BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF PUBLISHING PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES. (Hansard, 1 June 1832)

Mr. Stanley
said, there were two questions concerned—the one was, to satisfy the House that its Privileges had been infringed on; the other, to satisfy it that none of its own officers, or persons connected with the House, were concerned in that infringement. The first question had been settled by committing Mr. Sheehan to the custody of the Serjeant-at 311 Arms; and, to elucidate the other, he proposed to give the officers of the House an opportunity, by calling them to the Bar, of vindicating themselves from having taken any part in this transaction. The House might then learn what security it had, and what security the country had, that such transactions should not again occur. He proposed to call first to the Bar the officer of the House to whose department the distribution of Reports belonged, and if he stated that he received twenty copies in the whole, and could prove that he distributed them, then he would be vindicated, and all about the House would be vindicated. No person could doubt that a great infringement of the privileges of the House had taken place, by whomever committed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that Mr. Whittam, the Committee Clerk, be called to the Bar.

Mr. Whittam
was called accordingly, and stated, in answer to questions from the Speaker and various other Members, that he was the Clerk to the Committee sitting to inquire into the subject of Irish tithes; that he had received the draft of the Report, which he had transmitted through the Journal Office, in the usual manner, to be printed. He had not sealed it; he had attached a piece of paper, describing what was to be done, and delivered it into the Journal Office. It was left there open on Mr. Bull's desk. He had received twenty-four copies of the printed draft sealed up. Twenty were sealed up together. He had distributed twenty copies among the Members of the Committee, and to distribute them he had sent to Mr. Bellamy, the under door-keeper. Of the four others he had given one to the Member who said, he had not received his copy; one was disposed of by the direction of the Chairman, the Chairman got a second copy, and he had one himself. He believed it was the 14th of May when he delivered the draft into the Journal Office, and he did not believe that any person could have had access to it there to copy it. It was not common to find the Journal Office without a Clerk. It was Friday se'nnight that he forwarded the copies to the Members. When he heard that Mr. Lefroy's copy was not delivered, he inquired of the porter, and he said the copies had been delivered. A witness examined before the Committee was anxious to have a copy of the draft shown to him, which 312 he declined; the gentleman pressed it, and he told him that it was a request he ought not to make. That gentleman was Mr. Mahoney. When he saw the porter who took out the copies, he was drunk. He was not an official messenger; his name was Butler, and he was employed by the lower door-keeper. He delivered the copies to a porter to give to the lower door-keeper, who had to distribute them. They were not all delivered by one porter.

Mr. Bull,
the Clerk of the Journal Office, stated, that he received the draft, not sealed up, but in the ordinary form in which papers of that kind were transmitted to him. In general, he received such papers personally, not being much away from his office. It was wrapped up in paper. In general he received such papers back from the printer about four or five o'clock. He directed no more than twenty-four copies to be printed. They were sent back, he believed, to the Committee Clerk.

Mr. Hansard,
the Printer to the House of Commons, received the draft from the Journal Office, on Monday, the 14th, about noon. He received directions from Mr. Bull, in the envelope, for the printing. He had printed thirty copies; twenty-four were sent to the Journal Office, and six kept in reserve, in case they were needed. The twenty-four were sent, under sealed covers, and put into the hands of Mr. Whittam. They were directed to Mr. Bull; but he not being in the way, they were given to Mr. Whittam. The other six, which were kept in reserve, remained in his custody under his lock and key. He was perfectly certain that no person could have taken a copy from his premises. That was so extremely difficult, that he might almost say, it was impossible for a copy to be surreptitiously obtained from his premises. The whole business was under his general superintendence, though he did not personally superintend the paper in question.

Henry Rees,
a porter, had received the copies from Mr. Whittam, and delivered them to the lower door-keeper; they were sealed up, and in separate papers. He was not applied to for a copy by any person.

Mr. William Bellamy,
the lower doorkeeper, received twenty copies through Rees, sealed up, which he distributed. He gave them to porters to deliver. They were divided amongst five porters to distribute, according to districts; he did 313 not know how many were given to each porter, but he gave the twenty copies among the five porters; after the delivery, he made no inquiry, and kept no account or record of papers intrusted to him to be delivered; the porters did not belong to the House, and he hardly knew what control he had over them. He could suspend them—that was, not employ them; he was responsible for the delivery, and he employed these porters. When he heard that Mr. Lefroy's packet had not arrived, he had spoken to the porter Butler about it, who said he had delivered all his packets. He was not always present when the porters took away the parcels to distribute; on this occasion he was present when the porters took away the parcels, but he did not count them. Butler appeared to him to be sober; he had frequently carried out papers, and had not been complained of; he had been complained of before, and suspended. Strangers could not possibly know what these packets contained. There was no difference made in the distribution of sealed papers and the ordinary parliamentary papers; they were all distributed in the same manner. Witness withdrew.

