HC Deb 31 January 1832 vol 9 cc1030-49
Mr. Perceval

said, that he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a breach of one of its most important privileges. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that on Thursday last, previous to his moving for an address to his Majesty to appoint a day of general fast, he took occasion to enforce the standing order of that House for the exclusion of strangers. On the succeeding morning, there appeared in several of the newspapers, a report of the proceedings that had taken place in that House during such exclusion of strangers from the gallery. Under these circumstances, he felt it is duty to bring such a matter under the notice of the House. He did so, because he thought it incumbent on the House to assert and maintain one of its most important privileges—that of the exclusion of strangers from its debates whenever there should appear sufficient reason to it for doing so—a privilege which would be utterly without value if it were to be in the power of any hon. Member to report their proceedings while that standing order was enforced. He did so, because this standing order was one of those high and invaluable privileges which they had received from their predecessors, and which they were in duty bound to preserve and hand down unimpaired and inviolate for the use and service of their successors. If, by their negligence and carelessness in the non-enforcement of their undisturbed rights, they were to allow this privilege to be thus openly, grossly and directly invaded, and thereby suffered to fall into utter and entire disuse, though they themselves might not reap the inconvenience that would thence arise, their successors, no doubt would, and the true blame must in that case attach to those upon whose shoulders at present rested the duty of preserving that privilege entire and unimpaired. They had no right to say, that they would treat with disregard the breach of that privilege, because, in a given instance, they might not clearly see the use of enforcing it. He trusted to be able, in a few words, to demonstrate to the House the utility of enforcing its standing order in this particular instance; and, with that view, begged to call the attention of hon. Members to the circumstances under which this breach of privilege had occurred. It was the undoubted privilege of that House to exclude strangers during its proceedings: and under such circumstances, the publication of its debates was a direct and wilful contravention of that privilege, flung in the face of the House, who had evidently excluded strangers for the purpose of keeping its debates secret from the public. Probably that statement, and his having called the attention of hon. Members to the circumstance that they, as the guardians of the rights and privileges of the House, were in duty bound to maintain them, constituted in themselves sufficient grounds for the Motion which he was about to submit to the House. He begged leave, however, to observe, that the individual who should choose, when the standing order was enforced against the admission of strangers, to publish the debates of that House, without either the intervention of those usual channels of conveyance whereby a certain degree of accuracy was ensured in the transmission of their debates to the public, or without any other means of guarding against their errors, must feel that in thus contravening the orders of that House, he was taking a course that would lead to much misrepresentation, and he must feel, that being debarred from those channels of information upon which a dependence could be placed, he ought to be held responsible for those blunders and inaccuracies which might go forth to the public in such a publication. In the report which in this instance had been given of the speech which he had had the honour of then addressing to the House, there was so much of what he had said, that it evidently must have been furnished by an individual who heard that speech, and who was present at the debate; yet, at the same time, he had no hesitation in saying that no plain intelligent man could possibly read that report without seeing that the design with which it had been drawn up was to throw the speech which he had made into complete and utter ridicule. He charged that individual, whoever he was, that made the report, with direct and deliberate falsehood. The direct and deliberate falsehoods that were to be found in that report he should state to the House; and he further charged that report with the general intention of throwing ridicule on the whole of his speech. He should now lay before the House the gross misrepresentations which that report exhibited of the sentiments that had fallen from him (Mr. Perceval) on the occasion in question. In the commencement of that report, he was made to assign as his reason for enforcing the standing order against the presence