The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

neees,ary, and asked what they would do if the Crown weo-e
mains? them. His ( Lord Brougham's) answer was, so much
tile' better for them. For, if the Crown was against them, he
d ri.• .n carry a tiioh hand with ,h-ir privileges:
... . ,i-rE(si f, and In ;jiairatCs,
an till otht.f 5, to 0.9 i heti: ion sugget• tO I ilt in, ill the
sdppres-iloci of riots arid in keeping the streets clear. But,
suppo-ing, there were no; sufficient justices, magistrates, or con-
stables, in Westminsier to suppress the riot, he should like to
know what was meant by all ethers. He only stated
these things to show the inconsistencies of their privileges.
He ( Lord Brougham) was most sure that they had nothing to
fear from the justices of the land • and that they ought of all
men,and of all bodies of men, to ;how the most willing obedi-
ence to that law, and they ought to be the very last to shrink
from protecting their rights, the rights of their witnesses and
the rights of their servants and officers. Their Lordships
ought to keep in mind the great maxim that the very belt
whi:Th bound together the great social pyramid of England was
not the apex of the Crown—not the middle region—not the
lower ree,ion of the people—but that middle region, in which
justice was administered according to law, by lawyers, and,
above all, by lawyers who were no political partisans. t was
because they were secured from politics—it was because
politics never crossed the threshold of their houses of justice
to impede their course, or to tarnish their renown, or interrupt
the calm and equable tenour of their way ; it was for that rea-
son that they were to be safely relied upon by all men ; and it
was for that reason that he ought, and they ought, to rely infi-
nitely more securely upon the protection they were sure to afford,
than in any assumption of power under the name of privilege
which they might possess.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he considered this
a question of the greatest importance, and before he would
enter into it, or would say a word with respect to the question
itself, he wished to point out to their Lordships the situation in
which he stood with respect to it. The Noble Duke presented
a petition from a party complaining that an action had been
brought,against him in consequence of evidence which he gave
before a Committee of that House. It was their Lordships'
pleasure that the question of the gaming-laws should be investi-
gated, and a Select Committee was appointed for the purpose
of inquiring into the subject. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) felt it to be his duty, in consequence
of that preliminary step, to bring forward the motion which had
given rise to this discussion. He wished, then. in the posi-
tion in which he was placed, and in the character with which
he was clothed, to lay before them, plainly and clearly, the
real position of this question, what was the nature of it, and
what was the authority on which it rested, in order to enable
their Lordships to come to that decision which, after consider-
ing this important question, they should pronounce. His
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had quoted and
referred to several precedents, which he (the Lord Chancel-
lor) admitted to be very absurd and very extraordinary. No
doubt this House and the other House had, under the name of
principle, conducted themselves upon one occasion in an arbi-
trary and tyrannical manner. The sovereigns of this country
at different periods had also abu-ed their power and authority,
and he would beg leave to add that when the people them-
selves had by accident become clothed with power they had,
in more than one instance, used a tyrannical, a despotic, and
arbitrary power. —( Hear, hear.) The question new was
whether, under the circumstances of this case, they
ought to interpose their authority in stopping
proceedings against a person who had preferred his complaint
at their Lord-hips' bar. The first thing was to consider what
were the circumstances and facts of the case. This witness
was examined before a Select Committee of Inquiry into the
laws of gaming. He answered the question- put to him, and
there was no pretence to say that these answers were not
fairly and honestly given. It was a Select Committee, not
open to the public, but, in consequence of the evidence having,
in some way or other, been made public, this action had been
' instituted. His Noble and Learned Friend, in the course of
his speech, seemed to doubt whether they had sufficient evi-
dence. independent of what was stated at their Lordships' bar,
to show that the action had been brought to recover damages
in consequence of evidence which had been brought before
their Lordships' Committee. That question was investigated
before a Committee of their Lordships, and every member of
the Committee was satisfied that the action bad been brought to
recover dam-iges for evidence so given, and for that,
evidence only. They had the declaration before them com-
pared with evidence before the Select Committee, and it cor-
responded in every word. It was a lung succession of testi-
mony, consisting of questions and answers, so as to render it
impossible for any man to doubt that the action was brought
in consequence of evidence used before a Committee of their
Lordships. It was not necessary to bring the parties bringing
the action before the bar, but for the purpose of giving them
an opportunity of explaining to their Lordships what were
their motives, and to set themselves right if they thought
proper. They did not do so, and in consequence he (the Lord
Chancellor) made a motion to the effect that they were guilty
of a breach of their Lordships' privileges, in order that, after
having evidence advanced on the subject, they might come to a
decision on that point. It had been said by his Noble and
Learned Friend, and very correctly said, and he thought said
on iormer occasions, that no action of this kind could be main-
tained in the Courts of Westminster-hall. Therefore he

