The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-12 00:00:00

IRELAND.

On the motion of the Marquis of WESTMEATH
returns were ordered of the convicts discharged before
the expiration of their sentence from March 1, 1835.

PRIVILEGE.

On the Order of the Day for considering the report
of tho Committee upon the petition of John Joseph
Lawson, praying that their Lordship's officer might at-
tend the Court of Queen's Bench with the notes of
the evidence before the New Zealand Committee,
Lord LYNDHURST said he felt it his duty to
call the attention of the House, because he differed
in opinion from the majority of the Committee.
The facts were as follow :—Last Session, a Committee
was appointed to consider the state of New Zealand.
The evidence of that Committee was communicated by
their Lordships to the House of Commons, and by that
House published. Certain persons deeming their interests
to be affected by the statements in that Report, animad-
verted upon it, extracting portions of the evidence to make
their observations intelligible. In consequence of this-
an action was brought against the printer of those ob-
servations, who, in legal phrase, justified—that is, un-
dertook to prove the truth of everything he had stated,
and upon that issue was joined. According to the
rules of evidence the defendant could not prove
his case, but by producing the officer who had taken
the evidence before their Lordships' Committee. On the
application of the counsel for the defendants—the At-
torney-General—the trial was put off to afford time for
an application to their Lordships to allow their officer to
attend the Court. The Committee had decided that this
application should not be granted. He (Lord L.) could
not understand by what reason that refusal was justified
—especially as the result would be to produce great
injustice. Something was said upon the Committee
about the privileges of their Lordships—but those
privileges were intended to advance and not to defeat
the ends of justice. But the main ground, he believed,
on which the decision of the Committee had been formed,
was that the petitioner had violated a Standing
Order of their Lordships, that no one should publish
any of the proceedings of their Lordships. All that the
defendant had done was to publish certain passages
from the evidence to make his observations intelligible.
I f, in so doing, he had violated their Lordships' priviliges,
let him be punished specifically for so doing, but it would
be highly unjust to withhold from him the means of ob-
taining justice in this cause, for their Lordships could not
know whatthe amount of the verdict would be, and there-
fore the punishment would not be apportioned to the of-
fence. It had been said by a Noble Lord that it was ne-
cessary that a proper protection should be extended to the
witnesses before their Committee ; but does the witness
meet protection ? There was not any petition from the
witness in this case. The witness was not assailed—the
witness was the assailant ; and what the defendant asked
was that justice should not be defeated, but that evidence
should be produced, that the Jury might decide according 11
to evidence. An observation had been made, the force
of which he could not understand ; it had been stated
by the Noble Lord, that it had been decided by the
Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench
that an action would lie against the printer of the House
of Commons for printing a petition to that House
which contained libellous matter, and it had been
said that that case might come before their Lord-
ship's House. Of course, if it came before their Lord-
ships, it would be decided according to the orders of
their Lordship's House. He confessed he did not see
the force of this objection, but he merely stated what
he wished it to he, but at all events should that case
be brought before the House all the facts would be
admitted on both sides, and it would be merely as to
the question of law that their decision would be called
fear, but what the petitioner asked for in this case was
that the officer should be permitted to offer evidence as
to facts ; in the other case the facts were admitted ;
there could be nothing added to them or taken from
them ; he did not see how this case could have
any bearing on the present question. A Noble in-
didividual, for whom he entertained the highest
respect, had asked why the Queen's Bench could
not alter their technical rules of evidence ? Now, if
there were anything less technical than another, it was the
rules of evidence in Courts of Justice. These rules
had been long fixed, and were founded on experience
and philosophy—there was nothing technical about
them, besides, the Court of Queen's Bench had no
power to alter the rules of evidence, if that Court
were to attempt to do so, the case might be brought
by writ of error before their Lordships; and their Lord-

