HC Deb 20 March 1840 vol 52 cc1263-74

The Printers Papers Bill on the motion of Lord John Russell was read a third time.

Sir R. Inglis

said, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given for the introduction of a clause to be inserted in the bill which was then before the House for the third reading, he wished to state that the clause in question was similar in its import to the spirit and meaning of that bill, which declared that it was essential to the due and effectual exercise and discharge of the functions and duties of Parliament, and to the promotion of wise legislation, that no obstructions or impediments should exist in the publication of its reports, votes, and proceedings. The object of the House by the preamble of the bill was to extend, as far as possible, the proceedings of the House, and the grounds upon which these proceedings were based. There had been obstructions raised against the publication of their proceedings by the Courts of Law, and for that reason the present bill had been introduced for the protection of the printer and publisher of the House. The House by the bill protected its own printer, its own publisher, and its own vender of its papers. When, however, the hon. Member for Ripon had asked for protection to the retailer of the papers he purchased from their publisher the House refused the application. He would ask if there were any consistency in refusing protection from civil and criminal prosecutions to those who reprinted their reports and proceedings word for word? What could be the motive for refusing that protection to the publishers and printers of newspapers which the House of Commons extended to its own printer and publisher? Was it to preserve the monopoly of copyright? Was there a jealousy in favour of the Messrs. Hansard's, lest the Times and Morning Post papers should compete with them successfully, and deprive these privileged publishers of the retail profit in the trade market of the country? Had the House a more worthy motive than that? They could see that the printers and publishers of newspapers were their petitioners, and stated that, while the printers and publishers of the House were protected from prosecutions, they were left to take whatever penal consequences the law might inflict upon them. Was it the object of the House to obtain for their proceedings the largest publicity? If so, what more effectual means could be employed than by granting an immunity to newspapers to reprint and republish their proceedings? His right hon. Friend, whose speech had decided the last division, had stated that the House had decided by a large majority, that they possessed the privilege of publication with impunity. By a much larger majority the House had entertained that very proposition, and declared that the House did not possess the privilege. They substituted legislation for privilege, and by that act annulled their own previous resolution. What had been privilege before was then on the verge of becoming law—a law as definite and distinct as the Habeas Corpus or any other legislative enactment. After the passing of the bill the House would possess by law what before had been claimed as privilege. Since the House found it necessary to secure itself, its officers, and servants, within the protection of the law—for the purpose of extensive publication, too—how could it, in justice or consistency, refuse to printers and publishers of newspapers, whose facilities for the extension of the publication of the proceedings of the House were undoubted, that protection which the House extended to its own printers and publishers? The petitioners, in whose behalf he had introduced the clause in question, did not complain of the existing state of the law, but they complained that they would be placed in a worse condition after the passing of the bill than before; they stated that at the present they print the reports and proceedings of the House at their own risk, and take the consequences; but by the alteration of the law, the vengeance of the law would be pointed against them, and they therefore pray that the House would interpose and prevent the infliction of that vengeance. They did not seek for an alteration of the existing law; but if that law were altered they sought that protection which the House extended to its own printers and publishers. They asked for the reprinters equal protection with the printers. The object of the clause was limited to the case of printers who reprinted the proceedings of the House. It might be asked why it was that he asked for impunity of publication to newspapers only. To that he would reply that, in the first place, newspapers paid a considerable amount of direct taxes to the Government; and, secondly, that they printed and circulated the proceedings of the House. Upon that ground he thought they were entitled to protection. But he would claim protection for news- papers upon another ground. By its own showing, the House declared that their object was extreme and extended publicity, and he would ask if the reports which had been laid upon the table of the House, and circulated gratuitously among the Members, did not obtain a circulation ten times greater by the instrumentality of newspapers than by any other means within the power of the House. For carrying into execution its own objects, the House left newspapers exposed to prosecutions in civil and criminal courts; nay, more, it exposed them to greater risks than they had before incurred. Of course the House would understand that he limited by his clause the privilege of publication with impunity to stamped and not to unstamped newspapers; not for those who disobeyed the law, but for those who obeyed it by the payment of stamp duty. Could it be contended that the Speaker of the House of Commons, or the Lord Chancellor, who sat as Speaker of the House of Lords would not condescend to issue certificates such as were embodied in the clause which he was about to move? The House would recollect that the gist of the clause was to protect those parties who had no other demerit in the eye of the law except that they had done without authority which the House had directed to be done by its authority. Besides the printing and publishing of the proceedings of the House by newspapers was in direct opposition to the authority of the House, but concurrent with its avowed objects and wishes. The House openly declared that it was highly expedient to circulate its proceedings as widely as possible; yet, by rejecting the clause which he was about to propose, they would be virtually leaving the prosecutions and penalties from which they were then about to emancipate themselves to those who accomplished the very objects which the House had in view. To the bill he had the strongest objections, but no objections could be anticipated to the clause in question should the bill pass into a law. There was no doubt, but that the promoters of the bill had made great concessions during the progress of its discussion. They did not specifially, though they indirectly did, concede all the points at issue. The object of the bill was, to make that law which had been hitherto pronounced privilege; and hon. Members opposite bad conceded that point. If, then, such concessions had been made by he noble Lord and hon. Members opposite, a much greater concession would be made by each hon. Member who had supported the former concessions acceding to and voting for the insertion of the present clause. All he required was, that if the House invested its own printer and publisher with a protection never before known, it would extend a similar protection to the petitioners, and which protection was essentially important, not only to their own commercial functions, but essential also to the objects of the House; namely, an extended circulation of its reports and proceedings. There was another reason why he would put this upon the consideration of the House. In the course of the last year an action was brought against The Times newspaper, for the insertion of a libel against a person named Polack, which was contained in an extract of a report of a committee of the House of Lords. On that occasion his right hon. Friend took an effective part in the debate, as usual, decisive of the result, and he stated that the object of the Committee of the House of Lords was not to report its own opinions for the information of the House of Lords alone, but for the benefit of the community at large. If that were so, would not the parties who reprinted these proceedings confer great benefit upon the community by the republication. No action was brought against the House of Lords or Commons on that occasion, but an action was brought against the Times newspaper for the reprint of an extract.

