BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE JOHN BULL." (Hansard, 8 May 1821)

Mr. Bennet
said, that during the number of years he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he never rose to offer any animadversion, or to support any censure, upon the public press but with extreme pain and reluctance. But, he should think that he violated his duty to himself, and his duty as a member of parliament, if he did not bring under the consideration of the House a statement in which the honour of the House itself was too deeply implicated, and its privileges too openly compromised, to allow him to hesitate in the discharge of such a task. This statement had appeared in a Sunday paper, called the "John Bull," and trespassed upon one of those privileges which every member had an undoubted title to exercise. The House would probably recollect, that on Friday evening last, in consequence of a question having been put to him by the member for Ross-shire (Mr. 550 Mackenzie), he took occasion to disclaim altogether the truth and accuracy of a report of a conversation which was represented in some of the daily papers to have taken place in that House. That report was not known to him till some days after it had appeared. The inaccuracy he had no doubt was of a perfectly venial character, although the words therein imputed to him by no means conveyed the sense of what he had said on the occasion. It was obvious, therefore, that on finding this to be the case, he was called upon in common courtesy, for an explanation. Under these circumstances, he could not help making an apology to the hon. gentleman opposite. In consequence, as he supposed, partly from the low tone of voice in which he spoke, and partly from the inattention which was frequently manifested to conversations which involved matter of little public interest, although, perhaps, of much private importance, there was no report of this speech in apology in the public newspapers; but the hon. member for Ross-shire expressed himself at the time perfectly satisfied with what had fallen from him. In the Courier of Saturday there was an advertisement of it, which he would read to the House. That advertisement, though not verbally correct, was correct in substance: he should make no remark upon it, as it might have been inserted without the knowledge of any of the parties concerned. It was contained in the article which he should now read from the "John Bull," of Sunday, May 6, 1821—
"The Lord President and Mr. Henry Bennet.—We have been requested to republish the following paragraph, which, was inserted in the Courier of last night:—'The following reply made by Mr. Bennet, in the House of Commons last night, was not distinctly heard in the gallery, and, in consequence, is very imperfectly reported in the morning papers. It was given by the hon. member, on the observation of Mr. Mackenzie, that the public press, in reporting the discussion on the army estimates, which took place on a former evening, had erroneously attributed to Mr. Bennet a serious reflection on the conduct of the lord president of the Court of Session. Mr. Bennett expressed himself much obliged to the hon. member in affording him an opportunity of refuting what he had been misrepresented in the newspapers to have said in 551 the debate to which the hon. member alluded. Mr. Bennet denied that he had on that occasion cast any reflection on the conduct of the lord president of the Court of Session in Scotland, or of those who had acted with him in the matter that was under discussion. He regretted that any thing which passed should have occasioned any unpleasant feeling to the lord president and his friends. Had any thing appeared to him in the conduct of the learned judge which called for censure, he would have brought it forward by the fair and manly course of making a regular motion on the subject.'"
This was the paragraph or advertisement which was copied from the Courier, and on this the writer in the "John Bull," made the following comments, which contained the matter on which he felt it necessary to bring the subject before the House. "Now, the truth of this is, that the lord president has a son; a gentleman of high honour and courage, who no sooner heard of Mr. Henry Grey Bennet's speech, in which he reflected upon his father, than he put himself into the Edinburgh mail, and started forthwith for London, where having arrived, he sent Mr. Henry Grey Bennet a message. Mr. Henry Grey Bennet referred Mr. Mackenzie to that general vouchee for the whole party, Sir Ronald Fergusson; and the result of the communication was (as usual) an apology, which was made, according to agreement, on Friday night, in the House of Commons, by Mr. H. G. Bennet; but in so low a tone of voice, that had it not been for the kindness of the Courier, it might not have been so generally understood, and perfectly appreciated, as we trust it is, at present."
Now, the objections which he had to take to this paragraph was, that it charged a member of that House with having, in the first instance, told an untruth; but it accused him also, with having basely and in a cowardly manner broken his faith and compromised his honour. He did not know that it was necessary for him to use many words in disclaiming a libel of this scandalous description; but he believed that it was impossible to sum up, in a few words, any thing that could be more offensive to the feelings of any individual member; for he had no hesitation in declaring, that of an untruth, at once so disgracefully uttered, and so meanly retracted, he never could be 552 guilty. He did not wish to wage war against this paper, or to injure its printer, but his object in the motion which he should feel it his duty to make on the subject, would be, if possible, to know the author of the article in question. As to the paper itself, he did not wish to say any thing; its character was well known. As to the comments of the press generally, he could assure the House that it never was his wish to withdraw himself from them. He did not object to the comments of the daily press, nor even to its licentiousness, though he had suffered from it. Indeed, he should be sorry to shelter himself against any attack which, in the way of opinion, could be made upon him. If there was any thing which could more than another keep up the high honour of public men in this country, and raise the standard of that honour still higher, it was, that wherever the English language was read, their follies, their errors, and their crimes were held up by the press to public animadversion. But every thing good was liable to abuse, and there could be no greater abuse of the liberty of the press, than, as in this instance, to invent statements, which had no foundation in fact, with the malignant design of representing a member of parliament in the exercise of his duty, as mean and base and cowardly enough, to degrade his situation to purposes of detraction, and then shrink from the consequences by compromising his honour-He would now move that the said paper be delivered in, and the paragraph complained of read.—The paragraph was accordingly read by the clerk; after which, the hon. gentleman moved, "That the said paragraph is a false and scandalous Libel, and a breach of the Privileges of this House."

§ Mr. Mackenzie
said, that having been personally alluded to by the hon. member, he felt it due to his own feelings, and but justice to the character of the hon. member to declare, that the comments in the paper which he had read, upon the article in the Courier, were false and malicious. The fact was, that no apology whatever had been made; no apology could have been made; none had been applied for. The real case was, that certain words had appeared in a report in one of the newspapers, which were calculated to hurt the feelings of a near relation of his, the president of the court of session in Scotland; and certainly, if those 553 words were true, they were of a nature to wound tile feelings of the party in question; but the very moment that the hon. member had heard of the existence of the words in the newspaper, he, in a manner the most handsome and honourable to himself, explained them. As to the paragraph which appeared in the Courier, it was not exactly correct in words, but it was substantively so. At the same time, he felt it his duty to declare, that it was not sent by any of the parties to the transaction. He could declare further, that the publication of the account gave great pain to all the parties, lest it might be thought for a moment to be the opinion of any of them that the conduct of the member for Shrewsbury was not honourable in the highest degree.

The Marquis of Londonderry
said, there could be no doubt that the article containing such an insinuation was a libel, and a breach of the privilege of the House. He would therefore support the motion.