The Sun. — London, England, 1834-06-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, ✓une 27. 'The house met at four o'clock. CHURCH PATRONAGE. The Earl of BRE AD ALB ANE presented peti tions from Perth and Glasgow, praying that some alteration might be made in the present system of church patronage ; also a petition, praying that the Dissenters might be relieved of their grievances. The noble earl said he would take that opportunity of stating that he was a friend to church establishments, that they were necessary for the welfare of the inha bitants of the country, and that it appeared to him the duty of every christian government to provide for the religious wants of the people, but still he thought the Dissenters had a perfect right to ask for the removal of any particular grievance that af fected them as Dissenters from the Established Church. He considered that the attack on the Established Church had taken its origin from sectarian jealousy. Since the passing of the Reform Bill the people's minds had been excited to such a pitch, and the desire for reform had become so great in the northern parts of the empire, as almost amounted to a revolution. He trusted, however, that the claims of all parties would be taken properly into consideration, and that finally they would leave no cause to complain. ESTABLISHED CHURCH. Lord KEN YON presented a petition (by the desire of a noble viscount), who had been entrusted with it, but who could not attend) from a parish in Nor folk, praying for the protection of the Established Church. The Earl of DEL AWAR presented a petition from Wisbeach, in the Isle of Ely, in favour of the Established Church, and against the admission of the Dissenters to the universities. The Nfarquis of WESTMINSTER said he did not participate in the alarm that seemed to exist in the minds of some persons, of the Established Church being in danger ; the only danger that he apprehended was of those persons who belonged to it throwing difficulties in the way of those reforms that it was desirous should take place. ( Hear.) He had had a petition entrusted to him in favour of the Dissenters, signed by nearly 400 individuals, among whom were the Earls of Chichester and Burlington, and Lord John Russell, which he should take the earliest op portunity of presenting, for he considered that it con tained sentiments which should be well known. Petitions in favour of the Established Church, and against the claims of the Dissenters, were presented by the Bishop of Meath, from Athlone and parishes in Cork ; by the Bishop of Lincoln, from Hunting don and several other places ; by the Bishop of Wor cester, from several parishes in Westmoreland. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from the shareholders of this bank, praying that the bill lately introduced might be passed into a law. BOROUGH JUSTICE'S BILL. On the motion of Lord DENMAN, this bill was road t second time. ROYAL ASSENT. The Royal Assent was given to day by commis - non to the Escheats Bill ; the Dublin Cemetery Bill ; the Fishguard Market Bill ; the Perth Harbour and Navi gation Bill ; the Hayle Railway Bill ; the Cork Min ing Company Bill ; the Carmarthenshire Railway Bill ; the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Bill ; the Lanarkshire Roads Bill ; the Kingsbridge and Dart niouth Roads Bill ; Banbridge and Belfast Roads Bill ; the Hammersmith Vicarage Bill ; the Kirkby Kendal Tithes Bill ; the Stanwick (Northampton . ) Inclosure Bill ; the Earl of Mountrath's Estate Bill ; the Earl of Eglinton's Estate Bill ; the Earl of Dun inore's Estate Bill ; Viscount Keith's Estate Bill ; Aubrey's Estate Bill ; Peirse's Estate Bill ; Acland's Estate Bill ; Aston's Estate Bill ; the Earl of Kin tore's Estate Bill ; Molyneux's Estate Bill ; Reynolds's Estate Bill ; Allan's Divorce Bill ; Lumley's Name Bill ; and Francken's Naturalization Bill. The Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, and Lord AUCKLAND. ESTABLISHED CHURCH. Petitions were presented in favour of the Esta blished Church, by the Duke of Richmond, Lord Rolle, the Bishop of Gloucester, the Bishop of Lon don, and the Duke of Wellington. COERCION BILL. Earl GREY gave notice that he should move the renewal of the Coercion Bill on Tuesday next. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose and said, My lords, I am now about to take a step which, after more than 24 y ears being a member of the other house of Parliament, and, God knows, it has not been from any want of occasion, but a consequence of my habitual forbearance, I have never before done ; I mean, my lords, the bringing before your lord ships a breach of the privileges of this house, which had it been committed against any other member than myself, I should at any time have felt the reluctance, which I have always entertained upon principle, to visit with the severity of the displeasure of this house ; and even now that it is aimed against myself, I do assure your lordships that nothing but absolute, and I will say overruling necessity could have induced me to condescend to take notice of it ; but, my lords, when the grossest falsehood, the most palpable, base, and audacious falsehood, is put forward, and that, too, accompanied by the most gross, low, and detestable ribaldry, and that, too, relative to one of the officers of your lordships' house, I think I should he wanting in duty to your lord ships, if I did not bring the subject forward. But, my lords, I shall not have read to the end of what I am about to lay before your lordships, till you will see that I am left no choice upon the present occasion, and that those noble lords who were kind enough to call my attention to the ar ticle (for I myself should never have seen it owing to my other occupations) were perfectly correct in their opinion, that it was no matter of choice with me in bringing the matter under your lordships' no tice. I understand that in similar quarters there has been going on for the last six or eight months a series of systematic attacks against me, directed to one object to misrepresent me in the foullest manner, of which I have seen some specimens on the present occasion, and to those who are acquainted with the facts, it will he at once seen, that it is in my judicial character that I have been so foully calumniated. I do not blame the tool who has been made the cat's-paw in sending forth this drivelling spite, when it was found that there was no truth in the false reports put forth as to the business of the Court of Chancery being in arrear ; that, on the contrary, the business was reduced to so low an ebb, that I was obliged to close that court, ex cept for two causes, in which the parties were not quite ready for the regular seal days ;—when they found that all the chance of arrears in that house was as small as they could find in the Court of Chan cery—when they found that the business of that house was reduced to such a state, that there would he no one cause of any kind ready to go on for weeks before the end of the present session—when they found that all their former statements had ended in falsehood—they looked abroad for food—for grounds upon which to found their attacks. They had re course to the attacks which I will