slightly different—namely, "Such meeting" to be "open to the public." He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid that, with the permission of the Committee and the Chairman, he wished to propose an Amendment in lines 17 and 18, which was not upon the Paper. The clause as drafted said—
    "A fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a public meeting, or of any meeting of a Vestry, Town Council, School Board, Board of Guardians, board, or Local Authority formed or constituted under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, or of any Act amending the same, &c."
    He proposed to leave out the words, "the Public Health Act, 1875, or any Act amending the same," in order to put in their place the words, "any public Act of Parliament." Those words would, of course, apply to County Councils, and would be a simplification of the clause altogether.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 17 and 18, to leave out "the Public Health Act, 1875," in order to insert "any public Act of Parliament."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that a great number of these bodies were constituted under the provisions of private and not of public Acts of Parliament.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the governing words were—
    "Or of any meeting of a Vestry, Town Council, School Board, Board of Guardians, board, or Local Authority,"
    therefore the meetings would necessarily be constituted by Act of Parliament.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that if the word "public" were left out, the difficulty would be got over.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he would move to leave out the words "the Public Health Act, 1875," in order to put in their place," any Act of Parliament."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words "The Public Health Act, 1875," in order to insert the words "any Act of Parliament."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTFIWICKsaid, his next Amendment was in line 24, on the same page. He proposed to omit the words—
    "Or of any other duly and legally constituted body, or persons acting in a public capacity and for public purposes, and the publication by any newpaper of any notice or report issued for the information of the public by, or by order of, any Government office or department, officer of State, commissioner of police, or chief constable, or by any of the bodies or authorities hereinbefore mentioned, or of any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report,"
    The first part of this Amendment, he thought, would be a great improvement, that was, so far as it related to the abandonment of the words—
    "Or of any other duly and legally constituted body or persons acting in a public capacity and for public purposes,"
    as those words were, no doubt, vague and practically useless; but he should abandon with great regret the second portion of these words—namely,
    "And the publication by any newspaper of any notice or report issued for the information of the public by, or order of, any Government office or department, officer of State, commissioner of police, or chief constable, or by any of the bodies or authorities hereinbefore mentioned, or of any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report."
    He had reasons for proposing that these words should be given up; but he was very unwilling to make the Motion, because he considered that a newspaper ought to be privileged to publish any notice or report so issued for the information of the public. He would call the attention of the Committee to the case of the convict Benson, who was about as bad a character as a man could possily be. This man, having suffered his term of imprisonment and got out, had gone over to Geneva, where he had engaged in great and extensive frauds. For these frauds the police "wanted" him, as the expression was, and a circular was issued giving a description of him, and calling attention to him. Well, he (Sir Algernon Borthwick) held it to be for the benefit of the public that newspapers should assist the police in such cases; but it happened in this case that The Times and Daily Telegraph were
    1290
    both attacked by the convict for libelling him by publishing this circular. It was held by the Court that the convict had been libelled, and he thought it was a very monstrous thing that the Government should be able to placard all London with descriptions of certain individuals, and to declare that they were wanted for murder or felony, and that newspapers should be punished for publishing the same placards in their columns. He regarded it as a great pity that he should have to give up the second part of the words he had read, and he would make an appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General to allow the second part to stand.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 24, to omit the words "or any other duly and legally constituted body or persons acting in a public capacity and for public purposes."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that as the hon. Baronet had told them, in his ingenuous speech, he was not responsible for the latter part of this Amendment, he (Mr. Lawson) should like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to inform the Committee exactly why it was he thought these latter words should be struck out. It seemed to him (Mr. Lawson) desirable, in the interests of justice and for the detection of crime, that the words should be retained. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman, or someone on the Treasury Bench, would tell them why they were to be struck out?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the hon. Member was scarcely justified in what he said. He (Sir Richard Webster) had gone over these Amendments as carefully as he could with a view of seeing whether he could abstain from opposing the Bill of the hon. Baronet, but there was no ground for the hon. Gentleman opposite suggesting that he (Sir Richard Webster) was to take the responsibility of the Amendment. All he had done had been to point out these parts of the Bill which he considered objectionable. It was true that it was proposed in the Amendment to omit the words—
    "And the publication by any newspaper or any notice or report issued for the information

    1291
    of the public by or by order of any Government office or department, officer of State, commissioner of police, or chief constable, or by any of the bodies or authorities hereinbefore mentioned, or of any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report;"
