John Joseph Stockdale against James Hansard, Luke Graves Hansard, Luke James Hansard, and Luke Henry Hansard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1840 |
| Date | 25 April 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1112
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 2 P. & D. 1; 3 St. Tr. N. S. 723; 8 L. J. Q. B. 294; 3 Jur. 905. For subsequent proceedings, see 11 Ad. & E. 253, 297. Upheld, Case of the Sheriff of Middlesex, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 285. Considered, Howard v. Gossett, 1845-47, 10 Q. B. 375, 411. Referred to, Wason v. Walter, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 83; Henwood v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 613. Considered, Bradlaugh v. Erskine, 1883, 47 L. T. 618. Commented on and approved, Bradlaugh v. Gossett, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 271. Discussed and applied, Dillon v. Balfour, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 611.
REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of QUEEN'S BENCH. By JOHN LEYCESTER ADOLPHUS, of the Inner Temple, and THOMAS FLOWER ELLIS, of the Middle Temple, Esqrs. Barristers at Law. Vol. IX. Containing the Case of STOCKDALE against HANSARD, and the Cases of Hilary Term and Vacation, 1839. In the Second Year of VICTORIA. During some part of the period comprised in this volume the reporters have been favoured with the assistance of Edward Smirke, of the Middle Temple, Esquire, Barrister-at-Law. The cases reported by Mr. Smirke are pointed out as they occur. [1] case of stockuale against hansard, determined in the court of queen's bench, in trinity term, in the second year of the reign of victoria. john josbph stockdale against james hansard, luke graves hansard, luke .oc: james hansard, and luke henry hansard (a). 1839. It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel, that the defamatory matter is part of a document which was, by order of the House of Commons, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House, and which was afterwards, by orders of the House, printed and published by defendant; and that the House of Commons heretofore resolved, declared, and adjudged " that the power of publishing such of. its reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive to the public interests is an essential incident to the constitutional functions of Parliament, more especially to the Commons' House of Parliament as the representative portion of it." On demurrer to a plea suggesting such a defence, a Court of Law is competent to determine whether or not the House of Commons has such privilege as will support the plea. [S. C. 2 P. & D. 1; 3 St. Tr. N. S. 723; 8 L. J. Q. B. 294; 3 Jur. 905. For subse quent proceedings, see 11 Ad. & E. 253, 297. Upheld, Case of the Sheriff of Middlesex, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 285. Considered, Howard v. Gassett, 1845-47, 10 Q. B. 375, 411. Referred to, Wasm v. Walter, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 83; Henwood v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 613. Considered, Bradlaugh v. Erskine, 1883, 47 L. T. 618. Commented on and approved, Bradlaugh v. Gossett, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 271. Discussed and applied, Dillon v. Balfour, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 611.] Case. The declaration (May 30th, 1837) stated that, before and at the time of committing the grievance next hereinafter complained of, the said plaintiff was, and for a long time had been, a bookseller and publisher of books, and, as such bookseller and publisher of books, had published divers and very many scientific books, and (a) This case, on account of its importance, has been placed out of its order, for the purpose of early publication. 1112 9 AD. &E.2. STOCKDALB V. HANSAKD 1113 particularly, in the year 1827, a certain phyaiological [2] and anatomical book written by a learned physician on the generative system, illustrated by anatomical plates; and, whereas the said defendants, on 1st May 1836, did publish and cause to be published in a certain book, purporting to be " Reports of the Inspectors of the Prisons of Great Britain," the passage following, that is to say : " This last is a book " (meaning the said physiological and anatomical book) "of a most disgusting nature; and the plates are indecent and obscene in the extreme;" whereas, in truth arid in fact, the said book is purely of a scientific character : yet the said defendants, well knowing the premises, but contriving and maliciously intending to defame and injure the said plaintiff in bis said trade of a bookseller and publisher, and cause it to be believed that he published indecent and obscene books, on 19th August, A.D. 1836, maliciously and falsely did