presently lay be fore your lordships—attacks the most calumnious— upon the character of a judge and a member, that have ever been penned. Those attacks are to be judged of by you and not by me, and then it cannot be said of me that I am a judge of my own cause. A cause was tried before the judges, in this house, when they gave an unanimous opinion against the appeal. I had made myself master of the arguments ; I had attended to the judgment, to the opinion of the judges, and to the authorities cited ; I had made up my mind, and came to this house and delivered my opinion. I moved your lordships' judgment, and gave a very strong opinion, which was very clearly formed, and very deci dedly entertained, and upon further reflection most confidently and firmly held by, that a more groundless writ of error never came before your lordships' house, and that your lordships were in justice called upon to decide against the appeal with costs. I moved the affirmance of the judgment of the learned judges, and the usual entry was made in the usual man ner in which such entries were always made, and according to the regular form of proceedings in your lordships' house—a form not introduced in recent times, but established long before I had the honour of a seat in your lordships' house, from which the course of proceedings as to costs, either in substance or in form, in reality or in outward appearance, had been ever interfered with in the slightest particular, except to conform to it and obey it. No one thing was said—no one thing was done—neither a word was spoken, nor a judgment given—nor any entry made, altered, or suppressed in this case, which - was not regularly, constantly, and, according to the literal forms of the proceedings in this house, done daily—aye daily, in every other case which had ever come before your lordships' house. I have read the comment that has been made on these proceedings—l have further read a great deal of ribaldry which I shall not at present refer to, I will only at present read to your lordships that part of the com ment which contains a grave accusation against myself— a member of your lordships' house, a judge acting as a judge, and giving judgment in this house, and pre siding over its proceedings. I have been charged with having garbled and falsified the entry that was made in this case. It is not by insinuation, it is not by an interrogatory mode of charge, that this scandalous accusation is made. I will read it to your lordships. Lord Brougham then proceeded to read the article as follows : " These circumstances are already, perhaps, known to and remembered by our readers ; but what follows will surprise them, however familiar they may be with Lord Brougham's eccentricities." If it be eccentric to sit, as I have sat, in the Court of Chancery, and this house to hear appeals, I hope I shall always be so eccentric. " The Morning Herald, which contains the fullest re port of Lord Brougham's speech in moving the judgment of the house of Lords upon the case, str,tes that Lord Brougham concluded in these words I move, my Lords, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed, with costs not exceeding 3501.' And the Morning Herald proceeds to tell us that the judgment of the Court below was affirmed accordingly.'" " The Morning Herald is not alone. The solicitors, the short-hand writers, the Peers (What Peers? Your Lordships are slandered also by this paper), all concur in asserting that Lord Brougham moved that the judgment be affirmed,' and that the judgment was 'affirmed accord " Now, hew do we find the motion of Lord Brougham and the acquiescence of the house recorded in the Jour nals of the House of Lords? " Thus—' Solarte r. Palmer. Further considered ; and Judgment thereon PO STPONED sine die !'" (The word " postponed" is printed in large capitals. ) " Is it true that the Lord Chief Justice hinted to the Lord Chancellor that the point which had appeared to the Lord Chancellor much too plain for doubt appeared to the Lord Chief Justice far too dark for certainty ? " Is it true that a friendly functionary hinted to Lord Brougham that he had formerly been Counsel in the cause upon which he was now Judge, and that he had strongly advised the course in the one capacity which he coarsely condemned in the other? " Is it true that upon the one hint, or the other hint, or both hints, Lord Brougham prohibited the insertion upon the Journals of the House of the motion which had been made by himself, and the assent which had been given to it by their lordships ? " We cannot answer these questions ; and we do not advise Lord Brougham to attempt an answer to them. We know, however, quite enough. Lord Brougham has done an act of such wanton oppression, of such cruel injustice, that the Journals of the House of Lords must be garbled for the reversal or the concealment of it. If there is one nobleman in the Upper House solicitous in the very least degree for the dignity of his order, this matter must be noticed without delay. If what we tell is true, Lord Brougham is unfit to preside in the Court of Chan cery as a Judge, to sit in Parliament as a Peer, to move in society as a Gentleman. If what we tell is false,—there never was committed a grosser breach of privilege than that of which we are to -day guilty." (Cries of " Hear.") Therefore, said his lordship, it was that he was com pelled, with all his regard for the freedom of discussion and of the press,, as to every public man's conduct, both public and private—he would not stop at his public conduct, but would say, public and private—with all his disposition that every public man's heart should be open to be can vassed—it was impossible for him to continue sitting on their lordships' woolsack with a view to maintain the privileges of the house, without bringing this publication before their lordships. It was painful to go back to answer the questions that had been thus published, but he had no alternative. Well then, " is it true that the Lord Chief Justice," &c. certainly, it was not true. " Is it true that a friendly functionary, &c. ?" It was not true. He knew of no friendly functionary, nor hostile, nor any other functionary, except the pub lic newspaper which he had happened to see, that had stated to him he had been counsel in the cause. Un doubtedly he had been counsel in it at an early stage. " Is it true, &c. ?" It was utterly untrue, scanda lously false, wickedly libellous, and slanderous as every one must see, but not more so than it was from beginning to end, an entire fiction. He knew the origin of this, and the hous.? would see how dangerous a lie was. When a motion was made, and an order di rected to affirm a decree,with 3501. costs, the real amount of the costs was left to be ascertained. 