The Sun. — London, England, 1858-04-14 00:00:00

the publication of such a speech would not be a fair or bona gde use of the privilege of publication. Their lord ships need be under no apprehension that such an abuse could possibly occur if tiais bill should pass. It was argued that as no action would lie against a member of Parliament for what he had spoken in his place in Par- Lament, so an aggrieved man would be deprived of all remedy if he could not proceed against the journal which published such a speech. But the same thing took place daily in the courts of justice. No action could be main tained against a counsel for a speech made in a cause, or against a judge fora charge to the jury, or against a wit ness for what he might say in evidence. Therefore it might be said that a person whose reputation suffered was left at present without any remedy for the loss he had suffered. But what loss could thus be sustained which could counterbalance the infinite advantage offered by the publication of the proceedings of courts of justice He trusted that their lordships would permit the bill to be read a second time. His great object in bringing it forward had been to protect the public press from vexa tious and pettifogging actions, which were now sometimes brought where no injury had been sustained. This object had been in some measure facilitated by a recent act of Parliament, enacting that if the damages were under forty shillings, costs equal to the damages should alone be given, but this act had not afforded that protection to the press which it was entitled to. The press had a right to expect that where actions were brought against them without foundation was e costs should be thrown upon the defendants. It was eupposed that some of the journals had declared that his bill would be of no advantage to the press, but he believed that journalists looked to the bill with great expectations, and two witnesses who were examined before the Eelect com mittee stated that th e y should gratefully accept such a measure. A. most respectable witness, Mr. Baines, pro prietor of the Leeds Mercury, g ave th e following evi- deuce " Has it eve r suggested itself to your mind that it might be a relief if, under such circumstances, the plaintiff were liable to pay the costs of the defendant if the jury should be of opi nion, by finding a farthing damages, that the plaintiff had no real cause of action ?—lt would be a very important relief to the press if the plaintiff were thus rendered liable. In that case the danger of vexations actions being brought would be very much lessened'?—lt would be ex ceedingly lessened." 31r. Dobie was asked : " Do not you think it might prevent actions from being brought where there has been no real damage sustained if the law were to be that upon the jury finding only the nomi nal damages of a farthing the defendant should be entitled to recover costs from the plaintiff?" He replied,— " Certainly it would be a very great assistance to the de- fendaut." That would be the exact result of the second clause, be cause it would allow the defendant to plead in bar to an action that it was a faithful report, and then the jury might find a verdict for the defendant, and all the costs would fall upon the plaintiff. Who would be injured by such a clause ? If any real dn-i.age had been sustained the remedy was untouched, but if no damage had been sus tained so one could say that the party to a pettifogging action would be at all aggrieved if he bad to pay the costs that bad been incurred by the defendant. He now came to the definition of public meetings in the bill, to which be was nut aware that any obj action had been made. In the category of public meetings were comprehended / all meetings the publication of the proceedings of which was likely to he of service to the public, such as the meetings or the election of members of Parliament, meetings of town-councils, of local boards, and generally of all bodies constituted under Acts of Parliament. It was of as much advantage to the public that the proceedings of such bodies should be reported as that the debates in Parlia ment should be published. Th rc were, too, meetings of bodies at which decency would be observed, and over which some control would always be exercised. He had never contemplated giving an unrestricted liberty of pub lishing all speeches without any remedy for parties ag grieved. His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was of opinion that the speaker at a public meeting ought to be equally liable for what he said when his speech was faithfully reported and published in print as he would be if he himself had published it, or caused it to he printed and published. Ob jection might be taken against thus doing away with the distinction between written and spoken slander, but such a distinction seemed preposterous, for if a man knew that his speech would be taken down by. a good shorthand writer with a view to publication, and if he spoke the speech with a view to its publication, then he ought to be liable for it. This would enable the party aggrieved to resort to the Speaker in all cases, and there would be an apology for the person who said that he was injured by words spoken at a public meet ing not bringing his action against the person who made the speech. The change might be made without injury to any individual, and with a moot beneficial effect. With these observations he must leave the bill in their lordships' hands, a❑d trusted that they would give it a second readine. No doubt they would hear many pre• dictions of evils which would follow the change which he proposed. Such predictions had been made before, and had always been falsified. There was no record of what occurred when the application of the peine f.rte el dure to persons who refused to plead was abolished ; but no doubt that alteration of the law was not made without many predictions as to the evils which would follow it. Simi lar predictions were uttered when the law was altered so as to allow witnesses to be sworn for prisoners, and to give to accused persons the benefit of counsel. Many persons whose opinions were entitled to great respect were much opposed to the latter of these two measures, and apprehended that it would produce the most serious consequences. The last great improvement which was made was allowing parties to a can ie to be examined as witne sees. His noble and learned friend opposite was at the time opposed to that measure, but he had since given to it his important sanction, and had admitted that it had been productive of great advantage to the administration of Justice. His noble and learned friend disapproved this bill as he did of that, but he trusted that be would live to see the day, and that net a distant one, when it would be shown that his apprehensions in this case were as groundless as those which he entertained in the other. The noble and learned lord concluded by moving that the bill should be read a second time. NEWS FROM INDIA. The Earl of DERBY trusted that their lordships would excuse his interrupting this debate to read a telegram which had just been received from Malta, giving intelligence of the fall of Lucknow. The noble earl then read the telegram, which was received with cheers, especially that part which referred to the rescue of Mrs. 0:r and Miss Jackson. THE LIBEL BILL.—DEBATE CONTINUED. Lord LYNDHURST—My noble and learned -L friend UE D. in closing his address referred to somethin g which fromfell me with respect to this measure on a former occasion, and I therefore feel called upon to state as shortly pos sible the views which I take of it. I need hardly say that I entertain all proper respect for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, and also for the select committee to which he has referred, and upon the resolutions of which this bill, as I understand, is belied. At the same time, I must recall to your lordships' recollection the fa:_t that only one-half of the committee was present when these resolutions were agreed to, and that lees then one-third of the committee voted in their favour. (FLar, hear.) The committee consisted of sixteen members, of whom eight were present when the resolutions were dis cussed, and five voted in their favour. I therefore feel that I am perfectly at liberty to entertain my own opinions up.m this subject without being charged with being presumptuous. I must say that I entirely dissent from the conclw-ion at wh ich the committee arrived. With all deference to my noble and learned friend, I think that if it is necessary to legislate at all upon this subj i ' n ec su t, ffi t , he measure which he has brought forward is most dent for the purpose, and ought to be greatly extended, As the bid stands at present it would be almost wholly inoperative. ' Every one (f your lordships will admit the importance of the reports to which the measure relates. They w i a t r h e n indeed marvellous for their accuracy. Every man ring from his home is made acquainted with a'l tuh.'esetilrri — of h t e h ld e oumstances attending all these public not only in the metropolis, but in every ee pa n r g s s kingdoms—and with all the facts and arguments are discussed at them. It is hardly possible toovwerhriantlei the advantages which result from this system, and it is our duty as far as possible to do justice to those parsons n to whom we are indebted for these advantages. Now, any lords, a word upon the law. My noble and learned w friend very properly drew a distinction between libellous and defamatory words spoken and those words when re duced to writing. With two or three exceptions, per sons may calumniate and defame by word of mouth to almost any extent with perfect immunity, and withon being subject to any punishment ; but the same words, When reduced to writing, may subject a party t o a prosecution, and to the payment of damages to the pergola injured. The principle upon which this distinc tion is founded I imagine is this. Words may be uttered hastily, in a moment of passion, and without con sideration ; they may have been misreported, and may be forgotten ; whereas, writing denotes premeditation, care, opportunity for consideration. The libel is per manent, and may be extensively circulated. Now, ap ply the principle on which this distinction is founded to the meetings which are the subjects of this bil. A man attends a public meeting, and from the most malicious motives makes a speech defamatory of the character of another person. He knows it will be taken down in writing ;he sees the reporter before him. He knows that it will be published ; the very object for which he speaks it is that it may be published. Yet that man passes with impunity ; the law cannot take hold of him. On the one other hand, the reporter, whose mind is intent tpo ne object only—taking down accurately what he