of strangers during the debate, "that he would not allow the public to know the blasphemies that might be spoken in answer to this speech—that the blasphemers, if any in this House, might not be able to give publicity to their blasphemies." Now, there was just so much of what he did really say in that part of the report, as to show that it was given by a person who was present on the occasion, but it contained in it, at the same time, nothing of the true animus and spirit of the observations that he then made use of. What he really did say with regard to the point, at the time, was, that it would ill become him, after the attention, both patient and respectful, with which he had been listened to on a previous occasion, when bringing forward a similar motion, to impute to any hon. Member in that House an intention to treat such a subject in a blasphemous or irreligious manner; but he added, that there were individuals out of that House who, as on the previous occasion, would try to make his speech the subject of blasphemous animadversion, and some of his near friends and relatives had objected to his bringing forward the Motion for that reason. He had said, that he had replied to them, "that without at all yielding to the force of such an objection, he had at once at hand the means of obviating it—that he had the power, as a Member of that House, of excluding strangers from the gallery during the debate—of thus taking away the possibility of any paper publishing it, and, in that way, of preventing that blasphemy which they dreaded on the subject." That was what he really had said, whereas this report made him talk of the blasphemy that might be spoken by the hon. Members in that House in reply to this speech. He should state to the House another instance of the gross misrepresentation which characterized this report, in proof of the expediency of this Motion, and also as tending to show, that when strangers were excluded, if any individual should have the power of attempting to give in full what then passed, they would be exposed to the greatest possible misrepresentation. In another part of this report he was represented as having said, "that he was sincere, and that he was arguing these truths in his usual way, when he is under an influence." No individual who read that phrase could for a moment doubt that the intention of the person who published what he said in such a shape, was to throw ridicule on his speech. What he said on that occasion simply was, "that upon any subject, when he entertained strong feelings, he might be afraid that his speech would partake of the warmth of feeling by which he was influenced, but that he was not in the present instance carried away by warmth or passion—that he but rarely trespassed on the House, and that he had been only induced to do so on this occasion by a strong sense of duty." There was another passage from this report of his speech which, he would undertake to say, no man who heard that speech, or who at all knew him (Mr. Perceval), could have put down and deliberately published, without knowing well that it was a falsehood. He was made to say, "Let the kings and priests be expelled, and all such mummery be averted, unless you will listen to my voice for a fast and humiliation." He would assert, that a grosser perversion could not possibly have been committed by an intelligent man of the sentiments that fell from another, than that passage exhibited, and that it was altogether an entire falsification of what had been said by him (Mr. Perceval) on that occasion. He thought that he only had discharged his duty to himself and to the House in bringing this matter under its notice—to himself in freeing himself from the falsifications which that report contained of his sentiments; and towards the House, in calling its attention to the due enforcement of one of its standing rules, so that hereafter it would not be in the power of any individual when strangers were excluded to publish their discussions, thus exposing hon. Members to the risk of having their sentiments grossly falsified and misrepresented. He should conclude by moving that the printer of the paper which he now held in his hand, The Times, should be called to the Bar of that House. He begged to observe, that the report of which he complained appeared under the regular head, and in the usual parliamentary report in two papers—the Morning Chronicle and The Times; while in another paper—the Morning Herald—it was put less ostentatiously at the end of the parliamentary report, and with a paragraph stating that it did not come from their usual sources. He thought it, however, better to select a single paper, with a view to try the privilege of that House, and for that purpose he had selected The Times. He believed that before he made his Motion, the first step to be taken was to hand the clerk a copy of the paper, and have it read at the table.

