§ MR. P. A. TAYLORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the defendant's demurrer in Gurney v. Bradlaugh, now standing for argument in the Queen's Bench Division; whether the demurrer challenges the legality of certain proceedings of the House in similar terms to a demurrer in Stockdale v. Hansard; whether, since in the last named case the then Attorney General was instructed to appear and appeared, in the name of the defendant, in order to defend the privileges of this House, any Correspondence has taken place between either of the solicitors for the parties in Gurney v. Bradlaugh and any officer of this House; and, whether there is any objection to lay such Correspondence upon the Table?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENERY JAMES)Sir, my attention has been called to the pleadings in the action of "Gurney v. Bradlaugh" in consequence of Mr. Speaker having placed them in my hands. They were forwarded to Mr. Speaker by the solicitors of Mr. Bradlaugh, accompanied by a courteous letter calling his attention to the questions involved. Having, at the request of Mr. Speaker, considered them in conjunction with the Solicitor General, it appeared to us that there was nothing in the issues raised which affected this House, so as to require any interference on its part or the intervention of the Law Officers on behalf of the House. In the case of "Stockdale v. Hansard," the action was brought against Messrs. Hansard in consequence of their having obeyed an Order of the House to print certain official Reports presented to Parliament, which were alleged to contain libellous matter; and it was thought that as the bringing the action was a contempt of the House, and that it was directly responsible for such publication, its agents ought to be protected, and the Attorney General was directed to defend the Officers of the House. But in this present case, no such considerations arise. With the action for penalties in itself the House is not concerned, although, no doubt, the result may be of interest and afford guidance to Members individually. The only 1034 correspondence which exists is the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor forwarding the pleadings, and the reply of Mr. Speaker, in which he says that—
He sees no reason for his interfering in anyway with the proceedings now pending in connection with the suit in question.If the House should desire these two formal letters to be printed, I have the authority of Mr. Speaker to say that there is no objection to the wish being complied with; but probably my hon. Friend will not press the request.