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

the publication of such a speech would not be a fair or bona fide use of the privilege of publication. Their lord ships need be under no apprehension that such an abuse could possibly occur if this bill should pass. It was 'argued that as no action would lie against a member of Parliament for what he bad spoken in hie place in Par lament, so au 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 aeseeo 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 ? l e l:es trusted that their lordships would permit the bill to be iead a second time. His great object in bringing it forwat'el had been to protect the public press from vexa tious and pettifogging actions, which were now sometimes brought lifter° no injury had been sustained. This object bad been in 8014 e measure facilitated by a recent act of Parliament, enacting that if the damages were under forty shillings, costs equal to the damages should ' e a s sne be given, but this act had not afforded that ' .p re t es etion to the press which it was entitled to. The press Isi:d a right to expect that where actions were brought against them without foundation all the co ed Should be thrown upon the defendants. It wassupp that some of the journals had declared that his be bill would °8 lieved that be of no advantage to the press, but he pectations, and jeumalists looked to the bill with two witnesses who were examined y accept such a greatbeo i r e i ts x the select com mittee stated that they should gratefu B aines, pro measure. A most respecta ble wit neses Mr. , gav the following evi prietor of the Leeds Me rcur y . H .de " ece Has it ever suggested itself n tV e • ezur mind that it might be a relief if, under such circumstances, P to pay the costs of the def end farthing niageg re that the plaintiff had no noon, by iinding.a farthi real cause of action . .? It, would be a very important relief to t h e press is the plaintiff were thus rendered liable. " In that case th e danger of vexatious actions being; brought would be very much lessened I—lt would be ex ceedingly lessened," Mr. 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 fendant." 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 dakeage 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 had to pay the costs that had been incurred by the defendant. He now came to the definition of public meetings in the bill, to which he was not aware that any objection had been made.. In the category of public meetings were comprehended all meetings the publication of the proceedings of which was likely to be of service to the public, such As the meetings os the election of members of Parliament, meetings of town-councils, of local boards, and generally of all bodies constituted under Acts f Parliament. It was of as much advantage to the public that the proceedings of such bodies should be reported as that the debater in Parlia ment should be published. 'Th Ca were, too, meetings of bodies at which decency would be observed, and over which some control would always be exercised. He bad 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 be 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 be 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 fur 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 ioj ury to any individual, and with a mo , t beneficial effect. With these observations he must leave the bill in their I irdships' hands, and trusted that they would give it a second reading. 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 forte a 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 cf 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 cause to be examined as wits's. ssee 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 he would live to see the day, and that not a distant one, when it would be shown that his apprelieneions 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. Orr and Miss Jackson. THE LIBEL BILL.—DEBATE CONTINUED. Lord LYNDHURST—My noble and learned friend in closing his address referred to something which fell from me with respect to this measure on a former occasion, and I therefore feel called upon to state as shortly as pos sible the views which I take of it. I nee d hardl say that I entertain all proper respect for ray 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 based. At the same time, I must recall to your lordships' recollection the fact that only one-half of the committee was present when these resolutions were agreed to, and that less than one-third of the committee voted in their favour. (Hear, hear.) The committee cansisted 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 upon this subject without being charged with being presumptuous. I must say that I entirely dissent from the conclusion at which 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 subject, the measure which he has brought forward is most insufficient for the purpose, and ought to be greatly extended, As the bill stands at present it would be almost wholly inoperative. Every one of your lordships will admit the importance of the indeed marvellous to which the mea sure re l a t es. They are marvellous for their accuracy. Every man without wi a th ll out stir ring from his home is made acquainted w ounnstances attending all these publi c meeting th e hecilr meetings— h e ld not only in the metropolis, but in e very part of the kingdom—and with all the facts and arguments which are discussed at them. It is hardly possible to overrate the advantages which result from this system, and it is our duty as far as possible to do justice to those persons to whom we are indebted for these advantages. Now, my lords, a word upon the law. My noble and learned 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 moot* to almost any - extent with perfect immunity, and withou being subject to any punishment ; but the same words, when reduced to writing, may subject a party to a prosecution, and to the payment of damages to the person injured. The principle upon which this distinc tion is founded I imagine is this. Words may ba n'tered 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 distinct ion is founded to the meetings which are the subjects of this 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. lie knows that it will be published ; the very object for which ke speaks it is that it may be published. Yet that man passes with impunity ; the law cannot take bold of him. On the other hand, the reporter, whose mind is intent Neon one object only—taking down accurately what he bemire—who has no time for consideration, who sends his sips off one a ft er ano th er as f as t as th e y are com pl e ted; ys .ba to te when he revi, , ee them revises them in the utmost because they mu s t b e p u bli s h e d i mm ediately and tboat delay ;!tich a man, under such circumstance,av in pint g on nom l a whic a l i t i t o he us motive, perhaps not kuowieg :h t ea o a i v ltagahbt, 'y en ture, is made the scape goat ; ea ction i s b rought against tl gaiust h, and he is flied in dame& inr s, or h e ti indicted for the libel, a d runiatied. 