    but newspapers, of course, would still be able to publish these things, and the only question was, whether they should be protected against actions for libel in so doing. He thought good reasons could be given why they should not be so protected. Proclamations of this kind were placed upon the walls by the authority of Public Departments, and there was a broad distinction between proclamations being published by a Public Department on its own authority, and being published in the newspapers. If a newspaper editor published in his paper the name and description and alleged offence of a man which he saw placarded on a wall, be did it at his own peril. There was no analogy whatever between the publication of such descriptions and the reports of public meetings. So far as he (Sir Richard Webster) was concerned, he had thought it would meet the objections he entertained to the clause if it were altered in the way suggested in this Amendment. He failed to see the similarity between the publication of such documents by Departments of the State and publication broadcast in newspapers on private authority simply because it might contain attractive details which these newspapers might consider it likely they would make something out of.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it appeared to him to be very much against the public interest to place any obstacle in the way of a newspaper publishing for the use of the public any information issued by a Public Department. Take the case of a Royal Commission. The Report of a Royal Commission was issued by order of the Home Office. Such Report might contain statements which in themselves might be grossly libellous, but which it was of importance to the public should be disseminated through the land—through some more popular medium than the pages of a Blue Book. The same argument applied to Gazette notices. He doubted very much whether there ever was a case where it was more desirable that privilege should be given to newspapers—in which newspapers should be allowed to publish information with-
    1292
    out fear of consequences. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had shown no reason why the same privilege should not be given in these cases as was given in the case of reports of proceedings of the House of Commons. It seemed to him that the necessity for conferring this privilege extended in quite the same degree to the publication of reports by Public Departments, and he hoped that, as the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment had confessed his dislike of the latter portion of it, he would not object to someone else attempting to keep in the words he himself was loth to part with—namely,
    "And the publication by any newspaper of any notice or report issued for the information of the public by or by order of any Government Office or Department, Officer of State, Commissioner of Police, or Chief Constable, or by any of the bodies or authorities hereinbefore mentioned, or of any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report."
    He did not think the hon. and learned Attorney General had given any sufficient reason for withholding privilege from these publications. To do so would cast a slur upon the discretion of Officers of State, and lead the public to believe that their reports were more calculated to harm individuals than to be of use to the public.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, he was not sure that the words it was proposed should be left out did not really govern the whole section. The clause was merely divided in two by a comma, and, if they got rid of these words, the newspapers would be left in a very different position, speaking generally, to that which they would otherwise have been in.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had put the Amendment so as not to touch the last words, which would come on in the shape of a subsequent Amendment.
    MR. CHANCE: Then the present Amendment only goes down to the words "public purposes?"
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, newspapers were protected in reporting evidence given before Committees of this House to which reporters were admitted, but that, he thought, did not apply to reports of Royal Commissions, or the evidence given before a Royal Commission, which was of the same kind to all intents and purposes as that given before their Committees. Take the case of such a Commission as

    1293
    that which inquired into the housing of the working classes. The names of individuals were frequently mentioned and even held up to public odium, and he must say he thought newspapers should have the same privileges in such cases as they had in relation to evidence given before the Select Committees where reporters were admitted. Under this Amendment a newspaper might not be privileged in publishing the contents of a Blue Book, such a Blue Book would come under the words it was proposed to leave out being published by order of the Secretary for the Home Department.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that the clause already privileged newspapers in publishing a fair and accurate report
    "Of any Committee appointed by any of the above-mentioned bodies, or of any meeting of any Commissioners authorized to act by Letters Patent, Act of Parliament, Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, or other lawful warrant or authority, &c."
    The difficulty pointed out by hon. Members opposite, he thought, would be met by those words.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "and the publication by any newspaper of any notice or report issued for the information of the public by or by order of any Government office or department, officer of state, commissioner of police, or chief constable, or by any of the bodies or authorities hereinbefore mentioned, or of any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he wished to move, in the same Clause, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words—
    "Unless it should be proved by the plaintiff or prosecutor, as the case may be, that such report or publication was published or made with actual malice."
    It was, he contended, unreasonable to enact that an aggrieved person should be shut out from recovering compensation unless he could prove that a newspaper proprietor had acted maliciously. It was of no sort of importance to the person libelled whether the act was done maliciously or recklessly; the damage was the same to him, and the only question ought to be as to the amount of injury he had suffered.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words from "unless" to "malice," in line 5, inclusive.—(Mr. Kelly.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CHANCEsaid, he thought that without those words reports published with actual malice would be completely protected.
