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

-- - _ - ----
had done en act of rl3 0.-d:nary n tore. They had gone the
length ,o ask him to disclose
,ills,. the case in law wee then
from the statement of the opposite party it must appear that he
ada different cause ef act-eel to I ,14 tte', in the dcareee.
it " ts an alien. for ',tor is spekee by S
abo itness, in gerene e••;s
re!, .ce: !leer would any elf their Lordships, wile hoe brought
Zel action, like to state in the eresentte et an adversary why he
brought his action, what evidenee he meant to adduce, *hat I e
meant to do, what to rove ?
1111°111,1 say p
They tad dent all this; but 1 e
no more then oh that point. He protesti d
rterallYs reserving to himself the argument when
ileZ:, e proper time should arrive.—( Hear, hear.) Now
said this was a hreaeh of privilege. Go on with the action
Witt l" liked, and toe (+Milt he knew he intended to go on
zia it, but thet they should send them both prisolers to
IwgVe• This was what they were about to do. This was
°be of the instances in which they stood in a different position
dighe other House of Parliament, inasmuch as the other House
I ,neortyexamine a man on oath, as that House had no judicial
Chars ter at all, whilst they were judges in the highes' Court—
Court before which this action :might be brought by a
rliWrit of error, and yet they, the Court of last resort, tell the
es to proceed with the action at their peril, laying the
bu° ton on which they as a Court of Error, might be called
-o°ll to decide. A;
the _ your peril go on—we are
seaurt of last resort. But there was another most matPria'
i:krticular in which that House differed from the other, which
"Uld well believe ; but he could well imagine hat a person
Chest consistently saying in the other House of Parliament—be ' Incite are our privileges and, we will net allow an action to ''lntight, that we twill stop it main forts, by main force, be.
:Vase that action was breught to trial—to judgment—
tese—,,thltt, Judgment is carried by an appeal in the last
them; en all civil and criminal suits, the appeal lay to
Riven' . If evidence was rejected, if a sentence was improperly
vast ' if a judge charged a jury in violation of the taw, then a
but of error lay with the aggrieved parties, and they could
:Lig it for trial before that House. They were
tooudges in stub
see Whether they would or no. They were act ex mecca-
-II:re- But it was said that unless witnesses were protected,
4110e.seeseerilei; knew they were to have protection, there could be
of their evidence being obtained. Why, they were
li;tnteeted• They were protected in their coming to the House,
;their retrain there and in their leaving. For all purposes
es:curing evidence there was no illegal interference whaterer.
thlt„7 was no cause for apprehension. It was their bounden
e , to was
the witnesses. But he had yet to learn that it
-et at
eper
t all necessary to exempt witnesses from the ordinary
a toes of the law after they had given their evidence. To
no sue the
the e" conclusions did he come. But it was said. what was
I' eiese of bringino witnesses before them, if they were
4,. , be calleeto account before a court sf justice
l'e'etitat prevent them from speaking the truth. If they
et
I ""ered they were liable to damages, hut if they spoke the
see th
law would afford them its protection. But let them
II: theefallacy of the argument. In a Committee on Satur-
. z,l!tka witness had been examined respecting a line of railway.
ontelfarsileridgtcoottld be more false than the testimony of that witness,
tot ug that witnesses were present that would be brought
confront him, admitted that he had given evidence
sub. 'inner occasion that he could not sub-tantiate there. That
1.01,77, however, would eome, in all probability, before their
IsittlniPa tomorrow. But this perjured witness, whom. it was
the 'ti bete) necessary to protect, was liable to be punished for
• deetevidence he had given : and if so there was an end to the
ahottrinee of protection. The Clerk of the Committee, the
ineeLuand writer, or even the door-keepers, might indict that
• fileV', and the House had no power to stop the proceedings.
ls re, of such proceedings would depend upon the truth or
Presse°ed of what he had sworn. What was there different in the
the, lt ease to the one he had referred to? They were both
(h. wart Whether the case was a civil or a criminal action,
es th eosoever originated it. Nothing was so plaits
Ile iodic person person giving false evidence was liable. to
!aid!aid thelefed at the suit of any one.
.But it was
,cates were different, that the one suit had been
etill b4S:"I,°Y a private party, and the other would be instituted
"lovhse":' of the Crown, though a private individual was
Ptivile". in the ease. If so, then, it came to this, they had. no
1410" against an action from the Crown, but. only. against
they• 3ct• He had been led to think that their privileges were
the 10 their hands to be used for the benefit, and on behalf of
t,ileirPe:ele: nut according to this doctrine, it now seemed
FeposereTileges were omnipotent only against the people, and
os theagainst the Crown. But let them look to what must
!Ia ,ogr necessary results. He meant the logical results of such
let the In the first place, the advocates for privilege said
%tete ellinishment for perjury was sufficient to protect the
latotheren individual ; but the law sa'd that there should
fbe
the our Illode nf proceeding. '1 he Lev said the punishment was or tlttt,ti !ection of the üblic and the action was to give the slan-
% Individual repaPratio.n. But the advocates of privilege said
14? -rt
84°111d boW he eno separation, there should only be punishment.
