THE LAW OF LIBEL. (From the Daily Times, June 24.)

Otago Witness, Issue 865, 27 June 1868, Page 17

THE LAW OF LIBEL. (From the Daily Times, June 24.)

We revert, to-day, to a subject in which every lover of a Free Press must, in a greater or less degree, feel a genuine interest. We allude to the Law of Libel. There is, we are informed, very good reason for * elieving that it is the intention of the Government to introduce, in the forthcoming Session of the General Assembly, a Bill, having for its object the amendment of the Law of Libel. That some measure of the kind is urgently needed, both here and at Home, no one denies. But the success of any such measure, when introduced, will depend very much upon a variety of circumstances, not the least important of which will be the spirit and temper in which the subject is approached. At once, fortunately and unfortunately, our law reformers have brought very vividly under their notice the failure in which have ended Sir Colman O'Loghlen's frequent attempts in the House of Commons to procure an amendment of the law. At Home, the Press itself is not unanimous upon the subject of the reforms proposed by Sir Colman O'Loghlen. Probably, in such a matter, one enemy in the camp is more to be feared than a hundred outside. It is fortunate, perhaps, that our own legislators will be able to appreciate the grounds upon which Sir Colman O'Loghlen's Bill has been so persistently, and, so far, effectually, opposed. It may be correlatively unfortunate that those, and we trust they are few, who are inclined to meet, in a spirit of antagonism, any proposed amendment of the law, have so potent an example for their observance as the repeated refusals of the Imperial Parliament, to go the length which Sir Colman has insisted upon.

We believe, however, it will be in the interests of journalism, and of the public, that, rather than involve the risk of an indefinitely postponed consideration of the subject, the Legislature should be asked to assent to a moderate and temperately framed amendment of thelaw. This would still leave open for future legislation the more rare and extreme cases for which Sir Colmati O'Loghlen has sought in vain to provide. It would disarm opposition. And mora : it would gradually prepare the public mind for modifications of the present law, which, at first sight, might appear to some of a too sweeping character. Let it not be supposed that we are arguing solely, or mainly, in the interests of journalism. Newspapers can get on very well by confining themselves strictly within the limits of the Law of Libel Journalists can at all times find sufficient wholesome materiel to fill respectably the columns of their papers. Influence and tone may be secured without the proprietors being called upon to answer in damages before any legal tribunal. It is, we venture to say, from a well-grounded desire to satisfy the demands" of journalistic readers of what passes around them, that newspaper proprietors are ever dragged before Courts of Justice. It would be absurd to say, except in the case of scurrilous newspapers, that there ever is, on the part of any journalist, a wanton desire to brine: befere the public, any subject calculated to inflict one needless pang. But, so long as newspapers are not to be mere advertising mcdia — mere chronicles of births, deaths, and marriages—so long will the public have a right to demand that subjects affecting the social welfare of the community shall be cqndidly and impartially discussed, q lite irrespective of the feelings of those who may be most directly interested in them. But discussion upon any matter of public importance assumes that the community at large is apprised of, or made acquainted with, the subjects treated of. And how is this knowledge to be acquired ? Is it to be by that most faithless and wanton of all mistresses, Rumor? Or should it not be rather by faithful and authentic reports, vouched for by therespeetability of a well conducted journal 1 We doubt not, that many a man's character is more injuriously and mercilessly mangled by the circulation of flying rumors, than by a full or fair account of that, of which the rumour may be only a very questionable part. Understand, we are only dealing with publip matters and business dealt with in a public way. No one should seek to remove the veil of secresy from private or domestic affairs. Nor should the appendage of the adjective " public." to anything or every thing alone furnish the t desired criterion. Proper regard should be paid to the necessary connection between the subjects dealt with and the general welfare of the community.

The subjects of which we have been treating may be classed under two heads. The first — not perhaps the first in importance to the journalist, though it undoubtedly stands first to the general reader— in the absence of a better designation, we will style "Communicated Intelligence." The second, in tin absence of (a more appropriate term, let us call

" Original Discussion. " These subjects , /wewill address ourselves to in subsequent articles, with the object of showing the nature and extent of the amendments in the Law of Libel, which we would desire to see adopted.