Lords Sitting of 1 June 1843

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1° Declaratory Suit; Letters Patent Law Amendment; Admission of Ministers to Benefices (Scotland).
Private.—1a. Saltcoats Harbour.
2a Northampton and Peterborough Railway; Kentish Town Paving.
Reported. — Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal; Banbridge Roads; Scarborough Harborough.
3a. and passed:—Clarence Railway; Thames Lastage and Ballastage; Haddenham Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Kirkgate Chapel, and Cupar, for the Immediate and Total Repeal of the Com and Provision Laws.—From Milford, and Belper, for Post-Office Reform.—By the Earl of Clancarty, from Clontuskert, Kilcoleman, and Ballinasloe, in favour of the Schools of the Church Education Society.—From the Mallow Union, Ballynamona, Kilshanick, and Rahan, against the Irish Poor-law.—From Wexford, in favour of the Wexford Harbour Bilk—Prom George Charles Allhusen, of Newcastle, for Inquiry into the present state of the Currency.—From Sligo, against the Repeal of the Union.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The Marquess of Clanricarde:1 rise to call your Lordships' attention to a flagrant breach of your Lordships' privileges. I have never yet had any occasion to bring under the notice of this House any report of anything which has fallen from me here, but there has been so gross a misrepresentation made of what I said the other night in a paper of to-day, that I am compelled, in justice to myself and to the matter in question, to bring it before your Lordships' notice. With your Lordships' permission I will read to you a sentence from a leading article of the Times newspaper of this day, which says, in reference to me, that I,—
" Admitting that the declaration of the Go-
1222
vernment was sufficient notice, had it been officially notified to all her Majesty's servants, yet proceeded to tell the House of Lords and the country, that as Lord Ffrench and his brother magistrates had only had intimation of this declaration through the newspapers, ' which,' says his Lordship, ' they were not likely to read,' therefore it was to be presumed that these poor innocents had been acting in well-intentioned ignorance, and had considered, forsooth ! that their presence as magistrates at these meetings was calculated to preserve order!"
I think it is hardly possible to combine, in the same space of any speech, or of words in that speech, a greater mass of misrepresentation than is contained in the sentence 1 have read. Three facts are distinctly misrepresented. First, that. I admitted that, under any circumstances, a declaration in Parliament could be a justification of an executive act of a Government: on the contrary, 1 declared, that founding an act of the executive Government upon a speech in Parliament was contrary to parliamentary and constitutional law, and, in this instance at least, contrary to common-sense. Next, J did not say, that it was not likely that Lord Ffrench would not read the newspapers; but 1 did say that it was absurd, as well as contrary to constitutional and parliamentary law, to expect magistrates to shape their conduct in accordance with speeches made in Parliament; and that this was especially the case with respect to Ireland because Irish newspapers were those generally in circulation there, and the Parliamentary reports in those papers were of course necessarily and naturally much more abridged than those in the English newspapers, and therefore it would be absurd to suppose that justices of the peace in remote districts would be aware of every speech made in Parliament. What I said was merely intended to he used as an argumentum ad absurdum. I did not mean to imply that Lord Ffrench was ignorant of the speeches in question. The third misrepresentation is, I am stated to have argued that those gentlemen attended these meetings because they "considered forsooth that their presence as magistrates at these meetings was calculated to preserve order." I said nothing of the kind. I said that if one were to go into the question of whether it were wise to dismiss magistrates for attending those meetings, that then the question would arise whether more mischief would ensue from the magistrates attending them,

1223
than from their staying away. I have thought it right to notice this matter, because the subject is of great importance, and whether the objections which have been raised to the conduct of the Government with respect to Ireland are or are not relevant and well founded, it is, at all events, most important that they should be fairly stated. 1 do not think it necessary to move that the writer of the passage, or the printer, should be called to the Bar of your Lordships' House, but I hope that the notice which I have thought it my duty to take of the matter will set me right with your Lordships and the country, and so I leave the matter in your hands. Subject at an end.

LEGAL REFORM.
