Lord Broughamsaid, that for the second time within a fortnight he was under the necessity of calling their Lordships' attention to a gross breach of the privileges of that House. He would observe that at the end of the Session of Parliament these offences were more frequent and more rank than at any other time—and for this obvious reason, the course taken by the House in such cases was to imprison the offending party when called before the House, but imprisonment for ten or twelve days was a very small punishment, and therefore such offences were committed with impunity. He therefore gave notice that he 220 should, at the beginning of next Session, call the party of whom he now complained to the bar of that House, and should leave their Lordships to deal with him as his demerits deserved. The subject to which he alluded was a libel of a most slanderous nature, one too, which was utterly false. It had appeared in the Examiner newspaper, and he would read the passage of which he complained. He begged to call their Lordships' attention to it, and particularly that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, because he would recollect the debate to which the paragraph referred. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Campbell) had taken charge of a clause to be added to a bill before their Lordships' House, at the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice, and a debate had arisen on that clause, as well as on another clause, on which the Lord Chief Justice and he differed from his noble and learned Friend, respecting the impunity of publishing the debates in Parliament. He had said that treason might be spoken in Parliament with impunity, because no man was answerable for what he said in Parliament; but he had said that if such treason, for instance, as an inducement to assassinate the Sovereign were spoken, and propagated through the press, past all doubt the propagator of such sentiments through the press would not be free from punishment. His noble and learned Friend had reminded him that that case was expressly provided for, but in his answer he had said, "Yes, but I will take the case of the suggested assassination of a common person," which was, he thought, a perfectly possible case. Upon the observation thus arising, and thus reported be believed in every paper, was founded this gross, and scandalous, and utterly false charge—as false as it was foul. The paragraph was this—
In opposing that part of Lord Campbell's bill, which would have legalised faithful reports of proceedings in Parliament, Lord Brougham objected that 'private assassination might be recommended in Parliament.' The meaning of this is obvious enough; it was a revival of the foul calumny against Mr. Cobden.He would venture to say that no human being who heard, or who read what had taken place, except this malicious and false writer, had ever dreamt that he had made the least reference to Mr. Cobden, or that he could by possibility have made such reference; all the more for this reason, that he had always talked of Mr. Cobden 221 with the greatest respect and kindness. He had never made allusion to him, but to a dissenting parson in Sheffield, who had openly, and in the strongest language, spoken of assassination, and it was to this, and to the fate of the unfortunate Mr. Drummond, that he had called attention. The paragraph went on—The charge is false—every one knows it to be false; but Lord Brougham, in cold blood, reverts to it, because it pleases the Tories, from whom he hopes for a judicial appointment.There might be some things very ridiculous, but at the same time extremely malicious and spiteful, and false. He begged to appeal to his noble Friend on the Woolsack whether he had ever shown any very great fondness for judicial appointments. The paper went on—His fitness for which he illustrates in this peculiar way; and is there a hireling assassin of character in the press, who can do worse than obtain his wages by dealing in false accusations for the wicked pleasure of his patrons.He should not have seen this production but that it had been sent to him with the paragraph marked so as to draw his attention to it. It had been sent to him to give him pain; it had not done so—but it had produced the utmost scorn in his mind. He would say no more now than that there had never been a libel more gross, for that, in imputing motives of a scandalous nature to a Member of Parliament, it contained a scandalous and most despicable falsehood.
The Lord Chancellorhaving been called upon by his noble and learned Friend, begged to say that on a former occasion he had stated in that House that he thought it would be desirable that there should be appointed a permanent chairman of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and that he could not imagine any person better fitted for the office than his noble and learned Friend. He was bound to say that in a private conversation between them, his noble Friend had declined to accept the appointment, even if the office should be created.
Lord Campbellsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had chosen to complain of this paragraph, and no doubt it was a breach of privilege. The only question was, however, whether lie was not departing from precedent in giving notice now of his intention to take up the matter next Session. The remedy upon a breach 222 of privilege was usually adopt ed in preference to the festin um remedium of the law; it was usually resorted to only where it was inconvenient to wait for proceedings at law—
Lord BroughamI shall put a stop to all difficulty on that subject—I shall proceed at law and prosecute; and shall see whether the law as it now stands, or as it may stand under my noble Friend's bill, affords any protection to Members of Parliament when they are so scandalously libelled.—Adjourned.