Crown to declare war. The clause says, submit the matter to Parliament, and ask for Supplies for the purposes of war, quite irrespective of the question whether their legal power to draw upon the Exchequer does or does not exist. That is, I believe, the true doctrine applicable to the case, and, if it be so, it is well that it should be

try. But although I believe the doctrine and as to Constitutional considerations, which I have stated is sound and constitu- we believed we were ourselves capable tional, that does not prevent me from of dealing with them; and it certainly according to the Government the credit is our opinion-and that opinion is not which I think they deserve for the temper shaken that the course we took was with which they have prosecuted this diffi- one which, while it was convenient for cult business, or from affording them every Parliament, was strictly within the limits. assistance and support I can, both in re- of Constitutional practice. It is certainly gard to providing the Supplies necessary not a course that I would have preferred for the purpose they have in view now that to take, and, no doubt, upon all occathe honour and credit of the country are sions it is much more agreeable for a pledged to it, and likewise in regard to the Minister to take the earliest possible opprovision of Ways and Means by which portunity of appealing to Parliament. În these Supplies are to be obtained. that case he would have his responsibility THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- shared to a great degree by Parliament, QUER: I rise to remark upon one or two and have also the benefit of whatever advice observations which have fallen from the he might receive from them, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, although I feel that support and strength which sympathy gives I have no cause to complain of their to one engaged in a difficult task. The general tone. The right hon. Gentleman position in which we were placed was one and others of his late Colleagues who have of great practical difficulty. If on the addressed the House have treated this ques- 15th of August we had come down to the tion with that candour which, under the House for a Vote of Credit, that Vote circumstances, might have been expected would have been little more than the Vote of those who have themselves exercised of the Lords of the Treasury. The Compower under responsibility. I am quite mittee of Supply had been closed for several sure that Gentlemen on both sides of days; the House consisted of few beside the House must feel that there are ele- Members of the Administration; it was ments in the circumstances in which we impossible, under the circumstances, to have been engaged this evening which have a call of the House, and an appeal to place the general question entirely out the House of Commons would probably, at of the narrow arena of party conflict. the very outside, not have been more than But when I say that, I, of course, do not an appeal to threescore Members, and we wish in any way to disclaim responsibility must have relied upon the Members of the for myself and Colleagues as regards our Administration for our principal support. own special acts. Now, I will not enter Now, that is not a satisfactory way to obtain again into the question as to whether in a Vote of several millions for carrying on the interval between the 26th of July and an unexpected war. So, although it would the 14th of August such information came have been much more agreeable to have into the hands of the Government as to appealed to the House for its support, I justify a change in the general opinions of think, under the circumstances, the course my noble Friend the Secretary of State. which we took, if it be a constitutional one We have heard his vindication of his con--and I am prepared to maintain that it is duct, and I think the majority of the House I cannot but think that it was not only must agree with me that it was complete. There are papers yet to be placed upon the table of the House, and the House will be able to form its opinion upon those papers. The second accusation made by the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), to which also the right hon. Member for South Lancashire has referred, arose out of our conduct, as not strictly constitutional, in prosecuting this expedition without immediate appeal to Parliament. With regard to this point, I can say only that that matter was considered very gravely and deliberately; the best advice was taken so far as the merely legal portion of the question is concerned;

more convenient to the House, but that it was more satisfactory to the country. The right hon. Gentleman seems to doubt—if I collected his meaning precisely-whether we had the power of availing ourselves of the sums which had been voted and appropriated for military purposes. I am advised, and I certainly do myself hold the opinion, that we had the power, and that it was our duty to avail ourselves of those sums. Finding we could avail ourselves of those sums which had been voted and appropriated, we resolved to call Parliament together at a moment which would be convenient for Members, and which would give them an ample opportunity

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 8.]

TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL.

On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHto alter and amend the Laws relating to Turnpike BULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Mr. GOLDney, and Mr. AYRTON.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 9.]

of joining in our councils and exercising | ordered to be brought in by Sir ROUNDELL a control over this war, just as if we had PALMER and Sir ROBERT COLLIER. obtained a Vote of Credit from them at the end of August. I am not aware that there are any other points which require my notice. The charges of the right hon. Member for Calne really consist only of two, both of which were completely met by my noble Friend. My noble Friend has, indeed, met every objection which has been urged against the course the Government has pursued, and against the policy which. I trust the House will sanction. I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman that there is one subject on which there should be unanimity. We are now embarked in this enterprize, and it is most desirable that the House of Commons should show by a distinct exhibition of its feeling and sentiment that it is interested in the success of the expedition.

