BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. (Hansard, 28 May 1858)

§ MR. G. CLIVE
said, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he had felt himself compelled a few days ago to bring under the notice of the House an article in a newspaper call the Carlisle Examiner and North Western Advertiser, imputing to him as Chairman of a Committee upstairs almost every crime that it was possible to charge upon a person filling that judicial situation. Not only had he 1064 (Mr. Clive) and other members of the Committee been charged with partiality in the room and out of the room, but a direct imputation of corruption had been launched at him individually. He had read the article on a former occasion to the House, and he would not trouble them by reading it again. At that time he believed the writer to be labouring under some sort of delusion, that the facts were the suggestions of interested persons, and that the writer would upon inquiry see and acknowledge how totally false were the imputations in which he had indulged. If there were a single word of truth in these imputations he should not only be wholly unworthy of a seat in that House, but should deserve to be visited with the indignation of every honest man in the country. For himself he had on a former occasion met the charges with a distinct denial, expressing at the same time, as he now did again, his perfect willingness to submit to any inquiry into his conduct that might be suggested. He was so averse to these attacks upon the press that he had hoped that the necessity for any further proceedings in this case would be put an end to, and that the proprietor of this newspaper would retract what he had said, in which case he should have moved when he was called to the Bar of the House that he be permitted to withdraw. But no such retractation had appeared, and in an article written subsequently, and which he held in his hand, the writer had persevered in the course he had originally adopted. He, no doubt, felt that he was able to protect himself in a court of law, but several hon. Members of that House had assured him that it was impossible for him, as a Member of that House, to overlook the charges made against him. He had subsequently submitted the article to the highest authorities in that House—to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes and the Speaker, who both thought it wholly impossible to pass the matter over. That which convinced him there was no disposition to retract these charges was a subsequent article, in which the writer said he knew the House of Commons was an assembly of honest Gentlemen, and was not inclined to cover the spotted reputation of any of its Members with the shield of its collective responsibility. This could only be applicable to himself. In another article it was said that the editor believed, from information he had received, that there was 1065 a strong presumption against Mr. Clive, that it was his duty to make public the result of that information; that he should not, however, at present, disclose the nature of that evidence; and that it would be for counsel to consider whether it amounted to legal evidence, and for him (the editor) to consider whether he should go into an inquiry with unwilling witnesses. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to read from the article in question, when—

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
rose to order. He said that two persons had been ordered to appear at the Bar of the House to explain certain articles which had appeared in a newspaper. It appeared to him that the hon. Member was trying to aggravate the offence by reading another article in another and subsequent newspaper. They knew nothing of that article; it formed no part of the offence for which they were to be brought to the Bar. They were in attendance, and it would be only fair to hear what they had got to say before he read another article which was not before the House. He (Mr. Duncombe) would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to aggravate the offence by reading that article; he would put it to Mr. Speaker whether by so doing he was not out of order?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that it was not possible for him to say that the hon. Member was out of order. He did not know that he might not conclude his address by another Motion on the subject of the paragraph he was reading. So far as the hon. Member had proceeded in stating his case he was not out of order.

§ MR. G. CLIVE
said, he could assure the hon. Member for Finsbury that he had no intention to aggravate the offence which these persons had committed. He merely meant to show that he could not take the course of leniency to which he should otherwise have been inclined. After reading an extract from another article published in the paper of the 25th inst., in which it was asked if our liberty was to be at the mercy of stockjobbers, the hon. Gentleman said, he would conclude by moving that the proprietor and printer of the Carlisle Examiner and North Western Advertiser should be called in. Order for the attendance of Hudson Scott and Washington Wilks read. Hudson Scott and Washington Wilks called in and examined in relation to the article complained of in the Carlisle Examiner and North Western Advertiser Newspaper of Saturday, 15th May, 1858.

§ MR. SPEAKER ,
addressing the former, said—Are you the proprietor of the Carlisle Examiner and North-Western Advertiser?—I am.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Are you also the publisher of that paper?—I am.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Did you publish, or cause to be published, the paper of the 15th May?—I did.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Were you cognizant of the substance of the article of that date, under the heading "Hawick and Carlisle Railway?"—I was.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Are you aware that that article reflects on the character of a Member of this House who was Chairman of the Committee on that Railway?—I was aware that it made certain imputations upon, and addressed certain inquiries to, the Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), who was the Chairman of that Committee.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Have you any explanation of those imputations to offer?—I beg to offer this explanation. There was in my neighbourhood a very strong feeling regarding the conduct of the Committee en the Carlisle and Hawick Railway Bill. Gentlemen of eminence in the neighbourhood who had attended the Committee, informed me, partly in conversation and partly in correspondence, that, they had doubts with respect to the impartiality of the Chairman. There were strong doubts expressed as to the impartiality of the Committee, and I thought it but justice to Mr. Clive that the matter should be further investigated, in order that this matter might be explained and the charges refuted, if they were unfounded.

