HL Deb 26 February 1839 vol 45 cc916-8

Lord Redesdale moved, that the officer of the House be allowed to attend the Court of Queen's Bench with the minutes of evidence before the committee upon the state of New Zealand, which evidence having been communicated to the Commons, had been published by them, and an action for libel brought upon it.

Lord Holland

said, he thought this a very serious question, and not to be lightly decided.

Lord Lyndhurst

said, the affair had arisen from the publication of the evidence by the House of Commons, and there would be an absolute failure of justice if the motion was not agreed to.

Lord Holland

thought, there was a question of principle involved.

Lord Melbourne

When does the trial come on?

Lord Lyndhurst

Thursday.

Lord Holland

I am not prepared to oppose the motion, but I think it involves very serious questions.

Lord Lyndhurst

Those questions are open for discussion hereafter. No privilege can be surrendered in consenting to the application under particular circumstances.

Lord Holland

It is all very well to say, that the question can be discussed hereafter; but if the application is granted in this case, it will be demanded as a matter of justice in others. The point may be raised, whether any of your Lordships may not be called upon to give evidence in a court of justice as to words spoken in this House. Are committees less under protection than the House itself? It is a fundamental principle, that nothing said in Parliament can be questioned in courts of law; that is one of the privileges of the House of Commons. I don't know what effect this application, if granted, may have upon that question. It is not to be granted as a matter of course.

Lord Redesdale

said, he would have given longer notice if it had been possible. There was no analogy, in his opinion, between proceedings in their Lordships' House, and proceedings before committees because of debates in that House, there was no authorized report, as there was in the case of the committees. The reporters might publish the debates, but it was not by the authority of that House, and this point was jealously watched in order to secure perfect freedom of debate. He wished to be bound by the decision of the House.

The Lord Chancellor

thought the party ought to have made the application earlier.

Lord Lyndhurst

said, his noble Friend near him had drawn a very proper distinction. There was no publication of the debates in that House, but the evidence in the committees was taken down by the proper officer, and that was communicated to the other House of Parliament, who published it to the world, and when it was published, everyone had a right to make comments on it. It was a case of extreme hardship.

The Earl of Minto

said, the same thing might have happened if the evidence had not been communicated to the House of Commons—any one might have published part of the evidence taken, before a Committee of their Lordships' House—but had it ever been pretended, that the party could come to their Lordships for a justification; although it was true, that it might serve him if he could obtain it. Their proceedings had always been considered as entirely closed.

Lord Holland

said, this was a question of great constitutional importance. He remembered, that in the famous case between Mr. Fox and Mr. Horne Tooke, a question arose as to what had passed in a Committee of the House of Commons, and Mr. Horne Tooke wished to make it evidence, but it was decided there could be no inquiry into what had passed in that. Committee.

Lord Redesdale

said, that if any privilege was likely to be given up by acceding to his application, he would be the last one to make it. The ground on which he rested his application was this, that the evidence had been published by the authority of the other House—their Lordships having communicated it to that House. The evidence had been publicly sold, and would their Lordships refuse the individual the legal evidence of proving that what had been published had taken place before the Committee. He did not think, that if this application was acceded to, it could be drawn into an injurious precedent.

The Lord Chancellor

said, there could be no doubt that in this particular case it would be for the benefit of the party to have what he asked, but he thought it was of the greatest importance that their Lordships should consider the extent to which applications of this sort might be carried.

Lord Lyndhurst

said, that if the House was not disposed to grant the application, probably the Court of Queen's Bench would postpone the trial when these circumstances were stated to it, arid then the matter could be brought before their Lordships for reconsideration on Thursday next. He would beg leave, therefore, on Thursday next again to submit the case to their Lordships' consideration.

Subject postponed.