4 .rei a crimi na l: W hat can be more u n ju r t tha n that atatetf things My lords, when you come to cos adder the circumstances attending a public m ee ti ng suc h as I havn described, the principle al a o n n d e w r h i i : h the distincttion between written and oral applies. A man goes to a meeting p repa redwdw a il hardly der. He sees it taken down ; he speaks it for thaatßpulan pose ; he knows it will be published. Take anotherr illnetration. Supposing I dictate words detracting from tl'.e character of another man to a person who pots them ' , down, and I wish him to publish them. In that case I sin responsible, and may be indicted for the libel. It i s true that in the example we aro now considering there is to 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. lashed ; and therefore I say the distinction between 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 imperfect. 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 assembled 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 must 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 here, 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 be deemed lawful meetings, law fully assembled within the meaning of the act. Never was there 53 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 respect to a parish or a district. On first seeing this limitation I turned it over and over again in my mind fro discover upon what principle it pr. - ceeded. Is it that these meetings are meetings where order and decorum preeminently 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 i a church-rate—is that the kind of meeting which is pe culiarly marked by order and decorum and by an absence of personality ? (Laughter.) My lords, I have seen a vestry meeting presided over by the clergyman of the parish. Argument goes on, turbulence succeeds to argu ment, the clergyman 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 of my noble and learned friend, one of the "favoured" Meetings to which his measure extends. He 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, he does us the honour, and I am grateful to him, of styling us a lawful meeting within the operation of the act. But, my lords, what will the sight 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 wade a remark which did not reach the gallery.) My noble and learned friend will have an opportunity of replying. (Hear, hear.) But the Upper House, 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 iu 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 meetisgs on behalf of schools, and are attended by clergymen and Dissenting ministers. Thespeechesare sometimes of great eloquence and the questions discussed most important. Yet they are not lawful assemblies within the meaning of this bill. Tney are all unlawful I What a bill it is ! (Laugh ter.) I wish that a noble and learned friend of mine— a walking cyclopedia, who is now doing suit and service in 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 elite cf the population of this country. I don't know whether the attention of my noble and learned Mend opposite was directed to that meeting. I hardly know how to characterise it. I am not quite sure that I have organs sufficient to articulate - the name of it. (Laughter.) It was called a Sociological Sociriey— (loud laughter)—and I am not sure whether a noble friend of mine opposite was not present on the occasion. (Laughter.) At all event., 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 I go further, my lords ? It may be remembered that about this time lest sear a meeting e as he? d pre sided cvor 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 lic, 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 1 It excludes every thing; it includes literally almost nothing. Before I left hone this morning I noted upon paper a number of cases that were not included in the bill. I came to 104, and then I stopped. (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 1 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 say, " We are of opinion the plaintiff has no damage." The defendant says, "Oh, then, I am entitled to a verdict""Oh, no," exclaims t h e judge, " this was not a vestry e ; ti—t was a notcarefully alaw d f r a a l meetin g bell's A w m n ee m tin ea g a w or i e tli , in L (A. erd l C ae a g m h p .) The meeting might have been told to consider the pro priety of raising a monument to one of the best and bravest heroes of modern times—General Havelock, but the judge must direct a verdict for the plaintiff, who may have his farthing damages, while the defendant is saddled with costs amounting to 3001. or 4001. (Hear, hear.) 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 toinclude all meet ings in the bill, because then the proceedings at Bt ditiCll or treasonable meetings would be protected. Seditious ineetingrO treasonable meetings I —it is impossible, my lord, fr 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 t> strike out the third clause altogether in committee, and leave the second clause as it is, applying to any "p ublic meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose.', Is not that protection enough ! I wish the bil 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 ha had always been an advo cate for useful reforms in the law, and scarcely any mea sure with that object had been brought forward by his ant vary great a t Any h is noble and learned. friend (Lord Campbell) t o w hi c h h e not givea therefore,his a cti ve support.that tit was H w e ith v e) uld ry assure l' n ad chicfriend, re luctance he felt obliged to oppose th e pre: one who contemplated the history of Esglish law f or the last quarter of a century must be struck with the t m a a n d ce e aiondthexetenootmotef common o e l i a m ar p , ro i v a em o e r t i i m ts io w a h l equi ty law ; and if the noble earl (Stanhope ) he would undoubtedly refer to that el.' complete the history which he had should oil s o c ommenced, di te guiihed by the most valuable improleptuelincltahswb 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 nulls and Lamed friend who last addressed their lerdsh . that it ought to be allowed to pass a