h id e j a p : l 7 ft w .: l 3 a n o e h_as ,. no time for consideration, who sends his who, when after another as fast as they are completed; such them revises them in the utmost haste because they u a st be published immediately and without delay ; man, under such circumstances, having no malicious motive, perhaps not knowing the point on which the calumny' turns, is made the scape goat ; an action is brought against him, and he is fined in damages, or he may be d i j What eare more un ust than ;d for the libel, a-id when punished as a criminal. a public come j to con that state of things I My lords, meeting d such eider the circumstances attending as I have described , the p rinci p l e on whichth the Lion between written and oral slander is made hardly applies. A man goes to a meeting prepared with a slan der, Ile sees it taken down ;he speaks it for that pur pose ; he knows it wi ll be p ublished. Take anot her Supposing I dictate words detracting from the character of another man to a person who pets them down, and I wish him to publish them. Iu that cwie I am responsible, and may be indicted for the libel. It is true that in the example we are now considering there is no authority given—no expression of a wish that it should be published. But, everybody knows that it is the intention of the speaker that it should be pub , belied; and therefore I say the dii•tinction between THE SUN,' LONDON, WEDNESDAYI---'EVENING, nesses altogether failed to show that ❑ewspaper pro- prietors suffered any practical inconvenience from the law of libel as to reports of Parliamentary proceedings. They admitted that the law made them act with great caution with reference to speeches in Parliament of a libellous character. The law at present gave ample privileges to every person to express his opinion upon all subjects, so long as it were done fairly and without malice. The bill introduced a new provision into the law which had hithcrto been unknown. At present every man had a right of action whose character was injured by slander, but the noble and learned lord wished to lay it down that a man must have suffered some pecuniary loss or damage before his action for slander would lie. No sufficient reason had been shown for these innova tions on the ancient law, and he should therefore move ' that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Earl GRANVILLE thought it would be most de sirable to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned lord opposite (Lyndhurst) and read the bill a second time, on the understanding that it should afterwards be referred to a select committee. No doubt there was a great difference between the injury done by a slander merely spoken at some district meeting by a person not perhaps of much weight, and cheered by a small number of persons equally unimportant, and a slander which was printed in a newspaper and circulated all over the kingdom. With regard to Parliamentary proceedings, it appeared to him perfectly mon strous that such a responsibility should be thrown upon the press after the house had given every possible encouragement to the reporters to report their proceedings, and after the public expected that their pro ceediegs should be reported. He had seen complaints from a member that his speech had been too much com pressed, and from another that he had not been reported at all—(a laugh)—but the general feeling of Parliament was one of gratitude to the reporters that their duties were so perfsctly and thoroughly performed. As to the safeguard to private character, by causing the reporters to exercise discretion, that which affected the character of one man was often another man's only defence, and it was much better that the public should have the whole, instead of garbled extracts, through fear of penalties which might be incurred by a bona fide faithful report of these proceedings. If an imputation were made against an individual in either house, it was an advantage that the accused should not depend on the casual report of a friend that the charge should be distinctly brought, eo that he might refute it in any of the thousand different ways in which it could be refuted. (Hear.) He did not wish to go into the merits of the bill itself, but it was for the dignity of the house that they should give the bill a second reading. The noble and learned lord, in the exer cise of high judicial functions, had observed a deficiency in the law, and had brought the matter before the atten tion of the house. It was agreed to refer it to a select committee, and this bill was founded upon their report. Under these circumstances ho hoped the house would read the bill a second time, adopting the suggestion of the noble and learned lord to refer it again to a select committee to correct the details with the advantages which this discussion would confer, whereby a fair re medy might be devised for the blot which had been dis covered in our legislation. (Hear, hear ) The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not accept the proposal to read the bill a second time for thepurpose of referring it to a select committee, because the noble and learned lord had not established any case whatever for the principle of his measure. He had been so ac customed for years to pay implicit deference to the opinion of his noble and learned friend the Chief Jestice that he felt as if he were guilty of some impropriety in venturing to put forward his opinion in opposition to it. His noble and learned friend had a very great advantage over him in discussion before their lordships. His noble and learned friend's great abilities entitled him to cora siderable weight and authority, and he was the author of many very excellent laws, particularly one upon the law of libel. (Hear, hear.) And if his noble and learned friend bad never passed any other measure than the recent one, by which he suppressed the sale of im pure and infamous publications, he thought he would be entitled to the gratitude of every one who had the mo rality and well-being of society at heart. (Cheers.) But his noble and learned friend must not be allowed to draw too largely upon his stock of merit and influence by calling on their lordships to take on trust, without very careful examination, any proposal of which he was the author. Upon every proposed alteration et the law the question to be asked was whether there was any necessity fd• the change ? His noble and learned friend in this instance had failed altogether in establishing any case in support of an alteration. Tae law was perfewly well known and had been acquiesced in by the public press for a great number of years. They knew precisely the extent of their responsibility, and they were con stale sly acting under a sense of it. A case arose which seemed suddenly to arouse them to a sense of their danger. A report was published in the Durham Adeer ttger of the proceedings at a meeting of the West Hartle pool Improvement Commissioners. Whether it was a lawful meeting or not he would not stop to inquire, but in thelcourse of that meeting some very injurious remarks were made against the secretary of the Bishop of Dur ham upon the subject of the license of a chaplain to the West Hartlepool cemetery. The secretary of the bishop brought an action against the paper in the court over which the noble and learned lord presided. The editor of the paper pleaded that what he had published was a faithful report of the proceedings of the meeting. To this plea the I plaintiff demurred. He admitted the truth of the state ment that it was a faithful report, but denied that that was an answer to the action. The Court of Queen's Bench decided in favour of the demurrer according to the weP-known law upon the subject. This decision, however, appeared to have excited 2% gr.?at deal of atten tion, and though he would not say in consequence of what appeared in the public press, but following upon those publications, his noble and learned friend moved for a select committee to inquire whether the same pri vileges could not be given to reports of proceedings of Parliament and cf public meetings as existed with re gard to proceedings in courts of justice. The committee was composed of some of the most distinguished mem bers of their lordship? house ; but he might be per mitted to say, with great deference to them, that their inquiry appeared to have been more directed to the con sideration how newspapers should be protected than hew the interests of individuals against slander and calumny should be secured. (Cheers.) There were four witnesses —and four only—examined by the committee :—Mr. Baines, the proprietor of the Leeds Mercury ; Mr. Dobie, solicitor of the Times ; Mr. Hansard, toe well known publisher of the Parliamentary debates ' • and Mr. Hargrove, the proprietor of the Y ork Herald. None but those concerned in the protection of publishers were called before that committee. What was the result of that inquiry ? Was any grievance established on the part of the press! Was any inconvenience shown to have arisen from the present state of the law ? Mr. Baines, the proprietor of the Leeds Mercury, stated that for 30 years no action for libel had been brought against that paper. Mr. Baines, upon the question being put t) him, " Then no practical evil has "risen from the state of the law?" replied, "None whatever." A similar infer ence might be drawn from Mr. Dobie's evidence with regard to the actions brought against the Times. The question then arose, why no inconvenience had been sustained, and why so few actions bad been brought against newspapers The answer was to be found in the evidence given before the committee, that the j - )nrnalists had Fxerci , ed care and caution in what they had pub lished. (Hear.) Mr. Hargrove, in tis evidence, stated rather emphatically, " In the existing [tats of the law I take care not to insert anything which has a libellous tendency." (Hear.) Now, was it not for the advantage• of the public that that care and caution should cent:ens to be exercised, and that responsibility should still be attached to the proprietors of newspapers ? It had been suggested that if the law were changed the same care and caution would be observed not to injure character. But he must be permitted to doubt whether this result would follow. He knew how much easier it was to pub lish indiscriminately everything that had been taken down, and how difficult it was, in the haste of publica tion, to select that which was fit for the public eye, and to omit the rest. Their lordship must remember that they were not dealing only with those respectable jour nals the editors of which were careful, but that the pri vileges they were to enjoy were also to be extended to every newspaper in the kingdom. (Hear.) He would ask their lordships whether some of these newspapers were not of a class likely to be