§ Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that he had given notice on Friday evening last, of his intention of submitting to the consideration of the House, what had appeared to him to be a gross violation and Breach of its, Privileges. He did assure the House, that a sense of duty to the House, rather than any personal feeling or any personal considerations whatever, had actuated him in this proceeding. He would repeat, that a sense of duty which he felt that he owed towards the House, as a component though a humble part of it, had made him feel it incumbent upon him to call its attention to what he, as he had before said, considered to be of very serious importance. He scarcely need inform the House, that he was 1308 alluding to observations or statements, or, he would rather say, to various mis-statements, of what had fallen from himself as a Member of that House, on the evening of Tuesday, the 6th instant, upon the discussion of the Reform Bill in the Committee. In reading The Times newspaper on Wednesday morning, the 7th instant, he had found there—what certainly did then appear, and what now appeared to him to be—a gross, unjustifiable, unwarrantable, and, he was bound to say, a totally false statement of the words which had fallen from him upon that occasion. He trusted it would be evident to every Member of that House—indeed, upon a perusal of the paragraph, there could be but one opinion—that it was the wish, on the part of the newspaper, The Times, to vilify an individual Member of that House, as well as so to represent every proceeding as to degrade the House itself in every possible way in the eyes of the public at large. That paper, in the paragraph and report which he should now lay before the House, had introduced a statement, both with respect to what had fallen from himself, and with respect to the conduct of the House, which (and he could safely appeal to any hon. Gentleman who had heard him) was wholly of an unwarrantable nature, and composed in terms of the greatest falsehood. He had felt it a duty which he owed to himself, as well as to the House of which he was a Member, to contradict the statement the very next day, the 7th; and he had likewise felt it incumbent upon him to endeavour, as far as he possibly could, to vindicate the Members of the House from the gross aspersions which that newspaper had thrown upon them. What was his surprise when he had found on the next day (in the paper of the 8th instant), that the same paper had reiterated its offence; and he thought, that by such reiteration and such re-statements, it had committed a double insult on the House, and upon himself as a Member of it. He had found that the writer in The Times, on the 8th instant, had endeavoured to vindicate himself, in a paragraph in which he stated—"We have referred this observation not only to the Reporter whose account is complained of, but to others who were present: they deny the accuracy of the hon. Member's charge. On looking at the Herald and Chronicle, we find, that though the reports are shorter, they contain the same allusions 1309 to the laughter of the House, which the hon. Member asserts to be an invention of our Reporter." This, he would maintain, was equally false with the original statement, and it was a gross misrepresentation of the truth, for upon his perusal of The Morning Herald and Morning Chronicle, he found no such disrespectful statements as that which had appeared in The Times newspaper. He believed he had, as much as any man in that House, or out of the House, the greatest respect for the freedom of the Press. He would avow, that he had the highest respect for the free exercise of its important functions, and he would maintain that nothing could be so dangerous, and he should say that nothing could be so calculated to degrade every Member of that House, as such gross and repeated misrepresentations of the proceedings in Parliament as those of which he now complained. Having seen and known that misrepresentations had been made of various occurrences and circumstances relative to that House, it was his duty, as a Member, to proceed by contradicting the mis-statements in the present instance, and afterwards by following that line of conduct which the rights and privileges of that House gave him the power to do. Without trespassing any further upon the time of the House, he should beg leave to move, that the said newspapers The Times of the 7th and 8th instant be put in and read. A pause.
§ The SpeakerWho seconds the Motion?