second reading.' IP l ' t had long been established a 3 the law of this co untr y , bad daanat ' bdPeirnnd. that with respect to verbal slander an action could o nly be maintained when criminal offences were imputed, or when charges of malversation in offices or of insolvency i n trade had been made. Indeed, the cases in which such actions could be maintained were very limited ; but an action would lie for any slan&r in writing or in because this wr:tiog or printing gave the slander print, a character of perpetuity, and also ex ended it far more widely than it ceul I be spresd by vsr1)•1 publication. The injury inflicted b y a written or printed report we' t o that done by verbal ,dend.r. j therefore ranch greater th . r (se , ' r eports cf the peif-mt liberty to publish fair and cu r b i b Tne proprietors of public o u r nals were undoubtedly at two Houses of Parliament; and the public a , eel, greatly benefitted by such reports. But the bill raised permitted to publish with impunity s , pe o'ies vilifyi ng the question, whether newspaper proprietors should be the character of individuals o i the ground that these speeches bad been male in Parliament. That certainly ought not to justify the publication of slander. Ar , 0 1.: several witnesses examined before the select committee was the solicitor to the Times, who stated that the proprietors thereof were sued for havirg printer I a speech made by Dr. Lu e hi ng t on in the House of c, brought mm"s ' himself f they the r e and bad to pay th e cos t s o f th e ac tion aagggarinieevtedthebray b p o a r r t ty who hit hh c e o n s s p id e e e r e e b d . That, in fact, wise the only instanc e p in o f w Iwas brou g ht aga i nst the Ti mes for printin g e rep o r ts action , the proceeding s i n P ar li amen t ; an d, in fact, the wit nesses altogether failed to show that newspaper 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 hitherto 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 ptrfectly 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 prc ceediugs should be reported. Ho had seen complaints from a member that his speech had been too much com pressed, and from another that he bad 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 perfectly 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 cf 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, so that he might refute it in any of the thousand different ways in which it could be refuted. (Hear.) He did notwish 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 bad brought the matter before the atten tion of tire house. It was agreed to refer it to a select committee, and this bill was founded upon their report. Under these circumstances he 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 the purpose of referring it to a select committee, because the nob'e and learned lord had not established tiny 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 fiend the Chief Justice Viet 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 con idera.ble weight and authority, and he was the authcr ef many very excellent leers, particularly one upon the law of libel. (Hear, hear.) And if his noble and learned friend bad never passed any other measure than the rscent 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 of the law the question to be asked was whether there was any necessity f,r the change ? His noble and learned friend in this instance bad failed altogether in establishing any ease in support of an alteration. The law was perfecly 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 stantly acting under a sense cif it. A case arose which seemed suddenly to arouse them to a sense of their danger. A report was published in the Durham. Adver tises 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 tbepaperin 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 plaintiff demurred. Ile 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 well-known law upon the subject. This decision, however, appeared to have excited a great deal of atten tion, and though he would not say in consequence of what appeared in tine 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 of 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 lordships' 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 h )w 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, the well known publisher of the Parliamentary debates ; and Mr. Hargrove, the proprietor of the York 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 arisen 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 had been brought againt newspapers ? The answer was to be found in the evidence given before the committee, that the journalists had exercised care and caution in what they had pub lished. (Hear.) Mr. Hargrove, in hiS evidence, stated rather emphatically, " In the existing state 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 shout? conth ne 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 folio w. 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 lordships 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 enjey 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 ekes likely to be anything but guarded and care ful in respect to inflicting injury upon private charairer? (Hear.) When he looked to the resolutions ultimately adopted in the select committee, and to the names cf those who were present, be regretted the absence of noble lords whose opinions would have been extremely valueble. 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 elairee, but 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 individuAß. His noble and learned friend proposed that any person who was injured, and who mi g ht be ruined by reports of debates which had taken };lure, in which private character had been as ailed, should be left utterly remediless, and that the proof i, hat the report was a faithful one should be a ccm piste answer to any action against the newspaper. But a little difficulty might arise upon the terms of the clauses as to the r, port being faithful. How was its fidelity to be established ? Upon whom was the burden to lie ? Was it sufficient for a j )urnal to assert that the report was faithful? If, on the other hand, the proof was thrown upon the kiurnalist, 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 bad compared the debates in Perlis meet with the proceedings io courts of jusitce; but there was a marked and strong distinction between the two. The proceedings in courts of justice were not ex parte. The case was heard on both sides, and the whole was afterwards published for the information of the public, h ,.bve tt iol : lut a elh,hi s