HC Deb 13 May 1881 vol 261 cc503-12

(Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Edward Leatham, Mr. Samuel Morley.)

[BILL 5.] COMMITTEE.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

COLONEL MAKINS

asked whether this Bill did not come under the operation of the half-past 12 Rule, as there were Amendments?

MR. SPEAKER

The Rule does not apply to Amendments when they are only Amendments in Committee.

Clause 1 (Interpretation).

MR. INDERWICK

said, it appeared to him and to some of his Friends desirable to have some definition as to what were public meetings for the purposes of the Bill; and he, therefore, proposed that for the purposes of the Act the words "public meeting" should mean "any meeting to which reporters of the Press were admitted." As this was a Bill to give certain privileges to newspaper editors and proprietors, he hoped the Committee would be of opinion that the definition he proposed was sufficient to give them an intimation of what a public meeting was, and how far their liability extended.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 3, after the word "advertisements," to insert the words "public meeting shall mean any meeting to which reporters for the press are admitted with the assent of the said meeting."—(Mr. Inderwick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.">

COLONEL MAKINS

saw considerable objection to proceeding with this Bill, even though it was unopposed, at that late hour; but he should like to ask the hon. Member why he left out the defini- tion "not less than twenty Members?" Any hole-and-corner meeting might, by obtaining the presence of reporters, constitute itself a public meeting within the terms of the clause. He objected strongly to leaving out the definition "not less than twenty Members."

MR. HUTCHINSON

said, his hon. Friend had omitted the words at his desire, for otherwise meetings of Churchwardens, Vestries, Local Boards, and other local authorities would be excluded from the Act.

COLONEL MAKINS

thought meetings of Guardians, Vestries, and such public bodies might very well be alluded to specially in the clause; but he objected strongly to leaving out the limit as to 20 persons, having regard to meetings other than those specially mentioned.

MR. LEAMY

wished to know why the hon. Member omitted the words "with the consent of the meeting," seeing that reporters could not report unless they were admitted.

MR. INDERWICK

explained that the ordinary course for reporters who were sent to private meetings was to ask if they were to be admitted; and if they were admitted, it was understood that they were admitted by consent of the meeting. But the words "with the consent of the meeting" might render it necessary to put the question to every meeting. That was why he put the Amendment in that form. He thought the Bill very reasonable, and he put this Amendment on the Paper in order that it might be discussed.

COLONEL MAKINS

thought the Amendment proposed was so different in character from that already on the Paper, that it would not be right to consider it at that time. It raised many questions which would require discussion. He should move that the Chairman should report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Makins.)

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HUTCHINSON

, gathering that the general feeling of the House was to adjourn the discussion, expressed his willingness to bow to that feeling.

MR. HEALY

said, it was so seldom that there was a chance of making pro- gress, that it was advisable to discuss this important Bill.

MR. COURTNEY

hoped the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick) would not press his Amendment. The Bill had been carefully considered by a Committee upstairs for several years, and he had the honour to consider it as a Member of the Committee. The first year the Chairman was the Attorney General of the late Government, and last year the Attorney General of the present Government was Chairman. The Committee considered the question of putting in words precisely defining public meetings, but they gave up the attempt as being really impracticable. They, however, inserted words which they thought were a sufficient guarantee. It would add materially to the difficulties of applying the Bill if it was attempted to provide precisely as to how reporters were to be present at meetings, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment.

MR. INDERWICK

said, he should like to take the opinion of the Committee on the matter. His object was to extend the operation of the Bill, and he did not anticipate the difficulties pointed out by the hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, take the opinion of the Committee as to whether it was desirable to introduce this definition.

MR. WARTON

thought the proposal most absurd. Two persons might meet together, and because they had a reporter present they became a public meeting.

MR. DAWSON

considered the words proposed to be introduced most proper words, for the presence of reporters at a meeting made it a public meeting in the most effectual manner. He heartily approved of the Amendment.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, he should certainly vote against the Amendment; but, in the event of its being carried, he should move that a public meeting should consist of not less than 20 persons.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 40: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 202.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Newspaper reports of certain meetings privileged) agreed to.

Clause 3 (No prosecution for newspaper libel without fiat of Attorney General).

