Sitting of 20 June 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Oaths [7]—R.P.; Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment [230]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Distress for Rent (Dublin) [159].
Considered as amended—Libel Law Amendment [294]; Reformatory Schools Act (1866) Amendment [161].
Withdrawn—School Fees (Non-Paupers) [13].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Commons Regulation (Therfield Heath)* [301].
Third Reading—Tramways (No. 2)* [242], and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LIBEL LAW A AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Sir Algernon Borthwick, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Jennings, Dr, Cameron, Mr. John Morley, Mr. E. Dwyer Gray.)
  LIBEL LAW A AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 294.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to move the addition of the clause which stood in his name, as follows:—
    "In any action for libel, if the defendant can show by affidavit or other evidence to the satisfaction of a judge of the Division of the High Court of Justice in which such action is brought that the plaintiff is not domiciled within the United Kingdom, the judge shall have power to make an order that the plaintiff shall, within a reasonable time therein mentioned, give full security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of one of the masters of such court, and that until such security be given all proceedings in the action shall be stayed."
    714
    The House would remember that when the Bill passed the second reading there was a clause of far wider scope of the same nature as this in the Bill. That clause enabled any defendant to go to a Judge and ask him, if he saw no cause against it and if the plaintiff had no available means, to call upon the defendant to give security for costs. That clause did not meet with the approval of the Committee, and was cut out. Now the clause he was proposing, and which he wished inserted in the Bill, was one of the same kind, but of a restricted character. His clause simply proposed that if a foreigner brought an action for libel the Judge might be allowed, on the application of the defendant, to call upon such foreigner to give security for costs, should he not be domiciled in this country. He had given an instance in Committee to show that the Judge ought to be allowed to have that authority. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had contested his law, and had said that in all cases the Judge had a right to call upon a plaintiff to give security for costs if he was not a resident in the country. Well, he had referred to a work by his right hon. and learned Friend, and if he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would allow him (Mr. Labouchere) to say so on his own authority, he would tell him that he was wrong. He saw in a book called Morgan's Chancery Acts these words—
    "If, however, at the time of the application for security for costs, the plaintiff, whether an Englishman or a foreigner, is within the jurisdiction, though only temporarily security cannot be required."
    That was the law—it was admitted to be so, and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bear him out that that was just what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say. He had referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's work in order to arrive at his views, It amounted to this, that at the present moment a foreigner might come over to England, he might put up at an hotel in Dover; he might bring an action against a newspaper for libel, and if the newspaper proprietor or editor applied to the Judge to require the foreigners to find security for costs the Judge could not oblige the foreigner

    715
    to find that security if at the time of the application the man happened to be residing at such hotel in Dover. Then, having brought his action, this foreigner might go away and disappear, and this unfortunate newspaper proprietor had to go into Court and send his counsel into Court, the foreigner never appearing on the scene. It might be if the plaintiff did appear on the scene, the action went against him, but that he had no means of paying the costs, and went back to his own country whither there was no means of following him. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would admit that his contention was a reasonable one, and that in this case a man should be called upon to give some security for the payment of costs. But what would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General say against the proposal? He (Mr. Labouchere) would tell the House. He would say, "It is quite right, no doubt, but you must wait for a large measure; why are you to do this in the case of libel and not in all other cases?" Well, everyone in this world must look after himself. Newspaper proprietors must look after themselves. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would bring in that general law they would be perfectly ready to vote for it, but he (Mr. Labouchere) saw nothing on the horizon to lead him to suppose that any such general law was going to be brought in; and he should like to point out that in the matter of libel, the law was different in regard to procedure than that in any other case. In 1882 they had a measure called the "Newspaper Libel Act" before the House—
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): No; in 1881.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, in 1881, that Act was passed. There were special provisions in that measure as to procedure in cases of libel. There were special enactments in the Bill not only in regard to libel, but in regard to procedure generally; and he simply asked that, as they happened to have the present measure before them, they should take the opportunity to remedy what was a great wrong to newspaper proprietors. He knew perfectly well that there was very little sympathy with
    716
    newspaper proprietors in this House. There was only one period when Members of Parliament affected a sympathy with newspapers, and that was just a little before a General Election, and, oh, then the newspaper proprietors were the best of the human race, and everything that newspaper proprietors proposed was listened to with the greatest attention in the House. But he (Mr. Labouchere) did not desire a Bill to be brought forward under such conditions as those. He did not ask for special favour; he wanted fair honest justice. That was all he asked for, in the name of every newspaper proprietor, for every newspaper proprietor in the country was in favour of the clause. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick), on the Conservative side, had put in a clause which would cover the present proposal, and go much farther; but he had struck it out because the Government were opposed to it. He (Mr. Labouchere) was sure he should have the support of the hon. Baronet for that very humble clause which he now bogged to move to be read a second time.
    New clause (Defendant may obtain security for costs from plaintiffs not domiciled in the United Kingdom,)—Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first time).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. KELLYsaid, he regretted that that proposed new clause must be opposed, and if on no other grounds upon those which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had himself stated. He (Mr. Kelly) held that the law could not, or should not, be altered in favour of a single class of individuals. If the proposal was to alter the general law so as to do away with the injustice which the hon. Gentleman had pointed out, so far as regarded the general public as well as the newspaper proprietors, it would be a totally different thing; but he did not know upon what principle newspaper proprietors were to be legislated for specially. As a matter of fact, the clause seemed more or less to regard the pecuniary interests of this one class. The point was that, at the present moment, if a foreigner brought an

    717
    action against anybody in this country, there was a power to stay the action until security for payment of costs had been given; but that provision applied to all defendants whatsoever against whom actions were brought by foreigners who were not domiciled in this country, whether newspaper proprietors or not, and it was a very proper provision for the protection of our own people. But the hon. Member wished to prevent any foreigner from bringing an action without giving security for costs in one particular class of cases only if the foreigner was not domiciled in England. The protection which was afforded to the whole community at present seemed to him (Mr. Kelly) to be sufficient; but if it was not, then let proper protection be given generally to all classes. The hon. Member talked about the unfortunate newspaper proprietors. Well, he (Mr. Kelly) thought there were very few in that House who would not like to be in the position of some of those unfortunate newspaper proprietors. The hon. Member said these gentlemen were only looking after their own interests. Well, it was refreshing to hear such an admission. The House would accept the statement, and would bear in mind that the newspaper proprietors in the House were looking after their own interests, and not those of the public.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The two are identical.
    MR. KELLYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated in the plainest terms that newspaper proprietors were only engaged in looking after their own interests, and nothing else.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he must explain. He had never said that newspaper proprietors were looking after their own interests, and nothing else. He had said that they were naturally engaged in looking after their own interests, and all the more so because their interests were those of the public.
    MR. KELLYsaid, it was quite clear that the hon. Member said what newspaper proprietors were looking after—namely, their own interests, and it was also clear that in many instances they were looking after those interests without considering the interests of the public. He (Mr. Kelly) might mention this, that, as the hon. Member knew very well, a plaintiff really could never bring an action and then run away; be-
    718
    cause if he did run away, the action could be stayed at once, unless security for costs was given. But the point was, was the general law to be altered in favour of one particular class, and that particular class the libellers.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it was always disagreeable to be convicted of being in the wrong, but it was especially disagreeable to be so convicted out of one's own mouth. He must admit that he had been in the wrong in what he had stated the other day, but it could hardly be expected of him that he should carry so many pages of printed matter in his head as were contained in the book from which the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) had quoted. The hon. Member had stated, that if a foreigner took up his residence at an hotel in Dover, and brought an action against a newspaper, remaining in England as a temporary resident up to the very day when the action was heard, and disappeared as soon as the case went against him, they could not make him give security for costs. Well, it seemed to him (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that that was monstrously unjust. He was as much opposed as any man could be to these small alterations of the law in favour of particular classes, and if there was any chance of their being able to bring about an alteration of the law generally in this respect, he should agree that it would be better to proceed by way of a general enactment; but they all knew that there was not the slightest chance of that this Session, and he thought that that was a case in which they might go out of their way to obtain what little they could, and, under the circumstances, he was disposed to support the proposed clause. There was an objection—a verbal one—to one word in the clause—namely, to the word "domicile." Every lawyer knew that that was a most dangerous word. He believed that the word "domicile" had caused more litigation than any other word in the Dictionary, and he would, therefore, propose that in place of the words, "the plaintiff is not domiciled within the United Kingdom," the hon. Member should use some such words as these—"the plaintiff has no permanent place of residence in the United Kingdom." That was a word which had received a recognized meaning in the

    719
    Courts, and which there would be no difficulty whatever in construing. If the hon. Member would be willing to adopt that alteration, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would feel bound to support the clause.
    MR. COGHILLsaid, he must protest against this special exemption which the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) was attempting to introduce for the benefit of newspaper proprietors. They heard from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) a week ago, the serious expenses he had been put to in consequence of a gentleman bringing an action against him having no private domicile in this country. What he should like to know from the hon. Member was, whether he thought actions for libel were at the end of the year to be placed to the profit or loss account of newspapers? When they remembered the large number of libel actions which had been brought against the periodical called Truth, they would probably have some notion that libel actions had been a very good advertisement for that paper. The arguments the hon. Member brought forward as to these actions cut both ways. The hon. Member said that a foreigner might be staying at an hotel in Dover, and might bring an action against a newspaper and disappear before costs could be claimed against him; but, on the other hand, a foreigner who was only making a short stay in the country might be grossly libelled, and it might be a matter of serious inconvenience to him to have to remain a long time here in order to bring an action in consequence of that libel. Therefore, the hardship was just as much on the foreigner as on the newspaper, and he (Mr. Coghill) would point out to the hon. Member who brought forward this clause, that the remedy for the evil of which he complained was very easy. Supposing that a person who would otherwise be the subject of a libel had no visible property and no permanent residence in this country, all that would be necessary to do in order to avoid an action would be to exercise more care in writing paragraphs. Before libelling a gentleman staying at an hotel in Dover, the newspaper proprietor would only have to make inquiries to find out the gentleman's residence, and on discovering that
    720
    his stay was only temporary, he could tear up the racy paragraph he had intended to insert in his paper, and put it in the waste-paper basket. He (Mr. Coghill) objected to this attempt to give special security to gentlemen who published these paragraphs in newspapers simply and solely for their own benefit. He hoped the House would not afford special privileges by legislation to a class of gentlemen who were chiefly promoters of society journals.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, the chief objection to this clause seemed to rest on the principle that they ought not to legislate especially for the benefit of the Press. He would point out that the whole Statute they were proposing to enact was essentially and exceptionally one for the benefit of the Press, and why? Because the Press stood in an exceptional position. It was no exaggeration to say that the Press did not exist merely for the advancement of private interests, and when the hon. Member was taunted with the statement that newspaper proprietors were simply advocating their own interests in that House, he thought the statement was contrary to the facts of the case. The Press had a public duty to perform, and he could not help thinking that in the past it had performed that duty satisfactorily, and had watched the interests of the public with the greatest care. He could not help thinking, too, that it deserved well of the country for the manner in which it had disseminated truth amongst the people. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Coghill), in the remarks he had just made, seemed to have lost sight of a very important point. He said that if a person was not domiciled in this country, more care ought to be exercised in writing a paragraph containing any reference to him. But how was an editor, when certain information had reached him at a late hour of the night or an early hour in the morning, to make inquiries as to whether the person referred to, who might bring an action for libel, had a permanent residence in this country or not? If an editor had to allow a considerable period to elapse in order to make such inquiries, the information he might be desirous of giving to the public might cease to be news. As an opportunity seemed to exist for doing that which was just and

