LORD CAMPBELLbegged to state, that, on account of the approaching dissolution of Parliament, he should not proceed further during the present Session with the Committee to inquire how far the privilege now given to reports of the proceedings of courts of law might be extended to the reports of the proceedings of Parliament and other public assemblies; but he begged to give notice that immediately on Parliament reassembling he should move the reappointment of the Select Committee. On mature consideration of the subject, he could not at all think that their Lordships would agree that a rule should be laid down of complete immunity for the publication of everything spoken at every public meeting. He believed such a rule would be inconsistent with public safety and destructive of private character; but, at the same time, he was still of opinion that the grievance of which journalists complained might to a certain degree be remedied; for there were certain public meetings the proceedings of which he thought might be placed on nearly the same footing as the proceedings of courts of law, and it was possible that some definition might be made of the public meetings with respect to which the same privilege of reporting might be extended as applied to courts of law. At present, the mischief which might be expected to arise from the present state of the law was greatly mitigated by the circumstance that if juries only gave nominal damages no costs followed. Formerly, and until a very recent period, if an action for libel was brought and damages 2277 to the amount of one farthing were recovered full costs followed, and thus a multiplicity of pettifogging actions for the recovery of costs was encouraged; but, at present, unless substantial damages were given no costs followed, and the temptation, therefore, to bring actions for the sake of recovering costs was taken away. Nevertheless, an action brought against a respectable journal caused great anxiety, and saddled the defendant with his own costs. It was possible that some expedient might be found whereby, if no real injury had been sustained, the costs of bringing the action should fall on the party bringing it; and if it should be the opinion of the jury that no real damage had been sustained they might find a verdict for the defendant; or if nominal damages only were given, then, with the approbation of the Court, not only no costs should be recovered, but the plaintiff should pay the costs of the defendant. These were matters which might fairly be submitted to the consideration of the Select Committee, when it reassembled.
He wished also to give notice that, with the view of expediting and generally improving the proceedings of Select Committees of their Lordships' House, he should at a future time move a Standing Order to the effect that the oath to witnesses should be administered, not necessarily at the bar of the House, but, when deemed fit, before the Select Committees. At present the greatest inconvenience resulted from its being necessary that witnesses should be sworn at the bar of the House. Judicial business was sometimes interrupted in consequence of a crowd of witnesses being collected at the bar, and the expedient was occasionally resorted to of hearing witnesses unsworn before Select Committees, and swearing them afterwards, if it were thought necessary.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was glad the noble and learned Lord had called attention to the mode in which witnesses before Select Committees were sworn. He had, however, been informed that an alteration of the practice could not take place by a mere Standing Order of the House. It was absolutely necessary, in order that false witnesses before Select Committees might be punished for perjury, that the oath should be administered either under the authority of the statute made for the purpose, or according to the invariable usage and precedent of the House. In consequence of the inconvenience resulting from 2278 the present mode of swearing witnesses, a practice had obtained, which was open to much objection, of sometimes hearing before a Select Committee witnesses who had not been sworn at the bar of the House, and calling them on a subsequent day to the bar, and swearing them to the whole of their evidence, written out from the shorthand writer's notes. He also thought it desirable that the Committees should have power to send for persons, papers, and records as in the Commons, without obtaining the previous order of the House.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had no doubt as to the power of the House to administer the oath in the manner he had suggested. The House could not assume by Resolution any power which did not belong to it; but their Lordships had the power of directing the manner in which the oath should be administered, and might order it to be done by one of their officers, or by Committees. The other House could not administer oaths at all, except under the provisions of certain acts of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhad no doubt that it would be a great advantage if Committees could be empowered to administer oaths, but he did not see his way quite so clearly as his noble and learned Friend to the assumption that their Lordships could delegate to other persons the power of administering an oath. It might be matter for consideration whether an Act of Parliament would not be necessary. As at present advised, he should feel a difficulty in drawing an indictment against a person who had taken a false oath before a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, exercising a delegated power to administer oaths.