HC Deb 07 July 1845 vol 82 cc84-101

On the Question that the petition pre- sented by Jasper Parrott, Esq., be further considered,

Sir J. Y. Buller

rose to present a petition from Theodore Divett, of Totness, Devon, attorney, who stated therein that Charles Edwards was his partner, and had brought an action against Mr. Jasper Parrott, on behalf of one David Phillips, without ever having consulted the petitioner on the subject. Petitioner had never interfered in the proceedings, they being entirely conducted by the said Charles Edwards. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that he might be discharged from further attendance on the House. The hon. Baronet said, that the petitioner had assured him privately that these statements were true. He moved that the petition be laid on the Table of the House, and trusted that its prayer would be granted.

Petition to lie on the Table.

Sir J. Y. Buller

also presented a petition from Charles Edwards, of Totness, and Thomas Baker, of Lime Street, attorneys, stating, that they had brought the action against Mr. Parrott on account of giving evidence before a Committee of that House, which evidence was stated in the declaration to be wilfully and maliciously false; that, in so doing, they were not aware that they were committing a breach of privilege, as they did not suppose that privilege would be extended to evidence not given bonâ fide. The petitioners also stated, that the indictment was so brought that the action would not lie unless it could be proved, in the first instance, that the evidence was known to be false at the time was given. They trusted that the House would not deem them guilty of an infraction of its privileges; and if they had committed a breach of privilege, they had done so unintentionally; and they prayed the House to take all these circumstances into consideration.

Petition laid on the Table.

On the Motion of Mr. Divett, Mr. David Phillips was called to the bar.

In answer to questions put by Mr. Speaker, he stated that he was a surgeon, residing in the parish of Buckfastleigh, in the county of Devon, and plaintiff in the action of "Phillips v. Parrott;" that the action was brought partly for what Mr. Parrott had stated before a Committee of that House, and partly for what he had stated before the board of guardians of Totness. Had heard the declaration in this action read. Was aware that the statement in the declaration related to a question put to Mr. Parrott by an hon. Member of that House.

Are you aware that the answer given by Mr. Parrott to that question is stated in the declaration?

In reply to this question, the witness stated that he had no perfect recollection of the particular expressions. He understood them at the time he heard the declaration read. He had no intention of infringing on the privileges of the House; he knew nothing of the question of privilege: if he had done wrong he had acted unintentionally, and expressed his regret. He had pursued every means for the protection of his character, and had tried every means to get redress. All he wished for was, to defend his character; and he requested the board of guardians and Mr. Parrott to bring the matter forward, for the purpose of its being examined into, before he went to law. He had also written to the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject; but their answer was, that they could not interfere in the matter. His character had been destroyed, or attempted to be destroyed, and he was thrown out of his situation. It was twenty-four years since he had begun practice, and he was now no longer allowed to be the medical officer of the Union in which he was residing. The statement made against him in the Medical Poor Relief Committee was from beginning to end false, and he believed maliciously so. There was not one word of truth in it from beginning to end.

Sir J. Y. Buller

asked the witness whether, being now aware that he had committed a breach of privilege, by calling in question evidence given before a Committee of that House, he was now willing to instruct his agents to withdraw the action?

The witness stated, that he would bow submissively to the House; but he hoped that the House would take some steps to inquire respecting his character.

By Mr. Divett

Witness gave instructions to his solicitors to commence the action, he thought, about October, November, or December last: he left to his attorney to determine in what court to bring the action. After calling on the board of guardians to inquire respecting this matter, he wrote a circular to all the guardians; and he took the liberty, on the 22nd of November, of directing one to the noble Lord (Ashley) who presided over the Medical Poor Relief Committee.

In answer to questions put by several hon. Members, the witness proceeded to state, that he felt himself aggrieved by the board of guardians collectively; he received no answer to the circular which he sent to Lord Ashley; he had been told, since he had been in town, that the best course for him to pursue was, to petition the House to inquire into the truth or falsehood of the evidence of which he complained; but he had hitherto presented no petition to that effect. He wrote the circular to Lord Ashley some time before the commencement of the action. The statement of which he complained was made before a Committee of that House. At the first meeting of the board of guardians after Mr. Parrott's return, Mr. Parrott said that the statements which he had made would shortly be printed and published, and that then would be seen what he had said.

Sir T. Wilde

inquired whether there was any matter of complaint in the declaration, except the statement made by Mr. Parrott before a Committee of that House?

The witness said he had not read the declaration himself, but had heard it read, and it was perfectly in accordance with the explanation he had given. He was little acquainted with legal technicalities; but having read the statement made against him by Mr. Parrott before a Committee of that House, he declared that, from beginning to end, it was perfectly untrue; his action was brought for that matter, and the insinuation made by Mr. Parrott, in the board-room, on his return from London, to the effect that he would not then go into the statements, but that they might be seen when printed and published: not having taken a copy of the declaration, witness could not say whether anything was read to him from the declaration, except the evidence of Mr. Parrott before the Committee of that House.

By Mr. Baldwin

Witness had lost all his parish business; but could not say how far his private practice had suffered.

Mr. Phillips withdrew.

On the Question that Mr. Charles Edwards, attorney, be called to the bar, being put,

Lord J. Russell

doubted whether, before going further, they ought not to take into consideration the answer of the last witness to a question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir J. Buller). The witness had stated that he was willing to withdraw his action, and submit himself to the House. If that were the case, if the witness did not wish to offend against the privileges of the House, and they should obtain from him a formal declaration in answer to a question put by the Speaker to that effect, he (Lord J. Russell) thought the House would have some grounds to proceed upon with regard to what was to be done. If such an answer should be given, he did not think it necessary, at least to-day, to examine the attorneys in the case.