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kelly) was for once wrong in the law on this subject. The word privileged was well known, and would never be permitted to apply to that which it had been proved had been done maliciously.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, it was the duty of a newspaper editor to see that no libels found their way into the reports in his paper. He employed the reporters, and it was his duty to see that their reports were correct. What was wanted was that the particular class of reporters who had at their mercy the characters of a great number of people should not be freed from responsibility in regard to the reports they furnished. What he held was this, that if reporters supplied false or incorrect reports, the person taking them and publishing them should be the person liable to punishment.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he was of opinion that the words proposed to be left out should be retained, and that he had some doubt whether it might not be necessary to add guarding words to the previous part of the section. He thought the words should remain in to prevent the suggestion that there was absolute privilege, and he ventured to submit to the Committee that he found some ground for this on referring to the Act of 1881, for he there found words to the effect that any report was to be privileged if the meeting was lawfully convened and open to the public, and if the report was fair and accurate and without malice. In the present clause it was set forth that the report should be privileged unless it could be proved by the plaintiff or prosecutor that the publication was published or made with actual malice.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman

    1295
    the Attorney General, but he would call attention to the distinction between the passage the hon. Member had read in the existing law and the present Amendment. There were no such words as "actual malice" used in the existing law. They knew what the law of libel was, and they should adhere to that, but if they put in the words "actual malice," they would mean something else. He (Sir William Harcourt), however, would be glad to leave this matter to the hon. and learned Attorney General, who would, no doubt, take care that the subject was properly guarded, but he certainly thought that the limit "actual" malice was too wide, and that the limiting objection should be struck out. He was not sure whether some further protection would not be wanted. A newspaper proprietor did not as a rule publish a thing out of malice. A private individual very often made a statement out of malice, but a newspaper very often published these matters not for malice in fact, but because it answered their purpose to do so, and it must be remembered that it was a very difficult thing to bring absolute proof of actual malice.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that "actual malice" as used in the law at the present time had been known for 40 years, and was as it appeared in Lord Campbell's Act. His chief objection to the retention of this provision was that it threw the onus of proving actual malice upon the wrong person.
    MR. R. T. REID (, &c.)said, he did not wish to enter into the question, which he admitted to be a difficult one, as to what were the conflicting penalties where malice was proved, and where it was not proved, but he thought it would be far better to omit the word "actual" as qualifying malice, and to use instead the word "express." According to the rule at present, if the libel was false it was held to be malicious unless the occasion was privileged, in which case the malice was "express." He thought they had better ad here to the words known to the English law, and he would suggest that the clause should be amended in that sense; and then a fair and accurate report would be privileged unless it could be shown that there was express malice.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, that before anything of that sort was done he had an
    1296
    objection to take to an earlier part of these words. Objection was taken that a plaintiff or prosecutor should be put to the proof of actual or express malice. That might be held to require extrinsic proof other than the production of the libel itself. He understood that in many cases production of the libel itself would be proof of malice, and of course in a libel case the whole question went to the jury, and he did not see why they should not be allowed to infer actual malice from the libel itself. He would, therefore, move to leave out the words "Provided always that the production—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The present Question before the Committee is as to the exclusion of the words—
    "Unless it should be proved by the plaintiff or prosecutor, as the case may be, that such report was published or made with actual malice."
    That Amendment must be withdrawn before the hon. Member can move any other.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he sympathized with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chance), and thought his object might be met by leaving out the words "by the plaintiff or prosecutor as the case may be." He did not see any magic in those words.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, he was afraid that according to the words of the clause as they stood, extrinsic evidence might be held to be necessary.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsuggested that the words proposed to be left out should stand with the exception of the words "with actual malice," and for which he suggested that the word "maliciously" should be substituted.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he should be guided very much by the sense of the Committee in regard to this matter. He was in favour of leaving out the words "actual malice," and inserting "maliciously," because he did not think that newspapers under ordinary circumstances inserted reports with actual malice, but merely did so in the course of business. Supposing a large sum of money was paid to an editor to insert a particular thing, then it seemed to him that that would be inserted maliciously. It might not be actual malice, or express malice, but it would be malicious. He would propose that the

    1297
    words "plaintiff or prosecutor" should be left out.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Unless the Amendment before it is withdrawn, I am afraid no alteration can be made.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he was afraid he must persist in pressing his Amendment, as he did not think it right that a prosecutor or plaintiff should have thrown upon him the onus of proving that a libel upon him had been published maliciously.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, whether, supposing this Amendment were carried, it would not then be possible to adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; by putting it in an entirely new setting.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, the best plan would be to allow the Amendment before the Committee to be carried, and then to propose an Amendment in the sense of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he now moved to insert the words "unless it should be proved that such report or publication was published or made maliciously."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 3, to insert the words "unless it should be proved that such report or publication was published or made maliciously."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHANCEdesired to know why they should say "unless it should be proved?"