    721
    fair towards the Press, which he contended merited some exceptional treatment on the grounds he had stated, he trusted that the clause would be accepted as, at all events, a tentative remedy for an existing evil.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) quite understood the effect of the clause which he had moved. In the first place he had not made it apply to foreigners. There was nothing about foreigners in the clause, but as it was worded it would apply to all people—Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen, who did not happen to have a permanent residence in the United Kingdom. There were many persons living in England who were not domiciled, including Scotchmen, Irishmen, Frenchmen, and Germans. Was it proposed to treat them differently from Englishmen? He considered the clause most dangerous, containing as it did a novel principle. Probably the clause as it was drawn failed to carry out the intentions of the hon. Member. At the present moment the law would require a plaintiff to give security for costs, but the clause would have greater effect than that. There were thousands of persons living in this country at the present moment who had lived here for many years, but who, as was perfectly well known, were not domiciled. Under the clause a native of Scotland who had lived in London for years might not be domiciled in the United Kingdom. He should certainly oppose any Amendment of the Bill as suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, because he did not think any Amendment could be proposed which would not interfere with the recognized practice in these matters. If a person came into Court now he was compelled to give security for costs.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton had been treated as if it related solely to newspapers, and was solely intended to affect newspaper proprietors, whereas in reality it proposed to alter the law of libel in regard to the whole community, and was not confined to newspaper proprietors at all. Objection was taken to the introduction of the word "domicile" into the clause. He understood that the hon. Member for Northampton,
    722
    who moved the clause, would be willing to substitute for the word "domicile" some such words as "permanent residence." He maintained that the law as it stood was quite sufficient to meet the grievance of which the hon. Member for Northampton complained. He would read again the clause in an Act of Parliament which he had ventured to read on Wednesday last, because the section in question gave to a defendant exactly the security which the hon. Member for Northampton was desirous of giving. Section 10 of the County Courts Act, 1867, provided that any person against whom an action for libel or slander was brought, should have power to make an affidavit that the plaintiff had no visible means of paying costs if the verdict was not found for the plaintiff. Thereupon, the Judge of the Court in which the action was brought was empowered to make an order that unless the plaintiff gave full security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of the Master of the Court, all proceedings in the action should be stayed. The hon. Member for Northampton, in the course of the discussion upon this Bill in Committee last week, referred to the case of some plaintiff who had sued a man and then subsequently left the country. The accusation was, that the moment the verdict was given against the plaintiff the plaintiff bolted, and the defendant found it impossible to get his costs. But that was very much the fault of the defendant himself, because the proper time to apply for security for costs was after the issue of the writ and before the trial. If the defendant in the case referred to had adopted that course he would not have lost his costs. There was another ground on which he ventured to oppose the Amendment. He opposed it on the ground that the law was sufficient, and that it did give that security for costs which the hon. Member desired; and he opposed it also on the ground that there was an order of the Supreme Court which exactly met the case. By Order 65, Rule 6, a plaintiff out of the jurisdiction of the Court might be ordered to give security for costs, although he might be temporarily resident within the jurisdiction. He thought that Order, coupled with the 10th section of the County Courts Act, met the case which the hon. Member desired to provide for by this

    723
    Amendment. For this and other reasons, which had already been stated to the House, he thought it extremely undesirable to spoil a good Bill, and a Bill which he hoped would become law, by introducing into it a superfluous and mischievous clause.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to express his deep regret that so many hon. and learned Members of the long robe had thought it necessary to come down there in order to try and stop the progress of the Bill. [Cries of "No!"] Oh, yes; the House had seen what had taken place. They got up one after the other, and attributed to newspaper proprietors interested motives in support of the Bill; but it had been pointed out that the interests of newspaper proprietors were identical and conterminous with those of the public, and it was a particularly dangerous argument to use. It was quite obvious from whom the real opposition to the measure came; and he begged to tell hon. and learned Gentlemen that people who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. The lawyers in that House should be the last persons in the world to pretend that their own action was entirely dictated by disinterested motives. The hon. and learned Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) had referred to a section of the County Courts Act; but, speaking as a layman, he believed it was true that the section quoted by the hon. and learned Member only applied to cases where the judgment was under £50. [Cries of "No!"] He was told by an hon. and learned Friend that that was so.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that whatever the amount at stake might be, the Judge had a perfect right to send the case to be tried by the County Court.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that in that case there would be no special jury, and both sides would be obliged to have the County Court as their tribunal. In many cases that was not the course which the defendant in an action for libel would be likely to take. He was told that the Order to which the hon. Gentleman had just alluded was practically not acted upon. Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman the
    724
    Member for East Denbighshire would be able to speak from his own experience in this matter, which was very extensive. He wished now to deal for a moment with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Coghill), who spoke earlier, and talked about the protection given to the newspaper Press, which was already making immense profits out of the public. It must be remembered that this Bill did not apply to the London newspapers only, but to the whole Press of the country; and he doubted whether the capital invested in that industry brought in as much as 5 per cent. The hon. Member had continually before his eyes one or two flourishing papers. Those newspapers could, no doubt, well afford to pay their expenses; but the clause was proposed in the interests of proprietors whose moans were very much more limited. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) had pointed out that by the clause, in its unamended state, it would be quite feasible for an Englishman, as well as an alien, to be brought under its provisions; but that was exactly the case at the present time.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton had said that the clause applied to foreigners, and all he (Mr. Anderson) did was to deny that assertion. It applied to Scotchmen and Irishmen quite as much as to Frenchmen and Germans.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that, as a matter of fact the power given to the clause was only a discretionary one—namely, that the Judge should have power to make an order. It was not absolute or compulsory. If the House considered it better to have a further safeguard there was no objection to insert some such words as "being an alien"; that would probably meet the objection which had been raised. In truth, they were trying in the clause proposed by his hon. Friend to meet a case in which a plaintiff in a bogus action stayed in in this country just for a sufficient length of time to escape the obligation of being required to give security for costs. He then went away, and left his solicitor to carry on the action without any visible means of paying the expenses of the law suit if, in the end, it went against him. It was for the small newspaper proprietors that they were

    725
    standing up, on account of the special dangers and liabilities to which they were exposed, and seeing that the clause was reasonably just and equitable, he thought his hon. Friend was quite justified in pressing it.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had really no reason to complain because the legal Members of the House thought fit to express their opinions on this matter. If the newspaper proprietors would interfere in matters which were really questions of legal practice, they had no ground to complain if those who were connected with the law told the House what the practice of the law was. It was much to be regretted that the Bar had lost for so many years the personal attendance of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), In regard to this particular question, however, the Order which had been read by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke), provided, so as to prevent any escape from giving security for costs, that a plaintiff should show that he had a permanent residence in this country. It was perfectly correct to say that where a plaintiff had no ordinary place of residence in the British Isles he might be ordered to give security for costs, and that rule applied whether he was a foreigner or an Englishman residing elsewhere. The word "domicile" was a very difficult word to interpret, and might depend upon a variety of circumstances. The law, as he understood it, was this—the plaintiff issued a writ, and the defendant found out that he had no residence, but, as suggested, was staying at some hotel at Dover. He, therefore, took out a summons, calling on the plaintiff to show that his ordinary place of residence was in the United Kingdom, and if not, then he was required to give security for costs. If the proceedings were protracted, then the defendant could make a further application, stating that the security already given was insufficient, and the Master had full power to increase the amount of security. He had therefore submitted to the House that the present law was sufficient, and that it would only be reenacted by the clause, even if amended as the hon. Member was willing to amend it. He had the strongest sym-
    726
    pathy with the newspaper proprietors against these bogus actions. He had never said a single word either aginst the newspaper Press or the newspaper proprietors. On the contrary, he thought that if such legislation was necessary they ought to have it, but, at the same time, he did not think the clause would produce any practical effect, or that there was any greater difficulty in getting security for costs from non-resident plaintiffs than from other persons. It was one of those ills which everybody was heir to, and newspaper proprietors must bear it with the rest of mankind. He opposed the clause on the ground that it would not produce any satisfactory result, and if it were amended, as the hon. Member proposed to amend it, it would simply re-enact the existing law. He therefore asked the House to reject it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 88: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK, in moving the insertion of the following new clause:—
    "It shall be competent for a judge or the Court upon an application by or on behalf of two or more defendants in actions in respect to the same, or substantially the same, libel brought by one and the same person to make an order for the consolidation of such actions; and, after such order has been made and before the trial of the said actions, the defendants in any new actions instituted in respect to the same, or substantially the same, libel shall also be entitled to be joined in a common action upon a joint application being made by such new defendants and the defendants in the actions already consolidated. The Court shall also have power to stay proceedings for such period and upon such terms as it may see fit in any actions, consolidated or otherwise, upon an application accompanied by an affidavit being made, with the concurrence of the defendants in the original actions, by any person threatened with proceedings by the same plaintiff for publishing the same, or substantially the same, libel,"
    said, that, in his opinion, the clause was a most important one, seeing that it would produce greater simplicity in regard to actions for libel against newspaper proprietors. The consolidation of various actions into one would ensure a fair hearing of the whole matter, and would effect a great saving so far as costs were concerned, and of time as well. He was quite certain that the House would not attempt to get rid of

    727
    the clause by simply saying that it was for the benefit of newspaper proprietors, As the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had pointed out, newspaper proprietors, as a body, must not be looked upon as rich men. There were 1,200 newspapers in Great Britain which were honestly working for the public, and it would be found that in a great majority of cases the newspaper proprietors were not men who ought to be punished beyond what they could bear for a mistake or an error of judgment. At the same time, he desired to refrain from joining in the sneers and attacks which some hon. Members had thought fit to make on the Legal Profession on the ground that it was their interest to multiply actions. He was satisfied that that was a libel upon the Legal Profession than which there was not a more honourable one in the world. At the same time, hon. Members ought to show some tenderness for newspaper proprietors on this subject, seeing that they themselves were literally hedged and fenced about by barriers and barricades of privilege. Therefore they might, in some case, concede to others the advantages which they so plentifully enjoyed themselves. The object of the clause was simply to consolidate actions. It was unnecessary to point out that over and over again an action had been brought by the same plaintiff against several defendants for the same libel. He would mention an instance which had been brought under his own notice. That very morning he had received a letter from a provincial newspaper proprietor stating that, a certain newspaper having published what was undoubtedly a libel—a sort of sketch or skit after the fashion of Dickens' Dotheboys Hall—the proprietor of a school came forward and said—"That cap fits me, and I will prosecute the newspaper," He did so, and recovered £250 damages. No doubt that was right and just; but the proprietor of the school having thus been satisfied in Court in respect of the injury he had sustained, finding that the article had been copied by other newspapers as a literary production, with no idea in the world to provide a cap to fit anybody, had brought fresh actions against the proprietors of those newspapers, laying his damages in each case at £5,000. That, no doubt, was a great hardship,
    728
    which, to some extent, this clause would remedy. The clause proposed that where sufficient actions were brought in respect of the same, or substantially the same libel, the Judge or the Court should have power of making an order for the consolidation of such actions.
    New Clause (Consolidation of actions,)—(Sir Algernon Borthwick,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read the second time."
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he wished to point out that a good deal of this clause was already provided for under the existing law. He had no desire to speak against newspaper writers, for in a small way he had been one himself, and perhaps the first part of the clause might be accepted by the House on the ground that it did no harm. By Order 49 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, it was provided that actions might be consolidated by an Order of the Court, and it was a constant practice to consolidate actions brought by one plaintiff against several defendants. That course was pursued in the notorious Colledge case, where the plaintiff had received something like £3,000 already. That was to say that proceedings in 16 or 17 actions which were pending were stayed to abide the decision in one action. That practically amounted to what the hon. Baronet (Sir Algernon Borthwick) desired to see enacted in the present clause. He should not, therefore, oppose the clause altogether, on the ground that although it did not do much good it did not do much harm, and the early part of it would effect a small Amendment in the existing law. He did not think, however, that the House should accept the concluding paragraph of the clause—
    "The Court shall also have power to stay proceedings for such period and upon such terms as it may see fit in any actions, consolidated or otherwise, upon an application accompanied by an affidavit being made, with the concurrence of the defendants in the original actions, by any person threatened with proceedings by the same plaintiff for publishing the same or substantially the same libel."
    That meant nothing more nor less than that where a person, wholly independent of the original plaintiff, said he intended to bring an action for libel, or

