HC Deb 09 March 1840 vol 52 cc1068-80

Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Publication of Printed Papers Bill.

On the order being read,

Sir E. Sugden

said, that on a former occasion he had stated his reasons for opposing the bill; not that he disapproved of the bill, but because he could not obtain from the noble Lord opposite any assurance that he would accompany that measure by another which would prevent the publication of defamatory matter. That was the reason why he voted against the bill, and not that he disapproved of the proposed measure. He had a motion fixed for Thursday next, when he intended to move for the appointment of a com- mittee, to consider and report to the House what steps should be taken in order to guard against the proceedings of the House, which it might think it necessary to publish, containing matter criminatory of individuals; and whether it was expedient to discontinue, or to place under any and what restrictions, the sale of such of the proceedings of the House as might be published. His object was to save individual character from defamation, and he would, where criminatory matter affecting individuals was contained in any printed papers of the House, prevent the extension of those papers by sale. But that was a matter which could be settled by the committee which sat upon printed papers. He would state to the House the the checks which he believed would be sufficient to prevent such papers from being sold, which papers unnecessarily contained defamatory matters as to personal character. These were the "votes" and proceedings of the House, some of which contained an appendix, and others a supplement. He would not object to the sale of the votes as at present, for the judges admitted that the right of the House to publish votes stood upon grounds totally different to the publication which originated the proceedings in Stockdale v. Hansard. With respect to the publication of the votes, there had always existed a guarantee against these papers containing defamatory matter, because it was directed that they should be first perused and finally signed by the Speaker, so that the House provided for their accuracy by declaring that before their issue, they should be previously sanctioned by the Speaker. Hence it followed that, by the vigilance which had been exercised with regard to the votes, no additional checks were required for those papers, and with respect to them he proposed no alteration. Next, as to the appendix, that could be remedied by the committee, although committees had not been always sufficiently guarded in preventing calumny upon individual character appearing in these documents; but they had themselves published, on one occasion, a paper which had contained the foulest libel upon a judge and jury. However, if these appendices were made subject to the control of a committee, there would be no doubt that they would exercise a cautious control over such publications as were unnecessarily oppressive to personal character; but when the public good required such charges to be made public, then, of course, individual interest must give way to the general good. What he contended for was, that when such necessity did not exist, the House should not wantonly asperse and injure the characters of individuals. In the vigilance of a public petition committee, he would rely with regard to the appendices to petitions. There was another class of paper to which he wished to call the attention of the House. These were the supplements which contained those petitions which were ordered by the House to be printed. That was a class of published papers which required checking. A Member rose and moved, that a certain petition be printed; the Speaker said, that the petition could not be printed unless the Member intended to make it the groundwork of a motion; the Member acquiesced, and on the following morning the petition, containing perhaps the grossest libels and the foulest calumnies, was circulated throughout the country. The check he moved for would be a very simple one, and that was, that no petition should be printed with the supplement, except such as were read at the table of the House, or such as were perused and signed by the Speaker. That would not be attended with the labour which might be apprehended, for he (Sir E. Sugden) would very reluctantly impose additional duties upon the right hon. Gentleman. The labour would be found to be very light, because, when the public knew that petitions were to become subject to such scrutiny, and were liable and likely to be rejected, by reason of their containing defamatory matter, the parties forwarding such petitions would be cautious in preparing them, because they would find that the power of libelling with impunity would be guarded against. This, in a short time, would prevent anything like additional labour being imposed upon the officers of the House. As to the bills which might be introduced into the House, or which might pass that House, no danger was apprehended, because there could not exist the possibility of any libellous matter finding its way into these bills. There were other papers to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. Those papers consisted of reports, those made by Members of the House, and those reports made by officers appointed by the Crown, who were responsible to the Government, and whom the Government would check as to the contents of their reports. Those papers proceeding from committees of the House, and from committees of inquiry, both required checks. There was a check which he would take leave to suggest with respect to reports emanating from committees of the House, and that was, that the committee should state in the report whether or not there existed matter in that report which ought not to be made public, or which involved the personal character of any individual. That being embodied in the report would attract the attention of the House as to the propriety or necessity of publishing the particular report. The safety of the public, and of the House itself required such security against publication. In commissions of inquiry it would be important that the commissioners should also state in the body of their reports if there were any particular report which ought not to be published generally, and the Government would take care that such report did not generally appear. By these means all the publications of the House would have such checks as would satisfy the the public that they were not likely to be damaged by the sale of the printed papers; and he hoped that the noble Lord opposite would consent that some such measure as he then suggested would accompany his Bill, and for that reason he would recommend to the noble Lord and to the House the appointment of a Committee of publication similar to that which already existed with respect to printed papers—that committee to have the control of the number of papers that should be or should not be printed. At present the directions of the House were to sell all the papers, but there was no control as to the number to be sold. To the sale of the papers he did not object, provided proper precautions with respect to the public were taken; and, indeed, he did not think that a better course could be pursued for the circulation of the proceedings of the House than the sale of the papers, which were sold at one-third original cost. To the sale of the papers, provided these checks were applied, he was favourable, as an excellent mode of circulation. With the Bill before the House he thought it better not to interfere, but to leave it in the hands of the Government; and, for that reason, the papers containing his views upon this subject he would hand over to the noble Lord; and if the noble Lord would himself move for these or similar checks, or would take time to consider them, he should be satisfied, and he believed that when the noble Lord would give these checks his serious attention there was no doubt but he would accede to the suggestions proposed. However, if the noble Lord would not accede to these suggestions, he should feel it his duty—a painful duty, he would acknowledge—to vote against the third reading. As to that clause which the noble Lord intended to introduce respecting actions then pending against the Sergeant-at-Arms, the noble Lord had not furnished any information, and had made no statements to the House. Although the jurisdiction of the House had been unquestioned by every constitutional writer and lawyer who had written or spoken upon the subject, and though the jurisdiction of the House might be perfect, yet the execution of that jurisdiction might be imperfect; and the officers of the House, in executing its orders, might have exceeded their orders, and hence made themselves liable to an action. For that reason it would be unjust to deprive the subject of the protection of the law against what might be considered an improper execution on the part of the officers of the House. Their privileges secured the House against an action, but the execution of its orders did not and could not secure their officers against the consequence of an excess in that execution. He therefore hoped that the noble, Lord would not retain that clause in the Bill.

