30° Novembris, 1927.]

[Continued.

121. Have you any record, apart from actions, of the number of demands made in the year by persons who allege that they have been injured by these publications?-About six or seven to a dozen.

122. Would all the demands that are made against authors reach your Society? --No, they would not, but a great many of them would no doubt. They very seldom come into Court. They are nearly always settled.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

123. Can you give any estimate of the cost of settling such an action or such a writ when it is issued, if it comes to a writ? It does not come to a writ. If anyone comes to me I say: "You must settle this. The person who is bringing the action has got no money at all, and if you do not settle you will have to pay about £200 or £300 for costs."

124. What do they take as a rule: £10, £20? No. In the case that Mr. Maxwell mentioned of the well-known author, the man was originally quite willing to settle, but he got into the hands of a solicitor (I will not mention the town) and it cost about £50 or £60.

Mr. Harney.

125. You say now that you tell them in every case to settle because the plaintiff has no money?-Yes,

126. Would you give them the same advice if the law was changed in the way that is suggested now? At the present time they come to you and they say: "We are threatened to be shot at, and the person shooting at us will succeed if they prove that they are hit by the article." Now suppose the law were: "That will not do; that will not be enough for them; before they can succeed they must prove, not only that they were hit, but that they were intentionally or negligently hit "-if that were the law would you still advise them: "Well, you had better settle "?-No, I certainly should not, because if they cannot prove that, the action would fail.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

127. Is your advice of much importance in view of the agreement which is come to, I think Mr. Maxwell said in every case, between publisher and author, that the publisher shall decide whether the case shall be resisted or not?-There is

very grave doubt whether that clause is legally sound.

128. It has been acted upon in most cases, I understand.-It has been acted upon, I know, but I was reading a book on copyright, which was published quite recently, I think it is called Newspaper Law," in which that question of the libel clause was very strongly argued. The writer of the book came to the conclusion that neither the libel insurance policy that we have started nor the clause in the agreement was of any value.

Chairman.

129. Let me go back again to that question. Supposing this Bill were to pass, whether you would give the same advice that you give now as to settling such cases. You would have to tell your member who came that under the new Act it would be left to the jury to determine whether reasonable precautions, and so forth, had been taken, and there is always a certain amount of uncertainty about what view the jury may take.Yes.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.] And the costs would be no less in fighting it under the new law than they were under the old law.

Chairman.] Of course, the costs would be the same.

Sir William Bull.

130. Is it indiscreet to inquire what is the result of an action of this kind where the publisher, probably against the wishes of the author, settles an action? Does the publisher deduct it from the profits of the author or do they share it? -I had one case where the author mentioned the name of a public-house keeper, and in the preliminary notice there was rather a nasty statement about this public-house keeper's character. A public-house keeper, through a solicitor in the town in which he lived, chose to identify himself with the character and threatened action against the publisher. The publisher there settled without reference to the author and then came down on the author for the amount of the settlement. That question came before our Committee, and the Committee decided that we should support the author against the publisher in fighting that demand if he carried it through his accounts and deducted the money; and we have heard nothing more about

it.

30° Novembris, 1927.]

[Continued.

Mr. Kennedy.

131. Would you mind telling me your view of this? Is it injurious to the reputation of a writer to have an action brought against him for libel in respect of something which he has written; assuming that there is no moral blame or anything of that kind, does it do him harm?—I should say very little.

132. Could it do him good?-No, I do not think it would do him good.

133. It might do him harm with the publisher in regard to another book. He might find it perhaps more difficult to get another publisher to publish a book of his, if he had had an action brought against him in respect of a previous book?-Yes, there I agree. I was thinking you referred to whether it would do him harm with the public.

Viscount Burnham.

134. It is a form of advertisement?— I think probably it would do him harm with the publisher.

Mr. Kennedy.

135. The publisher would be a bit shy of the man, under those circumstances? -Yes.

136. Bearing that in mind, if you were called upon, as I understand you are, to give advice in these matters, would you not advise an author who came to you for advice: "I think it would be better for your reputation to settle this case, rather than to have it fought out in Court"-and that, whether this Bill became law or not?

Lord Stanley of Alderley.] Would there not be a certain value in advertising the book, if it were made the subject of a lawsuit?

Mr. Kennedy.

137. It might do that, but I understand you think that the effect of a libel action, successful or unsuccessful, might be to make publishers a bit shy of the author?-Yes, I think as far as the public is concerned you might gain a little advertisement, but as far as publishers are concerned, I should think it would be very dangerous.

138. Bearing that in mind, if I came to you as an author, we will say not very well known, and said: "I am in trouble because I have made some reference-I

did not know that I was doing anything wrong to somebody who is complaining; what do you advise me to do; I can settle this for £100 or I can fight it, and if I fight it I think I can win it ; what would be your advice?-In a case of that kind I think most probably I should tell him to take the opinion of the publisher with whom he was publishing, as to what should be done; because they are both in a difficulty.

139. The publisher's advice would be to settle it? If the publisher's advice would be to settle, then I think perhaps it would be best for the author, in those circumstances, having regard to his chances in the future with the publisher, to settle it, too.

140. But is not the result of all that this that even if this Bill became law, these actions, if brought, would still be settled?-That I cannot say, because I do not know what the result of the Bill would be.

Mr. Harney.] I suppose the risk of losing would be very much less, and therefore the temptation to settle would be very much less.

Sir William Bull. 141. You regard this Bill as a very valuable Bill? Yes, because I am inclined to think that this will spread more and more. If it is once found out that you can blackmail authors in this way, it will be constantly recurring.

Viscount Burnham.

142. The very fact of the introduction of the Bill may do them harm, then, if it is not passed?-It might.

143. May I raise this question: whether we have any information as to the law and practice with regard to this particular form of libel in other countries, especially in English-speaking countries. Can you give us any information on that?-I can quote you an analogous instance which is very frequent in America; that is plagiarism and infringement of copyright.

Chairman.

144. That is not the same thing?-No, it is not, but it is now quite a common thing for an absolutely unknown person to bring these actions against distinguished American dramatists, simply

Chairman.

154. And you are going to furnish us with the form of insurance policy?-Yes, I have a note of that, and of the indemnity clause.

Viscount Burnham.] It is possible you may be able to get information from representatives of foreign countries.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.] And if you could, any cases, not necessarily giving names, where these actions have been settled, and the cost at which they have been settled.

Chairman.

155. Yes, I think it would be useful to know that.-Yes.

Sir William Bull.

156. How long have you been dealing with this subject as a Society?—We have really been dealing with it ever since the Society existed, but it has become more prominent certainly within the last 10 or 12 years.

157. How long has the Society been in existence?-Since 1884.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

158. If the maximum number of cases brought in a year is only 12, they cannot have increased very materially in the last 10 or 12 years, because even if you increase from 10 to 12, you cannot call that a very great increase?—I have been Secretary for over 30 years now, and I do not remember any prominent case certainly in the first 20 years that I was Secretary.

159. In the last 10 years the number has increased from zero up to 12?-Yes.

Mr. Harney.

160. But you say that since Artemus Jones' case, the increase has been marked? I certainly think it has been. Lord Stanley of Alderley.] How long ago was that?

Mr. Kennedy.

161. That was in 1911, or thereabouts. -Might I suggest to your Lordship that it might be useful to have one or two publishers to give evidence. Mr. Stanley Unwin, of George Allen & Unwin,