MR. WYLD defended Dr. Beke against the attack made upon him by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard). He had had the honour of knowing Dr. Beke for many years, and he could say that he

RAILWAYS (GUARDS' AND PASSENGERS'

COMMUNICATION) BILL.

On Motion of Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN, Bill to compel Railway Companies to establish some means of Communication between Guards and Passengers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN and Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN.

House adjourned at One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Wednesday, November 27, 1867.

-Resolution [November 25] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-Church Rates Commu-
tation; Mines Assessment.*
First Reading-Church Rates Commutation *;
[10]; Mines Assessment * [11].
Second Reading-Libel [3], deferred.
Third Reading-Drainage and Improvement of
Lands (Ireland) Supplemental * [4], and passed.

was a gentleman who had devoted his life, MINUTES.]-SUPPLY-considered in Committee talents, and fortunes to discoveries in Abyssinia, and was at all times ready to give information to the Government, and he little deserved the epithets which had been applied to him by the hon. Member for Southwark. MR. FAWCETT inquired whether the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India proposed to move on Thursday next was likely to come on at an early hour? He asked the question because he strongly objected to the policy of throwing any of the expenses of the expedition upon the revenues of India, and he was resolved to take the sense of the House upon the Resolution.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his statement in Committee of Ways and Means first on Thursday. He apprehended that the discussion on that subject would not take up much time-probably an hour or two would be sufficient. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) would move the Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman referred immediately after. Motion agreed to.

LIBEL BILL-[BILL 3.]

(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Baines)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it was, with one exception, identical with the Bill which had been introduced and fully discussed last Session.. That Bill was introduced on the 8th of February, and read a second time on the 13th of March. On the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), it was referred to a Select Committee, which Committee included in its Members some of the most eminent and experienced men in that House. The Select Committee carefully

Resolution to be reported this day; Com-considered and discussed the Bill; and, mittee to sit again this day.

SALES OF REVERSIONS BILL.

On Motion of Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Bill to amend the Law relating to Sales of Reversions,

after making various Amendments in it, reported it to the House on the 8th of April. On the 25th of June-nearly two months after the Bill came down-it was discussed in Committee of the House, and

passed through Committee; but, as it was | ceedings in Parliament. The Press provifound impossible to take the third reading sions of the Bill had for their object to till the 7th of August, sufficient time was not extend to the publication of true and fair left to get the measure through the House of reports of lawfully convened public meetLords. On the Motion for the third read-ings assembled for a lawful purpose the ing his hon. and learned Friend the Mem- same protection as was conceded to the ber for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) publication of reports of proceedings in moved an Amendment, but the third read- Courts of Law. He admitted that the clause ing was carried by a majority of more than involved a serious principle; but as no one 4 to 1-the numbers being 79 to 18. would ask to have the privilege withdrawn As it was understood that no measure from our Courts of Justice, he could not which was likely to raise a discussion of a see that any bad result would follow from contentious character should be brought the application of the principle to lawforward before the time of the regular fully-constituted public meetings, many of meeting of Parliament, he should not have which were connected with the imposition brought forward this Bill before Christmas of local taxation, and others had reference if he had supposed that it would be opposed to joint-stock and other companies. With on the second reading. The hon. Gentle- regard to the publication of the proceedings man the Member for North Warwickshire in Courts of Justice, it might be said that (Mr. Newdegate) had, however, given no- persons could not there be libelled with tice of an Amendment to postpone the impunity; but all knew that this was not second reading for a fortnight. This the case, and that in Courts of Justice Amendment he hoped would not be agreed it frequently happened that charges were to. The Bill was an important one, and as it made against persons who had no opporwas substantially the same as the measure tunity of answering them. Yet no one which had been passed by that House last had ever urged this as an argument for Session, he was anxious that it should be withdrawing protection from the publiadvanced a stage now in this House in cation of those reports; and in like manner order that it might be sent up to the ingenious Gentlemen, like the hon. and House of Lords, in time to give their learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, Lordships ample opportunity for consi- might bring forward cases that might go dering it. What he proposed was that to show that the publication of reports of the House should now affirm the principle speeches delivered at public meetings might of the Bill by assenting to the second have a very prejudicial effect; but when reading, and he would not take the Com- hon. Members considered the balance of mittee until after the Recess. Last Ses- convenience, they would be found to be sion it was urged by the hon. and learned greatly in favour of the proposed change. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the It was most important for the public inteBill was a "Press" Bill, and that as such rest that the reports of many meetings hon. Members were afraid to oppose it. should be published, and the Press indemNow, of the sixteen clauses contained in nified against the proceedings of malicious the Bill, three or four only referred spe- persons. According to Mr. Evelyn's recially to the Press, and the remaining cently published pamphlet, the Press occlauses referred generally to the law of cupied a most anomalous position, they libel. He had introduced the Bill on his were liable to be sued by persons who had own responsibility, and without the slight- no cause of action whatever, but simply est communication from any one connected to gratify a malignant desire to put the with the Press; but he was happy to say proprietors to the expense of costs. In that, after it was introduced, it received the well-known case of "Davidson v. the approbation of the Press of all shades Duncan," which was an action against the of political opinion. The Provincial News- Durham County Advertiser for a report paper Press Society, which numbered 160 of the proceedings of the West Hartledifferent newspaper proprietors, had passed pool Improvement Commission, although an unanimous resolution in favour of the the plaintiff recovered only one farthing Bill, and there had been between eighty damages, the defendant was put to £400 and ninety Petitions presented to the costs. The "Press" clauses of the Bill were House in its favour, and only two against very fully and carefully considered by the it; and one of those was from a gentleman Select Committee last year, and although who was well known for his hostility to they might be amended in Committee, he the publication of the reports of the pro- doubted if they could be improved. The