eoo l u e rd i la r ed d nu. s gku r ,eal,r u si, t t.b. t oe e:e I in de')ate in Parliament wools be a mere cx parts staternet t, to which prof ably no answer time.i o e onts swuop uploTiss suppose, from f t rhonr exposed lordships th di fe theeo - w i He could givenci l aptert persons lord that, th 1 e,,t 0, w probp o auo u ltri l e to l eut. t n a tiß le it,y e : tao a ffht d h:i v rec a dro n : t dh a l od g tuo e i : imagine g t i n h e e t h a altered members, st ateof the t trim prevailing in their lordships' house,' that any noble law to find in speeches in that house a vehio'e for pri vate h might em ,y therase law advantage proposedn roaf to be altered, and, knowing that what they stated would be sure to be circulated through the country the follow leg morning, might u e their p os iti on 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 Abingdon. But the cas es o f L ord Abingdon and Mr. Creevy , which his noble and learned friend tui2ht also have cited, were cases in which the persons who bad made the speeches had themselves pub lished them. The bin', he admitted, would make no al teration in the law in such a case. If any slander Were THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, 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 justify the alleged 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 au irreparable injury against an individual. He might mention a case which had recently occurred before the Privy Council. Pro ccedinge were taken there in which certain respectable merchants of the City of London were charged with hay • 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 passed 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 re.pecfahle merchant had been implicated in the traffic, and should break out ii ter 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 up 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 had 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 n but feel that Chit would be a most dangerous innovation and a most mischievous change of a law which, even accord iug ti. 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 had 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 slender. 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 frem the speak ing of the words. His noble and learned friend did not propose to abolish that distinction ; indeed, the 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 I o make the speaker at a public meeting al says 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." 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 ut 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, pr,vided it take place at a meeting of a public nature—a aide description, embracing all kinds of meetings, from a county meeting to a parish meeting. At such meetings things m y well be said very irrelevant to the subject in hand, yet very calumnious. In what an unhappy situation a calumniated person would be if a calumny might be) üblished, and yet he could not bring an action and chal lenge t he publisheis to prev.: its trials I" -- • litar.) That was the opioionof his noble and learned fiend, who now proposed to legalise the publication of all repo is of what took place at a meeting lawfully as semisled. Lord CAMPBELL. —Not The LORD CHANCELLOR.—His noble and learned riend meet forgive Lite. He would find it was so, be cause under hie qualification no party was entitled to recover unlees he could prove loss and damage. Now, that, as his noble and learned friend knew, meant pecu mary loss and damage ; the consequence of which would be that in 99 oases out of no the person who was ca. luwniated at a public meeting would be deprived of his remedy, because he could not show that he had sus ! tained such lose and damage. Suppose that a person not in trade was charged with some gross breach of morality, or with being guilry of some falsehood—an imputation upon the character of an honourable man, which was much more painful and much more destructive to his reputation than if he could show that he had sustained damage to the a.nount of thousands and thousands of pounds by tie slander. Were they to take so mean a visw of the value of reputation that it was to be weighed by a quantity of gold ? He trusted that in this country a (twee reputation would never be considered other than the dearest of his possessions. It had been suggested that the should be committed, with the view of intro ducing into it art amendment constituting the person who published the agent of him who uttered the words. Of such a course he could not approve. Alter the humorous description which had been given by a noble and learned lord who had left the House of the great *umber of public meetings which had been omitted from the definition contained in this bill, he thought that if the bill ever went into commits: his noblefriend would find that the difficulties in its way were so great as to be ir surmountable even by his great power of overcoming obstacles. (Hear.) Under these circumstances he could not consistently with his position give a silent vote on this sulject, nor could he, after the most careful atten tion, accede to the suggestion of hii noble and learned f iend. He del not find that there was any real grie vance in the existing state of the law. His noble and learned friend had utterly failed to establish his case, and therefore the bill ought not to be read a second time. (Hear, hear ) Lord GRAN WORTH thought that although this bill might not bs adopted in its integrity, it at least con- tained the germ arid foundation of a proper remedy. As to the reporting of Pat hamentary proceedings, he doubted very much whether they were not proceeding altogether upon a fallacy. He did not believe that the character of a person calumniated in Parliament was likely to be damnified by the slander being reported ' • on the con trery, the report was likely to afford him the best means of refuting the charge. But for that report he might never know of the calumny. With regard to the reports of public meetings, it was said that there had been no Glees of hardsh p. There had been one case, and, in his opinion, it was the duty of their lordships, when the principle of the law could nut be justified, to act upon a single instance. It was a great hardship to the publisher of a Durham newspaper that he should have to pay 4001. b. e tuse he had published something which was actually stated at a public meeting held with reference to the improvemeet of the town of Hartlepool. And what had happened in that instance might, and most likely would, hap; en in many others. He did not, how ever, think that oral should