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he would suggest to leave out the words "or made."
    MR. PICKERSGILLasked, why they did not adopt the phraseology of the Act of 1881, which had stood the test of time? It seemed to him that they would be able to meet the difficulty very simply by inserting, in the first line of the Clause, "published without malice."
    THE CHAIRMAN: We have passed that.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he was quite aware of that fact; but the point could be revived at a subsequent Sitting.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, be had to move an Amendment he had mentioned some time ago—namely, in line 5, page 2, after the word "malice," to extend to this clause of the Bill the Proviso they had adopted in Clause 3—namely—
    "Provided, That nothing in this section should authorize the publication of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter."
    It might he held that the words already adopted would apply to the whole Bill; but it was possible that they might be taken as simply applying to Clause 3, and he, therefore, wished to be on the safe side, and have them also inserted in Clause 4. They all knew that there was a certain class of meetings whose proceedings were not fit for publication, and the Committee would, no doubt, agree with him that these words should be inserted in the clause.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, the words would more properly come in at the end of the clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the last Amendment, to insert the words, "Provided, That nothing in this section should authorize the publication of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter."—(Mr. S. Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HUNTERsaid, this would come in very awkwardly here, and if the hon. Member for Flint would postpone the Amendment to the end, it would be more convenient.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, if it was the desire of the Committee that he should do that, he should be very glad to fall in with it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, he thought they ought to extend the penalty and make the person who uttered the scandalous words liable, as well as the author of the publication. That was the purport of one part of the Amendment he had to move. The second part was to make it incumbent on the editor or proprietor of the newspaper to give up the notes on which the report was based, and the name and address of the reporter or other person by whom the same were taken or furnished.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he objected to the Amendment, on

    1299
    the ground that it was not within the Instruction of the Committee. It was a proposal to make that which came under the Law of Slander bear the same penalties as libel.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, as he understood the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, he doubted whether it was within the scope of the Bill.
    On the Motion of Mr. DARLING, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 8, leave out "can show," and insert "shall prove," instead thereof.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, leave out "requested," and insert "required in writing."—(Mr. Chance).
    Question proposed, "That the word 'requested' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, as he understood the object of the hon. Gentleman, it was that they should ensure that there should be no neglect or refusal on the part of the newspaper proprietor to insert a letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation. But he would point out that the words of the Act of 1881 were that "the defendant has refused to insert, &c." There was no reason why the request should be expressed in writing, and he thought the simple expression "has been requested" was all that was required.
    MR. COMMINSsaid he would suggest that the words of the Act of 1881 should be followed.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, since he spoke it had occurred to him that they had to deal with the case of neglecting to answer, although there might not be any positive refusal. He therefore suggested that they should follow the general scheme of the clause, and make such an Amendment further on as might be necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 8, leave out—
    "By such plaintiff or prosecutor or by some other person acting on his behalf or by his authority."