3501. was the maximum sum, but it might be much less. By an order of his noble and learned predecessor, it had been directed that the amount should not be entered till the sum was ascertained. This great improvement had been made years and years before he had entered that house. On all occasions the order was pronounced, as he had pronounced it, but the entry of the exact sum postponed until the real amount of costs was known. On the occasion alluded to, the gentleman at the table had made the entry without any communica tion to him whatever; not a word, nor a hint, nor a wink passed from him, but they made their MS S. entry in the usual manner. ( Hear, hear. ) This had happened twenty times since he had come to the woolsack. It happened almost every day; it never took any other course; and by no possibility could it have taken any other course. Therefore their lordships would see how plainly those disinterested inquiries into his judicial proceed ings ( Hear, hear, hear), those adepts, those malapert adepts ( Loud cheers), who with all the venom that could be instilled into their base and crawling natures, had not the common sense— had not the sense that even the very lowest animals who were endowed with such poisonous ;gifts had, but they must run themselves into every spe cies of exposure, and their unhappy victims into misery, whom they primed with information, and who said—l had it from such or such a one, he knows a great deal, and it must be true. ( Hear, hear.) Then they wrote their own comments, and thus was ushered into the world a piece of slander, as gross and as malicious, and at - the same time as detestable, bothlin its origin and execution, in the feelings that gave rise to it, and in the blundering, the want of common tact as well as honesty, as any thing could be. All this was the consequence of that conduct of which he had been speaking. Now, he would not look at the last part of the paragraph, for he could assure their lordships most sincerely that it produced no other feeling in his mind than that of the most unutterable con tempt. (Cheers.) He would not pretend to say he felt injured by it, it did not do him the slightest injury in any one of his feelings. So that, if that was one of the objects of tha slanderers (continued his lordship), they have totally failed. I must now say something respecting the advice which I am stated to have given when at the bar, relative to this case, and which is alluded to in another part of this article. My lords, I have made it my business, since I entered this house, to apply myself in the closest manner that I can to the duties which my situation entail upon me. Wanting the vast learning and the long experience of some of my predecessors, I have endeavoured, in assisting your lordships in the exercise of your judicial functions, to make up for that want by deep and un remitted attention to the business brought before me ; I am sure that no one who has had an opportunity of observing my conduct will fail to corroborate what I say. I have not adopted the usual plan of saying nothing when judgments were affirmed, and which had almost grown up into a practice. Before the decision on the Roxburgh case, it was the constant practise to say nothinc , on those occasions when judgments were merely affirmed. Two of my predecessors have cer tainly given reasons for affirming decrees, but not often. I have, however, made it an invariable rule in all cases where intricate points of law have been involved, or where the question at issue has been of much importance, to give my opinion at length to your lordships. I find that it is more satisfactory to the suitors, and to the courts of law regulated by the judgment of your lordships, to adopt that course. I acted up to that rule on the present occasion ; but although I stated my opinion unreservedly, it did not, I am sure, betoken the slight est exasperation. I was in no way vexed by the time which this appeal occupied, nor by the attention which I gave to the arguments. It was your lordships' time which was wasted, and I had no trouble in hearing counsel, because I had not heard it argued before. With regard to the statement that I on one occasion advised that this appeal should be made, I will pre mise that I should be ashamed if, after having given a certain opinion when I was counsel, when I might have been blinded by some obliquity of view, I should feel myself bound to adhere to that opinion, how ever ill founded. A counsel is apt to say, in the first moment after defeat, that he is right, and that the Court is wrong; but let a month or six weeks pass away, and let him have time to reflect on that hasty opinion, and it is then more than probable that he will admit his error, and say there is not a shadow of a ground for adopting his advice. If I had been in such a situation, if I had advanced an opinion of that kind, I am sure I should have been the first person to say that my advice was wrong, that there was not a word of truth in it, and that it must be wholly disregarded. I was counsel for Mr. Solarte when the case was tried at Guildhall ; but I never complained of a bill of ex ceptions not being tendered. Lord Tenterden might have advised that a bill of exceptions should be ten dered, but that does not prove that Lord Tentcrden considered that the verdict was wrong, but that he thought it was better that the case should be decided in another court if the plaintiff was of opinion that the verdict could not be maintained, and that his direc tion to the jury was erroneous. But, my lords, this cause did come before the Court of Exchequer—it was there argued before all the Judges, and, conse quently, a decision was given in this case first by Lord Tenterden, and then by the Court of Exchequer, where all the twelve Judges were assembled. An ela borate opinion was expressed upon the question, and the decision of Lord Tenterden was confirmed without one dissentient voice, it being considered a clear case, respecting which no difference of opinion could exist. ( Hear, hear.) The point on which this decision was come to referred to the notice of a bill of exchange, and the learned judges were of opinion that there was no colour for saying that a due notice had been given. Your lordships now see how utterly false—how en tirely fabricated is the assertion in this article, that I advised this proceeding, which I afterwards expressed astonishment should have been adopted. The deci sion given in this case in the Court of King's Bench was brought before the judges in the Exchequer Chamber, and till judgment was pronounced by them upon it, there could be no appeal in the House of Lords. Now that judgment was not pronounced till the 7th of May, 1831, seven or eight months after I be came a peer of this house, and took my seat as Chan cellor ( Hear, hear) ; and, therefore, I could not by any possibility have advised upon the subject of an appeal to " the highest tribunal in the country." ( Hear, hear.) In the course of that judgment I ob serve that the court says, There is a stronger case against the party before us than appeared in Hartley v. Case, which was decided in 1825." Now, my lords, I argued that very case myself, and, therefore, am well acquainted with the points of law to which it referred—so that here is another reason to show that I should not have advised this proceeding, which I have already demonstrated is physically impossible. With regard to the tone of other parts of this article, which I have not thought it necessary to read to your lordships, I will make some observa tions. I certainly did dwell on one circumstance when this appeal was before me, and I did so because it appeared to merit reproof. I