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 Lord ChancellorNot 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 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.