Mr. O'Connellrose to complain of a breach of privilege in a letter in The Times of this day, signed by the reporters of that journal, refusing to report him unless he apologized for having asserted, that some of the reports were designedly false, but as that was the truth, he had no apology to offer. He had had a similar collision in the case of the Catholic Association, when he had compelled the reporters to yield. The hon. Member alluded in detail, to two or three cases in which he asserted that the report of The Times had been designedly false.
§ Mr. Methuenobjected to entering into any statements relative to an individual.
§ The Speakerobserved, that in cases of Breach of Privilege, greater latitude was allowed to hon. Members than in other cases.
Mr. O'Connellthen proceeded to detail the cases which referred to two speeches—one of his own, and one of Mr. Hunt's, A speech of his on the Irish Poor Laws, had soon after been summed up in eighteen lines and a-half by the same reporter; and if it had not been for The Morning Post, it would not have been known in 7 Ireland. He was determined that the privileges of the House should not be trampled upon in his person. He had been accused of want of personal courage: but some Members had a great want of moral courage, which prevented them from grappling with the Press. There had even been a shrinking from it by the Government. There would be no difficulty about dealing with the individuals when they came to the bar, as the Speaker knew how to support the dignity of the House, and would be able to address them in the happiest terms. The report of last night had been very partial in The Times, and had done great injustice to his hon. friend near him, the learned member for Drogheda, who had raised himself by his literary talents. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that Mrs. Anna Brodie, James Lawson, and John Joseph Lawson, should be called to the bar of the House on Monday.
§ Mr. Humeseconded the Motion, not on the grounds which had been taken by the hon. and learned Mover, but that they might have the matter fully before them. He had frequently stated his opinions and wishes upon the subject. There were great occasions when the proceedings of the House were given exceedingly well; but there were many others when they were more neglected. It was extremely desirable that their constituents should not be deceived by erroneous statements. While persons were allowed to report what passed in that House, they were bound not to withhold the statements of any one Member. They might exercise their own discretion as to giving more or less of the arguments on any question, but they were not warranted in withholding the arguments of one Member, and in giving the arguments of another on the opposite side of the question. He had witnessed things of that kind with great regret; but he had always been of opinion, that the matter would find its own natural level in the estimation of public opinion. The noble Lord opposite (Althorp) would recollect that he had pressed on him the propriety of putting an end to that species of domination which now assumed a particular character, and which took upon itself to declare, that it would report so much of what took place and no more. He submitted to the noble Lord, that no one act of the Government was of more importance to the public than removing 8 the tax on newspapers, which would be the best remedy for this evil. It had been well-defined as the fourth power of the State—certainly it was a great power, but it ought to be honest, for there was as much mischief in the sin of omission as of commission. It was necessary that Members of this House should not be brought into collision with their constituents, and for these reasons he seconded the Motion; hoping that, as they had permitted the publication of their proceedings, the mere publication would not be considered as an offence, but the present form was adopted as the only one by which the House could take notice of it. He seconded it, in order that the House might express their opinion on the whole proceeding. He was exceedingly anxious to see two things—first, the removal of the tax on newspapers, which would destroy the monopoly; and, secondly, that the House should appoint an authorised person to report faithfully and honestly the proceedings, however shortly they might be reported. The proceedings in the Committee upon the Indian Bill, and on other important measures on which discussions had taken place, had been given very imperfectly. It was important not only to the Members themselves, but to the community, that the sentiments of the representatives should be known. Members of Parliament who did not attend Committees, were anxious to ascertain what had passed in them, and they had been accustomed to look to the public prints for information—at least as to the mere substance of the proceedings. Yet, in the Committee upon the East-India Bill, the proceedings of six hours had been comprised in six lines. The reports should either be faithful and honest, or the gallery should be closed, and the House could then come to some understanding as to what should be done. He knew nothing of the parties named in the letter in The Times, but the present Motion would raise the question whether they should be reported or not, and whether the reports should not be faithful, in order that the truth might go before the public.
§ Mr. Herbert Curteisput it to the hon. member for Dublin, if he could be serious in that part of his Motion which related to Mrs. Brodie. Mrs. Brodie was a most amiable and estimable lady, the widow of a clergyman, and deservedly beloved and 9 respected by all who knew her. She at least could have nothing to do with reporting or not-reporting the hon. member for Dublin; and he requested to know, therefore, if the hon. Member meant to persist in this part of his Motion, for if he (Mr. O'Connell) did, he (Mr. Curteis) was quite sure that no one with feelings of justice—not to say of gallantry—could vote with him.
§ Mr. O'Reillyrecommended the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the other part of his Motion. He really thought that a Motion founded on a breach of privilege ought not to be made by a man who could not come into court with clean hands. The charge brought against the Press in the present instance was, that every thing which the hon. and learned Member had chosen to say had not been reported; and the hon. and learned Member contended, that it was only due to the public, and to the Members of that House, that a fair report of what had occurred there should be published. Could the hon. and learned Member say, that he himself stood clear of the charge of having misrepresented, through the medium of the Press, the speeches of Members of that House, and of the proceedings which took place within its walls? Could the hon. and learned member for Dublin stand up, and declare with truth that he had not written letters?
§ The Speakercalled the hon. Member to order. He conceived that the hon. Member did not distinctly comprehend the nature of the question before the House. It related to a matter which was indisputably a breach of the privileges of that House, and could not be affected by the fact that those privileges had also been violated by other publications of the proceedings of the House. The observation of the hon. Member had no connexion with the question whether or not certain parties should be called to the Bar, and therefore the hon. Member was out of order.
