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

" ---r"TIAV- JULY 1, 1834.
§tlN, LONDON, ..1.*Ur.4131,1-3..,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 30.

Their lordships were occupied during the morning in hear-
ing appeal cases.
Soon after four o'clock there was a very full attendance of
their lordships. The spaces below the throne and behind
the bar were crowded with members of the House of Commons.

-.- But

of conspiracy that one man printed what another wrote.
the case would be very different if two or more persons laid
their heads together to compose a calumny to the
_injury of
another. _ . . _

Earl GREY observed that the question he proposed was,
whether any other person gave the article in question to the
individual at the bar? _ _ _

----
The LORD CHANCELLOR contended that in what-
ever way the question could be answered, the same result, that
of making the situation of the witness worse, must be the con-
sequence. He then told Mr. Bittleston that if he had any
thing to state he might then state it.
Mr. Bittleston then addressed their lordships as follows.
Before he had got to the end of the second or third sentence,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, Perhaps you will al-
low me to remind you that you are in a situation of great dif-
ficulty. You are addressing yourself to this house. Take
great care that you say nothing to aggravate your offence.
Mr. Bittleston—l thank your lordship.
"My Lords—l trust I may be allowed, in the first place, to
state to your lordships that I have been advised that since I am
not entered at the Stamp-office as in any way connected with this
paper I might with safety have declined to answer any questions
put to me to-day. But it seems to me, my lords, that I best show
how little I have been influenced by any malignant motive when I
come forward to give to your lordships all the information which I
-can give, consistently with my duty to my employers,—justifying
where justification is possible, apologising where apology is mani-
feStly due, and professing my readiness to submit to punishment
*here no justification can be attempted and no apology received.
• "My Lords—l cannot for a moment dispute that a breach of
the privileges of this house has been committed, because I know
that any mention of the proceedinws of this house in a newspaper
is a breach of those privileges. But I trust that the observations
which the indulgence of your lordships allows me to address you
will, in some respects, materially alter your impressions as to the
nature and extent of the offence.
" My Lords—The paper which your lordships have pronounced
to be a libel contains two allegations respecting the noble and
learned lord on the woolsack. The first allegation is, that as a
judge he has reproved and punished parties for following a course
which, as counsel, he recommended. The second allegation is,
that upon the discovery of this circumstance an improper inter-
ference took place in the entry of the occurrence upon your lord-
ships' minutes. I beg to remark separately upon these two allega-
tions, because the defence which I shall respectfully offer as to one
ot them would be wholly inapplicable to the other.
" Beginning, therefore, my lords, with the first allegation, that
which imputes to the noble and learned lord the condemnation of
the course he had himself advised, I beg. to recall to your recollec-
tion the case upon which the allegation is made. - The case of So-
larte v. Palmer was tried before Lord Tenterden nth year 1828.
It was afterwards taken by a bill of exceptions into th Exchequer
Chamber; and finally brought by a writ of error before your lord-
ships
"My Lords--It was always perfectly understood that when the
judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was pronounced upon the bill
of exceptions the noble and learned lordoccupied the situation which
he now occupies ;_ and it never was suspected or insinuated that the
noble and learned lord on that occasion advised an appeal to your
lordships against that judgment.
"But, my lords, it was asserted that at the trial' in 1828, in
which the noble and learned lord was concerned as counsel, lord
Tenterden clearly expressed his opinion that the point raised was so
doubtful, and the sum disputed so considerable, that the question
ought to be brought before the highest tribunal in the country, by
which he can have meant no tribunal but this house. And it was
further asserted that the noble and learned lord at that time, and
on that occasion, testified his perfect acquiescence in the opinion so
expressed by lord Tenterden. The course, my lords, pursued by
the parties was, as I am instructed, the only course by which they
could, in compliance with the opinion of the Chief Justice and the
advice of their counsel, bring the case before this house.
" My Lords—The fact that the noble and learned lord did on
that occasion testify his acquiescence in lord Tenterden's opinion
was not first. stated in the Morning Post. It was stated in other
papers, and by the solicitors for one of the parties in the cause,who
vouched by the addition of their names for the truth of their asser-
tion. Before the statement was repeated in the Morning Post
every effort was made to test its accuracy. The short-hand writer's
notes of the original trial were referred to. The impression on the
mind of the eminent counsel who were employed with the noble
and learned lord was ascertained. My lords, after making every
inquiry, there seemed no reason to doubt that the fact was as it was
stated to be. .

