LORD DENMANsaid, he had to trouble their Lordships with two cases relating to the Privilege of their Lordships' House. In the first case, he found that a Scotch newspaper—The Edinburgh Courant—had reported two speeches, one by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and another by himself, on a clause—afterwards withdrawn—proposed for the Scottish Peerage Bill. This clause and these speeches were wholly ignored by The Times. They related to a majority of a quorum of three Law Lords over-ruling a majority of a Committee of Privileges. He believed that any Peer attending the whole of the proceedings was fully entitled to vote; indeed, in one case, that of the father of the late Sir William Knollys, the minority, who had attended the whole of the proceedings, were more entitled to vote than a majority of Law Lords and Peers, who only heard part of the case; and three illustrious Royal Dukes—Kent, Sussex, and Gloucester—joined in signing a Protest by Lord Erskine against that Judgment. The only reason why noble Lords did not vote upon the O'Connell case was their not having heard the arguments; and the first Lord Wharncliffe expressly 1824 advised their Lordships not to vote, "in order to retain the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords." With regard to the Bradlaugh case, he had heard the whole of the case, and had soon given his judgment, or opinion, as some called it, to the Lord Chancellor, but had not been allowed to see the decisions of the other noble Lords before their delivery. He found, also, that his name was not in the rota, and that his words were not in the law reports; and he contended that his presence should be noted in the Journals of their Lordships' House. He brought these cases forward, not for his own sake, but for the serious consideration of their Lordships.