(Lord Brougham) suggested that they should allow the action
to go on and the law to take its course. His (the Lord Chan-
cellor's) answer to that was very short and simple. Here
was a person'called before a Committee and compelled to give
evidence; an action was brought against him, and it entirely
failed; nut anybody who had any acquaintance with the admi-
nistration of justice would see that notwithstanding the verdict
in his favour the consequence would be that consider-
able costs would come out of his own pocket.—( Hear,
hear.) Everybody knew that the defendant was
entitled only to taxed costs, and these fell very far short indeed
of the real costs which the party had to pay. So that the in-
dividual who was compelled to come before their Committee
and to give honest evidence, was to be dragged into a court of
justice and go through all this ordeal. and ultimately,, in the
event of his success, to be taxed with these costs. That was
only a part of the ease. Everybody who knew anything of the
administration of justice knew how many accidents there were
which occurred in a cause. Slips might be made, owing to the
fault. perhaps, of the couns-1, the consequence of which would
be that the defendant would have a judgment against him, and
would have to pay the whole costs out of his own pocket.
These were the risks to which they would expose their wit-
nesses. Was it not of importance that they should proteet their
own witnesses ? And what was of more importance than the
appointment of select committees for the purpose of discovering
the truth of important matters t If a witness who was to be
examined before any of these Committees knew the risks to
which he was exposed, and that he was running the chance of
being, dragged before a court of justice for the evidence which
he would give, it would lead to a suppression of the entire truth,
and would induce him to withhold everything that he felt a 'raid to
disclose. His Noble and Learned Friend thought it extraordinary
that a man should be interfered with in his appeal to a court of
justice. It was strange, considering the high position that Noble
Lord once occupied, as head of the Court of Chancery, and
considering his great eruditien, that he should have propounded
such a proposition. Why it was an every-day practice in
Chancery ; if any officer in the execution of his duty had an
action brought against him, he prayed for an injunction to stop
the suit, and it was immediately accorded, while the man who
brought the action was committed to prison, and kept there till
he obeyed the orders of the Court. But the Noble Lord had
said, that even if the House went to ulterior steps, it would be
inutile, for others would conduct the suit. But the action
could not be carried on without agents, and if any man dared
to carry on the action, while its originator was in custody, ha
would be committed for contempt, and also punished. This
was perfectly analogous to the present question • and the prin-
ciple was not only applicable to office's, but all persons con-
nected with the Court. If a receiver, appointed by the Lord
Chancellor, was harassed by an action, he could claim and re-
ceive the protection of the Court ; so also was it in the case of
a commission of rebellion. The Noble Lord had asked what
would be their next step if the present were adopted, and a'-
serted that the House would never be able to carry itself
through triumphantly. Only let the infringers of their privi-
leges try, and they would soon see if they could be put down or
not.—( Hear, hear ) A collision between the Howe and the
cones of law was impossible. If the injured sought redress in
inferior courts the courts would refuse to interfere. Why, Lord
Chief-Justice Denman, in the last judgment which he deli-
vered, asserted that his Court. was bound to protect the privi-
leges of Parliamen' ; and had it not been for an informality in
the warrant the question could not have been entertained by
them ; and in the recent case in the other House, the Com-