be treated in the same manner as written slander. Such a rule would give rise to disgraceful pett fogging, as was exemplified in the law books of the reigns of James I. and Charles 1., when many questions were raised as to whether such and such words were not idanderous so as to subject the person uttering them to an action. lie was glad that, whether by judge-made law or otherwise we had escaped from those difficulties, and, practically speaking, oral slander was not a ground of action. It had been said that there was little distinction between the act of directing libel. lcus words to be published and that of uttering suci words orally in public with the knowledge that they would be published. But under this bill the injured party would bring his action against the publisher, who might plead that the report was a true and faithful one, made without malice. He would not encourage the no• tion that they ought to legislate on a mere theory ; but when a certain amount of practical evil had already resulted from the state of the law it would not be wise to overlook what had occurred, and wait till further mirchief arose before applying a remedy. He therefore hoped that their lordships would read the bill a second time. Lord CAMPBELL rose to reply, when he was in terrup'ed by The Errl of DERBY, who reminded the noble and learned lord that he bad already addressed the house at considerable ltn4th, and that o n th e mo ti on f or a second read f a r it. second lie time, reading he had no right to a r ep l y . Lord CAMPBELL was not aware of any i ns t ance i n which the courtesy of a h ear i ng in rep l y h a d b een re f use d in such a case ; yet if th e no b le earl was no t con t en t w ith having overwhelmin g numbers on his s id e, b u t ins i s t e d that thrrs should al so b e no argument, of course there bill was the no wasremedy o c munittee ; but it s h ould be t shouldo referbe most willing, it g remem b er ed that the been carried by measure had alr ea d y a fair majority aaio to a f i in the select committ ee . U n d er those circumstances would their lordships affirm that it was so vicious in principle that they could not hope to improve it at any subsequent stage? Th e powerful spe ech of the noble and learned lord, whose jocular observations had en livened a very d u ll debate, was to a great extent favourable to the measure It had pleased the noble and learned lord to assume tbat all meeting-4 not included in the third c'auie, and among others those of Convoca tion, were unlawful. Now it so happ rued t at in the committee he had himself Proposed to include Convoca lion—(a laugl') —hut he was out-voted, on the ground that it was disrespectful to suppose that anything libellous could fall from the members of so grave and venerable a body. His reply to that bad been that he had heard right rev. prelates use very sharps words in the House of Lords. To have enumerated meetings for the purpose r f raising a monument to an illustrious genera', or the meeting- at Exeter Hall, to which refer ence had been made, might, hethought, havebeen deemed included in but, if desirable, they might yet be in the bill when in committee. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack had (tone him the honour cf re ferring to some of the measures which be (Lord Campbell had had the good fn - tune to originate and to carry into law, and among other s th e a ct for preventing the sal* of obscene publications. His noble and learned friend must be aware am that measure was assailed even with more bitter nes-4 than the bill now before their lordships, and every means were adulat e d to cover it with discredit and ridicule. That hill, however, received the sanction of their lordships and of the other house, and it was admit ted by his noW and learned friend, and by other emi nent lawyers, that it had operated moat beneficially. If the present bill should pass and become the law of the land, Le beloved it wig) t receive as high commendation from Roma future occupant of the woolsack. It was int osai to forcse) what might happen, anal in the course of the • year this measure might receive the approval of APRIL 14, 1858 , 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.ia-ts publication of tff4roceedings at meetings of a particu lar description. Were their lordships prepared to say that in secula seculorum they would invite reporters to attend, and would allow reports cf their proceedings to go forth to the public; but that they would leave the proprietors of newspapers liable to be 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 i❑ the publication of faithful reports of proceed ings at public meetings, and were the proprietors of newspapers to despair of obtaining any remedy or redress for the grievances of which they row complained ? 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 Not Content 35 Majorityli . —2B The bill was consequently lost. The house adjourned at 9 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Caledonian Railway (Dalmarnock branch) Bill was 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 B lls, in reference to the Border Counties Railway.—Agreed to. ADMIRALTY PROMISES. Mr. E, BALL presented a petition from the Rev. Mr. Mabberley, of Suffolk, stating, that on his making certain communications to the Admiralty he was to re ceive 100,0001.. Lie had made the communication, but had not received the money in return. (Laughter.) ASSIZE ACCOMMODATION. Mr. MiMMION gave notice that he should on this day fortnight move the appointment of a committee to inquire into the 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 mova 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. RICARD 6 gave notice that he should on this day fortnight present a petition from the inhabitants of Henley, complaining of the manner in which the Duchy of Laacaster was conducting mining operations is the neighbourhood, and he should move the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the complaint and report thereon. PASSPORTS. Mr. M. MILNES gave notice that he should on Friday put a question to the Government relative - to the new passport 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 iust., move for a select committee to inquire into the destitution existing in Donegal. MILITIA SURGEOZNTS. Mr. BRADY asked the Secretary for War if a me morial had 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 t General PEEL said he had received the memorial referred to, but he regretted to ray he 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 of returns connected with the E:►st India revenue 4, which were agreed_to. NEW CHELSEA BRIDGE. Mr. BRADY