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

TRE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVtNING, JULY 15, 1845.

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 1-louse.

Here the witness withdrew, anti Peter Hardwin appeared ai
the bar of the House.

The LORD CHANCEUOR—What are you?—l am a
solicitor.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you the attorney em-
ployed by the last witness fir 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 they
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 say any-
thing further, as you are aware that a complaint has been 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?
Witnes4—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 to
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 Hard win, 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 Howe.
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
solitary instance, was he ever called upon to interfere with the
strong hand of power to uphold the privileges of that House.
ThaChe, 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—he had occasion to assist in several cases where the
same was upheld and vindicated. In the celebrated ease 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 I.ordships, 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, whoever 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
deny 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 prevarica•ing,
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 for the due 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 tee committed a breach of the privi!ege—
taking wish 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
j 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 to 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 hal 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 Eog!and, 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 farm. 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 privilege. They had examined him at their bar. The)
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 cause 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 au adversary wh} he
brought his action, what evidence he meant to adduce, what he
meant to do, what to prove ? They had done all this; but lie
should say no more then on that point. He protested
generally, reserving to himself the argument when
the proper time should arrive.—( Hear, hear,) Now
they sad this was a breach of privilege. Go on with the action
if they liked, and for ought he knew he intended to go on
uith it, but that they should send them both prisoners to
Newgate. This was what they were about to do. This was
one of the instances in which they stood in a different position
to the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as the other House

diet not examine a man on oath, as that House had no judicial
character at all, whilst they were judges in the highest Court—
the very Court before which this action might be brought by a
writ of error, and yet they, the Court of last resort, tell the
parties to proceed with the action at their peril, laying the
foundation on which they, as a Court of Error, might be called

upon to decide. At your peril go on—we are
the Caurt of last resort. But there was another most material
particular in which that House differed from the other, which
he could welt believe; but he could well imagine that a person
most consistently saying in the other House of Parliament—
these are our wivileges and, we will not allow an action to h..
brought, that we will stop it main fort,, by main force, be •
cause that action was brought to trial—to judgment--
and that judgment is carried by an appeal in the last
resort. In all civil and criminal suits, the appeal lay to
them. If evidence was rejected, if a sentence was improperly
given, if a judge charged a jury in violation of the law, then a
writ of error lay sv,th the aggrieved parties, and they could
bring it for trial before that House. They were judges in such
cases whether they would or no. They were to act ex neces-
sitate. Hut it was said that unless witnesses were proteciel,
unless they knew they were to have protection, there could be

no security of their evidence being °brained. Why, they wet-e.
protected. They were protected in their co ning to the House,
in their remaining there, and in their !caving. For all purposes
of securing evidence there was no illegal interference whatever.
There was no cause for apprehension. It was their bounden
duty to protect the witnesses. But he had yet to learn that it
was at all necessary to exempt witnesses from the ordinary
op-rations of the law after they had given their evidence. To
no such conclusions did he come. But it was said, what was
the use of bringing witnesses before them, if they were
liable to be called to account before a court of price ?

Did that prevent them from speaking the truth. If they
slandered they were liable to damages, but if they spoke the
truth the law would afford them its protection. But let them
see the fallacy of the argument. In a Committee on Satur-
day a witness had been exam:fled respecting a line of railway.
Nothing could be more false than the testimony of that witness,
who seeing that witnesses were present that would be brought
forward to confront him, admitted that he had given evidence
on a former occasion that he could not sub,ta.ntiate there. That
subject, however, would come, in all probability, before their
Lordships to-morrow. But this perjured witness, whom it was
held to be so necessary to protect, was liable to be punished for
the evidence he had given ; and if so there was an end to the
doctrine of protection. The Clerk of the Committee, the
short-hand writer, or even the door-keepers, might indict that
witness, and the House had no power to stop the proceedings.
The result of such proceedings would depend upon the truth or
falsehood of what he had sworn. What was there different in the
present case to the one he had referred to? They were both
the same. Whether the case was a civil or a criminal action,
or whosoever originated it. Nothing was so plain
as that a person giving false evidence was liable to
be indicted at the suit of any one. But it was
said the cases were different, that the one suit had been
instituted by a private party, and the other would be instituted
on behalf of the Crown, though a private individual was
moving in the case. If so, then, it came to this, they had no
privileges against an action from the Crown, but only against
thesubjeet. He had been led to think that their privileges were
only in their hands to be used for the benefit, and on behalf of
the people. But according to this doctrine, it now seemed
their privileges were omnipotent only against the people, and
impotent against the Crown. But let them look to what must
be the necessary results. He meant the lagical results of such
a course. In the first place, the advocates for privilege said
that the punishment for perjury was sufficient to protect the
slandered individual; but the law said that there should be
another mode of proceeding. '1 he law said the punishment was for
the protection of the public, and the action was to give the slan-
dered individual reparation. Bet the advocates of privilege said
there should be no separation, there should only be punishment.
Now he prayed them to consider what must be the consequence
of this legally —judicially. He entreated an answer to his
qnestions, They committed the plaintiff and his attorney.
Did that put an end to the action ? No such thing. The
action remained-ethe action went on. The plaintiff and his
attorney and his counsel might be committed, and he found
that a respectable gentleman, whose name was not mentioned,
had given an opinion which placed him in great jeopardy.
Why he had given an opinion on which the action had been
brought. He bad given; sound opinion—a lawyer-like opinion
—such an opinion as he was bOundlii give to those whq sought
his professional advice. But according to the advocates for
privilege, he was liable to be brought to the bar for that
opinion. Now suppose a!! these three several persons to be
committed, would that stay the action ? No, not an 1104 r,

Parliament. would be up, and another attorney woc d found
who would carry the action on, unless Parliament met in the
vacation, for the purpose of incarcerating hose who continued
the action—but even if they imprisoned them all, one after
another, until there was not an attorney left—when their gaols
should be filled with refractory atto neys and counsel,
would the action cease ? No ; it would still go on. It had
been suggested that the defendant should not plead, and those
in the other House who had defended privilege as if it were
the life of Parliament, had expressed their regret and repent-
ance, of course he meant in their votes, for having in a cer-
tain case allowed one of their officers to plead. Now, in his
opinion, they had shown their wisdom by ordering the Attor-
ney-General to plead to the action; but it appeared that they
had repented them of what they had done; and that another
time they would commit all the parties concerned in bringing
the action. Of course they would commit the judges and the
jury who tried it. They would commit the Chief-Justice,
and the judges ; and the Chief-Justice, being a member of
their Lordships' House, and not being very likely to go volun-
tarily to prison, they would be at once committed in a conflict
with their Lordships. But, suppose there was no plea. The plain-
tiff would sign an interlocutory judgment, as a matter of course;
a writ of inquiry would issue ; the Sheriff would execute the
writ, rtd, on the applicvion of the plaintiff, he would be bound
to execute that judgment, unless a writ of error were sued
nut ; and, even then, sinless the judgment were stayed. So that
if they refused to plead, the action would go on and ripen into
judgment, and the case might eventually be brought be-
fore them judicially by wr:t of error.
" Non meus hic sermo."

These were not his opinions only, they were Ow opinions of
Mr. Justice Patteson and of the Chief-Justice of the Court of
Queen's Bench, the highest legal authorities in all other places
except in the Houses of Parliament. Now, he called upon
them not to be powerful by halves—not to have their pri-
vileges piecemeal. If they were determined to stand up for
privilege, let them carry it to its fullest extent, and not stop
half-way. Let them commit judges and juries, and set Par-
liament in irreconcilable conflict with the courts of justice—in
mortal conflict, at least as far as Parliament was concerned.
Yet, in the midst of that tempest, so bootlessly, so recklessly,
so senselessly excited—amongst the midst of that terrible
darkness there would shine a light, to which all good men
would point, to which the eyes of all wise men would be di-
rected for comfort and safety—not that lurid light which the
tempest might extinguish, but that bright, pure, unsullied
light which the law, in the administration of justice, derived
from those untarnished sources from which juvice flowed. He
would remind their Lordships of the perils which attended those
who injuriously brought on a contest—a hopeless, helpless
contest—with the law. They would by this course be the only
power in the country which was itself to determine in its own
favour. Something reminded him that this, however, was not
the only branch of the constitution which stood precisely under
similar circumstances. He meant the Crown ; and he supposed
the Crown was as ancient a branch of the Constitution as either
of the Houses of Parliament. lie knew that there was great
doubt existing in the minds of many that there was a popular
assembly named the Wittenagemot existing in Saxon times, and
they knew that an assembly from the boroughs was collected
after the Norman eonque-t. But then it was maintained by
other persons that thin could not be considered as a distinct
power ; and it was only some years after the passing of the
Great Charter by the Barons that they had really anything
like a Parliament. Thus, at all events, a Crown existed, at
least, as long as a Parliament, and the executive of the country
was inherent in the first of these. Yet the Crown never did
arroga'e to itself the privileges that that House did. If the
Sovereign did wrong then the subject petitioned against
him, and brought him to the court of law. If the subject en-
croached upon the Crown, the Crown appealed to the law, and
the subject was brought before it. The Crown prosecuted by
its law officers, and the merits of the case would be decided on
by the judges of the country. Then why, he asked, should
Parliament seek to usurp a power which the Crown itself never
dreamt of exercising since the beginning of time? The Crown
had its constituted commissions, before whom witnesses were
examined, and their witnesses required to be protected. The
investigation could not be proceeded with without some degree
of protection, but if the Commissioners of the Crown celled a
witness before them, who slandered his neighbour, or who per-
jured himself, was that neighbour not to claim equal protection
as his slanderer, and if he brought an action against that wit-
ness for the slander, and he (Lord Brougham) should
like to know if, even at the time, when Jeffreys WAS
Chief-Justice, it would be said the witness must be
protected, he must not be harassed. We stand upon
the privileges of this House—we advise your majesty to
proceed at once on a principle which is inalienable iu this
House, and which has been exercised from all time. If, then,
the Crown never resorted to this extreme measure, even if a
wrong were committed upon it, why should they, sheltering them-
selves under the shield of their Parliamentary prerogatives,
invite a conflict with the powers of the law ? How had this
privilege originated ? Was it not first in the commission of
a wrong; and secondly in the assumption of a privilege to pro-
tect it?' He could pointout among the illustrious patriots of
the country, among the most distinguished of those who had
done honour to the bench and to that House, a band which
exerted itself as adversary to the principle of privilege, the
privilege claimed by that House.' Accidentally the Parlia-
ment beingsplaced against the Crown gave rise to their sup-
port of high Parliamentary privileges. He must remind
their Lordships of the excess to which they carried their privi•
leges. Suffice it to say, that a year afterwards, he found these
ordinances of the House which had thus entered itself into the
power which it had thus used under the name of privilege to
declare as it wished, and to act as it thought fit. The very
next year, by an ordinance issued by the House of Com-
mons, without the consent of that House, the Crown was to
raise train-bands, and another ordinance was for the
raising of two troops of horse to defend the Par-
liament and to protect its priv leges, and to give
the needful protection to their witnesses against the
Queen, the Bishops, and the Lords, and the third ordinance
was to levy money for the sake of protecting their privileges
and to pay the Bills issued by the Commons' House of Parlia-
ment itself. There were many other cases in their journals
and standing orders showing the laws made by the House of
Commons in support of its own privileges, to which he would
now refer. After the Revolution of 168t5 and 1639 they had
orders which were still standing, orders communicating to the
servants of :Members of Parliament of both Houses the same
privileges of exemption from actions and arrests as those
which their mestere, enjoyed. Another standing order never
modified, though of lite years not pracCesed, was that no person
should presume to take the goods and chattels of any Member
of the House of Lords and Commons in exeeu'ion upon any
judgment. Another order of the reign of George I. declared
it to be a high breach of the privileges of that House if any
man presumed to write the life of any deceased Peer or publish
his will, and orders were posted on the outside of the House; to
the end that all persons sh tuld have knowledge of the same.
They were so inemsistent and capricious as to
prevent all publication of any debate within the
House of Commons. Whether the order was strictly complied
with bs the press of this country, he would leave their Lord-
ships to consider. There was just as much a breach of privi-
lege in publishing the speeches of any Member of the House of
Commons or Lords, as there was in bringing actions against
any officers of the Houses or any witnesses examined before
their Committees. He would only have them to consider, be-
fore they finally resolved, that privileges were originally thought
necessary to protect the Houses of Parliament against the
Cro,vn. The friends of liberty said that privilege is absolutely
necessary, and asked what they would do if the Crown were
against them. His (Lord Brougham's) answer was, so much
ntettnto• carFreyr,atf hthigeh hand with their privileges.
Crown was against them, he
tdhe efi
ebde tpt earr oa rmtel
He all
so
sn o,f o r
io rtoid as
a inc directing all justices and magistrates,
and
p ael
discretion suggested to them, in the
p
keeping the streets clear. But,
sroiftotihueirs
others,
at n
doe3r
their
supposing there were not sufficient justices, magistrates, or con-
stables, in Westminster to suppress the riot, he should like to
know what was meant by all others. He only stated
these things to show the inconsistencies of their privileges.
He (Lord Brougham) was rnest 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 show 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 keels in mind the great maxim that the very belt
which bound together the great social pyramid of England was
not the apex of the Crown—not the middle region—not the
lower reeien of the people—but that middle region, in which
justice was administered according to law, by I.swyer:, and,
above all, by lawyers who were no political partisans. It 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 re ison th it he ought, and they ought, to rely infi-
nitely mote securely upon the protection they were su. e 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 Cotntnittee of the' Hulse. It was their Lordships'
pleasure that the question of the gaming-laws should be investi-
gated, and a Select Committee was app into.' 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 shish 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 b -.fore them, p'ainly 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 came 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 sad very extraordinary. No
doubt this House and the other House had, under the name of
prinei
ple, conducted themselves upon one occasion in an arbi-
trary and tyrannical manner. The sovereigns of this country
at different periods had also abused 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 now 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 dameges
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 had been brought to
recover dam iges for evidence so given, and for that
evidence only. They had the declaration before them cons-
pired with evidence before the Select Committee, and it cor-
responded in every word. It was a long 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
Lordseips. It was not n ieessary to bring the parties bringing
the action before the bar, but for the purpose of giving them
sel to themselves right if they thought
an opportunity of expleining to their Lordships what were
their motives, a
proper. They did not do ets, 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 evislenee advanced on the subject, they might clime 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 torrner occasions, that no tuition 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-
(seller's) answer to that was very short and simple. Here
was
a Pe
annrs(i .caacitleiodnlowefates brought against him, and it entirely
failed; Committee and compelled to give
evidence;
failed; Out anybody who had any acquaintance with the adrni-
nistretion of justice would see that notwithCaMing 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 eompelled 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 counsel, 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 protect 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 ? 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'iraid to
disclose. His Nobleand 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 poition that Noble
Lord once occupied, as head of the Court of Chancery, and
considering his great erudition, 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 the 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 diced
to carry on the action, while its originator was in custody, he
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 officers, but all persons con.
netted 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 as-
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 House and the
courts 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 Parliament; 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 be the fact and
merits of the case 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.
Lard 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 the other, 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, he wished to offer a few
remarks upon a question SD 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 risk, as he believed that they best consulted the
liberty of the subject in asserting their own rights. The
Learned Lord had unwisely referred to precedent, and had
triumphantly appealed to Floyd's case, 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 ur-
vents was abandoned, the latter by an Act of 10 Geo. 111.
His 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 subornation of wit-
nesses, would not that be an obstruction of the administration
of justice ? And the case was exactly analogous te that now
propounded. But Lnrd Ellenborough had distinctly laid down
a contrary principle, and asserted that the privileges of Parlia-
ment were inherent, and should be defended, even when no
obstruction was threatened. And it had actually been held of
late, that the same principle held good in all the legis-
lative assemblies 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 memorials' but
were contained in certain usages and customs. 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 Bacon
says, " A popular judge is a deformed thing ; plaudits are
fitter for players than magistrates." There had been times in

which that House had been highly unpopular, and when it
would have been impossible to get a jury to act impartially on
any question affecting that Flame. 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 ewe 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 Lord then referred to several
instances in which the courts of law had interfered with the
privileges of the House. It was once, my Lords, made a ques-
tion during a se=sion of Parliament whether the Sovereign
did not possess the right of prescribing the exact business
which Parliament should transact, and also the mode in which
Parliamentary proceedings should be conducted. The judges,
una voce, pronounced that such right was inherent in the
King, and that whosoever denied it was guilty of high treason.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—What is the date of that
decision ?
Lord CAMPBELL—The decision to which he referred was
given in the reign of Richard 11., and the Chief Justice Tres.
silian, who presided at the time over the Court, was most de-
servedly hanged.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then that cannot be con-
sidered a preeedent.—( A laugh.)
Lord CAMPBELL—The judges were asked whether it was
possible to impeach the King's Ministers in the High Court of
Parliament. The judges, una voce, answered no, and that
whosoever proposed such a course was guilty of high treason.
His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack asked in
what reign these decisions were given, arid he had stated
they were made in the reign of Richard the Second.
In the year 1625, in the reign of Charles the First, a
progenitor of a Nob'e Lord in that House (the Earl of St.
Germans), along with Selden, Stroud, and Pym, requested to
put a c-rtain question to the House. Orders came from the
King that the question should not be put, and Parliament was
dissolved. These parties 'were arrested and the Attorney-
General instituted proceedings against them in the Queen's
Bench. The proceedings were carried on, the question was
fully argued before the judges, and they convicted these five
illustrious men, on the ground that, though they had spoken in
Parliament, they had spoken in an unparliamentary way, and
were, therefore, amenable for the words spoken. They were
severally fined. He would refer to another case, in whic:a a
Member of the House of Commons, Sir William Williams,•for
putting his name to minutes of the House, by order, was prose-
cuted, and fined in the sum of 10,0001., 8,0001. of which he paid.
The Noble Lord, having given several other instances of
the practice of the several courts of law, the Common Pleas,
the Exchequer, and the Queen's Bench, proceeded to say that
there had been as yet no instances in which parties had been
proceeded against f.e. evidence given before a Committee. It
was only in these speculative times that such a course could
be conceived of; and he was of opinion that unless they in-
stantly put a stop to such proceedings, and vindicated their
privilege!, actions of this kind would be multiplied to an in-
definite extent. There was no confidence to be placed in the
courts of law, as far as their privileges were concerned. For
the good of the people, as well as for the independence of the
House, they were bound to take steps to put an end to those
proceedings. Unless they did so, their dignity would be
assai'ed, and their usefulness destroyed. —(Cheers. )
The Earl of WICK LOW said, if their Lordships intended
to proceed in the way they had specified, it could not fail to
lead to serious consequences. He had no doubt that a breach
of privilege had been committed, but it had grown out of a dis-
regard of the privileges which they possessed. It was a breach
of privilege to report their proceedings ; it was a breach of
privilege to publish evidence taken before a Select Committee.
They had winked at the breach of privilege committed in pub-
lishing the debates ; they went further, and authorized the
sale of printed papers. Such a course was most objectionable, in
many cases, to individuals who had given evidence. These re.

ports should only have been circulated amongst their Lord-
ships. The case before them arose out of the publicity which
had been given to evidence given by a witness before a Com-
mittee of that House. He had listened with great
attention to the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord on the
woolsack. Not one of the cases brought forward by that
Noble Lord or by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell)
could fairly be applied to the case before them. The majority
of the cases which had been cited were materially different from
that which then engaged their attention. He looked upon it
as one of expediency—of discretion. Would they enforce their
privilege? No. Because they were not popular with the
country. There' was a deep rooted antipathy to the privileges
of that House. If they were about to establish a precedent
they should take care of its nature. He hoped that the indi-
vidual would be able to get out of the dilemma in which their
Lordships were about to place him.
Lord CAIIPBELL strongly advised their Lordships to put
a stop to the action.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion that
Mr. Harlow be committed to the custody of the Usher of the
Black Rod until the further order of the House.—Agreed to.
Their Lordship. then proceeded to consider whether the
plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Hardwin, should be also committed to
the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod.

Lord BROUGHAM said, what might be considered con-
tempt in 1810 would now have a different construction upon it.
The Duke of WELLING FON said the question was now
about the attorney. The case was a very eatraordin•iry one,
and mi,gnt be specially attributed to the attorney. It was this,
that the declaration concealed the fact that the evidence was
given to a Committee of the House of Lords. It stated that it
was given in a room before their Lordships. This was a very
important fact, and should have appeared on the face of the
declarat ion.

Lord BROUGHAM—That is the special pleader's fault—not
that of the attorney,
Lord CAMPBELL considered that they would do
wrong to commit the plaintiff, and not his attorney,
Alio was much more to blame than him. Pettifogging
actions were brought by pettifogging attorneys, who in-
duced sums party to become the plaintiff. Ile must
protest agaigst the dgetrine that it was the duty of a solicitor
to bring every action which he was instructed to bring. It
was the duty of an attorney to examine the cause of action—
that there was some reasonable cause for laying it. If they
committed one, they ought to commit the other,

Lord BROUGHAM said, I have a communication to make,
before you order the committal of this person, who has been
grievously injured. He has instructed his attorney to dis-
continue the action. I therefore think that you should proceed
no further.

The Earl of WICKLOW said, the plaintiff had stated that
when he brought the action he was not aware it was a breach
of privilege.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said in the present case, as
far as it appeared to him, the attorney was the most guilty
party.—( Hear. ) The plaintiff might know nothing of the
privileges of Parliament, but the attorney could not be ignorant
of them, and be wished to draw part:cular attention to the de-
claration. It stated that certain words were spoken in a certain
Committee, from the reports of which they were taken. It
dropped the word " Lords," and the mere dropping of that
word showed it had been left out intentionally ; because
any one doing so would have been guilty of a breach of pri-
vilege, so that the attorney was the most guilty party.
After a f:w words from Lord BROUGHAM,
The LORD CHANCELLOR put, the motion that Mr.
Hardwin, having been guilty of a breach of privilege, should be
committed to the eu,tody of the Usher of the Biack Rod, which
was agreed to, and the parties, who were in attendance at the
bar of the House, were then taken into custody.
COST OF OPPOSING RAILWAY BILLS.
Lord BROUGHAM intimated that he had abandoned In
resolution relating to the cost of opposing railway bills, and
had embodied the object of the resolution in a declaratory Act,
which provided that the promoters of railway bills should enter
into recognizancest, binding themselves to pay the taxed costs of
an opposing landholder, should the House think fit to make an
order to that effect.

The Bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a se-
cond time on Thursday.
DOG-STEALING BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thurs lay.
Messengers from the House of Commons brought up the
South Wales Railway Bill, the South-Eastern Railway Bill
(Tunbridge-wells Branch), the General North of England
and Hartlepool Railway, and several other Railway Bills.
Several measures lying on the table were then advanced a
stage, and their Lordships adjourned.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TATTERSALL'.3.—YESTEIZDAY.
LIVERPOOL CCI'.
3 to 1 agst Mr. Bell's Winesour—taken
11 to 2 agst Mr. Mo:tyn's Milton—taken
8 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Trueboy
8 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena
10 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario—taken
11 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning
20 to 1 agst Mr. Jaques's Extravaganza—taken
20 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Godfrey—taken
33 to 1 agst Mr. A. Wr. hill's Ironmaster
Of the nine horses priced, four only were in any real de-
mand, namely, Winesour, Milton, Rowena, and Lothario.
Lightning's figure was nominal ; Extravaganza's and Godfrey's
parties wore select, and the Ironmaster was sent to the right-
about—he is more like;y to run at Goodwood than Liverpool.
GOODWOOD STARES.
12 to 1 agst Mr. Johnstone's Pythia
12 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Libel
15 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen :flab
18 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Venus—taken
20 to 1 agst Mr. Parr's Europa
20 to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's _.Egis—taken
20 to 1 agst Sir C. 11Iwick's Glossy
20 to I agst Lord G. Bentinck's John o'Gaunt
25 to 1 agst Lord Howth's Warp —taken
25 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario
25 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena
25 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Wee Pet
30 to 1 agst Mr. Herbert's Ajax
50 to 1 agst Rowena winning this race and the Liverpool
Cup.

tiery little doing ; Queen Mab and (with a small party
Warp alone in request.

GOODWOOD CUP.
5 to 2 agst Mr. Irwin's Faugh-a-ballagh—no backers
11 to 2 agst 111 r. A. W. Hill's Ironmaster—taken
10 to 1 agst Col. Anson's Arundo—taken
12 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Stomacher—taken
20 to 1 agst Mr Vane's Valerian—taken
Very little done.
ST. LEGER.
5 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Wcatherbit
13 to 2 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Merry Monarch—taken
10 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Old England—taken
20 to 1 agst Mr. illostyn's Pantasa.
25 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Ranger
30 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's the Baron
33 to 1 agst Col. Auson's Kedger
1000 to 30 agst Lord Chesterfield's Pam—taken
35 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Ould Ireland
The Irish horses and Kedger were friendless.
DERBY.
1,000 to 30 agst Mr. Bowes's Brocardo—taken
2,000 to 50 agst Duke of Richmond's Tug Net—taken
2,000 to 50 agst Mr. Ramsey's Malcolm—taken
15,000 to 225 agst Mr. Osbaldeston's King Charles—ditto,
LIVERPOOL RACES.
LIVERPOOL, MONDAY AFTERNOON, }OUR O'CLOCK.—
The following is a list of the entries which closed this after-
noon on the race course at two o'clock ;
WEDNESDAY.
The Croxteth Stakes—Vaudeville, 3 yrs—.Corranna, 6 yrs,
Erebus, 4 yrs,—Semiseria, 5 yrs—Cinizelli, 2 yrs—Shadow,
aged—A-la-mode, 4 yrs—Trueboy, 5 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs—
Slid Lothian, 3 yrs—and Lancashire Witch, 3 yrs.
The Maiden Plate.
Ada, 3 yrs—Bretwalda, 3 yrs—Trimnoir, 3 yrs—Br e by
Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Jack Palmer, 4 yrs —Steam, 3 yrs.
THURSDAY.
The Queen's Plate.
I3retwalda, 3 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs--B c by Slane, out of
Frill, 3 yrs—The Shadow, aged—Poussin, 5 yrs—Mid Lothian,
3 yrs—Sir Abstrupus, 5 yrs—Pug, 3 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4
yrs —Jack Palmer, 4 yrs.
FRIDAY.
The Stanley Stakes, for two yrs and 3 yrs olds.
Pug, 3 yrs—Pluto, 3 yrs—Birthday, 2 yrs—Lanca-
shire Witch, 3 yrs—Hope, 3 yrs—lsabella, 2 yrs—Bur-
lesque, 2 yrs—Andrew Brandy, 3 yrs—Dean Swift, 3 yrs—
Lord Harry, 2 yrs—B c by Phcenix, out of L'Hirondelle, 2 yrs
—B f by Jereed, dam by Bustard, 3 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs.
The Selling Stakes.
Triumvir, 3 yrs—Erebus, 4 vrs—Juvenal, 4 yrs—Ambition,
4 yrs—Br cby Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Sir Henry, 3 yrs—
Poussin, 5 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—THE ORIGINAL METALLIC
TABLET STROP;. WITH FOUR SIDES.--Mr. George
Saunders, inventor and manufacturer, No. 25, Strand.—
This article has been in extensive use for the last thirty
years by the first cutlers, who pronounce it to have no
equal in producing a fine smooth edge to a razor, so
necessary to shave with comfort. They may be had of
the following cutlers :—Lowcock, 38, Cornbill ; Lund,
24, Fleet-street ; Davis, 69, and Looker, 42, Leaden-
hall. street ; Verinder, 79, St. Paul's Churchyard ;
161, Strand ; Coleman, Haymarket ; Philp and
Whicker, 67, St. James's-street ; Warner, 25, Sackville-
street ; Paget, 195, Piccadilly ; Kingsbury, 152, and
Durham, 201, Regent-street ; Einslie, 46, St. Martin's-
lane ; Robinson. 53, Bishopsgate-street ; Carter, Paris ;
Lamprey, Dublin. The fact of their being sold by the
above makes it superfluous for the inventor to speak
further in their favour.—George Saunders, No. 25,
Strand.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Ladies, whether temporarily
exposed to the scorching rays of the summer sun, or
frequenting the crowded saloon, or close assembly, will
find Rowland's Kalydor a most refreshing preparation
and auxiliary to comfort, dispelling the cloud of lan-
guor and relaxation from the complexion, and immedi-
ately affording the phasing sensation attending restored
elasticity of the skin. The numerous varieties of cu-
taneous eruptions, suoburn freckles, tan, and disloura-

tions, are pleasingly eradicated by the Kalydor. and the
skin rendered delicately clear and soft. Its purifying
and refreshing properties have obtained its selection by
the Court and the Royal Family of Great Britain, and
those of the Continent of Europe, together with the
elite of the aristocracy and haut ton. The high re-
putation it bears causes unprincipled shopkeepers to
offer their spurious " Kalydors" for sale, composed of
the most deleterious ingredients, containing mineral
astringents, utterly ruinous to the complexion, and by
their repellent action endangering health. It is there-
fore imperative on purchasers to see that the words
" Rowland's Kalydor" are on the envelope (an engraving
of exquisite beauty, from a steel plate by Messrs.
Perkins, Bacon, and Co.) All others are fraudulent
counterfeits.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND HEARING.—
No. 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Newly-invented
Spectacles, Telescopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes,
&c. Patronised by General Sir Edward Paget, Sir
Even Lloyd Maiston, Frederick Goodfellow, Clayton
Grosvenor Morrison, Dyott Robertson, Mackenzie,
Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, Walker, Fox, Price,
Lindsay, and Thackray, Major-General Sir H. Elphin-
stone, P. Fyers, D. Macleod, Hamilton, Turner,
Weinyss, and Cock, Lieutenant-Generals Sir Henry
Botiverie, Sir J. Ms:cdonall, Sir R. Barton, Sir T. Dallas,
and Sir Win. Enstace, Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G.
Cockburn, Sir David Milne, Sir George Monday, Sir
George Martin, Sir James H. WhitsbCd, Sir 1). Gold,
Ross, Alexander, Curzons, Tompkinson, Hollis, and
Price, Vice-Adinjral F. Austen, Rear .Admirals
Brown and Ribouleau, &c. Messrs. S. and B. Solumons,
Opticians, have invented Spectacle Lenses upon a new
construction—lmmediately they are plat d before im-
perfect vision, that mist and dullness which appear be-
fore the eyes is at once removed, every object becomes
clear and distinct, !-o that the most aged imperfect sight
becomes bright and brilliant, and is brought to its youth
ful, natural, and original state. Also Achromatic Tele-
scopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, Invisible and all
kinds a Acoustic Instruments, for relief of most extreme
d-afness. Caution—Messrs. S. and B. Solotions, Opti
cians, are not iii any way connected with a person of the
name, iu their immediate neighbourhood, nor in any
part of the country. To prevent mistakes be cautious,
and Observe,—Only to be had at 39, Albemarle-street,
Piccadilly, opposite the York hots 4
CAPTAIN CIIAMIER'S NEW NOVEL—We are re-
quested to state that Mr. Colburn. of Great Marlborough-
street, has this day published " Count Konigsmark," an His-
torical Novel, by Captain Frederick Chamier, R.N , in 3 vols.,
which can now be had at all the Libraries. Mr. Colburn has
also just published the following new novels : —2. The White
Slave, a Russian story, by the author of " Revelations of
Russia," 3 vols-3. Self, by the author of " Cecil," 3 robs-
4. Maids of Honour, a Tale of the Court of George 1., 3 vols
—5. Jonathan Sharp, or the Adventures of a Kentuckian,
written by himself, 3 vols—and, 6. Do Hoban, or the Court
Conspirator, by M. Eugene Sue, author of the " Mysteries of
Paris," &c., 3 vols.
THE RECENT CASES OF INSUBORDINATION IN THE
POET-orsicE.—On Saturday, in consequence of the insubordinate
conduct of some parties in the General Post-office, the superin.
tendent residents of the inland-office, with the inspector of
letter carriers, summoned for attendance in the afternoon, the
whole of the letter-carriers and sub sorters, for the purpose of
reading to them the answer of the Noble Earl (Lonsdate) the
postmastcr.General, to a report recently forwarded to his Lord-
ship, of the state of the office as noticed by Thomas S. Dun..
combo, Esq., the Honourable Member for Finsbury, in the
late debate on the abuses of the office, The following is
a copy of his Lordship's reply through the Secretary, Colonel
Maberly With reference to your report of the 4th instant, en-
closing severgl anonymous notices that have been distributed in the
letter. carriers' office, I am commanded by the Postmaster-Geneval
to direct you to assemble the sub.sorters and letter-carriers, to in.
form them that while his Lordship is at all times ready to listen to
any grieva,ce which they have to complain of, when conveyed
through their superior officers, he has seen, with great displeasure,
the discreditable conduct of some individuals of their body, and that
if he titceceds in discovering the parties, he will ipstautly dismiss
Them. (Signed " W. L. MAOISM"
• ' •