    THE CHAIRMANhaving read the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Roscommon (Mr. Commins) said, that it did not appear to him to be out of Order.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, the Amendment handed to the Chairman appeared to him to be only a reasonable provision. A good many of the reports in question might be actionable per se, and such as would injure the character of individuals. It seemed to him that in order to escape the penalty, the proprietors should be compelled to give all the information requisite to bring the offending person to justice, and he would therefore move the Amendment read.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 14, after "same" insert, "or as refused to deliver up any proof or transcript of notes or other authority on which the publication complained of was made, together with the name and address of the reporter or other person by whom the same were taken or furnished."—(Mr. Commins.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would pause before accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. What was the effect of the Proviso? At the present moment the reporter who made the report to the newspaper was not the criminal; it was the person whose words he reported that was the slanderer, and the reporter was simply the human machine by which his words were transmitted to the newspaper. The effect of the Proviso, however, would be to make the reporter the publisher of the incriminatory matter, and, consequently, they were asked to give the person complaining a right of action against him. But the reporter was not the person they wanted to get at; it was the person who uttered the slander. For these reasons he objected to the Amendment, as not being germane to the Bill.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he could not, for his part, agree to the principle of the Amendment; but, apart from that, there were detailed objections to the Amendment itself. There might be other matters in the notes amounting to libel, and if the notes were given up to one, other persons affected might be left without remedy. The privilege, although given nominally to several complainants, could only be used by one.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the Amendment did not go to the point at issue. The persons to be made liable were not the reporters, but those who

    1301
    uttered the slanderous words or those who published them. He thought the Amendment would be hard on those who were merely carrying out the orders of their superiors.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, the object of his Amendment had been misapprehended. A person injured might have absolutely no means of bringing home responsibility to the right person, except through the reporter, and the Amendment merely required that the name and address should be given, in order to make him a witness to prove the utterance of the words complained of. Suppose the case of a public meeting at which a slander was uttered, and that the gentleman concerned complained of the report; he might have no means of getting at the slanderer without the notes, and therefore the editor, or proprietor, ought to be bound to produce the notes and the person who took them.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, the clause began with the words "a fair and accurate report," and it would be necessary for the publisher to show his notes in order to prove the fairness and accuracy of the report. Further, a plaintiff could always get the reporter's name on interrogatory, and therefore the Amendment was not needed.
    MR. WADDYsaid, they were going to give to the newspaper publishers or proprietors a special protection. At present, if a man were defamed, he could make the newspaper proprietor responsible. But now they were going to defend him, and if they now interposed such a barrier, it was not unreasonable to say that they would put any aggrieved man in possession of facts which would enable him to get at the person who was the author of the libel. Surely they ought not to put him in such a position that he would have to say—"Formerly I could go against the proprietor, but now I have no means of redress, because I cannot get at the notes of the reporter."
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it might be that no action would lie against a Member of the House on account of words uttered in the House; but when Privilege was extended in 1881 no such Proviso as this was made. There had never been any complaint or difficulty because the reports of the debates dealt with under the Act of 1881 were privileged. The
    1302
    practice had worked perfectly well, and no one had ever suggested such a course as that proposed by the hon. Member for South Roscommon (Mr. Commins). If, then, no such safeguard had been found necessary with regard to speeches in that House, he did not think it would be necessary in the case of the very guarded form of publication contemplated by the clause.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, the Bill had for its object the protection of the proprietor and publisher of the newspaper. The supporters of the Bill now wanted to protect the person who supplied the report—to be logical they might as well protect the person who uttered the words.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, the position taken up by himself and his hon. Friends was, that the newspaper proprietors did not want to libel anyone; they were simply the means of publication of certain reports. If the reports were made in the discharge of a public duty, they ought not to be called upon to furnish the names of their reporters.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was not about to pledge himself to the wording of the Amendment. The Bill was intended to take away the right of action against newspaper proprietors. He did not object to that; but there might be many cases in which, under the law as it now stood, the person who uttered the speech would be actionable. He thought it was right, therefore, when they were throwing this shield over the publisher, that some means of redress should be left against the person who uttered the words.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he agreed with all that his hon. and learned Friend had said. The question was, whether, in order to give redress to the person who complained of scandalous words spoken, they should fix upon a particular individual—namely, the reporter, and drag him forward and sacrifice him for the purpose. He thought that that would be very hard upon a particular class of persons—namely, the reporters. Besides, when scandalous words were spoken at a public meeting there were numerous other witnesses who could be summoned.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that he did not want to drag forward reporters in any way; but what he asked was, whether the hon. and learned Attorney General would not introduce

    1303
    some words to place the complainant in a position to call for the report furnished to the newspaper proprietors?
