The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL P

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 30.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
FEES (COURT OF COMMON PLEAS) BILL.
On the motion of Lord BEAUMONT the House re-
solved itself into Committe3 in this Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill that it inter-
fered with vested interests, and suggested its recom-
mittal.
Lord BEAUMOWT acceeded to the suggestion, the
Chairman reported progress, and the Bill was ordered
to be re committed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.
This Bill passed throne' Committee.
PETITIONS.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Scarbo-
rough in favour of the abolition of the advertisement
duty and of the newspaper stamp duty; also petitions
from a number of solicitors in favour of the Master's
Jurisdiction in Equity Bill.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Tho NOBLE and LEARNED LORD said that no one was
in general less disposed to notice attacks upon his charac-
ter as a member of their Lordships' House than himself.
He had often been abused, often been accused, generally
falsely, on account of his political conduct. He had
in those cases adopted the proper course—he bad
left those accusations to fall to the ground from their own
utter falseness, and he had found that eventually justice
had been done on his calumniators, and their calumnies
had been passed by utterly unregarded. But there was
one species of breach of privilege which he was by no
means disposed to pass unnoticed. To be exposed to
attacks was the fate of all ; no man need be ashamed of
being attacked; but when, for the purpose of ground-
ing an attack upon a Member of Parliament, per-
sons chose to put words into that Member's
mouth which he had never uttered, which
were the very contrary to that which he
had expressly stated—when, having published from their
own reporter a true account of what a Member had
stated, the proprietor of a newspaper chose to adopt
a false report in order therefore to ground an
attack, he thought that that was a case in
which their Lordships were called on to take notice of
the conduct of the person so offending. He had read
with astonishment, but certainly with great amusement,
the absurd tissue of misrepresentations which had been
published with regard to his conduct in the matter of a
recent Divorce Bill. It had been stated that he always made
a point of attending in the discussion of every divorce
Bill, now it was absolutely necessary that some law
Lord should attend upon the discussion of all such Bills.
It had been said that no divorce Bill could pass without
his being present; why, it might as well have been said
that no Bill whatever could pass without his presence,
seeing that he had a right to be present at all proceedings
initheir Lordships' House, and that he was generally
punctual in his attendance. Then followed a statement
which was a total fiction. It was said that the parties
concerned had been received as visitors at his house,
when he well knew that a criminal connexion was being
carried on between them in another country. He utterly
denied that—he had no suspicion of any such connexion
subsisting, and since he had been aware of the sus-
picious connexion he had never received the par-
ties in his house. He had not seen them since
he had known that a suit had been instituted in the
Ecclesiastical Courts. It was further stated that be re-
lished with great gusto all the vile derails that were gone
into in these cases, and that he had more particularly
exhibited that gusto in developing the details of the evi-
dence of the Italians in the case of Queen Caroline. Now,
so far from that being the case, he was in that case coun-
sel, not for the prosecution but for the defence, and be
had, as it was his duty, endeavoured to put these
Italian witnesses out of court, to prevent their evi-
dence being given, to smother those details finally
on which he had cross-examined them, for the purpose of
shaking their testimony. It was further said that he had
given notice of his intention of opposing the progress of
the late divorce Bill by browbeating the witnesses.
Now this writer should have been aware that it was his
awn Bill. He had himselt given notice that he should
.nlve the ascend reading of that Bill, and that in bring-
ing forward this accusation the writer was charring him
with an intention of browbeating his own witnesses,
and of defeating his own Bill. Then the writer in the
Daily News accused him of sat ire,' that if all the
letters which had been addressed to himself by
married women could be produced in court they
would afford underii able evidence of cruelty. He had
said no such thing—but he would not com-
ment upon such absurd trash. He had filed an affi-
davit denying all those charges. From the respectable
proprietor of the Globe ho had received an assurance
that those charges had been inserted in that paper
wholly without his knowledge ; that respectable gen-
tleman had at once given up the name of the person
on whose authority that statement had been made, and
he alwitted that he was a person of such respectability
and standing that the proprietor of the Globe might
have been easily misled. That person resided abroad, and
the letter had been written under circumstances of great
excitement, so that he was disposed to make allowances,
but with regard to the proprietor of the Daily News,
who had adopted a false report aLer publishing a
correct one, there was no such excuse, and he should
therefore take time to consider the course he should
adopt, and he gave notice that he should, if on consi-
deration he took the same view of the subject he did at
present, move at the sitting of the House to-morrow
that the printer of the Daily News be called to this bar.

Lord liEDESDALE observed that what ho said was

not that he wished to oppose the Bill, but that he con-
sidered that sufficient evidence hai nut been adduce,l to