An Hon. Member

remarked that the action was not against the Times, for the publication of the abstract of the report, but for some comments which were made upon it in the body of the paper.

Sir R. Inglis

had not recently read the law proceedings in the case, but his remarks referred to the discussion which had taken place in the House when reference had been made not to the comments in the body of the paper but to the extracts from the report of the committee of the House of Lords. He believed too that the action was brought for the reprint not for the remarks. In the case of the King v. Wright, he was certain that the action had been brought not for any commentary but for the reprint. Unless the House was jealous of the copyright of its publications it would accede to the in- sertion of the clause, not for the purpose of countenancing commentaries, but for the protection of the reprinting and extending the circulation of their proceedings. The purport of the clause was that the party against whom the action should be brought, or against whom law proceedings should be instituted, should have the power of applying to the Speaker of the House of Commons, or to the Lord Chancellor, which should be authorized to grant it, and obtain a certificate stating that the report, for the publication of which the action was brought, or the legal proceedings instituted, had been published by order of the House of Lords or Commons. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the insertion of the following clause in the bill. And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons who hereafter shall be a defendant or defendants in any civil or criminal proceeding, commenced or prosecuted for the publication of any such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, in any newspaper published according to the direction of an Act passed in the seventh year of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter 76, intituled 'An Act to reduce the Duties on Newspapers and to amend the laws relating to the duty on newspapers and advertisements,' to apply as aforesaid for a certificate, stating that the reports, papers, votes, or proceedings, forming the ground of such civil or criminal proceeding, was published by order or under the authority of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons (as the case may be), and which certificate is hereby authorised to be granted upon such aplication, and, having obtained the same, to apply to any Judge of any of Her Majesty's superior Courts of Common Law, at chambers or elsewhere, upon an affidavit verifying such certificate; and further deposing that such publication in such newspaper was a true transcript or copy of such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for such Judge, upon due summons and notice, to stay such civil or criminal proceeding upon such terms as to such Judge shall Seem fit.