MR. COURTNEY

proposed, in line 33, to leave out the words "Her Majesty's Attorney General," in order to insert "Director of Public Prosecutions." This question was raised in Committee upstairs, and he was bound to say it was there decided against his opinion and in favour of making criminal prosecutions for libel depend upon the allowance of Her Majesty's Attorney General. It appeared to him at the time, and it had appeared to him more strongly since, that no allowance for a criminal prosecution should be left to the discretion of a political officer. It appeared to him that in many cases the task of the Attorney General would be one of great difficulty and delicacy. Many libels arose out of a political controversy; and it might happen that the Attorney General was of opinion that no allowance should be made for a criminal prosecution, yet he might grant it, for fear that if he did not he would be accused of political partizanship. To relieve the Attorney General from the possibility of such a position he proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "Her Majesty's Attorney General," in order to insert the words "the Director of Public Prosecutions."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Her Majesty's Attorney General' stand part of the Bill."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND. (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

, suggested that, inasmuch as the Attorney General directed criminal prosecutions in Ireland, and as there was no such Officer in Ireland as "Public Prosecutor," the Amendment should read—" Public Prosecutor in England and Attorney General in Ireland."

MR. HUTCHINSON

said, the House was unanimous the other day in thinking the Attorney General by far the best authority to whom this question could be referred, because he could be called to order in the House of Commons if there was any misuse of his power. This would not be so in the case of the Public Prosecutor. They need have no fear of the duty being honourably discharged by the Attorney General for the time being; his social position and political status were sufficient to ensure an impartial administering of the Act. He disapproved of making any further differences between England and Ireland.

MR. WARTON

hoped the distinguished legal authority who had just spoken (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would excuse him if he did not agree with him. He should infinitely prefer the Attorney General to the Public Prosecutor. One thing was most amusing. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), in moving the Amendment, did not know the name of the official he proposed to substitute for the Attorney General. He did not know whether it was the Prosecutor General, or Director of Prosecutions, or Prosecutor; and had to appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen sitting near him. The fact of the matter was that the office of Prosecutor was on its trial. There was a staff of six clerks to be appointed; only one clerk had yet been appointed, and the whole Office was treated with discredit by everybody. The Prosecutor was a man of no weight; and there was no argument which could be used in favour of the present proposition. The hon. Member for Liskeard had said the duty would be a delicate one for the Attorney General to have to perform. No one ever supposed the Attorney General would act unfairly, no matter to which political Party he belonged. He knew the Attorney General was a most overworked man, and wanted to have no fresh duty thrust upon him. He was, however, the proper person to discharge a duty of this kind; and it was rather hard at this time of the morning to have an Amendment of this nature started upon them.

MR. HEALY

thought they ought to establish a precedent in this Bill and make the Public Prosecutor or Attorney General give this allowance without fee or charge. He therefore asked the hon. Member for Liskeard to consent to add to his Amendment the following words:—"The same will be given free of all charge or fee."

MR. LEAMY

said, the Public Prosecutor in Ireland was the Attorney General. He understood the Attorney General assented to other prosecutions. If that were so, he did not see why his assent should not be taken in the case of criminal prosecutions for newspaper libel.

MR. INDERWICK

said, this was a matter which chiefly concerned editors and proprietors of newspapers; and he understood they preferred to be in the hands of the Attorney General rather than in those of any other official. In his opinion, it would be a great advantage to substitute the Public Prosecutor for the Attorney General. The Public Prosecutor was a permanent official; he was not a political Officer or a Member of the House of Commons, but was liable to give an account of his actions to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice for the time being. Under these circumstances, it would be held by the public that he was a more impartial official than the Attorney General, especially in libels of a political nature, and he must support the Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'Her Majesty's Attorney General' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Further Question put, and agreed to, "That the words 'the Director of Public Prosecutions' be substituted."

MR. COURTNEY

proposed to add, after the word "prosecutions," the words "in England, or the Attorney General in Ireland."

MR. HEALY

thought this a most objectionable proposal. They wanted a Public Prosecutor in Ireland. He did not wish to obstruct the Bill; but it was a most disgraceful thing for them in Ireland, where political strife was at times so heated, to have to apply to the Attorney General to be allowed to conduct the prosecutions. They had a recent case in Ireland—the case of Mr. Parnell and others against The Dublin Evening Mail. If Mr. Parnell and others had had to go to the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney General in that matter, the fiat would never have been granted. The Attorney General for Ireland would see the force of his remarks.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) mistook the scope of the Bill. It was not a Bill to protect writers, but to protect newspaper editors from the consequences of publishing libellous reports. As they had no other official in Ireland than the Attorney General to whom a matter of this kind could be referred, he should support the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

asked why the word "fiat" was retained in the clause? How could there be a "fiat" to the Director of Prosecutions if such an official existed?