    729
    threatened to do so, although entirely disconnected from the original plaintiff, upon an affidavit being made by the defendant, the proceedings might be stayed. If that part of the clause were struck out, he, for his own part, had no great objection to the rest of the clause being embodied in the Bill.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, be thought the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the House was mistaken as to what the law was in regard to the consolidation of actions. In no case of libel could consolidation take place. Consolidation took place where there was question of fact and where one trial would determine the question, so far as every other action was concerned, together with the amount of damages—such, for instance, as actions on marine policies. It had never been suggested that actions for libel which might be brought against several newspapers should be consolidated, because if such actions were consolidated the difficulty which would arise would be how the damages were to be apportioned. He understood that the suggestion now made was that in the event of a plaintiff bringing several actions against The Morning Post, The Daily Telegraph, and various newspapers, all of them were to be stayed, except that against The Morning Post.
    MR. RICHARD WEBSTER: No; they are to be consolidated into one action.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he failed to see how in that case the damages were to be assessed against the newspaper proprietors. It would introduce an entirely novel practice into the law, and it was intended by an understanding which had been arrived at with the Government, that later on newspaper proprietors should be allowed to give evidence in one action, though other actions were pending.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he had explained on a previous occasion that no understanding of that kind had been arrived at.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had understood from what took place on the previous occasion that the hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) had placed on the Paper an Amendment excluding a particular clause from the Bill, and was prepared to move it on the understand-
    730
    ing that the hon. and learned Attorney General would insert an Amendment later on.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No; nothing of the kind.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he was to understand then that that was not so. The 6th clause of the Bill contained a very large concession, and he thought the newspaper proprietors ought to be satisfied with it. It met everything that they could possibly desire, and if the clause now under discussion were inserted also, it would lead to the greatest possible confusion. He thought the hon. Baronet ought to be satisfied with the 6th clause.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, it might perhaps save the time of the House if he were to make a short statement in regard to this clause. He did not quite agree with either of his hon. and learned Friends. There could be no doubt that the principle of consolidation on libel actions was established indirectly in the Colledge case. But this clause went a little further, and provided that where practically the same action was brought by several plaintiffs in respect of the same libel such actions might be consolidated. The present Rule with regard to the consolidation of actions was by no means clear, and he thought that if the House were of opinion that it was prudent to give libellers the right of consolidation, the clause would be an improvement in the law. Therefore, in so far as it proposed to give power to the judge to consolidate actions, the clause would, he thought, be useful. He did not see why any difficulty should arise with regard to damages, for, as his hon. and learned Friend would remember, there was no contribution among wrong-doers. Each award in the case of libel would be for the full amount of damages and costs. With regard to the last part of the clause, giving power to stay proceedings upon the application of any person threatened with proceedings by the same plaintiff for the same libel, it certainly did introduce an entirely new principle, and he could only assent to the 2nd clause on the definite understanding that that part was withdrawn.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he would withdraw that part of the clause to which the hon. and learned Gentleman took exception.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn that newspaper proprietors were sufficiently protected by the law as it stood. If they were to consolidate all actions it was quite certain that there would never be any action for libel tried at all except at great expense to the plaintiff, and they would have the leading newspapers united as defendants with the humblest organs of the Press. He could not possibly understand how the damage done to a man by the circulation of a libel to him in all parts of the Kingdom could be ascertained in one action. If this clause were inserted there never would be any action tried at all, because the newspapers would continue libeling, and every fresh libel would necessitate fresh stays of the original action. He considered that newspapers were sufficiently protected now, and if this clause were passed it would lead to the greatest possible confusion in the Courts, and, above all, in the minds of the jurors who would have to assess the damages. It would only be necessary for a newspaper to go on printing libellous matter over and over again in order to prevent a plaintiff obtaining a verdict at all in a case where it might be most essential that he should have a decision as speedily as possible.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he wished to point out that the alternative to the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) was that if a multiplicity of actions was to be allowed they would have an unknown quantity to deal with instead of having one jury trying the whole matter, and bringing it to a conclusion with a comparatively small amount of cost. For instance, they might have 60 juries dealing with the same state of circumstances with 60 times the amount of costs involved. It was to protect the newspaper proprietors against the excessive costs which would be imposed upon them in such cases that the clause was introduced. Attention had already been called to the fact that in one case 60 actions were brought against a newspaper proprietor for a libel that was inserted through no negligence, and from no malicious motive. The newspaper proprietors settled these actions to a large extent privately, and if the plaintiff had lived he would no doubt have been able to have obtained large amounts in the
    732
    shape of costs. In another case an action was brought against the Dublin Evening Telegraph, and damages were claimed by a noble lady for libel. The error was due to the Press Association, and not to the newspaper at all. All the actions were settled except one, which was proceeded with, and damages, together with a large amount of costs, recovered. No doubt, the loading daily papers were able to bear a considerable amount of expense, but the interest of the poorer and, at the same time, respectable papers demanded that this clause should be agreed to. It was on the ground that the clause would save a great deal of the tremendous expense to which newspaper proprietors were now put that he supported it.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he could not understand why, if this matter was of such importance as it was now said to be, it was not brought forward before the Report stage of the Bill. He could not think it was desirable at this stage of the proceedings upon the Bill to introduce this new and very important provision.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKmoved the omission of the words after the word "consolidated" in line 9 of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in line 9 of the proposed new Clause, to leave out all the words after the word "consolidated" to the end of the Clause.—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words struck out.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put and agreed to.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he begged to move the new clause which stood in his name; but, with the permission of the House, he desired to make a slight alteration in the wording of it. The clause in the amended form would read—
    "It shall not be necessary to set out in any indictment or other judicial proceeding instituted against the publisher of any blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous libel the passages complained of, but it shall be sufficient to deposit the indictment and particulars with sufficient

    733
    indications to show precisely in what part of the book, newspaper, or other document the alleged blasphemous, indecent, or scandalous libel is contained, and the person prosecuted shall be entitled to a copy of such particulars, and such particulars shall be deemed to be part of the record."
    The object of that new clause was to prevent scandalous, blasphemous, and indecent matter passing through the hands of a large number of clerks, young men, and it might be boys, as was necessary under the present state of the law. In fact, there was considerable danger in prosecuting for such libels; because they ran the risk of corrupting the minds of a large number of persons in pursuing the course now required by law. He had received a letter from one who had large experience in prosecutions of this kind, and it brought vividly before his mind the evil effects which followed from the present state of the law. The writer said that obscene passages were included in the draft case prepared in the solicitors' office; probably, they were copied again in the chambers of the counsel who drew the indictment; they were sent to the law stationer's, where two, if not more, copies had to be made; these had to be carefully examined and compared with the original; the indictment was lodged at the office of the Clerk of the Peace, brought by the usher before the Grand Jury, and it was read in Court, where the defendant was entitled to have the indictment literally read, word by word, so that the obscene matter came before thousands of people before it was finally submitted to the jury, and being read in Court it might be published in newspapers. Now, when the House remembered that the matter referred to was of the most detestable kind, of such a kind that it was almost impossible for any people to read it without having their minds polluted, they must see the great advantage of the change in the law he recommended. According to the clause, all that would be necessary would be that the passages should be marked, and described, and read by the jury. There was no necessity that they should be publicly read, and that they should so get into the newspapers and be diffused throughout the country, doing a very great mischief, in fact, doing the very mischief it should be the object of the law to prevent. He could not think anyone would object to this change of
    734
    the law, and he had every hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would be able to give his support to this clause. He begged, with great pleasure, to move the clause in the amended form in which he had read it to the House.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the more regular course would be for the hon. Gentleman to move the clause in the terms in which it appeared upon the Paper, and then, if it was the pleasure of the House to read it a second time, for the hon. Gentleman to propose whatever Amendments he might wish to make in it.
    New Clause (Obscene matter need not be set forth in an indictment or other judicial proceedings,)—(Mr. Samuel Smith,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. DARLINGsaid, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, although, no doubt, made in the interests of decency, was, in the interests of justice, most inadvisable. It was perfectly obvious, from the language of the clause, as the hon. Member first of all proposed it, that he was wholly unacquainted with the form of indictment in actions for libel, and with the trial of such indictments. The clause, as they were asked at present to enact it, provided that where there was an indictment for an indecent or, it might be, blasphemous libel, it should be sufficient to indicate in the indictment, he presumed, though it was not stated, what were the passages that were complained of, and that then it should be necessary to refer to the document, book, or newspaper, in order to discover what ought to be part of the indictment. The clause went on to provide that such communication should be deemed to be sufficient evidence in support of the alleged libel. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster) (Isle of Wight): That has been struck out.] He was told that that passage was to be struck out. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) might have considered what sufficient evidence meant. How could they have sufficient evidence in support of libellous matter? In his (Mr. Darling's) opinion, it was nonsense to use language of that

    735
    kind. What was proposed, in some form or another, was that in order that little boys in law stationers' offices should not be shocked, a book or a newspaper should be attached to the indictment for libel, with some indication or other as to the passages in the book or the newspaper which were necessary in order to prove the case for the prosecution. The hon. Member suggested that, that having been done, and the defendant put upon his trial, the jury should simply look over the indicated passages, and that the people in Court who were interested in justice being administered should never, from end to end of the trial, know what the passages were, and never from end to end of the trial know whether there was in them anything indecent or blasphemous. That would practically mean a trial in camerâ upon the mere allegation of the prosecutor that the matter complained of was blasphemous or indecent. What, after all, was the harm supposed to be done? The hon. Gentleman desired to prevent the perusal of indecent passages by boys, small boys, who he said were engaged in the different offices through which indictments passed. As a matter of fact, there was no proof that the copyists in these offices were boys. If the hon. Member knew anything about the clerks engaged in law stationers' offices and in lawyers' offices, he would know that they copied anything put before them, that they must copy many things which were not particularly decent, and that they copied them so mechanically, that it made little or no impression on their minds. He (Mr. Darling) was himself a lawyer, and he did not think that the necessary perusal of these indecent things had done him any harm. When a counsel had once read a brief, he afterwards took uncommonly little interest in it, and probably, at the expiration of a week, he would be unable to say what it was about. He had no doubt that stationers' boys were in pretty much the same position; but, even if they were in a worse position, was this not straining at a gnat? In Courts of Justice, it always must be that even the most indecent proceedings must be detailed; it was impossible to have indecent details huddled up in the manner the hon. Gentleman suggested. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) were pushed to its logical con-
    736
    clusion many criminal cases would be left untried for fear that they might produce a bad effect on the minds of police constables or ushers, or others engaged about the Courts. Of course, one knew perfectly well what put this idea in the hon. Gentleman's mind. There was a most interesting work, he believed, though he had never read it, which was called The Fruits of Philosophy. With respect to that work there was a prosecution, the passages complained of were not set out in the indictment, and the indictment failed upon that technical point. Since then, all indecent matter had been copied into indictments, and there was very good reason why it should be. If a person had been tried for libel or for anything else, and he was brought up again, he was entitled to plead that he had been either convicted or acquitted in respect to the same matter, and, in order that he should be able to plead that, it was necessary that he should be able to produce the indictment which contained the record of the decision of the jury. It was obvious that if a man had been convicted or acquitted already, he was entitled to be acquitted of that charge in future, and he was for that reason entitled to plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict, as the case might be. It would be a distinct disadvantage to all prisoners or people tried for libel in the future, if they could not avail themselves as easily as they could now of the proper and most useful plea that they had been tried and acquitted or convicted before of the offence now laid at their door. He regretted to have to oppose as strongly as he felt bound to do a proposal, no doubt, made in the interests of decency; but he could not help thinking that this was an overstraining of any desire there might be to amend the law in this direction.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)trusted the House would allow him to make a very brief statement in regard to this clause. He was very sorry to say he entirely differed from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling). If his hon. and learned Friend only had brought before him the amount of frightful literature, blasphemous, indecent, and obscene, which came before the Law Officers of the Crown, he would feel that every step should be taken to prevent the dissemi-

    737
    nation of such literature, even if it affected only 10 or 12 people. It was perfectly impossible to exaggerate the evil effect of the flood of disgusting, blasphemous, and indecent literature now being printed and spread broadcast over the country; and yet often it was inadvisable to take proceedings, because of the injury done by the details of the proceedings. He had said that in order that the House might understand his private opinion in regard to this clause. Of course, he was by no means insensible to the legal difficulties which had been suggested. If any single prisoner could be deprived of any right, if any harm could be done by the clause, notwithstanding the evils he had referred to, he should oppose the clause. But let him point out to his hon. and learned Friend and to the House that it did seem to him that, by the insertion of a very few words, every one of the objections that had been raised might be met. The point his hon. and learned Friend had raised was that, upon the indictment, it was necessary to endorse the libellous passages complained of to guard against the plea of error being set up. He (Sir Richard Webster) quite agreed that provision should be made that the proceedings should be exactly in the same position as if the words had been set out. It was quite evident, too, that the words "such indication shall be deemed sufficient evidence" could not possibly justify this Motion. When that objection was pointed out to the Mover of the clause he saw the clause went too far, and that the latter part was not necessary in order to meet the grievance he wished to remedy. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Deptford. (Mr. Darling) had suggested that those in Court at the trial of a case would never see or hear the passages complained of. That was not intended; as he understood it, the object of this clause was simply to prevent the unnecessary copying and re-copying of many things which need not be re-copied for the purposes of the proceedings, and to insure that only so many copies should be produced as were absolutely necessary. By that means half-a-dozen, or possibly 20 people, who would have never seen these passages, unless it was for the necessity of copying them, would be spared the sight of them. Now, he had considered the clause with a desire to
    738
    assist the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), because he sympathized with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. He had, however, to suggest that the clause should be amended; that it should, in fact, read as follows:—
    "It shall not be necessary to set out in any indictment or other judicial proceeding instituted against the publisher of any"—
    perhaps it might be as well to insert "blasphemous"—
    "blasphemous or obscene libel"—
    he thought it was not necessary to introduce the word "scandalous"—
    "the blasphemous or obscene passages, but it shall be sufficient to deposit the book, newspaper, or other document containing the alleged libel with the indictment or other judicial proceeding, together with particulars showing precisely, by reference to pages and lines, in what part of the book, newspaper, or other document the alleged libel is to be found, and that such particulars shall be deemed to form part of the record, and all proceedings may be taken thereon as if the passages complained of had been set out in the indictment or other judicial proceeding."
    If the alteration he suggested were agreed to, the prisoner would have the same right he had at present—the Court would be in exactly the same position as it was at present. The indictment, which he hoped they would see abolished altogether before very long, and a simpler form adopted, would remain in the possession of the officer of the Court, and the jury would take the wording as they heard it read by the officer of the Court, or possibly as they heard it read by the learned Judge. As the clause stood, copies of the book containing the objectionable passages would be handed to the jury, who would thus possibly examine the particular passages more easily than if they were set out in the indictment. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Darling) desired to reserve to a prisoner all the rights he now possessed; all those rights would be reserved under the amended clause which he had suggested. He thought that by the amended clause they would get rid of what was a substantial evil; though it might affect only a small number of persons, they would certainly do no harm to anybody by the adoption of the clause.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, it was a little inconvenient to discuss a new clause with the matter in