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that he had a strong objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for South Roscommon (Mr. Commins). On the one hand, they had the newspaper proprietor who made a profit by selling 20,000 or 30,000 copies, and, on the other hand, they had the reporter earning, he did not know exactly what, but a comparatively small salary, who was simply a person discharging a duty imposed upon him by his superiors. But, besides that, the proposal was to compel by statute this unfortunate man to be brought forward in order that he might suffer for the sins of the person who made all the profit. He was quite sure that his hon. Friend would not encourage that proceeding if he knew it to be the real scope of his Amendment; but it was the scope of it nevertheless, and hon. Members would find upon examination that this was the case. It would be seen that, while it was proposing to throw a shield in front of the wealthy newspaper proprietor, it afforded no protection to individuals who were carrying out their duty.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he would take upon himself, in the name of all the newspaper proprietors, to say that they would rather give up the whole Bill than sacrifice the reporter. While there was a code of honour in many professions, he believed that in no profession was the code of honour stronger than that which existed in connection with the Press. He did not believe there was a case in which a newspaper proprietor had ever given up the name of an individual who had imparted to him information in confidence, and no proprietor had, as far as he ever heard, been ready to sacrifice one of his servants. They were all prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility involved, and with it liability; and by this Bill they were not seeking to escape from any reasonable or lawful liability whatever. So far as this Amendment was concerned, requiring that the reporter's notes should be given up, they were not in favour of it.
    MR. WADDYsaid, that all this chivalry was uncalled for. There was no desire to sacrifice the reporter at all. In the case of a slander uttered at a
    1304
    puplic meeting the mischief was done because the newspaper had a large circulation, and copies containing it went all over the country. Now, they were going to protect the proprietors, and the persons who were libelled would require to get at the man who spoke the libel. In order to do so, they were asked to get the proprietor to prove that the speech was fairly reported. But the reporter was the one witness who would be able to do this more readily than anybody else; he was the best evidence that could be produced, and, in practice, he is the very person who always gives evidence for his employer. If there were any danger to the reporter to be apprehended as the consequence of this Amendment, by all means let the necessary clause be inserted into the Bill to hold the reporter as harmless as the editor or the publisher; but let the injured man have the means of getting at the author of the libel.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, it was absolutely wrong to say that by this Amendment the reporter would not be touched. The Amendment required that his name and address should be given, and he (Mr. Lawson) said that to do this would be to destroy the central principle of newspaper organization. He contended that the anonymous character of reporting must be preserved, and he regarded the Amendment on that ground as wholly objectionable.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, that the whole discussion which had taken place on his Amendment was beside the mark. In all cases of the kind contemplated the reporter must be called, and that reporters were called was within his own knowledge. Defendants in these actions always had the reporter, with his notes in his hand, to prove that the report was a fair one, and now it was said that the practice was absolutely contrary to the principle of reporting. The reporter was the only person in the world who had the notes; he was bound to have them for his own protection, and he (Mr. Commins) could see no reason why the report should be with held from the cognizance of the injured party.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, at the end, add "or shall privilege the publication of any matter not of

    1305
    public interest."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    DR. CAMERONsaid, however necessary these words might have been before they had struck out the words "or any other matter of public interest which is a fair subject of newspaper report," now that the clause dealt with the reports of certain specified meetings, he could not see how the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Baronet could lead to anything else than increased litigation.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he objected to the words "shall privilege the publication" in the Amendment.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, he also objected to the words "shall privilege the publication," and suggested that they should be left out of the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. KELLYsaid, they did not want to protect newspaper proprietors, nor were they called upon to do so, except when the matter of the report was of public interest and for the public benefit. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Baronet would agree to add the words "for the public benefit."
    Amendment proposed, to add, after the word "interest" in the preceding Amendment, the words "and which is for the public benefit."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that this Amendment dealt with ground that had already been gone over by the Committee, and was, therefore, inadmissible.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, the words were pure surplusage; the wording his Amendment being ample, in his opinion, to secure the object in view.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, if he had seen the Amendment of the hon. Baronet before, he should have objected to it in the form in which it appeared in the Paper. By the terms of the Amendment they were asked to privilege the publication of any matter of public interest. He never had any intention whatever of protecting the publication of anything on the ground that it was interesting to the public. He should,
    1306
    therefore, be bound to resist any attempt to cut down the condition that privilege should only be extended to matter published for the public benefit. So far as he was concerned, the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Camberwell carried out his intention.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, it had been pointed out that there was a tendency in the Bill to extend the privileges of newspaper proprietors and editors, so that they might take hold of almost everything, and plead that it was published in the public interest. The Committee ought distinctly to know whether hon. Gentlemen who objected to the addition of the words understood the terms "of public interest" and "for the public benefit" to be synonymous. Theywere certainly not so in newspaper work, and, therefore, he thought that the words "for the public benefit" should be added.