The Attorney General

could not help observing, that the hon. Baronet had of late very much expanded his notions of the benefits of publicity. At first he strongly insisted that the publication should be limited to 658 copies, but now, not satisfied with full protection to their officers in publishing the proceedings, he contended for unlimited impunity to all who copied their reports in the newspapers. He rejoiced the hon. Baronet bad made this great concession. He hoped all stamped newspapers would re-publish the reports of that House. It would be highly beneficial. He hoped the republication would not be confined to the stamped newspapers. Without, of course, alluding to the unstamped illegal papers, he trusted their reports would still be republished in various other journals besides the stamped newspaper press. This would greatly add to the benefit which those reports had hitherto conferred on the public. At the same time, he must oppose this clause, because, although the hon. Baronet might not entertain such a notion, he believed it would be prejudicial if not fatal to the bill. He did not believe that the bill which, on the whole, he thought would be beneficial to the public, would have any chance of passing into a law if such a clause were inserted. They were not now reviewing the law of libel. He hoped the time would come when it might be reviewed and greatly improved. But they were not now considering what actions might be brought for libel, and what defence might be set up. He trusted the time would arrive when truth would not be a libel, and when it would be a sufficient defence to any prosecution that the allegations contained in the publication were true. But they were now merely providing a particular remedy for a particular grievance. What was the grievance? That actions had been brought against the printers of the House of Commons, for papers published by authority of the House. This was the grievance, and the remedy ought not to go further. There was not a single instance of an action for libel against any newspaper for republishing reports of either House of Parliament. The case of "Polack v. Lawson," was not such as had been described by the hon. Baronet. It was not for reprinting the report, but for making extracts, and comments on those extracts. A justification was established, and there ought, in his opinion, to have been a verdict for the defendant; but it seemed otherwise to the Court, and the verdict was in favour of the plaintiff. There had been no action for bonâ fide republication of a report, and he believed no such action would be attempted—no such indictment would be preferred. There was, therefore, no necessity for legislation on that ground. It was supposed that newspapers would be in a worse situation after the bill passed; there could not be the slightest ground for such an apprehension. The bill commenced by asserting the necessity of all publications which either House of Parliament should think necessary for public information, and that no proceeding should be established against their officers on that account, and with such a declaration combined with "The King v. Wright," newspaper need be under the smallest apprehension of any proceeding civil or criminal, for simply republishing a report of either House of Parliament. But the great objection to the clause was this, it was beyond the scope of the bill, according neither with its title nor principle: the machinery of the bill would not at all produce the effect which the hon. Baronet desired. There could be no difficulty in the Speaker granting a certificate when an action was brought against an officer of the House; it would only be necessary to say, that the publication had taken place in consequence of the order of the House. But if the action were brought against The Times, the Morning Chronicle, or Post, for any extract, or extract with comments, how could the Speaker grant a certificate? The Speaker would be obliged to inspect narrowly the whole newspaper, to look at the leader, and read the various other articles—to see whether some parts of the report were not in italics, whether other parts were not purposely omitted. He did not say respectable journals would resort to such practices, but this investigation would be absolutely necessary, in order to ascertain that no malicious motive to ruin private character lurked under the pretence of re-publishing a report of the House of Commons. Nor could this be left to the judge, for then he would have to determine whether the Speaker had rightly or wrongly granted the certificate. Such a course would also substitute the judge for the jury in determining whether the re-publication was bonâ fide or not. The whole proceeding would be anomalous and unknown to the law of England. It would be much better that the bill should be confined to its original object, and that the remedy should not be extended beyond the grievances.