    739
    concern essentially differing from the matter which was proposed to be submitted, especially at this last stage of the Bill—namely, Consideration on Report, when, if they made a blunder, it was impossible to remedy it. He was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) for adopting the suggestion he made to him just now, and adding to the clause that the matter should be made part of the record, because, if that had not been adopted, it would have been impossible to take, in error or otherwise, the opinion of the Court as to whether the matter constituted a libel or not. The hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) was quite mistaken in the case he most incorrectly quoted. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke from common report, instead of having read the case, which might account for the mistake he had made. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had given attention to the words read out by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he thought there was no objection to them; they would, in fact, make the law in England somewhat analogous to the law in America. But let him (Mr. Bradlaugh) point out to the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the clause (Mr. S. Smith) that he did not at all effect anything by his clause. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had not the slightest objection that the passages complained of should be deposited in print, as if they were part of the indictment, and forming part of the record for all practical purposes. But if the hon. Gentleman imagined that any person could be tried for libel or for any other offence without specific evidence being given in Court, it was hard to understand what the hon. Gentleman's opinion of justice in any country was. If the hon. Gentleman imagined there could be any hugger-mugger way in which some persons might know what was complained of and others might not, he could only inform the hon. Gentleman that he was entirely mistaken. It was not possible, under the law as it stood, for anyone to reprint blasphemous or obscene matter, which might be contained in any counts of an indictment, and to excuse himself from criminal proceedings on the ground of it forming part of the matter for trial. That had been clearly laid down over and over again, and it was only a person utterly
    740
    unacquainted with the law who could possibly suppose there was an opportunity of reprinting such matter with impunity. He felt some difficulty in having to weigh words which he had only just heard read, which were not the words on the Paper, but which essentially differed from the words in print. Although he thought the words suggested by the Attorney General were sufficient, he must enter his protest against a clause of this character being sprung upon the House on Consideration on Report.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he desired to say a very few words in reference to this new clause. In the first place, he must join in the protest of the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) against having this matter brought before the House in this way. What was it they were now asked to do? They were asked to amend the Criminal Law. Was this the occasion on which they should be asked to do that? Surely they ought to be asked to do that when they were amending the Criminal Law generally. It was most unfortunate that this clause had been amended, and that the word "blasphemous" had been introduced. He was altogether averse to criminal proceedings being taken in cases of blasphemous libels, and trusted the word "blasphemous" would be rejected by the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have pointed out that the time for proposing Amendments would be when the clause had been read a second time.
    MR. KELLYsaid, he understood that the clause had been altered, and that, therefore, he was justified in commenting upon the amended form. He could only say that while he admired the motives of the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) who proposed this new clause, he felt it was brought forward on a very inopportune occasion. Uuder such circumstances, it was absolutely impossible for him to vote in favour of it.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, he entirely sympathized with the motive which suggested this clause; but, at the same time, he quite agreed with the objections that had been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) as to the expediency of introducing a clause now, and as to the man-

    741
    ner in which it was introduced. It was a wide question as to whether the proceedings suggested by the clause should be adopted at all. The adoption of the clause certainly would result in the revolution of our whole Criminal Law. Probably one of the oldest principles of our Criminal Law was that any accused person, when brought to the bar for trial, was entitled to have the indictment read fur him in a clear and distinct voice. The law laid great stress on the fact that the indictment should be read over to the accused slowly and in a clear and distinct voice. If the indictment was not to contain the libel charged against the accused, he would be entitled to have the passages which were referred to picked out of the book, newspaper, or document, and read out clearly and distinctly, so that the very object the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) had in view would not only be defeated, but quite the opposite effect would be brought about. As to the copying, it was well known that the copying of indictments was not done by boys or lads. Most experienced law writers, generally men of considerable standing as law writers, and of considerable age, were the men who copied the indictments on parchment; such duty never fell to the lot of lads or boys, even if any wore to be found in the office. If his hon. Friend were acquainted with the practice of Assize or Quarter Sessions, he must be aware that it was not in the indictment, or in the copying of the indictment, that the objectionable matter was ever brought to the notice of law writers, or of clerks in the solicitor's office at all. The hon. Gentleman forgot that the main business that was done in regard to criminal cases was the making out of briefs for the different counsel. All briefs set forth the evidence which was to be given, and it very frequently happened that the depositions were placed in the hands of very young men to copy. It did not matter whether they were copied very accurately or not; it did not matter whether the spelling was correct or not. Young clerks copied out the depositions for the brief for the prosecution and for the brief for the defence, and often fair copies were made for the use of the solicitors; in fact, the depositions were copied possibly half-a-dozen times, and copied not by experienced and old law writers, but by whatever lads might be
    742
    about the office, so that this clause, if carried in extenso, or even with the Amendments suggested by the Attorney General, would not in the smallest degree effect the purpose for which it was proposed. There was still another point, that it might tend to the maladministration of justice; for in the impartial administration of justice there must be full and complete and entire publicity. It was well known that all attempts to try cases, however shocking they might be to modest persons of all ages, in camerâ had failed. The Courts refused, even where they had power, to try cases in the hugger-mugger manner suggested. A certain amount of mischief must be incurred from the necessary publicity of objectionable and corrupt details; but to lay hands on that publicity, oven in the smallest degree, would be to endanger what was the very palladium of justice. They knew that where evidence of an objectionable character was to be given in Court, the Court had power to remove women and children from the building. They could do this in cases of libel just as well as in other criminal cases. This clause, he believed, would introduce an unnecessary and dangerous innovation, and, therefore, he could not give it his support.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought that something must be said on the point of Order. It appeared to him that the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) was sailing very near the wind in proposing this course. In the first place, it was at least doubtful whether the clause came within the scope of the Bill. The Bill was intended originally to relate exclusively to the privileges of defendants, who were concerned in the publication of newspapers, in respect to libels. Clause 7, no doubt, enlarged the scope of the Bill; but it referred to what might be put in evidence. There was nothing in the Bill which affected what might be called the public order of criminal proceedings. Therefore, it was at least doubtful whether this clause came within the scope of the Bill at all. If it did not come within the scope of the Bill, then, under a recent Standing Order, it could not be moved on Report, because it was an enlargement of the scope of the Bill. He had another objection to submit on the question of Order. No clause could be

    743
    suggested on Report which was not printed, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had pointed out, this was practically the last stage of the Bill, and therefore they ought to have fairly before them what was proposed. It was true there was a clause printed in the Papers, but it was very different to the clause which was about to be submitted for consideration. In that respect also his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) was, if not absolutely under the censure of that Order, very near to it. Furthermore, as to the merits of the clause, he was extremely doubtful whether the advantage to be secured by preventing the passages complained of coming under the notice of an admittedly limited number of persons was at all commensurate with the danger involved on the other hand of not fairly placing before the Court everything which tended to elucidate the nature of the offence which was charged.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that on the question of Order he desired to point out that there were two clauses in the Bill, one, Clause 7, which dealt directly with criminal proceedings, and Clause 8, which actually altered the Law of Evidence by making the person charged competent to give evidence. It therefore seemed to him, as far as he could judge, it could scarcely be said that this clause was not in Order. Then, with regard to the other objections which had been raised, he ought to remind the House that the Amendment was simply in substitution of the words, "sufficient indications to show where the matter stating such alleged libel is to be found." The words which he had suggested simply provided a protection which was very necessary.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the points which had been raised by the Chairman of Ways and Means had occurred to him, and the reason why he permitted the clause to be proposed was that it seemed to him to deal with the matter that was incidental to a fair and accurate report of the proceedings. The words "fair and accurate report" occurred in the 3rd and 4th sections of the Bill. As to the other objection, that new matter had been introduced, he had pointed out to the House that he could not permit the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) to amend the clause before submitting it to the House. The new clause
    744
    had been deliberately put on the Paper, and he had pointed out that if it was the pleasure of the House to agree to the second reading, it would then be time to consider whether any such new matter as the hon. Gentleman had proposed could be introduced by way of amendment of the clause.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that unless his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) was prepared to accept the Amendment of the Attorney General it would be quite impossible for anyone to support the clause; and, even as amended, he thought the amount of good which would be obtained by the clause would be extremely small. They all sympathized with the hon. Gentleman in the object he had in view, but it was perfectly true that these things were copied by men who had long experience, and, therefore, the amount of good done would be extremely small. The later part of the clause could not possibly be accepted if the words "it shall be deemed to be sufficient evidence" meant that the passages should not be read over publicly at the trial. It would be perfectly impossible to obtain the consent of any body of men accustomed to practise in English Courts to the adoption of any such plan. It was an unfortunate necessity that all proceedings in Courts of Justice should be made completely public. If his hon. Friend supposed it would be possible to alter the Law of Evidence in the way he suggested he was surely very mistaken.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, that, in order to save the time of the House, he might say at once he was prepared to accept the proposal of the Attorney General.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he thought that the course of the discussion had shown that much more important principles were involved in this clause than there seemed to be at first sight. It appeared quite clear that the only persons who would be benefited were the persons who now copied out indictments. An indictment was engrossed on parchment, and boys did not engross on parchment. In some few cases there might be boys employed; but the course of the proceedings in Court would be wholly unaltered. The objectionable passages would have to be read out as now, and as much copying of objectionable evidence would have to take place in future

    745
    as in the past in copying documents required for the due conduct of the case. It was extremely undesirable that at the close of the proceedings on a Bill relating to another subject, such a doubtful change as they now proposed should be effected. Since they had it on the authority of the hon. and learned Attorney General that in all probability indictments would be done away with entirely by an amendment of the Criminal Law, which this Government probably would project, it could only be for a short time that this Amendment, if included in the Bill, could effect any good to the limited class of persons who would be affected by it. It seemed clear that this amendment, if desired, should be an amendment of the Criminal Law generally. Would it not be better, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) to wait for the amendment of the Criminal Law, which probably would be introduced early next Session?
    MR. SWETENHAM (Carnarvon, &c.)said, he sympathized to the very utmost extent with the object the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had in bringing forward this clause. He also sympathized with what the hon. and learned Attorney General said with regard to what came frequently before the Law Officers of the Crown. There was no one in the House who would take a greater part than he (Mr. Swetenham) in trying to put a stop to that which the hon. Member for Flintshire so strongly deprecated. But he could not help suggesting to the hon. Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing this clause, for the reasons mentioned just now by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke). He (Mr. Swetenham) had had considerable experience in the conduct of legal proceedings, and he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) had been misinformed with regard to the manner in which indictments generally were drawn. Indictments for libel were drawn up by the clerk of the indictment, who, as a rule, was not a person who employed in his office a large number of clerks. Having drawn up the indictment upon a sheet of paper, the clerk of the indictments handed it to some responsible clerk in his office, to put on parchment. As a rule, the
    746
    work was not done by boys, and therefore the injury to the morals of boys was really imaginary. So much for what was done in the office of the clerk of the indictments. Let him point out what would be the effect of the Amendment now proposed. He ventured to say he should be able to convince the hon. Member himself that the remedy would be worse than the disease. Instead of the objectionable passages complained of being engrossed upon parchment, what was to be done? Those passages were only to be referred to in the indictment. Now, everyone knew quite well that when there was a little secrecy about anything there was generally curiosity as well. Suppose the book containing the passages were to get into the hands of the people the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) desired to keep it from. They would naturally say, "This is a book containing very objectionable matter," and the first thing curiosity would lead them to do would be to study the book from beginning to end. In such a case, the very laudable object the hon. Gentleman had in view would be entirely defeated. It had been said, with perfect truth, that often boys were employed to copy the evidence into the briefs used by counsel. The evidence copied into briefs was, he granted, often of a very objectionable nature; but this Amendment did not relate to briefs at all. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause to a Division. As he had said, he heartily sympathized with the desire of the hon. Gentleman to put a stop to the publication of the obscenity which they all deplored. After all, he could not consider that this was a proper time at which to introduce the clause.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would bow to the almost unanimous sense of the House, and would withdraw the clause. He had every disposition to appreciate the motive with which his hon. Friend had introduced the clause; but he would feel bound to vote against the clause. At best, the clause would only affect a very limited class of persons, while, on the other hand, it would really alter the whole course of Criminal Law. By the Criminal Law, as it now stood, a defendant or prisoner was en-