Lord Broughamlaid upon the Table a bill for the purpose of remedying a defect in the law, the existence of which had been found very inconvenient. The bill proposed to introduce into the law of England, and the practice of the courts of law and equity, a proceeding long known in the Scotch law and practised in Scotch courts, and the want of which in English practice had long been a subject of great regret. It was what was called in Scotland a declaratory action, a proceeding by means of which a person in possession, and dreading that his title might be disturbed when evidence in support of it might not be forthcoming—or by means of which a person not in possession and wishing to ascertain his rights, although no suit was pending between the parties—had the means of obtaining a declaratory decree of a court, either of law or equity as the case might be, in order to set forth and conclusively to establish between himself and those deriving right from him on the one side, and the parties called as the defendants to the suit on the other—the right to the property or status as the case might be. The bill applied to suits of any kind.
Bill read a first time.

THE SPANISH AUXILIARY LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderryhad a question to put to his noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on a subject that interested a great body of persons, and who had urged him to make an application to his noble Friend. A convention had been entered into between the Spanish and British Governments relative to the Spanish Auxiliary Legion, and according
1224
to that all the instalments due to that legion had been paid but one. In the correspondence which took place in May, 1840, it would be found that her Catholic Majesty's government had agreed that a compensation should be made to the legion on account of the delay that had occurred in the payment, and the terms of that compensation were to be determined by her Majesty's Government and that of her Catholic Majesty. Six months had now elapsed since the time that that compensation ought to have been paid. The questions he had to ask of his noble Friend were, whether there was a prospect of the compensation being paid, and also whether he intended to press the Spanish government for that payment?
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, the state of the case was this. The instalments due to the British Auxiliary Legion had all been paid; but in consequence of the delay the Spanish government had agreed to make compensation. It was the proposal of the Spanish commissioners. It was said that, taking into consideration the delay, an extraordinary compensation should be made, the terms of which payment were to be settled in concert with her Majesty's government. As it was naturally to be expected, her Majesty's Government were anxious as to the amount of that compensation. The Spanish government made a proposal that the sum of 3 per cent, should be paid on the arrears up to a certain period, the 1st of June, 1840. Her British Majesty's Government thought that the officers and men of the Legion should have compensation at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum. Her Majesty's Ministers at Madrid was instructed to press for that amount of compensation, and the matter was now under discussion between the two Governments.
The Marquess of Londonderryobserved that nothing could be more satisfactory than the answer of his noble Friend.
Subject at an end.

REPEAL OF THE UNION (IRELAND).
Lord Lortonpresented a petition in support of the Union between England and Ireland from the town of Sligo, a place that had, he said, been visited by that intolerable faction who were now agitating with a view of dismembering the British empire. Those persons declared that the Union was to be repealed in the year 1843. Since this subject had been last before

1225
their Lordships, and which had been so satisfactorily observed upon by the noble Duke near him, although they had not yet heard what steps the Government was about to take, as necessary to put an end to the present state of things; but since that time there had been various meetings of that vast conspiracy, and amongst the rest there was the meeting at Mullingar, of which their Lordships had heard so much. At that meeting statements were made that he considered most valuable. That meeting was presided over by one in the highest authority; one who was infallible—a Roman Catholic bishop; and there was present, too, a large body of the lower clergy. Of course, the most violent speeches were delivered, and the most rev. divine who was there said, that all the bishops and clergy of the Church of Rome were determined to repeal the Union; and at the same time that this was said, and that they issued their orders, there were well paid tools in attendance to act according as they were desired, This certainly appeared alarming; but, for his part, he rejoiced at it; for, to use a vulgar expression, it was " letting the cat out of the bag." That which was most necessary was to know the situation of Ireland, and there, the most extraordinary ignorance prevailed on the subject. It was most astonishing what an effect this had in Ireland, and he did not think that effect would be improved by the various opinions which had lately been uttered in that House. As to "conciliation" and "concession," and the effects they had produced, so much had been said by a noble and learned Lord, who he did not then see in his place, that be did not think it necessary to add one word of his own on these points. He hoped he might be pardoned, however, if, after having resided so long in Ireland, and being so well acquainted with it, if he ventured to suggest what he considered would be the best mode of restoring tranquillity, and of checking that Jesuit conspiracy which was spreading over the entire empire. He should say, without hesitation, that the most sure way of restoring tranquillity would be by calling out the yeomanry of the north nnd of some other places, distributed throughout the country. That, in a moral point of view, would have an extraordinary and favourable effect. He was convinced it would have a good effect upon the loyal and disloyal; and as to the government of the country, it must be well aware which of her Majesty's sub-
