The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-01 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.-MORNING POST.

The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod reported that Mr.
Bittleston was in attendance, in obedience to the order of their
lordships.
By direction of the LORD CHANCELLOR he was placed at the
bar.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, having quitted the wool-
sack and taken his seat at the table, put the following ques-
tions :

What is your name? Thomas Bittleston.
Of what profession are you ? lam editor of the Morning
Post.

Are you the acting editor? A. lam the acting editor.
Now, in answering the questions that I or any other peer
may put, you are to understand that you are not bound to
make any answer to such as may tend to criminate you, or
subject you to any proceeding either at law or in this house of
a criminal nature. To any question the tendency of which
may be to make what you say in answer actionable you are
bound to answer ; but to such as may subject you to any cri-
minal proceeding, either by this house, as for a contempt, 'or'
at law, you are not bound to answer. Do you understand?
Yes, my lord.
Were you the acting editor of the Morning Post last week
—on Thursday and Friday last week, for instance ? I was.
In consequence of your situation as the acting editor do you
see the matters published in the paper before they are inserted?
I do.

_
Before they are printed ? Yes, before they are printed.
You are not the printer, I believe? No, my lord.
Have you the power of inserting, rejecting, and altering ar-
ticles for publication in that paper ? I have.
Do you possess that power generally without control ?
Generally.
Did you insert all the articles that appeared in the Morning
Post of Friday last except the advertisements ? For the most
part I did.
Do you know the leading articles, those that are in larger
characters and wider lines ? Did you see these articles ? Yes.
Did you read them ? I did.
Now, remember the caution I gave you, that you were not
bound to answer questions that might criminate yourself. If
you say " No" to the next question nobody can injure you, but
if you answer in the affirmative you may be injured. Now I
have given you a fair warning. You say you read the leading
articles. Did you understand them ? I did.
Very well. Could you have suppressed or prevented their
being printed ? I could.
Were those articles inserted by your authority ? They
were.

Now, have you anything to say respecting the article in the
Morning Post of Friday which the house has thought proper
to declare a gross breach of the privileges of this house ?
You are aware of the vote of the house I suppose ? I am.

Was that article--and for the third time I-Caution you that
no one can injure you ; it will be no contempt in any way if
you refuse to answer the question I am about to put—did you
write that article, or get it from any other person ? I object
to answer that question.
Very well. Do I understand you to say—mind I do not
blame you—that you decline giving any further information,
not only as to who is the author, but as to the hand from which
you received it ? I respectfully decline giving any further in-
formation, excepting that I admit my responsibility for the
article.

That is a conclusion in law; but you decline answering the
question ? I do.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Before any other peer
puts any question to you, I ask you whether you have any
thing to state to the house respecting the article upon which
the house has expressed an opinion, with a view to alter that
opinion, which you may be able to do, notwithstanding the
vote of the house; or, if you have anything to offer in exte-
nuation•of the offence?

Mr. Bittleston—l thank your lordship for the permission
' you have given me to address you in extenuation ; but, as in
the painful novelty of my present situation I cannot trust to
my own self-possession, I hope I may be indulged in the
liberty of referring to written memoranda.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (concurrently with several
peers)—Certainly. Perhaps it would be more advisable, if
any other peer has any question to put, that it should be put
before the gentleman proceeds with his address.
Earl GRE Y—l find in the paper the following passage :
" The Morning Herald, which contains the fullest report of
Lord Brougham's speech in moving the judgment of the
House of Lords upon the case, states that Lotd Brougham
concluded in these words I move, my lords, that thejudg-
ment 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, all concur in asserting that Lord
Brougham moved, that the judgment be affirmed,' and that
the judgment was affirmed accordingly.' "
Now, I wish the witness to be asked if it is meant that the
information here alluded to was furnished by certain peers?

Mr. Bittleston—l do not understand it sc.,.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you mean that you
do not think that is the meaning of the passage ?

