Lord Broughamwished now to call the attention of the noble Marquess to a different subject. On the 21st of July, 1836, a proclamation appeared in the Gazette of the island of Malta, having for its object the liberty of the press and the abolition of the censorship in that island. A draught of an ordinance, as it was called, had lately appeared in the same Gazette, for the expressed purpose of carrying into effect the design of the proclamation of 1836. He wished to ask the noble Marquess whether this draught of an ordinance had the effect of altering the law previously existing in the island, and whether her Majesty's Government was aware of the contents of this most incredible document. Instead of being a law securing the liberty of the press, no press whatever, whether in Algiers or Turkey, was ever before placed under such restrictions. It was full of the grossest, the most monstrous, and most incredible absurdities; it provided that any person who published any writing whatever censuring any individual in his private capacity was to be liable to imprisonment; so that not only if it were said of any one who had been guilty of criminal conversation that he was an adulterer, or of one who had been convicted of robbery that he was a felon, would such cases as those fall within the scope of this law; but if any one expressed his disapprobation of another, in respect of his conduct, or his mode of life, or said that his despatches were ill-written, or that his style was bad, or his writings unintelligible, or even that he did not write a good hand, it would be a censure, subjecting the party who was guilty of it to imprisonment. He ought, however, to mention, that a distinction was drawn between censurers who defamed and those who did not; the former were punished 226 with twelve months' imprisonment, the latter with only six. But the absurdity did not stop there; if any person did any thing to cause the publication of a censure, nay, more extravagant still, if an omission to do any act tended to encourage any such publication, the act or omission was punishable. The effect of that regulation might be, that a man might be punished for a libel upon himself published by some one else, if he did not take steps to prevent its circulation. Was he not justified in calling this an incredible document? It would, however, have wholly escaped his notice, and that of the House in all probability, had he not happened, quite accidentally, to see the Malta Gazette, and he thought it would be no more than a prudent precaution if every act of legislation on the part of the Crown were made public in this country. He would beg the noble Marquess to answer the questions which he had put, in order that he might judge whether it would be necessary to make a motion upon the subject.
The Marquess of Normanbywas understood to say, that as the ordinance was still under the consideration of the Government, it would be premature in him to express any opinion upon the subject at present:
Lord BroughamThen it was, he supposed, the law in Malta; and a man might in that island be committed to prison for a libel upon himself published by somebody else.
§ The Earl of Riponthought that all the absurdity which the noble and learned Lord had pointed out, and with which he (the Earl of Ripon) had now become, for the first time, acquainted, would have been avoided, had not the offices of Attorney-General and Chief Judge in the island been abolished as sinecures, in conformity with the suggestion of the commissioners, who had thought proper to come to a conclusion upon that point without even examining the Chief Judge or Attorney-general as to the nature of their duties or holding any communication with those learned persons upon the subject. The offices were abolished, and the Chief Judge and Attorney-general were now in England. If this had not been 227 the case, the ordinance would, as a matter of course, have been referred to the Attorney-General, whose particular duty it would have been to advise the Governor upon questions of this sort. Having dispensed with the services of that learned gentleman as useless, he presumed the ordinance had been referred by the Colonial-office to the law officers of the Crown, and perhaps the noble Marquess would state whether these officers were responsible for the ordinance.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that when the question came on for discussion, he would make the best defence he could to the charge brought against the Colonial-office, and state what had been done with respect to this ordinance, although he might not, at present, be as well acquainted with the proceedings of the Malta Commissioners as some of their Lordships were.
Lord Broughamwas astonished to hear that the offices of Chief Judge and Attorney general had been abolished without those learned persons having been examined as to the nature of the duties which they had to perform. Why the House of Commons would not abolish the place of a tide-waiter without making such an inquiry.
§ Conversation dropped.