1226
jects were to be relied upon. He ventured to say that the moral effect throughout the country would be most extraordinary. It would not only do that, but he ventured to say that it would prevent an effusion of blood, and it would be the means of keeping all in their proper places. At the commencement of the rebellion in 1798, and during the whole of the progress of that sanguinary time, up to the battle of Vine-gar Hill, there was not a single regiment of the line in Ireland. The force consisted of the Irish militia, with the English and Scotch. These with the loyal yeomanry, composed the whole of the military array. In Ireland very happily at this time there was a strong force, and the regular troops, and the troops were fully competent to preserve the peace; but if the loyal men were called forth, they would he found to be a body of men most useful, and that would save the regular troops from being harassed, in a way that it would be otherwise necessary to harass them. He considered it his duty to express his sentiments as he had been so long a resident in Ireland, and he should now conclude by reading the three last lines of the petition from Sligo. They ran thus:—
" Your petitioners therefore pray, that you may take such steps as will maintan the legislative Union between the two kingdoms inviolable, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
Petition laid on the Table.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
The Earl of Clancarty.My Lords, I have three petitions to present to your Lordships upon the subject of National Education from parishes in the West of Ireland. They are in substance all to the same effect, and directed against the system of Education at present in operation. The petitioners repeat many of the objections to the National Board, which have been so fully set forth in the numerous petitions at different times presented to this House, but especially during the last Session of Parliament. They feel aggrieved that the Parliamentary grant for promoting the education of the Irish poor is, nevertheless, still exclusively given in aid of schools, which under the National Board are conducted upon the principle, that instruction in the Bible is not a necessary part of Christian Education. They represent to your Lordships that there are 1372 schools in operation, under the immediate super-

1227
intendence of the Prelates and Clergy of the Established Church, open to children of every religious denomination, and actually giving a sound, moral, religious, and literary education to 86,102 children, of whom 29,612 are Roman Catholics, and 8,365 are Protestant Dissenters, hereby realizing to a great extent, what the schools under the National Board have wholly failed of effecting, an united education of the lower order of the Irish people. And they complain, and with reason, that from these schools Parliamentary aid is withheld, solely because instruction in the Holy Scriptures is an essential part of the Education given in them. The prayer of these petitions which I beg most cordially to support is, that the countenance and support of Parliament may be no longer withheld as hitherto from these most valuable and excellent Institutions. As 1 trust that, after the Report of the Education Commission shall have been laid upon the Table of the House, there will be an opportunity for discussing fully the whole of this important subject, I shall only at present make one remark upon it in reference to what has just fallen from my noble Friend (Lord Lorton) upon the present excited state of Ireland, on the question of a Repeal of the Union. My Lords, 1 cannot but view it, and I felt it my duty, so far back as last December, to represent the case to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, I cannot but view it as among the causes that have the most materially strengthened the hands of the agitators of that question, that by the regulations of the National Board, the education and training of the great mass of the Irish population has for many years been, and still continues, to the practical exclusion of the Clergy of the Established Church, the natural friends of British connection, entrusted to the Roman Catholic Clergy who are, as your Lordships' are now well aware, the active promoters of the Repeal movement. If it is objected that the Clergy of the Established Church do not take that part in the superintendence of the schools which the Government designed originally that they should take, I would beg to remind your Lordships that even if the Clergy were to lend themselves to a system to which it is well known that they are conscientiously opposed—and there is no one but must respect the motives of that opposition— the regulations which are drawn up for
1228
