Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Lord Brougham remarked, that an attorney was placed in a very peculiar situation. He could not refuse a client who came to him; but now their Lordships were about to say that no attorney should undertake the defence of a weak party against one who was greatly superior in strength. The expenses consequent on committal to the custody of the Black Rod were very considerable, and must operate with great force in deterring attorneys from undertaking the defence of clients. Here it was to be remarked that the attorney in his declaration only stated that he had received no instruction to discontinue the action, and not that he would not discontinue it. With respect to the case of Burdett and Abbott, no one could suppose that either Parliament or the courts of law would act in the same manner and on the same principles as in that day. Not a day passed in which attacks both in Parliament and the courts of law did not appear, which, if they had been published at that time, would have been visited with imprisonment. There was an attack only the other day on the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, for wilfully stating a falsehood in the charge to the jury, for the purpose of injuring the editor of a newspaper. If one-tenth part of what was now published every day had been published in the time of Burdett and Abbott, there could not be a doubt but the authors of it would have been sent to prison. It would be wrong, however, to suppose that their Lordships abandoned their privileges because they did not exercise them every day.

stated, that it was true he had given advice in the case of Stockdale and Hansard, that the defendant should be allowed to plead; and he was prepared to take on himself the responsibility of that advice. But after what had been done in the case of Burdett and Abbot, he certainly at that moment had not the courage to advise a different mode of proceeding. He had then the most complete conviction, which was shared by almost all the lawyers in the House, and others whose assistance he had had, that as soon as the Court of Queen's Bench was informed by the Speaker that the publication then complained of was by order of the House, the Court would be perfectly satisfied, and would immediately give judgment for the defendant. It was to the great astonishment of himself and all the lawyers in the House of Commons, he believed, without a single exception, that a different decision was given. That most distinguished lawyer, whose loss they now deplored, Sir W. Follett, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was then a Member of the House of Commons, all concurred in believing that that judgment was erroneous. It was on account of that judgment that he would decline again to put the privileges of either House of Parliament to hazard. He now regretted the advice he had given, and deemed it the more incumbent on him, from what he had done on a former occasion, to warn that House of Parliament to which he had the honour to belong, to avoid such a precedent. Wherever an action was brought in direct breach of their_privileges, as his noble and learned Friend allowed the present to be, his earnest advice would be that, for the good of the public, they should interpose viva manu, and stop it.

On Question, resolved in the Affirmative. The Lord Chancellor then moved to resolve

"That the said John Harlow having been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of this House, be committed for his said Offence to the Cus

tody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod,

until the further Order of this House."

On Question, agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

The Lord Chancellor then moved to resolve

"That the said Peter Taite Harbin has been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of this

House."

The Duke of Wellington thought there was one point of this case very remarkable, and, he believed, attributable to the attorney-the declaration, which was the foundation of the proceedings, only stated that the evidence complained of was given in a room before a certain number of persons, not that it was given in a Committee of the House of Lords.

Lord Brougham said, that was the fault of the special pleader, not the attorney.

Lord Campbell thought their Lordships would act most unjustly if they were to commit the tobacconist, and allow the attorney to escape. His noble and learned Friend said it was the duty of the attorney to bring every action that he was asked to bring. He (Lord Campbell) thought that a most mischievous declaration; the at

torney ought to examine the case, and COSTS IN LOCAL AND PERSONAL see whether there was good reason to BILLS.] Lord Brougham, with reference bring the action. The tobacconist might to the discussion on the Standing Orders, not be aware that he was likely to incur said, as some difference of opinion had their Lordships' displeasure, and he (Lord arisen whether they should proceed by Campbell) had some compassion for him; Bill or Resolution, he had, in order to but was not the attorney perfectly aware obviate delay, prepared a Bill, which he that he was setting their Lordships at de- now presented to their Lordships, to enfiance? When that attorney said he had able the Houses of Parliament to order no instructions to withdraw the action, recognizances for costs in local and perwas not that tantamount to saying he sonal matters. would not do so?