§ Mr. O'Reillysaid, that he thought he might fairly go the length of declaring that it was more than questionable whether the privileges of that House had been really violated by the particular circumstance of which the hon. and learned Member complained. He was but a young-Member of the House, and if he were 10 wrong, he should, of course, yield to the general opinion; but he apprehended that the House could not punish the proprietors of any newspaper for not having reported the hon. and learned member for Dublin so fully as might be agreeable to him. Holding, then, that no breach of privilege had been committed by the non-publication of the hon. and learned Member's speeches, he should vote against the Motion, if it were pressed to a division.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that a resolution having been come to by a certain portion of the Press, that the speeches of a certain Member should not be reported, he really thought that the House could not pass over such a circumstance without notice. Before he proceeded further, he must say, that he could not concur in the charge which had been brought against the Press of not publishing accurate accounts of the speeches delivered in that House. On the contrary, he agreed with those who had borne testimony to the generally admirable manner in which the debates were reported. It frequently happened that Gentlemen did not think themselves sufficiently reported when they spoke upon subjects upon which public attention was not fixed. The newspapers, however, could not report every thing which was said in that House: it noticed only those questions which excited public interest; and when the reports were not given at length, they were in general succinctly and truly given. He admitted, that many questions were passed over without any notice at all; but he did not complain of that, nor did he quarrel with the reporters that they did not always give a full representation of the speeches spoken by Members of that House. It should always be born in mind, that hon. Members were extremely bad judges of the merits of their own speeches; and if they expected to find their speeches read admirably in the newspapers, they were likely to meet with frequent disappointments. But was it possible for the House to pass unnoticed the declaration made by the reporters for The Times newspaper—"that without any wish to prejudice the interests of the establishment, with which many of us have been long connected, and to which all of us are sincerely attached, we have deliberately resolved not to report any speech of Mr. O'Connell until he shall have retracted, as publicly as he made, the calumnious assertion that our 11 reports are 'designedly false?'" The question was not between the Press and Mr. O'Connell, but between the Press and the people of England. Could it be permitted that the reporters should declare to the people of England that, on account of words uttered by a Member of that House, calumnious though they might be—that because they felt themselves to be personally insulted by a false statement—therefore, the words of the hon. Member who had so insulted them should be suppressed on every occasion. Here was a positive Resolution agreed to and published by the reporters of a certain paper, not to report the hon. and learned member for Dublin's speeches—which were always interesting to the people of Ireland, and deserving of the attention of the House—because they had been calumniated by that hon. and learned Member. It was because he regarded this to be a proceeding which the House ought not to overlook, that he should support the proposed Motion, though he certainly would not countenance any Motion having for its object to impeach any individual for not giving a faithful account of the proceedings of Parliament. A charge of wilful misrepresentation was the only one to which he would give ear; but it should be recollected, that it would be extremely difficult to substantiate such a charge, because errors must occasionally creep into the reports from mistake. He did not support the Motion on the ground that the debates were not truly and correctly reported; but because he reprobated the publication of a declaration that nothing stated by an hon. Member should go forth to the public.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, he felt great objections at all times to the exercise of the privilege which the Members of that House possessed of calling any individual to the Bar to account for his conduct, and particularly in cases such as that under consideration. The power which the House possessed was so great, that he was anxious to see it exercised as little as possible, and with the greatest caution. He should certainly have opposed the Motion made yesterday, and he was about to offer himself to the notice of the House, when he was prevented by the judicious withdrawal of the Motion by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. But the question before them was totally different from the question before the 12 House yesterday; and he was bound to say, that he felt it his duty to give it his humble support, very much for the reasons stated by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Kircudbright, and more particularly upon the ground that it was an evident and gross breach of privilege for any individuals to presume to complain of a Member of that House calumniating them in his place in that House, and on that account to call on him to make an apology. He, therefore, felt himself bound, though not without great regret, to accede to the present Motion. He was sorry, that the hon. and learned Member had thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to the subject, because it was impossible that the speeches of the hon. and learned Member could be long suppressed, since the country to which he belonged must be desirous of learning what his sentiments were on the various questions which came under the consideration of the House. He was a person of great talent and ability, and must be attended to by the reporters. As to the suggestion which was made by some hon. Members to have authorized reporters employed by the House, he should be prepared, whenever it came before the House in the shape of a Motion, to oppose it. That was not, however, the proper time to discuss that subject, and he should, therefore, content himself with the declaration of his opinion, that the present system of reporting, when conducted with fairness, was amply sufficient to supply to the public that which was acknowledged on all hands to be so desirable—a representation of the proceedings of that House.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that when the hon. and learned Member brought this subject under the notice of the House yesterday, he (Lord Althorp) stated that he thought it one which ought to be passed over unnoticed; but he must admit, that he had also added, that in his opinion it was essential for the interest of the public that the debates in that House should, as far as possible, be impartially reported. He confessed that, in common with his hon. friend, he regretted the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member; and he thought it was likely to lead the House into considerable difficulty. But he must also admit, that if the hon. and learned Member was determined to persevere in his Motion, it was hardly possible—it was impossible—for the House, consistently 13 with a due regard to its own privileges, to reject it. He confessed, if he had been in the place of the hon. and learned Member, he should have treated the matter as unworthy of attention; but this was a question on which the hon. and learned Member must judge for himself, and he having brought under the notice of the House that which must be acknowledged to be a breach of privilege, he (Lord Althorp) did not see how it was possible for the House to avoid agreeing to the Motion submitted to it.
§ Motion agreed to.