§ Earl Greymoved, that Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock, who had written a letter to Lord Farnham, which was considered as a Breach of Privilege, be called to the Bar.
The Lord Chancellorasked the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, whether Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock was in attendance, and was answered in the affirmative. His Lordship having given directions, Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock was called in and placed at the Bar. Mr. Courtney came to the Bar, and showed him a letter, and the Lord Chancellor inquired whether that letter, addressed to a noble Peer of this House, was written by him?
Lieutenant Woodcockreplied, that it was, and that the signature and address were his.
The letter was then read, and the substance was, that the writer had observed in The Sun Newspaper of the 22nd of February, a report of some remarks made in the House by Lord Farnham, on the conduct of the writer, in having encouraged the populace of Ireland to resist the payment of tithes — that the half-pay Lieutenant of Dragoons mentioned by the noble Lord, must have applied to him— that the accusation was a base and false one, and that the writer demanded that the noble Lord should give up the author of the calumny, or that he himself must be held responsible; that the writer owed the noble Lord no account of his actions, but that he could prove that he had not encouraged the populace on the occasion mentioned to resist the payment of tithes, but that, on the contrary, he had persuaded them to disperse without disturbance.
The Lord Chancellor—Have you anything to say in justification or excuse of your conduct, in writing that letter?
Lieutenant Woodcockreplied, that he had nothing to say in justification, as he was now satisfied that it admitted of no justification. By way of excuse and apology, he had to say, that the letter was written and sent to the noble Lord in a moment of irritation, occasioned by the imputations on his character, and without being aware at the time that it was a Breach of their Lordships' Privileges; and that he had since sent a written apology to the noble Lord, with which he hoped the noble Lord was satisfied.
Lord Farnham—The apology which has been made to me is full and ample, and perfectly satisfactory. I have, therefore, nothing to say or propose, as far as I am personally concerned. As to the matte of your Lordships' privileges, I leave it in your Lordships' hands.
§ Earl Greyobserved, that there could be no doubt that this was a manifest Breach of the Privileges of the House, and their Lordships were indebted to the noble Lord (Farnham) for bringing the matter before them. But, as the noble Lord had stated that an ample and satisfactory apology had been made to him, and as an apology had been made to the House, and 489 the error ascribed to a momentary irritation, on account of an imputation on the writer's character, it did appear that their Lordships ought not; to proceed with more severity than in similar cases. In 1810 a precedent had occurred, which was exactly in point. In that year, a Colonel Ross and a Mr. Alexander Maxwell had committed a similar Breach of Privilege. They were brought to the Bar of the House, and stated, that they had acted from an erroneous impression, and without any intention to violate the privileges of the House, and apologised for what they had done. The House, on that occasion, resolved, that the writing in that case was a Breach of Privilege; and secondly, that, in consideration of the apology made, and the offence having apparently proceeded from inadvertence, they should be reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and discharged. This was the slightest degree of notice that could be taken of the present case. He moved, therefore, first, that the Letter in question was a Breach of the Privileges of the House, second, that Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock be Called in and reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and then Discharged.
The Resolutions were agreed to, and Lieutenant Woodcock was again brought to the Bar.
The Lard Chancellorsaid to him: Thomas Woodcock, this House, after due consideration had in this matter, has resolved that the letter which you sent to a Peer of Parliament, relative to words supposed to have been spoken by him in his place as a Peer of Parliament, is a manifest Breach of the Privileges of this House. That letter contains expressions and insinuations, both express and implied, which, if permitted to go unnoticed and uncensured, would make Peers of Parliament liable to be questioned out of the House for words spoken in it. The privileges of Parliament are given by the law and constitution of this country for the benefit of the people, and they are not merely the privileges of Members of Parliament on their own account, but the privileges of the subjects of 'the realm; and if the noble person to whom the letter was addressed had neglected to bring the matter before the House, he, as well as you, would have been guilty of a Breach of Privilege, and have tarnished the honour and dignity of this House. It is absolutely necessary, in 490 order to preserve the freedom of Debate in Parliament, that no Member of Parliament should be questioned out of it for whatever he may say in it, and if matters of this kind were suffered to pass without notice, there would be an end to the dearest, the highest and most important functions of the House. But as you have made an apology to the noble Lord, with which he is satisfied, and as you have apologised to the House, and flung yourself on its mercy, this House, tempering justice with mercy, and considering that you have been brought from a great distance, and necessarily put to great expense and inconvenience, has resolved that you be merely censured and reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, as I hereby do reprimand you, and then discharge you from your attendance.