Lords Sitting of 22 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Capital Punishment; Newspaper Stamps (Ireland); Sale of Tea; Greenwich Hospital Annuity; Port of London Dues.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from the City of London, for amending the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Shareholders of the London and Westminster Bank, in favour of that Bank.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from three Places, for Altering the Law relating to Arson.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Fenstanton, against Altering the Sale of Beer Act; from Dunning, for the Separation of Church and State.—By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from South Carlton, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Marquess of CHOLMONDELEY, the Earls of SHAFTESBURY and WINCHILSEA, and the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from a great Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from the Clergy of Shaftesbury, for a fair Equivalent in Case of a Commutation of Tithes.

LIBELLOUS LANGUAGE.
The Marquess of Westmeathrose to move for the correspondence of which he had yesterday given notice, and asked if he, or any other noble Lord, should introduce a Bill into that House, to prevent Members of either House of Parliament from using slanderous language towards each other—the noble and learned Lord would give it his support? He could not conceive what right any person had, in the discharge of his public duty as a Member of the Legislature, to attack the character of another Member, whether of the same or a different House of Parliament. He was aware that a publisher or editor of a publication was liable to answer for the slander that might be inserted in his publication; but this was a course of proceeding which he (the Marquess of Westmeath)
328
did not choose to have recourse to. It was high time that a stop should be put to the practice of which he had spoken. In the unfortunate state of the country with which he was more immediately connected, such was the state of party feeling that nothing was easier than to raise up a charge against an individual. Nothing more was needed than to get a letter inserted in the broad sheet, send it to a Member, and if that Member would use it in his place in Parliament, the accusation was published, and it went forth, to the serious prejudice of a party who had been thus innocently brought forward.
Lord Wharnclifferose to order. There was no question before the House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Marquess was about to move for papers; "but," added the Lord Chancellor, "perhaps I had better now answer the question which the noble Marquess has put to me."
Lord Wharncliffesaid, there was already an order of the House of Lords to prevent improper language or attacks being made. He begged to call the attention of the noble Marquess and their Lordships to that order. It was in these terms:—"To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive speeches, when matters are debating, either in the House or at Committees, it is for honour sake thought fit, and so ordered, that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborne."
The Marquess of Westmeathhad nearly concluded all that he was about saying, when he was interrupted by the noble Baron. What he had to complain of was, that the attack could be thus made, and the mischief be done, and the individual, the object of the attack, might have had his life put in jeopardy, without having any means of proceeding against the party through whom it was thus made public. He thought it was a species of injustice which required some remedy, and it might, he was inclined to believe, be accomplished without trenching on the freedom of debate. The noble Marquess then concluded with moving for a copy of an extract from a letter written by himself, on the 2nd of May, 1834, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, commencing with the words "I feel confident," and proceeding to the end of the letter—
The Lord Chancellorthought, that this was the first time that any motion had