asked the Chief Commissioner of Works if he was aware that foot passengers entering on the new Chelsea bridge were compelled to pass over whether they desired it or not, and then to pay a second toll to be allowed to return ; aied if so, whether he purposed taking any steps to remedy the inconvenience! Lord JOHN MANNERS said he was aware of the arrangements referred to, which were entered into with a view of consulting the public convenience. (Laughter.) When he mentioned that 30,000 persons went over Chel sea New Bridge on Sunday last, the house would see that to permit passengers to go partly over the bridge and then to return, would be a great public inconve nience. (Hear, hear) If the public convenience had not been consulted by the arrangements that had been made they would be altere3. (Hear, hear.) Enquiries were being made into the subject. THE PARKS, Mr. WILLIAM EWART inquired of the Faust Com missioner of Public Works if there was any objection to give the public the benefit of an increaied number of seats round the larger trees in Kensington-gardens and Hyde-park ? Lord J. MANNERS Paid that arrangements had boon made for giving the accommodation asked for before the notice of the hon. gentleman wag put upon the paper. A vote would ba proposed in the cstimatts for carrying them out. TELEGRAPHIC CONINIUNICA.TION IN THE 3,IEDITERRANEAN. Mr. CRA.WFORD asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, whether any arrangements had been concluded or were now unthr the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, for extending the Mediterranean System of Telegraphs to Alex mdria, and for bringing India into -telegraphic communication with this country by the way of the Red Sea, or by any other route ; whether, in the event of such arrangement, having been resolved upon, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table of the House the correspondence in reference thereto ! The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that no arrangements had 33 yet been concluded to effect the objects to which the hon. gentleman referred, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was in hopes that in a very short time arrangements embracing all the objects referred to would be concluded. (Rear, hear.) Mr. CRAWFORD complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad not informed the house if he would lay the correspondence on the table of the houss, and also if be would lay at the same time on the table of the house the estimates for carrying out the undertaking. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mid he was unable to undertake to lay the papers asked for on the table becau=e they did not exist, although they pro bably would at some future stage of th. proceedings. When the arrangements were concluded he should have no objection to produce them. Mr. WYLD asked if negotiations were going on b e t we en this country an Austria for carrying out te legraphic communication? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it would be better if honourable members would adhere to the rules laid down f,r the guidanc of the house in putting questions by first giving notice of them, and thereby simply confining themselves to the inquiries made, because inconvenience resulted from those divergences. He had, no difficulty. however, in then answering the question. Arrangements were pending between her Majesty's Government and the Austrian Government, but he might be permitted to say that the part of the original plan giving a monopoly to Austria did not torn), part of the present negotiation. Mr. CRAWFORD gave notice that he would on this day week submit a motion on the subject. NATIONAL COLLECTION OF PICTURES. Lord ELCHO asked the Chancellor of the Exche quer whether the Government intended to take any steps, during the rfresent session, with a view to provid ing increased accommodation fur the national c Alection of pictures? The C iIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he sheuld be sorry to say that her Maje,ty's Government would not take step to inereale the accommodation re ferred to, but it was not then in his power to say speci fically what were their intentions in this respect. The matter could not long remain in its present state, but he was unable to give a specific answer to the question. SIR JAMES HUDSON AND MR. ERSKINE. Mr. WISE asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Sir James Hudson was to remain at Tura' as her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minis ter Plenipotentiary; and whether it was intended to recal the Secretary of Legation, Mr. Erskine, from the sane mission ? The CHANCELLOR of Via EXCHEQUER said there was no intention on the part of her Maje.ty's Go vernment to recal Sir James Hudson from Turin. (Hear, bear.) Great services were not to be cancelled by an act of carelessness, though for the moment it was to be regretted. (Hear, hear.) With respect to Mr. Erskine, he had been re: ailed in order to explain his coaduc', and be had been suspended in consequence. ARMY RETURNS. Mr. BAGWELL asked the Secretary f•)r War when the army returns moved for on the IGth March would be laid on the table of the hou 4e ? Gen. PEEL said he h ,ped to ba able to comply with the request on Friday next at the latest. STRAITS OF MALACCA, Stc. In answer to Viscount BURY, Mr. BAILLIE said that Government would not be able to turn their attention to this settlement till after the termination of the Indian outbreak, they being somewhat connected with that country. Mr. lIORSMAN thought the matter should be con sidered on its own merits, and expressed a hope that the Government would not delay turning their attm tion to it. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE was at Singapore in 1820, and visited it often during the subsequent 17 years. He never heard any c o m pl a i n ts against the convict popula tion. They were indeed a better class of persons than . the lawless people w h o e migrated from the neighbouring islands and countries. He knew a lady at Penang, the wife of an official gentleman, who always took her, do mestic servants from the convicts —(laughter) - -and she informed him that she preferred murderers and thieves. (Laughter.) Most of the murders were committed from j.alousy 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 India. 