1.—7

20

in the article J. referred to, Hopkinson v. Lord Burghley (L.E. 2 Ch.). That was a case where it was held that " the defendant cannot refuse to produce private and confidential letters from a stranger on the ground that the writer forbids their production. But the plaintiff will be put upon an undertaking not to use them for any collateral object." And this is what was said by Lord Justice Turner :"1 am of opinion that these letters must be produced. The writer of a letter trusts the receiver with the letter, and he must take the consequences of its being in his possession. The question which now arises is between a stranger and the receiver. If the sender of a letter wishes to restrain the receiver from showing it to any other person he must file a bill for that purpose. Unless that is done the property is in the receiver. There must, however, be an undertaking not to use the documents, or any copies of them, for any collateral object." Mr. Skerrett: What was the action? Mr. M. Myers: The action was against the trustees and committee of a private club. Lord Cairns said, "lam of the same opinion. The question in all these cases is, what was the purpose or object in the mind of the person sending the letter? The writer is supposed to intend that the receiver may use it for any lawful purpose, and it has been held that publication is not such a lawful purpose. But if there is a lawful purpose for which a letter can be used it is the publication of it in a Court of justice. In the present case the recipients were justified in declining to produce the letters without the direction of the Court, but they cannot now refuse to produce them. There must be an undertaking in the teems of the undertaking in Richardson v. Hastings." Richardson v. Hastings is reported in 7 Beavan, 354. The nature of the undertaking was this—it is contained in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls : "1 think that the plaintiff ought not to use the documents for any such collateral object; and as lie has offered, if I should think it right, to undertake not to use the documents, or any cop}' of them, for that purpose, I shall make the order for the production or inspection of those documents on his undertaking to that effect." My point, therefore, is this : that even a Court would not order the production of these letters unless there was a binding undertaking given that they should not be used for any collateral purpose. Igo further and say that this Committee could not impose such an undertaking, and even if it did, the undertaking would not be binding on Mr. Payne, and the production of this letter might involve other persons not before the Committee and expose such persons to the risks of actions to be brought against them by persons other than Mr. Payne, and over those persons this Committee has no jurisdiction. As far as the writing of the letter is concerned, am I right in saying that the House has declared that not to be a breach of privilege? The Chairman: No. Mr. Skerrett: It is the writing and publication of such extract, and also the truth or otherwise. Mr. M. Myers: That is what the Committee has to inquire into. All that has been declared to be a breach of privilege is the writing and publication of the " extract " —that is, in the House — not the letter. The letter has not been declared so far to be a breach of privilege. This is how the resolution reads : " That a Committee of Privilege be appointed to take into full consideration the writing and publishing of a letter, admitted to be written to and received by the honourable member for Franklin, an extract from which letter was to-day read in the House by the honourable member, and a copy of which extract is as follows." Then it goes on to say "that as the writing and publishing of the said extract has been declared by the House to be a breach of its privileges, the writing and publishing of such letter and such extract, also the question of the truth or otherwise of the charge or charges alleged in such extract or letter, be referred to the following Committee to inquire into and report their proceedings." My point is that the House has not declared the writing of the letter to be a breach of privilege, and I respectfully submit would not have declared the writing of the letter to be a breach of privilege, because there is an authority in May at page 81 for saying this: "Libels upon members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a. breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity; and, as is explained on page 274, the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House." And at page 274 this passage appears "To justify the claim of privilege for a motion complaining of alleged libels on members, the conduct and language on which the libel is based must be actions performed or words uttered in the actual transaction of the business of the House." Now, the, conduct on which this alleged libel is based is not an action performed, and does not consist of words uttered, in the House. Therefore I submit that the House would not declare, and it certainly has not declared, the writing of the letter itself to be a breach of privilege. That is another reason why I respectfully submit this Committee should not attempt to force Mr. Massey to produce the letter from which he read an extract, or, rather, a copy of an extract. Mr. Skerrett: I do not propose at present to indicate what position Mr. Payne takes up with reference to the non-production of this letter. I only propose to answer Mr. Myers's legal observations on this matter. I think Mr. Massey may well say, " Save me from my friends ! " because the argument of Mr. Myers is that Mr. Massey was guilty of the unlawful publication of that letter and of an injustice to the writer of the letter, and he asks on that ground that Mr. Massey should be excused from the production of the letter. That is the argument which Mr. Myers has put before the Committee. Now, Mr. Myers has cited a number of authorities that have nothing whatever to do with the question. Probably every gentleman at this table, whether professional or layman, knows that the writer of the letter has a certain interest in that letter. That has nothing to' do with this question. I put it to you that Mr. Massey has adopted the statement contained in this letter and has read this letter to the House. I point out to you that if he had read it outside the House, where there is no privilege, action could have been taken against him undeniably for the publication of the letter. I ask any professional member of this Committee if, in an action for discovery against Mr. Massey, Mr. Massey would be privileged. I ask any member of the Committee whether, if Mr. Massey were in the witness-box, he would be entitled to