Paper accordingly handed in, and the passages complained of read by the Clerk.

Mr. Perceval moved, that "John Joseph Lawson, the printer of The Times newspaper, be ordered to attend at the Bar of that House upon Thursday next."

Mr. Cresset Pelham

seconded the Motion.

Mr. Hume

said, that there could be no doubt, that by the rules of that House, the publication of its debates was in itself a breach of the privileges of that House. He did not understand distinctly, from what had fallen from the hon. Member, whether he meant to complain of every species of reporting; for, as the hon. Member must be aware, it undoubtedly did so happen that every kind of reporting of their debates was in contravention of the privileges of that House. He apprehended, however, that the observations of the hon. Member on this occasion, did not apply to reporting generally, but that he intended to complain of the particular instance of the report of his own speech. Now, unless the hon. Member meant to complain of reporting generally, his observations must apply to the reporting that had taken place in this particular instance, and then the question arose, how far that was his object, and, secondly, who was the individual meant on this occasion. He (Mr. Hume) had no hesitation in saying that, on the occasion alluded to, when he found that he could not raise the question concerning the exclusion of strangers, that he did then exercise that power which belonged to him as a Member of that House—that he did write down every thing as accurately as he could—that the same was done by other individuals, with respect to the debate which then occurred; and that, having done so, when the debate was over, he had given what he had written to a gentleman out of the House, to do what he pleased with it. It so happened that on that occasion he did not come in the way of the reporter for The Times, nor did he see any one connected with The Times, but if he had met the reporter of that journal, it was as probable that he should have given the report in question to him as to any other individual. He had not had time to read the whole of that report after it was published, but he had read the commencement of it, and his impression was, that it was correct. He had not given the quotations at length, as they appeared in the Morning Chronicle, but he apprehended the Scripture quotations were filled up from the parts of verses he had given. Further, as to the general report itself, he had heard other hon. Members say, that it was a tolerably correct account of what the hon. Member had said. He had made the report of the debate on this occasion, because it was attempted to exclude the public from hearing or knowing what took place in that House through the usual channels of intelligence, and he should do so again whenever a similar attempt was made. If any one was guilty of crime in this instance, he was the criminal, though he believed he had only exercised a right which belonged to him as a Member of that House. He could assure the hon. Member, that he had no other desire but to do him justice and to tell the truth. In doing what he had done, he had not committed a greater breach of the privileges of that House than was every day committed by the publication of their debates, which, he repeated, was in direct contravention of a standing order of that House—an order that he had over and over again endeavoured to get repealed. Again he would repeat, in reply to the complaint of the hon. Member as to the inaccuracy of his (Mr. Hume's) report of his speech, that he had attempted to give as faithful an acconnt of it as he possibly could; that it was not possible for him, unpractised as he was in such a matter, to follow an hon. Member in full through a speech that occupied nearly an hour and a half; that whenever a similar occasion arose in which those who could thus follow, hon. Members were excluded from the gallery, in order to prevent the publication of their debates, he would endeavour to supply a report of them—and perhaps more practice would make him perform it better than on this occasion, and that in that way he should do what in him lay to prevent the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member who should hereafter attempt it, from excluding the public from a knowledge of the proceedings that took place in that House. He had often before dwelt upon the inconvenience of leaving their debates to be published in an unauthorised form, and he had urged the propriety of having reporters duly appointed for reporting the debates of that House, and who would be responsible for the correctness of the reports which they furnished. While, however, he was for the adoption of such a measure as that, he was as much alive as any hon. Member in that House to the extraordinary and admirable accuracy with which the debates of that House were at present given to the public, whenever an occasion arose in which it was necessary to give them at any length. He had frequently, on such occasions, looked through column after column of the reports of their debates without being able to detect a single solitary error in them. A facility of making such reports was not possessed by him; but he could assure the hon. Member, that if he had not the power, he had at least the will, and that so far from having any intention to impart a false gloss to his statements, or to misrepresent his opinions, he had every desire to do him all the justice he possibly could. If there were any mistake in the report, the hon. Member might thank himself, for if he had not excluded strangers, his speech would, no doubt, have been accurately reported.

The Speaker rose and said, I feel it necessary to interpose at this stage of the proceeding. Of all the extraordinary declarations I have ever heard in this House, that which has been just made by the hon. member for Middlesex is the most extraordinary. That hon. Member not only confesses, but avows, that he has, as a Member of this House, taken advantage of the power which he thus possesses to commit a breach of the privileges of this House. The hon. Member, on an occasion when the public were excluded from the debates in that House, has furnished a report of them to the public; and he has stated his determination to do so again, whenever a like occasion may arise. The hon. Member must be, aware, that to furnish a report of a debate in that. House, and even to furnish his own speech, on the part of any hon. Member, constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Hume

I never did it in my life.