ships could not alter the rules of evidence—their
Lordships were bound to decide according to the
law, and the law of evidence was part of the law
of the land. He was not aware of any further ob-
jections that • had been urged before the Committee
against granting the prayer of the petition. How
would the House of Corurrons act under similar cir-
cumstances? That Hohse had privileges nearly similar
to their Lordships, and were as strict in enforcing the
observation of them. He held in his band a
paper, .to which he would direct their Lord-
ships' attention. It appeared that on the 12th
of July, 1820, the House of Cow mons had ordered the
short-hand writer who had attended the Police Com-
mittee of 1816, to attend at the trial of Meek v. the
Magistrates of Middlesex, and to produce the notes
which he had taken before the Committee in 1817.
There were certain cases in which the House of
Commons had refused to grant a similar petition—.
that House were in the habit of doing what he should
wish their Lordships to do, to examine the merits of
each particular case and decide accordingly. It had
been said that this case differed from that of Meek,
inasmuch as Meek had not violated the privileges of the
House. He would ask bow the petitioner in this case
had violated the priaeges of their Lordships' House—
he had merely published a sufficient portion of the evi-
dence to illustrate his own observations. Their Lord-
ships were the highest court of judicature in England,
and he could not believe that they would refuse to per-
mit this evidence to be produced, whhout which justice
could nut be administered, and he would therefore
humbly submit to their Lordships, that the prayer of
this petition should be also granted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that having
had the honour to have been the Chairman of the
Committee to whom this petition had been referred, he felt
it necessary to make a few observations. Whatever deci-
sion their Lordships might come to he thought they
would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion
that the Committee had arrived at a correct decision.
It had be n said there would be a hardship on an indi-
vidual in their Lordships refusing to grant the prayer
of this petition, but the question was whether it was for
the interests of the country that they should maintain
the privileges of the House. As far as ore of the par-
ties was concerned he (the Noble and Learned Lord)
knew he would be happy if the House could accede to
the prayer of the petition, because that would enable
him to vindicate what lie had put upon the record. The
petition stated the fact of the report, and then it stated
that before the Committee that was sitting upon the
New Zealand case, the evidence of Polack and Pewel
was given, and that certain observations were made
thereon. Their Lordships had not the subject of the
act before them, 'out the fact of the printing of the
evidence of the witnesses was admitted—evidence
given before a Select Committee of that House. The
petitioner then stated that he was advised, and verily
believed, that it was indispensably necessary that the
original examination, given and signed by the said wit-
nesses respectively, and afterwards printed and published,
as aforesaid, should be produced at the trial. It was
stated further that the evidence taken was according
to an order of the House, printed and presented to the
House of Commons—that it 'was again printed by the
House of Commons, and afterwards sold at various
places in London. The petitioner carefully avoided
connecting the selling of it with any order of the
House of Commons, but contented himself by saying,
that it was again printed by the House of Commons,
and afterwards sold at various places in London. But
the fact of the printer having published evidence taken
in their Lordships' House was the ground on which he
came for their Lordship,' assistance. By one of the
standing orders of the House, it was resolved that it
was a breach of the privileges of the House to print or
publish any thing relating to the proceedings of the
House without the leave of the House. The party, ,
therefore, who came to ask their Lordships to make an
order by which he might he enabled to protect himself •
against the consequences of publishing what he was the
author of, came to state that he had been guilty of a
breach of a standing order of the House—he having
published that which was the subject matter of the
action.—( Hear.) This resolution was ordered to
form a standing order of the House, and whether
their Lordships should thick proper now to maintain
that standing order or not, whether they should think
it right for the interests of the country that that resolu-
tion should continue to form part of the standing orders
or not, was what he apprehended could not he taken
into consideration at present. The question was, whe-
ther a party who had violated a standing order, could
come and ask for the protection of the House against
that act. However hard a refusal might operate on en
individual, yet if the House was to accede to this
prayer, he would ask their Lordships to consider how
far they then might be called on to go ? Any party who
had violated an order of the House, might come to the
bar and say that he had done so, and thereby got him-
self into difficulty, but he prayed their Lordships to do
that for his protection which no other power could do,
then they would, as a matter of course, have to
grant him their assistance. His Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) having attended the Com-
mittee,. of coarse knew the grounds on which the
Committee proceeded, and a very large part
of the Committee considered there were no grounds
whatever presented for inducing the Committee to re-
commend the House to accede to the prayer of the
petition. Supposing the petitioner had purchased this
report of a person authorised by the House of Com-
mons to sell it, and having so purchased it he had from
that copy printed it, would that make any difference ?
Was the House prepared to say that a party who had
violated a standing order could protect himself by say-
ing that somebody else had done it before him ? Or,
suppose it stood upon the fact of a sale by an order of
the House of Commons, were their Lordships prepared
to say that because the House of Commons thought
proper, for reasons known to itself, to authorise the
sale of a certain paper, that therefore their Lordships
were to be deprived of their privileges ? He apprehended
that would not follow. But their Lordships were not
now called upon to assert their privilege against the
House of Commons, or against an individual.--(Hear,
hear.) He would be the last man to assert any privi-
lege of their Lordships' House against the other
House of Parliament unless it were absolutely
necessary.—(Hear, hear.) But they were not
even called upon to assert their privilege to the hard-
ship of au individual ; what they were asked to do was,
to overlook their privilege, and to concede to an indi-
vidual that he had not done wrong. All the cases
bearing on this question had been brought under the
review of the Committee, but they were found to have
no application to the present case. The present case
stood by itself, there .was na precedent for it ; it rested
entirely on the question whether, for the sake of justice,
as it was stated in another Court, their Lordships
would dispense with their standing order against an in-
dividual who had, according to his own admission,
broken it.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY entirely concurred
in the view that had been taken of this subject by the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack,