anything but guarded and care ful in respect to inflicting injury upon private character? (Hear.) When he looked to the resolutions ultimately adopted in the select committee, and to the names of those who were present, he regretted the absence of noble lords whose opinions would have been extremely valuable. His noble and learned friend had, however, based his bill upon a resolution carried by only five votes against three. The bill only consisted of two clauses, bat these were of considerable importance. His noble and learned friend first proposed to legalise the re ports of all proceedings in either house of Parliament, however defamatory or injurious they might be to the character of individuals. His noble and learned friend proposed that any person who was injured, and who might be ruined by reports of debates which had taken place, in which private character had been as , ailed, should be left utterly remedilese, and that the proof hat the report was a faithful one should be a com plete answer to any action against the newspaper. But a little difficulty might arise upon the terms of the clauses as to the report being faithful. How was its fidelity to be established Upon whom was the burden to lee ? Was it sufficient for a jeurnal to as,ert that the report was faithful? If, on the other hand, the proof was thrown upon the journalist, how could he prove that the report was a faithful one, except by an invasion, of the privileges of Parliament in proving what had actually passed in debate ? His noble and learned friend had compared the debates in Parlia ment with the proceedings in courts of jusitce; but there was a marked and strong distinction between the two. The proceedings in courts of justice were not ex payee. The case was heard on both sides, and the whole was afterwards published for the information of the public, t l h d o or daoge could r t b o e wii given oh but a sland er u tt ers fi n d e b a i e i n Parliament wotale be a mere ex parts s t a t emee t , to w hi c h pro b a bl y no answer w time. wouldL ebtotleixepirosloorddisfhtiphos Gee would at the persona bill should pass. He could not suppose, from the deco rum prevailing in their lordship? house, that any noble lord would take advantage of the altered state of the law to find in speeches in that house a vehicle for pri vate malice. But could imagi ne th a t mem b ers, nut of that, but of the other house, might take advantage of the opportunity afforded to them by the law proposed to be altered, and, knowing that what they stated would be sure to be circulated through the country the follow ing morning, [night u- e their position to gratify their private malice. His noble and learned friend had stated that the law would punish such persons, and he had cited the case of Lord Ahiogdon. Bit the cases of Lord Abing lon and Mr. Creevy, which his noble and learned friend might also have cltec, we, e cases in which the persons who had made the speeches had themselves pub lished them. The bill, he admitted, would make no al teration in the law in such a case, If any slander were oral and written slander does not apply to the case we are now dealing with. A very trifling link in the chain, if supplied, would do justice to the parties. I mention these facts in the presence of my noble and learned friend, to give him an opportunity of considering them, with a view to giving effect to the principle I have stated. But if he should think it impracticable to adopt that principle, still, looking at the bill in its present shape, I must hold it to be very inadequate and im p erfect. The second clause provides that if an action be brought to recover damages for the publication of a report the de fendant may answer that " this is a faithful report of what passed at a public meeting lawfully assemt led for a lawful purpose." And if the jury under these circum stances should be of opinion that the plaintiff has sus tained no loss or injury the defendant will be entitled to a verdict. The consequence of his being entitled to a verdict is that all the costs of the proceedings tewt be paid by the plaintiff. No doubt, this would afford great relief to the publisher, because as the law now stands, if the publication be in strict law a libel, however small the damages, be they only one farthing, the plaintiff has to pay no costs, and in the case of "Davison and Duncan," to w hich my noble and learned friend has so repeatedly re ferred, we have an instance of the costs under such cir cumstances amounting to between 4001. and 5001. Therefore, if the bill stopped bore, it would give a very great relief to the publisher ; but, unfortunately, it does not stop here. The very next clause quite neutralises the provision which precedes it. Clause 3 defines the meetings which are to b© deemed lawful meetings, law fully assembled within the meaning of the act. Never was there se extraordinary a definition ! My noble and learned friend gives, under four heads, meetings convened by lawful authority for presenting petitions to either house of Parliament or to her Majesty ; meetings of town councils ; meetings for the election of members of Par liament ; and, lastly, meetings held under any local act for the purpose of imposing any rate or transacting any business with respeA to a parish or a district. On first seeing this limitation I turned it over and over again in my mind to discover upon what principle it pro ceeded. Is it that these meetings are meetings where order and decorum pre-eminently prevail ! If I wished to select any meetings of a contrary character I should select one of the very heads inserted in this bill. (A. laugh.) A. vestry meeting for the purpose of making a church-rate—is that the kind of meeting which is pe- culiarly marked by order and deccrum and by an absence of personality ? (Laughter.) My lords, I have see❑ a vestry meeting presided over by the clergyman of the parish. Argument goes on, turbulence succeeds to argu ment, the clergyma❑ is obliged to abandon the chair ; some other person takes his place, when renewed con fusion and perhaps tumult ensue, and certain resolutions are passed which are probably of a most objectionable description. And this is one of the special, or aceording to the phrase cf my noble and learned friend, one of the " favoured" meetings to which his measure extends. lie has condescended to include the meetings of this house and of the other house of Parliament. We, too, are " fa• voured" meetings, we are "lawful meetings," and are to enjoy the benefit of my nobleand learned friend's bill. (Laughter.) We shall not be turned out of this house, be does us the honour, and I am grateful to him, of styling ns a lawful meeting within the operation of the act. But, my lords, what will the right rev. bench say to it ? ( Laughter, which was sensibly increased by the circum• stance that there was not a single right rev, prelate in the house at the time.) The right rev. bench remained present during three-quarters of an hour of my noble and learned friend's speech, but they abandoned their places before its conclusion. 'What, however, would they say if they were here and heard that Convocation is not a "Lawful" assembly I (Laughter.) Neither the Lower nor the Upper House of Convocation is included in the bill. In the Lower House, indeed, perhaps, a few sharp words might be exchanged. (Lord Campbell here made a remark which did not reach the gallery.) My noble and learned friend will have an opportunity of replying. (Hear, hear.) But the Upper Rouse, presided over by the Most Rev. Prelate, and consisting of right rev. pre lates, the dignitaries of the Church, sits sober, quiet, calm, unruffled. What does my noble and learned friend say to it ? Why, he excludes it entirely from his bill. There really never was such a measure. A select com mittee meets day after day to consider it, and at last they come to the conclusion that Convocation is an un lawful assembly. (Laughter.) Certain meetings, held at Exeter-hall, are presided over by a right rev.—l mean by a noble friend—(a laugh)—of mine who has a seat in this house. Those meetings, which occur three or four times a week, are of a religious character, or for a chari table purpose; sometimes they are meetings on behalf of schools, and are attended by clergymen and Dissenting ministers. Thespeeches are sometimes of great eloquence and the questions discussed most important. Yet they are not lawful assemblies within the meaning of this bill. They are all unlawful ! What a bill it is ! (Laugh ter.) I wish that a noble and learned friend of mine-- a walking cycloreelia, who is now doing suit and service iu a neighbouring country, were now present. I re member reading the report of an address which he delivered last autumn at 'Birmingham. The meeting on that occasion was held to consider very important subjects, most interesting to society, and it comprised members of Parliament, literary and scientific men, and, in fact, the aiite cf the population of this country. I don't know whether the attention of my noble and learned filtered oppo-ite was directed to that meeting. I i hardly know how to characterise it. lam not quite sure 1 that I have organs sufficient to articulate the name of it. (Laughter.) It was called a Soeiological Society— (loud laughter)—and I am not sure whether a noble friend of mine opposite was not present on the occasion. (Laughter.) At all events, this combination of Latin and Greek is, I think, most amusing, and the objects of the society appear to be very comprehensive. (A laugh.) That society, however, if it should still be continued, will not be a lawful society under this bill. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Need Igo further, my lords ? It may be remembered that about this time last year a meeting vi as hel fi presided over by a noble and learned friend of mine, whose absence I greatly regret, upon a subject of the utmost possible consequence to a commercial country. It was, I believe, attended by com mercial men from the large towns in the north, and, if I am not mistaken, some countrymen of my noble and learned friend were present. I refer to the great meet ing held for the purpose of considering the law of bank ruptcy. What could be a more proper subject for a pub lie meeting ? Yet that would not be a lawful meeting within the terms of this bill, (Hear, hear.) What does the bill mean ? What does it include I It excludes every thing; it includes literally almost nothing. Before I left home this morning I noted upon paper a number of c ises that were not included in the bill. I came to 104, and then I stepped. (Laughter and cheers.) The proposition of my noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) seems to me most extraordinary. If a jury are of opinion that there is no damage, how can it be material at what kind of meeting the alleged libel was uttered ? Mark how the bill will operate. An action is brought for libel. It is proved that the meeting at which the alleged libel was uttered was a lawful meet ing, assembled for a lawful purpose, and the jury ray, ". We are of opinion the plaintiff has no damage." The defendant says, "Oh, then, I am entitled to a verdict." "Oh, no," exclaims the judge, "this was not a vestry meeting ; it was not a lewful 'electing within Lord Camp lAA's Act—a carefully drawn measure," (A. laugh.) Tile meeting might have been told to consider the pro priety of raising a monument to one of the best and b: avast heroes of modern times—General lelaveleck, but the judge mast direct a verdict for the plaintiff, who may have his farthing damages, while the defendant is eaddleti with costs amounting to 300/. or 400/. (Hear, h' are) What foundation, then, is there for this restric tion ? The noble and learned lord said, as I understood, in the committee, that it would not do to include all meet ings in the bill, because then the proceedings at sAlitienr or treasonable meetings would be protected. Seditious meetings ! treasonable meetings !