The Speaker

I am arguing no new doctrine; but I am bound to express the sentiments I entertain, and, most honestly believing that the hon. Member has acted from a misconception of the privileges of this House, to tell him that, every step he avows himself to have taken, has been in him a breach of the privileges of this House. The accuracy of the statement has nothing to do with the question. The privilege of the House is, that what passes in the debates of the House shall not be, circulated amongst the public. It is not necessary for me to point out to the House, or to the hon. Member, how extremely futile such a rule would be, if every Member could, of his own free will, put it aside; bull I will tell the hon. Member, that either he or I am completely ignorant of the privileges of this House—he, in supposing himself justified in giving to the public any speech made in the House, or I in presuming such conduct to be a gross breach of privilege.

Lord Althorp

said, that every hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the privileges of the House, must concur in what had fallen from the Chair. It undoubtedly was a breach of privilege to publish the debates, and whether that publication took place through the means of any hon. Member, or of any other person, made no difference in the matter. He (Lord Althorp) was rather surprised that his hon. friend had made the observations which he did. If his hon. friend would refer to any hon. Gentleman acquainted with the privileges of Parliament, he would find that it was clearly and distinctly a breach of those privileges to publish any of their debates. He submitted to the hon. Gentleman who had made the Motion, that having fully attained his object in clearing himself from any misrepresentation which might have gone abroad of his sentiments, he should not persevere, further on this occasion. He did not think that any further step which the hon. Gentleman could take would have the effect of more completely asserting the privileges of that House; and he did not suppose that the hon. Member in question contemplated any thing like strictly enforcing the privileges of that House against the publication of the debates. They had only to look back to the history of the last half century, to see how the practical enforcement of those privileges had been departed from. About half a century ago, it was considered a breach of privilege to publish the names of any Members who spoke in that House; but, nevertheless, fictitious names were resorted to, and the debates were given at length. He was sure that in the state of the public mind at present, it would be a vain attempt on the part of any man to enforce generally the privileges of that House against the publication of the debates. He now came to the question immediately before them. The printer of a newspaper obviously would do his utmost to procure all the information he could, and communicate it to the public, and in this case the editor of the paper in question had evidently made use of the best means in his power to obtain information. He stated that circumstance, in order to shew that the breach of privilege in this instance, as far as the newspaper was concerned, was not a more aggravated one than that which was committed every day in the usual way. The case was so clear a breach of privilege, that if the hon. Member persevered in his Motion, he must vote for it; but he did hope the hon. Member would see that such a course was not desirable, and that he would accordingly abandon his Motion.

Colonel Davies

thought, that the breach of privilege had not been committed by the editor of The Times, but by the hon. member for Middlesex. But then that breach of privilege was one which they were all liable to commit, if the privilege was enforced strictly according to its letter; for any Member who communicated verbally to a stranger what had occurred in that House, was guilty of a breach of privilege—he was guilty of a publication, if he spoke of their proceedings at his club, or in any other place. Now, the hon. member for Middlesex had done this, and the person who got the statement from him, might, as it seemed to him (Colonel Davies), publish it, without any breach of the privileges of that House. If the editor of The Times was guilty, others were equally so; and every editor of every paper in which the report appeared, ought to be called before the House. What would the hon. Gentleman gain by persevering in his Motion? Several attempts of the same sort had been made before now, and the House always got the worst of it. The attempt to insist on the privilege was contrary to the sense of the public; aye, and to the sense of every Member of that House; and he hoped, that as the hon. Gentleman had done what he considered to be his duty, in bringing this matter before the House, he would be satisfied and would proceed no further.

