§ MR. J. O'CONNELLwished to call the attention of the House to a matter which he thought involved a breach of their privileges. A sessional order, passed at the beginning of every Session, provided that the debates in that House should not be reported, or at least that no strangers should be allowed in the House, and that no accounts of their proceedings should be published in the papers. He was not going to argue the good sense of keeping such a rule upon their books; but, if it was the pleasure of the House that the rule should be done away with, he had no objection, 1055 and he thought it would be for the credit of the House. So long, however, as that rule remained upon their hooks, he thought it ought to he as much respected as every other order of the House. He found in a newspaper called the Times, which some hon. Members might have soon that day, a violation of this rule. That paper contained a report, or what purported to be a report, of a debate which occurred in that House last night on the third reading of the Irish Rate in Aid Bill. He believed the proper course for him to pursue, after having stated his reasons for taking such a course, would be to move that the printer of the paper should be called to the bar to answer for his conduct in infringing the rule and strict order of the House. He found that the debate or proceedings of last night were regularly set out and reported. He found not only this, but that a great deal of what some hon. Members did say was given, a great deal of what other Members said was omitted, and a great deal that hon. Members did not say was put in. Now, he found himself in the last dilemma; nay, he found himself in two of them. He found that a great deal of what he thought it his duty to say to the House on a question of some importance to Ireland was omitted, or so misrepresented that he would not have known his own child. He was made to say things that he certainly did not say. It might be a matter of very little importance to the editor or proprietor of the Times to give what he (Mr. O'Connell) might chance to say; but his conduct was canvassed in Ireland; and, as an Irish Member, he had a right to demand, that if that House allowed reports to be published, such reports should at least be tolerably accurate. He had observed that Irish Members particularly were not treated fairly—that the same measure was not meted out to them that was meted out to English Members. No matter of what importance the subject on which they spoke might be to Ireland, their speeches were abbreviated, and the utmost injustice was done to them. They were subject to censure from their constituents for their conduct, and they ought in common fairness to be allowed the ordinary means which the House thought fit to afford of placing their sentiments on record, and of enabling their constituents not only to sec their acts, but the reasons of those acts. This, however, was not the case. The most trivial English debate, upon the most passing subject of the day, was faithfully reported; 1056 but let a subject of the deepest interest to the people of Ireland be brought forward, and they found the debate slurred over, and the speeches of Members mangled or misrepresented. Many of the Irish public were not aware whether their Members had done their duty or not. He did not know who, among the Irish Members, would be inclined to submit longer to this; but he, for one, certainly would not. It might be said, that he thought rather too much of himself and of what he said; but he would stand on his right as a Member of Parliament. So long as he was a Member of Parliament, he would discharge his duty, and say what his duty dictated, without fear or favour. If other Members were to be reported, he would insist on being reported; and, if other Members were not to be reported, then he would submit to be similarly dealt with. If the rule of the House were a good one, let the House enforce it, or abrogate it. Inasmuch as that rule had been violated; inasmuch as what purported to be a report had appeared in a public newspaper, and inasmuch as there did not exist the excuse for the violation of the order of the House that the report was a fair and impartial and accurate one, he arraigned the printer and proprietor, and all concerned with the newspaper, for having violated the order of the House by the publication of that report, and he concluded with the Motion that the printer and proprietor of the Times newspaper be called to the bar of the House.
§ MR. SCULLYseconded the Motion.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that in order to make the Motion in the regular form, the hon. and learned Member must ascertain the name of the printer of the paper.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLthen stated the printer to be John Joseph Lawson, of Tottenham Cottage, Downshire-hill, Hampstead, in the county of Middlesex; and the Motion he wished to put was, that he be required to attend at the bar of the House to-morrow.
Paper delivered in, and paragraph complained of read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That John Joseph Lawson do attend this House To-morrow."
§ MR. O'CONNORhoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick would spare the time of the House by not proceeding with his Motion. If any hon. Gentleman, in the House or out of it, had a right to complain of misreports, he (Mr. O'Connor) had; and he should begin to 1057 doubt his own identity whenever newspapers began to report him or speak of him well. The hon. Gentleman wished to stand well with his constituents; but if the Times did not report what he said, other newspapers reported what he did not say, and he might set one against the other.
§ SIR G. GREYdid not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick was serious in his Motion. With respect to the grounds laid for the Motion, he must say that though reports of their proceedings were contrary to the letter of the order of the House, yet, after the length of time during which reports had been sanctioned, and considering the immense benefit and value of an impartial report, he did not think it could be expected that the strict letter of the order was now to be acted upon. He was not much in the habit of reading reports of the debates, and therefore he was unable to form an opinion as to their literal accuracy; but he had not heard before that the speeches of Irish Members were not reported. There was, however, now published a summary or sketch of the debate. This was a modern practice, and an extremely useful one, and through it the pith of the debate was given in a compressed form. He must say that the summary generally presented a most fair and impartial précis of the debate. He thought it rather inconsistent on the part of the hon. Member, while complaining that his speech was not reported, to call for the application of the rule of the House against reporting.
§ MR. BROTHERTONsaid, that the Times was a most accurate paper with respect to reports. But he would give to the hon. Member an example with respect to another paper. The Daily News the other day reported that he (Mr. Brotherton) stated in that House that his last election cost him 4,000l. Now, the fact was, that he had been elected five times; he had never solicited a vote, and his elections had never cost him a single penny. His neighbours, and those who knew him, would not believe the report he had referred to, but they imagined that strangers might give credit to it.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that if the debates were reported at all, Irish Members ought to be treated with fairness. He repeated that, not only was much omitted which they said, but a great deal was given which they did not say; and 1058 Irish Members ought to be treated with the same fairness as was shown to others. If the House wished to get rid of the rule, it would do well to abrogate it; but, as long as the rule existed, he had the means of enforcing fair play. He should, at present, withdraw his Motion; but, if he perceived a repetition of the conduct of which he complained, he would call on the House to decide whether it would maintain the rule or not.
§ MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsuggested to the hon. Member to send, in future, his speeches to the papers, instead of making them in that House.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.