DEFAMATION AND LIBEL. (Hansard, 27 July 1843)

The Lord Chancellor
entirely concurred in the amendments, which were for the purpose of carrying out more effectually an amendment he had himself proposed in an early stage of the measure.

Lord Brougham
said, that in the sixth section of the bill an improvement had, on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench been effected in the law, which he regarded as being the most important of any in the whole measure. It appeared that for years past a certain infamous and detestable class of persons—. than whom there could not exist a more infamous and contemptible class in any condition of society—had carried on an odius traffic by threatening persons with the publication of libellous matter through the press, for the purpose of extorting money. His noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, had truly remarked, that there was a marked difference between the case of such persons, and the case of those merely guilty of the publication of slander. He had suggested a clause imposing as a punishment for such offence, imprisonment with hard labour, for not less than three years. He found, however, that in order to render the enactment of the measure in this respect more effectual, it was necessary to propose a slight alteration. By the clause as it stood its enactment only applied to the actual publication of defamatory matter, for the purpose of extorting money; but he was anxious to see the object of the law carried out still further. In most cases of the kind the libellous matter was not published at the time of the threat, in which case it was difficult to get hold of the offender. Or, as in many cases it happened, the offender merely said" Give me money, or I'll publish a libel against you." [The Lord Chancellor Yes; or he says, "Give me money, or I'll 1358 mention you."] Yes. Yet here was no defamatory libel. It was merely a threat to "mention." Now, there were many persons who did not like even to be mentioned in a newspaper, particularly persons of the other sex. Such a threat was just as bad as the threat to publish a defamatory libel; yet, as the clause now stood, it would not affect such a case. Another common mode of extorting money was to say to a public man, "Give me 50l, or give me a place, or I'll show you up." Or a man would say to another, "Unless you give me money, I'll say something of you, which you will not like." All such cases would not be affected by the clause as it stood; because by that it was necessary to show that the matter published was a defamatory libel. A threat of this kind was to make use of the press as a pistol was made use of by a highwaymen on the highway. To meet the difficulty he had suggested, he would propose an amendment, which would leave the clause thus:— That if any person shall publish any defamatory libel touching any other person with the intent to extort money, or if any person shall threaten to publish any matter or thing touching any other person with the intent of extorting money, or any security for money, or any valuable thing, from any other person. And so on—then the clause shall take effect. He believed, that the additional words would secure the attainment of the object he had referred to.

Lord Campbell
said, that as the law now stood, there was no limit to the power of imprisonment for libel. He allowed that there was no difficulty whatever in finding that words employed in a certain way would amount to a defamatory libel. Now, suppose a person said, "If you don't place money under a certain stone, or send me a certain acceptance, or give me a certain place, I will show you up in a certain newspaper, or mention you, or do something you do not like," could any man doubt that that threat would amount to a defamatory libel? But what did his noble and learned Friend propose?—" That if any person should threaten to publish any matter or thing, &c" [Lord Brougham: Touching any person.] Yes; but that was too general, too vague, and might be converted to improper purposes; "not only with a view to extort money, but to induce a person to confer an appointment, or obtain any place of profit or trust,"—that 1359 that should be a misdemeanour. [Lord Brougham: It must be a threat.] It would be a threat, but he really hoped his noble and learned Friend would allow the clause to stand as it was at present.

The Lord Chancellor
felt very anxious about this clause, and thought the objections to it were well-founded; but he was not prepared to say whether it was requisite to go so far as his noble and learned Friend suggested. The matter required consideration, and had better stand over for a short time.