The Press. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1869.

Press, Volume XIV, Issue 1825, 17 February 1869, Page 2

The Press. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1869.

nipiri in in .i Fhe judgment of the Court of Queen's Jfnch in the case of "Wason v. Walter ias been commented on by several of >ur contemporaries, but, so far as we lave seen, the judgment itself has not oeen reprinted in any of the colonial papers. It is of great importance, not @o much On account of the decision of the point at issue, but for the principles on which that decision was based, and which are capable of, and will no doubt ere long receive, a much wider ';•■'■ - :: - —■'- '. : --- ; The facts of the case-are no doubt famißar- to our readers. Mr Wason presented "■* to the House of Lords against the of Sir Fitzroy Kelly as Chief Baron of the Exchequer, on the ground that he committed perjury some twenty years previously wheii giving evidence Woipan election ; committee. The qharge was proved to be wholly untrue, the petition was rejected, and the conduct of the -petitioner severely condeteWe4; by ;the !Lord Chancellor, Earl fiusselljaßd other Lords., The Times sported the debate,, accompanying it with an article written in a tone similar to that of the remarks made in the House. Mr Wason brought an action against the proprietors of the Times Both for the publication of the debate flbfr'-'fbr the article. Chief Justice before whom it was tried, yuled that the publication of Parliamentary debates 'by anjr newspaper was, and left itto the jury to say - whefher the, comments in the article mem fair and honest. The jury they were, and the verdict was therefore held to be against Mr WafSOft. on both grounds of action. TheTcjise BpbseOjUentlj je-argued i& in the Court oj Queents Beach; Oa the groond of misdirection, butter full argument the judgment of-the Chief Justice was unanimouslyBUstained. • -~\ -'■-•; . ';,-'- It is singular that though Parliadebates have been published in $be newspapers for many years, and though masy instances have occurred ia wHich the characters of individuals hats been called M question, this Ima the first action for libel that had ever bf®a brought before a "cOurt of l#v£ and. tK4 Immlity or otherwise of newapapirs for such publication had never, been judicially decided.- There were! mfcd;|oferal Wc&a ;; bf judges relating fc the |oint; but they were vetr cbiJ Justice Lawrence and WightmamJW ; exprea«ed opinions *hat the publication of the proceedings of Parliament was as much entitled to pro-

tection as that of the proceedings of courts of justice; on the other hand, Justices Littledale and Patterson, in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, had used language which implied that the publication was in their opinion not privileged. These dicta, however, were uttered in cases where the point formed no part of the grounds of the decision of the Court, and were therefore extra-judicial. At the close of the argument in Wason v. Walter the Court announced that they were entirely agreed as to what their judgment should be, but that, considering the importance of the case, they would give it in writing. Accordingly a few days afterwards the Chief Justice read an elaborate judgment, in favour of the defendant. It will be found at length in the Times of November 26. In the absence of decided cases the Court was obliged to have recourse to principle and analogy, arid happily had not far to seek to find principles exactly applicable to the case. It has been long established that the publication of the proceedings in courts of justice is privileged, "for two reasons : one, that as the reason for publication is to afford information to the public, the presumption of malice j which is essential to libel, is rebutted, even though individuals may sometimes be | prejudiced. " The other and still ! broader principle is that the advantage to the community from publicity being given to the proceedings of courts of justice is so great that the claims founded on occasional inconvenience must yield to the considerations of the general good." The principles on which the exemption from legal liability rests in the one case are plainly applicable to the other,;• /The publication of Parliamentary proceedings is with a view to the public infor-1 mation; while if the interest to the public in being fully acquainted with what passes in courts of justice entitles reports of the proceedings to ex- < emption from liability, a fortiori mustj reports of the proceedings in Parliament, which are of national importance and which the people have a still deeper interest in knowing, be entitled to similar protection. The benefit to the public must outweigh any private inconvenience. " Could a greater anomaly or injustice present itself than that while from a sense of the importance of publicity, the Houses of Parliament not only sanction the reports of their proceedings, but take measures to give facilities to the reporters.; and while every member of j the community looks with eager in-j terest to the debates of either House, and considers it part of the duty of public journals to furnish an account of what passes there, a paper which gave a report of the proceedings should be held liable to legal proceedings because the conduct of an individual incidentally came into question ?" The analogy between the cases is in every case complete. The publication of the proceedings of Parliament is practically sanctioned-' by Parliament itself;" it is essential to the working of, our Parliamentary system and to welfare of the nation. Any argument founded on its alleged illegality appears therefore entirely to fail." Should either House of Parliament ever attempt to prevent its, debates being made ; known any co&tyaventibn of its orders would be a matter between the House and the publisher. For; the present such publication is " in every respect lawful, ■■ and " those whb ; pub* lish them are free from legal responsibility though the character of individuals may incidentally be injuriously affected," Of courso tbis immunity does? not apply to garbled reports, or to special reports of particular speeches, any more than it would to the publication of select items of evidence or the address of a particular counsel. Th£ reports must be faithful, and published bond fide in order to make the public acquainted with what passes within the walls of parliament. With regard to the alleged misdirection respecting the article in the Titties commenting on Mr Wason's conduct in presenting his petition to the House of Lords, the judgment was as follows :-t-" The publication of the idebate having been justifiable, the jury* were .-properly told that the subject was, ; for. reasons ,^we . have already adverted to, one pre-eminently of public interest, and therefore one on which ]subhVcomment and observation might properly be made; and that consequently the occasion was privileged in the absenoe of malice. As to the latter, the jury were : that they must be satisfied that the article was an honest and fair comment on the facts j inMother worcfe, tMt, inthe first place, they must lie satisffe<i that *be comments had been made with an honest belief in their justice, but that! 1 this was not enough, inasmuch : as such ! belief injgft^ of party\ zeal, or in personal or political aversion; that a| person taking upon himself to: >. criticise and condemn the conduct or j ' motives of another must bring to the ■ task not only an honest sensejof jus-

tice, but also a reasonable degree of judgment and moderation, bo that the result may be what & jury shall deem under the circumstances of the case, a fair and legitimate criticism on the conduct and motives of the party who is the object of censure. Considering the direction thus given to have been perfectly correct, we are of opinion 4hat in respect of this alleged misdirection, as also on the former point, the ruling was right." ; y By this judgment it is established that reports of proceedings of Parliament are privileged equally with those of the proceedings of Courts of Justice; and for the same reason, the importance to the public that they should be fully known. We, presume, thfe doctrine thus judiciallydeclared would be held to apply to reports of the General Assembly and Provincial Councils. But it may be carried much further. The same argument would logically apply to all public bodies, reports of whose proceedings, if faithful and published bond fide, would be equally entitled to protection. Once admit the principle and there can be no reason why its application should be confined to legal And, parliamentary reports. We have,, however, occupied so much of our space with an epitome of the judgment that we must defer further remarks upon it till another opportunity.