the Government of those schools must preclude them from exercising any wholesome influence in them, from taking in fact that part in the religious and moral instruction of the assembled children, which could alone render their presence in those schools of any real service. Let me further observe to your Lordships that the ministration of the Protestant Clergy being by the rules of the Board limited to those of their immediate congregations, while to the Roman Catholic priests is wholly confided the religious training of the remainder, an impression, not a little injurious to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland must be the consequence. It must naturally strike both the poor, whose children attend these schools, as well as the children themselves who here imbibe those early principles and feelings which stamp their character and disposition in after life, that, when the services of the Clergy are thus restricted to the members of their respective communions, they as Roman Catholics or Dissenters have no interest whatever in the Established Church—that it is to be maintained only for the advantage of a section of the population, instead of being designed, as 1 conceive it and every other of the fundamental institutions of the country to have been and to be for the advantage of the whole people. At any time and under any circumstances the violation of the principle of a National Church, here involved, is to be deprecated; but at the present time it obviously must give, and it has given much weight to the arguments of those, who point to the overthrow of the Established Church as one of the objects, and the chief one to be obtained by Repeal of the Union. My Lords, my noble Friend has alluded to the policy, so called, of " Conciliation," I concur with him in viewing it as the foundation of all the past misgovernment of Ireland. The only sound principle of Government, and that which would most effectually conciliate the good will and respect of the Irish people and do away with the desire for a repeal of the Legislative Union, or any other fundamental change, would be to govern in the spirit of our Institutions, and upon the principles of the Constitution, and to administer the laws with firmness, vigour, and impartiality.
The Petitions from the Parishes of Ballinasloe, Clinterskerb, and Kilcoleman.
Laid upon the Table.

LAW OF LIBEL.
Lord Campbellsaid, he had been directed by the committee appointed to inquire into the law of defamation and libel to present its report, and the evidence taken before it. In moving that these papers be printed, he hoped their Lordships would allow him to state the course which the committee had adopted, and the conclusions at which they had arrived. The committee had devoted much time and labour to the subject; they had examined an ex-chancellor, two of the chief judges of the supreme courts in Westminster-hall, barristers, and solicitors; they had examined French lawyers and Scotch lawyers, police magistrates, booksellers, authors, the editors and conductors of some of the most respectable newspapers on both sides of politics, in London and the provinces, and he ought, in justice to them, to maintain that it was the unanimous opinion of all who had attended the committee,—that the editors and conductors of newspapers on both sides displayed the greatest zeal for the purity of the press,—and a readiness to concur in any measures for putting an end to the practice of encroaching upon the sanctity of domestic life, and of attacking private character. Upon the evidence the committee had come to the conclusion, that it was not expedient to interfere with public prosecutions for libel. They found in the law books various dicta and decisions which might be regarded as detrimental to the liberty of the press; but then they considered the mildness displayed by successive administrations on this subject; and that from the period that his learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had been Attorney-general, there had been no complaints of public prosecutions. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had set a good example, and he was happy to say it had been followed. He himself claimed no peculiar merit on this ground; but he had been Attorney-General for above seven years, and he had only filed one criminal information. In that case he considered that the public peace required it. It was against Mr. Feargus O'Connor; and when he conducted the prosecution, he requested the jury to acquit the defendant, unless they believed that his direct object was to incite to insurrection and plunder. While this was the opinion of the committee with respect to public prosecutions, it appeared to them that there were a considerable number of practical evils in the law of libel that required instant remedy. As the
1230
law now stood, if defamatory words were spoken, however calumnious they might be, or however public the occasion on which they were spoken, unless they imputed an indictable offence, or imputed to a party that he was not competent to carry on his business, or that he had an infectious disease, they were not punishable; but if they imputed want of chastity in a lady of the highest character and rank, or if they stated that a man was without honour and courage, the law afforded no remedy whatever. The committee, then, had come to the conclusion that there should be a remedy for slander spoken, as well as in writing. The Scotch lawyers were astonished how the law in England on this matter had remained down to the middle of the nineteenth century. There was this distinction with respect to indictments and civil actions brought for libel, that when an action on the case was brought to recover a compensation in damages, the defendant may justify the truth of the facts