The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-06-12 00:00:00

DISCLOSURE OF A CABINET SECRET.

In the Queen's Bench Division on Monday before
Justices Manisty and Mathew, the case of "Eyre and
others v. the Queen "—a Petition of Right—came up.
It came before the Court by way of appeal from an
order of Justice A. L. Smith, directing that prior to
the trial of the Petition of Right a point of law in-
volved in it should be first decided by a judge of the
High Court. The suppliants were Messrs. Eyre and
Spottiswoode, the well-known printers, who sought
redress in consequence of Mr. Thomas Digby Pigott,
the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Stationety Office,
having, as they alleged, in violation of a written con-
tract, withdrawn from them certain printing for the
Government. It appeared that this step on the part
of the Comptroller was taken in consequence of the
publication in the Standard newspaper in October,
1884, of a confidential draft of the Government Re-
distribution Scheme, in connection with the Reform
Bill. Mr. Edward Clarke, Q.C., appeared for the
suppliants, and the Solicitor-General and Mr. R. S.
Wright for the Crown.
Mr. Clarke asked their lordships to rescind the
order of Mr. Justice Smith, in order that the whole
questions in dispute, whether of law or fact, should
be left to be decided at the trial before a judge and
jury. In the contract between Messrs. Eyre and
Spottiswoode and the Stationery Office there was a
provision that the contractors should bind themselves
to exclude all strangers from the place where the
printing was done, and should adopt every precaution
in their power, or which might be accepted by the
Comptroller, to prevent any documents printed for
the Government from getting into any other hands
than those of persons entitled to receive them. There
was also an express stipulation that, in the event of
any book, pamphlet, or other work coming into other
hands than those entitled to receive them, the Comp-
troller should be entitled to remove whatever printing
he might consider to be of a confidential descrip-
tion from the contractors to any other party. The
publication of portions of a confidential draft of the
Redistribution Scheme having appeared in the
Standard, Mr. Pigott, on the 20th November, 1884,
informed the suppliants that he should refuse to employ
them to print for the Government such books and
papers as he considered to be of a confidential
character, and he had since so refused to employ
them. Upon the agreement undoubtedly the question
would arise whether the language meant or could
mean that Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoodes were to lose
the right of having this confidential printing entrusted
to them, because, for instance, it might be a Member
of the Cabinet had communicated one of the confi-
dential documents in the outer world.
Justice Mathew: I should say not in that case.
Mr. Clarke said that cn the other side it was con-
tended that the words were so large that if through
default of anybody else who were not the servants of
Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode a confidential docu-
ment was made public the confidential printing could
be withdrawn from them. They were prepared to
meet that issue, and they were extremely anxious that
the whole matter should be tried before a judge and
jury, and tried at once.
Justice Manisty: The order of the learned judge,
which is now sought to be set aside, directs that the
question whether there is any binding contract to
employ Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode should be first
tried by a judge without a jury. That is a mere
uestion.pf law.
Mr. Clarke: It is a question of law which I submit
ought to be left; to the judge to deal with at the trial.
Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode are very anxious that
the matter should not be tried piecemeal, and that
their Petition of Right should not be delayed by this
order of the learned judge. We wish all the ques-
tions to be dealt with at the same time. It is of
enormous importance to Messrs. Eyre and Spottis-
woode that the matter should he investigated ex-
haustively, and that they should be enabled to prove
by the evidence of persons in their office at the time
that the document was not made public through any
servant of theirs or by anyone over whom they had
any control. They are naturally anxious to relieve
themselves before the public of any imputation in
this respect. So far as they are concerned, it is not
a matter of money in the least degree, and nothing, I
contend, is to be gained by enforcing this order.
Justice Manisty: But if there is no contract cad it
quxstio—and there would be an end of the case.
Mr. Clarke said, in that case, his clients would be
precluded from justifying themselves before the
public.
Justice Manisty: Surely the only question is
whether there is any binding contract. That is the
first point to be ascertained.
After some farther discussion,
Their Lordships, without calling upon the counsel
for the Crown, held that there was a question of
law, which should be decided in the first instance by
a judge. The order made by Justice A. L. Smith was
clearly within his discretion, and no ground had been
urged to show that he had not exercised a wise dis-
cretion. On the contrary, they thought that he had
exercised a wise discretion.
The appeal was then dismissed with costs.