Mr. Cresset Pelham

said, that it was for the credit of the House that the hon. Member brought forward his Motion, and upon that ground the House ought to support it. He thought it was a tenable Motion, both as regarded his character and the character of the House. He should be ashamed of himself if he did not offer his humble support in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member. Coupled with that Motion a question had arisen about the exercise of this privilege of excluding strangers. The noble Lord had referred to the middle of the last century, and had said that up to that time the names of the speakers were not given, but he would tell the noble Lord that that power was exercised in the middle of the preceding century. It was exercised at the time that Lord Strafford was brought to the bar.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that the least doubt could not exist in the mind of any hon. Member of the House whether or not the Speaker had correctly laid down the law of the House. Independent of such high authority, it was not to be denied that there was no more distinct breach of privilege than the publication of anything that occurred in the House. But could there be anything so ludicrous as the variance between the privilege and the practice? The privilege was, that it was criminal to publish anything whatsoever that took place within the walls—the practice was to publish as much as possible; and he remembered to have heard more than one hon. Member complain that the privilege was not sufficiently broken in his own case, by the reporters having given him too short a speech in the newspapers. The privilege, however, as it existed, was one without the breach of which the people of England would not be contented, if they were now content to the extent it went; and it certainly was one which, if rigidly enforced, there was not a village or hamlet in the country that would not strongly protest against its continuance. Even at the moment he was speaking, it was possible there might be strangers listening to their debate, which, of course, ought not to be the case; these strangers might, too, give to the public what occurred; and he then asked, could there be a greater absurdity than the variance between the privilege and practice? If, then, there was any occasion upon which this privilege might be waved, or one on which it might be, with a degree of impunity, broken, it was when religious dissertations were the subject of debate. The Members of that House differed, very many of them widely, in their religious tenets; and if religious discussions were once permitted, there was no reason why—and it would be almost impossible to prevent that consequence—the House should not at length be engaged in religious controversy. Nobody could doubt the religious sincerity of the hon. Member who had brought forward the present Motion, at least he (Mr. O'Connell) could not, favoured as he had been by hearing his dissertation the other night; but if the same Motion had been brought forward by any other man not equally well known, would it not have sounded like, and would not the world have believed it to be, fanaticism? He must, in any case, protest against any hon. Member assuming to be the bearer of a special mission to dictate ordinances of a religious kind, and he denied the authority of any individual for such a purpose. If the House were to allow theological discussions, was there any knowing where it would end, and might not some person rise up, on some other occasion, and perhaps astound them with a dissertation in the unknown tongue? He was only one Member of the House, but his humble opinion was, that if they once allowed the barrier between political and theological discussion to be broken down, there could no stop be put to the results that must inevitably follow; and he was therefore of opinion, that if ever an occasion had occurred where a breach of privilege was allowable, the present was that case; for if it was permitted that other subjects should go forth through the newspapers, why should not the country be informed on this head? The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion was decidedly free from anything like a tincture of vindictiveness, nor was he suspected by any one of a motive of that kind in having brought forward his Motion. This was a great benefit; for a religious zeal and vindictive spirit were, unfortunately, too often allied. Let the hon. Gentleman then consider this, and not to give a handle to any one to accuse him of a vindictive spirit; and the best mode by which he could avoid that, was by withdrawing his Motion. Besides, if the object were good, the execution was the only thing complained of. The accuracy of the report, as far as it went, was fair. It certainly did not give all the hon. Gentleman had said during the hour and a half which the House had had the pleasure of hearing him. He trusted, however, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, and if he did not, he (Mr. O'Connell) would move the previous question.

Lord Milton

had heard with regret what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kerry with respect to the privileges of that House. He (Lord Milton) knew that the publication of the debates of the House were so ordinary a thing, and afforded such gratification to the curiosity of the people as to their proceedings, and the feelings of the people as to the conduct of their Representatives, that he should be sorry that it were taken away. However, the privilege of the House was not of that slight importance that the hon. member for Kerry would wish to represent it. It was essential, for instance, that the Representatives of the people should speak their sentiments free from fear or from influence, and he would ask, whether the object of freedom of debate was not attained more effectually while they retained within themselves the power of excluding strangers, than if that privilege were to be put an end to? He would ask, whether there might not be occasions when, not for the purposes of individuals, but to secure "ne quid detriments respublica capiat," it would be as well that they should have the power of keeping their debates within themselves? He remembered, when a very young Member of the House, it having once been proposed that the sense of the House should be taken as to the order for the withdrawal of strangers; it had not succeeded, nor could he agree to any such principle, as he thought the mere notice of the presence of strangers should be enough to exclude them. But, whatever discussion might arise upon this point, he should say, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, that it was at least important while the order was in force, that there should not be any reporter within the walls of the House. They might have occasion to exclude strangers for the benefit of the people themselves. It might be desirable, upon particular occasions, that what was said in that House should not find its way into palaces, any more than into hamlets, and it was as much against the Crown as against the people, that he desired to retain the privilege, and to enforce it, if necessary, for the preservation of the liberties of the people. He could contemplate a case in which it might be necessary for the independence of Parliament, that none should betray to the executive what took place within those walls. He did not say this as applying to his noble friends who composed the Government at present, but he urged it as a general principle in favour of their maintaining the privilege, which he was ready to allow ought to sit loosely upon them. Above all they must not permit an individual among themselves to communicate to others what they desired should not be made known.

