THE NEW LAW OF LIBEL.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1045, 6 February 1882, Page 2

THE NEW LAW OF LIBEL.

♦ (From the "Graphic") Newspaper proprietors and the public generally have reason to be grateful to Mr. Hutchinson, the member for Halifax, for having more than once brought in and at last successfully carried so beneficial a measure as the Newspaper (law of libel) Act. Henceforth a newspaper report of the proceedings of any public meeting convened for a lawful purpose will be deemed privileged, if it^is fair, published without malice and for public benefit ; provided always that no refusal to insert a reasonable explanation or contradiction has been made. No criminal action can be commenced without the fiat of the Public Prosecutor in England, or of the Attorney-General for Ireland in Ireland ; and the magistrates in courts of summary jurisdiction are not only empowered to receive evidence as to the alleged libel being true, as to the report being fair, and published without malice and for the public benefit, and generally as to any evidence for the defence which might be laid before the jury so that they may dismiss the case if they think it likely that a jury would acquit, but they are also empowered to deal summarily with trivial cases if the defendant does not object, in which avent a fine not exceding £50 may be imposed. Finally the Act provides that the Board if Trade may allow the registration of one or more representative proprietors instead of all the proprietors of a newspaper. We have said that the public generally, as well as the proprietors of newspapers, ought to be thankful for this amendment of the law. It is clearly to the general advantage that the Press should be as unfettered as possible, for the welfare of society depends largely upon the widest dissemination of the truth — the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — upon all subjects, together with outspoken and impartial comments therenpon. If all journals were purely and honestly conducted there would be no need of any libel law at all. There are, however, in existence certain reckless sensational prints, the editors of which care not whose reputation they impugn, or whose prospects they injure, so long as they can fill their pages with smart, telling paragraphs; and in order that the licentiousness of these may be checked, it is necessary that the liberty of more sober, industrious, and considerate should be circumscribed and limited. It is unfortunate that this should be the case, but as the millenium has not dawned upon the earth, we must make the best of things as they are ; rest content with the reflection that honest journalists are now not quite so much exposed to malicious or mercenary prosecutions as they wore before the passing of the Newspaper law of libel) Act.