Lords-" 143. —I understand that it has been urged in aggravation
of theeioffence that the truth of this statement was re-asserted after
the noble and learned lord had denied it. In the re-assertion of it
there was not the most remote purpose of imputing a wilful sup-
pression of the truth to the noble and learned lord ; and I very
humbly hope that your lordships will not find anything in the para-
graph referred to which demonstrates such a purpose. It was
imagined from the first that, the noble and learned lord, when he
moved the judgment of your lordships, did not recollect the opinion
he had formerly expressed as counsel in the pause. It appeared that
in moving the judgment of your lordships, the noble and learned
lord treated the point railed as one of clear and indisputable law,
without any allusion to the circumstance that he had formerly con-
curred with Lord Tenterden in a very different view of it. It ap-
peared also that the noble and learned lord assumed the case to be
entirely and absolutely governed by the precedent of ' Hartley v.
Case,' without any allusion to the circumstance that Lord Tenter-
den had suggested the reference of the case to the highest tribunal
in the country, expressly that the precedent of tlartley v. Case'
might be reconsidered by your lordships. These circumstances,
my lords, induced a belief that the memory of the noble and learned
lord was inaccurate in this particular. Confidence was placed ra-
ther on the notes of the short-hand writer, and in the recollection
of other individuals concerned in the cause. My lords, I most re-
spectfully submit that a suggestion that a noble and learned lord
does not distinctly remember in 1834 all that happened in one of the
many causes which engaged his attention in 1828, even if it can be
construed into a breach of privilege, can scarcely be held a very ma-
lignant libel; and I am bound to say, however reluctant 1 may be
to incur your lordships' further displeasure, that I have not yet seen
reason to alter the opinion which, supon such testimony as I have
described, I could not hesitate to form.
"My Lords—l have dwelt thus long upon this allegation because
I should regret much to be supposed to have wantonly aggravated
my offence by a repetition of it, after it had attracted your lordships'
notice. I humbly assure your lordships that, in re-asserting my
belief in the statement 1, hich had been made in other papers and
transferred to the Morning Post, I had no suspicion that I was
repeating any part of the offence of which the noble and learned
lord had complained.
66 My Lords—lt had appeared to me that the second allegation
in the paper before you—the allegation that the minutes of your
lordships
house had been garbled—was the allegation which had
a
subjected
iy me to the displeasure of your lordships.
Lords---I shall say little upon this point, because lam
aware that it is impossible to justify what has been done. I had
information from an informant on whom I could perfectly rely, that
a judgment had been affirmed' by your lordships, and that it was
entered as postponed sine die.' I confess it did not occur to my
mind that any existing usage of this house could by possibility
an idea had occurred to me, I should have undoubtedly made fur-
ther discrepancy between the fact and the record. If such
Isuffered myself to suppose that the minutes
of this inquirylhniesiheothus theee before
had been garbled. But having ascertained the cor-
rectness of the facts, I thought the inference drawn followed
of necessity from them. My lords, I understand that the
facts are actually true • that the printed minute of your
lordsh vote differs from the written minute ; and that
ip s'
neither the printed minute nor the written minute records cor-
rectly
the vote actually passed. lam informed further, my lords,
that the facts by which I was misled, misled also many of yourlord-
ships ; and that the inference which I improperly drew seemed to
some of your lordships the only inference that could be drawn. To
the. and learned lord I have already tendered the apology,
which
noble
iehis the
only atonement I can offer for my attack on his cha-
racter ;
and I desire to express to your lordships the sincere regret
I feel for the violation of your privileges, which that attack involved.
ca my. Lords—l have already trespassed long upon your lord-
ships' time. But I beg to be permitted to say further that I have
been for man!, years in various situations connectedwith this paper,
and that during that time I have so conducted myself as to fear no
inquiry into the motives by which Ihave been personallyinfluenced.
Since I have had the exclusive responsibity of the Morning Post,
that journal has been severe in its strictures upon the public cha-
racter of public men ; but it has never violated, by calumnious
scandal, the sanctity of domestic life. It has frequently urged di-
rect accusations against many individuals which might be met and
disproved ; but it has scrupulously avoided dark inuendo and ambi-
guous insinuation. In the very example before you, the distinct-
ness with which the facts are stated and the inferences drawn is
surely
a proof that the facts were believed to be true, and the infe-
rences supposed to be correct. And, my Lords, whatever may be
the legal interpretation of the offence for which I now await the
censure of your lordships, I trust I may without presumption re-
mark that it is not possible you can attribute a desire to infringe
your privileges to the conductors of a journal in which those privi-
leges have been uniformly supported with humble ability indeed,
but with conscientious zeal."
At the conclusion of this address, which was listened to with
the utmost attention, the Duke of WELLINGTON, Earl GREY,
and other peers on either side of the house coming- down to
seats near the bar, that they might the better hear it,
The LORD CHANCELLOR resumed his seat on the
woolsack. He wished to say a few words to their lordship;
before they proceeded to take any steps with regard to the in-
dividual before them, who, of course, was supposed to have
withdrawn, (Mr. Bittleston was permitted to remain behind
the bar to the end of the debate.) As few of their lord-
ships were acquainted with the course of proceedings in the
appeals he was anxious to state that the attorneys in the cause
on the losing side had put into the hands of the individual at
the bar a letter which was calculated most grossly to mislead.
He (the Lord Chancellor) could not believe that Lord Ten-
terden had doubted at all in the matter of " Hartley and Case."
That decision in that case had never been doubted by any
' judge, and it was the decision of Lord Tenterden himself.
What probability was there then of his having doubted it ?
He (the Lord' C'hancellor) argued it, and Lord Tenterden
gave judgment for himself and his learned brethren. It was
not the practice of the noble and learned lord to call for the
reconsideration of a case involving no principle, but merely a
question of practice. Supposing, however, that it was true
that that noble and learned lord recommended the reconsidera-
tion of the case, that was not after it had been argued in the
Exchequer Chamber. If it had come at once to that house
upon the recommendation of the noble and learned lord should
he have visited the party with costs ? Certainly not. The
reason of his indignation, and which he still felt, was that a
vexatious, unnecessary, and most costly writ of error was
brought into that house after the opinion of the Exchequer
Chamber was given. Not satisfied with the opinion of all the
judges who decided the matter in the Exchequer Chamber,
and upon the authority of " Hartley and Case," which was di-
rectly in point, the parties insisted on coming to that house, and
for what ? For the purpose merely of having. the same judges,
who had all unanimously, unhesitatingly, given their opinion
in the Exchequer Chamber, step across the hall, after two
years' delay and a great expense, to repeat their opinion. And
this the gentleman at the bar, who was evidently a very acute
man, with all the attention he had given to the subject, could
not see. He could not see that the only result of the proceed-
ing would be that the learned judges would step across the
hall to deliver the same opinion in that house that they had
delivered elsewhere two years ago. If the object of the ap-
peal had been to obtain a reversal of any judgment in Chan-
ceryand that upon a matter it might be a different thing ; but who could not see
the absurdity of expecting that the learned judges would
one day entertain one opinion and the next day another,
That part of the 'dwide of the question,
~, matter, therefore,. was
and had do with it. He could not help
ter— „dining whatever to
had heard from Mr.
tter of every-day common law practice ?
. •
..morking upon one statement which