Mr. Stanley
thought it was not necessary to prosecute the inquiry any further. It was not requisite to call Butler, the porter, before them, for they should get no more information. He had been before the Committee, and declared, that only two copies had been given to him, both of which he delivered. It was impossible to find out whether the fault lay with Bellamy, or with the porter. His object was answered if he had satisfied the House that a considerable degree of looseness prevailed in the distribution of papers, and that a remedy should be applied.

§ The Speaker
thought it was not possible to specify precisely who was in fault. It was proper, however, to call the attention of the House to the course of proceeding, which appeared not precisely proper when secresy was most to be desired, and the motives to violate it were the strongest. It appeared that nothing was more secure than such papers in proceeding from the Committee through the Journal Office, and till their return to the Committee, but that they were exposed to hazard after leaving the Committee, on being sent for distribution. It would be proper, therefore, for the members of the Committee to apply for such papers, and 314 the Clerk should only deliver them to the members of the Committee when applied for.

Mr. Stanley
suggested, in addition, that it would be proper that the Clerk should inform the members of such a Committee when the papers were ready for delivery.

§ Lord Althorp
said, some precaution should be taken in sending reports or other documents to the Journal Office. Such papers should not be suffered to lie on an open desk.

Mr. Baring
hoped, that the suggestion of the Speaker would only be adopted in cases where great secresy was necessary. If it were acted on generally, it would be productive of much inconvenience.

§ The Speaker
said, it was only intended to apply to cases where the preservation of secresy was absolutely necessary.

§ Mr. Shaw
rose, to present a petition from Mr. Thomas Sheehan, who had been, committed for a Breach of Privilege, to which he desired to call the attention of the House. With respect to the breach of privilege charged against that individual, he thought he should be able satisfactorily to show, that, at the time the publication in question took place, Mr. Sheehan did not know that he was committing a breach of privilege. Of the breach of privilege committed by publishing the proceedings of that House he was guilty, but of no other crime. That, however, was not the breach of privilege with which he stood charged, as appeared from the votes of the night. The breach of privilege, as declared in the votes, was for publishing in The Dublin Evening Mai a Report, purporting to be the Second Report of the Committee of that House on the subject of Tithes in Ireland, the same not having been presented to the House; and also for refusing to inform the House from whom he obtained the copy of the said Report. The publication contained words to the effect, that the Select Committee, appointed for the purpose, had considered the matter, and agreed to the Report. He did not mean to justify this statement; it was very improper and indiscreet. But Mr. Sheehan did not know that the Report had not virtually received the sanction of the Committee, and it received the sanction of the Committee the Friday after; and Mr. Sheehan, as editor of the paper, very naturally wished to enable his paper to boast of earlier intelligence than was possessed by 315 contemporary journals. There was nothing on the face of the Report itself to indicate that it was secret; it was printed; it commenced with stating, that the Committee had agreed to that as their Report, and the offence of the individual, therefore, was certainly not one of an aggravated nature; for he stated, most positively, that he did not know the Report was only in progress. He also stated, that it was not, either directly or indirectly, given to him by any officer of that House. It resolved itself, therefore, merely into just such a breach of privilege as was every day committed by the publication of the Debates. It was an advantage to an editor to get the earliest possible intelligence of such a document; this was the only motive by which he was actuated, and this certainly was a very venial offence. With regard to the second breach of privilege: Suppose Mr. Sheehan had received a copy of the Report from any individual; if he answered the question, Where did you get it? he must necessarily criminate that individual; and he thought the House would feel, that it was much more honourable for him to decline. It was to be observed, also, that he absolved all officers of that House from any imputation. The Report was just at the point of completion when sent by Mr. Sheehan; indeed, on the very morning when it was sent, he met a gentleman, not at all connected with the business, who told him, as a matter of public news, that the Report had been agreed to by the Tithe Committee. Mr. Sheehan begged pardon of the House for the breach of privilege of which he had been guilty, and he hoped the House would consider how constantly its privileges were violated by the Press, and that it would be a harsh, if not an unjust measure, to select one individual, and punish him for a crime which was shared by so many others, especially when they considered the really private documents which had been recently brought before the public, in the newspapers, with impunity.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that although it was the duty of the House to enforce the principle of secresy, yet it ought also to take the circumstances of the case into consideration. If Mr. Sheehan had published as a Report to which the Committee had agreed, one which was not prepared or what was only a mere sketch of a 316 Report, then he might be inclined to visit him severely. But, in the present instance, the Report which he published had not been obtained surreptitiously—it had actually been prepared and printed, and his only violation of privilege was, his desire to publish prematurely a Report which had not received the previous formal sanction of the Committee, but which was within twenty-four hours of doing so. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would visit it with a lenient eye. Many newspapers had been suffered by that House to violate the seals of confidence in a more flagrant manner. Mr. Sheehan had merely published an intended Report, for he would assert that it was an intended Report.