§ Mr. Trevorsaid, that he would second the motion of his hon. and gallant friend; and in seconding it, he felt it necessary that he should make a few observations upon the subject to the House. In his opinion, the House ought to feel itself very greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing forward the conduct of the journal in question, which was the most audacious, vituperative, and calumniating paper that had ever issued from the press. Not only had this journal turned into ridicule, in the most coarse and unseemly manner, the Members of that House whose political opinions did not agree with its own, but it had altogether pursued a course of conduct which must render both Houses of Parliament little more than mere ciphers, and make them most completely, and in every respect, thoroughly contemptible in public opinion. He trusted that the House 1310 would never abandon its privileges, or refuse to vindicate its character, and he was confident, that in a case like the present, it would not pass over conduct so reprehensible. He trusted that the House would immediately take the case into its most serious consideration. He was not surprised that The Times, which had put forth the most base, and cowardly, and calumnious insinuations against a royal person, whose conduct had deserved and attracted the respect of almost every man in the country; he was not, he said, in the slightest degree surprised that a paper which had been guilty of this baseness, and cowardice, and calumny against a royal personage, should have indulged in such language as The Times had used with regard to that and the other House of Parliament. This very day that paper had, in a leading article, not only threatened the other House of Parliament, but had openly declared, that the military, if called upon to act, would not perform its duty. If such a course were tolerated, he, for one, must confess, he could not foresee whither it might lead, and where it might end. Who could tell what effects such a publication might produce upon the public mind throughout the country? He felt the most anxious hope, that the motion of his hon. and gallant friend would meet with due attention, and it would most assuredly meet with that attention if the House studied what was due to its own dignity, and what was necessary for the protection of its Members in the discharge of their duties. If the House were not lost to all sense of its dignity and its privileges, it would immediately bring to condign punishment the editor of as malicious, as calumnious, and as revolutionary a paper as ever disgraced the public press of this country.
The Times newspaper of the 7th and 8th instant were then put in, and read by the clerk, as follows:
"Colonel Sibthorp rose with violent agitation, and declared that he had opposed the Bill fairly and fearlessly. His side of the House was cheered by the supporters of Ministers, as if they had got through their labours. He could tell them that their labours were only commenced. (A laugh.) He did not understand being treated with contempt. (Continued laughter.) He would tell those who laughed at him, either in the House or out of the House, that he would support his opinions 1311 and vindicate himself to the last hour he had to breathe. (Laughter, and cries of "hear hear.") He regretted that the Bill had passed so soon. (Bursts of laughter.) The Bill had passed too speedily. (Laughter.) If his opponents were tired, he would not give up. (Laughter.) He would never give in. (Laughter.) He was never yet put down in the House, and never would be. (Laughter,) He was never put down out of the House, and he defied the hon. Member opposite who was laughing at him, to put him down. (Laughter.) (We could not exactly catch the particular Member to whom the hon. and gallant Colonel alluded, the laughter appeared to us to be general.) He defied the hon. Member to do it. The hon. Member had supported the Bill conscientiously, and why did he not suppose that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had opposed the Bill with equal conscience? (Cries of "Question, question," from all parts of the House. Colonel Sibthorp with great vehemence)—he prayed to God that the Bill might not pass. (Cries of "oh, oh," and "question, question.") If the Bill did pass, which he prayed to God might never be the case; all he had to say was, in the words of that great, that sublime statesman, now admired, and who, he fervently trusted, would have his memory for ever preserved in that House,—"Oh, save my country, may God have mercy on it! May God protect it from revolutions, and may he preserve in it all proper respect for the aristocracy—all proper respect for the"—(The hon. Member was so interrupted with laughter, that we were unable to catch the objects for which he invoked respect.) He felt confident that the Bill would not pass—such a Bill could never pass."
The clerk then read The Times of Thursday the 8th inst., as follows:
"Colonel Sibthorp said, he should take the present opportunity to complain of a contemptuous report of a speech of his in the Committee yesterday, which had appeared in one of the morning newspapers of that day. The report to which he alluded was interspersed with laughter, and other expressions of derision, which he flatly denied had been justified by the fact (hear). He considered he had the more reason to complain, as this report had been inserted in a journal of the highest respectability—he meant The Times—and it was, therefore, only an act of duty to the House and to himself, to contradict 1312 so gross and unwarrantable a statement.
"We have referred this observation not only to the Reporter whose account is complained of, but to others who were present; they deny the accuracy of the hon. Member's charge. On looking at the Herald and Chronicle, we find, that though the reports are shorter, they contain the same allusions to the laughter of the House, which the hon. Member asserts to be an invention of our Reporter."
§ Colonel Sibthorpagain rose, and said, that feeling, as he did, the greatest regard for the House, and the strongest desire to support it in all its privileges, he now considered it to be his duty, as a Member, to move "that the printer and publisher of a certain newspaper called The Times, which was printed and published upon Wednesday the 7th, and Thursday the 8th instant, having been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House, they do attend at the bar of the same on Wednesday the 14th instant."
§ Mr. Trevorseconded the Motion.