alleged, and then the truth is an absolute bar to the plaintiff's obtaining a remedy; but upon an indictment for libel, the defendant cannot allege the truth of it by way of justification. Under this rule, cases of hardship sometimes arose. Errors may have been committed by a party, and may have been long atoned for and forgiven. It seemed a reproach to the administration of justice that in such cases a man's forgotten misconduct, or the misconduct of a relation, in which the public had no interest, should be wantonly raked up, and published to the world, on the ground of its being true. A great wrong here was committed, and no remedy was obtained. It appeared at the same time, that civil actions were often brought most vexatiously, and merely for the sake of the costs. It had been proposed, that the tender of an apology might be offered in evidence, by way of bar to the proceedings, and that the plaintiff, after the tender of an apology, should proceed on the risk of the jury thinking the apology so tendered sufficient. But the conclusion arrived at by the committee was, that the apology should not operate as a bar to the action, but should be given in evidence by way of mitigation of damages; and that the jury should look to the spirit of the apology, and consider whether it fairly made out ground for a mitigation, or did not operate as it might in some cases, as an aggravation, calling for more exemplary damages. With regard to the tender of amends, the conclusion

1231
of the committee was, that in every case evidence on this point ought to be admitted, and that if the plaintiff proceeded after such a tender had been made, he must do so at his own peril. It was stated in evidence by several respectable journalists, that, in spite of the greatest vigilance and caution, it sometimes happened that objectionable paragraphs were copied from other journals. Respectable people, when these paragraphs reflected on them, were in such cases satisfied with an ample apology. But there were base characters who, it was stated, sometimes sent these paragraphs themselves, and nothing would satisfy such persons but to urge on the trial with the view of getting costs. The. committee, under these circumstances, had come to the conclusion, that when an involuntary error had been committed, and an offer was made to apologise, the defendant in that case should be at liberty to pay a sum of money into court; and if the defendant was not satisfied but went on, the verdict with costs should go for the defendant, unless the jury were of opinion that the sum offered was insufficient. Such an enactment would, as he believed, give much satisfaction to respectable journalists, and be attended with great public good in checking frivolous actions for libel. The committee were struck with the monstrous anomaly noticed by all the witnesses that in prosecutions for libel, the truth should be entirely excluded in justification, although the indictment charges the libel to be false, and that it should be frequently said, the greater the truth the greater the libel. This proceeded on the very false maxim, that the libel was only to be condemned, because it tended to a breach of the peace. The fact was, that the libel was to be condemned as a private injury to a private individual; that a wrong was done, and an injury inflicted upon a person who was entitled to protection; and the person who did that wrong ought to be punishable by law. Libel was a crime, as a theft was a crime, or as assaulting an individual was a crime, and the party libelled ought to have his remedy at law for the injury sustained. It appeared to the committee, and they had reported accordingly, that if there was nothing in the publication complained of, but what was true, and what the public ought to be made acquainted with, the defendant ought not to be precluded from bringing evidence to prove its truth, or that it was matter of useful intelligence. The recom-
1232
mendation of the committee, therefore, was that the proof of truth should in no case be excluded, but that it should not be an absolute bar in criminal, any more than in civil proceedings. This would leave the jury, under the direction of the judge, the power of deciding (the plea of truth being proved) whether there was or was not proper occasion to publish it; and if the jury felt that the object of the party publishing was a malicious one—was that of raking up what ought to be forgotten, and of making notorious personal infirmities in which the public had no interest—of attacking the feelings of a family by publishing what may be true, but ought to be forgotten, concerning any member of it— if* this were the opinion of the jury, they would find the defendant guilty, and he would be punished accordingly. The next subject was the classification of libels. Great complaint had been made, that all libels, however varying in criminality, were in point of law considered the same offence, and liable to the same punishment. The committee proposed to divide them into three classes. The first and most aggravated was a class of offences so heinous and atrocious that, morally speaking transportation itself would be no inadequate punishment for them: he meant where an attempt was made to extort money by the threat of libelling an individual or a member of his family, and the libel was published because the money was not paid. The proposal of the committee was, that the party convicted of this offence should be subject to fine, and imprisonment for three years, accompanied with hard labour. The next class was where the libel published was false, and the libeller knew t to be false. This was also a most aggravated offence, though divested of one of the worst features of the offence he had before described. They proposed that for this the punishment should be fine and imprisonment for two years. The third class was, that in which it was not proved that the defendant knew the libel to be false, though it was published with an intention to injure, and maliciously. It was proposed, that the punishment for this should be fine and one year's imprisonment. The committee wished to establish a fourth class, the punishment for which should be fine without imprisonment; but they had not been able to define this fourth class, so as not to exclude those offences which the committee thought ought, at the discretion of the court, to be punished with imprison-

