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

STSAIPS 'ACT.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER. the House went into Committee pro forma on the
above Bill, and it was ordered to be reported this day.
TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE, this
Bill was ordered to be read a second time this day week.
TURNPIKES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was ordered to be read a second time. .
UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS BILL. •
The several clauses of this Bill were agreed to.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
The report on this Bill was received.

The Criminal Jo; isdietion of Assistant Barristers (Iretkind)
Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported
this day.

ART UNIONS BILLL (No. 2).
The report was ordered to be received this dayY
The second reading of the Games and Wagers Billiwas post-
poned to Friday next.
Several other orders were also postponed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to amend the Act of the 3d and 4th Victoria, o. 109.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of; and the
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 14. •
Their Lordships met shortly after Five o'clock thht evening.
Several Railway Bills were brought up from the Commons
and read a first time.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
This Rill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn•
mitted.

COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Mike of WELLINGTON, this Bill
was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
IRISH POOR-LAW.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presebted two petitions
complaining of the present mode of adminiStrering the poor-law
in Ireland.
The NOBLE MARQUIS at the same tiare moved for a return
of the number of children under the age of fifteen at present
in the workhouses of Ireland, distinguishing orphans from the
other children, and that the report of the Commissioners ap
printed in 1836 to inquire into the state of the poor-laws in Ire-
land be reprinted.—The returns were agreed to.
LIVERPOOL AND BURY RAILWAY.
Lord STANLEY presented severgt petitions in favour of
the Liverpool and Fiery Railway Bilhe
WASTE LANDS IN AUSTRALIA.
The NOBLE Loan laid on the table a Bill for regulating the
sale of waste lands in the Australian colonies.
The Pill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time on Friday.
IRISH COLLEGES BILL.
The NOBLE Loan also appointed the second reading of this
Bill for Monday next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Earl of DEVON said he had conferred with some of
the Members of the other House of Parliament with respect to
the Bills which the Government had intended to introduce, and
he had come to the conclusion that it would not be for the
public benefit to introduce the Bill with respect to the shorten-
ing the form and reducing the expense of leases. He had
come to a similar conclusion with respect to the Bills for re-
gulating distresses and ejectments for the non-payment of rent
for land, the Tenure and Leases Bill, and the Grand Jury Bill.
These Bills, from the late period of the session, could not re.
ceive that consideration to which they were entitled. They
would be carefully considered during the recess, and would be
then proceeded with.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the Noble Lord that it

was necessary to postpone some of the measures he had
enumerated.

enumerated. But with respect to the Bill for amending the
laws relating to grand juries, which had been sent down to the
Lower House, he thought it might be passed during the pre-
sent session. Surely there were enough of Irish Members to
pass the Bill before the session closed.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought the Irish people
had had sufficient time to consider the subject. He thought
that the customs and feelings which lawful habits had en-
gendered and strengthened should be respected. He hoped,
therefore, that time would be given to the people of Ireland to
express their opinion on this subject.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that both those Bills
should go together, and he was of opinion that his Noble
Friend the Secretary for the Colonies should withdraw his
Bill.

Lord CLARENDON then begged leave to move a resolu-
tion, that it is res.lved that in reference, not merely to existing
treaties between Great Britain and Spain, but with respect to
the commercial enterprise carried on between her Majesty's
Government and the colonies, that the Hemse is of opinion that
the subjects of the King of Spain should be permitted to im-
port the productions of all their territories, paying nut higher
duties than other colonies pay on like articles.
The resolution was ordered to lie on the table.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then ordered John Harlow
to be called to the bar, and asked was he present. John
Harlow—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Where do you reside?
Join' Harlow—No. 9, Leicester-square.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Have you brought an
action against Thom-.s Baker ? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—For what? John Harlow—
For false and malicious language used by him before the House
of Lords.

5 he LORD CH INCELLOR—For language used in giving
evidence before a Cummii tee of the House of Lords? John
Harlow—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CEIA NCE LLOR —Have you anything further
to say on that subject ? John Harlow—l will only say, that
I have been very mull injured in my business, by being
ointed out in the streets as being a g :mbler, when I know

that such is not the ease.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you aware that a com-
plaint has been made to this House of your conduct, in bring-
ing this action? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR —And that a complaint has
been made, that it is a !maul' of the privileges of this House ?
John Harlow—l was not at all aware that it was a breach of
privile;e, when Vsc action was commenced. And I hope that
your Lordships will give: me an opportunity of seeking redress,
when I have been so materially injured by the statements
which were made.
Lord CAMPBELL—The question which I beg leave to
put to you is, do you still mean to go on with the action ?
Lord, I am not at this moment prepared to
John Hsrlow—My
say that I will.
Lord CAMPBELL—Are you, at this moment, prepared to i
say, that you will not? John Harlow—No, ray Lord.

Lord RADNOR—Are you prepared to say that you have
been injured in your business in consequence of the statements
which have been made ? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord.
LORD CHANCELLOR—Withdraw from the bar, but do
not leave the House.
Here the witness withdrew, and Peter Hardwin appeared at
the bar of the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—What are you ?—I am a
solicitor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you the attorney em-
ployed by the last witness for the purpose of bringing this action
against Thomas Baker ?—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—For defamatory words?—
For defamatory words, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you not aware that the
were spoken as evidence before a Committee of the House
Peter Hardwin—The report states that the words were used
before a Committee of the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—And that was the founda-
tion of the action ? Witness—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you wish to stv any-
thing further, as you are aware that a complaint has beet; made
of your conduct in that respect? Witness—l have only to
observe that instructions were laid before Counsel, and it was
according to his directions that this action was entered into.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Is the action going on?
Witness—lt is at present pending.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you intend to proceed
with it ? Witness—l have not had instructions to do so. Will
your Lordship allow me to say that I have every reason Co
believe that Baker's information, on which the action has been
founded, is false and—
The LORD CHANCELLOR—That is quite immaterial to
the present question. Mr. Peter tlardwin, you may withdraw
from the bar, but you must not leave the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose and moved that
John Harlow was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House.
Lord BROUGHAM said that in rising to address their
Lordships on the important question before them, he could not
help remarking that during the four years which he had, by
the favour of his late most gracious Majesty presided on
the woolsack, no case of a similar kind had oc-
curred. He thought this a matter of great gratification
to himself, and he entertained a sense of grateful feeling to
their Lordships that during the whole of those four years,
although occasions had frequently arisen for it—yet, in no one
solitc.ry instance, was he ever called upon to interfere with the
strong hand of power to uphold the privileges of that House.
That he, presiding in the highest court of law— taking his
station among the judges in the court of last resort, had never
been called upon to interfere in a case similar to the pre-
sent, out of the ordinary course of law, was to him a source
of the greatest gratification. This principle which he now con-
tended for was not a new one which he advocated when he entered
those walls—be had occasion to assist in several cases where the
same was upheld and vindicated. In the celebrated case called
emphatically, and justly " the Parliamentary Privi-
lege Case,' wherein Sir Francis Burdett raised the
most important question concerning its limits ever yet pro-
pounded, he had argued its merits in every stage, and even on a
writ of error before their Lordships' bar, and in presence of the
Judges of the land called in to give their advice. He
then enjoyed and exercised his right of appear-
ing as Counsel against the exorbitant pretensions
of the other House, and he was not called to answer at the bar
of that House, nor menaced with imprisonment, for doing his
duty to his client, as the attorney in the present case. No;
he was suffered by their Lordships, as their Lordships now re-
fused to suffer Mr. Hardwin, to discharge that duty to his client,
and for half a day together to treat with scorn that affected
privilege—that assumption of power—without risk or inter-
ruption. If the House of Lords had any right to commit an
attorney for discharging his professional duty, then sure he
was the Commons' House of Parliament, who, from the time
when Lord Holt called the Sergeant-at-arms a hawk sent out
to seize its prey, had been quite aware of and alive to its pri-
vileges, and abundantly prone to vindicate them, had the same
right to have committed him ; but with all its disposition at
every stage of its existence to stretch its privileges, and worst
of all to question those of the rival House of Parliament—not
withstanding all these propensities, he was suffered to argue that
case fully, freely, and unintimidated, and yet take a seat in
that House whose affected rights he was treating with disdain.
He would begin by admitting, wheever might deny, he was
not there to deny the privileges of both Houses of Parliament ;
not only of one House, but of both, for whatever belonged to
the one belonged to the other. It was the privilege of Parlia-
ment, and not of either House. No ; he did not venture to
deay the existence of these privileges; but just let him see
what those privileges were, and what were they for? Why
they were to remove all obstructions to the exercise of the
functions of Parliament—to liberate the Members of either
House respectively who might be constrained from attending
their Parliamentary duties ; to inquire, and for the purposes of
inquiry to call all persons before them, treating those persons
with the same respect and courtesy that they received in all
courts of justice ; to examine those who were called before
them, and if refusing to answer, or if prevaricating,
before them, committing such persons for contempt. They
were not, however, to punish for perjury, because that was not
a ground upon which the summary proceedings of commitment
could not be taken, there being a punishment awarded for such
offence by the criminal and statute law of the country. All
these privileges were absolutely necessary for the proper exist-
ence of Parliament, and fur the clue and proper performance of
its functions, -and he was willing and ready to admit that they
existed under the law of the land. But then he was asked to
concede to that House the power, and the same power was
claimed by the other House of Parliament, of declaring from
time to time what these privileges were—of declaring from time
to time. as occasion arose, what act amounted to a
breach of any given privilege—to punish parties so de-
clared by a vote to h ive committed a breach of the privilege—
taking with their own hands the judicial powers of, and making
themselves the only Court of Appeal in the kingdom, and
having done this, declaring what should be the law in a case
for a breach of the law, in which they themselves were the pro-
secutors and the agrieved party, and judging and adjudicating,
without jury, upon an offender whom they themselves prosecute
for an offence declared by them against a law made by them
and only by them, and still made by each without the consent
of the other or the Crown, and then, last of all, condemning a
party for injuries done t o themselves, upon a law made by them-
selves and for themselves, and taking into their own hands the
lawless and anomalous power of putting into execution the sen-
tence which they themselves had passed. No, they had no
right to such powers as these ; and he, therefore, entered his
protest against them in the name of the Crown, and
on behalf of the people of England, whose most sacred
rights " and liberties were invaded by such powers.
They stopped an action legally commenced in Westminster-
hall, alleged to have been brought for injuries sustained by
one of their fellow subjects. Sir Francis Burdett brought an
action against the Speaker for taking him into custody when
he refused to obey the laws of the House. That raised the
question in another form. But here was a case in which a
civil right attached to a civil individual, in which that right
was vested in an individual—in which that right arose out of a
wrong and grievous wrong committed against that individual—
in which, as they were informed, he complained that his cha-
racter had been falsely and foully slandered by persons—that
he had been greatly damaged by that slander, and that for
that damage he had sought redress as by law
he was entitled. What were their Lordships
called upon to do? To pronounce the bringing of the action
breach of privilega. They had examined him at their bar. Thee
had done an act of no ordinary nature. They had gone the
length to ask him to disclose what the case in law was when
from the statement of the opposite party it must appear that he
had a different can se of action to that stated in the declaration.
It was an action for words spoken by a witness, in giving his
evidence. How would any of their Lordships, who had brought
an action, like to state in the presence of arm adversary why he
brought his action , what evidence he meant to adduce, what he
meant to do, what to prove ? They bad done all this; but he
should say no iziore then on that point. He protested
generally, reserving to himself the argument when
the proper Hive should arrive.—(Hear, hear.) Now
they said this wast a breach of privilege. Go on with the action
if they liked, anti for ought he knew he intended to go on
with it, but the t they should send them both prisoners to
Newgate. This seas what they were about to do. This was
one of the instance s in which they stood in a different position
to the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as the other House
did not examine a man on oath, as that House had no judicial
character at all, N vitilst they were judges in the highest Court—
the very Court bet fore which this action might be brought by a
writ of error, and yet they, the Court of last resort, tell the
parties to procem I with the action at their peril, laying the
foundation on vv•ai ch they, as a Court of Error, might be called
upon to dec id e. At your peril go on—we are
the Caurt of last; resort. But there was another most material
particular in whi,.c,h that House differed from the other, which
hi could well be, eve ; but he could well imagine that a person
most consistently • saying in the other House of Parliament—
these are our pr iv ileges and, we will not allow an action to be
brought, that w e will stop it main forte, by main force, be.
cause that ac' inn was brought to trial—to judgment—
and that judg trtent is carried by an appeal in the last
resort. In all civil and criminal suits, the appeal lay to
them. If evid slice was rejected, if a sentence was improperly
given, if a judge t charged a jury in violation of the law, then a
writ of error lay • with the aggrieved parties, and they could
bring it for trial before that House. They were judges in such
cases whether t' bey would or no. They were to act ex neces-
sitate. But it eras said that unless witnesses were protected,
unless they knee r they were to have protection, there could be
no security of tl tt lir evidence being obtained. Why, they were
protected. Th s- y were protected iirtheireorning to the- House,
in their rernaini e g there, and in their leaving.' For all pfirpOses
of securing evid e.lnce there was no illegal interference whatever.
There was no c. ise for apprehension. It was their bounden
duty to protect 1+ a witnesses. But he had yet to learn that it
was at all nece ss try to exempt witnesses from the ordinary
operations of tl se law after they had given their evidence. To
no such conclu si ,ons did he come. But it was said, what was
the use of bri titling witnesses before them, if they were
liable to be cr. lied to account before a court of justice ?
Did that prevent, them from speaking the truth. If they
slandered they were liable to damages, but if they spoke the
truth the law v could afford them its protection. But let them
see the fallacy of the argument. In a Committee on Satur-
day a witness h a d been examined respecting a line of railway.
Nothing could i tie more false than the testimony of that witness,
who seeing that • witnesses were present that would be brought
forward to confr K mt him, admitted that he had given evidence
on a former °eel is ion that he could not substantiate there. That
subject, howeve would come, in all probability, before their
Lordships to-mo r row. But this perjured witness, whom it was
held to beso nevi v ssary to protect, was liable to be punished for
the evidence he le ad given ; and if so there was an end to the
doctrine of protet stion. The Clerk of the Committee, the
short-hand writer , or even the door-keepers, might indict that
witness, and th'e douse had no power to stop the proceedings.
The result of si ,h proceedings would depend upon the truth or
falsehood of wh tt he had sworn. What was there different in the
present case to tihe one he had referred to? They were both
the same. WiL et her the case was a civil or a criminal action,
or whosoever originated it. Nothing was so plain
as that a pers. a T 1 giving false evidence was liable to
be indicted al the suit of any one. But it was
said the cases -w ere different, that the one suit had been
instituted by a 1?? ivate party, and the other would be instituted
on behalf of the • Crown, though a private individual was
moving in the c.l se. If so, then, it came to this, they had no
privileges again st an action from the Crown, but only against
theruhject. He I ,ad been led to think that their privileges were
only in their hare. Is to be used for the benefit, and on behalf of
the people. Bi a according to this doctrine, it now seemed
their privileges I were omnipotent only against the people, and
impotent against • the Crown. But let them look to what must
be the necessare e results. He meant the logical results of such
a course. In v t first place, the advocates for privilege said
that the punish a 9 ent for perjury was sufficient to protect the
slandered indiv ; but the law said that there should be
another mode of n roceeding. '1 he law said the punishment was for
the protection ei'. the public, and the action t-as to give the slan-
dered individur reparation. Bet the advocates of privilege said
there should be t Lc, reparation, there should only be punishment.
Now he prayed ethem to consider what must be the consequence
of this legally judicially. He entreated an answer to his
questions. Th s. y; committed the plaintiff and his attorney.
Did that put an. end to the action? No such thing. The
action remains 1. —the action went on. The plaintiff and his
attorney and h is counsel might be committed, and he found
that a respectal tl e gentleman, whose name was not mentioned,
had given an tit inion which placed him in great jeopardy.
Why he had gi vs in an opinion on which the action had been
brought. He h 1 given a sound opinion—a lawyer-like opinion
—such an opini at m as he was bound to give to those who sought
his professional a lvice. But according to the advocates for
privilege, he wa s liable to be brought to the bar for that
opinion. Now suppose all these three several persons to be
committed, woul that stay the action ? No, not an hour.