Mr. Humethought, that the gallant Member had left the House rather at a loss how to proceed, for he had not distinctly stated in what respect he felt himself aggrieved. Did the hon. and gallant Member mean to complain that the words attributed to him in the report of his speech on Tuesday night were not the words that he had actually spoken, or did he mean to complain only of the reported expressions of laughter with which it was said that the gallant Member had been received by the House? He (Mr. Hume) did not understand which it was that the gallant Member complained of, or whether he meant to complain of both. Surely it was necessary that the gallant Member should explain himself. If he acknowledged that the statement or report of the speech in The Times of Wednesday was correct in words, then there was one part of the question before the House at once disposed of: if he acknowledged that the description of the laughter was correct, then the other part was disposed of. Would the hon. and gallant Member at once declare whether the report was or was not a correct publication of the speech he had uttered upon the occasion?
§ Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that as he was not in the habit of composing beforehand the speeches that fell from him in that House, he could not call to mind precisely every word or every monosyllable that he had 1313 uttered; but he did mean to say, that he considered the report to be an exaggeration of what had fallen from him; and as to the manner in which he was received by the House, he was proud to say, that whatever opposition he had offered to the Reform Bill, no such conduct had ever been exhibited by the House towards him as that described in the report. For these reasons he was prepared to maintain, that The Times newspaper had been guilty of a gross misrepresentation.
Mr. Humewas at all times most desirous that a full and faithful account should be published of whatever passed in that House, and he even regretted, that the House did not itself publish such authenticated reports. He now felt himself under the necessity of submitting to the gallant Member, whether he really thought it possible to call the editor of a paper forward for what he (Colonel Sibthorp) termed an exaggerated statement of laughter? Whether it was one Member who had laughed, or a dozen Members had laughed, or whether the whole House had laughed, still, to have an editor called to the bar on such an account, would turn the whole proceedings into ridicule. If any motives had been imputed to the gallant Member which he had not displayed, if any expressions had been attributed to him which he had not used, then he would have been fully justified and warranted in requiring, that the imputation should be removed, and the misrepresentation explained. Nothing, however, of this sort had taken place, and under the circumstances of the case, if the editor were called to the bar of the House to-morrow, he, for one, should not know what to do with him when he got there. One Reporter might take down, and another might omit to notice, the manifestations of feeling with which the House might hear any one of its Members on a particular occasion; but this could be no ground of imputation, nor of proceedings upon the part of the House. He had great doubts how the House could act, consistently with its own dignity, if it pursued the course recommended to it by the gallant Member.
Mr. O'Connellthought it would be lowering the dignity of the House, to call any man to the bar on such a complaint. He had no doubt, that the gallant Officer believed, that by making this Motion he was upholding the privileges of the House; but he was firmly persuaded, that to agree 1314 to this Motion would be to disparage greatly that dignity which it was the object of the gallant Officer to maintain. The House could never, consistently with its own dignity, and with credit in the eyes of the country, summon a man to appear at their bar, except upon some affair of importance and solemnity. No one surely would argue, that the question whether a Reporter had or had not put too many 'laughs' into his account of a Gentleman's speech was a matter either important or solemn. He was not present when the gallant Officer delivered the speech which was said to be misrepresented; if he had been, he should have stated what his impression of the report was; and, as he could not do that, he was quite willing to take the gallant Officer's own character of that report. Let all that the gallant Officer had said of the exaggeration of the report be true, and still that would not alter his opinion, that to entertain a motion like the present would be derogatory to the real dignity of the House, and tend to lower its character in the eyes of the public. If the publisher of The Times newspaper had committed a much greater offence than the gallant Officer complained of, he thought that the said publisher had already been sufficiently lectured by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Trevor), and that there could be no necessity for calling him to the bar to receive the comparatively mild reprimand of Mr. Speaker. He could not sufficiently express his admiration of the conduct of that hon. Gentleman, who condemned a man first, and was prepared to try him afterwards. The hon. Member, one of the judges in this case had, without hearing the supposed culprit, laid to his charge the most serious offences, and declared that he was worthy of condign punishment. But perhaps the hon. Member thought that this, too, was consistent with the dignity of the House, as well as with its judicial character. With regard to the Motion itself, he must openly declare his opinion, that if it were agreed to, no one could for the future say, that there was anything like the liberty of the Press in this country. For the maintenance of its privileges, that House had clothed itself with a power which was altogether unlimitted and despotic. It might be—and he did not say that it was not—necessary that the House should be intrusted with such a power for its protection; but then the very character of that 1315 power ought to render the House extremely cautious how it was exercised, in any but cases of emergency. The gallant Officer might, if he pleased, proceed against the publisher of The Times by indictment or by criminal information. Now, in order to judge of the character of the present Motion, let the House consider for a moment what would be the result of the gallant Officer proceeding criminally against the publisher, in an ordinary Court of Justice. If the case were brought before a Court of Law, and the report complained of read, it would bid defiance to the gravity of the most serious bench of Judges in the world; and there was no counsel, however rigid the muscles of his countenance might be, whose stern features would not relax into a laugh while he attempted to make out, that anything criminal had been done, either by the reporter of the gallant Officer's speech, or by the person who had published it. A Jury would laugh the case out of Court at once. He readily admitted, that if a Gentleman's speech were misreported, it was quite right that the misapprehension which might naturally be supposed to result should be set right by explanation. This the gallant Officer had done. The gallant Officer had set himself right with the House and with the public; and he must, therefore, express a hope that the gallant Officer would not press his Motion. [Colonel Sibthorp shook his head.] Well, if the gallant Officer persisted in the Motion, he should certainly take care that it should not be disposed of without a division, and he should feel it his duty to divide the House upon it himself.