—it is impossible, my lords, far they are not lawful meetings, assembled for a lawful purpose. (Hear, hear.) Such a ground, then, is no pretence for supporting the bill. What I would suggest to my noble friend, if he does not choose to assent to the first instance, is, that he should agree to strike out the third clause altogether in committee, and leave the second clause as it is, applying to any "public meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose." Is not that protection enough ? I wish the bile to be read a second time, and to go into committee upstairs, in order that we may ascertain whether this bill is not to tally inefficient and inoperative, and that we may devise a measure marked by some common sense. (Laughter.) Lord WENSLEYDALE, who spoke from the cross benches with his back to the gallery, and was very im perfectly heard, said that he hal always been an advo cate for useful reforms in the law, and scarcely any mea sure with that object bad been brought forward by his noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) to which he hail not given his active support. He could assure his noble friend, therefore, that it wasw E ith „g v li e sh ry ia g:e f a o t r trhee luctance he felt obliged to oppose the prese n t bill. Any one who conteroplated the history of last quarter of a century must be struck with the impor tance and extent of the improvements which had been made in the common law, in criminal law, and in equity law ; and if the noble earl (Stanhope) should complete the history which he had commenced, he would undoubtedly refer to that p er i o d so distin , guiihed by the most valuable improvements that had ever been effected in the legal institutions of this coun try. He entertained very strong objections, however, to the present bill, and he did not agree with his noble and learned friend who last addressed their lordship, that it ought to be allowed to pass a second reading. It had long been established as the law of this country, that with respect to verbal slander an action could only be maintained when criminal offences were imputed, or when charges of malversation in office, or of insolvency in trade bad been made. Indeed, the cases in which such actions could be maintained were very limited ; but an action would lie for any slander in writing or in print, because this writing or printing gave the sland er a character of perpetuity , and also extended it far more widelythan it could be sp read b y verbal publication. written done, or by v printeder b verbal lndr. report a w e as . than T th h e e ref i o nj re ur m y u in ch fli g c r t e e a d te b r ya that The proprietors of public perfect liberty to publish fair and correct j ournals wereeporti of undoubtedlythaet freports two Houses of Parliament ; and the pu blic had been greatly benefitted by such reports. Bat the bi ll raised the question, whether newspaper proprietors should be permitted to publish with impunity speehes vilifying the character of individuals on the ground that those speeches had been made in Parliament. That certainly ought not to justify the publication of slander. Am() a: several witnesses examined before the select committee was the solicitor to the Times, who stated that the proprietors thereof were sued fir havirg printed a speech made by Dr. Lu , hing ton in the House of Commons, and had to p a y the costs of the action brought against them by the party who considered speech onsi d ered himself aggrie ve d b y the report w of th That, in fact, was th e on l y i nstance in which an action 1 war brought against the Tintee for printing reports of the proceedings in Parliament ; and, in fact, the wit- APRIL 14, some other occupant of the woolsack. (Laughter.) The object of the bill was in the first instance to give immu nity to reports of Parliamentary proceedings, and next to protect the public press to a certain extent in the publication of the proceedings at meetings of a particu lar description. Were their lordships prepared to say that in, secula seculorunt they would invite reporters to attend, and would allow reports of their proceedings to go forth to the public; but that they would leave the proprietors of newspapers liable to ba sued by civil action, or imprisoned upon criminal information, for the faithful discharge of this duty ? Did the pro posal to change this state of things involve so vicious a principle that their lordships would refuse a second reading to the bill ? Would they refuse to en tertain any proposition for giving protection to the pub lic press in the publication of faithful reports of prtceed ings at public meetings, and were the proprietors of newspapers to despair of obtaining any remedy or redress for the grievances of which they now complained t His noble and learned friend had greatly misunderstood the object of the second clause, for he (Lord Campbell) had always regarded as wholly inadmissible the claim that complete immunity should be given with regard to everything that was said at every public meeting, and the clause applied exclusively to cases where no loss or damage was sustained. He foresaw what the fate of the bill would be, but he had discharged his duty in bring ing the subject under their lordships' consideration. Their lordships then divided, when there were— Content 7 Not Content Majority' —23 The bill was consequently lost. ' The house adjourned at 9 o'clock. uttered in and debate published, an action might now be brought against the newspaper, and the party aggrieved would have an opportunity of vindicating his character, or the newspaper might j ustif y th e al l eged slander. if the statement were correct the newspaper might plead the truth in justification, and it would be an answer to the action. He could suppose a member of Parliament acting honourably and faithfully in the discharge of his duty, and yet if this bill passed he might commit a great wrong and an irreparable injury against an individual. He might mention a case whch had recently occurred before the Privy Council. Pro ceedings were taken there in which certain respectable merchants of the City of London were charged with have ing been implicated in certain slave trade transactions. The matter was discussed before the Privy Council, which took time for consideration. He had reason to know that the publication of these proceedings was in jurious to the credit and character of these persons, and it was only when they were entirely acquitted from all partic;pation in this infamous traffic—when strong obser vations were passe d upon the proceedings of the Crown, which was saddled with the costs—that their character was vindicated. Now, suppose some member of their lordships' house, whose bosom burnt within him at any mention of the traffic in slaves, should assume that some reTectable merchant had been implicated in the traffic, and should break out jute indignant reproach at the con duct of that party. As long as it was confined to that or the other House of Parliament the injury would not be great, but on the following morning all that had been said flew to every part of the c untry, it was taken tip by all the country newspapers, and the character of these perfectly innocent persons would be completely destroyed, and they might be irreparably injured. If this bill were passed they would have no opportunity of vindicating their characters, and all the redress that could be afforded to them would be the insertion in all the newspapers which bad published the slander of some letter contradicting it. Perhaps the newspapers might say that from press of matter they were unable to insert such a letter, and the consequence of this measure which his noble and learned friend deliberately proposed to that house would be that the persons would be irretrievably ruined, and wholly without a remedy. He could not but feel that thit would be a most dangerous innovation and a most mischievous change of a law which, even accords iog to the evidence adduced before the select com mittee of their lordships, had afforded sufficient protec tion to the proprietors of newspapers, at the same time that it bad not left the characters of individuals wholly defenceless. (Hear.) With reference to the other part of the bill, which related to the reporting of proceedings at public meetings, it was necessary to advert to the distinction between oral and written slander. It was perfectly true that for words spoken no action could be maintained unless they charged some indictable offence, with the single exception of cases in which it could be shown that special damage had resulted fiestas the speak ing of the words. His noble and learned friend did not propose to abolish that distinction ; indeed, tee report of the select committee condemned any such alteration. That report said, — To meet this objection it has been proposed to do away with the distinction between verbal and written slander, or to make the speaker at a public meeting al ays liable for all true printed reports of his speech, but we think that such al terations of the law are unnecessary and would be inexpe dient." HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SrEAYER took the chair at 4 o' clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Caledonian Railway (Dalmarnock branch) Bil wa4 read a third time and passed. BORDER COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL. Mr. C. FORSTER moved that the minutes of the evi dence taken before the Border Counties Railway Bill in session 1854 be referred to the committee on group 13 of Railway and Canal Bile, in reference to the Border Counties Railway.