§ Mr. Manningrose to call the attention of the House to a species of misrepresentation of what passed there, contained in the newspapers—a misrepresentation which was certainly highly indecorous. The misrepresentation of which he complained was this:— In the Morning Chronicle newspaper for Friday last two lists of members were published, the one having this title, "A List of the 263 members of parliament who voted against pledging the House of Com- 215 mons to Inquiries, on the first day of the session?" The other having this title, "A List of the members who voted for Inquiry into the late disgraces and disasters." The hon. gent. stated, that his name was in the former list, the title of which, as well as that of the second, was so worded as to convey to his constituents an erroneous and unfair impression of his conduct on the occasions to which they referred. These titles tended to create the impression that he and other gentlemen in similar circumstances were hostile to inquiry altogether; than which nothing could be more erroneous. The hon. gent. then stated, that in these lists the names of the county members were particularly marked—a circumstance, which he could not but consider indecorous. He did not bring this forward at present with a view of making it as a formal complaint the subject of any specific motion, but rather for the purpose of correction and caution, which he was the more anxious for, with respect to the paper in question, as it was that which he himself took in.
§ Mr. Creeveythought that so far was it from being a breach of privilege to publish the names of members who voted on either side on any important question, that in king William's time, (not the most unfavourable period to freedom and parliamentary privilege in this country), the thing was constantly done by order of the House: and he thought such a practice highly necessary to the people of England, who would thereby be enabled to see who those representatives were who did their duty, and who did not.
§ Mr. H. Lascellesdid not object to the publishing of lists of names, but to the misrepresentation of gentlemen's motives in a sweeping and general way. For instance, in one of those papers, under the head of gentlemen who voted against Inquiry, his own name was inserted; whereas he had distinctly stated in his speech on that night, that although he voted against, the specific motion then in debate, no man in that House was more anxious for Inquiry than himself; and yet this part of his speech was never given as counteractive to the general statement in the list that he voted against Inquiry.
§ Mr. Wilberforceobserved that it had been the usual practice to publish the names, and it was a practice which he wished should be continued. But then it ought to be conducted with some accuracy. In this respect he himself had to 216 complain; for of the two lists published respecting the vote on the first night of the session, his name appeared in neither; a circumstance calculated to produce the belief in his constituents, that he had not attended to his duty in that House, though he certainly always did attend, except when prevented by sickness, or some other very imperious cause. He felt this the more, because in the paper in question he was represented as having said, that the attempt to put off the motion for the inquiry into the Walcheren Expedition from Friday till after Monday, was a manœuvre to get rid of it altogether; whereas he had got up, and distinctly disavowed any such meaning, which disavowal, however, was not mentioned. It was the more necessary to be accurate, because the characters of members with their constituents, depended very much upon the representations given of their conduct and speeches in the public papers. The want of accuracy was the more to be regretted, because he knew of no circumstance more calculated to make a man begin to balance in his mind the comparative benefits of publicity and secrecy, than the prevalence of party motives, to such a degree as to produce these misrepresentations. He, himself, certainly had reason to complain. As he belonged to no party nobody took care of him. [A laugh.] But still he had not lost the good opinion of those who sent him there, on account of any false views that might have been published of his conduct or any misrepresentations of his speeches.
Mr. Ponsonbyremarked, that there was one thing rendered obvious by this conversation, which gave him great satisfaction, and that was the particular anxiety which was, at this time, manifested about the opinion of their constituents. That misrepresentation ought to be corrected, there was no doubt, and as little was it to be doubted that, if wilful, it justified the notice of this House: but at the same time, it was proper to remark, that the remedy was not so difficult as some seemed to imagine; for any one had the opportunity of correcting misrepresentation, if not in any other way, at least by mentioning it in the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not know what there was in the present state of affairs that should make it matter of so much exultation to the right hon. gent. that members should be anxious about 217 the opinions of their constituents; nor did he know why they should be more anxious on that subject at present than at other times. He maintained that nothing had recently passed which shewed any improper disregard of the opinions of their constituents. He then remarked, that the noticing of misrepresentations, of motives, or speeches in this way, placed the House in rather an awkward predicament. If these things were noticed at all, it ought to be as the foundation of a specific motion of complaint to the House. But, however, as one was always disposed to be as lenient as possible on these occasion, and as the hon. gent. who brought forward the subject did not press any specific proceeding, it was not incumbent on him to urge the matter farther. But he could by no means agree with the right hon. gent. who spoke last that no inconvenience would arise from the misrepresentations in newspapers of the speeches or the votes given in that House: nor could he ever assent to such a proposition as that the House was to compromise with newspaper editors or printers, and think there was no inconvenience in misrepresentation, because gentlemen might correct the mistake next day in that House. Was this the mode in which the privileges of that House were to be treated? or was a member, whose speech was misrepresented to the public and to his constituents, to be placed under the necessity of watching the newspapers, for the purpose of correcting such misstatements, and to be at the mercy of a newspaper editor, who might not think fit to notice the correction? Another hon. gent. had said, that in the time of king William, lists of the voters on great questions were published by order of the House. But would the hon. gent. feel there was any analogy between lists published under the authority of the House, and with the accuracy it had the opportunity of giving, to lists published without that authority, and fraught with error and misrepresentation? As the hon. gent. however, had made no motion on the subject, he thought it would have been more consistent with the dignity of the House not to have noticed the circumstance at all.
Mr. Ponsonbyobserved, that he had never said, that there was no inconvenience in misrepresentations. On the contrary, he said, that if wilful, they deserved punishment; but that the difficulty of correcting them was not so great as 218 might at first be imagined. He concluded by remarking, that nothing could be a grosser misrepresentation, than that which the right hon. gent. had made of what he had said.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas sorry that he had stated what fell from the right hon. gent., in a sense not intended, but still maintained, that the mode which he pointed out for correcting misrepresentation, was not that which best became the dignity of the House.
§ Mr. Whitbreadexpressed his surprise at the offence taken at the remark that members were particularly anxious at this moment about the opinions of their constituents. It had always been imputed to them, that, towards the end of the six years they were more anxious than at any previous period of their existence on that point. As to the particular subject in question, he himself might complain, when he found an editor leaving out his speech altogether, and inserting that of the right hon. gent., which was an answer to it, giving his, however, the next day. There were, unquestionably, misrepresentations; but he maintained, that, from all the papers, an accurate estimate might perfectly well be formed of the speeches and conduct of members of parliament; and as for the speeches of the honourable member for Yorkshire, they would speak for themselves, and, he believed, that they were given in a manner sufficiently accurate to convey, upon the whole, a just impression of his conduct, though he had nobody to take care of him. A more innocent breach of privilege, than that of printing speeches or names, there could not be, if properly executed. But as to the marks, or asterisks, pointing out the members who represented counties, or populous places, this could hardly be called a breach of privilege at all. During the 20 years he had sat in the House, he never saw a misrepresentation, which, on the whole, he did not think had better be let alone, than be made matter of complaint in that House, and this, certainly, was one of the very last cases of misrepresentation that ought to be visited with severity.
§ Mr. Bankesremarked, that the only proper way of correcting misrepresentation, was by notice or complaint in that House. Members could not enter into controversies with the conductors of newspapers.
§ The Speakerobserved, that when an 219 irregular conversation about privilege took place, he did not presume to interpose, unless called upon to do so; but there must be limits to these indulgences, and he trusted the House would think it had now arrived at such limits.