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

Graham, and the Attorney-Genaral for Ireland in support of,
and from Colonel Rawdon, and ,Mr. Morgan J. O'Connell, in
opposition to the Bill, it was eventually postponed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
louse adjourned at Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 10.
Their Lordships assembled at five o'co .k.
ARRESTMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Duke 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 BROUGH.I.II 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-
ships' attention to a matter of privilege. He held in his
hand the petition of Mr. Thomas Baker, who had been
superintendeet 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 cese,
in tee 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. He wished, therefore, 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 hire,
but he did net 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
detailed in the petition, protect the defendant. He under-
stood that the declaration alleged that the evidence was
given before a Committee of that House.
Lord BROUGHAM—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 she ordinary course of justice, might come before their
Lordships as the last court of resort. The Noble 'dad
Learned Lord concluded by proposing the motion.
Lad CAMPBELL moved, as an amendment, that
the plaintiff and his attorney be summoned to appear at
the bar of that House. He considered that there was
no necessity for a Committee. He agreed with his Noble
Friend on the Woolsack that no action could be main-
tained against a witness for evidence which he had given
before their Lordships. He called on their Lordships to
protect their privileges, and referred to the case in
which an action was brought against one of the officers
of their Lordships' House for taking an umbrella which
had been left by a witness in his possession. In that
case their Lordships threatened to commit the plaintiff
to prison if he proceeded with the action.
Lord 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 precedents. Their Lordships 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 he 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 COTTENHAM said that the petitioner alleged
that the action was brought for words which were spoken
before a Committee of that House. 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 be 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 House before them to warn them of
the consequences of procrastination in a question of that
kind.
Lord DENMAN hoped that they would not prevent
the plaintiff in this case Irom 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 gilding 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
Rouse 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. Ho 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 iii 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 fe at words from Lord Ca emcee and Lord
BROUGHAM, the House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
On one' admission to the gallery, we found
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE blaming the House
for carrying the motion.
Lord STANLEY considered that, by adopting the
ratifier, they would not sacrifice on,. 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
he elicited.
Lord COTTEN-HA NI considered that they ought to
know whether it was a breach of privilege or not with-
out searching fur 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-
ceps the police.
The Committee was then appointed, and eleven o'clock
(this day) fixed for its first meeting.
FRAUDS BY A RAILWAYr COMPANY.
The Duke of RICHMOND then called the attention
of the House to two petitions which he had placed on the
table 6f 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.
Ile 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, therefore, move that a Select
'Committee should be appointed to report on the peti-
'one to which lie 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
it. He considered that the report of the Committee on
the Bill, which had passed the Commons, ought not to
be received until the Committee he had proposed should
have made their report. The party stated in the peti-
tion that he could bring forward fifteen people, whose
names were put to the contract without their consent or
knowledge. He himself knave nothing at all of the mat-
ter, from beginning to end, except what he had stated.
Parties stated to the Standing Ord. rs Committee that
they had seen the persons sign the deed of contract.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said it was a very
serious forgery, and was punishable in a court of law.