Dillon v Balfour

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 November 1887
• Date: 16 November 1887
• Docket Number: (1887 — J. No. 424.)
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

Before PALLES, C. B., and ANDREWS, J.

(1887 J. No. 424.)

DILLON

and

BALFOUR

Bill of Rights1 W. & M. sess. 2, c. 2.

Ex parte WasonELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 573.

Willis v. Earl BeauchampELR 11 P. D. 59.

Castro v. MurrayELR L. R. 10 Ex. 213.

Burstall v. Beyfus 26 Ch. Div. 35.

The King v. AbingdonENR 1 Esp. 226.

Taylor v. BestUNK 23 L. J. C. P. 89.

Jacobs v. RavenUNK 30 L. T. (N. S.) 366.

Garbutt v. Fawcus 45 L. J. Ch. 130, 133.

Parkes v. PrescottELR L. R. 4 Exch. 169.

Wason v. WalterELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 73.

Hildige v. O'FerrellUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 158.

Drogheda v. HanlonUNK Ir. R. 1 C. L. 319.

Donnell v. ReillyUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 329.

Dawkins v. Prince Edward of Saxe-WeimarELR 1 Q. B. Div. 499.

Wason v. WalterELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 73.

Rex v. AbingtonENR 1 Esp. 226.

Rex v. CreeveyENR 1 M. & S. 273.

Parkes v. PrescottELR L. R. 4 Exch. 169.

Stockdale v. Hansard 9 A. & E. 1.

Burdett v. AbbottENR 14 East. 1.

Howard v. Gossett 10 Q. B. 359.

Dwyer v. EsmondeUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 243.

Burdett v. AbbottENR 14 East. 1.

Stockdale v. Hansard 9 A. & E. 1.

Burdett v. AbbottENR 14 East. 1.

Ex parte WasonELR 10 Best. & Smith, 58; L. R. 4 Q. B. 573.

Burdett v. AbbottENR 14 East. 1.

Jay v. TophamST1 12 State Trials, 822.

Doe d. Leigh v. RoeENR 8 M. & W. 579.

Stockdale v. Hansard 9 A. & E. 1.

Hildige v. O'FarrellUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 158.

Slander Privilege Member of Parliament Words spoken in course of debats Publication in Hansard Innuendo Practice Amendment Gen. Ord. XXVI., Rule 1.