Sir E. Sugden

believed the case contemplated by this clause could very rarely occur, because it seldom answered the purposes of newspapers to copy the whole of a report, their object being to give a faithful abstract or condensed view of the contents of such reports only as were particularly deserving of public attention. His opinion was, they should be protected in so doing. He had withdrawn his clause, which would also have protected parties who should print their reports in the shape of books, not because he had any doubt of the propriety of the principle on which it was founded, but because upon reflection he found the machinery of this bill would not work it out. If a bill were brought in to provide for the various objects he had mentioned, he should be a strenuous supporter of it. At the same time, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press this clause now, although he agreed with him entirely in its principle. It was some satisfaction to know, that newspapers would not incur much risk in making bonâ fide extracts from the reports of Parliament; because, although he did not believe that this bill by implication would authorize a judge to consider a republication in a newspaper as not amounting to a libel, he did agree, considering how the matter now stood, that bonâ fide republication, without comments, of any article which passed in a great court, or in the high court of Parliament, for the public information, without any malicious motive, would be found altogether, perhaps, certainly to a very great extent, guarded and warranted by the rules of law. Still, he hoped some measure would be introduced calculated to effect fully that great public object, and in this expectation he trusted his hon. Friend would not press the clause.

Sir R. Inglis

said, he had been in some degree misunderstood, as to the machinery which was to be employed to effect the object of protecting the newspapers. He did not intend to give the Speaker all the trouble of comparison, as alluded to by his right hon. and learned Friend. He intended simply, that in the certificate it should be insisted that extract 271, or whatever number it might be, was published by the House, and that the newspaper containing that extract exhibited a fair transcript of it. All that the judge would require was a certificate that the transcript was a faithful one. As, however, he did not receive such support to the clause as he had anticipated, he would not give the House the trouble of dividing upon it, as he would at once withdraw his motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Sir E. Sugden moved the omission of the second clause. The matter had already been so fully debated, that he should not detain the House with a single observation. His object was to draw a distinction between the first and second actions. He considered the actions brought by Stockdale purely vexatious; but, if in the case of Howard there had been an excess on the part of the servants of that House in executing the warrant of their officer, in respect of which he had a right of action by law, they were not entitled to take it from him.

Lord J. Russell

did not think it necessary to enter into any discussion in favour of the clause. He would content himself with simply observing, that the clause referred to numerous questions and actions which had been brought in the course of the present Session, and when they were legislating on the subject, it did seem expedient to put an end to the whole together.

Viscount Howick

thought the clause liable to objection, inasmuch as it merely disposed of such actions as should be brought against their officers up to the time when the bill received the Royal assent. While it protected them in one instance, it seemed to throw a doubt on their powers hereafter to commit persons to prison for a breach of their privileges. He would therefore support the motion to omit it.

The Attorney-General

said, the clause in question would effectually prevent all actions for matters occurring up to the time when the bill should receive the royal assent. If this could be done without injustice, and without endangering their privileges, it was very desirable to obtain such an object. It had been said, that Mr. Howard brought his action because one of their messengers entered his house, and waited two hours for his return. It was for the House to decide whether that action was to go on. If the clause were altered as required, it would introduce great inconvenience.

Mr. Darby said

, if actions were afterwards brought, the House would be placed in the same difficulty which the clause was intended now to extricate them from. It was true the clause would get rid of all difficulties up to the time of the royal assent, but after that time, if actions were brought, the House would have to pro- pose another enactment. If the actions before the bill passed were not right, the actions after the bill would be equally wrong; but, if right, then the House was wrong in stopping them in the manner they proposed. If the House intended to stop actions in general, why did they not have courage enough to bring forward a clause to stop all actions.

Sir R. Peel

expressed his apprehension that the clause, although it might give a temporary protection, would have a tendency to weaken the privilege of Parliament if it should be necessary to take any steps with respect to any future actions. He had no doubt that the privileges of the House were equal to any emergency, but if they were pushed to an extreme, that might be productive of great public inconvenience. He had voted for the bill because he thought it would give a more simple and summary protection to the officers of the House. He apprehended the courts of judicature had ruled the right of the sergeant to execute the orders of the House. That right was distinct from the right of the House to print papers, but it might become a question whether the subordinate officers might not have exceeded their authority. He thought that they could have postponed legislation on this particular point until some other case should arise, when there might not be so much excitement of the public mind, it would have been a great advantage. But on the whole he was inclined to vote in favour of the clause, at the same time admitting the inconvenience to which he feared it might possibly lead.