329
been ever made for a garbled or imperfect communication.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I am anxious to explain, my Lords, why—
The Lord Chancellor: Not now. The House would consider well before it made a precedent for an order worded as this Motion was, for a part of a letter.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I desire to explain, my Lords.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it would be very convenient if only one noble Lord would speak at a time. The noble Marquess had asked him whether, if any one brought in a Bill to prevent Members of Parliament from slandering other persons, and he believed that the noble Marquess would not confine himself only to slander, he (the Lord Chancellor) would support that Bill? In answer, he would at once say, that he would not support any such measure; but, on the contrary, he should most decidedly oppose it. He would go further, and say, that he did not think the Parliament could pass such a Bill. It would be, in fact, virtually repealing the Bill of Rights. A most important, a most sacred section of the Bill of Rights, gave perfect impunity to every Member of Parliament, with respect to what he said in his place in Parliament; for that he was not amenable to any tribunal; and it was not possible that they could have absolute freedom of discussion if any line of limitation were marked out. If such a line were laid down, the privilege of speech in the great Council of the nation would depend upon the dictum of Judges, or upon the caprice of Juries. One Jury might think that was slander which another Jury might view in a very different light; so that there would be no end to nice and minute distinctions. There was one point, however, which ought not to be lost sight of. Under certain circumstances, an individual who felt himself aggrieved had his remedy—not a nominal remedy, but a remedy which was perfectly available, not merely against printers and publishers, but against Members of the Legislature themselves. If any Member took upon himself to print the slander which he had uttered, he was, to all intents and purposes, answerable for it. Such a person had no right to complain that he was so answerable, because the public would not be at all the worse if they did not hear those slanders, which was not the case with respect to discus-
330
sions touching political affairs. As a proof of what he stated, he could adduce the case of a noble Lord, a Member of that House, who had made and who had published a libellous speech, for which he was sent to prison for two months. Another individual, a Member of the House of Commons, for whom he was counsel, made a speech in his place in that House, reflecting on the character of a tax-gatherer in the town of Liverpool, which he thought proper to publish. An incorrect account of what he had said had got abroad, and to show how untrue that account was, and to let those who were concerned know what he really did say, he caused his speech to be printed. It contained libellous matter; he was prosecuted for the publication, and he was convicted. It was in vain, that he pleaded the privilege of Parliament—it was in vain, that the late Michael Angelo Taylor made a Motion on the subject in the House of Commons. It was held, that he was not protected for publishing what he had said in Parliament, although he had made the statement without any malicious motive, his object having been merely to correct a mistake. That this was a great protection to the subject certainly could not be denied. Things were often said in the heat of debate, and he feared also not unfrequently with design and in cold blood, which ought not to have been uttered, but which, at all events, the parties introducing them ought not themselves to publish. He, however, would fain hope that the good sense, the feeling of propriety, and the just taste of the audience to which they were in the habit of addressing themselves, would correct the aptitude of giving way to hasty expressions. This they might hope for, but that any legislative interference could reach the evil of which the noble Marquess complained was, he conceived, utterly out of the question.
The Marquess of Westmeathregretted very much, that no means could be devised to shield unoffending individuals from the iron rod, the tyrannical scourge which was wielded by unprincipled men, who made use of the privilege of Parliament to send forth their calumnies with impunity. With respect to the Motion itself, he had shaped it in the way which had been suggested by his Majesty's Ministers.
The Motion, as amended upon the suggestion of Lord Melbourne, was agreed to.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved, that the amendments made by the Commons to the Central Criminal Court Bill be taken into consideration.
Motion agreed to. Some of the amendments, being verbal, were agreed to; but one altering the extent of the Bill was negatived.
Lord Wynfordsaid, the present was the only opportunity which was afforded him of reminding the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that he promised, when this Bill was introduced, to take into consideration the propriety of granting some compensation to such officers as were deprived by its operation of their employment, and the noble Lord then admitted, that such a principle was fair and ought to be affirmed in all cases of reform in the institutions of the country. Now, this compensation had not been awarded to the Clerks of the Peace, the Clerks of Assize, and the other persons deprived of their offices by this Bill; and if such compensation were not granted, it would lay the House of Commons open to the charge of being ready to grant full compensation to the rich and powerful in such cases, whilst they denied it to the humble and needy. The omission of such a clause was, he thought, a great neglect on the part of the House of Commons. He should, therefore, beg to move, "That a Conference be demanded of the Commons, with a view to bring this subject more particularly under their consideration, in order that justice might be done to these deprived Clerks."
The Lord Chancelloragreed that, in all cases where persons were deprived of their offices to make way for any improvements and reform in the institutions, the loss sustained by them ought to be in part borne by the community at large; and it was with this feeling, that he had made the promise his noble friend alluded to. He was very sorry to find, that the Bill had come up from the House of Commons without any provisions for the compensation of the deprived clerks (of whom, by the way, he must observe, that the Clerks of Assize were provided for); the grant of some annual allowance had been proposed, and had been thrown out by a vote of the House of Commons, and he doubted very much if the House would retrace its steps in this matter. He should, however, make an application
332
to the noble Lord in charge of the finances of the country, who, he knew, was disposed to do justice to these persons, to see whether it could not yet be done. The Motion for a conference he found would, if agreed to, be of no use, for the Commons, with that jealousy which characterised their proceedings in money matters, would inevitably refuse to confer with their Lordships on such a subject; and perhaps, after all, the only way to amend the omission would be by the introduction of some Bill for the purpose next Session.
Lord Wynfordwas satisfied with the view taken by his noble and learned friend, and would not press the matter.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH FOR THEFT.
Lord Suffield, in moving, that this Bill be read a first time, reminded their Lordships, that on a former evening he had stated, that he understood it to be the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to introduce in the next Session of Parliament a more general measure for the mitigation of the Criminal Law, which should embrace, among others, the offence of letter-stealing, lately excepted from another Bill, which had just passed their Lordships' House. He hoped that such measure for removing the punishment of death, when brought forward, would be of a very comprehensive description.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it would be advisable that some general and systematic measure upon this subject should be introduced; because, when a Bill of this kind originated with one person, however good the intention, it was likely to differ from the measure introduced by some other person of similar good intention; and, moreover, such alterations of the law sometimes went so far, that they were driven to alter another part of the law which, originally, they did not mean to alter. It was for this reason that he approved of the Bill lately before their Lordships being restricted to repealing the capital punishment for returning from transportation; the change it effected was a limited one, for the sentence would not be found to have been carried into effect on referring back for the last fifty-two years, and perhaps not within the memory of man. A general and systematic report would be prepared by the Criminal Law Commissioners appointed last year; and; said the noble and learned

333
Lord, "I pledge myself, that as soon as this Report shall have been duly considered,—I pledge myself—to bring in a general measure, without waiting for the other House of Parliament, and at such a period of the next Session as will leave your Lordships plenty of time for its due consideration." Such a measure would proceed with a much better grace from their Lordships, who formed the highest branch of judicature in the empire, than from any other branch of the Legislature; and with the understanding, therefore, that the measure which he promised should embrace the whole subject of Criminal Law, perhaps the noble Lord would consent to postpone his Motion. If in the recent measures for mitigating the severity of the law, it should be proved, that the Legislature had erred in going too far(not that he had reason to suppose the fact would turn out so), he would not pledge himself to confirm such changes.
Lord Wynfordwas indebted to the noble Lord on the Woolsack for what had just been stated by him, and affirmed, that in a few years he doubted not to see such a system of secondary punishments in force as would render the punishment of death an occurrence of great rarity.
Lord Suffieldwas glad to hear the declaration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to his intention to introduce a general measure for the mitigation of the Criminal Law; but, in reply to his last observation, he (Lord Suffield) thought there was no danger of its turning out that the Legislature had committed an error in already having proceeded too fast, or too far, for, on investigation of the official criminal returns for the last three years, as compared with a preceding period of three years, it would be found that so far from danger having arisen by mitigating the punishment of death, it had had the salutary effect of repressing the commission of crime; for it was proved, and it was a most important fact, that in these cases of mitigated punishment, the aggregate commitments for offences had increased only two per cent over the former three years, while the crimes still punished with death had increased to the enormous extent of forty-four per cent in the same period, notwithstanding the executions.
The Bill was withdrawn.