Mr. Warburton

hoped that the questions as to the Bill before the House, and the restrictions which the House would impose upon the publication of the printed papers would be considered quite distinct questions. It would not be fair to the Members of that House that they should be called upon to place the printing and publishing of the papers under duress in order to induce parties in that House to pass the Bill. They were not probably called upon to offer a premium for passing the Bill. The vigilance of the Committee as at present constituted, and the rules and regulations of the House, were guarantees amply sufficient, with any additional restrictions such as those suggested by the hon. and learned Member. He was glad to find that the hon. and learned Member was favourable to the sale of the printed papers as the most efficacious means of circulating the proceedings of the House. To the Committee of censors suggested by the learned Gentleman he was opposed—first, because the duty could not be done by reason of the voluminous publications not affording time or opportunity; and secondly, because that duty would not be discharged on account of the time and labour necessary for the discharge of that duty. Many Committees had suppressed much of the facts which came before them, on account of the injury which the publication of them would Occasion to individuals. By the Committees which sat on affairs respecting slavery in the West Indies a great deal of the evidence had been suppressed; and he believed that the fitness for publication of these facts which might be subject to their review would be amply secured by the respective Committees. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. and learned Member would resume his seat at the Committee from which he had recently seceded.

Mr. Hume

said that it had been his lot to sit upon committees; and, if the hon. and learned Member opposite had had experience of the working of committees, and their mode of discharging their duties, he would find that there did not exist any necessity for several of the recommendations or suggestions which he had given. He was rejoiced to hear the testimony of the hon. and learned Member as to the benefit accruing to the public by the sale of the publications. For his own part, since the papers had been sold he had himself experienced the greatest relief, because persons who on former occasions used to apply to him for the reports had thus an opportunity of furnishing themselves with those documents at a cheap rate. The storehouse contained 2,200,000 volumes, and it was of the highest advantage to the public to have access to that treasury of information.