allude to the manner in which the authorities were cited to bear out the case of one of these parties. His counsel very carefully cited a case which was forty years old, having been tried by Lord Mansfield in 1787, but they took not the slightest notice of Hartley v. Case, which was tried so recently as 1825, and which was referred to by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber. This is not all, my lords. They cited the venerable autho rity of Mr. Justice Bayley on bills of exchange, as having laid down the law in their favour, but how did they cite him ? Why, they cited from the fourth edi tion of that learned Judge's work, published in 1822, in which only the case of Tyndale v. Brown was quoted as applicable to their view of the question. Now, my lords, I produced to them a fifth edition, but I will first show that that edition might have been known to them. It was published in 1830, and judg-" ment was not given in the Court of Exchequer till 1831. Now, if the fifth edition was published, why should they cite from the fourth ? It does happen that the fourth edition gives a case in their favour which is completely overturned by the case of Hartley v. Case, and which is contained in the fifth edition. I produced that case, my lords, and I did feel called upon under such circumstances, to make some comments up on the course which had been pursued. ( Hear, hear.) I certainly thought that your lordships should not have been so treated. When I gave my reasons for affirm ing the decree, and when I made those comments, I heard nothing from my Lord Chief Justice, I heard nothing from any friendly functionary. ( Laughter.) I formed my opinion from my own impartial considera tion of the case ; and when I delivered it I heard no reflection made which could induce me to recede from it. It was my candid opinion, and I have met with no grounds to induce me to change it. If I could have been suspected of entertaining any feeling, was it not more probable that I should have leaned towards that party whose cause I had advocated, and with whose interests I had partially identified myself ? But here the charge is the reverse. I am accused of leaning towards the opposite party. My lords, I trust that it is needless for me to go further into this subject, and to reply to the gross charges which I have brought under your notice. ( Hear, hear.) Forgive me for saying that there will be an end to the judica ture of the House of Lords, there will be an end of this assembly judicating at all, if ever we shall live to see the day—which may God forbid, for there would be an end not only of this house, but an end of the administration of justice in England—when personal feelings, when party prejudices, or factious animosities, shall cross the path, or even shadow the path of the pure, undefiled, and bright course which your lordships' predecessors have always held in the administration of justice. (Cheers.) I say, my lords, that if there shall appear, from any sinister motive, any disposition in any quarter to afford these libellers shelter—to give them any encouragement, or to speak for them, we shall then have approached the verge, if not fallen down the precipice of those dangers which I trust we shall never have cause to fear. I should lot have discharged my duty as the humble instrument of the judicial functions vested in your lordships' hands, if I had allowed this publication to pass by un heeded and unnoticed, after my attention had been pointed to it. As to the deluded parties who have been made the dupes in this most calumnious attack, I feel pity for them ; and as to those who are the prime movers of it, I care nothing for them. This provocation, great as it is, may give me cause for some regret; but I can truly say that I am affected in no other way. His Lordship then resumed his seat amidst much cheering and general cries of " Move, move !" . Earl GREY then rose, but we regret that the low tone in which he spoke was such, that his observations reached us very indistinctly. We understood him to say, that after the circumstances which had just been stated by the noble and learned lord—after their lordships had been made acquainted with the nature of the attack which had been so unjustifiably made upon the public and private character of that noble and learned lord, and also upon the privileges of the house, he thought there could be but one opinion as to the course which ought to be taken, namely, that the publisher of tne libel should be called to the bar of the house. He had read with indignation the para graph, which was written in such gross and insolent language, and which accused the noble and learned lord, who was invested with the highest judicial func tions, of having falsified an entry in the journals of their lordships, for the alleged purpose of concealing an erroneous judgment. This, it clearly appeared, was totally unfounded in fact, no entry having been made, but that which was usually made. The noble earl concluded by making a motion to the effect that the last paragraph, commencing with " Lord Brougham has done an act," was a gross libel, and an interference with the privileges of the house. (Hear.) Lord W YNFORD made a few observations, but they were wholly inaudible. We understood him to say, that it was impossible to deny that there had been a gross breach of the privileges of the house, and that the noble and learned lord could not have done other wise than have taken the course which he had. We understood the noble lord to confirm the explanation which the Lord Chancellor had given of the mode of entering up their lordships' judgment ; but at the same time to state his opinion, that that form was calculated to deceive many as to its true import. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had no wish to deal in any way with the parties. He had no feeling upon the subject ; he was not injured in the slightest degree, and besides, he did not think that the course which it was proposed to adopt was the best in the world. He had strongly recommended their lord ships, on all occasions, not to get into conflicts respect ing breaches of privilege with the newspapers; for he had observed that both houses of Parliament generally came off the worst. (Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") He must, however, be allowed to say, that if ever there was a case which called upon them to interfere in defence of their privileges, this was one. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") There was an insolence of the most offensive character in the manner in which the breach of privilege was al luded to. " If what we tell is false, there never was committed a grosser breach of privilege than that of which we are to-day guilty." If no step were taken, these parties would, no doubt, be carried away by their good fortune, and declare that the House of Lords was afraid to meddle with them, or to call them to the bar. With respect to the statement that Lord Ten terden had entertained doubts of the justice of his de cision, he begged to say that there was a great mis take on that point, and that there was not the slightest doubt of the opinion of that eminent judge. What grounds had the plaintiff in this case of Solante r. Palmer to appeal to their lordships? The questions at issue belonged to common law, and the whole of the judges had decided one way. Now an appeal was only the mockery of bringing these judges out of Westminster into that house, and making there decide the same case again, and reiterate their judgment. No one could believe that a question of pure common law—namely, what was evidence of the dishonouring of a bill of exchange—would ever be decided in that house against the opinion of all those learned judges. It was impossible. With regard to the motion which had been made, he certainly was not disposed to inter fere, because he looked upon the libel with the greatest contempt. Earl GREY said he was sure the house would give him credit for not being influenced by personal feel ings on the present occasion. He did not know that he had ever had occasion to bring a breach of privilege, as affecting himself, before Parliament, though cer tainly he had not been without provocation He, how ever, felt that he should not be discharging his duty, if he did not press, on the present occasion, that some steps should be adopted, and he was sure their lord ships would not be satisfied to leave the libel to the contempt of the noble and learned lord. ( Hear.) The publication in question was not capable of any other interpretation than that it was a most malignant attack upon the private character of the noble and learned lord, and also a gross violation of the privileges of the house. He could not but be astonished at the manner in which the noble and learned lord wished to act on this occasion. What was it that this writer did? Upon the ground of a false statement he had the auda city to defy the power of the house to act. "We do not advise Lord Brougham to answer this case." The noble earl then read some of the passages from the article, and asked if their lordships were prepared to hear a member of their house vilified in that manner on a charge, the foundation of which was notoriously false ? It was impossible that the house could abstain from voting that this libel was a gross breach of the privileges of the house ; and having voted that, was it possible that they could adopt the advice of the noble lord not to interfere ? If they did, they would indeed sit down in acknowledged impotence. It is impossible not to proceed to the next step—that of calling the printer to the bar. If he had any thing to allege to alter the impression that the libel was calculated to make—if he had any thing to urge in extenuation of the attack upon the noble lord, the house would of course hear him. They could not consent to let the matter remain where it was. Lord WYNFORD explained in a few words. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed his satisfaction that attention had been called to a libel of so gross a character, and that their lordships at length perceived that it was necessary to take some decided steps to uphold the privileges of the house. Some passages of the libel were so scandalously false, especially those relating to the noble and learned lord's conduct as a judge, that he himself would have brought them under notice if the learned lord had not. He gave his full support to the motion. The Duke of WELLINGTON said he also con curred in the motion which had been made. He, however, must state, that he had been misled by what appeared on the votes of the house. After he had perused the article he referred to the votes, and found that the judgment was printed as postponed, although in the records of the house the judgment was entered as affirmed. He by no means wished to state this as an extenuation of the conduct of the printer of this article, who had been guilty of so gross an attack upon the noble and learned lord, but he thought it right to mention it to the house. The LORD CHANCELLOR again explained the form of proceeding. The Earl of MANSFIELD said he certainly laboured under the same misapprehension as his noble friend the Duke of Wellington. He had seen an account of the speech of the noble and learned lord, which con cluded with words that did not permit him to entertain a doubt that the judgment given had been such as his noble friend (the Duke of Wellington) had considered it to be. However, his attention had been called to the subject, and he had, therefore, that afternoon, looked into the orders. To his astonishment he found that the written minutes were very different from the printed minutes ; but it was not for him to say how closely they ought to correspond, though, perhaps, many of their lordships would think such assimilation rather desirable than otherwise. In point of fact, he found them, upon examination, to be materially dif ferent ; and in the written minute, above the word " affirmed," he found inserted, in another hand-writ ing, the words " to be," so that the passage read " to be affirmed." No doubt, however, the statement of the noble and learned lord was correct, that if judgment had been given affirming the decision of the court below, with one hundred pounds or any fixed sum as costs, it would have been entered at once as affirmed ; but that when the amount of costs was to be afterwards set tled, the proper entry was, judgment postponed till costs ascertained. In this instance, however, the case was entered in the written minutes " to be affirm ed," and in the printed minutes "to be postponed." He mentioned this discrepancy because he thought it his duty to do so ; it was not for him to excuse or pal liate such attacks, and he was not disposed to do so. It would be for the delinquent when at the bar of their lordships' house to clear himself in the best way he could. In the propriety of calling him to the bar, he most fully concurred, and he knew of no ob jection that could be raised to such a course in the event of a breach of their privileges. He begged, however, that they might not lay themselves open to the charge of prejudging a case when the real merits of it would have to come, and that so soon, before their lordships' house. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never heard of a person being called to the bar of that, or of the other house, without a previous resolution that such person had been guilty of a breach of privilege ; and for his own part, he did not know that they had the power to enforce such attendance, till a resolution of that kind had been agreed to. He very much doubted whether a person so situated would not resist. Certain he was that no officer of that or the other house would consider himself safe in enforcing the at tendance of a delinquent, unless backed by the autho rity of such a resolution, which was, in fact, his justi fication. They all knew well the case of Sir Francis Burdett, when an action was brought against the offi cer, who was not armed with his authority; which was, in fact, requisite to the ordinary course of plead ing. As to the mode of entering the minutes of their lordships' proceedings, he had seldom —he really believed he had never—never even on one occasion from the moment he entered that house to that at which he spoke, interfered with those who had the conduct of it. There were pro per officers duly appointed by that house to attend