Feb. 27.
At long last the British Government has decided that the laws of libel need recon sideration, and the Lord Chancellor—Lord] Maugham,—is to set up a committee which will examine the question. This was revealed in the House of Commons a few Jweeks ago when Sir Donald Somervell, Attorney General, secured the withdrawal of]
private member's Bill, sponsored by a journalist, Sir Stanley Reed, Conservative, JAylesbury, designed to protect the Press [against what he called "disguised blackmail." In recent years there has grown up a new class of libel action, which has been aptly described as gold' digging." Indeed the] phrase has been used in the Law Courts. Men of little or no repute whatever, aided] [sometimes by speculative solicitors, and en~ couraged by the uncertainties of law, have brought frivolous actions for libel on the off chance of getting something out of a-newspaper, a publisher or an author. Of the umber of cases which are started very few] actually come into the Courts,—it is estimated that the number actually fought is somewhere in the neighbourhood of one per cent. of those commenced—and at least 99 per cent. are settled out of Court, not because' the plaintiff' has been libelled,' not because there is not an adequate defence, but. because the law is so uncertain that it is the words of Sir Stanley, "cheaper to suffer this form of blackmail than to seek the protection of the Courts." There is another form of abuse to which on occasion "Truth" that veteran exposer of fraud, has been sub-ceted. In these instances, "claiming that articles criticizing certain of their activities were libellous, share pushers, and the like have sought to smother that journal by issuing a writ for libel. The scheme, of course was based upon the fact that, once a matter was placed sub judice, comment upon it would be contempt of court, and that the fraud's nefarious conduct could continue Jong as the writ was on file, though he might ever have had the slightest intention of having the cause heard. Tt is very much to the credit of "Truth" that the editor has re~ fused to be intimidated by such means, and has continued to expose these criminals, some of whom in the long run have abandoned their actions.
Mr. A. P. Herbert, a sponsor of Sir Stanley's Bill, delighted the House of Commons when he' presented the writer's point of view. Tt had been stated, he said, that authors should not use defamatory ames, "but it is not so easy as it sounds." He told of an instance in which an editor took out the name of a bookmaker in a story, and inserted the name of Blank. Unfortunately a bookmaker of that name was living. Nor the search for fictitious names an easy Jone. The London telephone directory has} such unusual names as Japhet, Noah, Mars, Venus, nearly all the characters in '"Peter Pan,"'a Beloved, Trueloves, Lovelies, Mr. herbage, Mr. Grass, a Mock, a Turtle, a Virtue, a Vice, a Mr. Butter and a Mr. Cheese. Mr. Herbert suggested that one way whereby writers might evade trouble would be to identity their characters by use of the alphabet. They might describe how passionately kissed ¥, or how A got his pistol Jand gave B the works, but, as he very rightly' pointed out, "it would take away much of the] charm of the present system." It was the writer, who invented the name Artemus Jones as a character in a short story about the gay doings of a young man on the Continent, who found to his cost that there was a person bearing that name actually living, a man who ultimately distinguished himself in the legal profession, but under the legal doctrine with regard to libel,—that it does not matter what the intention' of the writer was, but who was hit,—the author had to pay. Hence nowadays the precautionary phrase used often on the fly-leaf of a book pointing out that the characters are purely fetitious. It is doubtful whether in alt circumstances that) warning would be a sufficient defence, for, if the description of the characters so closely followed those of actual living persons as; to permit of no other conclusion, there isa Possibility that damages might be recovered, even though the author did not know of the people described.
One of the grave dangers which the Press has to face in Britain is the unscrupulous lawyer, who daily searches the newspapers for cases of possible libel. People who did not realize that they might have been harmed by what has been written about them, have been advised that there is a possibility that by @ libel action they might recover considerable sums. They are tempted to launch proceedings, and it is left to the newspaper decide what shall be done. Even successfully to defend a libel action may prove a very expensive affair, for though it may won with costs, the difference between what may or may not be recovered from the unsuccessful plaintiff, and what the victorious defendant may have had to pay out may in some cases represent quite a formidable amount. Hence the reason why so many cases are settled out of court; it is better to yield to this form of blackmail rather than trust to the protection of a very widely drawn set of laws, and the vagaries of juries who so often believe that a newspaper being rich ought to be made to pay anyhow. That such an attitude savours of immorality must be admitted, but it arises from Purely immoral. conditions which _permit of newspapers being feeeed on the flimsiest of pretences. This is a matter which has exercised the British Press for a very considerable time. It seems to be desirable that except in cases of libel per se actual damage should be proved. That is not now the ease, and it is often left to Juries, who at times-have quaint ideas on the subject of damages, exactly as to how much they shall assess. "It has consequently been clearly shown of late that the publica-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.