Bittleston with great astonishment. He had told their lord-
`l.•t he was misled by the entry upon their minutes ; but
ships • Sneaker of that house had garbled the
why suppose that tu... _ .4,4- uction surely was an
minutes? ( Hear, hear.) That ntson-
uncharitable one, another being: open. (lei.;
tent with that false construction, t_ ue said that many ot
lordships fell into the same error. (Cri.ls of " No, no," min-
gled with cries of " hear, hear.") He Bittleston
Chancellor) and
the Lord Chief Justice had heard Mr. ittleston so express
himself, and he thought he ought to have an opportt:.7itY of
explaining if there was any ground for doubt on the subjec..:
If lie had said so, it was supposing that some of their lord-
ships were not only uncharitable, but that they were not very
wise. He would explain how this was. Mr. Biddleston said
that he must have garbled the minutes, and that some of their
lordships were of the same opinion upon the same facts. Now,
the same persons, if they saw one of their lordships with
another's hat, would conclude that the noble lord had been
guilty of larceny ; but in his case the conclusion was much
more illogical, more foul, slanderous, and uncharitable. Mr.
Bittleston told them that because the minutes did not appear
to him to correspond with the acts done by their lordships, he
was led to imagine that he (the Lord Chancellor) had been
guilty of the baseness of garbling the minutes. He would
show their lordships that such a conclusion was not wise
neither. He wondered it had not struck the author of this
coMposition, that of all the follies man could commit, none
could be equal to that imputed to him ; for the judgment was
delivered not only before several of their lordships, but in pre-
sence of the parties in the cause against whom the decision
was, and whom he had severely censured. Most wicked men,
he thanked God, were foolish ; but here would have been such
a mixture of folly, meanness, and wickedness as it would baffle
the keenest ingenuity to say which predominated. With
these observations he would leave the matter in the hands of
their lordships.
After a considerable pause, in which it seemed to be the
expectation of the house that Earl Grey would rise,

