§ Mr. T. Duncombewished to put a question to the Attorney-general, which was of great importance to all those connected with public Associations in this country and Ireland. He understood that certain proprietors of newspapers in Ireland had withdrawn their names from the Repeal Association, and stated that their reason for doing so was in consequence of Chief Justice Pennefather having laid down the principle that the whole Association was responsible for any articles which might appear in any newspapers, the proprietors of which were members of the Repeal Association. He (Mr. Duncombe) had seen letters in the newspapers, from Mr. 1105 Barrett, proprietor of the Pilot, and from Mr. Gavan Duffy, proprietor of the Nation, resigning their connection with the Association on those grounds. He (Mr. buncombe), therefore, wished to ask the Attorney-general whether the publication of an article by any member of an Association was sufficient to inculpate the Association, and whether the Association might be indicted for conspiracy on that account?
The Attorney Generalsaid that the hon. Member for Finsbury had been kind enough to communicate to him his intention of putting that question, and in answer he begged to say that he had no doubt the proprietors of the newspapers in question had been well advised, and that they exercised a sound discretion in retiring from the Repeal Association. With regard to the extent to which an Association might be affected by the publication of an article on the part of any of its members, it would be impossible for him (Sir F. Pollock) to form a judgment upon the general question whether everything that appears in every newspaper was to affect every member of any Association with which the writer of the matter was connected, unless he knew what the Association was, what were its purposes, what was the object of the publication, and what use had been made of it.
§ Mr. Elphinstonesaid, he was a member of the Anti-Corn-law League, for the purpose of doing away with monopoly. There was a paper published in connection with that League, and he wished to know if he was liable for any articles which appeared in that paper.
The Attorney Generalsaid, the hon. Member had addressed his question to him, but he did not know that he was entitled to the honour of such a distinction. He would strongly advise the hon. Member to take the opinion of his ordinary professional legal adviser.
§ Mr. Hindleywas not satisfied with the answers which had been given by the Attorney-general. He (Mr. Hindley) had consulted his professional adviser as to the legality of the Anti-Corn-law League, and that Gentleman informed him that it was perfectly legal. But if the Attorney-general were directed by Her Majesty's Government, after ten or eleven months had elapsed, as in the case of Mr. O'Connell, to prosecute him, it would not be enough that his legal adviser had already given 1106 his opinion. He wished, therefore to ask the Attorney-general whether the Anti-Corn-law League was a legal Association?
The Attorney GeneralIf the hon. Member put to him any question with regard to the hon. Member himself, he would at once answer it, and without a fee; but he did not think that by answering all those questions he should be properly occupying the public time.