publish, and cause to be published, of and concerning the said plaintiff, in his said trade and business, in a certain printed paper, purporting to be a copy of the Reply of the Inspectors of Prisons for the Home District, with regard to the Report of the Court of Aldermen, to whom it was referred to consider the first report of the inspectors of prisons as far as relates to the gaol of Newgate, which said copy of the reply purports to be a letter from William Crawford and Whitworth Russell, Esquires, inspectors of prisons for the home district, to the Right Honourable Lord John Russell, &c., the false, scandalous, and defamatory libel following, that is to say,- " But we deny that that book is a scientific work (using that term in its ordinary acceptation), or that the plates are purely anatomical, calculated only to attract the attention of persons connected with surgical science; and we adhere to the terms [3] which we have already employed, as those only by which to characterise such a book" (meaning thereby that the said book was disgusting and obscene, as stated in the above-mentioned Report of the Inspectors of Prisons of Great Britain) : and, in another part of the said libel, to the substance and effect following, that is to say: " We also applied to several medical booksellers, who all gave it the same character. They described it as one of Stockdale's obscene books " (meaning thereby that the plaintiff was a common publisher of obscene books); " That it never was considered as a scientific work ; that it never was written for or bought by the members of the profession as such ; that it was intended to take young men in, by inducing them to give an exorbitant price for an indecent work :" to the great injury of the said plaintiff in his said trade and business, and also of his fair fame and reputation, and to the damage of the said plaintiff of 50001." &c. Plea (of July 6th, 1837). That, heretofore and before the commencement of this suit, and after the making of a certain Act of Parliament, made arid passed at the Parliament begun and holden at Westminster on 19th February 1835, entitled, "An Act for effecting greater Uniformity of Practice in the Government of the several Prisons in England and Wales; and for Appointing Inspectors of Prisons in Great Britain "(a), to wit on 1st January, a.d. 1836, the Right Honourable John Russell (commonly called the Right Honourable Lord John Russell), then being one of His late Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, in pursuance of the said Act, nominated and appointed William Crawford, Esquire, [4] and the Rev. Whitworth Russell to visit and inspect, either singly or together with any other inspector or inspectors appointed under the provisions of the said Act, every gaol, bridewell, house of correction, penitentiary, or other prison or place kept for the confinement of prisoners in any part of Great Britain : and that afterwards, viz. on 1st March in the year aforesaid, they, the said William Crawford and Whitworth Russell, as such inspectors as aforesaid, made their report in writing of the state of a certain gaol and prison in the City of London called Newgate, and transmitted the same to the said Right Honourable John Russell (commonly called, &c.), then being such Secretary of State as aforesaid, in pursuance of the said Act of Parliament. And that heretofore, and before the publication of the said supposed libel in the declaration mentioned, viz. on 13th August A.D. 1835, a Parliament of our Sovereign Lord His late Majesty King William IV. was holden at Westminster in the county aforesaid ; and it was in and by the Commons' House of the said Parliament then, to wit on the day and year last aforesaid, resolved and ordered that the Parliamentary papers and reports printed for the use of the House should be rendered accessible to the public by purchase at the lowest price at which they could be furnished, and that a sufficient number of extra (a) Stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 38. 1114 8TOCKDALE V.HANSARD 9AD.&E. 5. copies should be printed for that purpose: and that afterwards, at a Parliament of our late said lord the King, holden at Westminster in the year 1836, and before the publication of the said supposed libel in the said declaration mentioned, viz. on 9th February 1836, it was ordered by the said Commons' House of Parliament that a select committee should be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in all mat-[5]-ters which related to the printing executed by order of the House : and that afterwards, and before the publication of the said supposed libel, viz. on the day and year last aforesaid, a select committee was duly appointed by the said House, in pursuance of the said last-mentioned order, for the purposes in the