The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

ing the propriety of the House recognising the presence of
strangers in the House, when
Mr. J. WORTLEY said that as he had the intention of
moving the second reading of the Horse Racing Penalties
Bill when the Orders of the Day were brought before the
House, and had consented to forego that motion in order that
he might not at all interfere with the vote of thanks which
was proposed, and so unanimously acceded to the army in
Sinde, he thought he had a prior right to the Hon. Member
who had just now spoken.
The SPEAKER said that in the present instance Mr.
Christie having a notice of motion upon the paper was en-
titled to precedence.
Mr. CHRISTIE then roc to move for a Select Com-
mittee, to consider the expediency of recognising the presence
of strangers at debates, and the publication of debates, under
the pleasure of the House; and to consider and report what
regulations may be necessary. He said, he would at once
have concede.; to the Hon. Gentleman opposite, only for the
peculiar circumstances of the case, and the fact of his once be-
fore having consented to the postponment of his motion. He
fully appreciated the feeling of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, in
the necessity of foregoing other subjects, when the vote of thanks
carried this night was about to be proposed, and for this reason
he concurred in the wishes of the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-
site. The subject of his motion was one which, if entered '
upon fully, could afford neither amusement nor instruction to
the House, for the present practice was what they were to look
to, and not to old precedents. The first point he should direct
himself to was the manner in which the public press were
affected. All that he wished for was, to sanction the reports
generally, and confine punishment to mis-representation. He
trusted that, though he had risen at that late hour of the night
(eleven o'clock), the importance ef the subject, and its delicate
character with respect to the privileges of the House, would
justify him in asking them to bear with him while he entered
shortly into the history of the House of Commons—(" Oh, oh,"
from the Ministerial benches, and "Hear" from the Opposition)
—with respect to the exclusion of strangers. The first resolu-
tions that occurred on the subject were to be found at the
commencement of the Long Parliament. At the crisis of the
great struggle between the King and the House of Commons,
every possible expedient was resorted to for the purpose of
protecting the privilege of the freedom of speech against the
violent encroachments of Charles I. The House of Commons
then passed two resolutions, one prohibiting any Member of Par-
liament from publishing his own speech without the consent of
the House ; the other was directed against publication gene-
rally, and declared that whoever printed and published the pro-
ceedings &c., of the House, should be reputed as a high offender
and breaker of the privileges of Parliament and punished ac-
cordingly ; and these resolutions, passed in the Long Parlia-
ment, were upheld generally through all the Parliaments of the
Protectorate. However, it was not till the middle of the reign
of William and Mary a systematic struggle began for the purpose
of using the resolutions, originally passed in o der to screen itself
from the view of the people. In the year 1691, it was ordered
on a complaint being made that a newspaper writer had
given an account of the proceedings of the Howe of Commons
—that no news-letter, &c., should presume to iutermeddle
with the debates or other proceedings of that House. Similar '
complaints were frequently made in throe subsequent years,
and resolutions were passed in support of the former ones.
In the years 1722 and 1723 the most stringent resolutions
that had yet existed were passed for the purpose of preventing
the publication of what took place in that House. There was
some plausibility in the arguments urged in support of these
resolutions, namely, that the accounts which went forth
of the proceedings in the House were inaccurate. In the
year 1735 still more stringent resolutions were passed on this
subject. The question was introduced by the Speaker, who
informed the House that he saw with regret a practice pre-
vailing which reflected little credit on the House, he meant
the publication in newspapers of what occurred in the House.
In thedebate that ensued, among those who addressed the House,
were Mr. Wyndham, Sir W. Pulteney, and Sir R. Walpole,
all of whom concurred in the view of the Speaker, and SirW.
Pulteney went so far as to say, that the publishing of speeches
of Hon. Gentlemen in that House, loosed very like making
them accountable without doors for what they said within
(The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from
several speeches delivered on that occasion, together with the
resolutions adopted by the House.) The effect of these reso-
lution was not to stop publications—on the contrary, news-
papers and magazines which had previously
.given the reports
of the House of Commons, continued to give those:reports,
but gave fictitious names to the House of Commons. One
magazine called the House of Commons" The Political Club,"
another reported the debates of the proceedings in Utopia ;
and the Gentleman's Magazine, which for a long time had
the benefit of the industry and genius of Johnson,
reported what it called the debates of the Senate of
Lilliput. But the Standing Orders which now existed were
first passed in 1705, with the view of preventing the inter-
ruption of the business of the House, and the inconvenience
caused to Members by the presence of strangers from want of
accommodation. These Standing Orders were not used to
prevent the publication of the proceedings or debates of that
House, and it was not until the beginning of the reign of
George 111., that these orders were used to prevent pub-
lication. In 1770 an attempt had been made to bring the
printers and publishers of debates before the bar of the House.
Strong opposition was mad. to those attempts by Mr. Burke
and others, who repeatedly divided the House upon the ques-
tion, and the ultimate result was that the House yielded its
consent to publication. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded
to read extracts from the speeches of Mr. Burke, Mr. Dunning,
and Mr. Fox, on that occasion, all of whom were of
opinion that the exclusion of strangers from the House of
Commons was at variance with the spirit of the Constitution,
and went on to contend that as neither of the causes which led
to the resolutions passed for the exclusion of strangers, viz. the
inaccuracy of the reports, and the inconveniences arising from
want of accommodation for strangers, now existed, he would be
allowed to ask for a Committee to consider of the expediency
of recognising what had long been the practice. He did not
wish to take away the power which Members now possessed of
having the House cleared of strangers, because it might be
necessary on certain occasions, and of State policy, that their
discussions should take place with closed doors. With regard
to the publication of debates, it was necessary the House should
reserve to itself the power on similar occasions of preventing
their publication. He merely threw out these observations in
order that more experienced Members might work them
into practical results. One objection which might
be urged against the publication of debates was as
to the accuracy of the reports. But he thought if the
House emancipated itself from the difficulty that every
publication was a breach of privilege, the competition of the
different newspapers would ensure sufficiently accurate reports
The House could then exercise a more efficient control over
misrepresentation. The reports would be free from general
inaccuracies—they would be free from misrepresentation
which the House would punish, and free from the exercise
of political partial ty on the part of those who exercised the
duties of reporters. At present every newspaper which pub-
lished the rcports of speeches in Parliament, was liable to
an action, if they contained any libellous matter. Any
Member who sent notes of his speech, In order to ensure
accuracy, was in the same predicament. It was no less un-
just than inconsistent with the practical working of the Con-
stitution, that those who furnish reports of the proceedings
of Parliament, or those Members of either House of Parlia-
ment who assisted in furnishing them, did so with the terrors
of the law of libel before them. lie would not, at that