costs, however unfounded and malicious the prosecution might prove to be, and at the same time he could shut the mouth of the defendant and prevent him from being examined. There were several other inconveniences connected with the proceeding by indictment. For example, the defendant had no means of compelling the prosecutor to go on, and it was most unfair also that the latter, standing in the place of the Crown, had the privilege of challenging jurors to any extent a privilege which was denied to the defendant. The present Bill provided that no one should be at liberty to send up an indictment for libel without a previous preliminary exa

the defendant should not be committed for trial unless the plaintiff or prosecutor gave security for the payment of costs in the event of the defendant being acquitted or the proceedings abandoned. Other clauses provided that every case must be proceeded with within a year, and that both prosecutors and defendants should be competent to be examined as witnesses. It ought to be mentioned, however, that nothing in the Bill applied to libels which were published with a view to extort money. There were some other clauses relating to pleadings and bills of particulars which it was unnecessary to discuss on the present occasion, and he would therefore move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Bill as it stood would protect a proprietor of a newspaper against proceedings for the publication of a fair report; but there was a clause providing that if a newspaper should refuse to publish a reply to any libel contained in its report of a meeting, the publisher should be liable to an action in the same manner as if he had published an unfair report. The clause rendering the speaker liable for what he uttered at a public meeting underwent considerable discussion in the Select Committee. In the original Bill it had been proposed that the distinction which at present existed between libel and slander should be abolished, and that a person who deliberately made a false statement at a public meet-mination before a magistrate, and that ing for the purpose of its being published should be liable for an action for libel as if he had written it. That was the opinion of the late Lord Lyndhurst, and in that opinion he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) cordially agreed. But the Committee did not agree in this, and the Bill now only provided that the speaker of defamatory matter not amounting to slander might be sued if he did not apologise in the same Paper in which the report was given. This clause was framed by the present Attorney General, and was accepted as a compromise by the Committee upstairs. The 5th clause was a new one, and by it he proposed to protect the publication of the reports of proceedings in Parliament, and when in Committee he should be prepared to defend the clause. The remaining clauses it was not necessary then to mention. The present state of the libel law in respect to costs was very unsatisfactory. In England, if a plaintiff recovered under 40s., he only got 40s. costs; while in Ireland, one farthing damages carried the whole of the costs. All such details, however, could be more properly discussed in Committee than now, if any objection were raised to these clauses. Then came three clauses making alterations in the criminal law of libel. At present any person who was libelled had three modes of procedure open to him. He might either bring his action, in which event both parties could be examined at the trial; he might, by leave of a Judge, file a criminal information in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which case he would be required to give security for costs; or he might, without any preliminary proceedings, send up a bill of indictment to the grand jury, and if he adopted the latter course he would be entirely exempted from all liability to pay

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."-(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)

MR. NEWDEGATE said, there were many inconveniences inseparable from a short Session convened for a particular purpose, and he thought the House was bound to guard its proceedings from the danger of abuse to which it was rendered liable by an exceptional Session like the present. Parliament had been convened for the purpose of considering the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Abyssinian expedition, and it seemed to be a general understanding that the House would not be sitting in a fortnight's time, although, for his own part, he must confess he was unaware of that fact when he gave notice of his intention to move to postpone for a fortnight the second reading of this Bill. He might remark that he never made a Motion without first ascertaining whether he was acting in accordance with the practice and the Standing Orders of the House, and he