§ Lord Althorpadmitted the right of the hon. and gallant Member, as of every Member of the House, to make complaints of matters of that kind, but it had always been the practice to consider the nature of the offence. In the particular case brought then under notice, he entirely subscribed to the principles laid down by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, and he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see the inexpediency of pressing his Motion to a division. Under all the circumstances of the case, and in the present disposition of the House, he was sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see, that that would be his better course. In saying this, he did not mean to question the hon. and gallant Gentleman's right to bring such a Motion forward; he only, 1316 under the circumstances of the case, doubted its expediency. He was present on the occasion alluded to, and was perfectly able and willing to confirm the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the account of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was much exaggerated. He believed—he might say, was sure—that as much laughter did not follow as was represented. Indeed, he recollected distinctly but one decided instance of laughter—that which ensued on he hon. and gallant Gentleman's stating that the "Bill had passed too speedily." He repeated, he was sure that there was by no means the excessive laughter that the report of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained had represented. But still he was certain the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see that an exaggeration of this kind would not warrant the House in a manner entering into a contest with the Press, that, in fact, the offence was not of such moment as to call upon the House to visit it with its direct censure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had not probably as much experience in these matters as he had—it had been his fortune to witness more than one newspaper publisher called to the Bar for a breach of privilege; and the more he witnessed of the effects of such motions, the more he was convinced of their inexpediency, and consequently, the more he was disposed to avoid their recurrence. He trusted, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself see the policy of not pressing his Motion to a division. In urging him not to take the sense of the House, he begged to say, that he was fully alive to the necessity of the House retaining in its own hands the power of visiting with its heaviest censures all attacks on its privileges, and that reports of its proceedings should be permitted only by sufferance; but still he need not point out the wisdom of exercising such an arbitrary power with due caution. The noble Lord repeated, that he did not conceive the present such an offence as warranted the House interfering to protect its privileges, though the report might have been an excessive exaggeration.
§ Mr. George Sinclairwas in the House on the night to which the hon. and gallant Member's Motion referred, and could take it upon him to state, that The Times report was verbatim et literatim correct, so far as the sentiments of the hon. and gallant 1317 Gentleman was concerned. Indeed, he had never read a report more accurate, or one, as it appeared to him, of which it might be said there was "nothing extenuate nor aught set down in malice." There might have been, perhaps, an exaggeration as to the amount of laughter, though he must say, the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman received the first symptoms of laughter served to increase it very much towards the end of the speech.
§ Colonel Sibthorpsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had totally misrepresented his behaviour on the night in question. He felt himself compelled to press his Motion to a division, in consequence of the repetition of the offence, which appeared in the next day's number of The Times, in the form of an answer to his complaint. He would make precisely the same Motion on a recurrence of the offence.
§ The House then divided on Colonel Sibthorp's Motion. Ayes 7; Noes 73; Majority 66.
| List of the Ayes. | |
| Archdall, General | Pollington, Lord |
| Conolly, Colonel | Yorke, Joseph |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Captain | TELLERS. |
| Maxwell, Mr. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Perceval, Colonel | Trevor, Hon. A. |