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 Majesty, 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 of the termination of the Treaty between the Un ted Kingdom and Hanover, of the 22nd day of July, 1844, 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 established 800 years ago, under a state of things which had long passel 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. He urged the Government to give ❑otice 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 PALMERSTON denied the analogy of these dues with the Sound dues. It was a question how far the Stacie 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 soriousiy 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 less 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 i the delay and inconvenience caused by their collection. "Ho believe.' that the dues might be bought for 200,0)0/. 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. AIILNER GIBSON contended that before ' any proper conclusion could bo arrived at a committee of in quiry was necessary. He hoped that the offer of the Go vernment would be 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 tine tax should be speedily pnt an end to. Ho 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 AM likewise advocated reference to a com. mate° 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 ho 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 of/corset* the Crown would be ascertained. The motion was withdrawn, after an assurance from Mr. HENLEY that the Government would propose a com mittee. DESPATCH FROM INDIA. The CHANOEaolioFti7;aclllCildiill.---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 Malnaesbury from Consul-General Reed. (The right hon. gentleman here road 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. TREF A AWNY, 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 ie a high breach of the privilege of Parliament," said that though 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 o th er b o di es in the kingdom. Lord HoTHA M said that in the opinion of the publio such acts as those referred to in the resolution had been committed in that house, and it was necessary to put an end to that opinion. It was believed that lawyers 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. He thought that no member should be allowed to interfere in that house in any matter in which ho 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. Bat the publicity of the transac tion would b 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 a wrong construction from the public, and hoped that the P resent discussion would effect the purpose required. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD recommended 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 made to lawyers in that house, and what was proposed with a false and fraudulent intention. He hoped the house would be satisfied with the discussion. Still if the motion was pressed he should vote for it. Mr. R. MANGLES thought that the sense and opinion of the house ought to be expressed 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 no t on l y l awyers but members interested in railways, and even i n cons ti tuenc i es, su ff ere d their private interests to interfere with their conduct in that house, He considered that the resolution would be of great service. fir. BRIGHT said that former resolutions had been passed after a member has been found guilty. By passing the resolution they would only be laying traps for them selves without doing 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 ferred to the late committee from the resolution before them. If the hon. baronet intended by it to impeach the conduct of the hon. member for Youghal, he ought to have specifically mentioned him. Theycould not refer to the pro ceeding before the committee as having probably induced this motion. The hon. baronet ought to tell them clearly whether his object was to confirm an old or to establish a new rule; if the latter was the object he (Ir. Walpole) thought no such rule was necessary. If the object was to confirm the old rule he would say the old rule of parlia ment was much better 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 meruLers. The rule applicable to members of the long robe was very old—the resolution of 166'6 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 fcro 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 case of a public bill but nut of a private one. Again, the rule with regard to parliamentary agents had been clearly laid down in the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey. It was decided he could not transact any busi nce-,, 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 pel ed. There was no necessity for a new rule with regard to the legal profession ; and if the resolution was intended to apply to them they should have been •specially men tioned. With regard to the grave question as affecting members in general, whether belonging to the legal pro fession or not, whether they were or ware not now re strained by the clearregulation of parliament from 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., the Speaker amongst them, had received a large 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 sm ry to say), and Mr. Hunt, and reprimanded Mr. Guy. What was their conduct with regard to the renewal of the +et 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 resolution, but settled the matter by expelling some and censuring otherp, and directed the impeachment of the Duke of Leeds. Ti resolution of 1695, which was then adopted, did not apply, and was not inten led to apply, to members, it was directed against those who were beyond the house; it drew a dis tinction between the offer and the acceptance of the money. The house knew it could deal with its own members. There was no necessity for this resolution if it was intended merely to confirm the old rule ; if it was to intro dues a now one it would only hamper and fetter the 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 words which would give rise to a quibble whether any particular case came 'within them or not. He entertained a strong opinion that beach particular case s h ou ld b e dealt with by itself. That could be done much more effectually and more readily by ,the house wh en it arose, than by the adoption of a resolu aion which might or might not meet the particular case. It, would be safer for the house to act on its knows. law and usage than to introduce a new resolution, whieh was too limited in one sense and too extended in another. It was too limited, as it would not meet every case of corrup tion, and it was too extended as it would affect the case of a member who received an honourable testimonial for his ser vices. It was not twelve months since an hon. gentleman bad 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 as 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 