Ex. Div. 1887. Nov. 4, 9, 10, 16. DELLON v. BALFOUR (1). (1887-J. No. 424.) Slander-Privilege-Member of Parliament-Words spoken in course of debate -Publication in Hansard-Innuendo-Practice-Amendment-Gen. Ord. XXVI., Rule 1. Words spoken by a Member of Parliament in Parliament are absolutely privileged ; the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action in respect of them, and will, upon motion, set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim in such action. An amendment in a statement of claim, wider Gen. OH. XXVI., Rule 1, will not be allowed, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the cause of action sought to be saved by the amendment, and that such cause of action is presented bona fide for the benefit of the plaintiff. An action was brought against a Member of Parliament for words spoken by him during a debate in the House of Commons, and for an alleged publicaÂÂtion of such words in certain newspapers. Upon motion by the defendant to stay proceedings in the action as vexaÂÂtious and an abuse of the process of the Court, grounded upon an affidavit denying that he had published the words in any of the newspapers, the plaintiff filed an answering affidavit, alleging that she believed the defendant furnished copies of his speech to some of the newspapers mentioned in the statement of claim, but without stating any reasons for such belief ; and she also stated that since the delivery of the statement of claim she was informed and believed that the proof of the report of the speech,. which (in fact) was published in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, had been submitted to the defendant for approval, and was corrected by him, and returned for publication, and the plaintiff, under Gen. Ord. XXVI., Rule 1, amended the statement of claim by adding a paraÂÂgraph founded on the publication in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, with an innuendo that the words imputed to the plaintiff "cruel and inhuman conduct" -this being the innuendo put upon the words in the original paragraphs, with the addition, " such as necessitated the immediate application of stringent and perpetual coercion to the country in which such an occurrence was possible": Held, 1st, that, as regards the alleged slander, the Court being satisfied that the sole speaking which constituted the cause of action was the speaking (1) Before PAU" C. B., and ANDREWS, J. you XX.) Q. B., C. P., 8: EX. DIVISIONS. 601 in Parliament, being one which the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, the Ex. Div. proceedings should be stayed, without putting the defendant to plead in abate- 1887. ment. DILLON And the Court being of opinion that there was no ground for the original v. paragraphs in libel founded on the alleged publications in the newspapers, BALFOUR. declined to permit the amendment-1st, because the action was not brought to try the question raised by it ; 2ndly, because the innuendo was, in the opinion of the Court, inserted, not for the purpose of bona fide asserting the plaintiffs rights, but of appealing from the House of Commons to a jury as to the releÂÂvancy of a statement made by a Member in a debate. MOTION to stay the action. The action was brought to recover damages for libel and slander. The statement of claim was as follows : 1. The plaintiff is a midwife and monthly nurse in large pracÂÂtice and considerable repute in the district of Anglirim, in the county of Galway. The defendant is the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and nephew of the Prime Minister of England. 2. The said defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff in The Daily News, The Standard, and The Times in London, and in The Freeman's Journal, The Irish Times, and The Daily Express in Dublin, and in all the other principal newspapers in the three kingdoms (1), the following words, that is to say :-" There are more serious cases. In another case the midwife (meaning the plaintiff) refused to attend a woman because she was the wife of a man who had worked for a boycotted person. Does any person regard that as a ludicrous incident ? Does anybody regard that as a tolerable state of society? " (meaning thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of a gross breach of the practice of etiquette and duties of her profession, and that she had been guilty of cruel and inhuman conduct, which should excite profound and universal indignation, which rendered the society in which said plaintiff moved intolerable and necessitated the immediate application of stringent and perpetual coercion to the country in which such an occurrence was possible). (1) The words in italics were struck ing of the motion. See infra, page out by amendment during the hear- 607. 602 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. _Ex. Div. 3. The defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published 1887. of and concerning the said plaintiff in relation to her said business DILLON and profession of midwife and monthly nurse, as aforesaid, and v. BALFOUR. the carrying on and conducting thereof by her the words following, that is to say :-" There are more serious cases. In another case the midwife (meaning the plaintiff) refused to attend a woman because she was the wife of a man who had worked for a boy. totted person. Does anybody regard that as a ludicrous incident ? Does anybody regard that as a tolerable state of society ? " (meaning thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of a gross breach of the practice of etiquette and duties of her profession, and that she had been guilty of cruel and inhuman conduct, which should excite profound and universal indignation, which rendered the society in which the said plaintiff moved as intolerable, and necessitated the immediate application of stringent and perpetual coercion to the country in which such an occurrence was possible). 4. By reason of the said libel and slander by the defendant of the plaintiff, as hereinbefore set out in paragraphs 2 and 3, respectively, the said plaintiff was deeply injured in her personal and professional character, credit, and reputation, both as a woman and as a midwife ; and a large number of persons who had heretoÂÂfore patronized the said plaintiff in her said business and profession, ceased to do so, and she was exposed to much odium amongst her neighbours for having, by her alleged inhuman conduct, afforded a serious argument for passing a perpetual Coercion Act for Ireland. The plaintiff claims 500 damages. The motion was grounded on an affidavit of the defendant, and the following are the material portions of it : Par. 3. It is untrue, as alleged in the statement of claim, that I printed or published in any of the newspapers mentioned in the second paragraph of the statement of claim, or in any newspapers, the words complained of in the second paragraph. The words complained of were part of a speech made by me, as Chief Secretary, in a debate in the House of Commons, on the Criminal Law ProÂÂcedure (Ireland) Act, 1887 ; and, save in the said debate, I never spoke or published the said words. Va. XX.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 603 4. At the time I spoke the said words as hereinbefore mentioned Lx. Div. I had no knowledge whatever of the plaintiff, and the said words 1887. D ILLON were spoken from information derived from official reports, and v. without any malice. BALFOUR. 5. The publication of the said words complained of in the second paragraph of statement of claim is the publishing by the newspapers, in the ordinary course of journalism therein mentioned, of the speech made by me as hereinbefore mentioned. 6. The action is vexatious, and an abuse of the process of this Court. In answer thereto the plaintiff filed an affidavit, as follows :- 1. I deny that this action is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court, and I say that it is brought with the object of vindicating my character and obtaining compensation. 2. I am advised, and believe, that I have a good and valid action against the said defendant, and that he has no defence to same in law or on the merits. I say that the charge made by him against me, which is the subject-matter of this action, was absoÂÂlutely false to the knowledge of the local officials. I had repeatedly and publicly denied said charge, and its falsehood was a matter of notoriety in the neighbourhood of which the most casual inquiry must have satisfied the defendant ; that he...