[blocks in formation]

The Earl of Wicklow said, the plaintiff had declared that he did not know at the time of instituting this suit that it was a breach of privilege.

The Marquess of Clanricarde reminded their Lordships that the question was not as to the plaintiff, but the attorney.

The Lord Chancellor observed, that the plaintiff's declaration stated that the words were spoken before a certain Committee, but omitted to say" of the Lords," whence it was clear that he felt, if he had inserted those words, he would have committed a breach of privilege, and been brought into peril. He thought, therefore, that the attorney, who had no doubt made him aware of this, was the more guilty of the two.

Bill read 1.

Their Lordships then adjourned. The following Protest on Privilege of Parliament, was entered on the Journals.

DISSENTIENT

1. Because this House is now, for the first time, interfering to stop by force an action brought against a party for a wrong done to a fellow subject in slanderous words, alleged to have been falsely spoken, and is thus interposing its power, under the name of privilege, between the subject and its strict legal right, sought to be made good in a court of law by the course which the law has prescribed.

2. Because, whatever right the House may be supposed to derive from precedent, that is, from former instances in which it has exercised similar powers, there can be no doubt that in former times both Houses of Parliament were serting their privileges, acts which, in the prewont to do many acts, under the name of assent day, and for a long time past, both Houses of Parliament have wholly abstained from doing, and which would now be considered by all mankind to be gross and wanton violations of all justice.

3. Because, though the right, however founded, or however proved, to do such acts Lord Brougham doubted if the attorney as these, or even such acts as the present of a would know so clearly what a breach of far less objectionable kind, were admitted, yet privilege was. There was a great privilege it is always a question of expediency and dislawyer behind him-the late Attorney-cretion whether or not this power, even if it General-who said nobody knew what the privileges of the House were even the Judges were completely ignorant of it; and nobody knew what they were but the House itself; by which his noble and learned Friend meant himself and one or two others.

On Question, resolved in the Affir

malive.

The Lord Chancellor then moved"That the said Peter Taite Harbin having been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of this House, be committed for his said Offence to the Custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, until the further Order of this House."

be possessed by right shall in any given case be exercised; and it ever behoves both Houses of Parliament to be most cautious and abstinent in the use of powers like these, which are assumed by them over parties charged with offending against themselves, and are used by them in their own case without the intervention of any impartial and judicial authority.

4. Because it is, in a peculiar manner, the duty of both Houses to abstain from such acts when they reflect that there is no code of priknow against what law they offend; that the vilege promulgated whereby the people may law is in each case declared, possibly made for the first time, after the alleged breach of it has been committed, and made in the heat of the strife occasioned by the alleged offence; that the Members of the two Houses always

On Question, agreed to, and ordered differ among themselves both as to the law and accordingly.

its application; and that they who promulgate

it are at once the lawgivers, parties, prosecutors, jurors, judges, and executioners; while in this instance alone no power of extending mercy to the offender exists in the State.

5. Because it behoves this House in a more peculiar manner to avoid placing itself in so strange and anomalous a position, seeing that as it is the Supreme Court of Justice in the last resort in all cases criminal and civil, so it ought to be most anxious ever to set the example of strictly just, regular, legal procedure, and should most carefully shun all violations of law and justice, and should especially be slow to interfere with pending actions, which may in their result come before itself as a high court of appeal.

6. Because the cases in which it is expedient and justifiable, from absolute necessity, to interfere with the rights of individuals and the ordinary course of the law, are of a description wholly different from the present, being actual obstructions offered to the proceedings of the Houses, and which must be removed without any delay, else the arm of Parliament would be paralysed; and because no objection could ever be raised to such an exercise of power, and of rightful power, either by the two Houses or by any other tribunal. But constructive contempts like the present are of a wholly different description, and no harm whatever can arise from allowing them to be dealt with by the course of the law as administered in the regular courts of justice, those courts to which the Sovereign, as well as the meanest of his subjects, must always resort for the establishment of rights and punishment of wrongs-those courts to which the Houses of Parliament may most safely resort as the abodes of strict justice-courts pure from all taint of corruption, free from all bias of influence, uncontrolled by the threats either of regal authority or aristocratic insolence, or popular violence, and to which neither faction nor fear can ever gain access.

7. Because the argument that witnesses must be protected from vexatious and costly suits is wholly inapplicable to the case, inasmuch as no one pretends to doubt that they may be prosecuted at the instance either of the Crown or any individual, whether a Member of the House or not; and if so prosecuted, never could recover one farthing of their costs, though ever so honourably acquitted.

8. Because no punishment which can be inflicted either by a prosecution or by the House upon a witness for the most wanton and the falsest slander of an individual, can afford any reparation whatever to the party thus injured, as the House has not by law the power, if petitioned, to give any such compensation,

9. Because the protection of witnesses before the Houses of Parliament never can be regarded as more essential to the public weal, than the protection of witnesses before the courts of civil and criminal judicature; yet no one pretends to doubt that an action may be

brought against any person for slanderous words falsely spoken by him in giving his evidence before these Courts; and though no damages could be recovered if the words were spoken in answer to a question put in the cause, yet it is quite certain that the action must take its course, and that nothing could be done by the Court to stop it; so that the witness must be exposed to exactly the same vexation and expense which are alleged to form the only ground for interfering to stop the action in the present case.

10. Because the order to prevent a defendant from pleading, or the commitment of the plaintiff for a constructive contempt, never can really stop the action, which may proceed through all its stages whatever be done to the parties ; unless indeed the greater and unheard of violence were committed of arresting the Judges and their officers, and destroying the record, and tearing the proceedings from the file.

11. Because all the arguments drawn from alleged analogies in a Court of Equity, are wholly wide of the question, inasmuch as the granting an injunction to stay actions at law, or to prevent receivers and other officers, or quasi officers, of the Court being sued for acts done under its authority, are not granted discretionally, but are matter of strict right; and inasmuch as such injunctions only prevent the party against whom they issue from ob taining his remedy in one form, reserving it to him in another, nay, securing it to him in the Court which stays the action; whereas the present proceeding deprives the party of all remedy whatever, the House having no power of authority to grant him redress.

12. Because it is a great aggravation of the mischief so justly complained of, that for the last nine years the other House of Parliament has sold all the Papers printed by its authority, allowing a discount to encourage the trade in those publications: and that though this House has not as yet engaged in this branch of business, yet it communicates its prints to the other, which sells them with its own.

13. Because the inexpediency, injustice, and cruelty of exercising the alleged privileges of the House are strongly illustrated by the peculiar circumstances of the present case. A complaint is made by a Peer that an action has been brought against a witness. The defendant is publicly described as a most respectable person, who had served well in the Peninsula ; to the plaintiff is applied the most severe and even coarse expression; while in no court that tried the case could such praise or censure of the character borne by the parties ever be heard for an instant, much less proved in evidence; and while it is also manifest that precisely the same course must have been pursued had the respectable man been the slanderer, and the censured man been the injured party. Under the prejudices excited by such statements, the parties are examined at the bar. The plaintiff is compelled to disclose his case

BILLS.

tate.

vorce.

to the defendant. He describes himself as sion of the Privilege Question in Parliament, grievously injured, and as severely suffering in the courts of law, and in this place. from the effects of the attack made upon his

BROUGHAM, character by the defendant. He further de

1

WICKLOW. clares that he was wholly ignorant of the pri- P.S.—The Earl of Radnor was prevented vileges of the House, wholly unconscious of signing this protest by accident. baving acted in breach of them by bringing his suit-a thing the more easily believed when we reflect ihat the nature of parliament- HOUSE OF COMMONS, ary privilege was distinctly stated, in debate, to be wholly unknown to the Judges of the

Monday, July 14, 1845. land, and only understood by the House itself.

MINUTES.]

Public.-1°. Slave Trade (Brazil) : Finally, the attorney, who has been seized and

Municipal Districts, &c. (Ireland). imprisoned for following his client's instruc

90. Turnpike Acts Continuance ; Loan Societies ; Hightions, declared that he acted under the advice way Rates; Militia Ballots Suspension; Valuation (Ireof counsel; and afterwards informed the land); Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland) ; House, through a Peer, that he had received

Ecclesiastical Patronage (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ire

land); Bonded Corn ; Bail in Error. directions to discontinue the action-yet both

Reported.---Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics ; Mas. client and attorney are imprisoned, the attor- ters and Workmen; Borough and Watch Rates; Joint ney after this communication was made ; and Stock Companies ; Art Unions (No. 2). nothing whatever is done against the counsel

Private.-99 White's Charity Estate; Ellison's Eswho deliberately advised the whole proceeding.

Reported.-Brighton, Lewes, aud Hastings Railway (Has14. Because nothing can be more unlike all

tings, Rye, and Ashford Extension); Yoker Road (No. the judicial proceedings to which the present 2); Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road; Heaviside's Dihas been compared, than the course now pursued, inasmuch as whenever the law has de. zo. and passed : Monmouth and Hereford Railway; clared that a court shall not proceed in any

South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells); case by reason of another jurisdiction being PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Plumptre, from Clergy

South Wales Railway. interfered with, a particular mode of prevent- and other Inhabitants of Herne Bay, for a more decided ing this proceeding is provided by the known Support of the Church of England.--By Mr. Plumptre, law; and in another aud important particular, from several places, for Better Observance of the Lord's the present proceeding is extremely unlike

Day.-By Mr. Plumptre, from a great number of places.

against the Grant to Maynooth College. --By Mr. Hawes, that of injunction, to which it has been likened,

from A. J. A. Hoffstaedt, a Prisoner in the Queen's for an injunction is commenced to stay pro- Prison, for substituting Affirmations in lieu of Oaths.ceedings in one court, in order that justice By Mr. C. Bruce, and Mr. Pringle, from Presbytery of may be done in another which has possession Moray, against Universities (Scotland) Bill.-By Sir T. of the suit; nor is any one prevented unless

Wilde, from Attorneys and Solicitors, practising in Eng

land, Wales, and Ireland, for Repeal of Stamp Duty on he disobey the order so given; whereas we

Attorneys' Certificates.-By Mr. Masterman, from Memissue no order, but at once proceed to punish bers of the Religious Society of Friends, against Charithe party before he has been guilty of any dis. table Trusts Bill.-From Thomas Bradfield, Westminobedience, or had any opportunity of doing ster, for Repeal of Sixth Session the Coal Trade (Port what we desire he should do, and we punish

of London) Act.-By Mr. J. H. Vivian, from Inhabitants

of Cwm Neath, for Establishment of County Courts.him on the sole ground of his having broken

By Mr. Hume, from Charles Henry Russell, against the some privilege unknown to him, and which

Games and Wagers Bill.-By Mr. Ellice, from Coventry, we admit is understood by nobody but our. for adopting Sanatory Regulations (Health of Towns).selves.

By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Justices of the Peae of the 15. Because, finally, it is all along assumed

County of Devon, against Justices' Clerks and Clerks

of the Peace Bill.-By Sir J. Y. Buller, and Mr. Plumpin the course of these discussions, that what.

tre, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and ever privilege we do not in any case exercise,

Surgery Bill.--By Mr. Plumptre, and Lord Worsley, we cease to possess ; whereas there are many from several places, in favour of Physic and Surgery privileges most undeniably belonging to us, Bill.-By Mr. Ellice, and Mr. Hume, from Glasgow and some which in sormer times were constantly

Montrose, for Alteration of Poor Law Amendment (Scotexercised --some which we still declare to be

land) Bill.-By Mr. Rutherfurd, from Heritors of the

Parish of North Leith, for Postponement of Poor Law ours on the face of our Standing Orders--and

Amendment (Scotland) Bill.-By Lord Worsley, from none of which have now for a long time past Members of the Temperance Society, Barrow, Lincoln, been exercised at all; and in illustration of for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.-By Mr. the varying usage which exists respecting such C. Hope, from Trustees and Creditors on the great Turnprivileges, it may further be remembered that a

pike Road betwixt Edinburgh and Glasgow by Bathgate

and Airdrie, in favour of Turnpike Roads (Scotland) very great change has come over this question,

Bill. even within the last 40 years; as no one can affect to think that either the Houses of Parlia- The Speaker took the Chair at twelve ment or the courts of justice would at this day o'clock; but only formal business was punish summarily for contempt those acts transacted till five o'clock. which frequently were thus visited within that period of iime, including the very publication for which Sir Francis Burdett was sent to the Tue Case or Joseph Mason.) Mr. Tower, and which raised the last great discus- H. R, Yorke said, that he wished to ask

the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the order of liberation was sent to Norfolk Island in behalf of Joseph Mason, who was transported upon a conviction for burglary at the York Spring Assizes, 1843, which conviction turned out to have been altogether and entirely unjust? Also when the said Joseph Mason might be expected in England?

Sir J. Graham, in reply, stated that after a conference with the Judge who tried the case, and after further investigation, being satisfied of the innocence of Joseph Mason with respect to the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to transportation; and that another party was guilty of that crime, he had considered it to be his duty to advise the Crown to give a pardon to this person, and this was accordingly done on the 1st of January last. He had given directions also that Joseph Mason should be immediately provided with a free passage to England. He believed that the first intelligence of the return of this person would be by the arrival of the individual himself.

NEW ZEALAND.] Mr. Hawes said, that he was anxious to put a question to the Under Secretary for the Colonies. It would be recollected that a few nights ago a question was asked of the hon. Gentleman, as to a conflict having taken place between Her Majesty's troops and the natives of New Zealand; and the hon. Gentleman then stated that the Government was without official intelligence on the subject. He now wished to ask whether any information had reached the Colonial Office since that time.

Mr. G. W. Hope replied, that since the question was put to him respecting news from New Zealand, which it was stated had been made public, he could now state that the Colonial Office received despatches yesterday of the same date as those referred to; and the accounts received by the Government agreed with those which appeared in the Times and other newspapers three or four days ago. The despatches stated, that a renewed attack had been made on the settlement in the Bay of Islands, by the chief who had formerly pulled down the flagstaff there. There was nothing now but an attack of a decidedly insurrectionary character. It was suspected some days before that an attack would take place; but not at the time

when it did take place. The natives were about 1,000 in number, and advanced in different bodies; and they showed in their proceedings considerable military discipline. The attack took place upon those who had charge of the blockhouse, near the flagstaff. Those who had charge of it, were taken by surprise, as they were absent, being out on a working party. The person who had the command, was not aware of the approach of the natives, until he turned round and saw it in their possession. A party of seamen and mariners were landed from Her Majesty's ship Hazard, then in the bay, to attack the natives; they were but a small party, and the officer commanding them, Captain Robertson, was severely wounded. They drove the natives from the blockhouse; but another accident then occurred, as the magazine in the blockhouse blew up and did much mischief. After a long and determined attack, the natives were everywhere repulsed. The gun, however, in one of the stockades had been spiked, while the other had been blown up, and the ammunition was nearly exhausted. No lives of any of the settlers were lost, with the exception of one gentleman, who was killed, by the explosion of the magazine. The loss altogether, taking troops, settlers, and seamen into account, was thirteen killed. and twenty-three wounded. The loss of the natives had not been ascertained, but it was very considerable. The settlers were then removed to Auckland; but the missionaries still remained in the Bay of Islands. In justice to the natives, he must say that, after the settlers retired, they forwarded a woman and child which they found in a blockhouse, under a flag of truce, to the settlement. Many of the natives were armed with American rifles, which they obtained by barter, and most of the remainder were armed with muskets. Troops, previously to this melancholy event, had been applied for, to the Government of New South Wales; and the North Star had arrived at Auckland from Sydney on the 23rd of March, with two hundred and ten troops and artillery on board. The last accounts were dated the 26th of the same month; and they certainly showed that the effects of this conflict were looked upon with great alarm in New Zealand. It did not appear that those proceedings grew out of any accidental circumstance, such as from a collision or dispute between the natives and

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »