BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE TIMES. (Hansard, 8 September 1841)

§ Mr. Roebuck
rose to call the attention of the House to an article which had appeared in The Times newspaper of that day, which he held in his hand, reflecting on his character, and which he deemed to be a Breach of the Privileges of that House. He cared not for it personally. He agreed in the opinion expressed by Dr. Johnson, that no man could be written down but by himself, but he considered the statement which he held in his hand so gross a breach of privilege, that though he did not mean to call upon the House to exercise its power, yet it was as necessary to the interests of morality as to the advancement of the business of public life, that it should not be passed over unnoticed, and he desired to be understood as being individually responsible in bringing it before the House. He had that confidence in his own character, that he doubted not it would stand the test of any investigation, and it behoved him to face any such attempt upon his character as that which had been made in the newspaper which he held in his hand. He had thought it his duty on last Monday, as the representative of a very large constituency who had returned him almost unsolicited on his part, and, what perhaps might be thought more remarkable in that House, unbought—representing such a constituency, he had thought it right to give a notice respecting the Poor-law, the result of which had been a paragraph in The Times newspaper, an article to which he solicited the attention of the Members of that House, as an attempt to frighten, ay, to bully a Member out of the execution of his duty upon that question. He had thought it right to give notice of a motion to the effect, that the powers exercised by the Poor-law Commissioners should be transferred to the Secretary of State, and for having done so, he was visited with virulent abuse—described as a person only honourable by being a Member of that House. He had been long before the world in public life, and he would defy 505 any man to point to a single act of his life that could have deprived him of that appellation. Honourable! Sir—why not honourable? It stated, that he was sprung from the humbler orders of society. Suppose it were so, was that to be any interruption to his efficiently discharging his public duty? He had appeared before a large constituency of his countrymen, and he now represented that constituency in Parliament. Suppose he were not descended, as he was, from ancestors distinguished for science and literature, would that afford a reason for his being made the mark for insinuations—that he was unfit to make such a proposition? It said, wholly unfit. Of that he would ask the 60,000 inhabitants of Bath, rather than the anonymous scribbler of The Times. He would remind the House, that, according to its rules, he might, at the end of his speech move to bring the responsible party on his knees to the Bar of that House. He claimed it as a right due to himself and to the constituencies of the empire, that he should answer such flagrant abuse of the liberty of the press as it ought to be answered. There was upon a newspaper establishment a person as necessary to it as its editor, who was called its responsible proprietor, and who was registered, and whose name was Lawson. He took it, however, that the chances were, that as the cards stood, that person was not then in the enjoyment of his personal liberty. Ay, that he was in prison; for so libellous was The Times, that the presumption was, that he who represented it must be in prison. That man bore the responsibility of The Times, first as to any fines to which it might be subject; next, as to any imprisonment to which the proprietor of the paper might be sentenced; and, thirdly, as to the cudgelling which it might deserve. But why? He bore all the responsibility; the writers of The Times were totally irresponsible, as much so as if they lived in South Australia, and penned their articles there. Did any hon. Member think that the writer of the article of which he complained would send him his name to-night on his return home? No; he chose to pen the article in which it was stated that he (Mr. Roebuck) was wholly unworthy of the name of an honourable man, and he dared not give his name. Let the House consider the morality of that. He was not speaking for himself, 506 he was speaking for society at large, and as a Member of that House. He said it was a breach of the privileges of that House that any Member, no matter how humble his position might be, should be so traduced, and that an attempt should be made to bully him—for he knew no word he could more fitly use on that occasion—in order to prevent his execution of his duty, and that for such purpose such an article as he held in his hand should be put into the press. He asked the House whether that was a right mode of proceeding? [Interruption.] He complained of the interruption, and the more that he at all times experienced a difficulty in making himself understood from the delicate state of his health. Looking at the privileges of that House, he would ask them if they did not pay dearly for the advantages derived from the liberty of the press, by allowing such anonymous slanders to be scattered abroad, against all parties who, no matter for what motives, might deem it their duty to take part in public life. He would ask any hon. Gentleman who had read that article, and who had known him since he had first entered into public life, if there was anything in his conduct, public or private, that could justify any man in thus attempting to depreciate him in the estimation of the world by such an attack? Was it for the benefit of the world at large that such proceedings should be permitted? He would ask the House to consider that point. One of two things must be the consequence—either the public, for the sake of their own security, would demand that every man should put his name to the articles which he published, or a bill must be brought in, requiring that every article published in a newspaper should have a name affixed to it of some person who would bear the responsibility. He wished to know whether or not it was to be suffered that Members of that House should be attempted to be frightened from executing their duty? He should continue his course of duty unrestrained by such attacks of the press, and such a press; but he chose to take these means of expressing his opinion, and of calling for the opinion of the constituencies of hon. Members, to whom he put it, to mark their approbation or their disapprobation of the course of proceeding which such a newspaper had chosen to adopt. Before he finished, be would suggest, if there were any more sen- 507 sitive than himself,—for he was not to be deterred by these attacks, but to those who might be more sensitive than himself, he would suggest an infallible remedy for these evils. Violent diseases required violent remedies. The parties making the attack were irresponsible, and beyond reach. They could not be got at either by law or by opinion. He wanted to know whether they could not be got at otherwise, and if any hon. Members were attacked by The Times, and did not wish for a repetition of the attack, he would suggest to them at once to horsewhip the proprietor, Mr. Waller, and they might depend upon it that the attack would not be repeated. [Cries of" Order."]