Of tles ,Priyed them to consider what must be the consequence
tliestioe'segally —judicially. He entreated an answer to his
id tiles-. Ihe committed the plaintiff and his atto-ney.
ktioe Put an end to the action ? No such thing. The.
%nee etnained—the action went on. The plaintiff and his
theta 0 his counsel might be committed, and he
_found
had 4 —Vectable gentleman. whose name was not mentioned,
b IIY he has • p nion
'. which the action had been
4iten
"° i . whichplaced him in great jeopardy.
given an °lemon on
._ ~...tiZtgt.ht: He had given a sound opinion—a lawyer-like opine n
his h _nth opinion as he was bound to give to those who sought
eri4eiessional advice. But according to the advocates for
opseiseges he was liable to be brought to the bar for that
consiann.,._, Now suppose all these three several persons to be Path.itseu, would that stay the action ? No, not an hour.
Who es-rnent would be up, and another attorney would be found
eaeaoould carry Purpose on, unless Parliament met in the
the
slel.l, for the of incarcerating those who continue 400,_"n--but even if they imprisoned them all, one aftero_s
eisea'ar, until there was not an attorney left—wheneheeoirogoasell,
Would
the filled with refractory atto-neys and
been . action cease ? No ;it would still go on.
and I t ha d
14 tcuggested that the defendant should not leaads, those
if it were
the life Other House who had defended privilege
she
of Parliament, Parliament had expressed their regret todioreepernert:
tal,„' c" course he "nein, in their votes, for having .
.. cos course
lead. Now, in his
opieieue allowed one of their offi..ers to_
b pordering the Attor-
tiey., , they had shown their wisdom
hed
„"eneral to plead to the action .b t yit appeared that they
time the them of what they had done;u and that. another
ke th,,
the ~CY would commit all the parties concerned in bringing
34r a' nut Of course they would commit the judges and the
ee3' who tried it They would commit the Chief-Justice,
ti;elitlisse jullees ; and the Chief-Justice, being a member of
ta.., Lordships' House, and not being very likely to go volun-
,inY to prison they would be at onee-committed in a conflict
ttlth their Lord:hips. But,
to pose there was no plea. The plain-
t would sign an interlocutory judgment, as a matter of course;
111 writ of inquiry would issue ; the Sheriff would execute the
tWor
executeit,ad, on the e application of the plaintiff, he would be bound
out ; and, even then,iadg judgment tress
a writ of error were sued
if they refused to plead. themaiegtbi
gment, and the case Jo.tunclegnawv
eo
nteiltndtuaglwerer
on
bn e astayed.nbdio brought
ripengSoht
jud
fore them judicially by writ of error. y
mews hie sermo." thatb intoe
These were not hi ;4 oNpinui
Ille ons only, they were the opinions of
sett-Justice Patteson and of the Chief-Justice of the Court of
4 een's Bench, the hiehest legal authorities in all other places
eteept n Houses ''of Parliament. Now, he called. upon
„Ihilelti not to be powerful by halves—not to have their pre-
rg,,es piecemeal. If they were determined to stand up for
Verriiege, let them carry it to its fullest extent, and not stop
liatr; aY: Let them cammit judges and juries, and. set Pat!.. see ...eot In irreconcilable conflict with the courts of justice—in
Ve-rt'si cnflict, at least as far as Parliament was concerned.
so : 1141 ithe midst of that tempest, so bootlessly, so recklessly,
dere: leicsalY excited —amongst the midst .of that terrible
sseeld'ess there would shine a light, to which all good men.
rested Ppmnt, to which the eyes of all wise men would be d -
tera " Comfort and safety—not that lurid light which the
lio,test Might extinguish, but that bright, pure, unsullied
• trete
.Zhieh the law, in the administration of justice, derived
troehrte untarnished sources from which justice flowed. He
Who ierentied their Lordships of the perils which attended those
coetest'inrinualy brought on a contest—a hopeless, helpless
Vitae wee -titb the law. They would by this course hf th. 4. own
ale 4 c‘the country which was itself to determine in its own
dle only ionlething reminded him that this, however, was not
siseifsn'Y branch of the constitution which stood precisely under
the err eirenmstances. He meant the Crown ; and he supposed
,If the ZIT' was as ancient a branch of the Constitution as either
eeeht Wouses of Parliament. He knew that there was great
te"settibiV'titg in the minds of many that there was
ia popular
'Lie, is J uamed the Wittenagemot existing in Saxon t mes, an
4iter ti'ew that CO assembly from the boroughs was collected
!her e: Norman conquest. But then it was maintained by
eqerwer‘ -;
ras°ll3s that thin could not be considered as a distinct
likee'lsthCharter 17astbonlyitsome years after the passing of the
that theylad really anything
44:::eg ,aetearr.lniatmierint.y Thee,:reotnsall events, a Crown existed, at
*as ins long as a Parliament, and the executive of the count at
.iitnet_ln
did the first of these. Yet the Crown never id
Ist't :t° itself the privileges that *hat House did. If
.the
era ' and wrought hintg
th; the subject petitioned against
te ached to tee court of law. If the subject en-
I," Ns" P°,l the Crown, the Crown appealed to the law, and
m law eet was brought before it. The Crown prosecuted by
11113, th-e. Zifficers, and the merits of the case would be decided on
e tree "es of the country. Then why. he ask.ed, should
j:resPee.tuiZessereeki to. usurp a power which the Crown itself never
Fa eG'ist'tutesdin - the beginning of time ? The Crown
had ee g since .