said order mentioned : and that afterwards, and before the publication of the said supposed libel, and whilst the said last-mentioned Parliament was so sitting as aforesaid, viz. on 18th March in the year last aforesaid, it was resolved by the said committee, appointed in pursuance of the said last-mentioned order of the said House (amongst other things) that the Parliamentary papers and reports printed by order of the House should be sold to the public at certain specified rates, and that Messrs. Hansard (meaning the said defendants), the printers of the House, be appointed to conduct the sale thereof: and that afterwards, and before the said publication of the said supposed libel, and whilst the said last-mentioned Parliament was sitting, viz. on 18th March in the year last aforesaid, a copy of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
[1] Hon. Mark Brantley (Leader of the Opposition) [2] Hon. Eugene Hamilton [3] Hon. Shawn Richards [4] Hon. Vance Armory [5] Hon. Sam Condor [6] Hon. Timothy Harris Claimants/Respondents v [1] Hon. Curtis Martin (Speaker of the National Assembly) [2] Hon. Denzil Douglas (Prime Minister) [3] Hon. Dr. Asim Martin (Deputy Prime Minister) [4] Hon. Patrice Nisbett [5] Hon. Marcella Liburd [6] Hon. Glen Phillip [7] Hon. Richard Skerrit [8] Hon. Nigel Carty [9] Hon. Jason Hamilton [10] Attorney General of St. Chrisptopher and Nevis Defendants/Applicants [ECSC]
...[1990] LRC (Const.) 87 42ibid n. 41 43 ibid. n. 37 at para. 30 44 This point was made clear with the decision of Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 A & E 1, 147–148 Lord Denman CJ said of the argument that the House of Commons was a separate court with exclusive jurisdiction over the extent of it......
-
Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, 2018 SCC 39
...Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1, 112 E.R. 1112; Jerusalem v. Austria, No. 26958/95, ECHR 2001‑II; Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972); A. v. the United Kingdom, No. 35373/97, ECHR......
-
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., (1993) 146 N.R. 161 (SCC)
...refd to. [para. 27]. Landers v. Woodworth (1878), 2 S.C.R. 158, refd to. [para. 27]. Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1; 112 E.R. 1112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Payson v. Hubert (1904), 34 S.C.R. 400, refd to. [para. 40]. Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991]......
-
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., (1993) 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181 (SCC)
...refd to. [para. 27]. Landers v. Woodworth (1878), 2 S.C.R. 158, refd to. [para. 27]. Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1; 112 E.R. 1112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Payson v. Hubert (1904), 34 S.C.R. 400, refd to. [para. 40]. Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991]......
-
The Supreme Court Rules: Parliamentary Privilege Not A Carte Blanche For Termination
...2 2014 QCTA 696. 3 2015 QCCS 883. 4 2017 QCCA 271. 5 Chagnon. 6 Chagnon, at 19. See Stockdale v Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1, 112 E.R. 1112 (Q.B.), at 1168, New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319, at 350 and 382-384, as well ......
-
Table of Cases
...Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1, 112 E.R. 1112................................... 94 Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 700 ...............................................................................430, 431 Switzman v. Elbling, [1957]......
-
In A Fix: Fixed-Term Parliaments in the Australian States
...to Dissolve the Houses of Parliament (LLM Thesis, Australian National University, 1982) 11–12, 168. 11 Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112, 1126 (Lord Denman); Victoria v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 81, 155–6 (Gibbs J). See also Eugene Forsey, The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament......
-
Reconceptualising ‘Justiciability’: Crafting a Coherent Framework for Australia’s Unique Constitutional Context
...here.165For completeness, however, it isworth articulating how UK and Australian jurisprudence has seen a positive shift away from156. (1839) 112 ER 1112, 1186 (‘Stockdale’).157. (1955) 92 CLR 157, 162.158. Alford v Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (2018)......
-
Reconceptualising ‘Justiciability’: Crafting a Coherent Framework for Australia’s Unique Constitutional Context
...here.165For completeness, however, it isworth articulating how UK and Australian jurisprudence has seen a positive shift away from156. (1839) 112 ER 1112, 1186 (‘Stockdale’).157. (1955) 92 CLR 157, 162.158. Alford v Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (2018)......