Mr. Stanley
said, that it was not an intended Report; it was merely a Report prepared by himself for the consideration of the members of the Committee.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that the right hon. Secretary would have an opportunity of answering. Mr. Sheehan might have committed a breach of privilege, in refusing to answer the question as to the individual from whom he obtained it, but he could not have done so without a breach of private honour. It was not obtained surreptitiously, and he could not but consider it as a very venial breach of privilege.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the hon. and learned Member was in error, in treating the Draft Report as the Draft of the Committee; it was the Draft, not of the Committee, but of his right hon. friend, who drew it. The hon. Gentleman might as well call a Resolution which any Member might have in his pocket, with the intention of submitting it to the House, the Resolution of that House, as to call that Draft the Report of the Committee. He was of opinion Mr. Sheehan had stated truly, that he was not aware of the fact, that the Report which he had published had not been regularly agreed to by the Committee, and therefore, that the offence which he had committed in that respect was a very venial one, and ought to be overlooked. If, therefore, the matter had ended there, he felt no difficulty in avowing, that his opinion was, the petitioner ought at once to be discharged. The only difficulty, however, which remained was, the position in which the House was placed, in regard to its capacity to call up witnesses and examine them as 317 to any acts which it was necessary to establish. In this case a witness had been called to their bar, who, on being interrogated as to certain circumstances, had positively refused to give an answer to the questions which were put to him; and, if that refusal could be persisted in with impunity, and the House were to forego the power which it possessed of punishing such contumacy, he felt that the inquisitorial power of the House to elicit such facts as might be of importance to the nation, or to public business, was at once at an end. In the case before the House he felt a great difficulty, because he must admit to the hon. member for Dublin, that the instance in which the petitioner had refused to give an answer to the interrogation was one where every gentleman would have refused to give an answer, at all risks. Taking, therefore, all these circumstances into consideration, he should not feel disposed to oppose the petition; at the same time, in order that the House might not establish a precedent, by the example of which any future witness might be induced to refuse answers to the questions which were put to them, he thought it would be better, if the hon. member for Dublin founded any motion on the petition for the discharge of the petitioner, to append to that motion the words, 'that the Speaker be requested, at the same time, to admonish Mr. Sheehan.'

Mr. C. W. Wynn
did not accord in the belief which was entertained, that the copy of the Report which had been used by the petitioner had not been surreptitiously obtained. It was clear that two copies of the number distributed had not found their way to the members of the Committee for whom they were intended; and, in order to clear the officers of the House from any participation in his offence, the petitioner declared that he had not ob-obtained his copy surreptitiously from any of them; but he tells the House, at the same time, that he would not divulge the name of the party from whom he had received it. Such an answer would not be admitted as valid in any Court of Justice, and he knew no reason why that House should entertain it; if they did, he saw no possibility of their preserving their inquisitorial power—a power which it was of the highest importance to preserve inviolate.

Mr. O'Connell
did not look at the case in the same point of view that was taken 318 of it by the right hon. Member who spoke last. The petitioner had thrown himself on the mercy of the House, and had acknowledged himself to be in fault. He had, it was admitted, refused only to do that which any other Gentleman would have refused to do; and his willingness to submit to confinement rather than infringe an honourable confidence, ought to obtain him credit for his declaration, that he had not obtained the document surreptitiously. Under these circumstances, he considered the honour of the House to have been sufficiently vindicated by the twenty-four hours' restraint which Mr. Sheehan had suffered; and he was disposed to concur in the prayer of the petition, as well as in any motion which might be made in favour of the petitioner. He thought, however, the hon. member for Dublin would do well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and that the Speaker should be authorized to warn the petitioner how he again trespassed on the privileges of the House.

Mr. James E. Gordon
said, there was a precedent in the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King, who in his examination before the House of Commons, positively refused to answer Mr. Brougham's question with respect to the secret symbol of the Orange Clubs in Ireland, and who had yet been suffered to go from the Bar. This was a sufficient precedent if one were needed in the present case.