mons had asserted and maintained their prerogative. He had
thus briefly stated what appeared to him to b the fact and
merits of the ease in its present position and subsequent effect,
and he had, he hoped, enabled their Losdships to perceive the
exact state of the quest;on, and to come to a right decision.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to explain that he had not de-
nied that precedent gave the power now sought, but he doubted
the expediency of the House exercising it. As to the case of
Chancery, he was astonished to hear his Noble Friend adducing
such an inapplicable principle as that of injunction to the pre-
sent question. The cases were wholly dissimilar. In one they
could apply to a court of justice ; in thesother, to the legisla-
tive tribunal only.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained.
Lord CAMPBELL said, that as no other Noble Lord
seemed willing to address the House, be wished to offer a few
remarks upon a question 33 important to their privileges and
respect. The Learned Lord near him (Lord Brougham) had
said that the course they were taking would but render them-

selves obnoxious to popularity. He however would willingly
incur that ri-k as he believed that they best consulted the
liberty of the subject in userting their own rights. The
Learnrd Lord had unwisely referred to precedent, and had
triumphantly appealed to Floyd's ca..e, but that was not an in-
stance of privilege, but impeachment. Some of their privi-
leges had doubtless been found unnecessary, and therefore
voluntarily given up. In the time of the Plantagenets. Par-
liament met three times a ear ; but at Easter, Christ-
mas, or Pentecost, the Houses frequently did not sit
more than three or four days, therefore that and the privilege
of giving protection to the goods of 'Members and their s-r-
-was was abandoned, the latter by an Act of 10 Geo. 111.
Hii Noble Friend had urged that it was only when their pri-
vileges were obstructed that they ought to be summarily vin-
dicated ; but, suppose a charge were made against the Lord

Chancellor in his Court of bribery and sub;rnation of wit-
nesses, would not that be an obstruction of the administratisn

of justice ? And the case was exactly analogous t that now
propounded. But. Lord Eilenborough had distinctly laid down
a con•rary principle, and asserted that the privileges of Parlia-
ment were inherent, and should be defended, even when n•
obstruction was threatened. And it had actually been held of
late, that the same principle held good in all the legis-
lative asomblies of the colonies, and the privileges had been
recently declared as belonging to the Government of Jamaica.
The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the judges. For
the judges he had the greatest respect, and he much regretted
that the Noble and Learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice of
the Queen's Bench, was absent on this occasion. He respected
the wisdom of the judges, but he had a greater respect for the
aggregate wisdom of the House of Lords and the House of
Commons. But, admitting the doctrine that had been laid
down by the Noble and Learned Lord ( Lord Brougham), not
only could parties for giving evidence be brought before the
judges, but also they could be taken into the borough or county
courts. They could be taken into the county courts where
they would be adjudicated upon by parties who had never been
educated in a knowlege of the law. But a true knowledge of
this question was not to be found even in Westminster-hall.
What could many of the judges there know of the privileges of
that House ? Many of them never had been members
of it, and could not be expected to understand its
usages and modes of proceeding. The privileges of that
House did not exist in any written m,,morials, but
were contained in certain usages and cu!toms. There

~..-... -
was likewise a danger of judges being influenced by
popular clamour to act in opposition to the due interests of
the country and the privileges of the House. Lord flacon
says, " A popular judge is a deformed thing ; plaudits are
fitter for players than magistrates." There had been times in
which that flkis9 had been highly unpopular, and when it
would have b-tin impo-sable t:i get a jury to sot imparlially en
any question affecting that House. The other House had been
in the same position, and would have had an equal difficulty in
getting a verdict. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred
to the c.aze of Sir Francis Burdett, who had been allowed to
appear by counsel, but in that case it should be recollected, and
no doubt their Lordships would recollect, that the Crown gave
Sir Francis Burdett liberty to proceed. Under the peculiar
circumstances, this was thought to be the most advisable course.
He would now give a few instances to show that judges ought
not to be trusted in matters involving the privileges of that
House. The Noble and Learned Lori then referred to several
instances in which the courts of law had interfered with the

privileges of the House. In the reign of king Richard the
Second, the judges on two occasions decided in favour of the
prerogatives of the Crown interfering with the privileges of