    747
    titled to expect that the indictment would tell him exactly what he was charged with. Under the clause as proposed to be amended, they would take away from the accused that protection, and he might be referred to a book which might contain, perhaps, 500, or 600, or 1,000 pages. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General certainly did improve matters a little; but he confessed that, as the amended clause did not appear in print, it was very difficult for them to understand its bearing. Upon that ground, and also upon the ground that the clause really interfered with the whole of the Criminal Law of the land, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had stated that the adoption of this clause would interfere with the Criminal Law of the whole land. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. It was well the House should know how the matter stood in Scotland. In Scotland, if an indictment were to be brought against any person for obscene or blasphemous language used in writing, it was not necessary in the indictment to insert the blasphemous or obscene passages. To print the libel would be practically to increase the evil which it was the object of the indictment to prevent, and therefore it had been distinctly held that it was perfectly sufficient to refer in the indictment to the passages in the book or pamphlet which were said to be obscene by pages and lines, and to intimate in the indictment that the book would be found in the hands of the Clerk of Justiciary, in order that those who were entitled to see the passages might have an opportunity of referring to them. In the cases which had occurred all the scandal of those matters being published in the body of the indictment had been prevented. There had been no difficulty whatever in carrying out the law; the system worked smoothly and well.
    SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) would go to a Division, especially after what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. It was quite clear that, in
    748
    another part of the country, the practice which the hon. Member wished to introduce here worked satisfactorily, and without evil results. He had observed with some curiosity that all the hon. Gentlemen who spoke on and objected to the proposal now under discussion were members of the Learned Profession. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, most of them were. But a remarkable fact, in face of the opposition of hon. and learned Gentlemen, was that the head of the Legal Profession in the House of Commons supported the hon. Gentleman in the proposal he now made. As a matter of fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was convinced of the great advantage which would accrue from the adoption of the clause. Moreover, however that might be, they learned that in Scotland the alteration which was proposed here was already in force, and working satisfactorily. He thought that ought to be a sufficient reason in itself for the adoption of the clause.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) had been asked to withdraw the clause, because it was said that in some future Session a large Bill amending the Criminal Law generally would be introduced. He did not think it was very probable that such a Bill would be introduced next Session. They had been told that successive Governments had considered the question, and had drafted Bills relating to it. In his opinion, it was not at all a sufficient reason for asking his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) to withdraw his clause, because the subject might be dealt with in a Bill which might be brought in next Session. Personally, he did not think it likely that such a Bill would be introduced next Session; certainly, it was not at all likely that such a Bill would be passed next Session. The object his hon. Friend had in view was a most laudable one, and he (Sir Robert Fowler) could not but think that although many of the legal Members of the House, notably the hon. and learned Member for South Roscommon (Mr. Commins), and the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling), differed from him, the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for having introduced the subject. Certainly, if the

    749
    hon. Gentleman went to a Division, he (Sir Robert Fowler) should vote with him.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden) stated that only learned Members were opposed to this clause. That was not so; Members who did not belong to the Legal Profession were equally opposed to it. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. and learned Attorney General giving his assent to the clause under consideration, because he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was a man of practical mind. [Sir RICHARD WEBSTER: I suggested alterations.] Yes; he (Mr. Labouchere) would deal with those alterations. The Attorney General proposed that they should insert the word "blasphemous." He assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the clause was read a second time, and if the Amendment the Attorney General had suggested was persevered with, there would be a very strong opposition on the part of many Members on the Opposition side of the House. This clause was proposed on the Report of the Bill. The word "blasphemous" did not appear in the clause as it was originally put upon the Paper, but they were told that they ought to pass the clause, in order that the word "blasphemous" might be inserted. They all knew perfectly well that the law took—
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that he did not say anything of the kind. He spoke of the necessary alterations, in order that the evidence might not be altered, and that the particulars might be made part of the record. He only referred to the word "blasphemous" quite incidentally.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if the clause were passed without the word "blasphemous" in it, the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented the Government upon this occasion would be in favour of the word "blasphemous" being inserted if it were moved. Therefore, hon. Members must look at the proposal as though the word "blasphemous" formed part of the clause. Now, everybody knew that in the present state of the law the Courts took a very wide view of what was blasphemous matter. It might be desirable to raise on some other occasion the whole
    750
    question of the Blasphemy Laws; but until they had thoroughly gone into those laws, and until they had more clearly and specifically defined what was blasphemy, he objected to the word being dragged into a Newspaper Libel Bill. It was proposed that the Judge, and all the jurymen and counsel, should have copies of the book in which the obscene matter existed. Now, there might be cases in which they would not be able to get such a large number of copies of the book. But assuming that in the indictment, which was a thing which he confessed, whether it was right or not, did not trouble much the minds of those who were not lawyers—assuming that in the indictments the particular passages were referred to by pages and lines in the book, surely the counsel who had to speak upon the matter would be obliged to refer to the entire passages, and to state the entire passages. There would be a discussion whether the passages were obscene or not obscene, and the whole matter would have to come publicly before the audience. If anyone were to propose that in these trials there should be some rule to prevent the passages complained of being published without the consent of the Court, that would be a different question. But he contended that this clause did not in any way prevent publicity being given to the obscene matter. The sole reason that could be alleged in favour of the clause was that one or two or more persons, who were copying out a portion of the matter for the lawyers, would be prevented from reading it themselves. He did not think it was necessary to make a change in respect to such a very minor point. Anyhow, a respectable lawyer, when he had one of these cases to deal with, would surely insist that whatever copying had to be done should not be done by boys, but by grown-up men. That certainly would do everything which was desired.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) to conclude the discussion by withdrawing the clause. The hon. Gentleman had their sympathy, but it was questionable whether they could give him their votes. The words of the clause, "books and documents," showed very clearly that the clause affected the general law of the land, and not newspapers.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that perhaps the Committee would allow him to state exactly how the matter was dealt with in Scotland.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already spoken.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I asked to speak with the leave of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) withdraw the clause?
    MR. S. SMITH: No; I persevere with it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)said, that if the hon. Gentleman persisted in carrying the clause to a Division, he (Sir Edward Clarke) would feel bound to vote with him. He thought the clause, with the alterations suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General, would be a valuable clause. He did not desire to exaggerate the value of it in the direction in which it was primarily intended—that was to say, he did not think very much would be saved with regard to the corruption of the minds of persons who copied the indictments. But, as one who hoped to have some time or other the opportunity of dealing with that which was one of the greatest defects in the Criminal Law—the monstrous length and complexity of indictments—he should be glad to see the clause adopted, and a remedy thus applied in one particular at least. If the clause were amended in the way the Attorney General had suggested, there could be no possible advantage to anybody in any particular passage of a libel being copied in the indictment. Supposing the indecent passages in a book were copied in the indictment, when they came to deal with the book everybody who had to deal with it must have a copy of the book itself, because other passages could be referred to to show the purpose and character of the particular passage relied upon by the prosecution. He did not exaggerate the value of this clause for the purpose of preventing the corruption of the minds of those who had to deal with these matters; but he certainly felt bound to support the clause as a step in the direction of a very desirable amendment of the law.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 99: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsuggested to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) that he should confine the operation of the clause to obscene passages, omitting any reference to blasphemy. Any reference to blasphemy in the clause might occasion a long debate. The question, no doubt, was a difficult one to deal with, and, therefore, it might be well if the hon. Gentleman would content himself with confining the clause to obscene libels.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he was quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out all the words after "proceeding," in line 5, and insert the words "together with particulars showing precisely by reference to pages and lines in what part of the book, newspaper, or other document the alleged libel is to be found, and such particulars shall be deemed to form part of the record, and all proceedings may be taken thereon as though the passages complained of had been set out in the indictment or other judicial proceeding."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he gathered that the pages and lines were to be stated. How would that be in the case of newspapers in which there were columns?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he thought that the words "precisely by reference to pages and lines" would throw on the prosecution the necessity of indicating the column as well as the page in the case of a newspaper.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to put in the word "column." Did the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to that?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Yes.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment will, therefore, read—
    "Together with particulars stating precisely by reference to pages, columns, and lines in what part of the book, newspaper, or other document the alleged libel is to be found;"
    and so on.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the hon. and learned Gentleman to be good enough to tell them what would happen if there was not a sufficiency of books. Would the book have to be republished? If so, a great many more persons would

    753
    see the objectionable passages than otherwise would be the case. There was another point worthy of consideration. The various editions of the book might differ. Supposing the words differed in the different copies of the book, what would happen then? Would they take the copy of the book which was put in? An ill-minded man, if he was prosecuted, might secretly print off two or three different versions. The whole proposal was one of the most absurd and ridiculous ever made; and, whether this Amendment were pressed or not, he hoped that before they allowed themselves to write themselves down so foolish as to accept the clause they would take another Division.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman only existed in his own imagination. The book would be deposited, and if they could not get extra copies of it, as many copies of the passages as were required would have to be made.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he did not believe half the hon. Gentlemen who voted in favour of the clause had the least conception of what it really meant. They imagined they were giving a general vote in favour of social purity, and they thought that that would be a more or less popular thing to do. He assured the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) that they were all with him in the efforts he made in this direction; but this clause stood outside the Bill, and that was why the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) and himself "told" against the hon. Gentleman in the last Division. When the Bill was in Committee, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) proposed a new clause with reference to books and periodicals, and the hon. and learned Attorney General then got up and said that, whatever the merits of the clause might be, it had nothing to do with the Bill, which dealt with newspapers. But now the House was deliberately inserting a clause which was outside the general scope of the Bill. The present proceeding seemed to him thoroughly illogical and unreasonable.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he did not know what hon. Members might have had in their minds when they voted for the clause; but he personally had
    754
    a very definite intention in his mind when he voted for it. He hoped the House would stand by its decision, which simply made our law correspond with that which was in existence elsewhere, and which worked exceedingly well. This clause did not apply only to newspapers, it was true. It applied to something else as well. If it was useful in the case of newspapers, he did not see why it should not be applied to things which belonged to the same category. He hoped, as a lawyer, that this clause would be accepted by the House. He believed that it would be really useful. No serious objection had been raised to it by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Gentleman had suggested that different editions might be printed, one containing the objectionable passages, and the other not. It must be proved on the indictment that the man had published a book which contained obscene passages, and a copy of the book being used for the purpose of that indictment, the person charged would have the fullest information as to what was the exact offence with which he was charged. He (Sir Edward Clarke) was anxious to amend the proceedings of the Criminal Law whenever he could and as far as he could, and if he found an opportunity, such as this, for amendment, in a matter which was one of the most manifest absurdities of our procedure, he was anxious not to lose the opportunity.
    Mr. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it would be more convenient that the Amendment should be disposed of before a general debate was originated.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, that if they were to make any Amendment of this kind, he wished it were left to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; because then they would have the advantage of having our law made to resemble the very excellent law of Scotland. But at present it was provided that particulars were to be annexed to the indictments. Those particulars were afterwards to be part of the record. Now, it was to the record alone that the defendant must look if he wished to bring error; it was to the record alone the defendant must look if he brought error or alleged that he had formerly been acquitted or convicted. Now, there was no kind of provision being

    755
    made for the book being made part of the record or for its being deposited or being kept anywhere. If, after a lapse of 20 years, a man who had been prosecuted was again prosecuted for the same libel, all he would be able to get would be a copy of a skeleton indictment and particulars. There would be nothing to show what the words were for the use of which he had been formerly convicted or acquitted, as the case might be. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said that hon. Gentlemen, in voting for the clause, no doubt thought they were voting in the interest of social purity. They thought nothing of the kind; they thought they were voting for the hon. and learned Attorney General. He (Mr. Darling) could not help thinking that if the House agreed to the clause, it would be the very worst day's work that had ever been done for people who might be charged with libel.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, he agreed with the last speaker as to the injustice which would be done by the clause to persons accused of libel. Moreover, the result of the adoption of the clause would be that newspapers which were now practically precluded from publishing indecent details would state the precise pages and lines in the book where the indecency was to be found. The public, therefore, would be able to find the indecent passages complained of without the slightest trouble.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Commins) had given them an argument for printing openly in the indictment the obscene passages complained of. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that people must get a copy of the book to refer to it when the pages in which the objectionable matter appeared were given in newspapers. If they had not got a copy of the publication, they were not likely to get one when an action for libel was proceeding.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he rose for the purpose of pointing out that unless the point taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Deptford
    756
    (Mr. Darling) were recognized by the Government they would be in the ridiculous position that the defendant in error, or on appeal, or on a motion to quash, on the ground that there was no libel whatever—whatever the words might be—would have nothing whatever to submit to the Court. ["No, no!"] Clearly that was so in error. The Amendment, as now carried, did not say that the book or the words should be part of the record. It only said that the mere particulars annexed to the indictment should be part of the record, and just as they could not go outside the record now, so they would not be able to go outside the record under this Amendment. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General knew, the cases instancing this were overwhelming as showing that where there had been an attempt in error, or on appeal to raise any question, aye or no, as to whether the matter given in evidence against a defendant constituted a libel or not, the defendant had been unable to refer to anything with regard to it except the record. He could not refer to the evidence given at the trial, and could not produce printed evidence—the Court would recognize nothing but the words of the record, and unless the Court held that the words referred to in the particulars formed part of the record, they had reduced the Law of Libel in this country to a piece of nonsense.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension in this matter. The clause, as it now stood, provided that the book or newspaper or other document containing the alleged libel should be deposited with the indictment, and then the question was as to what part of the book or newspaper or document was alleged to be obscene. The indictment was part of the record. The book deposited with it was referred to in the indictment, and in the particulars. If afterwards the application had to be considered, and the record looked at, the book and particulars together would constitute the matter.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: It has already been decided that the book referred to in the indictment cannot be read.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: Oh, no!
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Indeed, that is so.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he had looked at the Amendment with the view of seeing exactly how this was, and he thought that in this matter it would not carry out what was suggested. The Amendment said that in the particulars should be given the exact place in the book where the words of the libel were to be found, but as there was nothing in the Amendment that made the book itself part of the record it could not be used in evidence.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)said, they must credit the Courts in this matter with some common sense. If the Act of Parliament said that the book should not be necessary, but that the record should give a particular passage, he thought it might be assumed that the Court would see the page referred to. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was more legal than the lawyers, and raised this point somewhat unnecessarily.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, that it was upon the technicalities of the law that they were to depend for the protection of innocence, and it was also upon a very scrupulous adherence to the Law of Evidence that they had to depend if they wished to prevent injustice being done. He concurred with every word that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had said. But, besides the objection of the hon. Gentleman, there seemed to him to be a greater flaw in the Amendment as it now stood. What did it say? Why, that they were to get rid of the production of the libel in the indictment, and the objection then arose that there would be nothing in the record. The record defined what was the offence of which the accused was guilty, and that record had to be made up by the Clerk of the Crown or the Clerk of the Peace, and remain in the archives of the Clerk of the Peace. Now the book itself, or series of books, were filed, and the objectionable passages transcribed in the record, or they were otherwise thoroughly indicated, no doubt, together with the preservation of the book itself. Under the clause as it stood, the record would be incomplete, and an accused person might be convicted 50 times over on the same indictment, and, even if convicted in one case, he could be tried over again and convicted for the same offence in another.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) whether it was not possible—because there would be the gravest doubt on this point even if the hon. Member were right in his opinion—at this stage of the Amendment to provide that the particular passages referred to in the indictment should be part of the record. If that were done there would be no difficulty in the matter; but he would venture to think that those hon. Members were right who urged that to make the particulars part of the record was not to make the charges referred to in the indictment part of the record. At any rate, if they made both part of the record it would be an advantage.
    MR. HUNTER)said, that he joined with his hon. and learned Friends who had spoken on this subject in appealing to the Government not to press this clause at the present moment. There would be an opportunity in the other House to insert those Amendments and those clauses which were considered necessary, but which there was no time now to consider fully. There seemed to be a difference of opinion between some hon. and learned Gentlemen and the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and he (Mr. Hunter) would not undertake to say who was right. He would undertake to say, however, that the law on the subject was extremely difficult. The hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) no doubt had derived great advantage from his superior technical knowledge on this question, because he had on one occasion saved himself from a very severe punishment by being able to pick a hole in an indictment where all the lawyers engaged thought the indictment perfectly sound. It was an extremely technical subject, and he (Mr. Hunter) saw no provision in this clause as now proposed to secure that the book, which was made part of the indictment, should be forthcoming with the indictment at any future time that it might be wanted. Moreover, it seemed to him that there could be nothing more derogatory to the dignity of Parliament, and more injurious to the legislation of the country, than, in a Bill which dealt only with the protection of newspapers in ordinary actions for libel, to introduce an amendment of the criminal procedure of the

    759
    country in relation to libels which had nothing whatsoever to do with newspapers. He strongly objected to this "five minutes to 12" system of legislation.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 108: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 169.)
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he now begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, namely—
    In page 1, line 26, after "deliberative purposes," to insert "and the publication of any notice or report issued for the information of the public at the request of any Government office or department, officer of State, commissioner of police, or chief constable."
    In moving the insertion of those words he should not trouble the House with any arguments, as he had been able to state his views on the matter on the last occasion when they had been in Committee. He had reason to believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had no objection to the insertion of the words.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 26, after the words "deliberative purposes," to insert the words, "and the publication of any notice or report issued for the information of the public at the request of any Government office or department, officer of State, commissioner of police, or chief constable."—(Mr. Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment; but he would point out the desirability of altering its form. It would be better that it should read—
    "And the publication at the request of any Government office or department, officer of State, commissioner of police, or chief constable, of any notice or report issued for the information of the public."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit), in page 2, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words, "interest and the publication of which is not for the public benefit," and insert the word "importance." He should like to say that the Committee which had been considering this Bill, and which was
    760
    responsible for its draftsmanship, was anxious that this change should be made; but, as the matter had been fully argued in Committee, he would not trouble the House with any observations on it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words "interest and the publication of which is not for the public benefit," and insert the word "importance."—(Mr. Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, at the time they were discussing this clause in Committee, speaking for himself only, he had pointed out to the promoters of the Bill that he was prepared to assent to certain parts of the section, and it was on that distinct understanding that the words it was now proposed to leave out were inserted. It would, therefore, be wrong on his part to assent to the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BERNARD COLERIDGEsaid, he desired now to move an Amendment which was not upon the Paper, and he moved it in this way, because the subject had only just been brought to his attention. The Amendment was to provide that when the question at issue was whether or not the libel published was a matter of public benefit, it should be a question for the jury to decide. It might be said that it was altogether a matter for the jury under Lord Campbell's Act; but when under that Act the defence set up was that the statement was true in fact, and that its publication was for the public benefit, the question arose whether it was for the Judge or the jury to decide whether it was for the public benefit. Only in May last a learned Judge—for whom, he was sure, the hon. and learned Attorney General would have every respect—namely, Mr. Baron Huddleston—in a case heard by him, had decided that, in his view, it was for him to say whether or not the publication was for the public benefit, and not for the jury. Whether or not that was a right interpretation of the law was not for him (Mr. Coleridge) to say; but, at any rate, a doubt seemed to have arisen as to whether it was a question for the Judge or the jury, and that doubt it was

    761
    the object of the Amendment to set at rest. It was true that in the case decided by Baron Huddleston the decision was in favour of the defendant. The learned Judge had wished to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, because the defendant in the case had proved the truth of the libel. Having proved the truth of the libel, the question arose as to whether the libel was published for the public benefit, and that was the point which the learned Judge held it was for him to decide and not for the jury, and thereupon he had directed a verdict for the defendant. But supposing that it had been the other way, and that the Judge had taken it into his head that a certain libel was not published for the public benefit, then—although the jury would have power to return a verdict of not guilty—they would feel themselves very much bound by the remarks of the Judge on the question of law, and they would hardly feel it within their discretion to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty, being under the direction of the Judge, who might tell them that it was for him to say whether or not the libel was for the public benefit. The worst that could be said of the Amendment was that it was purely declaratory. If it did in any way solve the difficulty, it did so in the direction favoured by the general opinion of the Legal Profession. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not think that he had brought this Amendment forward without cause. If the hon. and learned Gentleman declared that, in his view, there was no need for it, he (Mr. Coleridge) should be happy to withdraw it.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of Clause 4, to insert the words "Provided also, that in any proceeding for libel in which it shall be the question in issue whether the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit, such issue shall be a question of fact for the determination of the jury."—(Mr. Bernard Coleridge.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Bernard Coleridge) was expecting a good deal when he asked one to express an opinion on an Amendment which he had never read. Personally, he (Sir Richard Webster) never should have thought
    762
    that there was the slightest doubt as to a question of this kind being left for the jury, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility off-hand of dividing the House against the Amendment, if the hon. and learned Member told him that there was some doubt in the matter.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should accept the Amendment provisionally, as it could hereafter be dealt with in the House of Lords. The words could be there struck out if found to be unnecessary.
    SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he hoped they would not adopt this haphazard method of legislation, and thought that the House had to complain of the manner in which this Amendment was sprung upon them. If this sort of thing were to go on, it might be necessary to take some step to defend the liberty of the House against the possibility of grievous mistakes being made in legislation. It seemed to him that such Amendments as this ought not to be brought on at such a stage of the Bill, and they ought not to allow themselves to be inveigled into any of these declarations of the law sprung upon them in such a way that even the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed bewildered for the moment as to why he was to be drawn into the net. They were asked to stick in this Amendment like sticking a pin into a cushion, and they were told that whether or not it was necessary should not now be decided, but should be settled in the House of Lords. Hon. Members opposite seemed to forget their anxiety to do away with the House of Lords. If they were successful in their attempts to abolish that Chamber, who would do such work as was now proposed? Would it be the Clerk at the Table who would get rid of those difficulties for them? It was astonishing to see the remarkable cheerfulness in which hon. Members came forward to upset the general system of dealing with these matters. M. Olivier's cheerfulness in going to war was nothing to it.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) was mistaken. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Coleridge) did not wish to change the law in the slightest degree. He merely

    763
    said that he was of the same opinion as the hon. and learned Attorney General, but that Mr. Baron Huddleston had given a decision adverse to that opinion, and that there was some difference of opinion on this point amongst the Judges and the members of the Legal Profession. All the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to do, under the circumstances, was to make a declaratory statement in the Bill as to what the law was, that declaratory statement being not only what he himself believed the law to be, but also what the hon. and learned Attorney General believed it to be. The Amendment could do no harm, and might do some good; and, therefore, he (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the House would accept it.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, as he understood it, the hon. and learned Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Coleridge) wished to make a declaratory statement generally to the effect that it was for a jury to decide the issue in question. He doubted, however, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to put the Amendment in at the proper place, as it was an addition to a special clause dealing with a subject which was hardly germane to the Amendment.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment, because it had come upon the House by surprise, as, no doubt, had the decision of Mr. Baron Huddleston, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman vouched. He must say he thought Mr. Baron Huddleston, if these facts were put before him, would be found to say that he had never meant anything of the kind. The statement had not, he believed, appeared in any authorized reports, but in one of those newspaper reports which were wholly unreliable. He would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he begged to move the omission of the 5th clause. That clause had been dealt with in a manner which he was sure had been very hasty and ill-considered. It made a most important alteration in the law, and he was sure that last Wednesday, when the Committee determined to pass this section, the change which would be made in the
    764
    law by the section was not appreciated. It proposed no less than to repeal an important provision in Lord Campbell's Act, which was that where an apology was pleaded by a newspaper a payment of some money into Court should also be made. Now, he (Mr. Anderson) desired to call attention to this, which had already been referred to—namely, that Lord Campbell's Act was passed after great consideration. A Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to consider the Law of Libel; various persons were examined by it, and a very carefully prepared Report was made on the subject dealing with the whole question, and he (Mr. Anderson) confessed that the debates on the present measure showed that that course ought to have been adopted in regard to this Bill, because many provisions were pitchforked into it, first by one Member and then by another, without being properly considered—provisions which he thought ought first to have been submitted to the consideration of some Committee. This present point was referred to very fully by Lord Campbell as having been most carefully considered by the Committee of the House of Lords, and he said it was suggested that an apology only should be a defence. That was the statement in the Bill; but he went on to point out that the Committee, having carefully considered it, thought it very dangerous that an apology only should be sufficient. The noble Lord had placed great reliance upon not making a simple apology a defence to an action. Now, he (Mr. Anderson) did not think the House ought to upset a decision of that kind, taken with great deliberation, without having some really clear reason before them to show that that course should be adopted. For what was the result of the clause as it stood at present? It would amount to this—that a newspaper would be induced by the action of the Committee to defend an action by simply making an apology and not paying any money. That was the present state of affairs. The position taken up was this—that a newspaper might libel a man by some report or other, and might then make what a jury might find an ample apology, and the plaintiff would have to be satisfied with that. But who ever heard of such a doctrine being laid down? For, surely, if a man was libelled an apology would not always