PALMERSTON thought that in any matter which Concerned the honour of members of the house it was most important that the regulation laid down should be clear and precise ; a mere vague declaration in such a matter would only become a trap for tender consciences, whilst it was no restraint on others. He quite agreed that the rules of Parliament, as now understood, were quite sufficient for the purpose for which they were established ; but ho thought the resolution nlw proposed was objectionable, on account of the vagueness of the terms in which it was couched. The objections urged by the hon. member for Oldham were thought suilleient to make the Government pause before they adopted such a resolution. If it bore the extensive construction put upon it, there was really hardly a function which any member could per f orm w i th respect to any matter connected with his constituents which would not subject him to the danger of infringing it. He held as high as anybody could the necessity of tintainiog the honour of members free from any impu. tation of corruption, but ho was disposed to think that the 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 era& 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. friend not to press the motion to a division was an appeal which be 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 decision 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. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD obtained leave to introduce a bill consolidating the laws relative to juries in Ireland. The bill was subsequently introduced and read a first time. ENLISTMENT OF NEGROES. Mr. LOWE 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. Ho 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 anxious 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'ssery ice, 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. He asked for " a return of the alterations in th© Mutiny Act which such arrange ments would have rendered necessary ;" is fact, for a return of alterations whieh 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 instrueti ne, 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 ho should, therefore, move as an addition 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 Mutiny Act to enable the East India Company to enlist recruits in the same manner as her Majesty, (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON —I quite agree in the opinion which seems to have been entertained by her Majesty'. Government that it would have been desirable to enlist a negro force for employment in India. I believe it would have been an expe 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 difficulty would he haw to raise a black fore, 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 not 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 these Kroomen are generally seafaring men, and are not willing to I f y ot. not be from home.likely to n g. andr r absence would no gage for service in India. Neither my right h on , fr i end nor take more short than voyages, a tem temp o rary myself wish to imply any objection to th e p r i nc i ple of raising black troops for India if proper means had b een ta k en for that will only 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 capabilities of the Kroomen, because, though I have had the advantage of recently con versing 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 one told me that they were a race a d m i ra bl y adapted for naval warfare; the other that their capital punishment 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 could 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 feeling of public spirit, and by a desire to omit no opportunity at a moment of exi gency of obtain;ng resources for carrying on the war in whioh 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 service in India, we should avoid everything which could in the slightest degree have the appearance even of re newing that slave trade which this country has made such immense sacrifices to put down. The tone of the noble lord requires no comment, and he has taken a very fair view of the matter. (Hear.) I think the Secretary of the Board of Control has made a perfectly sufficient 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 believed it was every man's duty to throw light upon a matter, however insignificant, It was his misfortune in his time to be a commandant of Kroomen, and to see something of their qualities. It was his belief that, unless they were greatly altered, no Krooman ever hit a mark yet. (Laughter,) He once ordered a field-day of Kroomen. There was some expectation of an attack by the natives of the interior. 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. He thought he would try what use they would make of them, so he had them drawn up in a loose sort of line, which our ancestors would have called "a very fil hy 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 Goveinment. It was just as reasonable to propose that a regiment of cuirassiers eh. uld be raised out of shoemen because of their peculiar adaptation to the prcelium, aquitatuns, as that Kroomen should be made into a rifle brigade, (Laughter.) Mr. LOWE said, he had been rep , ehended 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 he recommitted and amendments introduced. He reasserted that statement. By a recent order the house had given up its power of amending bills subst.intially 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. gentleman. 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 bawl 10 o'clock. BIRTHS. BE C;CII—On the 9th inst., at B lackheath-park, the wife of William Philip Beech, of a daughter. NORBORY—On the 11th inst. at Sherridge H ouse , near Malvern, the Hon. Mrs. Norbury, of a daughter. ROSENBERG —On the tith inst., at Dresden, the Baroness 0. G. You Rosenberg, of a son. MARRIAGES. CHEFFINS—CRAVEN—On the 13th 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, EN o f Prospect-houso, Thornton Bradford, Yorkshire. SMITH LEACH —On the 13th inst., at St. James's, Paddington, by the Rev. R. W. Fitzpatrick, M.A., William Henry Smith, jun., Esq , only son o f W . 11. Smith, Esq., of 27, Glocester-square, Hyde-park, to Emily, relict of the late Benjn. 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 80. BLACKET--O❑ the 1 ith inst., Anne, wife of Mr. John Blacket, of Brixton-hill, and late of the Ward of Far• ringdon Without, aged 80. COBDEN—A t Dunford, Midhurst, Frederic W. Cobden, Esq., aged 58, Printed /WO Publtched by MITE,DO YOU.Nt: ,; No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Alid.cllosoF, lifOit*Phlay, April 14, 18686