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

The Bill of Rights expressly stated that no speech,
debate, or proceeding of Parliament, shall be questioned
in any place out of Parliament. Now, surely it would
not be contended that the speech of a Peer before that
House, or the evidence of a witness before a Committee
was not a proceeding of Parliament. His Lordship
then alluded to the case of Lord Abingdon, and con-
tended that if that case had been an action for damages,
or if the case had not been admitted, that House would
never have afforded the means of proving that a Noble
Lord in addressing that House bad made use of certain
expressions.—(Hear, hear.) If their Lordships ad-
mitted the production of evidence in this case, they could
not refuse the same request if made relative to the pu-
blication of a speech. God forbid he should ever wish to
prevent the publication of their Lordships' debates, or
wish them to push their privileges to excess. He had
often, on former occasions, begged their Lordships not
to insist on their privileges in a rigid manner ; but
there was a great difference between not punishing
a breach of privilege, and actually acknowledging
a breach of privilege, and assisting in the man-
ner proposed. If a clear case of necessity could be
made out, that this was a case affecting life, limb, or pro-
perty, it might be a matter worthy of consideration,
but with all due deference to the two Noble and
Learned Lords, he did not think that this evidence
was necessary to the defence. Much sarcasm had been
thrown out as to the technicalities of the law of evi-
derce, but he certainly understood that the Court was
in all eases bound to receive the best possible evidence.
Now he would ask, what evidence could any Court re-
quire more than that the statement bad been made on the
authority of the House of Lords, as proved by docu-
ments published and sold as such. The Court would
be bound to receive such evidence as the best possible
evidence, for lie could not conceive how that could be
considered as possible es idence which the highest Court
in the kingdom had determined should not he giVen.
If they granted this petition, it would be utterly impos-
sible to stop there. There was nothing peculiar in
this case which should prevent others from presenting
similar petitions ; and what would become of the
freedom of debate, if every speech made io that
House was liable to be prosecuted for what any
individual might considt r as libellous matter con-
tained in it? and in the trial of that question evidence
he permitted to be given as to what passed in their
Lordships' House. The Noble and Learned Lord had
said that this had no connection with any other ques-
tion ; but it must be -in the recollection of all their
Lordships, that there were matters pending between
the other House of Parliament and certain Courts of
Law, touching Questions of privilege, which might even-
tually he brought before their Lordships for decision by
Writ of error ; and such being the case, he thought it
was the duty of their Lordships to abstain from any
proceeding which might' bear the slightest appearance
of prejudging that question. He felt that the granting
the prayer of this petition would be inflicting a heavy
blow, and a most injurious proceeding as regarded the
privileges of this House, while it would in no way what-
ever assist the defendant.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH had been a member of
the Committee ; and notwithstanding all that bad
fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord, he did not see
how that Committee could have come to a different de-
cision. The Committee could not have advised the
House to do away with their privileges, although the
House itself might determine to do so, and he still ad-
hered to the opinion that that Committee had come to
a proper decision. He had never contended for an ex-
cessive or harsh observance of the privileges of that
House ; but what was now asked was not that the
House would overlook a breach of its privileges, but
that it would facilitate the publication of libellous mat-
ter by affording the publisher means for its justification.
Their Lordships then divided, when their appeared—
Contents
Non-Contents lB
Majority for granting the prayer
of the petition__
13
_ _

Their Lordships then adjourned at Teu Minutes after
Seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, .11L4ant 11.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

A Messenger from the Trinity House appeared at
the bar, with the annual returns which were laid on the
table.

Major WOOD brought in the General Cemetery
Bill, which was read a first time.

Sir MATTHEW WOOD presented a petition
against the Commercial (Blackwall) Railway Bill.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition in favour
of the Manchester and Birmingham Extension Railway
Bill. .