kind as this particular meeting should be published, e.g., that it is an accurate report of a political meeting-to obtain protection under this head it must be proved that the publication of the very words complained of is for the public benefit. This imposes on every editor the duty of editing the whole paper; he must not trust to the proved accuracy of his reporter; he must himself read through the report, and be careful to eliminate all blasphemous, seditious and obscene matter(y), every unfair attack on a public man, everything defamatory of a private individual. No doubt this is almost a practical impossibility in the case of a daily paper, where the type has to be set up with the greatest possible speed; but, nevertheless, it seems to be clear law, according to the decision in Pankhurst v. Sowler (2), that unless this is done the proprietors will be liable to an action for libel.

ART. 30.-Reports of vestry meetings, &c.

A report published in any newspaper (a) of any meeting of a vestry, town council, school board, board of guardians, board or local authority formed or

(y) Steele v. Brannan (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 261; 41 L. J. M. C. 85.

(x) (1887), 3 Times L. R. 193.

(a) As to the meaning of "newspaper," see p. 98, supra.

constituted under the provisions of any Act of Parliament (b), or of any committee appointed by any of the above-mentioned bodies, or of any meeting of any commissioners authorized to act by letters patent, Act of Parliament, warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, or other lawful warrant or authority, or of select committees of either House of Parliament (c), is privileged, provided that

(1.) Such report is fair and accurate (d);

(2.) The public or a newspaper reporter was admitted, or given an opportunity of admission, to such meeting (e);

(3.) The matter complained of is not blasphemous or indecent; and

(4.) The matter complained of is of public concern, or the publication thereof is for the public bene

fit (f).

This privilege may be rebutted by proof (1) that the report was published maliciously; or (2) that the defendant has after request refused or neglected to insert in his newspaper a reasonable letter or state

(b) This would cover the report of the meeting of a county council.

(c) See Rex v. Wright (1799), 8 T. R. 293. The 4th section of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 64), also protected reports "of any meeting of justices of the peace in quarter sessions assembled, for administrative or deliberative purposes." These functions of the justices were, however, transferred by the Local Government Act, 1888, to the county councils.

(d) See p. 104 et seq.

(e) See Note 1, p. 118, infra.

(ƒ) See p. 115 et seq.

ment by way of contradiction or explanation of such report (e).

NOTE 1.-The public or a newspaper reporter was admitted, or given an opportunity of admission, to such meeting. It is submitted that the insertion of the words underlined is in accordance with and justified by the true construction of the 4th section of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888 (ƒ).

NOTE 2.-It must be remembered that the report of any such meeting as the above, if published elsewhere than in a newspaper, as defined by the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881, e.g., in a magazine or a monthly trade paper, is in no way privileged (g). Moreover, no report of any meeting other than those dealt with in Articles 28, 29, and 30, supra, pp. 108-117, is privileged, whether published in a newspaper or elsewhere. Thus, if a newspaper or periodical publishes a fair and accurate report of the proceedings at a meeting of the creditors of a bankrupt or the shareholders of a company, such report is in no way privileged, and anyone defamed thereby can maintain an action for libel. In such a case the defendant has only two courses open

to

(e) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 4, set out on pp. 244, 245, infra. (f) See pp. 244, 245, infra.

(g) See p. 98, supra.

him—to justify the words complained of (h), or to apologise and pay money into Court (i). The fact that the report is a fair and accurate account of what actually took place is no defence (k), though it may operate to mitigate the damages (1).

ART. 31.-Notices and reports published at request of government office or authority.

The publication at the request of (1) any government office or department; (2) officer of state; (3) commissioner of police; or (4) chief constable, of any notice or report issued by them for the information of the public, is privileged, provided that (i.) the matter complained of is not blasphemous or indecent; and (ii.) the matter complained of is of public concern, or the publication thereof is for the public benefit. But this privilege may be rebutted by proof (1) that such publication was published or made maliciously; or (2) that the defendant has, after request, refused or neglected to insert in his newspaper a reasonable letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation of such publication (m).

(h) P. 72, supra.

(i) P. 144, infra.

(k) Davison v. Duncan (1857), 26 L. J. Q. B. 104; 28 L. T. O. S. 265; 7 E. & B. 229.

(1) Duncombe v. Daniell (1837), 8 C. & P. 222; per Wightman, J., in Davis v. Cutbush (1859), 1 F. & F. 487; and see pp. 157, 158, infra.

(m) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 4, set out on pp. 244, 245, infra.

NOTE. It will be observed that this Article only deals with notices or reports published at the request of any Government office or authority.

Two points should be noticed

(1.) That the publication of a notice or report issued by any other body, e.g., a vestry, is not privileged until officially published; and it would seem that this is so, even where official publication is authorized by Act of Parliament (k).

(2.) That the publication of all reports, papers, votes, and proceedings by order of either House of Parliament is absolutely privileged (1).

ART. 32.-Statements made in order to redress public grievances or punish crime.

Every statement made to a public servant or to other person in authority with the object of redressing a public grievance or preventing or punishing crime is privileged, but such privilege will be rebutted if plaintiff prove that defendant made such statement maliciously.

NOTE. Thus every communication affecting a Government official is privileged, provided it is addressed to the proper person, e.g., a letter

(k) Popham v. Pickburn (1862), 31 L. J. Ex. 133; 5 L. T.

846.

(1) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9; supra, p. 95.