    765
    be a sufficient recompense. It seemed a very meagre kind of way to meet the case, when they had libelled a man, to say—"I am very sorry, and most humbly apologize." Surely that was not just; and he thought they ought to insist upon the payment required by Lord Campbell's Act, and to provide that, in cases where an apology was sufficient, payment into Court of £10, £50, or £100, as the case might be, should be required. If the jury thought the sum paid into Court was sufficient with the apology, that was an admirable defence, and if they did not think it sufficient they could make it more; but it would take away altogether the cause of action for damages. This clause as it stood was, to his mind, a monstrous violation of the law, and was simply inserted at the suggestion of newspaper proprietors themselves, without any Committee having considered the matter, and without witnesses having been called to give evidence and to say whether the present law had worked unfairly or not. These newspaper proprietors had caused this to be done, he did not like to say in their own interests, but, of course, that was the case. He did not think they ought to accept the clause; and believing it to have been passed hastily, and under circumstances to the effects of which the attention of the Committee was not fully called, he proposed to take the sense of the House upon its continuing to be part of the Bill, and he believed he should be supported in this by the hon. and learned Attorney General. ["No, no!"] At any rate, he thought he should—he hoped so, at any rate. He trusted the House would come to a conclusion that this was a clause which never ought to have been inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 5.—(Mr. Anderson.)
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'In an action for a libel contained in any newspaper it shall be lawful for the defendant to raise by his defence a plea under the second section of the Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-six, intituled "An Act to amend the law respecting defamatory words and libel," without making any payment into court, and where such a plea has been raised (either with or without payment into court),' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. KELLYsaid, that under the clause, however injurious
    766
    a libel might be, if only a newspaper published an apology and showed that it had not been actuated by malice, and had been guilty of no negligence, the unfortunate libelled person would have no remedy whatever. The very grossest libels were just those in which it was most difficult to prove special malice. The libel might be only the substitution of the name of a clergyman for a synonymous name, upon the trial on a grave criminal charge which might have the effect of ruining for ever the clergyman's character. What remedy would such a libelled person have under this clause? Absolutely none, because the newspaper proprietor would show that he had acted without malice or negligence, and that he had published an apology, and it would be held that that apology was sufficient. That assumed that the apology would be received by the same persons who had read the libel; but it must be within the knowledge of hon. Members of that House that there were a certain class of papers which people read very occasionally. For instance, a man who took up a copy of Truth on starting on a railway journey might not be likely to see that paper again for a considerable time, and, reading a gross libel in the copy he procured, he might never see any apology which might subsequently be published regarding that libel. He might never dream of buying the next issue. That would be a very common case. He (Mr. Kelly) asked whether it was to be possible, in such a case as this, for the newspaper proprietor to say that he had made the necessary amends by publishing the apology in the following week—to go into Court and say that he had made a little mistake, and that, though the libelled person came really into Court to vindicate his character, he should not recover one farthing of the costs to which he must inevitably be put, inasmuch as the apology had been made and it could not be shown that special damage had been suffered? A newspaper proprietor might, under those circumstances, libel anyone to his heart's content without being made in any way responsible for it. The clause, as it stood, was not satisfactory, and the point was whether the law would not be much better without such a provision. Holding, as he did, that no Amendment would make the clause work otherwise

    767
    than most unjustly to the general public, he had pleasure in supporting the Motion for its rejection.
    MR. WADDYsaid, that there were two branches of the clause to be considered, and they were both worthy of attention, though up to now only one had been spoken of. The first branch referred to the payment of money into Court, and he wished to point out that this question was bring argued solely from the point of view of the respectable papers, of which, happily, we had a great number in this country. But there were also, unfortunately, a large number of papers which were far from respectable, and which, to a great extent, traded on libellous matter. At present, if a person brought an action against one of these papers, and the editor wanted to defend himself in any way such as was indicated, he had by this clause a system of protection. This, which was a provision against rascality, which no respectable paper could object to, and which was now being upset in the interests of good and bad papers alike. He did not believe for a moment that there was any newspaper represented in that House which would care two-pence whether they had to pay money into Court in case an action went against them or not, because they would know that they would get it back again. It would not harm such newspapers. But in regard to the other class of papers, suppose they were dealing with papers of the kind he had indicated, under this clause the proprietor would pay nothing into Court, and they would have to go on with the case to the end, the man would get the benefit of such advertisement as he was seeking, and no costs could be obtained, as it might be discovered that the only person who was responsible was the printer with a set of type upon which there was a bill of sale already. It was said that they could not deal with the case by a simple apology. Now, he would give a case in point from his own experience, which sounded most extravagant he knew, but for the absolute accuracy of which be vouched as he stood there. He knew a gentleman who was libelled with regard to a matter of the most personal character. What happened? An apology was inserted a day or two afterwards under terror; but was that all? This paragraph libelling the man was copied
    768
    into a San Francisco paper—and the man to whom he was referring had friends and relatives abroad in different parts of the world—the libel, which was copied by the San Francisco paper, was again put into a New Zealand paper, and he (Mr. Waddy) had a copy of this journal in his pocket, showing that the libel in question had actually gone all round the world. What remedy had this gentleman? They talked about special damages; but he could prove no special damages in this case—none at all. But even if damage had been done this gentleman, it would not be possible to recover for it—they would not be able to measure the damage. The man might suffer the deepest personal annoyance, and his friends also might suffer both in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres; and he (Mr. Waddy) maintained that it was not sufficient to say, as many newspapers did—"Oh, we libelled you; but our columns are open to you to answer what we said if you like." That position was taken up in the case to which he was referring. They thought that because a person libelled could not prove special damage there was adequate compensation in an apology. He would yield to no hon. Member in his desire to get rid of blackmailing, and to leave the Press practically free and unfettered so far as it should be left; but he thought that in this matter they were in danger of going a little too far now with the swing of the pendulum. They were not confining their attention to good papers, but were putting the good, bad, and indifferent altogether. Henceforward they would be putting it in the power of the bad papers, and of the rascally proprietors of papers, to say what they liked about people without being able to punish them in the way in which men of their mind were only able to appreciate punishment.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that, in his humble opinion, hon. and learned Gentlemen had very little consideration for the House, because they had been simply repeating the arguments they had heard in Committee when it was decided to accept this clause. He knew that hon. and learned Members could not come under the ruling of Mr. Speaker for tedious repetition; but every one of the arguments they had used had been

    769
    used several times before. The Committee had been well aware of what it was doing when it decided that this clause should stand part of the Bill; and he earnestly hoped that the House would not go back and rescind the decision so arrived at. He believed a great deal of what had been said had no application to the clause, because the whole of it had turned on the insertion of an apology. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten in the instances they had quoted that the libel was to have been published without malice and without negligence. As to the case put by the hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division, did he allege that in that particular case the libel was published with malice and negligence?
    MR. WADDYsaid, he alleged that it was utterly impossible to prove it; that was the point.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had entered into no particulars; he had only said that the libel was copied in different papers in different parts of the globe. He should like to hear what the libel was which the hon. and learned Gentleman said was so injurious in this case. How could a libel be injurious when it was published without malice and negligence.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he did not say it was published without malice. What he had said was, that it was just one of those cases which generally occurred in which it was utterly impossible for the libelled man to prove malice or negligence.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, the whole thing was very vague, and they could not understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant. It might be because he (Mr. Lawson) was not so skilled in the law as hon. and learned Gentlemen who had been obstructing the Bill that afternoon. It was assumed that a large majority of the newspapers they had to legislate for were disreputable and malicious; but, if this clause were struck out, they would be sacrificing the interests of all those genuine and honest newspapers throughout the country which he had alluded to so often before, which were not in the position of Metropolitan papers with great resources at their backs, but who, on the contrary, had very small means. These were the papers from whom, as hon. Mem-
    770
    bers were aware, they had received letters from their own localities recommending the acceptance of this clause. By striking out the clause they would not punish disreputable newspapers, but would protect disreputable litigants and solicitors. He trusted that, as they had had an ample discussion of this matter in Committee, they would not reduce the Bill to a shadow of its former self by striking out the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought the hon. Member for West St. Pancras had pitched his speech somewhat too high. He thought the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that certain Members stated distinctly, when they voted for the second reading of this clause, that they voted for it on the understanding that such modification would be made in it as would prevent the words "special damage" remaining in.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he was well aware of that, and he only meant that the clause should remain in in a modified form.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he had considered whether any Amendment of the clause in the way of cutting out the words would be sufficient to meet the objections entertained to it. If there was any grievance which could be met without any harm being done to suitors, they ought to meet him; but it seemed to him that to strike out the words "special damage" would simply be to re-enact the law as it at present stood. The object of the clause was to free a newspaper proprietor from liability when a libel had been published in his paper without malice and without negligence, where the person libelled could not prove special damage. In such a case, therefore, the clause would make the insertion of an apology an answer to the action; but as he did not believe that such a change in the law would be a salutary one, he thought that, inasmuch as newspaper proprietors had already obtained many valuable improvements made in their favour by the earlier provisions of the Bill, it would be advisable for them to consent to having this clause struck out.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) as to cases

    771
    not being proved in this House, the fact was that cases had been proved over and over again where absolute injury had been done to individuals by respectable newspapers, whose only plea was that they inserted these libels without malice. Why, it was just that kind of newspaper that could put in that plea. No one would contend for one moment that the editor of The Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Post, Standard, and papers of that kind would allow libels to appear in their papers maliciously; but they wanted to protect a man against being libelled in these newspapers by some vagabond outside, who would send in reports which would find their way into the papers on the ground that they came from perfectly untainted sources. What he felt was that, above everything, it was the duty of this House to protect the characters of individuals. The newspapers of this country were of great power. They were often told that the newspapers were the fourth estate of the Realm. That might be so; but every other estate of the Realm was bound more or less by responsibilities, and was it to be said that the fourth estate was to be relieved of all responsibility and of all liability? It was to the interest of the community that they should take measures to protect individual character, and make it as difficult as possible for the libeller to get away from his responsibility. They had endeavoured to amend the clause when the Bill was in Committee, and certain Amendments had been agreed to; but it was distinctly understood at that time that certain other Amendments were to be made, or attempted to be made, when the clause came up again on Report.
    SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he desired to know what was the meaning of the words "special, damage?" Everyone knew how difficult it was to dissect ordinary damage, and it seemed to him that that consideration rendered it all the more necessary that hon. Members should be extra careful in dealing with the main bulk of the clause, and that they should make up their minds whether they intended to enunciate the doctrine that an apology should be sufficient.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the main objection of hon. and learned Gentlemen, he gathered, was to
    772
    the word "special;" but that word was not in the Bill as originally framed. It was put in by an Amendment in Committee. ["No, no!"] There was a Division on the Question, and the word was challenged, and the Committee divided in favour of it—that was to say, the House decided in favour of the clause with this word in it. He could perfectly well understand that there were objections to the word "special," and he would venture to suggest that the House should pass the clause, and that then those who were personally in favour of the word "special" should give up their point, and agree to the clause without that word. Many hon. Members would vote on this question blindly, and would not look into the matter; and he would, therefore, ask the House to consider the words he would suggest to them, and to see how the clause would be without the word "special," and the House could then come to a conclusion as to whether newspapers would be put to any disadvantage, or whether any injustice would be done to litigants. The words he suggested were—
    "If it shall appear on the trial that any libel was made without malice and without negligence, and that the defendant had inserted an apology as by the Act provided, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover any damages except such damages as he can prove that he has sustained by the publication of such libel."
    He would put it to hon. Members whether, if the clause were put in that way, it would be any sort of injustice to those who brought complaints against newspapers. He would point out that it was possible, if the word "special" were left in, that the hon. and learned Attorney General and the Government would be inclined to vote against the Bill on the third reading. There was a good deal in leaving out the word "special." There was a good deal in the Bill which would be useful to newspaper proprietors and à fortiori to the public as well; and under the circumstances he would not like to risk losing the whole cake by insisting upon one particular plum in it. He trusted, therefore, that they would adopt the clause on the understanding that the word "special" would not be pressed.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKsaid, he certainly should press this clause to a Division, as he con-