to the duty, and with their performance of it he never had interfered, and never wished to do so. He never knew till then, that the words " to be" were written in a different hand to the word " affirmed," nor did he know that the entry in the written, varied from that in the printed minutes. For his own part, he could assure their lordships he felt no soreness on the sub ject—no bitterness or anger—and as to the poor pub lisher, he had his good wishes, which always went in favour of those unlucky wights who now and then got into scrapes. If he wanted to lay hold of any one, it would rather be of the author of this calumny, of the originator, the instigator, when, perhaps, their lord ships would find that he was some one that did know better, or at all events that ought to know better. He repeated that he never interfered either directly or in directly with the clerks, and that it lay with them to account for the interlineation of the words " to be." Earl GREY said the only question before their lordships was the plain and simple one—has there not been a breach of privilege committed ? He for one had certainly not attempted to prejudge the question ; he had merely proposed for their lordships' considera tion a question, a resolution founded on that which, in his view, constituted a clear breach of their privi leges, and this course was absolutely necessary to pre face any ulterior proceedings, either of acquittal or of reprehension, which they might deem it due to their own dignity to substitute. The only question was whether the publication was a breach of privilege or not. Their lordships were called on to decide nothing further than the character of the subject matter before them ; they were not asked to give an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the party publishing it ; of his malicious intent, or of his being misled ; or of his acting without due caution. All that would be duly taken into consideration when the offending party ap peared at the bar of their lordships' house. They had now only to say on what ground they required a cer tain party to appear there, and the way was by affirm ing a certain publication, for which he had voluntarily made himself responsible—at all events, in the first instance—to be a breach of privilege. The resolution was then agreed to unanimously. Earl GREY then moved :—" That Thomas Paine, the publisher of the Morning Post newspaper, do attend at the bar of this house on Monday next." Lord 31 A L iME SB UR Y said the house would sit to-morrow, and it was not usual in the case of a breach of privilege to allow a sitting to intervene between the motion for an offender's appearance at the bar and his attendance, unless he resided at a distance. It was then put and ordered that Thomas Paine do attend at the bar of the house at four o'clock to morrow (this day). BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that on Monday next he should move for the second read ing of this bill. LEGAL SECURITIES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of theNlarquis of CLANRICARDE, this bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday se'nnight. DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE,~in rising to move that the house should resolve itself into a com mittee on this bill, stated th a t hi s so l e o bj ec t was t o give a just security to licensed houses against the competition of unlicensed ones, and to promote the morality of the stage and the who le community. The Bishop of LONDON said he had opposed the bill of last year, though he had not voted against it. The present bill he was ready to admit was not so objectionable as its predecessor, but he was neverthe less opposed to it on the ground that it authorised the erection of a great number of small theatres which he much feared would be productive of bad results to the youth of the metropolis. Still he- should pursue his former course, and not vote against th e bill . Though it would exercise in many instances a salutary control over places licensed for dramatic perform.. antes, he still thought it would keep alive many scan dalous abuses. He knew that in what he was saying he was subjecting himself to be sneered at as a puri. tanical personage—that his name, as heretofore, would appear in large letters on the walls of the metropolis ; but such doings would not deter him from the con scientious performance of a duty in denouncing a mea sure which would be equally subversive of the mora lity of the people and the safety of the state. Lord SE AGRA VE said in the present depressed state of dramatic literature---when they had only one living writer whose productions were worth witnessing —he meant the highly-gifted Sheridan Knowles ( Hear, hear), it was the duty of their lordships to pro tect the national theatres, in which so much property had from time to time been vested. If the bill then before their lordships were agreed to, they would have small theatres starting up in every quarter. The pre sent number of these places of amusement—for there were not less than twenty-three—was amply sufficient for the wants and desires of the people ; and there fore, instead of consenting to go into committee upon the bill, he should move that it "be committed that day six months." Lord WH A RNC LIF FE said the intention of the bill was to multiply small theatres in every quarter, and he therefore called upon the right rev. prelate (the Bishop of London), who denounced such places of amusement, to explain his reasons for not voting against it. He begged to as k, t oo , o f th e no bl e Marquis (Clanricarde) w h a t case t h e pu bli c h a d as against the two patent th ea t res ? o f w h at were t h ey monopolists, for it was notorious that the regular dra ma was acted at almost every theatre in London? So there was no monopoly of the regular drama. Indeed, in the present theatrical taste of the public, a monopoly of the regular drama would be a monopoly of failure. Nor could any charge liaagainst the two large theatres of monopolizing the general drama; for from October, at which time they opened, until June, when they closed, the King's Theatre, the Olympic, the Victoria, the Queen's, and other theatres were all open. In his opinion the effect of the hill would be to multiply theatres, there being already enough for the public taste ; so that the other existing theatres would suffer by the operation of the bill, as well as Covent-garden and Drury-lane. There were parts of the bill to which he had no possible objection. For instance, it was no doubt very desirable to establish a more effi cient police with respect to the theatres ; and, among other things, to prevent rehearsals from going on in them on Sundays, just as all decent people were going to church. But that was evidently not the principal object of the measure. He apprehended that the real object of the bill was, as two or three of the existing theatres (not the two large theatres) were good spe culations, the proprietors of them wanted to have the power of performing all the year round: Upon the whole, he did not think there was anything in the pre amble of the bill which would make their lordships anxious to pass the bill, and he did not think that any case of