—Agreed to. ADMIRALTY PROMISES. Mr. E, BA.TI: presented a petition from the Rev. Mr. Mabberley, of Suffolk, stating, that on his making certain communications to the Admiralty be was to re ceive 100,0001.. He had made the communication, but had not received the mon , y in return. (Laughter.) ASSIZE ACCO MMODATION. Mr. M`MA.LION gave notice that he should on this day fortnight move the appointment of a committee to inquire into th;3 expediency of increasing the number of assizes for the disposal of civil business. THE COUNTY FRANCHISE. Mr. LOCKE KING gave notice that he should on this day fortnight move for leave to introduce a bill for assimilating the borough and county franchise. (Hear WHITECROSS-STREET PRISON. Mr. SHERIDAN gave notice that he should on Thursday move for copies of the correspondence, if any, that had passed between the city authorities and the Home-office, relative to the new regulations adopted for Whitecross-street Prison. THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER. Mr. RICARDO gave notice that he should on this day fortnight present a petition from the inhabitants of Henloy, complaining of the manner in which the Duchy of Lancaster was conducting mining operations in the neighbourhood, and he should move the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the complaint and report thereon. He must be permitted upon the subject of these reports of public meetings to quote the words of his noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) himself—words not tit tered in that house, but used in the course of the inquiry which had given rise to this discussion. His noble and learned friend said,— " If this plea is good, a fair account of what takes place may be published, whatever harm the publication may do to private character, provided it take place at a meeting of a publie nature—a aide description, embracing all kinds of moetiogs, from a county meeting to a parish meeting. At such meetings things na,y well be said very irrelevant to the subject in hand, yet very calumnious. In what an unhappy situation a calumniated person weal I bo if a calumny might be) ti Wished, and yet he could not bring an action and chal lenge t he publishers to prove its truth, !" Hear.) That was the opinion of his noble and learned riend, who now proposed to legalise the publication of all reports of what took place at a meeting lawfully at semleled. Lord CAMPBELL.—Net ee. The LORD CHANCELLOR.--His noble and learned / riend must forgive him. He would find it was so, be cause under his qualification no party was entitled to recover unless he could prove loss and damage. Now, that, M his noble and learned friend knew, meant pecu• wary loss and damage ; the consequence of which would , be that in 99 oases out of 100 the person who was ca lumniated at a public meeting would be deprived of his remedy, because he could not show that he bad sue , tained such loss and damage. Suppose that a person not in trade was charged with some gross breach of morality, or with being guilty of some falsehood—an imputation upon the character of an honourable man, which was much more painful and much more destructive to his NEW CHELSEA. BRIDGE. reputation then if be could show that he had sustained Mr. BRADY asked the Chief Commissioner of Works damage to the amount of thousands and thousands of if he was aware that foot passengers entering on the new pounds by the slander. Were they to take so mean a Chelsea bridge were compelled to pass over whether view of the value of rephtation that it was to be weighed they desired it or not, and then to pay a second toll to by a quantity of gold ? He trusted that in this country be allowed to return ; and if so , whether he p urposed a man's reputation would never be considered other than taking any steps to remed y the inconvenience? the dearest of his possessions. It had been suggested Lord JOHN MANNERS said he was aware of the that the bill should be committed, with the view of intro- arrangements referred to, which were entered into with a (hieing into it an amendment constituting the person view of consulting the public convenience. (Laughter.) who published the agent of him who uttered the worde• When he mentioned that 30,000 persons went over Chet- Of euch a course he could not approve. After the s e a New Bridge on Sunday last, the house would see humorous description' which had been given by a noble that to permit passengers to go partly over the bridge and learned lord who had left the House of the great and then to return, would be a great public inconve number of public meetings which had been omitted from nience. (Hear, hear.) If the public convenience had the definition contained in this bill, he thought that if the not been consulted by the arrangements that had been bill ever went into committee hisnoblefriend would find made they would be altered. (Hear, hear.) Enquiries that the difficulties in it's way were so great as to be in- were being made into the subject. surmountable even by his great power of overcoming THE PARKS. obstacles. (Hear.) Under these circumstances he could Mr. WILLIAM EWART inquired of the First Com not consistently with his position give a silent vote on miseioner of Public Works if there was any objection to this subject, nor could he, after the most careful atten- give the public the benefit of an increased number of Con, accede to the sugeestion of his noble and learned seats round the larger trees in Kensington-gardens and fi g sg g . H e did not find that there was any real grie- Hyde-park 1 vanes in the existing state of the law. His noble and Lord J. MANNERS said that arrangements had ' learned friend had utterly failed to establish his case, and been made for giving tne accommodation asked for before be read a secon d time. th e notice of the hon, gentleman was put upon the paper. therefore orheeftshro) bill ought not to A vote would be proposed in the estimates for carrying Lord CRANWORTH thought that although this bill them out. might not b 3 adopted in its integrity, it at least con- TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION IN THE tained the germ and foundation of a proper remedy. As MEDITERRANEAN. to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings, he doubted Mr. CRAW FORD asked the Chancellor of the Ex very much whether they were not proceeding altogether chequer, whether any arrangements had been concluded upon a fallacy. He did not believe that the character of or were now under the consideration of Her Majesty's a person calumniated in Parliament was likely to be e li . ely ßu t for that report he might Government, for extendi n g the Mediterranean S y stem of damnified by the slander being reported ; on the con- T e l egra phs to Alexandria , and for bring in g India into to affordhimthehest means telegrap h ic communication with t his countr y b y the wa y t o r f s refutintheg report the o h w a a r s k of the Red Sea, or by any other route ; whe her, in tee never know of the calumny. With regard to the reports event of such arrangements having been resolved upon, of pubic meetings, it was said that there Lad been no H e r Majesty's Government will lay upon the table of oasis of herl - h p. Teere had been one case, and, in his the House the correspondence in reference thereto I opinion, it was the duty of their lerdshipe, when the The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said principle of the law could not be justified, to act upon a that no arrangements had as yet been concluded to single instance. It was a great hardship to the publisher effect the objects to which the hon. gentleman referred, of a Durham newspaper that ho should have to pay but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was in hope', 4001. broinee he had published something which was that in a very short time arrangements embracing all the actually stated at a public meeting held with reference obj-cts referred to would be concluded. (Hear, hear.) to the improvemeet of the t own o f H ar tl epoo l . And Mr. CRAWFORD complained that the Chancellor what had happened in that instance might, and most of the Exchequer had not informed the hon-e it he would likely weuld, hepi ea in many others, lie did not, bow- l a y the correspondence on the table of tie house, and ever, think that oral should be treated in the same also if he would lay at the same time en the table of the manner as written slander. Such a rule would give rise house the estimates for carrying out the undertaking. to disgratefel pelt fogging, as was exemplified in the law The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be books of the reigns of James I. and "ries I e when wee unable to undertake to lay the papers asked f.)r on many questions were raised as to whether such and such the table becau-e they did not exist, although they pro words were not slanderous s o as t o su b ject th e person b a bly would at some future stage of the proceedings. uttering them to au action. in eee was glad that, whether When the arrangements were concluded he should have by judge-made law or otherwise we had escaped from no o bjection to produce them. those thffi cu itie3 ; and, practically speaki ng , ora l s lender Mr. WYLD as ked if ne g otiations wore going on was not a ground of action. It and been said that there between this country an I Austria for carrying out te was little distinction between the act of directing libel• legraphic communication? lous word s t o b e published and that of uttering suck The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it words orally in public with the knowledge that they would be better if honourable members would would be published. But under this bill the injured to hero to the rules laid down f,r t h e guidanc of the I party wou ld b r i ng his action against the pubhsher, who house in putting questions by first givint notice of might pl ea d th a t the report was a true and faithful one, them, and thereby simply confining themselves to the made without malice. He would n o t encourage the no• inquiries made, because inconvenience resulted from tion that they ought to legislate on a mere theory ; but those divergences. He had, no difficulty, however, in when a certain amount of practical evil had already then answering the question. Arrangements were resulted from the state of the law it would not be wise pending between her Majesty's Government and the to overlook what had occurred, and wait till further Austrian Government, but he might be permitted to say mirchief arose before applyi ng a reme dy. He therefore that the part of the original plan giving a monopoly to hoped that their lordships would read the bill a second Austria did net roan part of the present negotiation. time. . Mr. CRAWFORD gave notice that he would on this Lord CAMPBELL rose to reply, when he was in- day week submit a motion on the subject. terrupted by NATIONAL COLLECTION OF PICTURES. The Earl of DERBY, who reminded the noble and