before whom witnesses were
elett:estTßeadt'ioa...tid theireownittunlessssieurr'cieuired to be protected. The
....Protee. i. cOuld not be proceeded with without some degree
witnesunt, but if the Commissioners of the Crown called a
ittre4 lieftore the
whoslandered his neighbour, or who I er-
-48 his "11141 self, Wasmlitat neighbour not to claim equal protection
toss f slander' and if he brought an action against that wit-
likis t tit the e"+
eiss,io kssev, slander, aid he ( Lord Brougham) should
Prot, j4Stice if, even at the time, when Jeffreys was
she etee 1, it would be said the witness must be
ri Pritij must not be harassed.. We stand upon
linceee ~eges of this House—we advise your majesty to
t"isena a-e'e °nee on a principle which is inalienable in this
se,'" Cler'oe—,," Which has been exercised from all time. If, teen,.
Jiqat
," never resorted to this extreme measure, even if a,
w-re eftraittedt on it, why should they, sheltering th.em-
invite under the
. shield) of their Parliamentary prerogative!,
Pri,ils4 Conflict with the owers of the law ? How had this
4 vtr Z ariginated ? Walls it not first in the commission of
47t t '
; ~,atid secnndl in the assumption of a privilege to pro-
"le e • rte could poyint out atnone the illustrious patriots of
th.. Au,
e"'"" h -rY' "long the most distinguished of those who h.ad
-aerl'9er to the bench and to that House, a band which
tetviie itself as
, adversary to the principle of privilege, the
h.,Snets a.. claimed by that House. Accidentally the pasha-
rt 'Ile; Placed against the Crown gave rise to their sup-
ilei °yr 'gh Parliamentary-He mast remind
1 -P ,or, i . privileges.
Nes, "'nps of the excess to which they carried their prim.
orshll4 Suffice it to say, that year afterwards, he found these
drawer mores oft House'whichahad thus entered itself into the
clap whir it hsd thus used under the name of privilege to
hem sit wished, and to act as it thought fit. The very
elan. Yeeere by an oscl• • dby the House of Corn-
tail, 'ulut the co.rslatneef that House, the Crown was to
rim , melee.
li. es;
0, bands, and.o anotheroa ordinance' was for the
tilinerit
a'
nc
to tro,rooptsertof
its
eorser
rtiole defend the Per-
i ges, and to give
egtleesslleed,fol protection to their"' witnesses against the
Rai tr,', the l'ishops, and the Lords, and the third ordinance
end tee 'ell money for the slice of protecting their privileges
lAN. Pay the Bills issued by th • Commons' House of Pasha-
aad its,. f. There were many other cases in their journals
11:4,n-•".?g orders showing the laws made by the House of
bew refer,lls in support of its own privileges, to which he would
Fedora
, After the Revolution of 168 S and 1689 they had
tesealitwnich were still standing, orders communicating to the
Prime ants of Mernbsrs of Parliament of both Houses the same
Whisijillec_a,of exemption from actions and arrests as those
keel their m ster." enjoyed. Another standing ordi r never
shetlicied, thee
e, , is
esin f late years not practised, wae that no pers ,n
,nl tee ?ireellme to take the goods and chattels of any Member
'iitlgte, L" of Lords and Commons in execution upon any
1 b 't' Another order of the reign of George I. declared
Wes(' e a high breach of the pi iviitores of that House if any
h• Pr,surn . '.
is win _
.en to write the life of any deceased Peer or publish
the 5,.1.,' anti orders were posted on the outside of the House, to
lee. o that all persons sh :uld have knowledge of the same.
l'tere4rit re so inesnsistent and capricious as to
tsoisse all publication of any debate within the
*ith bof C°°l'nons. Whether the order was strictly complied
shins
,e the press of this country, he would leave their Lord-
aQ; .Jo consider. There was just as much a breach of privi-
tetaktuinoPousbolishing the speeches of any Member of the House. of
th 3 °Meer -r
of ords. as there was inc bringing actions against
eir c s the Houses or any witnesses examined be:ore
fore theiunmittees. He would only have them to consider, be-
titt*ss Y finallyresolved, that privileges were originally thought
eroweerY Wproteet the Houses of Parliament against the
" The friends of liberty paid that privilege is absolutely