public grievance had been established which called on them to pass it. Earl MULGR AVE thought their lordships ought to allow the bill to go into committee, to inquire whether its provisions were necessary or desirable. With respect to the two winter theatres, whatever rights they might possess, it should be recollected that from time to time, since the acquisition of those rights, they had greatly increased their dimensions, thereby very much diminishing the effect of their performances, as well as the gratification of the audiences by whom those performances were attended. The object of this bill was to prevent these two monsters from swallowing up all other theatrical exhibitions. The object of this bill was by no means to allow the erection of an un limited number of theatres, but rather to place those already existing under advantageous regulations, and to render them as respectable as possible. The sub ject was one which he trusted their lordships would consider, with a view to the morals of the people. It was true that their lordships, and the class of society to which their lordships belonged, were not such fre quent visiters of theatres as in former times. Whether that was owing to the change which had taken place in hours, or to the mismanagement of the theatres themselves, he would not pretend to determine ; but such was certainly the fact. Their lordships ought, however, to recollect, that a very large body of the people were still attached to theatrical amusements ; and he hoped that, with reference to their enjoyments, their lordships would consent to consider the bill in committee. Lord W YNFORD observed that care ought to be taken not to invade the just rights of the two great theatres, the proprietors of which had vested large sums in them. A noble lord had, however, intimated that the proprietors of the great theatres had no ob jection to the existing minor theatres, but were desi rous that their number should not be increased. At least, therefore, a clause ought to be introduced in the bill to limit the other theatres to the existing number, and to prevent any theatre from being erected within two miles of London. Lord SE AGR A VE, in explanation, stated that the proprietors of the present theatres had no objection to the licensing of the present number of other theatres, under proper regulations with respect to the time at which they should keep open : but that proposition was refused. The Earl of MA LME SBUR Y objected to that provision of the bill which rendered it imperative on the Lord Chamberlain to license certain theatres. He objected also to the provision that no theatre should be erected to contain less than 1,500 persons. He re collected the time when the winter theatres were much smaller than at present ; and, for his own part, he preferred a small theatre to a large one, as in a small theatre alone could good acting be felt and enjoyed. The Marquis of WE STMEATH opposed the bill. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE replied. Their lordships then divided— A F o g r ai t n h s e t .it ...... ......................................................... 2.414 The bill was consequently lost. The Cost in Actions Bill went through a Committee. COUNTY CORONERS' BILL. IFFE 1 j h C h d e y a Dn\iViki ofe moved the committal o f h C o roners' RICHMONDn thought ri e to e N introduced neersL' with som e exp l anat i on that the bill g of its objects ; o bservin g , as he had frequently done, toueTotrou to have the warm contests which had taken place for the office of coroner, whenever that office became vacant, it did not appear to him that it was at all requisite to increase the emoluments of the situation. On that point, and on the clause which respected the issuing of the writs of summons, he entertained such strong doubts of the value of the measure that he was greatly inclined to move that it be committed on that day six months. Lord WHARNCLIFFE so far agreed with his noble friend that, on undertaking the management of this bill, he had felt it expedient to strike out those parts of the preamble which stated that the present emoluments of the coroner were insufficient. Lord WYN FORD said a few words, but we were unable to collect their tendency. After some conversation Lord WHARNCLIFFE consented to the order of the day being discharged, and the house adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 27. The SPEARRR took the chair at a quarter past five o'clock. The house was summoned to attend a conference with the Lords. Lord SANDON presented a petition from the clergy of Liverpool against the admission of Dissen ters to the Universities. Mr. ROBARTS presented a petition from Maid stone against the Church Rate Bill. Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from Bridport to the same effect, and one from Dumfries 'and Westminster for reform in the medical laws. • Mr. R. TREVOR presented, a petition from a parish in Carmarthen in support of the church. Mr. SHELL gave notice that on Wednesday next he would present a petition from the parish of St. Thomas, Dublin, relative to church-rates. Lord ALTHORP presented four petitions against clauses in the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, and for the better observance of the Sabbath Day. The noble lord then moved the further consideration of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to know from the right lion. the Secretary for Ireland, if it was intended to bring in the bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt in Ireland. Mr. LITTLETON said as soon as the mode of its working had been experienced in England, the princi. ple would be extended to Ireland. Mr. 0' R EIL L Y asked if the laws of th, treaty be tween Don Miguel and Don Pedro, as stated in the pa pers, were authentic. He understood that the religious members of convents were excluded from the general amnesty. Lord PALMERSTON was not able to say when he could lay the treaty on the table of the house, but the moment he had received the authentic copy, he should feel it his duty to do so. ( Hear.) He thought that the latter part of the question had reference to domestic policy, which the Government was not called upon to answer, although the Government would 'do their best to have the terms of the treaty fairly acted upon. Mr. O'REILLY expressed his satisfaction at the explanatio n of the noble lord. The further consideration of the report of the com mittee on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill was then proceeded with. On the question that the amendments be read a second time, trdo he fi which distress, itLordterphie. power in,sgh, eacoCr‘euii gave 0: t efta S heit noet o honecp : \ sat l ac: Ir E geeous Re. commissioners parochial S TI i consequence aEhel There to call the attention circumstance tiec o sl f aau t ps h eo e wine d r iffi ttho c e u r l e t b y fuils i l ] which the poor would be placed in cases of extreme as to an a o lt t e h r er o p r o s i u n s t p t e o n w d h t i h ch e he would direct the attention of the noble lord, relative to regulations under which the parochial authorities acted. This power in his opinion should be modified. Mr. W A I,TE R thought that the objections which originally existed