late hour of the night, quote the stronger opinions given by
Lord Denman and Lord Campbell before the Committee which
sat last session upon the subject, as to the propriety of making
an alteration of the law of libel in reference to publication of
debates. He would only, before he sat down, mention an
instance of the inconvenience which might arise from the
order of the House as it stood at present. He referred to the
letter written by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, when about
to dismiss a magistrate from the Commission of the Peace.
He stated as a ground for so doing the Ministerial declaration
in both Houses of Parliament respecting the repeal of th
union. This he could have known only through the reports of
the newspapers, and it certainly placed him in a very strange
predicament. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for
a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.—(Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
listened with attention to the Hon. Gentleman who had just

sat down, but he was riot able to discover the object he had in
view in recommending the House to grant him a Committee to
inquire into this subject. The Hon. Gentleman stated the ad-
vantages they would derive by altering the present rule, but
under the existing system the public had every advantage
which the Hon. Gentleman endeavored to obtain for them by
the publication of debates. The Hon. Gentleman founded his
motion on the sessional orders passed at the beginning of every
session, which directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to take every
person into custody whom he found in the House except by the
order of the House. He spoke on this subject with great dif-
fidence,lbut he believed those standing orders had no reference
to the admission of strangers to the gAllery, but only
to those strangers who were found in the body of the House,
and he believed that no Member of the House would wish to
have that order rescinded, and to have strangers in the body of
the House. The Honourable Gentleman wished they would
recognise the publication of debates in the House. They
could not recognise the publication of debates, except through
a person authorised to do so, and responsible for their accuracy,
and if they did recognise the publication of debates, the imme-
diate consequence would be, that complaints would be made re-
specting the accuracy of the reports, and they would have
discussions upon the accuracy or inaccuracy of debates. The
public now had all the information they required given quickly,
accurately, and impartially, and what more could be required?
If it were hereafter found necessary to restore the prohibition
of publishing the debate., the question would more fully come
on as one of privilege. The Hon. Gentleman thought that it
ought not to be considered a libel to publish anything said by
a Member in that House. But a Member might have a state-
ment to make injurious to the character of individuals; and
though it might be necessary for the House to have that in-
formation, yet the press was not on that account to be justified
in circulating it through the country and the world.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man was not to rescind the sessional order for the Sergeant-at-
Arms to take up any stranger intruding into the body of the
House. That was not his object. He retained the power of
excluding strangers on any particular occasion. What
he proposed was, that a Committee sbould be appointed
to inquire into the expediency of continuing the
the present anomaly of its being a breach of privilege to re-
port the debates of that House. At this moment, if those
gentlemen present should do him the honour of reporting his
observations, it would be a breach of privilege. The Hon.
Gentleman wished to rescue them from this continual breach
of privilege, both of the presence of strangers, and the report-
ing their debates. He referred to the dismissal of the Irish
Magistrates, which, he said, was founded entirely on the report
of the speeches in both Houses. Suppose the individuals
who made those speeches had denied that they made them ?
flow could the Chancellor of Ireland have proved them ? He
could not have called on the Right Hon. Baronet to prove that
he made such or such a speech. In the State trials speeches
made in that House had been produced, and commented on as
evidence. Suppose those speeches had been denied, how
could they have been proved ? They must have
called the individuals making them, or by the newspapers.
But the editors of the newspapers, in publishing those speeches,
had committed a breach of the privileges of that House. If
you take advantage of speeches so made, you certainly ought
to do away with this anomaly of a resolution, which makes
any report of those speeches aspreach of privilege. If his Hon.
Friend only asked them to appoint a Committee to inquire into
the expediency of rescinding their order, and considering
whether some alteration ought not to be made in this regula-
tion of privilege, he could not think what danger there could
be in a Committee. It could do no harm, if it did no good,
and would rescue the House from the anomalous position in
which it was placed at present.
Mr. WILLIAMS agreed with the Hon. Member who had
just sat down in thinking the present rules of the House re-
garding the admission of strangers as an anomaly. The reporters
were every night in view of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the
other strangers in view of the Speaker, yet the rules were
nightly violated. Why, what were the speeches in the House
of Commons meant for but for the public? He believed the
most eloquent speech from an Hon. Member never yet con-
verted a single vote. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite, if in the course of the many long and eloquent ad-
dresses he had made, in the course of his long experience by
them he had ever converted a single vote ?—( Laughter.) Hon.
Members were very much is the position of a Northern Mem-
ber, who always supported Ministers, and who, on being asked
by one of his constituents if the speeches upon the Opposition
side of the House did not sometimes alter his opinions,
said lie, "my opinions, but r ever my votes."—( Lan'
of titer.
The House should feel much obliged to the gentlemen
press for the very clear, frill, impartial, and correct
accounts which they gave—the great literary talent
and tact displayed by them, as well as the great