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not give way, and insert the words "public benefit." The object was to protect such matter as fairly concerned the public interest; but, by introducing the words "public benefit," they would place editors at the mercy of any person who chose to bring an action, and say that, although the subject might be of public interest, it was not for the public benefit that it should be published. He should be very sorry to have to prove to a mixed jury that all the statements made at a public meeting were for the benefit of the public. Many hon. Members would be inclined to think that much of what was said at public meetings was not for the public benefit, and surely it was not wise to make the reporter the censor of the speeches delivered. All he could say was, that if he had to go through the speeches and say that so much was for the public benefit, and so much not, he would have to strike his pen through three-fourths of them. Some speeches had been delivered very recently in that House the reports of which were certainly not for the public benefit, but it would be unfair to make the reporter the judge of their fitness.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought it right to point out, that when he voted for the repeal of the

    1307
    section of the Act of 1881, he made the distinct statement that he did so on the understanding that words were to be inserted to show that protection was given only in the case of matter published for the public benefit.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would point out that, by Lord Campbell's Act, it was no defence that a libel was true, unless it was for the public benefit that such libel should be published. He did not see why, if they had the words "public benefit" in an Act of Parliament on a cognate subject, they should not have them in this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. S. SMITH (Flintshire) the following Amendment made:—In page 2, at the end, add—
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorize the publication of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous matter."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Howell.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that it would be perfectly competent to deal with the clauses on the Paper on Report, and he would suggest that the Committee go on for the remaining quarter of an hour at their disposal.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (where defendant in action for libel has raised plea under Section 2 of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, only special damage to be recovered in certain cases. 6 & 7 Vict. 96 s. 2.).
    On the Motion of Mr. KELLY, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 25, to leave out the word "actual" and the word "gross."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. R. T. REID (, &c.)said, that the clause provided that where the defendant in an action for libel had raised a plea under the 2nd section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, only special damage could be recovered from him. That was to say, special damage only could be recovered after the passing
    1308
    of this Act, where the defendant chose to publish an apology, even without paying money into Court, when the plea was that there was no malice. But take what was a very ordinary case. A libel might be published of a most defamatory and cruel character with reference to a man. In 99 such cases out of 100, it could not be proved that special damage had been sustained; but, at the same time, everyone of common sense must know that the individual's reputation had been seriously impaired, although it could not be proved that any damage had been suffered. It was actually proposed that, under this clause, the newspaper proprietor, having cast the foulest aspersions without malice and scattered them all over the country, upon inserting an apology, was to give the injured individual no sort of compensation whatever because he could not prove special damage. He (Mr. Reid) ventured to say there had been a considerable amount of legislation in favour of newspapers, for the very wise and proper purpose of protecting them; but no one had ever made such a suggestion as that. It was competent now, under the Act referred to, to make an apology and pay an adequate sum into Court, and the whole object of the present clause was to dispense with the necessity of making pecuniary indemnity. The framers of the Bill were prepared to swallow their pride by making an apology; but they wanted to get off the pecuniary compensation by which the apology had now to be accompanied. It was very much to be regretted, in his opinion, that such a proposal should have been made, and he could not help thinking that the draftsman was responsible, because he was sure the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) would not have presented such a clause to the House if he had been aware of its effect.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries was a very important one, and, in order to give time for consideration, he thought that Progress should now be reported.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that at present the law stood thus:—A man must pay money into Court at the same time that he made his apology, and the question to be con-

    1309
    sidered was, whether it was or was not desirable to alter the law in regard to cases in which no special damage had been sustained. It was unfortunate that his hon. and learned Friend had not raised that question on the earlier lines of the Bill, because there was a middle course well worthy of consideration. It was a question whether it would not be well to make it incumbent on the newspaper proprietor to pay money into Court to meet general damages, leaving special damages to be recovered. He made these remarks to assist the Committee to come to a conclusion, and it was for the Committee to decide whether there should be an alteration of the wording or not.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was not at all sure that the framers of the clause had in their minds the technical meaning attached to the words "special damage." In giving general damages in an action for libel, the jury took into consideration that the character of a man had suffered; but in case of special damage it had to be proved that a man had suffered loss directly traceable to the libel in question. He thought it would be impossible in cases of the most grievous libel to prove that, except in the case of small tradesmen who had lost custom. How could a gentleman or a lady prove special damage in the case of words which might constitute a most gross libel? He thought, therefore, it would be better to allow the law to remain as it was at present.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, there had been an action against The Globe newspaper in the case of a person named Colledge, in which the plaintiff recovered £1,000; he then went on to prosecute a number of other newspapers, and recovered, he believed, altogether about £7,000. Surely it was necessary that there should be protection against proceedings of that kind.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, his answer to the hon. Baronet was, that such cases as he had referred to appeared to be dealt with by Clause 6, which gave power to the defendant to give certain evidence in mitigation of damages.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, that in the cases referred to, all the newspapers sued might have pleaded that they acted without prejudice.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought the effect of the clause had not been quite appreciated. He contended that if it were carried it would have a very serious effect in respect of costs, because the person bringing the action would have to go through the whole process at his own expense. That seemed to be a very unfair proposal.