against the bill still remained in full force. It could not be denied that the measure was, to all purposes, a revolutionary one. The three principal objections which he made were to the central board, the workhouse system, and the emigration clauses. The first would be productive of the most un bounded patronage, and no alteration could meet his objections upon that point. ( Hear, hear.) btinnheo there rt n eh beanyehb had salutarybill dl ebroughte still,t , remaineds c n h i dn a With respect to the work-house system, had there aht o r e ut ? c cruelty e. i H dt h. He the( andti(Hear, a pr:rho ee that ahri.ti)l t n o t g l e ia c t m oun a nt t d oppres sion of the work-house system as set forth l The report recommended that the poor should authorities, and yet the bill brought them into direct contact with them by compelling a residence in the workhouse. It appeared that the principle of the emigra tion clause was, that one part of a parish might trans port the other out of the country, for no other crime than that of poverty. Nothing could be more cruel and unjust than such a power. He thought the pro vision relative to voluntary emigration was quite absurd, for no man, whatever his destination might be, would consent to become a voluntary emigrant for life. A portion of the rules was to be set aside for this purpose, and the remainder would be barely able to support the resident paupers. But what would become or. the pauper population that was growing up ? Where would the funds come from for the growing po pulation ? Mr. G. F. YOUNG admitted that the amend ments made by the noble lord had considerably im proved the bill ; still he felt the same objections to the principles of the measure which he felt when it was first introduced, and which he then stated. As to the change made in the bastardy clause, he (Mr. Young) had heard many gentlemen say that the clause, as it originally stood, ought not to have been ruo e authorities r i 1, lit.o s hr e ei withdrawn, and that the withdrawal of it was a piece of weakness in the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) •He considered the measure as one from which all .the,in jury anticipated from it in some quarters would not re sult, because he was sure it would be found not to work. He approved of the change which limited the duration of the powers of the commissioners, and he should have been glad if a limit had been put to the space to which these powers should extend. -- Mr. BENETT said that so strong were his objec tions to the principles of this bill, that he hoped it would either be modified in another place or thrown out. altogether. He had a horror of workhouses ( Hear, hear), and he therefore objected to their cram ming them with adult paupers. In the county which he had the honour to represent, not one parish out of six had workhouses. Yet he admitted that the amend ments made by the noble lord in regard to work houses had improved the bill. . Mr. ROBINSON did not think the amendments made in the bill so extensive as should induce the house to support the measure, especially at so late a period of the session. The magistrates and overseers of the poor throughout the country were strongly oppo sed to the measure. He knew many who were opposed to it ; and that more especially this session. It was a general opinion in which he (Mr. R.) ' joined that the bill ought to be circulated in all the parishes throughout England, in order that the remarks of those who understood the subject might be given upon it. He was glad that the noble lord had given up that severe part of the bastardy clause, which subjected the grandfather to support his bastard grand-children iyt the event of the death of the mother. He thought it impossible, however, to legislate with advantage, when the real question on every division was wh ether the s Ministers should or should not go out of office . ( Hear. Mr. SI, A NE Y thought that for the sak e of the poor themselves they ought not to delay the passing of this measure. It brought back the poo r laws to the spirit and meaning of the original law which en acted them ( Hear); and, in his opinion, it did no more than was absolutely necessary for that purpose. I:le was convinced that the tendency of the bill would b to raise the condition of the people. He was not sur prised at the opposition of the hon. member for Wilt shire to the measure, for in the county of Wilts it was notorious that the poor laws were at present worse ad ministered than in any other ; and the hon. member had been so long accustom ed to look on them with d "nistered, that he now looked on favour, as there a mi the deformities practised there as beauties. Mr. BENETT explained. Mr. R 1 cli Am.) S, from a sense of duty, felt bOund to support the bill. Notwithstanding the articles which appeared in some journals, and especially in one jour nal, a gainst the Government, and against this bill in particular, he was convinced that the people had too much sense not to trust to the wisdom of Parliamen t for doing that which was best for them. He should be very glad to see the editor of the Times called to the bar of the house, and he was only debarred from making a motion to that effect by the feeling that it should be done by an older member of the house. He would again implore the noble lord to make the mea sure universal throughout the three kingdoms. Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD objected to the rnea duc- sure before the house as one which would be p i r i o tive of the worst effects ; and he also was e qu i,f a it y op posed to the course which the house puilueol o. : ffe e ct spect to the general policy of the country. Th s of this of its measure would be to turn the i :a_nper oh 1, ' and country into murderers. (Cries of ' ° ll to laughter.) The present bill could be compared 0 , nothing but a firebrand thrown into a magazinel gunpowder. (Cries o f .‘ Oh, oh !") He particularlyasthe protested against three of its clauses_:authsee first a l:: bastardy clause ; the second, the 1 c board; and such unlimited powers to the central 6 1 _ e third was that which forced the poor to go- t I , l_ workhouse. He especially protested against t‘ifl7: clauses of the bill ; but, particularly opposed to iz parts of it he had mentioned, he p rotested against i` as a whole. c bill Mr. A. BARI NG was sur e t h e ob j ect of thdeed, was to improve the condition of the poor ; and, inod for if that were not its object, the bill would be gQ yed o f ape no thing. ( Hear, hear.) But while he ,rrtwhich the bill as a whole, there were some partscqed in par he thought might be improved. He (M e il ow ance h e a ticular to the clause which related to t . a the • state of system. If government only recollec t carry i ng - this I , the country, they would hesitate as to 'hiro- \confessed clause into effect. He ( Mr. Baring/ self to be alarmed at the abruptness Of the, 1 1 e , diffi. change. The house might have g ot out 01 ter safety culties connected with the change with gre r a must be than the present bill provided. The '...., poor which it brought back to that state of improven.ent degrees ; was the object of the bill to bring them by t the a and, therefore, he ( Mr. A. Baring) trembled. ,