Mr. O'Connell

begged to ask, whether, after what had occurred, it was necessary to take any further steps in order to have sufficient proof of the breach of privilege by the printer?

The Speaker

said, there were no further steps necessary on this occasion, because the breach of privilege did not rest on the correctness or incorrectness of the report. The breach of privilege consisted in the publication of what had taken place in the House. The paper was in their hands, and being laid upon the Table, was a sufficient proof of the breach of the privilege of the House.

Mr. Robinson

said, that the simple question was, whether the hon. member for Tiverton had made out a sufficient ground for the House, on that occasion, to exercise its privilege? If he did not misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, he did no so much complain of the publication of his speech, as that it was not a correct report of what he said. Now, he confessed that it seemed rather an extraordinary thing for the hon. Member to complain of the incorrectness of the report of his speech, when that incorrectness arose out of the course which he had taken to exclude the usual persons through whom the proceedings of the House were made known to the public. Under such circumstances, he should vote against the proposition which the hon. Member had submitted to the House. He did not think that sufficient ground had been made out to warrant it.

Mr. Warburton

had not been present at the commencement of the debate, or he should before have declared, that he could not allow his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, to bear the whole responsibility which belonged to him as a reporter. He had no hesitation in avowing that he also had taken notes of what had passed, and had endeavoured all in his power to give an accurate account of it. He had also given that account to a reporter. He was well aware that the giving any account of what had passed in that House was a breach of privilege, but he never was aware, and had still to learn, that notes taken by a Member was more exclusively a breach of privilege than those notes taken and published every day. As to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Milton) relative to Members not placing themselves in opposition to the rules of the House, he should only observe, that no Member, as the orders now stood, had an opportunity of gainsaying any one amongst them who should take notice that there were strangers present. As to the discretion of Members, and whether they exercised that discretion with prudence, that must depend upon the peculiar circumstances of every individual case. His opinion was, that in what he and his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had done in taking these notes, they had exercised a sound discretion; for he was convinced it was desirable that the people should know what occurred upon that as well as upon every other occasion in the House. However, it was yet to be decided, that, for a Member to take notes, and send them to a reporter, was a more particular breach of privilege than the ordinary communica- tion of these debates that occurred every day.

Mr. James E, Gordon rose to give his opinion on a subject on which every one might form his judgment; but what had occurred in the House looked to him like a confederacy against those who would address themselves to it upon topics vitally interesting to the English people. The hon. member for Kerry had given it as his opinion, that religious topics should be excluded, as leading to controversy; but that, in his view, was only a reason for excluding from the House some Members whose opinions were likely to afford grounds for controversy. Yes, in spite of the latitudinurian spirit prevalent, he would say, that the Constitution of England stood upon the sole ground of the Protestant Bible [a laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had yet to learn that this opinion of his was contrary to the sound constitutional principle of the country. He should not advert to the influences of the unknown tongues, spoken of by the hon. member for Kerry, further than to caution that hon. and learned Member that language of this kind did not come well from persons of a persuasion which was remarkable for always speaking in unknown tongues. He would certainly support the Motion if the House went to a division on it.

