The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-08 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Sir J. Y. BWLLER said that he had received a letter
from Mr. O'Brien, who had been summoned before
that 'louse, and he had also received a petition from the
same Gentleman, with a request that he would present it
in his place in Parliament. He stated in thg petition
that ho was partner with Mr. Edwards, solicitor and
attorney-at-law in Devon, by whom an action was
brought against Mr. Parrot (late Member for Totness).
The petitioner added that he had never been consulted
in the case, but that the action had been solely, and
without his sanction, brought by Charles Edwards. He
prayed that he might be discharged at once from further
attendance before that House.

The petition was then read by the Clerk at the table.
Mr. DIVETT said that though he conceived that the
prayer of the petition was an unquestionable one, yet
as that was a matter not for present discussion, he would
move that it should lie on the table.

SirJ. Y. BULBER presented a petition from Charles
Edwards Bucklersbury, county of Devon, and Thomas
Baker, Lime-street, solicitors, stating, that though they
brought the action against Mr. Parrot on account of his
having given certain evidence before a Select Committee
of the House of Commons, yet they were nut aware it
was any breach of the privileges of the House, and that
the action would not lie without that evidence. It prayed
that the House would take these circumstances under
aonsideration, stating that they had not been guilty of
any infraction of the privileges of the House, and if they
had it was quite unintentional.
Mr. DIVETT moved that David Phillips be called to
the bar.

?PIS then brought to the bar of the House.
The SPEAKER—What is your name ? Mr. Phillips
—David Phillips.
SPE AKER—Vhat is your profession ? Mr. Phillips
surgeon.

S l'EZKER—Where do you reside ? Mr. Phillips—
At BuckivrAury, in the county of Devon.
SPEAKEIt—Are you engaged in the action of Phil-
lips against Parrot ? Mr. Phillips—Yes, I am.
SPEAKER—It is alleged by the petition of the de-
fendant, that this action is brought against him for words
sea in evidence given by him before a Select Committee
of the House of Commons. Is such the case ? Mr.
Plullips—For words used partly before a Committee of
the House, and partly before the board of guardians at
%canes.

Si-TAKER-L.ls the ilouse to understand that the

action is brought against Jasper Parrot for words
spoken by him when giving evidence before a Select
Committee ?—Mr. Phillips begged pardon, z a he had
not heard the qu. stion.
The Short-hand Writer then repeated the question.
Mr. Phillips—The action is brought for what he has
stated before the Committee of the House, coupled with
what he stated before the board of guardians at Totnes.
The SPEAKER—Did you ever see the declaration in
this action? Mr. David Phillips—l have heard it read.
The SPEAKER—Are yon aware of the statement
contained in that declaration, in answer to a question
from an Hon. Member of this House, put to Mr. Jasper
Parrot ? Mr. Phillips—l have heard it.
And that Mr. Parrot's answer is contained in that
declaration ?—I have no recollection of the expression.
If I may be allowed to address this Honourable
House, I would beg leave to say that I had
no intention whatever to infringe the privileges of
this House. I do not know what they are ; but if I
have infringed them I am sorry for it, and I have done
everything in my power to prove it ; and all I wished
for was for an opportunity to state this, although my
character has been destroyed, or attempted to be de-
stroyed. I made an application to the poor-law guar-
dians of the union in which I have resided for 24 years,
for the protection of my character, but to no effect ; and
I have been deprived of my situation by a statement
which I believe to be false and malicious.
Sir J. Y. BULLER—You state that you had no in-
tention of infringing the privileges of the House by this
proceeding ?—Certainly.
And you now state that you see you have committed
a breach of those privileges ?—Yes.
And, knowing that, are you willing to admit that you
are anxious to express your sorrow for having taken
this proceeding ?—Yes ; but I do hope that this House
will institute some investigation into the injury done my
character.

Are you willing to leave the matter in the hands of
this House ?—I am.
In what Court did you first commence the action 2—l
am not aware.
Did you ever write to any person on the subject of the
defamatory matter ?—I addressed a circular to the Tot •
nes board of guardians, calling upon them to -inquire
into the matter, and a copy of that circular I forwarded
to an Hon. Member of this House, Lord Ashley.
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS—Did you receive any answer
from the Noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee ?
—None whatever.
Sir T. WILDE—Did you ever petition this House on
the subject of the alleged slander ?—I have not hitherto
done so.
Mr. COLLETT—Was this circular written previously
or subsequently to the commencement of the action ?
At some time before it.
In answer to a question from Mr. BARRY BALD-
WIN, witness said he could not say to what extent he
had suffered in his private practice.
Sir THOMAS WILDE—Can you point out to the
House any other matter in your declaration with refer-
ence to the evidence of Parrot ?"" Witness—l must
consult the document.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that before they
went further in this case, they should in the first place
have an answer to the question put by the Hon. Member
for Devon. His suggestion was that the gentleman
should be again called to the bar, and asked if he were
willing to withdraw his action, and to submit himself
unconditionally to the discretion of the House. After
the answer were received, then the House would be in a
condition to proceed, and either to discharge him out of
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to inquire
further into the circumstances of the case.
After a few words from Mr. DIVETT,
Mr. HINDLEY said that he had always been an ad-
vocate for the maintenance of the privileges of the House,
but he did not think that any gentleman, in giving
evidence before Committees, should be allowed to make
statements injurious to the character of other gentlemen.
He did not think that a late Member of that House
would make any such statement, and therefore it was but
right that the House should give Mr. Parrot an oppor-
tunity of justifying or denying it.
Sir R. PEEL was disposed to agree in the propriety
of the course pointed out by the Noble Lord. They had
had evidence given to them that the witness was not
competent to judge of the privileges of that House, and
as he confessed that he did not know, and meant not to
infringe those privileges, he (Sir R. Peel) thought that
satisfactory enough ; and if the witness were content to
withdraw his action, and express his sorrow for what
had occurred, he thought they need proceed no further
in the matter.

Mr. ROEBUCK said it was very true that the person
who had been called did not know anything of the privi-
leges of the House, and therefore might be discharged
on his petition. The real party offending was the
attorney who had advised him.—(Hear, hear.) He
therefore thought that the House ought to proceed
against the latter person.
Sir T. WILDE hoped that the House would observe
the broad distinction between the questions whether the
House should submit to the courts of law, and what the
House might think it right to d) in a case of this kind.
They must keep the questions perfectly distinct. And
considering the state of this question as it stood at pre-
sent, he thought the better course was, when the person
was called to the bar and male an apology, and when
he submitted entirely to the pleasure of the House, t
discharge him at once, instead of proceeding further
with the strong hand. The witness had shown his de-
sire to submit to the House, and the question now was
whether they should proceed against him as wilfully
guilty of invading the privileges of the House, when his
manner and conduct showed that he was ignorant of those
privileges, and that he was desirous of submitting to the
authority of the House. He (Sir T. Wilde) thought it
better to accept that submission. He should propose
that the witness be asked if ho were disposed to submit

fully „to the House and ti withdraw his action ; and
having so expressed himself', he proposed further that he
should be cli,charged. The House knew well tint no
attorney could continue the action after the principal had
given it up. His deci led opinioa was, that the House
should accept of the witnesi'e ap
Sir B. 11. IN 3 LIS said that, as far as the gentleman
at the bar ti, a.; concerned, he fully concurred in the pro-
priety of the course advocated by the Noble Lord the
Member for London and the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Member for Worcester. That sugges-
tion was, that the gentleman at the bar having expressed
his willingness to withdraw his action, his apology be
Iccepted and he be discharged. But he also agreed with
the remarks of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath,
that he thought the House was bound to proceed much
further with respect to the other two gentlemen. It
was perfectly clear that the action was brought against
a witness who was under the protection of the House,
and so far he was perfectly willing to support the privi •
leges of the House. He therefore hoped that the House
would adopt the suggestion now made, and, on Mr.
Phillips formally renouncing his action, forgive and dis-
charge him.
Mr. DARBY supported the proplsition.
Lord HO WICK said that he had a ()Teat objection to
calling individuals to the bar of the Ifouse and asking if
they werc willing to forego their actions. lie thought
the more proper course to adopt would be for the House
to come to some resolution, declaring that the party ag-
grieved by the evidence given before the Committees,
instead of asking protection frem the courts of law
should do so from that House. He ought first to petition
that House, and, on consideration, they might either
allow Mr. Phillips, or a person in the same circumstances,
to proceed at law against the aggressing party, or they
might order a committee to inquire into the truth of the
allegations in the petition, and to report to the House
upon the subject. He was of opinion that they ought to
leave Mr. Phillips in the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms until his petition was received and the action with-
drawn, but he could not agree that that gentleman
should be invited to make a concession, a refusal of
which would compromise the dignity of the House. He
should propose that a resolution of the following cha-
racter should be come to:—" That this House shall not
permit persons aggrieved by witnesses' evidence before the
House, or in Committees of the House, to institute legal

proceedings against the witness for such evidence given
before them without permission of the House, and the
person so aggrieved shall be bound in the first instance
to ask such permission." He, for one, was not prepared
to allow the person in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms
to be discharged until his petitions were presented, and
he had submitted himself to the House.
Arlr. HUME did not see that they could adopt any
other course, and he was surprised to hear the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) express himself otherwise.
Sir R. PEEL said there was a precedent in point.

In the case of Gee, which happened 'in 1696, an action
had been brought against certain parties under the pro-
tection of the House. He was summoned to the bar,
and he then admitted that he had acted through igno-
rance, and after submission to the House he was dis-
charged.
Sir G. GREY thought the matter should be deferred
to another day, and then discussed.
Mr. D. DUNDAS thought the principles of fair play
and natural justice had been violated in calling an indi-
vidual to the bar of that House, and then subjecting him
to questions without giving him the aid of counsel. He
found in a precedent cited by the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel), and in many other cases that were
parallel to this, that counsel had been allowed in Com-
mittee, and that a report had afterwards been made to
that House. Why had that course not then been
adopted ?
Mr. DENNISTOUN—You are speaking for the

lawyers.
Mr. DAVID DUNDAS—He was not speaking
for the lawyers—he was speaking fir justice.
He repeated, he was not speaking for the
lawyers, but for the men whom the lawyers pro-
tected. With respect to the case which had been quoted
by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that of Gee,
he should, if the House would give him permission, read
the petition on that case. The Hon, Member then read
the petition at length. He besought the House not to
take any steps which might afterwards be accounted
rash and unwise, or they would find, in the course of

time, they would have a gradual and a growing crop of
actions. He hoped that the House, before taking any
decisive steps in this matter, would send it before a com-
mittee, where the person at the bar would have the op-
portunity of being defended by counsel. That committee
would then report to the House ' • and in this way they
might prevent such actions in future, which were not
only harassing to the parties, but destructive to the dig-
nity of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that after what had fallen
from his Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last, there could be no doubt as to the course which
the House ought to take. He would only move, as an
aoendment on the motion of the Hon. Member for
Exeter, that the word " to-morrow" be inserted in the
resolution. _

Mr. DIVETT said that probably Mr. Phillips was
the least guilty of the parties. But if he were ignorant
of the privileges of the House, the attorneys could not
be so.—(Hear, hear.) Ho thought it wai ineufferabi