The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-20 00:00:00

IMPEIt/AL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 19.
ROYAL ASSENT.

At Four o'clock there was a Commission to give the
Royal Assent to certain Bills. The Commissioners
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wharncliffe, and Earl
Dalhousie.
The following are the Bills which received the Royal
Assent—the Bank Charter Bill ; the Property-Tax
Exemption Bill ; the Dissenters' Chapel Bill ; the Cus-
toms Duties (Isle of Man) Bill ; the County Rates Bill ;
the Militia Ballot Suspension Bill ; the Stock in Trade
Assessment Bill ; the Paupers Removal Bill (Scotland)
Bill ; the Parishes (Scotland) Bill ; the Prisons (Scot-
land) Bill ; Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill; Manchester,
Ashton-under-Lyne, and Staleybridge Railway Bill ;
Colchester and Ipswich Railway Bill ; the
South-Western Railway Amendment Bill ; the
Liverpool Docks Bill ; the Berkenhead Docks Bill;
the Southampton Improvement Bill ; the Coventry Im-
provement Bill ; the York Gas Light Company s' Bill ;
and several Road and Estate Bills.
Their Lordships adjourned for a short time, and as-
seinbled again, when—
Mr. E. James was called to the Bar, and addressed
their Lordships against the Gaming Bill. Wben the
Learned Gentleman concluded,
Mr. Russell was called and examined by Lord
BROUGHAM—I am the attorney in the qui tam ac-
tions ; I was instructed by my clerk ; he is my brother;
he has a salary of 80/. a year; I brought about 34
actions; he did not instruct me till I first suggested to him
to do so; I expect he will pay me; I do not expect he will
pay the entire. Theexpense of one of those actions, if lost,
might be about 1,0001. A gentleman paid 900 L towards
the expenses. Ido not know him ; he did not instruct
me. I decline to tell who he is, because that was com-
municated to me as an attorney. He is not my client.
I know his name, but I decline to give it.
Lord BROUGHAM—No privilege will protect a man
who is not your client. Come, give the name.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—If you do not answer
that question you will reflect on the consequences.
Witness—l decline to answer, because it was a privi-
leges:l communication.
Lord BROUGHAM—Did you know the name from
any one independent of your client ? Mr. Russell—l
knew it from my client first; but I knew it from other
sources.—(A laugh.)
To the LORD CHANCELLOR—Never had any
communication with the person who paid this money,
except in the presence of his brother, and thought
that he was justified in refusing to give the name of that

person.
Lord BROUGHAM told the witness that he was not
privileged as to the unknown person, and must con-
sider the consequences.—(Hear, hear.) The Committee
had no power to commit h►m, but the House had.
The Duke of RICHMOND asked had he not advised
his brother not to bring the action in his own name, be-
cause his character was so tainted? Answer—l think
I did.—(Laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM submitted to their Lordships
that as the person at the bar admitted that the person
whose name he withheld was not his client, he could
not refuse to give the name.
After some consultation with the Noble and Learned
Lord, the Counsel, Mr. James, and the witness, were
ordered to withdraw from the bar ; and the witness was
peremptorily ordered not to leave the House.
A conversation ensued of some length, in which several
Noble Lords took part, respecting the course to be pur-
sued ; when it was resolved that the witness Russell be
ordered to attend at the bar, and that in the meantime
his evidence before the Select Committee and the House
be printed.
The witness was accordingly called in, and ordered to
attend. He said—" I will obey your Lordships."—("Oh,
of course you will.")
THE IRISH STATE TRIALS' APPEAL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to call the at-
tention of the House to a matter which affected himself
personally, and which was, however, of some importance
to their Lordships and to public justice. His attention
was drawn, through the medium of one of thelrish papers,
to a statement in the Morning Chronicle, that whilst Mr.
Hill was arguing upon the challenge of the array,
" the Lord Chancellor said that there could be no
doubt that the array was fraudulent." The Morn-
ing Chronicle went on to ask, could it be doubted
that a verdict obtained under fraud so admitted by
the Lord Chancellor of England would be viewed
with any other feelings than those of execration
by the people of England ; or could any Ministry
have the audacity to carry the sentence into effect, after
such a condemnation ? These remarks were printed in
large letters in all the Irish papers. He did not blame
the writer in the Morning Chronicle, who was misled,
from not understanding what he (the Lord Chancellor) had
said. Nothing could be further fromthe meaning of his ob-
servations, which went no farther than that if the array
were made in the way which Mr. Hill stated it must be
fraudulent ; but that he could not judge of that, as he
knew nothing of the facts, which should have been de•
tided by the Court of Queen's Bench.
Lord BROUGHAM concurred in the observations of
his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, and
said that nothing could justify the use which the Irish
papers had made of the m►srepresentation.
Lord CAMPBELL said that his Noble and Learned
Friend on the Woolsack was perfectly right in making
to the House the explanation which he had made. But
he (Lord Campbell) must say, that when this subject
came before the House he should differ from the opinion
of his Noble and Learned Friend, and that he thought
the Attorney-General was not justified in going to trial
as he did, nor until the whole book of the jury-list had
been gone through, and the defendants had a full chance
of a fair trial.
Lord CO'FTENHAM said that the statement in the
Morning Chronicle was incorrect, as had been properly
shown by his Noble and Learned Friend ; but the mis-
apl,•rehension of the writer was very excusable, when the
ditlie:xtty of a law argument, even to a lawyer, was con-
sidered.
The conversation then dropped.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. ernEgaz and others from the Commons brought
up the Unlawful Oaths Bill (Ireland), the Soap Duties
Bill, the Party Processions Bill (Ireland), the Farm-
building Burnings Bill, the Loan Societies Bill, and nu-
merous other Bills, which were severally read a first time.