Lord John Russell

thought, that the Motion of the hon. member for Tiverton, to have the printer of the publication brought up to the Bar of the House, was rendered unnecessary by the avowals which had been made by the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport. After what had been stated by those hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member must feel that his Motion was totally unnecessary. Let the House then consider what the statement of the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport amounted to. The hon. member for Middlesex had informed the House not only that he considered it no Breach of privilege to furnish the publications of the day with reports of what massed in the House when strangers were excluded, but that he would persevere in that course if the hon. member for Tiverton should again move for their exclusion. The hon. member for Bridport added to that, that there was not, in his opinion, any greater irregularity in the course which he had adopted than in the usual manner in which the debates were publish- ed. He (Lord John Russell) confessed that there appeared to him to be a very great difference. The publication of their debates in the ordinary manner was, he thought, useful and advantageous to the public, and therefore, although a breach of the privileges of the House, was, on most occasions, very properly connived at; but, at the same time, he considered it advantageous that they should have the power of excluding strangers, and of being able to reserve the debates of the House for the ears of its Members only. The hon. member for Tiverton had thought proper to exercise that privilege, and in doing so, had stated his reasons properly and clearly. It was, therefore, of importance, so long as the privilege was preserved, and so long as the House allowed publication by connivance generally, that in particular cases, like that under discussion, this privilege should not be infringed upon; and he trusted that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, would see, that it was not proper for him again to pursue such a course as that he had followed on this occasion. Upon this understanding he trusted that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion would not feel it necessary to go any further, or call the printer and others to the Bar, who were no more than the instruments of some Members of the House.

Sir Robert Peel

spoke under the disadvantage of not having heard the earlier part of the debate; but he believed that the motion, and the only motion, before the House was, that, the printer of the publication alluded to should be called to the Bar. He felt great difficulty, and he was sure his hon. friend must also feel great difficulty, in assenting to that proposition, because, since the motion was made, two hon. Members had admitted, that they were the authors of the report. Under any circumstances, to visit the printer, who was only a subordinate agent in giving publicity to a report, with the censure of the House, was painful; but it would be infinitely more so after the principal agents had avowed themselves. Those agents were Members of the House, who, whether right or wrong, declared that they had acted under the impression that they were justified in what they did. That being the case, with what justice could the House proceed against the printer, who had been misled by two of the Members of the body whose privileges he had invaded? He trusted, then, that the hon. Member for Tiverton would withdraw his motion. The fact of the report being correct, or not, or of the hon. Members having given it as perfect as in their power, had nothing to do with the breach of privilege, and he trusted that the hon. member for Middlesex would bow to the decision of the Chair. With respect to the hon. member for Bridport, who had said that he was not aware of his committing a breach of privilege—

Mr. Warburton

not any greater breach than was committed on ordinary occasions.

Sir Robert Peel

it was difficult to compare degrees of breaches of privilege, but it was impossible to deny, that this was a breach committed under aggravated circumstances, and having been committed by an hon. Member of the House, it was the more objectionable. Hon. Gentlemen could reserve to themselves the right of moving for an alteration of the law, but he doubted not but that they would yield obedience to the law as it stood.

Sir Charles Wetherell

could not consent to call the printer of the newspaper to the Bar when two hon. Members had admitted that they were the authors of the breach of privilege complained of. The publication of any speech, when strangers were excluded, was a gross breach of privilege, but it became ten times worse when it was committed by Members of the House. The hon. Members were no doubt in error, and he trusted they would admit they were.

Mr. Hunt

had no reason to complain of the alleged breach of privilege. He had never been better reported in his life. There was no misrepresentation of what he had said. Had the privilege of the House been put in force every night during the debates on the Reform question, he believed that the public would have been much better informed with respect to what had been said on that subject than they could possibly be by reading what was published by the reporters in the gallery. He agreed with those who thought that the hon. member for Tiverton ought to withdraw his Motion, after the open avowal of the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport.

