The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 22.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
lack at half-past Four o'clock.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Counsel were immediately called in to be heard against
the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he saw two
Counsel at the bar, but it was the rule of the House that
only one Counsel should be heard in a case of this kind.
The learned gentlemen might draw lots for the pleasure
of addressing the House as Counsel.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham was then heard in support of
the petition against the Bill. He said that the notice
given to the petitioners, that they should be heard this
d.sy, had been so short, that it would be impossible for
their counsel to ea) now into a detailed analysis of
the evidence taken before the Committee of the House
of Commons, upon which the Bill was founded. It had
been laid down in that House on a former occasion that
their Lordships would not agree to the second reading
of a Bill of disfranchisement, except upon evi-
dence heard at the bar upon oath. It did not
supersede that law of their Lordships' House (which
had been acted upon in the case of the disfran-
chisement of Stafford in 1836), to say that evidence had
Isaen heard upon oath before the Commissioners sent
town to take the evidence. Their Lordships would
riot agree to a Bill of Pains and Penalties, without
hearing for themselves, at their own bar, evidence
on oath, in corrobation of the allegations in the preamble.
lie therefore humbly submitted to their Lordships
that they were not in a condition, according to the
established rules of their Lordships' House, to pass
this Bill until they had so heard evidence in support
of the allegations. in the evidence taken before
the Commissioners sent down their Lordships had
no proof of the extent to which corruption pre•
s ailed, of the classes amongst which it was prac-
t sed, or whether there were any, and what number of
Teraina, to whom the corruption had not, extended. In
t '.venty-seven boroughs of small constituencies corruption
equal to that proved against Sudbury had been proved
t exist, but these boroughs were exempt from disfran-
chisement, because it was found that there was a suffi-
cient constituency free from corruption and entitled to
Cle franchise. The present was the third Bill which the
House of Commons, in its zeal to maintain the purity of
elections, had sent up to that House. That
hich was sent up last year broke down at
their Lordships' bar. Therefore, in order to
find out something to make out a case for warranting
the House of Commons in passing a third Bill of this
kind, and to induce their Lordships to agree to it, a
Commission was sent down. If their Lordships would
I at. the report of that Commission they would see
twat nothing could be more ambiguous than it was.
Lord BROUGHAM asked, was the Learned Counsel
able to state from his instructions what number of voters
the bribery had been brought home to, and of what
Case.
Mr. Sergeant Wranghani said chiefly to the freemen.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that a great
number of the freemen were also 101. householders.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that there was a body
of 310 ten pound householders qualified to be registered,
te. whom only two were accused of corruption in the
report.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—OnIy two by name.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that the evidence, both
before the Committee of the House of Commons and
the Commission sent down, had proved that the corrup-
tien prevailed amongst the lower class of freemen, and
that the ten-pound householders were, with an exceed-
ingly small exception, untainted. But the report did
nut make any distinction upon this important circum-
stance. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to state
points of the evidence, which he contended were in fa-
vour of his allegation. The Learned Counsel concluded
at half-past five o'clock.
ACTIONS FOR GAMING AT RACES SUSPEN-
SION BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved the order of the
day for the further consideration of this Bill, and
James Thomas Russell was called to the bar, in pur-
suance of their Lordships' order of Friday last.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, was the witness
at the bar, and being answered in the affirmative, his
Lordship informed the witness that a part of the ques-
tions and answers of the previous examinations would
be read to him ; and if Mr. Russell desired the whole
would be read to him.
Mr. Russell wished to hear the whole read, which
was accordingly done by the clerk.
The reading of the evidence being concluded,
Lord BROUGHAM asked the witness did he not on
the former slay say that he had never seen the person
whose name he refused to give, except in the presence of
his brother ?
The Earl of RADNOR rose to order. Ile had on the
former occasion objected to this question being pressed.
The witness and counsel were ordered to withdraw.