    773
    sidered it the most valuable clause in the Bill. It was particularly levelled at protecting newspapers from the unfair attacks of speculative attorneys and plaintiffs. Papers, as a rule, had a great deal of regard for the feelings of persons libelled, and though the House had heard a great deal of libel cases they had had only special cases cited, and he did not think they had at all fairly considered the question from a broad point of view. Throughout his experience on the Press he had always found that the great mass of papers were only too ready to rectify a libel, not only to explain, but also to pay. They were quite ready to pay whenever they thought injustice had been committed. They were always ready to give compensation where any special or even general damage could be shown; they did this willingly and without a murmur. The newspapers did not complain of the law, they did not complain of special damages, or a proper action being brought against them, but the complaint was, that where they might have published libels without malice or negligence, some libels which would never have been taken hold of by a respectable person, they were taken up by an impecunious nobody who was prompted by some little lawyer to bring an action. There were libels and libels. Sometimes the matters complained of were libels, though generally they were not, and in most cases the newspapers were told by their legal advisers that it was better to compromise, as other wise they would not get their costs. He thought that it was necessary that this clause should be retained in order to prevent frivolous actions. He trusted the House would vote the clause as it was voted by the Committee. There were certain Amendments on the Paper which could not be taken until the clause was voted, and whatever might be the opinion of the House on the details, he hoped, at any rate, that the principle of the clause would be unanimously adopted.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, he could not understand the arguments of the hon. Bart, the Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick). Under Lord Campbell's Act a newspaper had power to pay a sum of money and to plead an apology. The hon. Baronet said he had always found newspapers eager to pay money into
    774
    Court where damage had been done. What, therefore, could be the objection to the provision under Lord Campbell's Act? In the case of a man who was libelled, either he was injured or he was not, and if he was injured he (Mr. Commins) failed to see why the newspaper should be relieved of all liability. He regarded it as a misfortune that hon. Gentlemen who were not lawyers should have to deal with these legal questions, as it got them into such messes as the Houses were now in with regard to "special damages." It must be remembered that special damages were not always capable of proof, and that a man might have suffered serious injury by libel although it might not be possible for him to prove that he was refused the sale of a pound of sugar or a pound of meat by tradesmen in consequence of such libel. A man whose character was injured was clearly entitled to compensation, and the only chance he had of having his character reinstated was by bringing an action and going into the witness-box. Looking at the Bill as having passed into law and become a Working Act, the result of the clause would be that the newspaper proprietor who had libelled a man, wronged his character, taken away his means of living, and inflicted upon him pain that would not cease as long as he lived, could further inflict upon him a bill of costs, and thus deprive him of his last crust; because the man would be under the imperative necessity of clearing himself in the witness-box. The effect of the clause would thus be that a man could only clear his character by final ruin. Now, if any provision had been introduced into the Bill that would deprive the proprietor under all circumstances of the right of claiming costs, the case would be bad enough; but if such a provision as he had tried to persuade the Committee to accept had been admitted—namely, that the proprietor should assist the individual libelled in getting satisfaction from his slanderer by handing over the notes, or by producing a witness to prove the slander, he should have been inclined to support the clause. But nothing of the kind had been done, and it was here intended to add another great source of evil to the Bill, and place the person libelled in a more unfortunate position than before,

    775
    He thought there should be no more immunity for a newspaper proprietor who destroyed the character of an individual than there was for any one else engaged in ordinary trade operations.
    MR. ANDERSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, "That the said words stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 230: Majority 123.—(Div. List, No. 170.)
    Remaining words of Clause omitted.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next.

  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.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, when the Bill was in Committee he had, on short Notice, drafted a clause with reference to the form of Order for detention of offenders, which, having been hurriedly considered, was rejected by the Committee. But thinking that there were good reasons for the admission of the clause, he had redrawn it, and now begged to submit it to the House. He found since last week that he had ample ground to go upon. The Bill proceeded on the lines of the Act of 1866, and as his desire was to follow that Act more strictly than was done in the Bill, he had adapted the clause which required the gaoler to detain the offender for 14 days to the case provided for in the Bill. His object was to impress on the person detaining the offender and the offender himself the nature and importance of the position in which they would stand to each other. He thought it should be made clear to the house that a now position was about to be created. He pointed out that while the keeper was not, as the Bill stood, to have brought home to him the consequences of any casual neglect, the person in his charge was liable to three months' imprisonment, with or without
    776
    hard labour, if he took French leave and ran away from him—that was to say, to avoid the objectionable practice of sending a boy to prison in the first instance, he might run away and then get a sentence of three months' imprisonment. For those reasons, he thought, they ought in the most formal way to set out the position as between the keeper and the offender in the manner proposed in the Schedule to which the clause he was about to move referred. He was prepared not merely to support the clause on principle, but also the Schedule which he should propose, and which was wholly unobjectionable as well as quite desirable. It was unobjectionable because it followed exactly the order for detention contained in the Act of 1866, which, like his new clause, was permissive. It seemed to him unwise to give a boy who had been sentenced to four years in a reformatory school the chance of escaping too easily from his keeper during his 14 days' detention.
    New Clause—
    (Form of Order of detention.)
    "The order for the detention of an offender made in pursuance of this Act may as to its formal parts be in the form set forth in the Schedule to this Act, and shall contain on the face of it the penalties incurred by persons under section seven of this Act,"—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read the second time," put, and agreed to.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, he agreed with his hon. Friend that it was, in regard to this new departure, necessary to take all possible precautions with a view to preventing the powers of the Bill to be exercised with laxity. But he might observe that it was very doubtful whether the first part of the proposed clause was necessary. His hon. Friend would find that by the 36th section of the Act of 1866, certain forms might be used to meet circumstances which might arise, and that one of these was the form of order for detention, which he submitted with a slight alteration could be made appropriate to the Bill. He failed to perceive what it was his hon. Friend had added to the clause of the Act of

    777
    1866 by his clause and Schedule which they could usefully adopt. He observed that his hon. Friend made it compulsory that there should be a statement on the face of the detention order of the penalty to which persons might be liable for what he might call escaping from the Bill. But he thought it would be much more desirable to take powers for a Public Department which had ample time for the purpose to settle the necessary forms.
    MR. DUGDALEsaid, he agreed that the form of order for detention should bear on its face the penalties incurred by persons for evading the Act; but he did not see any necessity for any form being set out in a Schedule to the Bill, because it was provided that the Act of 1866 should be constantly at one with this Act, and by Section 36 of the former Act it was provided that no summons or order for carrying out the provisions of the Act should be invalid for want of form, and that the Schedules might be used with such variations as might be required. Therefore he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman unnecessary, and would prefer to leave it to the Home Office to frame rules, or else to follow the Act of 1866 with such alterations of form as might be necessary.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not think they ought to pass an Act with any doubtful matter in it. It would be premature to express any opinion on the Schedule of the hon. Gentleman now; but he hoped the clause would be read a second time.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsuggested, that after "be," in line 2, they should add the words—
    "Such as from time to time shall be framed by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, and shall contain on the face of it the penalties provided for by this Act."
    Mr. J. G. TALBOTsaid, this proposal went against the principle that the Act ought to be complete in itself. It was pretty generally admitted that one of the great faults of modern legislation was that it was so common for one Act to refer to others, and it was a pity to repeat this error. If the forms of the Act of 1866 were good, he did not see why they were not good enough for the present Bill.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, the change made by the Bill was clearly not contemplated by the Act of 1866, and the circumstances under which the forms could be varied could not by any stretching be considered to have relation to the cases contemplated by the Bill. The Act of 1866 provided for the temporary imprisonment of the juvenile offender, whereas the object of the Bill was exactly the opposite. It provided that the offender should not be imprisoned, but that in order that he should not be contaminated during the time he was waiting to be sent to a reformatory he should be kept in the private custody of some person. He did not think the Schedule of the hon. Gentleman desirable.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, they ought to provide machinery to allow the Act to be properly worked the moment it came into force.
    Verbal Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed—
    In line 2 of the new Clause to leave out the words "in the form set forth in the Schedule of this Act," and insert "with such variations as circumstances require, as shall be from time to time prescribed by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE the following Amendment made:—In Clause 4, page 2, line 11, leave out "police" and insert "a police officer appointed for the purpose by the said Court Justices or magistrate;" in Clause 5, page 2, line 19, after "magistrate" insert "and thence to the reformatory school."
    Bill to be read the third time upon Friday.

  DISTRESS FOR RENT (DUBLIN) BILL.
  (MR. Murphy, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Dwyer Gray, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Captain McCalmont, Mr. T. Harrington.)
  DISTRESS FOR RENT (DUBLIN) BILL.

    [BILL 159.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Certain goods exempted from distress and execution).
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have to point out that the Amendment to this clause,

    779
    in the name of the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. P. McDonald) is not within the scope of the Bill. It proposes to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Conscience, which could only be done by instruction before the Bill went into Committee.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Public store to be maintained by the municipal authority).
    On the Motion of Mr. MURPHY the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 36, after "times" insert "and in such manner."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  OATHS BILL— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir John Simon, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Courtney Kenny, Mr. Burt, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Richard, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 13 th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Clause 1 (affirmation may be made instead of oath).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the word "person," to insert the words "excepting those who state they have no religious belief."—(Mr. Norris.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. NORRISsaid, the question before the Committee was that of the Amendment which he had moved a week ago and which he hoped would to-day be accepted. He would not disguise from the Committee that his Amendment should be construed as the outcome of his desire to cripple the Bill, and be would add that he should be very glad if that result was to be attained. But apart from that, there were many difficulties which would be created by the Bill. It had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling), on a previous occasion, that it would have the effect of causing much difficulty in the Law Courts, if people of all persuasions, such as Hindoos and Mahommedans, were to insist
  780
  on other forms of affirmation. On the second reading of the Bill, an hon. Member had stated that he was prepared to stand up before God and his fellow-men and declare that he would do that which was right. That was what he (Mr. Norris) thought they had an opportunity of doing now; every Member who had been elected for any constituency in the Kingdom under those circumstances had taken his seat in that House without difficulty. He was not opposed to the freedom of the Press, or the freedom of the subject in any other walk or position in life; but in a case of this kind there was a line to be drawn, and he did think it was for the House to put some limit upon the application of the principle of the Bill. As he had stated, it was his intention, and that of his hon. Friends, to contest the Bill step by step. On the other hand he did not wish to impart into his remarks any references of a personal character. There were considerations of a higher nature involved here, and he could not but think that this Bill would have the effect of undermining that faith which was inherited by and believed in by the English people. He thought it would be a good thing if the Committee would follow the manly words spoken by the present Emperor of Germany in his address to his people—that they should set an example to nations, "foster piety and the fear of God," and be the true guardians of the rights of the people.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 205: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 171.)
  It being half after Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—CONSPIRACY— RELEASE OF KILLEAGH PRISONERS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) a Question of which I have given him

  781
  private Notice—that is, Whether it is true that the Court of Exchequer in Dublin to-day discharged the prisoners from Killeagh, and whether they have discharged them on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence of conspiracy?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that the Court of Exchequer has discharged the prisoners; but it is not, however, accurate to say that they have been discharged on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence of conspiracy. On the contrary, there was the clearest evidence that there was conspiracy punishable at Common Law, but it was held that there was not sufficient evidence of that particular kind of conspiracy that was necessary under the Act.
  MR. COMMINS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if at the Crimes Court now sitting at Castlerea the Crown agents had persistently refused to produce the depositions taken against the persons returned for trial and charged with conspiracy, notwithstanding the provisions of the first section of the Crimes Act; and, whether they had done so by the direction of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman puts a Question on the Paper I will inquire into the matter.

  THE EXECUTIVE (IRELAND)—RUMOURED RESIGNATION OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, is it true, as stated in the newspapers, that he has already resigned or is about to resign his Office?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no objection to answer. It is one of those ridiculous fictions so current in the Irish Press.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask, whether the Irish Press to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is not a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not reply.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask, with reference to the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Roscommon (Mr. Commins), and as it is a matter of urgency—because I understand the Crown have refused at three or four different times to comply with the Provisions of the Act of Parliament, and as the trial is proceeding, and will also be on to-morrow—may I ask, are we to be told in this House that the Crown have no information on questions of this sort—namely, whether they are content to sanction a distinct violation of an Act of Parliament?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. If I am asked distinctly that Question, I shall have no difficulty in stating that the Crown are not prepared to sanction a distinct violation of an Act of Parliament.
  MR. CLANCY: Then will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph to his managers at Castlerea, and press them to produce these depositions that have been so repeatedly refused by the Crown?
  [No reply.]

MOTION.

  COMMONS REGULATION PROVISIONAL ORDER [THERFIELD HEATH] BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order for the Regulation of Therfield Heath and Greens, situated in the Parish of Therfield, in the county of Hertford, in pursuance of a report from the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Mr. Secretary Matthews.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 301.]
  House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.