On the third reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, the Marquis of Waterford proposed and carried a provision which might have been of great practical importance, providing that the man who utters defamatory words at a public meeting which are consequently reported in a newspaper, shall be held answerable for their publication in the paper, just as though he had directed the reporter so to print and publish them. The clause as introduced by the noble Marquis was as follows: "Where any person makes a speech to a meeting, and a report containing libellous words, purporting to be a report of such speech, is published in any newspaper, then on proof that the words so published, or words of like import, were uttered by the person making such speech, that person shall, in the event of any civil proceedings being instituted against him for libel in respect of such words, be deemed for the purposes of such proceedings to have himself written and published the libellous words attributed to him in such report, or words of like import. The report so published shall be primâ facie evidence of the words therein attributed to the speaker having been spoken, but it shall be competent to him to prove any inaccuracy in the report of any matter explaining the words attributed to him. Such proceedings, if taken, shall be in substitution for, and not in addition to, any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, that may be instituted against him." The Marquis of Salisbury moved to insert the following proviso: "Provided also, that no proceeding under the section shall be taken more than two months after the words were uttered," which was agreed to; and Lord Monkswell then moved the following addition: "Provided also that the speaker shall be entitled to any defence of privilege arising from the occasion on which the words were spoken which he would have had in case the spoken words had been of themselves actionable," which was also carried. But in the end the House of Commons (which contains so many speakers whose words are always reported) rejected the whole section. It was no doubt intended as a corollary to section 4, which renders the newspaper report privileged in certain circumstances. It is right that the speaker who first utters the words complained of should be held responsible for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of his act; but I think the section should have been limited to cases where the speaker either knew or ought to have known that reporters were present, and would take down his words. Four clauses of the Bill passed through both Houses without any amendments-the two formal sections 1 and 2, and sections 6 and 9, which are both of obvious value. Section 9 allows the defendant and his wife to give evidence in prosecutions for libel. Section 6 enables the defendant to prove at the trial of a civil action that the plaintiff has already recovered damages or brought actions for substantially the same libel—a fact which always tends to mitigate the damages. Under the law as it previously existed, the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff if he went into the box about other actions; but he was bound by plaintiff's answer, and could not call any evidence to contradict it, as such evidence would have been irrelevant to any issue in the case. For the same reason interrogatories as to such other actions were disallowed in Tucker v. Lawson, (1886) 2 Times L. R. 593. But that decision is now no longer law, so far as newspapers are concerned. It is, in my opinion, a great pity that the beneficial provisions of section 6 should be limited to libels contained in a newspaper. Precisely the same considerations apply to booksellers and circulating libraries, and they ought to be protected in the same way. Instances have occurred in which a plaintiff has recovered heavy damages, first from the publishers of a book, then from Messrs. Mudie and Messrs. Smith & Son, and has then proceeded to attack various small booksellers up and down the country, who had sold some two or three copies in the ordinary way of their business without the least suspicion that the book contained a word libelling any one. I should like to see the words "contained in a newspaper" struck out of this section; so that, like sections 5 and 9, it might apply to all libels. But, in spite of the trifling defects which I have thus ventured to point out, there is no doubt that the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888, is a useful and practical measure, for which its framer, Lord Glenesk, deserves the thanks of all journalists and the congratulations of the public. APPENDIX C. STATUTES. CONTENTS. 1. 32 Geo. III. c. 60 (Mr. Fox's Libel Act, 1792). 2. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9 3. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96 (Lord Campbell's Libel Act, 1843). 7. 44 & 45 Vict c. 60 (Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881) PAGE 772 773 775 779 ib. 780 782 790 9. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64 (Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888) 10. 52 & 53 Vict. c. 18 (Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889). 11. 54 & 55 Vict. c. 51 (Slander of Women Act, 1891) ib. 793 794 12. 58 & 59 Vict. c. 40 (Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1895) 795 1. MR. FOX'S LIBEL ACT.* 32 GEO. III. c. 60. An Act to remove Doubts respecting the Functions of Juries in Cases of Libel. [A. D. 1792.] WHEREAS doubts have arisen whether on the trial of an indictment or information for the making or publishing any libel, where an issue or issues are joined between the king and the defendant or defendants, on the plea of not guilty pleaded, it be competent to the jury impanelled to try the same to give their verdict upon the whole matter in issue: Be it therefore declared and enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the *This Act is "only declaratory of the common law." Per Brett, L J., 5 C. P. D. at p. 539; see ante, p. 575. lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that on every such trial the jury sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter put in issue upon such indictment or information, and shall not be required or directed by the Court or judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried to find the defendant or defendants guilty merely on the proof of the publication by such defendant or defendants of the paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the same in such indictment or information. 2. Provided always, that on every such trial the Court or judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried shall, according to their or his direction, give their or his opinion and directions to the jury on the matter in issue between the King and the defendant or defendants, in like manner as in other criminal cases. 3. Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to prevent the jury from finding a special verdict, in their discretion, as in other criminal cases. 4. Provided also, that in case the jury shall find the defendant or defendants guilty it shall and may be lawful for the said defendant or defendants to move in arrest of judgment, on such ground and in such manner as by law he or they might have done before the passing of this Act, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. See ante, pp. 105, 575, 680. 2. 3 & 4 VICT. c. 9. An Act to give summary Protection to Persons employed in the Publication of Parliamentary Papers. [14th April, 1840.] WHEREAS it is essential to the due and effectual exercise and discharge of the functions and duties of Parliament, and to the promotion of wise legislation, that no obstructions or impediments should exist to the publication of such of the reports, papers, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament as such House of Parliament may deem fit or necessary to be published: And whereas objections or impediments to such publication have arisen, and hereafter may arise, by means of civil or criminal proceedings being taken against persons employed by or acting under the authority of the Houses of Parliament, or one of them, in the publication of such reports, papers, votes, or proceedings; by reason and for remedy whereof it is expedient that more speedy protection should be afforded to all persons acting under the authority aforesaid, and that all such civil or criminal proceedings should be summarily put an end to and determined in manner herein-after mentioned: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons who now is or are, or hereafter shall be, a defendant or defendants in any civil or criminal proceeding commenced or prosecuted in any manner soever, for or on account or in respect of the publication of any such report, paper, votes, or proceedings by such person or persons, or by his, her, or their servant or servants, by or under the authority of either House of Parliament, to bring before the Court in which such proceeding shall have been or shall be so commenced or prosecuted, or before any judge of the same (if one of the superior Courts at Westminster), first giving twenty-four hours notice of his intention so to do to the prosecutor or plaintiff in such proceeding, a certificate under the hand of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, or the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, or of the Speaker of the House of Lords, for the time being, or of the Clerk of the Parliaments, or of the Speaker of the House of Commons, or of the Clerk of the same House, stating that the report, paper, votes, or proceedings, as the case may be, in respect whereof such civil or criminal proceeding shall have been commenced or prosecuted, was published by such person or persons, or by his, her, or their servant or servants, by order or under the authority of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons, as the case may be, together with an affidavit verifying such certificate; and such Court or judge shall thereupon immediately stay such civil or criminal proceeding, and the same, and every writ or process issued therein, shall be and shall be deemed and taken to be finally put an end to, determined, and superseded by virtue of this Act. 2. And be it enacted, that in case of any civil or criminal proceeding hereafter to be commenced or prosecuted for or on account or in respect of the publication of any copy of such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, it shall be lawful for the defendant or defendants at any stage of the proceedings to lay before the Court or judge such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, and such copy, with an affidavit verifying such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, |