LAWS AFFECTING THE PRESS—SIR FRANCIS VINCENT'S LIBEL BILL.
" THE Freedom of the Press " is one of the regular toasts at all patriotic dinners; and ninety-nine out of' a hundred of those who drink it believe, that in England at least the Press is really free— that Mr. Fox's famous bill has completely established its immu- nity from oppression. How far this is the case, will appear from a brief enumeration of some of the penalties to t hich publicists are liable, frequently for extremely slight and unintentional trans- gressions of the Law of Libel. The right of Juries to return a verdict both on the law and the fact of the case, would appear, at first sight, to guarantee the de- fendant in a prosecution for libel from all peculiar hardship. But certain forms of proceeding have been established by the Courts, which operate in such a way as frequently to deprive him of nearly the whole benefit which the improvement in the law introduced by Mr. Fox would otherwise confer upon him. Proceedings may be instituted against a person accused of libel either by Action, Indictment, or Criminal Information. He may give the truth in. evidence, only when the proceeding is by action. When it is by criminal information, or by indictment, or ex officio by the Attor- ney-General, he is allowed no such privilege. Leave is given to file a criminal information frequently upon very insufficient grounds; always upon ex parte statements. It is true that the rule is only at first granted conditionally ; but that of itself is an expensive proceeding ; and it is not often that the Judges are prevailed upon, to dissolve the rule which he has granted, upon the counter affi- davit of the defendant. Then there remains little to do except to. prove the publication; and although the libel may be indisputably true, and the motive of the man who published it unimpeachably good, all this availeth him nothing; malice is inferred, and sen- tence is pronounced. When the proceeding is by indictment, the Grand Jury find the bill, instead of the leave to file the informa- tion being granted by the Judges. In neither case is the defendant allowed to prove the truth of the libel in justification of it. Mar- vellous little good, therefore, has Mr. Fox's bill done to the luck- less defendant in such a predicament as this.
Another most oppressive privilege allowed to the prosecutor, is the power of keeping the defendant in hot water for several years, by suspending proceedings in terrorem over his head. The in- justice thus committed has been well illustrated in the last Nuns, ber of the Westminster Review.
The publisher and proprietors of a newspaper are all liable to be punished for a libel which they probably never read ; and the. sale of each copy that can be proved constitutes a distinct offence. By one of the Six Acts, the proprietors of a newspaper are re- quired to find sureties for the payment of any fines which may be imposed upon them for the publication of blasphemous or seditious libels ; and we may thank Sir JAMES SCARLETT for an extension -of the oppressive principle of this law ; be having procured an act to be passed, by which the proprietors are likewise compelled to find security for the possible damages which may be given against them in actions for libel.
These are a few of the more oppressive trammels by .e Melt the freedom of the Press in Eurtland is fettered. We commit a breach of privilege, and are liable to the untoward consequences thereof, for every debate in Parliament which we publish; and may be sentenced to fine and imprisonment for exposing the knavery of individuals in public life, although, so far from having incurred. any moral guilt by the deed, we have in fact done good service to our fellow-men thereby, and could, if the forms of law permitted us, prove to the satisfaction of any honest Jury, that we have spoken nothing but the truth, and that only from the purest motives.
We imagine that no friend to the freedom of the Press, and to• the improvement of his species, can read the above imperfect enu- meration of the penalties to which those connected with the Press are liable, without being rejoiced to learn that an effort at least is made in the present session to amend the Law of Libel. Sir FRANCIS VINCENT has introduced a bill for that purpose into the House of Commons. We trust that it will meet with no opposition of any consequence there; but that Ministers, if from no better motive, at least for very shame, will give it their support. When they were in opposition, there was no end to their eloquent denuncia- tion of the tyranny of the Six Acts, and the persecution of the Press. They have been in office now for two years, and we sup, pose, would remain in office for twenty more, before they would stir their fingers to do us right. However, we are glad to see that an independent member of the House has taken upon himself the performance of this important duty.
" The Bill to alter and amend the Laws respecting Libels" enacts, that the civil and criminal proceedings shall be assimilated; so that the truth may be given in justification of a libel, in whatever way the proceedings may be instituted. It also abolishes that abominable provision of one of the Six Acts which relates to the finding of the preliminary securities for the payment of fines and damages. The meaning of the important word "Libel" is expressly laidi down: and we really think that those who fear that undue liberty is given to the Press by other provisions of this bill, will be com- forted when they perceive the very extended signification. which this word is made to bear.
" The word Libel shall be construed to include any matter written or printed, any painting, print, picture, or engraving, image. or effigy, or. any other visible substance, containing or conveying any injurious imputation, whether such im- putation Le true or false, affecting the character, property, profession, trade, or calling, or the position in society, or feelings of any person, either in his public or private capacity, as an individual or the member of any body corporate, or (as the case may be) any seditious publication designed to obstruct, or to excite others to obstruct, the deliberations or proceedings of the Houses of the Legis- lature, or of the functionaries of the Executive Government, or any blasphemous or obscene publication," &c. Lk.
The bill, it will be seen from this specimen of it,. is not calcu- lated to encourage the perpetration of libels. • 'The bill abolishes Informations, ex, officio or otherwise; and re- quires all proceedings on account of libels to be by Action in the Common Law Courts, and by Indictment in the Criminal Courts; and directs that the Crown shall proceed by Indictment only.
Proprietors and Ablishers, who have not participated in the libel, are not to be punished on account of it ; and the venders of libels,.who sell them in ignorance of their character, are likewise to be exempted from punishment. The sale of every separate copy of a libel is no longer to be considered as a distinct offence, unless the party should persist in the sale of them after due no- tice of their illegality. In all libel trials, the bill enacts, that the whole case shall be proved before counsel shall proceed to address the Jury; and that the pleadings shall, in the first instance, be read aloud; so that the Jury will have something less vague than the statements of counsel on which to found their verdicts.
Evidence may be given as to the fairness and correctness of' any report of a public 'fleeting. The Jury, however, are to decide in this, as in other cases, whether it was ,published for justifiable ends and on sufficient occasion. In Government cases, it will be only incumbent on the defendant to prove, that every reasonable effort was made to get at the truth, and that the account given was fair and honest.
The Jury are to decide whether the matter alleged to be libel- lous really bears the meaning which is ascribed to it by the pro- secutor.
The. person who shall be convicted of a libel shall publish the verdict in his own work, and in such newspapers as the prosecutor shall select—the number to be fixed by the act.
Costs are to be allowed to all successful parties in the trials, ex- cept to the Crown. We see no good reason for the exception.
The last clause limits the period at which prosecutions shall be commenced, to six months from the publication of the libel ; un- less special damage shall be proved to have been incurred by the person libelled, or unless he shall have been abroad at the time of the publication.
The above are the principal provisions of Sir FRANCIS V1N- CENT'S Bill. They appear to us to be judicious; and, if "the Freedom of the Press" is to be any thing more than a toast at patriotic dinners, necessary also. The Ministry, if they have any regard to consistency, must support this very moderate and practical bill in both Houses. No doubt, there will be some strenuous and hearty opposition to it on the part of the Conser- vative patrons of gagging-laws in the House of Peers. We have some anxiety, we are sorry to say, as to the nature of the support it will receive from Lord BROUGHAM ; but still we trust that his desire to conciliate his Conservative friends will not lead him so far astray, as to induce him to lend a hand in rivettitig fetters upon that Press which he has so often eloquently eulogized as the main bulwark of our liberties, and the chief instrument in the improve- ment of mankind.
Previous page