§ Mr. John Campbell
suggested the probability that the porter had dropped the copies in question. It would be hard to send a man to Newgate for refusing to do that which he could not do without dishonour.

§ Mr. Leader
considered, that the circumstances of the case ought to operate in favour of a mitigation of punishment.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that there was no mark on the Report by which any individual could have divined that it was a secret document. Mr. Sheehan's refusal to answer the question as to whence he derived his copy, was grounded upon a principle of honour which he thought extenuated his offence. He therefore trusted, that the hon. member for Dublin would follow up the petition by moving for the petitioner's discharge.

Mr. Stanley
said, that he was sure the House would believe him when he stated, that in the whole course of this proceeding he had been influenced by nothing in the 319 shape of personal motives, and that he was only performing a duty imposed upon him by the Committee, who had felt themselves called upon to take up the matter. He certainly believed Mr. Sheehan's statement, that he considered the Report to be a public document when he obtained possession of it, for when that person was called before the Committee, in the first instance, he (Mr. Stanley) had been the first to point out to him the circumstance that there was an entire absence of all appearance on the face of the Report that it was a secret document. He thought, therefore, that that part of the case ought to be regarded merely as one of those breaches of privilege that are daily occurring in the House. With respect to the refusal of the petitioner to answer the interrogatories of the House, he was of opinion that, if the House was disposed to vindicate its power in that respect, it would be advisable that the suggestion of his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be attended to, in the event of the hon. member for Dublin moving for the petitioner's discharge.

§ Mr. Shaw
moved, that Mr. Sheehan be discharged from the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, upon the payment of his fees.

Mr. Knight
seconded the Motion.

Mr. Stevenson
moved, that Mr. Sheehan should be admonished for refusing to answer the question put to him.

§ Lord Althorp
certainly thought that Mr. Sheehan should be called to the Bar and admonished by the Speaker, in order that the matter might not be drawn into a precedent. He must say, that the individual, whoever he was, that had communicated this document to Mr. Sheehan, had not only committed a breach of the privileges of that House, but had done that which was very discreditable to him as an individual.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
still thought, that they should support the inquisitorial power of the House, and he did not see how they could enforce that power hereafter if they dealt with this case in the manner proposed.

§ Mr. Shaw
said, that after the indulgent manner in which the House had received the Motion, he should not think of objecting to the Amendment.

§ The Speaker
in the dignified manner for which he is so eminently remarkable, thus addressed him:—"Thomas Sheehan, the very serious breach of privilege which you have committed against this House, in presuming to publish a pretended Report from a Committee of this House, coupled with the fresh breach of privilege of which you were yesterday guilty, in refusing to answer the questions of this House, when you were required to state by what means you became possessed of the document which you so put forth as a Report of that Committee, left this House, in justice to itself and to the public, no other alternative than to commit you to the custody of its Serjeant.—The House has, however, now read your petition, wherein you pray to be released from the custody of its Officer, and also the explanation contained therein of the circumstances which you set forth, and of the view which you had in putting forth the pretended Report to which I have referred. You therein state, that you were, at the time of so doing entirely ignorant that the Report was of a secret nature, and that it was not at that moment sanctioned by the Committee, from which you pretended it to have come. You say also, that you were induced to publish that pretended Report, in consequence of your anxiety to anticipate others in the gratification of the public curiosity. The House is ready to believe that your assertions are entirely correct. With respect to the latter part of the petition which you have caused to be presented, you therein state, that you did not procure the pretended Report in question by the means of any Officer, or other person connected with this House. The House is anxious to believe that you consider this statement in your petition to be an answer to the question which was yesterday put to you, and to which you refused then to reply; for it would be impossible that this House, in maintaining its privileges, or in justice to the country, should do otherwise than commit to custody, and there retain him, any person who should contumaciously refuse to answer any interrogatory which the House may deem necessary to put to him. Believing, therefore, that part of your statement, and hoping also that, from whatever quarters you derived your information, the 321 same mistake existed in the mind of the individual who communicated to you the pretended Report in question, the House is inclined to treat you with the utmost lenity, more, perhaps, than strict justice might warrant; but, in perfect reliance on your statement, and feeling guarded against any future repetition of your offence, by you or any other person, has directed me, after this admonition, to acquaint you that you are discharged from the custody of the Serjeant on payment of his fees."

Mr. Sheehan
left the Bar.

§ Lord Althorp
rose to move, that the Speaker's admonition to Mr. Sheehan be entered on the Journals, and in doing this he could not avoid expressing his sense of admiration of the terms in which the Speaker had conveyed the House's admonition to Mr. Sheehan.