§ Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a matter bearing upon its privileges, though not with the intention of making any motion on the subject at present. His object was to draw the attention of the House to the important nature of the question, so that no long period might be suffered to elapse without some steps being taken to provide against the recurrence of a similar state of things. He referred to the proceedings which had recently taken place in the Court of King's Bench, in the case of Mr. Hansard, the printer to that House. Agreeably to certain doctrines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice, on that trial, the plea of the defendant, setting forth the privileges of that House, had been set aside by the jury, and the plea on which the defendant had succeeded went only to the merits of the case. Now the decision of this case did appear to him to be of essential importance with reference to the privileges of that House. He could not see much difference in point of principle between the new method of selling the votes and papers of the House, and the former plan of distributing the votes to hon. Members, since the votes were certainly sent by hon. Members to every part of the kingdom; at all events they were printed. He conceived, therefore, 441 that the decision of the Chief Justice if carried to its full extent, would have the effect of placing them in this very peculiar situation, that supposing any hon. Member should think proper to lay on the table articles of impeachment against some officer of the Crown, whom he might deem worthy of impeachment, then these papers might furnish matter for an action for libel to the parties against whom they were presented, and the jury, guided by the former decision, that the privileges of the House of Commons could not be pleaded in justification, might decide upon the merits of the case as to the guilt or innocence of the hon. Member with respect to the libel. He had only put this as an extreme case, but there was no saying to what extent this doctrine, if fully carried out, might reach; for papers were continually laid upon the table of that House containing statements which materially affected the characters of individuals. He was in doubt whether it would be more proper that this question be referred to the Committee of Privileges, or that a Committee of a limited number of Members should be appointed to investigate the facts relating to it; at present, however, he merely made these remarks by way of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House, for it was desirable that their decision, whatever it were, should be as nearly unanimous as possible.
§ The Speakerhoped he might be allowed to state shortly, not the opinions which he held on this very important question, but the peculiar nature of the situation in which he was placed, with a view of eliciting some directions from the House by which he might shape his future course with respect to this matter. He had felt it his duty to pay as much attention as was in his power to the progress of the trial in question, and from the short- hand writers' notes of its more important parts, which he had procured, it appeared to him that the doctrine there laid down extended to an interference with the privileges of the House, and in consequence he was placed in a difficulty which he would state to the House. He had been applied to that morning to decide what number of copies of the Report of the Church Commission for Scotland it would be proper to have printed. Now if he directed that the number of copies printed should be precisely the number of Members of that House, still ft was obvious that many copies would 442 find their way into general circulation; but the number could not be limited by the numbers of that House, for it was indispensable that copies be supplied to certain public offices, and in other quarters. Indeed, it had been usual, in most cases to print as many as from 2,000 to 2,500 copies. Now, if an order or resolution of the House were passed directing him to have a certain number of copies of their papers printed, that would not only not tend to relieve the difficulty he felt, but, on the contrary, would very materially increase it; because he found, from the charge of the Lord Chief Justice, that by the construction which that learned judge was disposed to put upon the privileges of that House, the copies printed must be limited exclusively to the use of the Members of that House. If to exceed the number required for the House were to be adjudged to be a publication of papers printed by order of the House, then it became a question whether, in signing an order which should have such an effect, he should be subject to an action for libel. This, then, being, as it appeared the state of the law, that he was called upon to hold himself responsible, not to that House alone, but to the courts of Westminster-hall, for what he did in pursuance of his duty, he must say he did feel extremely anxious to receive some instructions from the House, by which he might learn what was the proper course for him to pursue.
§ Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, it was impossible not to agree with the noble Lord that this was a most important question. It struck at the root of every privilege belonging to the House of Commons; it came to this point, whether was the House amenable or not amenable to the Court of King's Bench—whether the Acts of that House lay within the cognizance of any other tribunal than that House. He was extremely astonished that the question had been mooted at all—the practice of printing for circulation papers relating to that House not being, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, a new practice, but, on the contrary, for a hundred and fifty years these publications had been continually made under the orders of the House. The orders of that House had been ordered to be printed, not for the use of Members merely, but of the public; and not only these papers but also information which had been given at the bar of the House, had been directed to be 443 printed. He might instance the case of Dangerfield, where the information was ordered to be printed, and the profits to be applied to the use of the informer. No notice was taken of this at the time, but about five or six years afterwards, when Charles 2nd determined to govern without Parliament, an information was filed against the Speaker for certain expressions contained in that publication, and alleged to constitute a libel on the Duke of York. The Speaker had pleaded that he acted under the orders of the House; the plea, however, was overruled, and judgment passed against him; but at the Revolution that decision had been expressly stated as forming one of the grievances of the House of Commons. The judgment itself had shortly afterwards been voted by the House to be illegal, and a violation of the privileges of the House; and the Lords, at a conference had subsequently agreed to that vote. A similar vote had been passed by the House with reference to a similar judgment in the case of Topham, who had pleaded the order of the House. He agreed entirely with the observation of the noble Lord, and with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, that if the sale by order of the House might be questioned the printing by the order of the House might equally be questioned. It did appear to him, therefore, that means should be adopted for prosecuting an inquiry into this matter.
Mr. O'Connellthought that this conversation should not be continued. He had not the slightest doubt of the course which the House ought to pursue, and he had not the slightest doubt that the Chief Justice was wrong in the opinion which he had pronounced, if indeed he had pronounced it. It was impossible for the publication of matter before that House to be libellous. They represented the people of all England, they were for practical purposes the people of all England, and any information given to them was in fact given to the people of England, and for the people of England, and the people of England had an indisputable right to receive it, and that House was under the imperative obligation of seeing that they did receive it. The right hon. Gentleman in the chair had mentioned that there was a report on the church of Scotland in print, and about to be issued. This report the Members for Scotland would com- 444 municate to their constituencies—nay more, they must communicate it to their constituencies. Now they could do this in two ways only—by writing or verbally; and if the privilege of that House could not protect a writer of evidence taken before it from an action for libel neither could it protect a speaker of the truth, diffusing knowledge of testimony given before Committees, from an action for slander. If the House could not shield its Members and its officers from the penalties which the noble judge had declared would attend the circulation of Parliamentary documents or Parliamentary information, then that House could not perform its functions and it became necessary that it should be invested forth with with the power which was wanting to it. He was sorry that the learned Lord had so mistaken the law, and had so mistaken the constitution, of which he should have been the tenderest guardian. If the servant of the House had suffered loss, he ought at once to be compensated. According to the odious principle that truth was a libel if an indictment had been preferred against Mr. Hansard, that servant of the House must have been convicted, and would necessarily be about to receive the sentence of the King's Bench for having done his duty by that House; for, be it recollected, no plea of justification was admitted, where an indictment was the form of remedy selected by the person aggrieved; and thus Mr. Hansard would have had no defence. He hoped that steps would immediately be taken to set matters right, and that the principle would be boldly asserted that any matter brought before the House might be communicated with perfect safety.
§ Mr. Harveydid not understand the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, to have stated that that House had not the privilege of publishing its proceedings in as many shapes or as many copies as it thought proper: but the question was whether that House, being an integral part of the Constitution, through which laws were made, had the power to reserve to itself the right of violating the laws it was a party to make? The very circumstance of this judicial opinion might lead to the consideration of the question of what was libel. Happy and valuable would be the determination upon such a question, for at present nothing could be more unsettled, nothing was less determined, nothing bearing less the stamp and 445 impress of sound sense than that which Constituted the law of libel. He was satisfied that the law of libel should be made definite and intelligible, and founded on some principle of common sense. The question then would be, whether the House should reserve to itself the right of violating that law which it should be the first to uphold and obey? If it were to do so, the character of every man in the country would be at the mercy of the House. It had been observed, by an hon. Gentleman, that in case of injury let there be compensation, but who was to determine the amount of it? Was there to be an inquisitorial tribunal appointed by the House for that purpose? This was a most important subject, and he could not bring himself to believe that those who were law makers should be allowed to be the first to set the law at defiance.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, in explanation, that the hon. Member for Southwark was quite mistaken on the subject. The question was, whether such a law as had been referred to by him was in existence. There was no statute regarding this part of the law of libel, it was the common law of the land.
§ The Speakersuggested that it would be more convenient, if the House did not at present proceed further with the discussion.
§ Mr. Charles Bullerwished the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to state what course he intended to pursue with regard to this subject.
§ Lord John Russellreplied, that he would give notice to-morrow evening on the subject, and state what he intended to propose.