1233
ment as well as fine. The next subject which the committee had considered was the publication of the proceedings of courts of justice, and of the two Houses of Parliament. With regard, first, to the publication of the proceedings of courts of justice, it had been held by several decisions, that when the report of those proceedings was fair and bonâ fide no action could lie for the publication. A different doctrine, however, had sometimes prevailed, and it had been questioned whether such a publication was legal. That doubt ought to be set at rest. With regard to publishing the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament, it had been found expedient, that they should be made known to all the world. Accordingly the publication was now permitted with the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. Was it then fair, that the proprietors of newspapers should be subject to have actions brought against them for publishing what appeared to be a fair report of the proceedings of Parliament? The committee were unanimously of opinion that it was unfair, and that it ought to be declared that the conductors of all publications should not be liable to prosecution for publishing fair accounts of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament at any time when strangers were allowed to be present. It was at all times competent for the Members of either House to move that strangers be excluded when the proceedings could not be reported, without a breach of privilege. Then with regard to the publication of exparte police reports, about which doubts had been expressed, the committee had concluded, after an examination of some police magistrates, that as it was known, that these proceedings were exparte, and did not necessarily injure private character, it was of public advantage that these proceedings should be published. The publication was an auxiliary to the police, and it led to the discovery and detection of criminals. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood, that the committee excepted those extraordinary proceedings which were wholly ex-parte and wholly unwarranted, which took place when persons went before magistrates to ask what they called advice, and which proceedings ought not to take place, because they were cases in which the magistrates had no jurisdiction. Under the pretence of asking advice, very often statements were made of a most libellous character, and were often made only for the purpose of extorting money. The magis-
1234
trates, he repeated, in such cases had no jurisdiction, and could confer no privilege and no immunity. There was another subject, which came before the committee —namely, the proof which ought to be given, in order to establish the responsibility of a party when the publication was made by his agent. It. had been held, and this was considered a harsh decision, that the purchase of a copy of a book or newspaper at the shop or office of the defendant, was not only prima facie, but conclusive evidence of the publication and of the responsibility. The defendant was not allowed to prove by evidence, that he knew nothing of the contents of the publication, and could not by possibility be aware of it; and that the libel had been printed or sold against his express orders. The committee proposed, that after a prima facie case had been made out, it should be competent for a defendant to prove, that the publication was without his orders, or contrary to his orders, and, that under the circumstances, it was impossible for him to have directed or sanctioned it. Another point to which the attention of the committee had been directed, was the grievance which arose in many cases where a party, instead of bringing a civil action proceeded by a criminal prosecution; if he brought a civil action he was liable to costs, and the party against whom he proceeded improperly, was indemnified by those costs, but if he proceeded by indictment or criminal information, the party who was unjustly prosecuted was saddled with heavy costs, and had no remedy whatever. The committee proposed, that in all prosecutions by indictment or criminal information for private libel, if there should be a verdict for the defendant he should be entitled to recover costs, to be taxed by the proper officer of the court. There was another subject to which the committee had directed their attention — namely, the course to be adopted when there was a series of trials upon the same indictment arising out of the same transaction. Should persons be permitted to publish any part of the proceedings until the whole of the proceedings were concluded? Judges had sometimes intimated and made an order that no part of such proceedings should be published until the whole proceedings were concluded; but of late years that mode had been departed from, and there was a general opinion that such orders were ineffectual. They could not be enforced. There would still be partial