Amendment agreed to.

MR. INDERWICK

moved, at the end of the clause, to add the words— And every such prosecution shall be heard and tried on the same principles, and in the same manner, and subject to the same rules and regulations as civil actions now tried in the High Court of Justice. He thought that, as a matter of principle and as a matter of right, the defendant in an action of libel might require the charge to be proceeded with as a civil action, and that it should not be in the power of the prosecutor to put him to the disadvantage of being put on his trial for a criminal action, where his mouth would be closed. He therefore moved this Amendment as an act of fairness and justice to the newspaper proprietors, and as an amendment of the law which had become absolutely necessary.

Amendment proposed, At end of Clause to add "and every such prosecution shall be heard and tried on the same principles, and in the same manner, and subject to the same rules and regulations as civil actions now tried in the High Court of Justice."—(Mr. Inderwick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment. It might be right or it might be wrong to allow a person placed on his trial for a criminal action to give evidence and to have the same advantages as the defendant in a civil action. He would not enter into that question, which was a very broad one, now; but it was not proposed by the Bill that the trial in these cases should necessarily be by means of a civil action, and the question whether it was right or wrong to retain the present condition of things, and to refuse to a man who was criminally charged the power of giving evidence in his own behalf, should not be settled by making an exception to the ordinary rule in trials for libel. Under the Criminal Law, all persons put upon their trial for a criminal action were placed in a certain position, and it would be undesirable to establish an exception only in the case of a particular class of persons who happened to be newspaper proprietors. He trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would not ask the Committee to assent to the important alteration proposed by the Amendment.

MR. DAWSON

thought that some distinction ought to be drawn between an ordinary libel and a newspaper libel. Very often a newspaper libel only repeated words which some other person had used, whereas an ordinary libeller placed himself knowingly in the position which rendered him liable to be prosecuted. The newspaper proprietor who published a libel was in a totally different and in an altogether exceptional position. No moral criminality attached itself to him; but he was constantly harassed and distressed by being made the object of a criminal prosecution. He thought the House ought to avail itself of any legitimate opportunity for relieving the Press from the invidious position in which it was now placed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) seemed to forget that the Committee were now engaged in giving exceptional privileges to the newspaper proprietors, and already in Section 2 they had provided that if it could be shown that the newspaper proprietor had only published a report that was accurate, it should be a complete answer to the charge. It was unreasonable to ask them to go further, and to say that a case which the Attorney General or Public Prosecutor considered to be a fit case for a prosecution should be dealt with in an exceptional manner.

MR. HUTCHINSON

said, he should have been glad to accept the Amendment; but, after the remarks which had been made by the Law Officers of the Crown, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw it.

MR. INDERWICK

had no desire to put the Committee to any unnecessary trouble in the matter. He had understood that the Amendment he proposed had the assent of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Hutchinson) and others who took an interest in the question; and personally he should be glad to see such a provision extended to actions other than actions for libel. He had thought it right that the Committee should have their attention drawn to the subject, and that the law should provide that wherever there was an alternative remedy and the person aggrieved chose to proceed by way of criminal action, the defendant should have the right of giving evidence in his own behalf. He had no wish, however, to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, if the feeling of the Committee was substantially against his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Register of newspaper proprietors to be established) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Annual returns to be made) agreed to.

Clause 6 (Penalty for omission to make annual returns).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

moved to report Progress. The Committee would recollect that in the course of the discussion which took place on the second reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) called attention to the deficiencies of this clause in regard to the penalties imposed under it. It was necessary that the clause should undergo some alteration. He had no wish to stop the progress of the Bill at the present moment; but it was necessary to report Progress, because it would not be regular to propose any alteration of the penalty on the Report, and he was not in a position then to say in what respects it was desirable to alter the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be quite competent to re-commit the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

believed that an understanding had been come to that something should be done to alter this clause; and he certainly thought it would be better to report Progress. He did not think there would be any difficulty in getting the Bill through Committee when it was brought on again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. WARTON

thought there ought to be a penalty of so much a day for neglect of registration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.