The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-09 00:00:00

THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT.

The Earl of CARDIGAN rose to put a question to
the noble lord the Secretary of State for War. He
regretted that he was absent last evening wben
the subject of China incidentally arose. Certain
charges had been made against a gallant officer who was
in command of a important expedition that was now on
its way to China. He was very glad that the noble lerd
opposite bad made such good remarks in reply, highly
condemnatory of the conduct of those officers who had
made themselves parties to anonymous statements re-
flecting upon the character of an officer who was not in
a position to defend himself. He entirely concurred
with the opinion expressed, that such officers, who were
guilty of such attacks, should not be further employed
by the Government, and asked if, in the present state of
affairs it would not be advisable to institute proceedings.
When an officer publicly avows himself to be the author
of such statement., he shoul l be compelled to prove
them, and in the event of his not being able to lo so,
whether be ought not to be dismissed from her Majesty's
service. It was high time that some check should be
put upon conduct of that character, for he
h4ieved if it was allowed to continue much'
longer the discipline of the army would be destroyed.
Lord PAN MURE said in the case where junior offi-
cers, anonymously or otherwise, made attacks upon su-
perior officers, he should feel it his dnty to give the
Commander-in-Chief every assi'tance to maintain
the discipline of the army. With respect to the
charges that had been made against the
noble earl himself, who had been made the
subject of some attacks in a book published in
the first instance anonymously, he (Lord Pan-
mure) advised the noble earl t) have confidence
upon the honour and gallantry of his own con-
duct and character, and to treat such charges
with the contempt they deserved, but if the noble earl
wished to take any steps in the matter, he (Lord Pan-
mure) would afford him every assistance in his power
to bring the libellers to justice. He would take
that opportunity of setting himself right with the public
press. It was reported that be had said that he did not
think it was right for public journalists to criticise the
appointments that had been made by Government. Now,
he never had the folly to make such a remark. On the
contrary, he held it to be the proper vocation of the public
press to make such remarks as they thought necessary
upon the appointments made by this or any other Go-
vernment, because the press was supposed t) be the
organ and guide of public opinion. He did but com•
plain of the manner in which the attacks had been
made upon General Astiburnharn, namely of allowing
the appointment to be made, and then three weeks after-
wards to elapse before the General left the country with-
out saying a word against that officer, and only bringing
for yard those accusations when the General had left
the country and had arrived at Malta on his way to the
scene where his important labours were to be brought
into action.

After a few words from the EIJI of CARDIGAN,
The Earl of HARDWICKI,-.1 said it was most un-
seemly for any person to make such anonymous attacks.
When such charges were made, it was most disgraceful
that the parties did not append their names to the
statements.

REPORTS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND PUB-

LTC PROCEEDINGS.