Lord DENMAN rose. Earl Grey rose at the same time,
but gave way. The noble and learned lord said he addressed
their lordships with great reluctance, but it was of great im-
portance, not merely to themselves as a court of judicature,
but to every court of law in the country, that such an outrage
upon the course of justice as had been committed by the per-
son at the bar should not be passed over. If it should be,
there was not a judge in the land who would not feel that he
had no protection against the foulest and the basest calumny
which it might please any disappointed and interested party
to disseminate. ( Hear.) He knew that all persons in official
situations were exposed to such attacks. Society swarmed with
disappointed individuals, who, from various motives and causes,
were ready to turn the virulence and rancour of a disappointed
renegad*into the channel of the money-making libeller, who
dealt forth his daily venom against those who were the objects
of his spite. He believed that no judge would willingly exercise
the summary powers he possessed for his own protection in
cases of this kind, and he trusted they would ever feel that the
best security they had against slander was in the character they
maintained and the conduct which they observed. ( Hear.) In
the same manner, if their lordships as a body should become the
object of the most virulent attack, he should recommend that
it be passed over. There would be no safety for the liberty of
the press if observationS upon public men were weighed in
scales toy nice and critical. But, he would ask, in what situa-
tion would they be placed in that house as individuals if they
were to be subject to such attacks as the one that had been
made upon his noble and learned friend ? If such attacks
were to be permitted to pass with impunity, made upon grounds
the most false, the most foul, the most ludicrously trifling in
themselves, but the most awfully important in their conse-
quences, and levelled against the individuals who undertook
the judicial duties of that house, who would undertake that
responsible business ? He spoke for himself in this matter,
and he wanted to know in what situation he would be if an in-
dividual were to choose to impugn his motives and falsify his
acts in that house. He humbly asked their lordships to tell
him what was to be his fate if, in consequence of a recommen-
dation made by him to their lordships, he was to be accused of
forgery ? He knew that the remedy was at best invidious
and unsatisfactory, but it was their only course. In this case
how completelyithe blind malignity and vile party spirit of
the libeller, mixed up with his folly, had led him into error.
(Hear.) Good God, did ever calumny cut a more miserable
appearance ? He (Lord Denman) was supposed to have
given a hint to his noble and learned friend on the woolsack
in the nature of a doubt which he entertained upon the deci-
sion arrived at. He candidly stated that at first when he read
the case he went to his noble and learned friend, and, speaking
from a faded recollection of the facts, told him that he thought
it might be decided either way. That was perfectly true ;
but what he asked was this, was the Morning Post there to
report what he so communicated to his noble and learned
friend ? ( Hear.) Was some one present on the woolsack to
hear and report—was the Lord Chief Justice to be reported
by some listener in making such observations to the Lord
Chancellor ? ( Hear.) At all events, if it was right to report
it at all, it should have been reported that what fell from his
noble and learned friend completely altered his opinion. He
begged leave to say that he did not believe Lord Tenterden
recommended that the opinion of another tribunal should be
taken in the case of Solarte and Palmer. Unless he saw it
under his own hand, or heard upon ,some credible testimony,
he would not believe that that was the case. That noble and
learned lord entertained no doubt whatever upon the subject.
He had decided another ease upon the same ground. No
principle was involved in the question, which was merely the
cc,59 of a bill of exPhange, the question being whether due
notice or the dishonour' of a bill of exchange had been given
by a letter written by Sola:te to Palmer. The sum of 3501.
costs had been given against
he appellants, simply because
S.
there was no point of law, and tht: case was perfectly clear.
He knew it was the habit of judges tti say, " If you doubt my
ruling go to a higher tribunal if you plea;..":" The parties did
go to the Exchequer Chamber, and Sir Nichori" Tindal gave
a very luminous judgment, in which he pronounced the unani-
mous opinion of all the judges, showing that there was not the
slightest pretence for the appeal. Yet, after that decision, at
the end of three years the losing party staved off their oppo-
nents, and at a considerable expense brought the case up to
their lordships. His noble and learned friend had given a very
proper decision on the case ; for if ever there was a case in
which the appellants deserved to be visited with costs it was
this ; and if they absurdly attached any weight to the part of
his noble and learned friend having been counsel in that cause,
that was only an additional reason for such a decision. The
