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

in it, where the printer's name was inserted.—(Hear.)
I dare say (continued the Noble and Learned Lord)
you all read those breaches of privileges with abhor
rence.—(Hear, hear.) I dare say my Noble and
Learned Friend on the Woolsack, when a newspaper is
brought to him, cries out, " Avaunt ! Carry it away ;
I won't have it. What ! speak of what passes in the
House ! Is it possible that I can peruse that ?—(Hear,
hear.) Is it possible that I can give my countenance
to that—my sixpence to the encouragement of such en
enormous offence ?—( Roars of laughter.) Why I ant
an accessory after the fact if I do so ; therefore away
with the monstrous violation of the privileges of my
House !"—( Hear, hear, and renewed laughter.) That
would be consistent with my Noble and Learned Friend's
present notion of the doctrine of the privileges
of this House, and I do not know that it is not so,
though I have never heard it distinctly stated ; but at
all events, as my Noble and Learned Friend treats it, I
your Lordships are all accessories after the fact.—
(Hear, hear.) What is more you benefit by it.—
(Hear, hear.) You pay for it—you furnish the funds
for carrying on the breach.—(Hear, hear.) You pay
the reporters for coming here to report your proceed-
ings—( Hear, hear)—and you open your galleries and '
give them convenient accommodation, and furnish there
with seats that they may have the better end more I
comfortable converdence for committing this f u! and I
astonishing offence, which literally astounds my Nobs:,
and Learned Friend to find that it should ev. r
have been committed.—(Hear, and immense ciiceriri.)
What do I make of that ? Why, that it does not I
quite become us to put our privileges into our pockete,
just when an individual
snowing those srivi
thmayr e
bv eer yr dr
,z,i,ye
notfeitih efroril year,ruin
s by
leges still to slumber, we should start up and sra,
" Oh dear ! it is very true we have priv degas, e
quite forgot—let us bring those privileges into exercise,
and thus compel the individual to submit to an injury, it I
not to his total ruin."—(Hoer, hear.) I don't think
that is quite consistent ; 1 don't thick that is quite de-
corous, or quite in conformity with the high sense of I
justice of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) But there was
another thing. He did not say that any privilege of
Parliament could go into disuetude any more than a
point of law. But the law admitted of consent or
assent ; and if their Lordships allowed certain person,
to do any thing,'and to publish all their debates and ail
their reports of Committees—( ar, hear)—had not
the printer a perfect right to say he had their Lordslii; s
consent for printing what he had printed.—(llea-,
hear.) They had not stirred nor whispered a
syllable against the system that had been ptileued,
therefore he had their Lordships' consent. He (Lord
Brougham) came in the third place to deny that this
was a breach of privilege—not only that, a consent was
given. His Noble and Learned Friend had road the
resolution that it was a breach to publish this without the
1;0
consent of the House ; and he had now to prove then it I
was published with the leave of the House. He had
shown that in one way already, by showing the tacit
consent of the House ; but he would contend that hero
was a tacit answer in the affirmative to a direct appliei,-
, tion. As his Noble and Learned Friend read the reso-
lotion, he of course meant to read it that it was a
breach to publish it without the leave of the House
had and obtained ; and he would show that that leave
had been had and obtained.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The House of Commons sent a messenger to their
Lordships, and one or the other of his Noble
Friends must have gone down, in the solemn manner
that was known to their Lordships to he consistent with
their proceedings, to the bar of the House and received
a message from the Commons, asking leave to here the
report of their Committee upon New Zealand ; the
question must afterwards have been put by one or
other of his Noble Friends to the House, awl there
must have been placed, and exist on the journals of the
House, an order directing a copy of the report to be
sent to the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
Therefore he would take it that his Noble and Learned
Friend en the Woolsack, or his other Noble Friend .
(Earl Shaftesbury) was prepared to show him an order '
appended to that order, saying, " always on condition,
that the House of Commons shall not make any use of
it, that it shall not print it, that it shall only read it
itself, and that it shall not sell it."—(Hear, bear.) But
here comes the House of Commons, and opened a libel
shop—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and asked to have
their libels retailed at 6d. or Is., according to their
length ; then, their Lordships being in the other House
of Parliament, and the proceedings originally emanating
from them, they became partners in the libel shop—
not sleeping partners, but avowed partners.—( Hear.
hear, and much cheering.) They knew the order of
the House of Commons. They had it before there,
and they were aware that they had resolved that their
proceedings should be sold ; and this was ore of their
proceedings.—(Cheering.) Now he wished their Lord-
ships only to look at what was the strict letter of Par.
liamentary proceedings, and what was the strict letter
of the law. His Noble Friend who spoke last (Eat i
Shaftesbury) was an old Member of Parliament ; but
his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, he
might say, was only a Member of yesterday, though it
might have been better for the country if he had been a
a Member for a much longer period. His Noble and
Learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) had a Par-
liamentary experience of twenty-three years, -and he
(Lord Brougham) was sorry to say that he had an ex-
perience of thirty years, and he could assure his Noble
and Learned Friend on the Woolsack that just
as he acquired Parliamentary experience, so would
he lose his love for privilege, and be inclined
to learn not to but against privilege.—(Hear.)