    It being half an hour after Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee to sit again upon Friday.

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY BILL.
(Mr. Bryce, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Jacob Bright, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Whitley, Sir Lyon Playfair, Mr. Francis Powell.)
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY BILL.

  [BILL 198.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Exemption from Mortmain Act of Victoria University).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped they would be allowed to proceed with the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Extension of privileges to graduates).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "or any regulation of any public authority."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Amendment, when he told him that he had an Amendment to move at the end of the clause to deal with the question of privilege and exemptions.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, to add, at the end of the Clause, "Provided, that the exemptions and privileges herein mentioned shall not include exemptions and privileges conferred by any regulations of any Public Authority for the time being on other than the Victoria University."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, with that restriction he was prepared to accept the clause, the terms of which, as they stood, were, in his opinion, too wide.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 161.]
(Mr. Dugdale, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Curzon, Mr Dixon, Mr. Mark Stewart.)
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 161.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 31st May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Cause 2 (29 & 30 Viet. c. 117, c. 14. Youthful offenders may be sent to certified reformatory schools without the imposition of a term of imprisonment).
  On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 13, leave out the second "in."
  MR. DUGDALEsaid, he proposed to move a further Amendment, to enable Justices of the Peace, where a child had been sent for admission to any reformatory, if no vacancy in such reformatory was found within seven days, to determine within 14 days where the convicted child should be sent.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 24, to leave out all the words after "any" to end of Clause, and insert the words "Justice of the Peace acting in and for the petty sessional division of the county or in and for the borough where the offence has been committed,"—(Mr. Dugdale,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, the Government were preparing to frame a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners on Reformatory Schools dealing with this particular point. On the present occasion, therefore, he must reserve very large liberty of action to
  1312
  the Government. He thought, however, his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment was an improvement of the law, and, as far as he was concerned, he was willing to agree to it.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the Government ought to state definitely what was its opinion on a matter of this kind. In order that the House might have an opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of the Government, he would move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman had paid him the compliment of attending to his statement, he would have understood that the Government did approve the general principle of the Bill. Their consent to the second reading, of course, involved that approval.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it was waste of time to discuss any Amendment to the Bill, if the Government seriously intended to bring in another measure. Would it not be better to discuss the whole question de novo when the Government Bill was before them?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he entirely disclaimed having misunderstood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). He had understood him perfectly. They were now settling the details of a Bill, and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department said—"I propose to reserve all consideration of details to the future."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC [SALARIES, &c.].—REPORT.
  Order for Consideration of Report read.
  MR. CHANCEsaid, he objected to the Report being now considered.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), said, he must ask the hon. Member not to persist in his objection.
  MR. CHANCE: No, Sir; I will accede to no appeal.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the Order had been placed first on Monday's Business Paper, in order that an opportunity might be given for discussion upon it, and that opportunity was not then taken. It was simply a formal Resolution, without which the Bill relating to the subject could not be proceeded with; and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his opposition.
  MR. CHANCE: I shall do no such thing.
  Report deferred till To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW OF LIMITED LIABILITY—LEGIS- LATION.
  MR. ADDISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state what the Government proposes to do in respect to the amendment of the Law relating to Limited Liability?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) authorized him to state that there was every reason to hope that the Bill on that subject would be introduced in "another place" in a short time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—STATEMENT.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he might take the opportunity of intimating that the Leader of the House would to-morrow move that when the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill was put down for Tuesday and Friday the House should meet at 2 o'clock.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 12) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Improvement Act District of Bingley, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 283.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.