1235
and surreptitious reports. The report of the committee adopted this opinion, and thought the publication should take place. In the case of Courvoisier, the publication of his trial during its progress had materially facilitated the conviction of that offender. The publication, then, of the proceedings during a trial was very advantageous; it was tantamount to enlarging the court and admitting all the public to witness its proceedings. It was proposed to render it lawful, while a trial was going on, to publish from time to time an account of the proceedings. It must always, however, be remembered that such a flagitious offence as publishing partial and improper reports, would render the parties making those partial reports liable to a criminal information. There was only one other subject he would mention before he concluded. He alluded to the conduct of those disreputable papers, some of which were published in the metropolis, though he would not name them. This subject had been considered by the committee, though they had not required the parties to come before them, as that would have been asking them to criminate themselves. But there were various publications, no one doubted, which were conducted on the principle of living by slander. He way sorry to say they laid their account with making money by taking away character and circulating the foulest libels. They set at defiance the parties they injured, and the way they did it was this— they entered the name of a mere man of straw as the responsible party at the Stamp-office, who had no property in the paper. If an action were brought and damages recovered there was no advantage gained. The party responsible had not a shilling on which to levy the damages awarded. If the party did not abscond he went to gaol, and the party who was injured had the poor satisfaction of keeping the scape-goat in prison. It was suggested as an effectual remedy for this enormous evil — by the manager of one of the respectable daily journals of the metropolis—that the security now given to the Stamp-office, to answer for the payment of the stamp duties, should extend to pay for all damages which a verdict of a court might give against any paper. No newspaper but must now give such security before it could be established, and it was suggested, that when the security should be made answerable for damages, and part of it appropriated to pay those awarded by a court of Jaw, that the security should still
1236
be kept up to its full amount. He had reason to believe that no respectable journal would make any objection to that suggestion. A journal was generally established either by a gentleman having capital of his own, and who could find no difficulty and could make no objection to give the required security; or if the newspaper were to be started by any respectable gentleman, who was not himself in possession of capital, but who had habits and abilities to conduct such a publication, he would have no difficulty in finding the required security. He conceived, then, that nobody would complain of such an enactment as repressing in the smallest degree free discussion, or as having any tendency to give a monopoly to any description of persons, or as preventing any person in the country, who might be desirous of it, from establishing journals to expound their opinions to their political admirers. It would be no hardship, and it would have the most beneficial effect of crushing those injurious publications, and putting an end to the in-famous system to which he had alluded. The report which he should have the honour to present contained propositions to the effect he had stated. He hoped when their Lordships should have perused it that they would approve of it. He hoped, too, that the public would think that they were served by the efforts of the committee; at all events, they might have the satisfaction of knowing that the investigation had caused no public expense, for of all the witnesses the committee had examined only one claimed remuneration. The committee thought he ought not to be remunerated, as he was living in London, had volunteered his evidence and was detained only half an hour under examination, and his evidence certainly was not the most valuable they had received. He proposed, after the report had been in their Lordships' hands, to frame a bill which he should have the honour to present to the House. Of course not only all of their Lordships who had not been on the committee, but also all the members of the committee, would be entirely at liberty to express any opinion they might think fit upon any portion of the bill. The report he should have the honour to present had not been dissented from by a single member of the committee; but the members of the committee were by no means pledged when they saw the provisions embodied in a bill not to object to any of which they disapproved. But he trusted that the subject, having been so thoroughly sifted and in-

1237
vestigated by a committee so numerous, so intelligent, and so laborious, who bad agreed, without dissent, to the propositions of the report.—he trusted the bill which was to be founded upon it would receive their Lordships' approbation, and having become the law of the land, would be found of great benefit to the public. The noble and learned Lord then laid upon the Table the report of the committee.
Their Lordships on the motion of the Duke of Wellington adjourned till Friday the 9th inst.
Report laid on the Table and ordered to be printed.