Lord BROUGHAM was greatly taken by surprise,
by the statement of his Noble and Learned Friend on
the Woolsack. He (Lord Brougham) never held a
clearer opinion upon any subject of law or of privilege,
in or out of Parliament, than that which, upon much
consideration of this question be had come to respecting
it. He hoped he addressed a favourable audience so
far, as they had been described by his Noble and Learned
Friend, that they, being Judges and Members of the
highest Court of Judicature in this realm, would feel
the greatest reluctance to shut out any necessary evi-
dence, which in the administration of justice in the Court
below, was a desideratum ; because if the other House of
Parliament was disposed to lean rather against its
privileges, than for them, even upon ordinary
occasions and where culprits were brought to
its bar, charged with an infraction of its pri-
vileges, how infinitely more did it become
their Lordships' House, the highest Court, to lean
against straining its privileges against the interests, and
in defeasauce of the ends of strict, -rigorous, impartial
justice. But bow infinitely more did it behove that
House to administer, not the privileges of the House,
if that were the question, but to adopt topics drawn
from the existence of, and in regard to, those privileges,
with a view thereby to a movement calculated to shut
the door of justice.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped he ad-
dressed those who would bitterly lament to haVe thus to
act, if he showed them, as he should undertake to do,
with the most perfect confidence, that with every perfect
consistency with,„ their privileges, the prayer of this
petition might be glued. The whole of the argument
of his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack was
grounded on this, that because this party had fallen
into his present difficulty, and was thereby dragged into
a Court of Law, in consequence of violating the pri-
vileges of their Lordships' House, he could not come
and ask their Lordships to aid him out of the
difficulty which that violation had brought him into.
In the first place, he would admit, for the sake of the
argument, this to be true, in point of fact, upon which
all this consideration rested, viz. that it was in the course
of violating their Lordships' privileges the party had got
into his present difficulties—that he (lid what he did, in
nicking this communication of the evidence given before
the Committee upon the subject of New Zealand, ille-
gally ; and he would ask, even after admitting that, for
the sake of the argument—and he admitted it for the
salc.o of the argument only—whether there was any right
or ground whatever—whether there was common con-
sistency, or even decorum, in visiting him in this fashion ?
( Hear, hear.) Supposing he was guilty of a breach
of privilege. Did they, during the whole 365 days of
the year, attempt to exert their privilege against other
persons who were guilty of a breach of it ?—(Hear.)
Were their privileges not in a profound sleep through-
out the whole of the year ? Were they not in as pe-
rennial a suspended animation as any animal or being in
the whole of God's creation?—(Hear)—and was this the
way to awaken the sleeping lion, and to set him to roar
upon this unhappy creature ?—( Hear, and laughter.)
What was it their Lordships did every day and every
hour in constant breach of their privileges ? There
was not a newspaper that was net a breach of their pri-
vileges, from the vety beginning of it to the lest corner