Mr. Hume

had previously risen to avow himself the agent through whom the public had been informed of what had passed, for the purpose of leaving it to the hon. Gentleman whether it would be right to proceed against the printer, for whom he (Mr. Hume) was ready to be answerable. The Speaker having laid down the law on the subject, it would be his duty, on another occasion, to take the sense of the House as to how that law was to be limited; for, as it appeared to stand at present, a Member was prevented from giving a note of any single thing that passed in the House, and, therefore, it would be a very difficult thing to avoid a breach of privilege. If any one wished that the proceedings of the House should be secret, he was not the man; but, of course, he felt bound in common with every other Member, after the Speaker had stated what the rules of the House were, to accommodate himself to those rules. When he had violated (since it now seemed that it was a violation) the rules of the House, it had not by any means been intentional on his part, for he certainly at that time was not aware that to publish the notes of a speech made within those walls was more criminal in a Member of Parliament than in a reporter.

Mr. Warburton

after what has fallen from you, Sir, as to the law upon the subject, I shall not venture to deny, that this is a breach of privilege; but what I meant to say when I formerly addressed the House was, that I imagined that it was as much within the right of a Member of Parliament as of any other person, to put forth the debates that take place in this House. If, indeed, the Member who moved for the exclusion of strangers had taken the sense of the House upon that question, instead of having it granted to him as a matter of course, I should then say that it would be culpable in a Member to give publicity to what occurred, in defiance of the resolution of the House. But when it is in the power of any individual Member, on his own opinion, to take from the other party the opportunity of recording his sentiments before the face of the public, I do not think that, in principle, it is more culpable for a Member to give a report of the proceedings than for any other person. I beg further to say, that I should not have done it, had it not been told me in the lobby by a very old Member of the House, that one of the very best speeches he had ever heard, had been reported by a Member under similar circumstances; and indeed, I remember, that strangers being excluded when Earl Moira made his famous speech during Mr. Pitt's Administration, I read a report of that speech, notes of it no doubt having been furnished by some of the Members of this House. If, however, it is to be understood that to furnish notes under similar circumstances is to be considered as a breach of honour, I shall at once feel bound to subscribe to the rule.

Mr. Perceval

the hon. Member for Bridport has admitted, that if I had made a motion for clearing the gallery, and had succeeded in carrying that motion, it would then have been a breach of privilege to publish what took place. But I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman, that the House, at the commencement of every Session, makes a standing order for the exclusion of strangers in such terms that it is in the power of any individual Member to enforce it. Any violation, therefore, of the secrecy of debate, under such circumstances, is as much against the orders of the House, as if the question had been carried by a distinct motion on each particular occasion that the standing order is enforced. After the avowal that has this evening been made by the two hon. Gentlemen, I feel bound to consent not to press any motion for calling the printer to the Bar. I feel very grateful to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, for the clearness with which they have laid down the value of this privilege of the House, as a security for the freedom of debate in this country, and the consequent necessity that there is, that that privilege should be preserved inviolate. With respect to what has fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kerry, who has expressed himself in his well-known tongue of sneer and irony, I shall not say a word. I, however, beg to say, that I claim no peculiar mission to speak to the House on any subject, but I do claim the common right of a Member of this House to speak on any subject that has reference to matters of common interest to the general well-being of this country. Another hon. Member has said, that the whole object of this motion was for the purpose of clearing my own character, inasmuch as it was attacked by the report that has appeared of my speech. If I know myself, I will not disavow that I feel gratified at having this opportunity of exposing the gross perversions of that report; but if it had not come within the defence of one of the most valuable privileges of this House, I would not have gone two feet out of my way for the sake of the whole report. Under the circumstances which have come before the House since I made my Motion, I am willing to withdraw it. It might have been a question whether the conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex, and the hon. member for Bridport, ought not to have been noticed by the House; but, after the declaration of those hon. Gentlemen, that they are ready to bow to the decisions laid down by the Chair, and after the warning that this evening's discussion will afford to the printers and editors of newspapers, I feel that the object which I had in view will be as fully answered by letting the subject here drop, as by prosecuting it still further, especially as the hon. member for Middlesex has announced his intention of bringing the whole question before the House on a future occasion. I shall, however, feel it to be my duty, if a similar violation of the orders of this House should again take place, to call upon it to proceed against all parties who, after this notice, shall act in opposition to the feeling that has this evening been expressed.

Motion (by leave) withdrawn.