§ Sir R. Inglis
Does the hon. Member intend to conclude with any motion?

§ Mr. Roebuck
I shall not make any motion.

§ Sir R. Inglis
said, that the hon. Member had, then, occupied the time of the House very needlessly and unnecessarily. The hon. Member had given the House a dissertation respecting his ancestors, who, he said were distinguished in art, science, and literature; but he had not condescended to state who they were.

§ Mr. Roebuck
would ask the Speaker whether the course he had adopted was not a usual one?

§ The Speaker
said, it was irregular for any hon. Member to complain of a newspaper article unless he intended to follow it up with a motion. The more regular course was, for the hon. Member to move that it be read by the Clerk, and that it was a breach of privilege, and then to move that the printer be called to the Bar. The motion might be persevered in or not, as the hon. Member thought fit.

§ Mr. Roebuck
said, that when he rose he Stated, that he was aware he had the power of moving, that the printer be brought to the Bar of the House. He thought to save the time of the House by the course which he had pursued. If the hon. Member for Oxford insisted upon it, he would make the motion.

§ Sir R. Inglis
I insist upon nothing.

§ Mr. Roebuck
It is easy to get out of the matter so; but the hon. Baronet has insinuated a sarcasm, which he would have been reluctant to utter.

§ The Speaker
The course at present pursued is decidedly irregular.

§ Mr. Roebuck
said, he would then move that the printer of The Times newspaper 508 be called to the Bar. The hon. Member gave in The Times newspaper of this day.

§ Mr. Roebuck
interrupted him by saying, that he was not reading the paragraph complained of, and told him to begin at another place which he described.

§ Mr. Roebuck,
said — Surely you are not reading the right passage. Begin —" Amidst the pauses which sometimes occur in the melodious voices of Messrs. Hawes and Ward." [The hon. Member advanced to the Table and read it himself.] It was in these words:— Amidst the pauses which sometimes occur in the melodious voices of Messrs. Hawes and Ward, and Dr. Bowring, the House is threatened with an interlude by their gallery Friend Mr. Roebuck, on the subject of the Poor-law Commission. Nothing could be further from our habitual civility, or more at variance with our known respect for the humbler orders of our countrymen than to represent Mr. Roebuck as a nuisance. Having been made an hon. Gentleman by dint of getting into Parliament, that elevated person has an undoubted right to exercise the privileges of his sphere—we admit it. That those privileges entitle him to fling orange peel at the principal performers, or to have a sally at the dress boxes now and then, might not, if his class license were moderately used, be reasonably complained of. Chartists, such as he, are chartered men; and their occasional impertinences are both expected and endured. But Mr. Roebuck and his associates must not be permitted entirely to forget their station. That he should be allowed to injure everything at his mere pleasure is wholly out of the question. If he does not know his just limits and latitude, the lesson must be seasonably taught him. The evil of seeing important interests made utter havoc of by a precipitate and pert interference is not to be endured. In point of personal and political influence he is just as fit to take ft lead in modifying the New Poor-law as the one-shilling gentry of Drury-lane.

§ The Speaker
Who seconds the motion?

§ Sir G. Clerk
said, that before that motion was put, he believed there was a pre- 509 liminary motion, that the words complained of were a breach of privilege.

§ Mr. Roebuck
said, that perhaps he might be allowed to state, that he had always understood, when any hon. Member found anything in the public prints offensive to his personal feelings, he was allowed an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House, of explaining, and stating the injury which had been done to his feelings. He had seen this done so many times, that he really thought, from the kind feelings—lie said the kind feelings, and he wished to say no more of any man than he deserved— of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir R. Inglis), he would have been the last man to interfere to prevent him (Mr. Roebuck) from availing himself of a practice which was common among hon. Members.

§ Sir R. Inglis
believed there was no question before the House.

§ Mr. Roebuck
said, that if it was the pleasure of the House that he should so move, he would move, "That the words just read constitute a breach of the privileges of this House."

§ The Speaker
who seconds the motion?