Lord CAMPBELL rose and said,—My lords, I shall
detain you for a very few minutes in moving for the re-
appointment of the select committee which was appointed
during the last session to inquire into a very important
and difficult subject—namely, whether the privilege now
enjoyed by reports of the proceedings of courts ofjustice
may be safely extended to the reports of the proceedings
of the two Houses of Parliament and of other public as-
semblies. At present,according to the established law, the
proceedings of courts of justice may be published with im-
punity if they are fair and bona fide. The greatest benefit
has arisen to the public from that privilege, but it extends
ne further—not even to the proceedings of the two Houses
of Parliament. It has lately been decided—and I believe
the decision is allowed to he a sound one—in the case
of " Davison v. Duncan," that if, except in the case of
proceedings of courts of justice, the editor of a journal
publishes accounts of any other proceedings at all crimi-
natery of any individuals the proprietors of the journal
in which the report is given are liable to an action. It
was stated by my distinguished predecessor Lord Den-
man, that there was no immunity for a fair and faith-
ful and accurate account of the proceedings of this or
the other House of Parliament. Now, there does
seem to be a grievance here, because although ac-
tions are not frequently brought in consequence o
the reports of proceedings of either House of Parlia-
ment, there is no doubt they may be brought. Con-
siderable anxiety prevails lest actions should be brought
under such circumstances, and if actions are brought
there can be no defence on the part of the most distin-
guished and trustworthy journals of this country. It
seems to use, my lords, that this is a state of things
which ought not to continue If it can be prevented. A
remedy has been proposed to which I certainly can by
no means accede—namely, that all distinctions between
verbal and written slander shad be abolished, and that it
shall be a complete defence of a written libel if the de-
fendant can show that the same statement has been made
by any individual. This proposition is supposed to rest
upon what is called " Lord Northampton's Case;" but
as my noble and learned friend on the cross benches well
knows, it is founded upon an utter misconception and
misrepresentati in of that case. The dictum of the judges
who sat in the Star Chamber went, if properly under-
goer', no further than this—that when what was said by
another was repeated upon a proper occasion it might be
defended ; but to allow that what has been whispered
in a corner may be published in every journal in the
empire with impunity would be wholly inconsistent
with the protection doe to the characters of individuals.
If all that is said at a public meeting, or in an assembly
that way be called a public meeting, is to be pub-
lishes(' without any remedy being provided fur those
who a characters may be attacked, the most mischievous
consequences will ensue. Public meetings may be got
up for purposes of calumny, and the person who utters
the calumny may be a roan of straw, who will fly the
country as soon as be has uttere 1 his slanderous state-
ment. I think, however, that a remedy masa be devised
which will, at all events, mitigate the evil that exists at
present. Some years ago I myself proposed that com-
plete immunity should be given to fair reports of what
took place in either House of Parliament. My proposition
was supported by the late Lord Denman, but, unfortu-
nately, it was not successful. I certainly cannot conceive
any well-g.ounded objections to that proposal. All the
arguments by which you suport the privilege of reports
of law proceedings will equally apply to the proceedings
of the two Houses of Parliament. What is the founda-
tion of triat immunity of law reports ? The putdic good.
Well, I suppose your lordships and all the members of
the other house are of opinion it is for the public good
that the proceedings of both Houses of Paitliarnent shored
be made known to the country ? ([leer.) There are, ho N-
ever, other assemblages with whose proceedings it is
desirable that the public should be acquainted. This day,
I bt heves Convocation assembled, and I suppose that to-
morrow we shall have an account of the speeche a t f
our most reverend and right reverend frit aa.
Notwithstanding the grave character of that a semi lv,
statements are sometimes made there which might form
the grounds of action ; an it would he extremely hard
if proceedings were taken against the Tiatcs or any other
journal for accounts of what hail been said by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury or by the Bi-hop of St. David's.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It may he urged—but I
only throw out the suggestion, an I give no opinion on
the matter—that the immunity shard be exteuded to all
meetings held under the authority of an Act of Parlia
merit, and to which the public may rightfully claim ad-
mission. Some line must be drawn, for it would ha
monstrous to contend that anything that can be called
a public assemblage should be privileged. If that were
the cave, no doubt Mr. Ernest Jones's meetings and the
Sunday assemblages in Hyde-park would be much fre-
quented by those who wished to calumniate their neigh-
bours.l Some line must be drawn with regard to the pub-
ic meetings to which the privilege is extended ; but, if
this cannot be done, it is matter for consideration whe-
ther it might not be enacted that if a fair account of
what has taken place at a public meeting is given, and
no real damage is inflicted upon the character of any one
by such publication, the jury might be entitled, in case
of an action being brought, to hod a verdict for the de-
fendant.
Until very lately it a jury found a verdict
for a farthing damages full costs followed, but the law
iu that respect is
,altered.. I ask your lordships,
however, to consider the case of an acti en for libel
where the plaintiff has suffered no damage, but
whether the proprietors of the jeurnel against which
proceedings are taken are otteed b pay a very heavy
ears as tests, independently of the anxiety and dis-
agreeable consequences which the mere fact of
having an action brought against them usust emission. I
merely offer these suggestions bin order to induce your
lordships to institute an inquiry on the subject, and I
trust you will consent to the renewal of the committee
which was appointed last session. Lord Campbell then
proceeded to say that he also wished to take the oppor-
tunity of calling their lordships' attention to the manner
in which oaths were administered to witneases who were'
eatoined before committees of that house. When the
house was not sitting witnesses could nut be etvoru, and
persons were frequently brought up from the country
who were kept in town for some days, or were sent back
to their homes and again brought to London to be sworn,
either proceeding entailing very consideradle expense.
The shift was sometimes resorted to °fell, wing witnesses
to give evidence without being sworn, and of afterwar
swearing them at the bar of the house to the truth of all
they had stated. The most serious inconvenience arose
otn the present practice, for at times so great were the
ceavd and confusion at the bar that people were inclived
to suppose that a mob had robed in, and as much alarm