Irony thing was more odious, more hateful than another,
it was the allowing a privilege to lie dormant till it was
made a topic in an argument forinjustice.—(Hear, hear.)
Again, every report in the House of Commons when
presented, was understood in Parliamentary law to have
been read at the table. The report in this case had
been communicated to the House of Commons with a
full knowledge of that Parliamentary usage. If a breach
of any privileges had been committed, it was the privileges
of the House of Commons, for the Report by being
read at their table had become part of their proceed-
ings.—(Hear,hear.) Even admitting that their Lord-
ships' privileges had been violated, the just way to deal
with the offender was to call him to their Lordships
bar. to hear his defence, and to inflict the punishment
which they might deem just. But by withholding the
evidence in this case, the petitioner would be exposed to
a verdict for an indefinite amount—whether 40s. or
5001.—(Hear, hear.) If the evidence was withheld, it
would go to the Jury that the petitioner had fabricated
the report.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble' and Learned
Lord went on to refer to a case in which an action for
libel had been brought against the publisher of a speech
made by Mr. Creevy, a Member of the House of Com-
mons in 1813. The action was brought by a collector
of taxes, upon whom the speech reflected. For
the defence he (Lord B.), who was Counsel for the
defendant, proposed to call a Member of Parliament to
prove that the speech had been spoken. Now not
having obtained leave of the House to do so, this cf
course was a breach of privilege ; but no objection was
raised at the trial to his calling the witness—though the
witness being prevented from attending, the Judge (Mr.
Justice Le Blanc) directed the fact to be admitted, that
the speech had been spoken ; and even in the House or
Commons the right to call such evidence had never
been questioned. If this doctrine of privilege was •
pressed to such an extent as some would press it, the
consequences would be most serious. The Noble Earl
(Roden) was about to bring forward the subject of the
Irish alleged misgovernment, and in so doing would
state a gi eat many things, reflecting not merely on
those connected with the Government, but on IVlagis-
trates, and on private individuals. Whoever published •
the speech of the Noble Earl would be liable to an
indictment, or to an action ; and as he would not be
allowed—according to this doctrine of privilege—to
prove the delivery of the speech—it would go to the
Jury that he had fabricated the speech, and the penalty
would be proportionably greater. Better, (continued
the Noble and Learned Lord)—better at once say,
there shall be no reporting of our proceedings, than to
open your doors and invite parties to publish your pro-
ceedings, and at the same time tell those who do so,
that they must beware—that they incur the risk of pu-
nishment—like the Empress Catherine, who after she
had murdered her husband, ordered his body
,to be
exhibited that the public might see there were no
marks of violence, but whomsoever approached near
enough to see, bayonets were pointed at their breasts.
My Lords, if you refuse this motion it will go forth to
the world that you are guilty of the hypocrisy of saying
to the world, " people may publish our proceedings—
but
we are so far from being sincere that whosoever
avails himself of our permission, will be liable to
punished in a criminal proceeding, and to be ruined,
perhaps, by damages, in a civil one?' My Lords, I
have spoken at greater length, and with more ardour,
than in my present state of suffering I ought to
have done ; but my heart is in this cause, and so long
as I am in this House injustice shall never without pro-
test be committed.—(Loud cheering.)
Lord HOLLAND thought there was no force in
the arguments of the Noble and Learned Lords. He
denied that this question involved the substantial justice
of the case. He did not believe there was a necee.
sity for quoting the evidence ; and in feet the only
ground upon which the petitioner claimed the indul-
gence of their Lordships was that he had committed a
House
,fsi
dNCe
noimbei Commons.
as to
breach of their privileges.—( Hear.)
land) could not admit that the privileges of their Lord-
ships were dependent upon the
theirh eied (nLo to Lordships'rsdeelhielnwl There could be nothing unjust in
the
as casese
Committee.
Infojiftttheaeo
y.
afotrtchi negrtehcieui re
request
privileges
individual; bu t, i n
orisdbseapptdeoa
eractblihrneegtaghfdiravyotemnhb
reatohswkeeatnlosii
them, if this request were ranted,
tLheeayrnceoduldFrriaefnudsehatod permitsh shown
n evidenceb y
gsfejav,cet andheNi a witness
speeches spoken in that House.
aware of the analogy between Peer
gwingn making
evidence a
speech
t theb before
r bra er
, or before
guilty not only of a breach of
would ask if their Lordships were prepared to allow the
clerkswatat passedt h e
it
nabtlhe
their
ro
Lboerdcsahlilpe:ds
Htoo
were
to do this, they
the orders of this House, but of an Act of Parliament. 1
would be noinu