The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-11 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 10.

Their Lordships assembled at five o'clock.
ARRESTMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Dake of RICHMOND presented a petition from
3,130 of the inhabitants of a place in the county of
Sussex, praying for the repeal of the malt-tax. He also
presented a petition from the farmers of Burt, county
Donegal, against the Irish Tenants' Bill.
Lord LYTTLETON presented a petition from the
Rev. Charles Miller, incumbent of Marlborough, praying
for a dissolution of the Tithe Commission, and an alter-
ation in the tithe commutation.
Several Bills were brought up from the House of
Commons, principally connected with railways, and were
severally read a first time.
Lord CLIVE presented a petition in favour of the
Oxford and Rugby Railway Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a gen-
tleman of the bar, complaining that he had been
seriously injured by the late accident on the Great
Western Railway, and praying their Lordships to in-
stitute an inquiry into the cause of it.
PRIVILEGE.

The Duke of RICHMOND begged to call their Lord-
iihips' attention to a matter of privilege. He held in his
hand the petition of Mr. Thomas Baker, who had been
superintendent of the C division of the metropolitan po-
lice force from the year 1829 down to August in the
last year. The petitioner stated that on the 26th day of
April, he attended before the Committee of that House,
appointed to inquire into the law respecting gaming,
when he was examined by such Committee, and gave
evidence before them ; that Mr. John Harlow, a person
named in that evidence commenced an action on the case,
in the Court of Queen's Bench against him, wherein he
sought to recover damages from the petitioner for in-
jury alleged to have been done to him in consequence of
such evidence ; that petitioner had not pleaded to such
action, and, therefore, he prayed the House to take the
premises into their consideration, and to grant him pro-
tection against the action. He (the Duke of Richmond)
begged to remind their Lordships that this individual
did not voluntarily give his evidence before the Select
Committee, but that the Committee called upon him to
appear before them in consequence of his being the in-
spector of that division of the metropolitan police,
whose duty it was to watch and know about gambling
houses. The man was examined upon oath, and he be-
lieved he spoke the truth to the best of his belief. He
had known him a great many years, having known him
when he was in the army, in the Peninsula and Water-
loo, and he believed a more honourable man did not
exist. lle wished, thereford, to ask the Noble Lord the
course that ought to be pursued in the case?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if a witness who
gave sworn evidence before their Lordships committed
perjury, an indictment might be preferred against him,
but he did not know that a witness could be indicted for
what he had spoken in a court of justice ; but the ques-
tion was, whether they should, under the circumstances
detail, d in the petition, protect the defendant. Ile under-
stood that the declaration alleged that the evidence was
given before a Committee of that House.
Lord BUOUGHAM—In the presence and hearing of
your Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It was possible that
he might have repeated the words not in his capacity as
a witness. He should recommend the appointment of a
Committee to search for precedents on the subject—a
course which would be rendered necessary, as the case,
in the ordinary course of justice, might come before their
Lordship= as the la-t court of resort. The Noble and
Lc arnel lord c.mcluded by p,oposing the motion.
L.,rd C NIPBELL moved, as an amendment, that
the plaintiff aad his attorney be sutomoned to appear at
the bar of that House. He considered that there was
no nec.-ssity for a Committee. He agreed with his Noble
Friend on the Woolsack that no action could be main-
vane I agtinit a witness for evidence which he had given
bt f ,re tlwir Lo clships. Ile called on Vieir Lordships to
protect ti cir privileges, and ri-ferred to the case in
which an action was bro:ip.:ht vgainst ore of the officers

of their 1-.)rd,,hips' House fir taking an umbrella which
had b -en left by a witness in his possession. In that
cae their Lordships threatened to commit the plaintiff
to prson it he pr0ce,41,41 with the action.
ion I BROUGHAM considered that the question
was a new one, and that the one before the House did
not involve a breach of privilege. They had only a
quarter of an hour to decide what course they should
adopt, and he thought the best course was to adopt the
proposition of the Noble and Learned Lord to search
for preA?dents. Their Lord ,hips were not like the House
of Commons. They were a court of justice, and to de-
clare that to be a breach of privilege which, perhaps,
they would have in future to decide upon in their
judicial capacity was so extraordinary a proceeding,
that lie was sure they would not attempt it.
To call upon the plaintiff to disclose his case—
such a proceeding would be an extraordinary, if not an
extreme case. To call upon the plaintiff to come before
them and tell them his case at the mere request of the
defendant, was a course which he was sure they would,
not sanction. He believed that the Houses of Parlia.
ment had their privileges best secured by trusting their
privileges to the courts of justice.
Lord COTTENIIAM said that the petitioner alleged
that the action was brought for words which were spoken
before a Committee of that Home. He then said that
he did not speak the words in the declaration. And
also that what he did say was not spoken in malice.
There might not be a word of truth in the petition, but if
it was true there could ho no doubt that the action which
was instituted for that evidence was a breach of the
privileges of the House. If they did not proceed imme-
diately, but stayed proceedings, till Monday, mischief
might de done in the interim ; and they had the ex-
ample of the other Hou -e before them to warn them of
th..! consequences of procrastination in a question of that
kind.

Lord DENMAN hoped that they would not prevent
the plaintiff in this case from proceeding with his action
in a court of justice. He thought that the matter would
perhaps have to come before them in their judicial ca-
pacity, and he did not consider that they would be up-
h Ading their high dignity, by resorting to the summary
proceeding proposed. It would not be in his power to
speak on the case at a future time, and he was therefore
desirous to record his sentiments on the subject, before
his judicial duties came on. The Noble Lord said that
the precedents were all on one side. There was only
one case in point— the umbrellacase, which was so called,
from a party who attended the House on one occasion,
when it sat as a judicial tribunal, and while there lost
his umbrella. He accused one of the officers of the
House of having taken it, and summoned him to the
Court of Requests for the offence. The House asserted
its privileges, and quashed the proceedings. He thought
it a most pernicious thing for them to interfere, and pre-
vent the law from taking its course. He thought if they
proceeded in that high-handed way they would not
raise their Lordships' character in the estimation of the
country. It could not be supposed for a single moment
that any court of justice in England would give coun-
tenance to the plaintiff, if the evidence which was de-
posed to respecting him was based on truth. There had
been nothing in the conduct of any court of justice which
would entitle any party to say they had not discouraged
an action of this nature, but on the other hand it was
not to be said that a party could take advantage with
impunity of his being in a Committee of either House of
Parliament, to slander or libel another. The judges
had always to perform their duty without fear and with-
out favour, and it was necessary they should do so, for
the protection, not of one class of individuals, but for
the protection of all, and to do equal justice to those
who were found to have been injured, and to assist those
in seeking the truth who complained of injury. Upon
these general grounds he ventured to ask the House to
pause before they adopted the amendment of his Noble
and Learned Friend (Lord Campbell).
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL and Lord
BROUGHAM, the House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment 22
Majority
_ _

O❑ our admission to the gallery, we found
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE blaming the House
for carrying the motion.
Lord STANLEY considered that, by adopting the
motion, they would not sacrifice one jot or one tittle of
their power or authority. They had adopted the proper
course in taking a short time to deliberate as to the
course they should pursue. By inquiring into the steps
which were taken on former occasions, that they might
be guided in the course which they should pursue in re-
gard to the case before the House, would not in the
smallest degree detract from their dignity.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH considered witnesses
ought to have the protection of the House extended to
them; if by giving evidence they were liable to have ac-
tions brought against them, truth would with difficulty
be elicited.

bOTTENHASI considered that they ought to
know whether it was a breach of privilege or not with-
out searching for precedents.
The Duke of RICHMOND produced the printed evi-
dence of the Committee, of which he was Chairman.
The petitioner was examined as witnesses usually were.
When it was considered that they had blackguards to
deal with—(A laugh)—they would perceive that it was
very difficult to obtain information from any persons ex-
cept the police.
The Committee was then appointed, and eleven o'clock
(this day) fixed for its first meeting.
FRAUDS BY A RAILWAY COMPANY.
The Duke of RICHMOND then called the attention
of the House to two petitions which he had placed on the
table of that House. One of the petitions made a direct
charge against the Directors of a railway company—
that they had committed ten or fifteen cases of forgery.
He thought it. would not be right that such an allegation
should be made, and that no inquiry should be instituted
into it. If forgery had taken place, it ought to be in-
quired into, and he should, therefor,-., move that a Sel..,ct
Committee should be appointed to report on the peti-
tions to which he had referred. It was true that there
was great difficulty in obtaining the attendance
of Peers, but it would have a bad effect
on the public, if, when it was stated in a
petition that forgery had been committed by
a Railway Company, that no attention should be paid to
iit 10 considered that the report of the Committee on
the Pill, which had passed the Commons, ought not to
be received until the Committee he had proposed should
have nia(k their report. The party stated in the peti-
tion that lie n,uld bring forward fifteen people, whose
mantes were put to the contract without their consent or
I know et • re lie him-44f knew nothing at all of the mat.
ter, from beginning to end, except what he had stated.
Parties stated to the Standing Orders Committee that
they had seen the persons si,n the deed of contract.
The Marquis of CLANRIUARDE said it was a very
serious forgery, and wag punishable in a court of law.

But he saw no reason why the Bill should be deferred in
consequence, as it appeared that there would remain a
large surplus, which, without the sums set down to the
parties in the deed of contract, would be enough to carry
the Bill. The names might be scratched out.

Lord ASHBURTON considered the Committee was
the proper tribunal to investigate the matter.
The Duke of RICHMOND was not of that opinion ;
he considered the Committee had no power to do so. It
was the duty of the Standing Orders Committee to decide
on the matter when the Bill was before them.

Lord ASHBURTON considered that they might
throw out a Bill which contained names which had been
forged to the deed of contract.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said they could not
then determine whether forgery had been committed or
not. It was a very serious fraud.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY was understood to say
that the subject had been mentioned in the Standing
Orders Committee, but that the party who made the
allegation could not point out the fraudulent names
amongst those subscribed to the deed.
The Duke of RICHMOND did not wish to delay the
Bill. All he wanted was that it should not be read a
third time until the subject had been cleared np. A
100,0001. clause was struck out of the Bill in Committee.
If an existing railway required fresh powers, they were
obliged to advertise their intention in the newspapers
and the London Gazette, that every shareholder might
know what was going on. This was under the " Wham-
cliffe" clause.: _

Lord STANLEY—It is a standing order.
The Earl of DEVON moved, as an amendment, that
the Committee should report specially whether the cir-
cumstances detailed to the House ought not to delay
the passing of the Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that was in direct
opposition to the standing orders.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought that a searching inquiry
should be instituted. In the other House of Parliament
a Member had been made liable for a sum of 30,0001. by
a forgery of that kind. He thought that the public
were entitled to have some protection with regard to
these schemes, and he should therefore support the ap-
pointment of a Committee.
After a few words from Lord CHARLEVILLE,
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that a Committee
be appointed to investigate the allegations.—Agreed to.
GAMES AND WAGERS BILL.

On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the
Wagers and Gaming Bill was read a third time, with
amendments, and passed.