Sir R. Inglis

said, that there was no warrant, however legal in itself, which might not be illegally executed. He protested against the Speaker's warrant being considered a sanction for any unlawful acts which might be done under it. He objected to the clause, therefore, and hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would divide the House against it.

Mr. Hobhouse

objected now, as he had done from the commencement, to the whole bill, and to this clause as well as the rest.

The House divided on the question that the clause stand:—Ayes 110; Noes 40: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.
Adare, Viscount Aglionby, Major
Aglionby, H. A. Alston, R.
Archbold, R. Morpeth, Viscount
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Morris, D.
Barnard, E. G. Muntz, G. F.
Barron, H. W. O'Connell, J.
Barry, G. S. O'Conor, Don
Berkeley, hon. H. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Bernal, R. Parker, J.
Bewes, T. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Blair, J. Peel, rt. hn. Sir H.
Blake, W. J. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Bridgeman, H. Philips, M.
Brocklehurst, J. Philips, G. R.
Brotherton, J. Pinney, W.
Buller, E. Praed, W. T.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Busfeild, W. Reid, Sir J. R.
Butler, hon. Colonel Rice, E. R.
Campbell, Sir J. Rickford, W.
Clay, W. Roche, W.
Clerk, Sir G. Rundle, J.
Collier, J. Rutherford, rt. hon. A.
Courtenay, P. Scholefield, J.
Curry, Sergeant Seymour, Lord
Damer, hon. D. Slaney, R. A.
Davies, Colonel Stanley, hon. E. J.
Denison, W. J. Stanley, E.
Dennistoun, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Divett, E. Stock, Dr.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Strickland, Sir G.
Dnnbar, G. Strutt, E.
Dundas, Sir R. Style, Sir C.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Surrey, Earl of
Evans, Sir De L. Tancred, W. H.
Evans, W. Teignmouth, Lord
Fremantle, Sir T. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Gordon, R. Turner, E.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Vernon, G, H.
Greg, R. H. Vivian, J. H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Wakley, T.
Hall, Sir B. White, A.
Hardinge, rt.hn. Sir H. Wilde, Sergeant
Hawkins, J. H. Williams, W.
Heathcoat, J. Williams, W. A.
Hector, C. J. Winnington, H. J.
Herries, rt. hn. J. C. Wood, Sir M.
Hodges, T. L. Wood, G. W.
Humphery, J. Worsley, Lord
Hutton, R. Wyse, T.
Langdale, hon. C. Yates, J. A.
Lister, E. C. Young, J.
Lowther, J. H.
Lynch, A, H. TELLERS.
M'Taggart, J. Anson, Colonel
Maule, hon. F. Tufnel, H.
List of the NOES.
Bentinck, Lord G. Gisborne, T.
Boldero, H. G. Goring, H. D.
Bradshaw, J. Grimsditch, T.
Broadley, H. Hobhouse, T. B.
Bruges, W.H.L. Hope, G. W.
Cochrane, Sir T. J. Howick, Viscount
Duncombe, T. Hume, J.
Duncombe, hon. A. Ingham, R.
Ewart, W. Jones, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Kemble, H.
Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E. Richards, R.
Rushbrooke, Colonel
Mackenzie, T. Rushout, G.
Martin, J. Sugden, rt. hn Sir E.
Maunsell, T. P. Sutton, hon. J.H.T.M.
Neeld, J. Vigors, N. A.
Neeld, J. Warburton, H.
O'Brien, W. S. Wood, Colonel T.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Wood, B.
Pemberton, T. TELLERS.
Plumptre, J. P. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Pusey, P. Darby, G.

Bill passed.