judgment could ndt'be recorded on the minutes until the costs
had been ascertained. Then he understood that some of their
lordships thought it strange that there should be a variance
between the minutes and the facts. (Hear.) Rut how, he
asked, was the Morning Post to have access to their lordships'
minutes ? This was not unworthy their lordships' attention.
Was his noble andlearned friend on the woolsack to be crushed
beneath the chariot-wheels of this Juggernaut of slander be-
cause the Morning Post could not understand the entries
made upon their lordships' minutes? And were the officers
of the house to be supposed to be the ready instruments to
commit a forgery of the minutes to screen the Lord Chan-
cellor ? When the gentleman at the bar said that he under-
stood some of their lordships entertained such an opinion he
must say that it was a libel upon any gentleman to think him
capable of so condemning the great organ of justice in that
house upon grounds which did not justify even the most remote
suspicion. The circumstances were open to the most easy ex-
planation. The person who had put these misstatements forth
to the world was then at their lordships' bar ; and although
he (Lord D.) felt at all times extreme reluctance at troubling
their lordships upon any subject, and particularly that his
first motion in that house should be one of this kind, and God
knew without the slightest personal feeling against that man,
and without the slightest communication with his noble and
learned friend on the woolsack, but perhaps actuated by a
feeling of sympathy at the consideration of what might be his
own situation hereafter if such libels were permitted to pass
with impunity, he felt it to be his duty to move that that per-
son be taken into custody.
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question that Tho-
mas Bittleston be taken into the custody of the Usher of the
Black Rod, which was agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then said that he had lis-
tened attentively to the dignified and impressive statement
of his noble and learned friend. He agreed with him in the
absolute necessity of protecting the judges of the land,
and the judicial functionaries of their lordships' house, and
those on whom the duties connected with those functions
devolved. But, although he was duly impressed with these
sentiments, and was of opinion that as against their
lords kips a grave, unjustifiable, and unpnlliative offence had
he craved their attention to a single observa-
tionbeen col:quitted,
owriir behalf. He entreated their lordships, as a
in his
personally, he being the individual against
favour to himse.'
ach of the privileges of the house had been
whom this gross bra the the only person individually aggrieved
perpetrated—he being'
'her member of the house his mouth
—and if it had been any o.__
s the only one attacked, he
would be sealed ; but, as he :Va.
sable solicitations that no
preferred to their lordships his 11,7
further punishment might be visited :`11)91 the ineiividual in
custody. In making this request he wou.4 enter
allow
;sit° a so-
lemn engagement that if they would grant 11:;a!uit, d
the individual to be reprimanded and discharged, in no c.:*se in
which their privileges should be again violated, eitherii his
person or in the person of any one else engaged in the judicia't
duties of their lordships' house, would he beg off the offender.
He entreated their lordships to consider that it was the request
of the party sought to be injured, he would not say injured,
that justice might be tempered with mercy, and that the of-
fending individual might be discharged after being repri-
manded. Was it the pleasure of their lordships that Thomas
Bittleston should be brought to the bar, reprimanded, and
thereupon discharged ?
Earl GREY was ready to pay every respect to the appeal
of his noble and learned friend in mitigation of punish-
ment. It was with great reluctance that he appeared to ad-
dress their lordships in aggravation ; tint considering how
grave was the offence, and still more the manner in which it
had been attempted to justify it, and agreeing entirely in the
character which the Lord Chief Justice had given to the
offence, he thought the house ought to consider, setting aside
all personal feeling, and desiring only to maintain its cha-
racter, and, alarm all, the interests of justice, whether it could
possibly allow this case to pass over as proposed by his noble
and learned friend ? (Hear, hear.) He certainly was not
indisposed to deal severely with persons in the situation of the
individual at the bar, and lie should be ready to bow with de-
ference to their lordships' opinion ; but, referring to former
proceedings of a similar nature, he must say that he looked
upon this as the most aggravated case that had ever come
before them, because it was an invasion of the administration
of justice by that house. For these reasons he did not think
it would be right for them to dismiss the person at the bar
upon so slight a visitation of the displeasure of the house. He
thre,w out these observations for the consideration of their lord-
shis. He doubted the propriety of adopting the course pro-
posed by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack,