The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-22 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

The NOBLE Lean then rose for the purpose of calling
the attention of the House to a breach of its privileges, by
the publication in the True Sun of the evidence taken before
the Poor-law Committee. If it had been an ordinary
publication, there could have been no difficulty in the
proceeding the House should adopt. There was a case
of a publication having taken place in the Dublin Evening
Mail newspaper, in which a person named Sheehan had
been committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
for having committed a breach of the privileges of that
House. But from the declaration made the other night by
the Hon. Member for Southwark, who avowed that he
had been instrumental in the publication that had taken
place in the True Sun Newspaper, he (Lord J. Russell)
supposed that he was anxious to bring the entire subject
under the consideration of the House, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the publication was or was not a
breach of its privileges. In consequence of that avowal he
(Lord J. Russell) had thought it right to submit a resolu-
tion which would convey the sense of the House on the sub-
ject. The resolution was to the effect, that according to the
undoubted privileges of that House, such a publication
was contrary to the public interests, and should not take
place.--( Hear, hear.) He would state two or three cases,
in illustration of that principle. In the first place
he might mention the Select Committee that had
been appointed to inquire into the affairs of Canada, and to
which various documents were submitted, but at the olose of
its sittings the Committee resolved that these documents
should not be printed. Another was a Committee in relation
to the military defences of the colonies and dependencies of
this country. And a third was on the renewal of the Bank
charter. In the first certain documents were put in as evi-
dence, the publication of which would have been very preju-
dicial to the public ; in the second the Duke of Wellington bad
been examined at great length ; and in the third Mr. Roths-
child had communicated a great many private matters relating
to tile transmission of bullion from this country, and his trans.
actions with merchants in London and Paris. These commu-
nications, and those of the Duke of Wellington, were of a
nature which were calculated in the latter case to injure the
State, and in the former to injure individuals, should they
be published. His (Lord J. Russell's) motion went to de-
bar the publication of evidence before a Select Committee,
on the ground that it was as much to the disadvantage of the
public as against the privileges of the House. For instance,
the Colonial Secretary would not communicate private
despatches to a Committee ; the Duke of Wellington would
not give his evidence to the extent he had ; Mr. Roths-
child would have said nothing of the transactions which he
spoke of, did they know their evidence would be made public
the next day. Thus the public service would be injured if the
principle which he (Lord John Russell) now sought to affirm
were negatived. For this reason, less than to preserve the
privileges of the House, which were only valuable so long as
they comported with the public good, he felt it to be his duty
to press the motion which he should have to propose. He
would say one word as to the amendment of the lion. Member
for Southwark. He (Lord John Russell) brought forward
the question as one of privilege ; and on that alone the House
should come to a decision. The amendment did not affect
that question at all. The only doubt on the amendment was
as to its expedience. It might be argued that the Poor-law
Committee should report from day to day or otherwise, but the
rule which the Committee had laid down should be adhered
to. The amendment of the Hon. Member was totally dif-
ferent from the question before the House. The Noble Lord
concluded by proposing the following resolution That
according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for
the due protection of the public interest, the evidence taken
by any Select Committee of this House and the evidence pre-
sented to such Committee, and which have not been reported
to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of
such Committee or any other person."
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the Noble Lord had
greatly mistaken the motive which induced him to give notice

of an amendment, if he thought it was to evade the assertion
of a principle. It was quite the reverse. If it was the privi-
lege of the House to preclude the publication of evidence,
where was the necessity of a resolution for affirming it ? If
the law of Parliament was violated, why not inflict the due
penalty on the transgressor? If he (Mr. Harvey) was that
transgressor he was ready to pay the penalty. He denied that
the terms of the motion were compatible with the interests of
the public, however they might be so with the privilege of the
House. The motion asserted these two distinct propositions.
He (Mr. Harvey) denied both. It was a matter of regret
and surprise to him (Mr. Harvey), that a Government pro-
fessing to be based on popular feeling should negative a great
principle affecting popular rights. If the Noble Lord alluded
to a secret committee instead of a select one, the precedents
which he had adduced in illustration of his case would perhaps
serve his purpose. But the very circumstance that there were
two classes of Committees, select and secret, showed that
what applied to the one would not to the other. The Poor-
law inquiry now going on was of a most important nature to
the public. The parties to it were all the property in the
country, and all the poverty. The former supported it,
and the latter had every reason to oppose it. He (Mr. Har-
vey) regretted that the Noble Lord had taken the opportunity
of founding his motion for the preservation of the privileges
of the House on a case where the rights of the poor were in
question. If all other Committees that ever sat were secret,
the Poor-law Inquiry Committee should be public. The in-
terests of the most unprotected class in the community—of the
poor millions—were unrepresented there; but the whole staff
of Somerset House, the Poor-law Commissioners, and their
able secretary were there every day, taking notes and prepar-
ing evidence. How were those poor people whose names
were mentioned in evidence of the advantage to the poor of
the law to know whether the truth was spoken of them or not,
unless the evidence was published daily ? But it might be
said in answer that the Reports of the Committee were
published from time to time. Who would read 500 or 1,000
pages of a Report, and how was the poor man to procure it ?
It was almost impossible for him to procure a newspaper, still
less such ponderous folios. What was complained of? Not that
a garbled report of the proceedings had been published ; but
that the House was anticipated in the publication. That was
the fact. He (Mr. Harvey), under these circumstances, could
not help thinking that there was something—he would not
say personal—but peculiar in the course pursued by the Noble
Lord on this subject. Did the Noble Lord suppose he could
attain his object—that of destroying the responsibility and de-
grading the press—by this course ? He could assure him he
would not. It would be far safer for him to have the recog-
nized agents of the press employed in communicating it
through that channel than to have other individuals do so,
through the irregular channels of private conversation and con-
fidential communications. But it should not be for a moment
supposed that the opinions of the Committee were all unfa-
vourable to the daily publication of the proceedings. On the
contrary, when the Hon. Member for Middlesex moved that
the Committee report from day to day, there was a division
of eight for the motion, and only ten against it. The inquiry,
as it stood at present, was, he would not hesitate to say, en-
tirely abortive. From investigation into the operation of the
Poor-laws it was turned into a justification. The original ob-
ject of the Committee was to ascertain the evils of the law,
with a ♦iew to their remedy : the object it now
had in view was to inquire into its advantages, with a
view to its further confirmation.—(l-Tear.) He (Mr. Harvey)
was opposed to all secret inquiries in matters of public concern;
but he was especial!) opposed to it in this, because the party
most interested was not present to defend its owit rights. He
denied that to make public evidence taken before a Committee
would have the effect of keeping, back valuable information :
the House was armed with the power to compel it. He did
not hesitate to say that, if he was interdicted the publication
of the evidence, he should decline any longer being a member
of the Committee. He cared nothing for the penalties—
whether they were close quarters in Nerrgate or expulsion
from the House ; a great principle was at stake, and that he
would contend for, that the public had a right to know what
was going on there. After some further observations on the
evils of the Poor-law, and the disadvantages of prohibiting the
daily publication of the procedings of the Committee of in-
quiry into it, the Hon. Member concluded by moving the fol-
lowing amendment :—" That the Committee on the Poor-law
Amendment Act be instructed to report the evidence taken be-
fore them from day to day, and to take the sense of the House
thereupon."
Mr. WAKLEY seconded the amendment.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN was anxious that the greatest
facilities should be afforded to the publication of the proceed-
ings before the Select Committees of that House; for it ap-
peared to him that the value of an inquiry by a Committee
would be extremely deteriorated, as regarded the effect it
would produce on the public mind, by the circumstance of the
evidence not being communicated to the public from time to
time, especially when the subject of the inquiry was calcu-
lated to excite a public interest. He considered that the pro-
ceedings of this committee were such as it was peculiarly en-
cumbeut on the House to make public, as the question was
one of the greatest interest to the whole community. It had
been his intention, if no other amendment had been moved, to
have proposed as an amendment a resolution to the effect that
it was expedient that the publication of evidence taken before
select committees, not being secret committees, should
be permitted. But the Honourable Member for South-
wark having already moved an amendment, he (Mr. S.
O'Brien) had no alternative but that of giving it his ready
support.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that having intimated an opinion
that he should move an amendment almost similar in terms
to that suggested by the Hon. Member for Southwark, he felt
it his duty to trespass for a few moment; upon the attention of
the House. The resolution of the Noble Lord appeared to
him to be totally unnecessary. He remembered that in the
c Ise of General Darling, which was before a Select Com-
mittee, the majority of that Committee licensed (as far as
they could do) the publication of the evidence. The minority
appealed to the Speaker of that day, and he gave it as his
opinion that there was no such thing known to the law as the
publication of any evidence or discussions of matters unde-
cided by that House ; and certainly they all knew that it was
a breach of privilege to publish even what was at the present
moment going on in the House. Yet it was a breach of pri-
vilege which took place every day, and all of them would regret
exceedingly in their turn if that breach of privilege did not
take plate. It was therefore difficult to deal with the motion
itself, while it was also difficult to negative any vote of the
kind, if the opinion to which he had referred was correct ;
because certainly cases might arise such as the Noble Lord
had referred to, when it might be improper to apply the gene-
rarrule of publication to such excepted cases. But he was
of ;pinion that those excepted cases might be very well left to
the discretion of the Committee itself. He was, however,
strongly of opinion that publication as a general rule would
be highly beneficial. He did not think the lion. Member had
accurately stated the rule as to the 'publication of proceedings
in a court of law pending a trial, because the judges had lat-
terly been in the practice of prohibiting such publication. He
thought the Judges were wrong, and that the prohibition did
mischief. It was a modern power assumed by them. In 1794,
when there was a great conspiracy to get rid of the Reform-
ers, a trial took place which lasted eight days. The evidence
during the first three or four days was published, which led to
the discovery of facts with ;regard to the character of certain
witnesses that tended materially to serve:the cause of the ac-
cused. He thought, with respect to proceedings in courts
of justice, it was favourable to have the evidence published;
but he was quite convinced it was so with respect to Com-
mittees of that House, where 'persons did not speak under
the ;sanction of the oath, and where the utmost .latitude
was given, both as to the questions asked and the answers
given. In reference to the evidence of the Committee on
the Poor-law Amendment Bill, he conceived that there was
every ground for affording to it the utmost publicity. The
House perhaps might recollect that he himself voted against
that measure in all its stages ; he had, however, since become
convinced that he was exceedingly wrong in having taken that
course.—( Cheers.) He believed that if time Were given for
it to be worked out it was calculated to do great geode__
(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Southwark appeared to
him to be assuming too much when he called himself, by way
of distinction, the friend of the poor man. He (Mr. O'Con-
nell) thought that every supporter of the Poor-law Bill had as
good a right to be considered the friend and protector of the
poor man as the Hon. Member. Indeed he (Mr. O'Connell)
considered this was just the case in which every publicity
ought to be given, so as not to give the slightest pretence
for any one saying, "Oh you are getting up an ex parte
case, I won't be a party to the delusion ; I will throw up
my brief." He did not mean to say that the Honourable
Member for Southwark was not actuated by the purest mo-
tives; but the pretence he had described might be made, and
he believed would be made, with a view to exasperate the
public mind. It had been said that this was a packed Com-
mittee. But was that true ? He believed there was no Mem-
ber on that Committee who would either cause improper evi-
dence to be given, or proper evidence to be suppressed. The
Poor-law Bill was not a party measure, but was supported by
Gentlemen on both sides of the House ; and none had ever '
yet shrunk from the avowal that they gave it their support ;
therefore it was just that kind of measure which the House
itself was concerned in having the fairest, fullest, most
ample, and most unobjectionable investigation with respect
to it. On Monday the question of a Poor-law for Ireland
would be discussed, and he should be pleased to have all
the evidence he could from the Committee now sitting.
It would enable the House to do their duty more effi-
ciently when a system of Poor-laws for a country which
had hitherto no experience of the kind was the subject
of discussion. The amendment of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Southwark, if not adopted by the House, was one which
ought to be taken up by the Committee, to afford the country
information upon a question which had already been the subject
of so much misrepresentation. It had been made a topic at
elections. They all knew what had recently occurred at War-
wick. It was the principal war-cry of one gentleman who
went to Warwick avowedly to sustain the principles of a party,
the leaders of which party had actually supported the Bill in
this House. Therefore it was absolutely necessary that the
public should have an accurate knowledge on that subject.
Let the advocates of the new Poor-law challenge investiga-
tion, let them take a lofty stand upon this—that the more there
was of inquiry, the more there was of investigation, the more
would the truth appear; and if the truth were against them,
let them at once repeal or modify the law ; but if the truth
were with them, then the measure, no matter how distorted
and misrepresented ia its progress, in its ultimate results would
and must be triumphant.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the subject was certainly one
of great importance. He was glad he had given precedence
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny, because he
had given that Hon. and Learned Gentleman an opportunity
of gallantly and honourably avowing that, although he had op-
posed the Poor-law Bill in all its stages, he now viewedit as
a measure of great public advantage.—( Cheers.) He did not
think the subject as to whether or not the evidence should be