. -
A. lam sure it is not the meaning of the passage.
Earl GREY—You say that the meaning is not that it was
founded on the information of peers ?
A. lam sure that is not the meaning.
Earl GREY then said he concurred entirely in the pro-
priety of the practice of cautioning persons under examination
that they were not under the necessity of answering any ques-
tions tending to criminate themselves. It appeared, however,
to him that the person at the bar could say nothing that could
criminate himself more than what he had already stated. He
admitted that he was the editor, that he had the general super-
intendence of the paper, and directed the publication of all the
articles that appeared in it ; that he had the inspection of all,
and approved, rejected, and inserted at pleasure. He had fur-
ther admitted that he was fully responsible for the publication;
and it did not appear to him that the house could desire further
information to criminate the individual at the bar. Under
these eircumstanges, he wished to put it to the house whether
this individual could claim the benefit of the rule of exemption,
upon the ground of not criminating himself, to the question as
to whether he received the article voted by their lordships a
breach of privilege from any other person, and from whom.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that his noble
friend had, as he always did, very fairly submitted the ques-
tion to the consideration of their lordships. He differed from
his noble friend ; and it was his duty to give their lordships
his opinion as a lawyer, which he did with all possible deference
and humility. If he could see that the answering this ques-
tion could not tend to criminate or injure the witness he should
say that his protection was at an end, for it was clear he could
not refuse to criminate another, although he was himself pro-
tected. No person was protected there or in the courts of law
from disclosing the authorship of others. Although entitled
to protection for himself as a witness, no individual was en-
titled to extend that protection to another. Now, if their
lordships would attend to the tendency of the course of exa-
mination proposed by his noble friend, they would see that the
witness would be entitled to claim his exemption as to it. The
witness had avowed his responsibility. Quoad hoc, then, he
was answerable and punishable, and no disclosure of any other
party's culpability would relieve him, for his hand had given.
the article to be printed. But there were two things to be
determined : first, whether the party at the bar was guilty or
not guilty ; and next, what ought to be the amount of punish-
ment. Now the question proposed by his noble friend could
not be answered either one way or the other without bringing
the witness within the scope of the second head of inquiry,
viz., what amount of punishment was to be inflicted upon
him ? For, suppose he answered the question by stating
that he alone was concerned in composing the article in ques-
tion, suppose he said that he himself wrote it, that would be an
answer in aggravation of punishment, for he would avow him-
self to be the uninstigated author of a deliberate and wilful
act in violation of their lordships' privileges. He hoped their
lordships followed him in this argument, for he confessed he
could see no answer that this individual could make which
would not come within the. rule of exemption. If, on the
other hand, then, he disclosed the name of one or more per-
sons as partners with him, then would his conduct fall within
another description of offence. He would then stand at the
bar of their lordships' house as having confessedly conspired
with others to violate their lordships' privileges,and conspiracy
was always an aggravation of every effence. The mildest
form of that offence, in the present case, would be that the
individual at the bar had printed what another had written ;
but even that would be a grave offence. If the witness said
that he had written the article it would be an offence that he
had written the libel, and punishment must follow ; but if he
said that he had partly composed it with another, then be
would appear as having embarked in a conspiracy with ano-
ther wilfully and scandalously to violate their lordships' privi-
leges. The mode of further examination proposed by his
noble friend was not such as ought to receive the sanction of
their lordships. If his noble friend, however, thought fit to
ask if A. B. gave the article in question to the witness, that
was a different matter, and that question he could safely an-
swer. But that was not the nature of his noble friend's question.
Earl GREY differed from his noble and learned friend;
but still he would not press the question, as it appeared to be
his opinion that he ought not. He was in :candour bound,
however, to state that he was not convinced by the argument
of his noble friend that the course of examination he had pro-
posed was not such as he might with propriety follow. The
person at the bar having avowed his responsibility for the ar-
ticle which had appeared in the paper of which he was editor,
he merely wished to ask him who was the writer of that article,
and he could not see that the question of conspiracy could be
brought into the matter at all, in the event of the answer being
that he had received it from some other person. As to the
particular mode of putting the question prescribed by his noble
and learned friend, he should be sorry to suspect any man of
having furnished that article. ( Hear, hear.) To ask whether
any particular person had furnished it would, he thought,
equally involve the question of conspiracy as the more general
mode of putting the question proposed by himself, but objected
to by his noble and learned friend. He would not, however,
persevere in putting a question which his noble and learned
friend had stated to be an improper question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR feared he had been ill-
understood. There was a difference between the conspiracy
of two persons to- commit an offence and the commission of
that offence by concert between two or more individuals. If
his noble friend asked whether John Nokes gave the'particular
article complained of, and the answer was in the affirmative,
that would not prove a conspiracy. It would be no conspiracy
according even to the technical, refined, and subtle definition