The Attorney-General

was rejoiced to find that the bill was likely to have the support of the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon, and he concurred with many of the opinions which had teen delivered by that Tight hon. and learned Gentleman as to the publication of the printed papers. It was necessary that everybody should know what were the proceedings of the House, and the only way by which that knowledge could be communicated was by the sale of the publications, which could alone prevent that waste which necessarily arose from the former mode of distribution. If the hon. and learned Member for Ripon would resume his labours in the committee, of which he had been such a useful Member, he could give such suggestions as he deemed requisite, which would no doubt receive from the committee all that attention which was due to the source from which they proceeded. His object in rising upon that occasion was to guard against any prejudice which might exist as to the clause which went to stay actions then in progress against the Sergeant-at-Arms. Into the merits of the clause he would not, however, enter; but he considered it desirable that such a clause should be introduced, for when that clause was carried everything would be settled, for it had reference only to those vexatious actions which had been or might be brought to harass the officers of the House. On that supposition there were numerous precedents in existence for stopping actions by the authority of Parliament. There had been, for instance, a great number of actions stopped which had been brought under the Non-residence Act; and a great number, also, which had been brought against printers. These actions were quoad vexatious, and they were stopped as such by the authority of Parliament. If, then, these actions were stayed by this authority, he (the Attorney-General) did not see why actions of the same nature should not be stayed against the Sergeant-at-Arms. That the actions in question were vexatious, brought to raise the question of privilege, to test the powers of the House of Commons, and not to obtain a remedy for any real grievance, was beyond a doubt; and, therefore, in his opinion, all persons who wished well to the constitution of the country should be glad that these harassing proceedings were about to be put an end to.

Mr. Darby

would not enter into the question of the principle of the bill but he wished to know what was the intention of the noble Lord opposite with respect to the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ripen? He should not oppose the second reading, but unless something were done to ensure the security of parties against libels, as suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend, take an opportunity of making a proposition to accomplish that in committee. The public were entitled to that security; and he hoped that it would be a real, and not a fictitious, one which was offered them.