Lord RADNOR proceeded—He was of opinion that
neither in law or justice should the witness be compelled
to answer the question, or to be committed to prison if
be did not, as was threatened the other day. Ile re-
minded their Lordships that when the Bill was sent up
from the House of Commons, a petition was presented
from the plaintiff, Charles Henry Russell, praying to
be heard by counsel against the Bill, and the counsel
were heard. Well, after that, a Noble Duke moved that
ovidence.should be required to show that the petitioner
was the bona fide plaintiff. It seemed to him that it was
rather late in the day to call for evidence that he was the
plaintiff after he had been named by his counsel as
plaintiff upon kis petition. But, passing that over, let
them come to the position the matter now stood
in.—(Hear, hear.) The witness on Friday refused
to give'. the name of a person whose name was commu-
nicated to him in professional eonfidence and
stated that he had laid a case before Mr. Erie, the
Queen's Counsel, that he was not bound to divulge the
name to the House. The House then adjourned in order
to examine the witness's evidence before the Committee,
and to compare it with what he had given before the
House. He (Lord Radnor) had compared the evi-
deuce, and he could not Lind that there was any
discrepancy. Whether the person whose name it
was sought to get at was a gentleman or no gentleman,
it was quite consistent with the most respectable cha-
racter that a man should be desirous of putting an end
to gambling of this kind, and yet might not wish
to be held up as a common informer in a qui
tam action. In such a ease it was not improper
or unreasonable that a man, gentleman or no gentle-
man, should go to an attorney, and ask him to find
some one to bring the action, he.himseif being liable for
the costs. The object of fishing out the name was to
eneble the Earl of Eglintoun and the other defendants to
know against whom they might proceed hereafter, if the
action went in their favour or was stopped. He did not
think that the answer would be of any use to the House.
He could not see what they wanted with it, or what
right they had to exercise their power of committing the
vvonesses.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that that was not the
time when the Noble Lord should have made his
speech. The time would be when the motion should
be put fur committing the witness. Then it
would be for his Noble Friend to make his speech
to show cause why the witness should not be committed.
—(A laugh.) But he (Lord Brougham) never heard so
marvellously erroneous an argument in his life, as
that the witness was not bound to answer because a
Queen's Counsel,- very learned in the law, gave an
opinion that he was not bound to answer the question.
What ! was it to be said to their Lordships that they
should be governed in their acts, whenever a point of
law arose, by the opinion of a counsel learned
in the law? He (Lord Brougham) was sorry that his
Noble and Learned Friend en the Woolsack was dis-
turbed by other Noble Lords.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Ile wished to have the attention of his
Noble and Learned Friend, because this point was
very material—more material in respect to the forms and
privileges of the House than to the case in question.
His Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) did not understand the
case—(A laugh)—the question was one of very material
consequence to the case. The object of the
examination was to ascertain who was the per-
son interested in these qui taut actions. The pe-
titioner was heard by counsel on his representation
that he was plaintiff, and that he would be
injured by the passing of the Bill. Now, the object of
the question was to ascertain whether he was the plain-
tiff, and liable to be injured by the Bill. It was with a
viem to the privileges of the House that he troubled
their Lordships with those observations.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that his Noble
Friend (the Earl of Radnor) had taken up this case with
great warmth and but little consideration. The
Noble Earl had accused the Committee of striving to fish
out the name of an individual to serve the purposes of
Lori Eglintoun. If that had been said out of the House
he (the Duke of R.) would have given it a very short
answer. lie thought they were perfectly right in getting
at; the name of the individual who brought the action
in anotherperson's name, and might be, for aught they
could know, the foreman of the jury, although he was
interested in the amount of all the costs and one-half of
the damages.
Lord EGLINTOUN was certain that his Noble
Friends on the Committee would not condescend to act
set they had been accused of acting, for the purpose of
serving his interests. He would by no means wish that
on his account any friends of his would he so influenced.
._(dear, hear.)
The Earl of ItADNOIt explained.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the shoa-
l:mat writer to read his notes of the question.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he was giving the
He use his assistance as a professional Peer, but he would
cease, to do so if the House did not protect him from
interruption.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
'.she witness was then called in and examined by Lord
BROUGHAM, as to whether he knew the name of the
unknown, otherwise than through his brother, and in
connection with these actions ?
Witness—Never.—("Hear, hear," from Lord Radnor.)
Lord BROUGHAM said he never knew such great
indecency before—(" Hear, hear, andh " Order")—in a
court of law as to call out "hear, hear' at the answer of a
witness. But, it was now clear, from the answers of the
witness, that the name was a privileged communication,
and the witness could not be compelled to answer the
question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred with his
Noble and Learned Friend, as the doubt had arisen
from the ambiguity of the witness's former answer.
Lord CA7..IPBELL and Lord COTTENHAM were of' the
Same opinion ; but they thought that the question was
by no means an unnecessary or unimportant one.
Lord RADNOR begged leave, in his own justifica-
tion, to read what had been said. The Noble Lord then
read an extract from the witness's evidence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The question was
IMF, and it had been decided by Mr. Baron Parke—Was
the solicitor bound to disclose his client ? He said no,
and so also decided Mr. Baron Parke.
Lord CAMPBELL thought that further time ought
o allowed for consideration.