§ MR. COLLIER
Are you prepared to state to the House who was the author of that article?—With all respect, I am not.

§ MR. COLLIER
Are you prepared to state from whom you received the information on which you made those charges?—I am not. The great part of my information was confidential.

§ MR. COLLIER
I now ask you, are you prepared to withdraw them?—I am very sorry to say I cannot. I can only state, that if I heard before that article was printed, that any hon. Member had stood up in his place and stated that those charges were untrue, I would not have written the article, or I would have withdrawn it.

§ MR. COLLIER
Are you prepared to withdraw the article?—I cannot withdraw it.

§ MR. COLLIER
Are you prepared to prove it?—I believe I could show that I was justified morally in putting it in.

§ MR. COLLIER
Are you prepared to state to the House any proofs of the charges made in the article?—They are of such a nature that I scarcely could state them, for the statements were communicated to me by two or three friends, and communicated to me in good faith.

§ MR. CAYLEY
You are asked will you withdraw the article?—I can only state that I will so far withdraw it as cheerfully to publish to the world Mr. Clive's contradiction.

§ MR. CLAY
You have said that statements were made to you by two or three friends. What were those statements?— One of the statements was that Mr. Clive was actively engaged in operations on the Stock Exchange, at the time this inquiry was going forward; that he was in communication with stockbrokers during this inquiry. In some mysterious manner information of the nature of the Committee's decision had reached the Stock Exchange before that decision was pronounced; and I was informed that Mr. Clive had himself visited a stockbroker. I am willing to publish his denial of that.

§ MR. CLAY
Can you give us the name of the stockbroker?—I cannot at this moment. I heard that from a second or third party.

§ MR. CLAY
Can you give us the name of the second or third party?—No. The communications were made to me confidentially.

§ MR. CLAY
Can you give a clue such as—you yourself as an honest man might desire to have, which would enable Mr. Clive to discover the author of those statements?—I shall be happy to inform Mr. Clive, in private, of the gentleman who gave me the information. I believe that gentleman would be willing to repeat his statement before a Committee of this House.

§ MR. WARREN
Were your informants interested in this railway?—I believe they were to some extent.

§ MR. WARREN
Did they tell you that they were?—Oh, it was a matter of report. It was a matter perfectly notorious in Carlisle that the gentleman who gave me the information was concerned in the line that was thrown out. I fully believe that, were he called on by a Committee of the House, he would state to such Committee all he stated to me.

§ MR. WARREN
Were you not aware that this publication might bring you under those rules of this House which apply to breaches of privilege?—That did not occur to me.

§ MR. GROGAN
I think that you have said that if the gentleman who gave the information to you were called on, he would repeat his statement to the Committee of this House?—Yes.

§ MR. GROGAN
Now, how can the House call on him to attend before a Committee if you do not give his name?—He would rather attend before a Committe, I think.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (to Mr. H. Scott)
Are you the printer of this paper?—No, I am not. I was at one time.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Were you the printer at the time this article was published?—I was not.

Mr. Wilks
I am the printer and publisher.

§ MR. MELLOR
Were you the printer of the article that appeared in the paper of the 25th?

Several HON. MEMBERS
That is not before the House.
Mr. W. Wilks and Mr. H. Scott were then directed to withdraw.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said—It appears that the proprietor and publisher of this article has neither withdrawn the imputation, nor expressed his readiness to substantiate it. Therefore, Sir, I do not see any other course which we can take in justice to the hon. Member for Hereford, and also, I must say, in justice to every Member of this House than to declare "that the said article is a false and scandalous libel upon the Chairman and other members of the Committee on group No. 13 of railway bills." Resolved, That the said article is a false and scandalous libel upon the Chairman and other Members of the Committee on Group 13 of Railway Bills. Resolved, That Washington Wilks, the proprietor and publisher of the said newspaper, in publishing the said article, has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House. Ordered,— That Washington Wilks, having been guilty or a breach of the Privileges of this House, be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
Ought not something to be done about the other person?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
He does not seem to have been in any way concerned in the matter. I will move that the order for the attendance of Hudson Scott be discharged.