Lord ELCHO asked the Chancellor of the Exche learned lord that ho had already addressed the house at quer whether the Government intended to take any considerable length, and that on the motion for a second steps, during the present session, with a view to provid reading he had no right to a reply. ing increased accommodation for the national collection Lord CAMPBELL was not aware of any instance in of pictures? which the courtesy of a hearing in reply had been refused The CSIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he in such a case ; yet if the noble earl was not content with Should .be sorry to say that her Maje-ty's Government having overwhelming numbers on his side, but insisted would not take steps to increase the accommodation re that there should also be no argument, of course there ferred to, but it was not then in his power to say speci was no remedy for it. He should be most willing, if rurally what were their intentions in respect. The the this the bill was read a second time, to refer it again to a matter could not long remain in its present state, but committee ; but it should be remembered that the he was unable to give a specific answer to the question. measure had already been carried by a fair majority SIR JAMES HUDSON AND MR. ERSKINE. in the select committee. Under those circumstances Mr. WISE asked the Under SweeterY for Foreign wo uld their lord s hi ps a ffi rm that it was so vicious in Affairs whether Sir James Hudson was to remain at Principle that they could not hope to improve it at .b an i y Tur n as her Majesty's E n voy Extraordinary and Minis subsequent stage ? Th e powerful speech of the nu a ter Plenipotentiary and ' it intended ; ; whecner was o and learned lord, whose Jocular observations had en recal the Secretar of Leation, Mr. Erskine, from the livened a very dull d e bate, was to a g reat extent sa no mission 2 y g favourable to the measure. It had pleas ed the noble and The CHANCELLOR of the EXC HEQUER said learned lord to assume that all meetings not included I there was no intention on the part of her Majesty's Go in the third cause, and among others those of Convoca 'comment to recal Sir James Hudson from Turin. (Hear. tion, were unlawful, New, it so happwied teat m in the hear.) Great servic es w ere not to be cancelled by an C' c ommittee he had hi mse lf proposed to include veer.- act of carelessness, though for the moment it was to be ti °n—(3 lant4 l ;) ,-- but ho was out-voted, on the ground re $ With to Mr. ratted.g ( ear hear.) respect Erskine, that it was disrespectful to suppose that anything p 3112 his con d uct, he had been eailed i order to ex I • r n . libellous could fall from the members of so grave and he had been suspended in consequence. and venerable a body. His reply to that had been that he bad heard right rev. prelates use very sharps words ARMY RETURNS. Mr. BAGWELL asked the Secretary for War when in the House of Lords. To have enumerated meetings the . for on the 16th March would be for the purpose ef raisin. , a monument to an illustrious laid arm moved general, or the meetings at Exeter Hall, to which refer- , on t e table of the house ? a - ' Gen. PEEL said he hoped to be able to comply with once had been made, might, he thought, have been deemed indecorous; but, if de s irable, they might ye t be included the request on Friday next at the latest. in the bill when in committee. His noble and learned STRAITS OF MALACCA, &c. friend on the woolsack had done him the honour of re- In answer to Viscount Busty, ferring to some of the measures which he ( Lord Cam p bell Mr. BAILLIE said that Government would not he le' had had the good f• ir t u ne to orij n ate and to carry into able to ten n their attention to this sett , ire it till ofsafer k they being law, and among oth ers the act for preve ntin g the sale of the termination of the Indian outbrea , obscene publications. His noble and learned friend must I somewhat connected with that country. be aware thai that meas ure was assailed eve n with more Mr. HORSMAN thou g ht the m atter should be con bitterness than the bill now before their lordships, and sidered on its own merits, and expressed their tt a en ridicule. That bill , however, received the sanction of tion to it. their lordships and of the other house, and it was admit- Sir J. ELPIIINSTONE was at Singapore in 1820, ted by his noble and learned friend, and by other cmi- and visited it, often during the subsequent 17 years. He tient lawyers, that it had operated most beneficially. If , never heard any complaints against the convict popula the preiomt bill should pries and la come the law of the ' tion. They were indeed a better class of persons than land, be beli eve d i s mug, t receive as high corm i nen datiun thr: lawless p eo p le who emigrated from the neighbouring from soma f u t ure occupant of the woolsack. It was im- islands and countries. He knew a lady at Penang, the possible to foresee what might happen, and in the course wife of an official gentleman, who always took her do of the year this measure might receive the approval of mestlc servants from the convicts—(laughter) — and she PASSPORTS. Mr. M. MILNES gave ni•tice that he should on Friday put a question to the Government relative to the new pasoplrt regulations adopted in Belgium, and the inconvenience of obtaining passports at the Foreign office. DISTRESS IN DONEGAL. Mr. BAGWELL gave notice that he should on Thursday, the 22d inst., move for a select committee to inquire into the destitution existing in Donegal. MILITIA SURGEONS. Mr. BRADY asked the Secretary for War if a me morial bad been received by him from the militia sur geons of the embodied regiments, asking to be placed on a permanent footing ; and, if so, what were the in tentions of the Government on the subject General PEEL said he had received the memorial referred to, but he regretted to ray ho was obliged to in form the memorialists that under present circumstances he could not accede to increase the present expenses of the militia amounting to 269,0001. by granting their request. EAST INDIA (REVENUES, &c.) Mr. H. BAILLIE moved for a number cf returns connected with the East India revenue 4, which were agreed ,to. 1858 informed him that she preferred murderers and thieves. (Laughter.) Most of the murders were committed from j , al , mmy and the objects of their jealousy being re moved she found them excellent domestic servants. Mr. MANGLES hoped no change would be made without consulting the East India Company, and espe cially the Governor-General of Ind a. If after that her Majesty's Government considered it desirable to make a change the East India Company would offer no objec tion. STADE DUES. Mr. JOHN LEWIS RICARDO moved that an humble address be presented to her Maje , ty, respect fully representing the injury to British Commerce in flicted by the tax levied by Hanover on merchandise and shipping ascending the river Elbe, under the denomina tion of the Stade Dues, and praying that her Majesty will be pleased to give directions to her Ministers to give notice the termination of the Treaty between the Un ted Kingdom and Hanover, of the 22nd day of July, 1841. according to the terms of the Bth article of that Treaty. These dues were a serious impediment to the commerce of this country. They had been e,tahlished 800 years ago, under a state of things which had long passei away. They were paid to Hanover for permis sion to navigate the Eloe to Hamburg, for which Ha never performed no service whatever. The collection of the dues compelled vessels to carry two sets of papers, and amounted, on some kind of goods, to nearly the cost of the freight, and on other kinds to much more. Ho urged the Government to give notice of the abroga tion of the treaty under which this iniquitous tax was leuied, which was a disgrace to the present state of civi lisation in the world. • Mr. B. MOORE seconded the motion, rho dues ought not any longer to be submitted to by this country. Mr. HENLEY would be very glad to see the toll pro perly got rid of, but before notice was given of 'putting an end to the treaty, the subject should be considered—as the Sound dues had been —by a committee of that house. The inquiry would not take very long. Lord PALMERSTUN denied the analogy of these dues with the Sound dues. It was a question how far the Stade dues were legal. This was not a question for a com mittee, but for the Executive Government, acting under the advice of their law officers. On the other hand, we . _..... ._ , should carefully see what would be the effect of abrogating the present law, before we gave notice to terminate it. He thought that the Government ought serioudy to con sider the question. Mr. CLAY said that at present much of the trade of Hamburg with this country was now diverted to Stettin, a much lees convenient locality, in consequence of this tax. The matter was urgent, and should be dealt with at once. The evil lay not only in the money payment, but in the delay and inconvenience caused by their collection. He believe i that the dues might be bought for 200,0J0/. Mr. HUTT inveighed against the impolicy and injus tice of the toll. Hanover did nothing for the navigation of the Elbe, which was entirely defrayed by the city of Hamburg. The only mode of getting rid of the toll was by buying it up. Mr. MILNER GIBSON contended that before any proper conclusion could be arrived at a committee of in quiry was necessary. He hoped that the offer of the Go vernment would bo accepted. The dues on cotton from Hull to Hamburg amounted to 128 per cent. upon the freight. Mr. BRISCOE thought that the legality of the tolls should be first ascertained. Lord ASHLEY thought that the only way of getting rid of these objectionable dues was by purchase. The great evil lay in the delay and annoyance. Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that there was no disposi tion on the part of the Government to delay bringing the question to a satisfactory conclusion. Not only on account of the amount, but of other circumstances, it was desirable that the tax should be speedily put an end to. He contended that there were many questions connected with this subject besides that of legality, and that these could only be properly decided by a committee. Lord HOTS 1M likewise advocated reference to a com mittee as the only way of forming a just conclusion. Mr. J. L. RICARDO, in reply, said that he had not much confidence in a committee. His facts had not been refuted, and therefore his motion ought to have been agreed to. Still, under the circumstances he had no alternative except to accept the committee, before which he should prove all the facts he had advanced. After a few words in explanation from Lord PALMER STON, Mr. COWPER asked what would be the precise ques tion submitted to the committee? Mr. HENLEY said that all the facts of the case would first be ascertained, after which the opinion of the law offieersof the Crown would be ascertained. The motion was withdrawn, after an assurance from Mr. HENLEY that the Government would propose a corn mittee, DESPATCH FROM INDIA. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Since the house has been sitting this evening the Secretary of State has received an important telegram from India, which per haps it may be agreeable to the house that I should read. It is dated Malta, April 13th, and is addressed to Lord Malmesbury from Consul-General Read. (The right hon. gentleman here read the despatch announcing the capture of Lucknow amidst loud cheers, which appears at length in another column.) RE WARDS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. Sir J. TRELAWNY, in submitting the resolution of which he had given notice, viz.: " That the receipt of any species of reward by a member, in consideration of the ex ercise of his, influence in that capacity, is calculated to lower the dignity and authority of this house, and is a high breach of the privilege of Parliament," said that th )ugh the motion was unquestionably founded upon certain cir cumstances which bad recently formed the subject of an investigation before a select committee of the house, and the evidence adduced in the course of that inquiry, he did not propose in any way to impugn the decision to which that committee had come. He felt that a reform in Par liament was necessary as a reform of Parliament. Any pre cedent set in that house would be followed by other bodies in the kingdom. Lord HoTHA 3I said that in the opinion of the public such acts as those referred to iu the resolution had been committed in that house, and it was necessary to put an end to that opinion. It was believed that lawye:s who were members of that house received on that account for ordinary business larger fees than they would otherwise receive. It was this imputation which he desired to see destroyed. Ile thought that no member should be allowed to interfere in that house in any matter in which he was personally interested. Sir J. GRAHAM did not think that any new resolution on the subject was requisite. Their present rules were sufficient, although things were often done which came close to their violation. But the publicity of the transac tion would 1)3 a check on any flagrant abuse. Many mem bers of that house had been avowedly paid agents of the colonies ; but as this was well known, no ill consequences ensued. He feared that a new resolution would receive wrong construction from the public, and hoped that the present discussion would effect the purpose required. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD recommenled that the mat ter should be left as it was, seeing the difficulty of framing new resolutions _ Mr. MELLOR said that there was no difficulty in dis tinguishing between what was right in the offer male to lawyers in that house, and what was proposed with a false and fraudulent intention. H e h o p e d the house would be satisfied with the discussion. Still if the motion was pressed he should vete for it. Mr. R. MANGLES thought that the sauce and opinion of the house ought t o b e ex pressed in a manner which could not be mistaken. Nothing short of this would pre vent natives of India from believing that members were open to bribes. Mr. W. J. FOX said that not only lawyers but members interested in railways, and even in co nstituencies, suffered their private inter es t s t o i n t er fere with their conduct in that house, Ho considered that the resolution would be of great service. Mr. BRIGHT said that former resolutions had been passed after a member has been found guilty. By passing the resolution they would only bo laying traps for them selves without d o ing any service to the purity of the house. He opposed new resolutions made without specific reasons. Mr. WALPOLE said they should entirely separate. the consideration of the particular subject which had been re- I ferred to the late couatnitteo from the resolution before them. If the hon. baronet intend: dbyit to impeach the conduct of the hon. member for Youghal, he ought to have specifically mentioned hiln. They could not refer to the pro ceeding before the committee as having probably induced this motion. The hon. baronet ought to tell them clearl y whether his object was to confirm an old or to establise now rule; if the latter was the object he (Mr. Walpole) thought no such rule was necessary. If Lhe object was to confirm the old rule he would say the old rule of parlia ment was much bettor left in the breast of the house. (Hear.) Any attempt to tie it up by new words would only hamper their future course, and bring under it objects to which it was never intended to apply. The discussion had turned a good deal on the rules applicable to members of the long robe—some rules applied to them, others to all members. The rule applicable to members of the long robe was very old—the resolution of 1663 was perfectly well known. No member belonging to the legal profession could be interested in any business pending in parliament, or likely to be pending. So far was this carried that the hon. member for Sheffield had been obliged to ask per mission to conduct the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill be fore the other house. Permission was granted, as it was a public bill. Mr. Charles applied for permission to con duct a private bill, but was refused. The late Speaker laid down the rule that such a permission might be granted in ease of a public bill but not of a private one. Again, the rule with regard to parliamentary agents had been clearly laid down iu the ease of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey. It was decided he could not transact any busi um., or take any share in that of his partner. The rule was perfectly clear as regarded professional men, and any person transgressing it was amenable to the house. He might be reprimanded, censured, or, in a grave case ex pelled. 'There was no necessity for a new rule with regard to the legal profession ; and if t he resolution was intended to apply to them they should h ave been specially men tioned. With regard to the gr ave question as affecting members in general, whether belonging to the legal pro fession or not, whether they were or were not now re strained by the clear regulation of parliamentfrnm receiving any reward of any sort or kind to influence the exercise of their parliamentary duties. There was such a rule, and there was exception to it. from the oldest time down to the present moment. In 1695 the house learned that certain member., tho Speaker amongst them, had received a largo sum of money for their services in conducting the City of London Orphan Bill. The house took no notice of the facts, expelled the Speaker, Sir John Trevor (a gentleman of the long robe he was so: ry to say), and Mr. Hunt, and reprimanded Mr. Guy. What was their conduct with regard to the renewal of the E set India Company's charter ? It was ascertained that 10i,000/. had been distributed by the East India Company, and that a large portion of it had come into the hands of members. The house did not wait for a res o l u ti on, b ut settled the matter by expelling some and censuring others, and directed the impeachment of the D u k e o f L eeds. The resolution of 1695, which was then adopted, did not apply. and was no• inten led to apply, to members, it was directed agaiesi, theme who were bie end the house; it drew a dis tinction between the offer au.l the acceet e nc e of the money. The house knew it could deal with . its own n embers. There was no necessity for this resolution if it was intended merely to confirm the old rule ; if it was to intreduce a new one it would only hampe r an d f e tt er th o house in the exercise of its discretion on future occasions. It would be much better to let the house be its own interpreter, and deal with each particular case on its merits, rather than hamper themselves with a set of wo-ds which would give rise to a quibble whether any particular c,rse came within them or not. lie entet teine.l a strong opinion each particular else should be dealt with by holt'. That could be done much more effectually and more readily by the house when it arose, than by the adoption of a resolu tion which might or might not meet the particular case. It would be safer for the house to act on its known. law and usage than to introduce a new resolution, which was too limited in one sense and too extended in another. It was too limited, as it would not meet every case of cormp• tion, and it was too extended as it would affect the case of a member who received an honourable testimonial for his ear vices. It was not twelve months since an hon. gentleman had received such a testimonial ; and it was not many years ago since an hon. gentleman not now in the house had received a testimonial for his services in a great cause. That was a most honourable tribute. (Hear, hear.) This resolution, instead of checking corrrup• tion, would put a stop to such honourable testimonials a■ these. He trusted the hon. baronet would not press his resolution, but would be content with the declaration which he had elicited from all sides of the hoes*, of their determination to uphold its honour and dignity, and not seek to fetter and cripple them with such a resolution. - Lord PAL NIERSTON thought that in any matter which concerned the honour cf members of the house it was moat important that the regulation laid down should be clear and precise ; a mere vague declaration in such a matter would only become a ti a, for tender consciences, whilst it was no restraint on ether.. He quite agreed that the rues of Parliament, as now v -stood, were quite sufficient for the purpose for which I - vere established ; but he thought the resolution n -ed was objectionable, on account of the vagueness of terms in which it was couched. The objections urge, the hon. member for Oldham wore thought sufficient ' e the Government pause before they adopted such a don. If it bore the extensive construction put ilia. there was really hardly a function which any member Id perform with respect to any matter connected w this constituents which would not subject him to the . 'er of infringing it. He held as high as anybody co, the necessity of re tintaining the honour of members free from inv im; , t• tation of corruption, but he was disposed to think present regulation, wish the discretion which the house must always possess of judging of the conduct of its mem bers, when that conduct came before them, afforded a suffi cient security for the integrity of members, whilst there would be great danger in the vagueness of the resolution now proposed. He thought the appeal made to his hon. frie'•d not to press the motion to a division was an appeal which he would exercise a wise discretion in acceding to. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. TRELAWNY, in reply, said his resolution would not apply to testimonials to members for past services. The resolution of 1695 applied to the offer of a reward, he wished to extend it to the acceptance. He regretted that the hon. member for Birmingham had referred to the deci sion of the late committee. The hon. gentleman said it was a direct acquittal. He (Sir J. Trelawny) could not so consider it ; it was merely adirect negative of the allegation contained in the petition. He contended the evidence amply sustained the position he had maintained in his opening statement. He had been actuated by no feeling of malice—(hear, hear)—or mere ostentation in bringing forward this motion. He warned the house that it was a mistake to suppose that the public at large considered the recent decision of the committee as a complete d ec i s i on on all the points raised, even on the evidence of the hon. mem ber for Youghal himself. As he believed the opinion, of the house was against a division, he would beg leave to .withdraw his motion. (Hear.) The motion was then withdrawn. THE IRISH JURY SYSTEM. I‘Tr. J. D. FITZGERALD obtained leave to introduce & bill consolidating the laws relative to juries in Ireland. The bill was subsequently introduced and read a first time. ENLISTMENT OF NEGROES. Mr. LO WE rose to move an address for copy of all in structions for the engagement of natives of Africa in the Indian service ; and for a return of the alterations in the annual Mutiny Act which such engagements would render necessary. He thought it most important that the precise instructions furnished to officers to be employed on this service should be published, in order to let it be seen that every care had been taken to prevent the plan degenerating into a species of slave trade. He should like also to be in• formed of the grounds upon which the conclusion was come to, that the Kroomen were convertible into good light troops. His motion also referred to the Mutiny Act, for he was anxicus to understand how the Mutiny Act could be said to have anything to do with the matter ; if these Kroomen were to be employed for naval purposes, the naval Mutiny Act had been p seed once and for ever, a d therefore the alteration referred to by a noble lord in another place could not have had reference to that act; but if, on the other hand, they were to be enlisted for the company'sservice, the Military Mutiny Act, not extending to the forces of the company, no change in the act was re. quired. - Mr. BAILLIE said it was quite clear that the right hon.' gentleman neither understood the Mutiny Act nor the rules of Parliament. (Hear.) He was very much surprised that the right hon. gentleman, who he believed was a lawyer, should have put such a notice on the paper. Ho asked for " a return of the alterations in the Mutiny Act which such arrange ments would have rendered necessary ;" is fact, for a return of alt orations which had never been made, and which, in fact, could not have been made at the time. It was plain that the right hon, gentleman had never read the Mutiny Act. It gave authority to enlist and attest recruits in different parts of the world for her Majesty's service, but it gave no such authority to the East India Company, and the alteration, if it could have been made, would have been to give this power to the East India Company. As regarded the instructi on, the right hon. gentleman should not only have them, but something more. It would be impossible to understand these ins ructions without having all the papers relating to the matter, and he should, th ere f ore, move as an a ddi t i on to the right hon. gentleman's motion, for copies of all letters re ceived from Mr. Spence relative to the enlistment of Kroo men ; of the memorandum of an interview between the Di. rectors of the East India Company and Mr. Spence ; and of all subsequent correspondence on the subject, and for the memorandum of the amendment required in the Mnt'ny Act to enable the East India Company to enlist recruits in the same manner as her Majesty. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON —I qu to agree in the opinion which seems to have been entert.dned by her Majesty's Government that it would have been desirable to enlist a negro force for employment in India. I believe it would have been an cape dient arrangement, and I know that that is the opinion of the Governor-General, They would be exceedingly useful, they would stand the climate better than Europeans, and would be free from those objections which applied to native Indian troops in respect to their peculiar feelings of caste. The diffioulty would be how to raise a black force without giving any in direct encouragement to a renewal of the slave trade, and I presume that was the view taken by the Government on this matter. Ido hot know that it was likely we should have been able to obtain any efficient troops from that coast, for so far as the information which I have received gees them, Kroomen are generally seafaring men, and are not willing to engage for more than a temporary absence from home. They will only take short voyages, and would not be likely to en gage for service in India. Neither my right hon. friend nor myselt wish to imply any objection to the principle of raising black troops for India if proper means had been taken for that purpose ; what we wish to impress upon the house is that in raising such a force great care should be taken that no means be employed which will have the effect of indirectly renewing the slave trade, (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER I cannot pre tend to give any opinion on the apabilities of the Kroomen, because, though I have had the advantage of recently con ver-in,g with two gentlemen who have had great personal ex perience of the country in which this particular section of the human race resides, their accounts were unfortunately very much opposed to each other. (Laughter.) The ono told me that they were a race admirably adapted for naval warfare; the other that their capital putiikhment was shoot ing with the rifle. One told me that they were perfectly willing to quit their country for any length of time ; the other that they eould be relied on only for a very short time. My noble friend at the head of the Board of Control has in this matter been actuated solely by a fooling of public spirit, and by a desire to omit no opportunity at a moment of exi gency of obtaining resources for carrying on the war in which we are engaged in India, and which, from the news we have received to-night, will, I trust, soon be brought to a success ful termination. The noble lord may be perfectly certain that, however desirous we may have been to raise a black force for s , rvice in India, we should avoid everything which could in the slightest degree bare the appearance even of re newing that slave trade which this country has made such immense sacrifices to put down. Tho tone of the noble lord requires no comment, and ho has taken a very fair view of the matter, (Hear.) I think the Secretary of the Board of Centrel has made a perfectly sufficiout and satisfactory answer to the observations of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe), whose tone cert dnly did not resemble that of the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) General THOMPSON beloved it was every man's duty to throw light upon a matter, however ins gniflcant. It was his misfortune in his time to be a commandant of Kroomen, and to see something of their qualities. It was his belie that, unless they were greatly altered, no Krooman ever hit a mark yet. (Laughter.) Ho once ordered a field-day of Kroomen. There was some expectation of an attack by the natives of the iuterior. The Kroomen were his baro meters—the most timid race in the world, He always knew there was some danger from the interior when the Kroomen were buying fowling-pieces, Ho thought he would try what use they would make of them, so ho had them drawn up in a loose sort of line, which our ancestors would have called " a very fil by line." One at a time ran out in front al out 30 yards, fired his fowling-piece, and then, like a prudent man, turned his face to the rear, and ran back again. (Laughter.) He could not believe but there had been some desire to pass a joke upon the Government. It was just as reasonable to propose that a regiment of cuirassiers uld be raised out of ehoemen because of their peculiar adaptation to the prcelium aquitatunt, as that Kroomen should be made into a rifle brigade. (Laughter.) Mr. LOWE said, he had been rep °bonded by the Secretary to the Board of Control for his ignorance of Parliamentary practice, because he said that a bill when it stood for a third reading should t , e recommitted and amendments introduced. He reasserted that statement, By a recent order the house had given up its power of amending bills substantially on a third reading, but they could recommit a bill and place it for a third reading on a future day. It might not have been worth while to mention it but for the unmerited contradiction of the hon. gentletnen. The original motion was withdrawn, and the motion of the Secretary to the Board of Control was agreed to. The report of the Committee of Supply was brought up and agreed to. CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at a few minutes before 10 o'clock. BIRT Lis. BE rCH—On the 9th inst., at Blackheath-park, the Rife of William Philip Beech, of a daughter. NORBURY—On the 11th inst., at Sberridge House, near Malvern, the Hon. Mrs. Norbury, of a daughter. ROSENBERG —On the sth inst., at Dresden, the Baroness 0. G. Von Rosenberg, of a son. MARRIAGES. CHEITINS—CRANEN—Con the tith inst., at St. Andrew's, Holborn, Charles Richard. Cheffins, of Southampton buildings, and Bridge-road, St. John's-wood, to Mary Ann, youngest daughter of Joshua Craven, Esq., of Prospect-house, Thornton Bradford, Yorkshire. SMITH LEACH -Oa the 13th inst., at St. James's, Paddington, by the Rev. R. W. I'itzpatriek, M.A., William Henry Smith, jun., Esq , only son of W. 11. Smith, Esq., of 27, Glocester-square, Hyde-park, to Emily, relict of the late Benj a. A über Leach, Esq., and eldest daughter of Frederick Dawes Danvers, Esq. DEATHS. BATTIER—On the 12th inst., at Morden College, Black heath, Mr. Charles Battier, Esq , aged SO. BLACKET—On the 13th inst,, Anne, wife of Mr. John Blacket, of Brixton-hill, and late of the Ward of Far ringdon Without, aged SO. COBDEN —A t Danford, Midhurst, Frederic W. Cobden, Esq., aged 58. .1,06D0N: Printed and Pubnahed by MURDO YOUNGI of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 27tt Sun °Moe, No* IL?, Strand, in the Prezinet of the Savoy, in the countY of Middlesoz, IF o '.)o.s.!Oiday, April 14, 1853, I