Sir R. Peel

—Sir, I rise merely to point out what should have been stated some time since, that some of those who have taken the strongest part in asserting the privileges of this House have also not overlooked every other consideration, but, on the contrary, have done all they could, in the preliminary matter which led to these proceedings, to except individual character from injury. And I think I can most satisfactorily vindicate myself from any charge of that nature. For when the report of the committee of 1837 was made to this House on the subject of our privileges, as Involved in the present question, at my suggestion these words were appended to it. And I now wish to be permitted to read them to the House, to show that some, at least, of those who have been the most strenuous supporters of its privileges have also been the last to desire to assert them to the injury of individuals, or the prejudice of private character. In the concluding pages of the report of March 8, 1837, I find the following remarks:— In concluding their report, your committee feel it incumbent upon them to observe that, although they have expressed a decided opinion that it is absolutely essential to the effective discharge of the most important functions of the House of Commons that the privilege of publication should exist without restriction, and that the authority to determine the extent of that privilege and the occasion for exercising it should rest exclusively with Parliament, they are not insensible to the evil which may arise from an incautious printing of Parliamentary documents, in cases wherein the character of individuals is involved, and wherein no public necessity calls for publication, or no opportunity is afforded to the party affected to give an immediate answer to the inculpation. Your committee are aware that, without the previous sanction of this House, no publication of its proceedings can be privileged; and that all presumption, therefore, of malicious motives is excluded; neither have they the slightest doubt that, if the attention of Parliament were directed to each individual case, ample precautions would be taken against the infliction of unnecessary pain, and still more against the possible case that the privilege of Parliament may be abused for the mere gratification of resentments connected with personal or party differences. But, amidst the pressure of the important and multi- farious business which occupy its attention, it is impossible to exercise, on all occasions, that precautionary vigilance which might effectually guard against the evil to which we have thus adverted. Much, therefore, must depend upon the discretion and sense of justice or individual Members respecting the presentation and printing of petitions, and of the chairmen and members of committees of inquiry in respect to the prosecution of their inquiries, and particularly in respect to the printing of the evidence which may affect private character, until the opportunity be given of rebutting it. To prescribe any positive rule upon such a subject is manifestly impossible. The invariable adherence to such a rule might protect public delinquents from a disclosure of their misconduct, or prevent the notoriety of facts important to the ends for which inquiry wag instituted. It appeals, however, to your committee (and they think the practical experience of Members will support the conclusion td which they have come) that it would not be difficult, on a mature consideration of each case wherein the exercise of a discretion may be called for, so to apply it, in the great majority of instances, as completely to reconcile all proper regard for the character and feelings of individuals with the faithful and effectual discharge of public functions. The more essential the privilege the more urgent the necessity for an exclusive and unfettered authority in deciding upon the exercise and the limits of it, the more important and the more becoming is it to take as much precaution as possible against the infliction of individual injury or unnecessary pain to private feelings. And that this has not been an idle boast, I can bear witness; for I myself have seen, on more than one occasion, the exercise of a similar sound discretion by Committees of this House. I have known a case when reflections cast upon the character of an individual in the evidence taken before a Committee of this House were suppressed in the publication of that evidence and the report of that Committee; and I have known another case where, when a public officer was accused of misconduct, the accusation was suppressed until the party accused had notice, and was permitted to put in his justification. I think, generally, that this rule ought to be followed; and I think, moreover, that in cases of presenting petitions to this House Containing allegations against individuals the greatest care should be taken so as to inflict as little pain as possible. There are cases, no doubt, in which the infliction of pain becomes unavoidable from their necessity; the case of the public officer to which I have alluded, for instance, and others of an analogous character. But this general rule should, in my opinion, be strictly adhered to and observed, that no pain should be inflicted gratuitously. The stronger our claim of privilege may be, and the more incontestable our right, the more urgent and imperative it is upon us, and the greater it is our duty, to see that no injury be done to individuals. I am sure that it is a rule that all will be unanimous in affirming. I do not mean to enter on the discussion of the Bill before the House, as the noble Lord has agreed to take it on a future occasion, and I shall reserve what I may have to say until then. I but rose to show to hon. Members near me that the privilege of this House has been exercised as far as I was concerned, with every delicacy to character and person, and to place on record my own conduct and sentiments in respect to the main question.

Sir R. Inglis

felt the importance of the measure before the House to be so great, that, though his right hon. Friend had given his assent to the second reading of it without comment, he had such a repugnance to some of its provisions that he should depart from his example, and offer one or two observations on them. In the first place, he objected most strongly to the ex post facto legislation involved in the Bill. It was true the Attorney-General had alluded to precedents; but it was equally true that they were by no means cases analogous to the present; and he (Sir R. Inglis) should be very sorry to see the power of Parliament so far extended as was implied in that ex post facto clause, without sufficient justification. So much for the first clause. To the second clause there was a still greater objection; for it was an objection on principle. The Bill went not only to stop any action against the House for a wrong to individuals, but it also went to stop it against the officers of the House for any abuse, however great, of their functions. Now, that, in his opinion, was carrying indemnity much too far, and he wished to be understood as dissenting altogether from such a stretch of power. There was likewise a great objection to making the plea of the Speaker's license a bar to an action, because he thought it might lead to abuse, and was, at any rate, an undue assumption. These objections, however, he hoped would be removed in committee, and therefore he should not oppose the second reading of the bill.

Lord J. Russell.

—I shall certainly give my most serious attention to the suggestions of the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon; but I think it is ranch better not to enter on their discussion at present. It is a very important subject to which they refer, and I think this is a proper time to revise the rules and regulations of this House in respect to it. These, however, I must say, are much more careful to prevent abuses in that particular than perhaps most hon. Members are aware of. However, as I said, I shall take the whole subject into consideration. With regard to the retrospective clauses, many precedents have been cited, and I shall weigh their applicability in every particular before I proceed with the Bill.

Bill read a second time.