Mr. Divett

could not agree with his noble Friend; it was evident that the party they had had before them knew very little of the privileges of the House; but his attorneys did, and, if they advised him, were the culpable parties. He must persist in his Motion that Mr. Charles Edwards be called to the bar.

Mr. Hindley

said, the House ought to consider whether the allegations contained in the statement of Mr. Phillips were correct or not, before they engaged in a contest with the attorneys in the case. He thought that gentleman had stated a case which it was incumbent on them to investigate; they ought to do their utmost to ascertain the truth, but not allow any one to make statements injurious to private character.

Sir R. Peel

was inclined to agree with the suggestions of the noble Lord opposite; he thought it must be evident to every one that the witness who had appeared at the bar was not very competent to judge what was a question of privilege. He understood the witness to say that he was not cognizant of the privileges of the House, nor had he intended to infringe them. The House had sufficient evidence before it to come to the conclusion that the witness was aware he had committed an error, and was sorry for it. He thought substantial justice would be done if the witness, being apprised that this was not the way to attempt to obtain redress, should consent to withdraw the action, and the House should receive his acknowledgment that it was commenced in error; the House would afford the witness an opportunity of substantiating his case if it thought what had been stated before the Committee was false.

Mr. Roebuck

admitted that the House had received reparation as far as regarded the witness himself; but he was not the only offender. The real offender was behind; the person who had really offended was the attorney. The House ought to have from him the same assurance that he had committed the offence, and was sorry for it. Unless he distinctly asked pardon of the House, it ought not to be satisfied.

Sir T. Wilde

hoped he should not be thought one who disregarded the privileges of that House; he wished to keep a broad distinction between the questions, whether parties should be allowed to submit to the courts of law the privileges of that House, and what the House might think proper to do on a complaint made to it by parties thinking themselves injured by matter published under its authority; these two questions were quite distinct from each other. Considering the present state of the question of Parliamentary privilege, it struck him that it would be unbecoming in the House suddenly to take up a case with the strong hand; after the late discussion on this subject a reasonable doubt might be entertained as to what would break the privileges of the House, and what would not. The House might well be satisfied with bringing the party to the bar, and warning him that this was a case involving a breach of its privileges, accepting his apology and offer to stay proceedings, rather than at once proceed against other parties or the attorneys. He thought the witness had given a sufficient indication of his desire to submit to the decision of the House; they had a statement that at a subsequent time the House would give him an opportunity of obtaining justice with regard to his character. But at the present moment the question before the House was whether this individual was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, whether he had done so knowingly, and whether he was inclined now to submit respectfully to the authority of the House? He thought, from the manner in which the witness had conducted himself, that he was willing to submit to the authority of the House; he entirely gave up his action. He thought they had better accept his submission, and for the present pass the subject by, because this revival of the authority of the House might be an example to others who would come before them with much less ground for excuse than the individual then in attendance; therefore, allowing the question suggested to be put by the Speaker, would be the best course for the dignity of the House. If they thought fit, they might afterwards call in the attorney, but they had better first dispose of the individual before them. With respect to the attorney, he could not proceed after his client had given up the action; and as the late discussion had raised a doubt if the House had any privileges at all, whether this complaint might be a subject for legal investigation or not, it would be well for it to accept the apology, and, satisfied with that, to proceed no further.

Sir R. Inglis

said, as he understood it, the suggestion was that the witness should be recalled, and on stating his regret for having offended the House, and his willingness to withdraw the action, he should be released. But he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that the House was bound to proceed much further with respect to the two gentlemen who had framed the declaration. It was perfectly clear that the action was brought in respect to evidence given under the protection of that House; and such evidence was essential if they meant to discharge any functions of inquiry at all. So far he was perfectly willing to support the privileges of the House. On a repetition of the expression of regret for having violated the privileges of the House, and a formal renunciation of the action, the witness might be discharged.

Viscount Howick

believed the witness was disposed to yield to the authority of the House; but he confessed he had a great objection to the suggested mode of proceeding—that of calling the witness in person to the bar, and asking him whether he was prepared to make that submission. The very fact of the House asking such a question would, in many cases, rather invite resistance. The more proper course would be, that the House should come to a Resolution declaring that the parties aggrieved by evidence given before a Committee of that House or at its bar, instead of seeking redress by an appeal to a court of law, should be bound to seek redress by applying for protection to that House. If this gentleman was aggrieved by such evidence, he ought to have petitioned the House for permission to proceed against the person giving the evidence in a court of law; or the House might have appointed a Committee to inquire into the justice of the complaint. But if they permitted legal proceedings to be instituted in the first instance, inquiry before a Committee would be nugatory. Having come to such a Resolution, they could adjourn further proceedings with respect to this party till he thought proper to petition them, withdrawing his action, and appealing to the House for redress. The moment such a petition was presented, he should approve of his discharge from custody; but he would not consent that Mr. Phillips should be called to the bar and invited to make concessions, which he might possibly refuse, and by the refusal of which he would increase the difficulties and lower the dignity of the House. He had drawn up a Resolution on the subject to this effect:—"That the House does not allow any person aggrieved by statements made by witnesses before Committees or at the bar of the House, to institute legal proceedings against such witness for evidence so given, without previous permission from the House; and persons so aggrieved are bound in the first instance to appeal for redress to that House."

Mr. Hume

had no objection to this being done; but they should first ascertain who had brought the action. The witness seemed to know very little about it.

Sir R. Peel

said, there was one case so much in point, that the House ought to be aware of it. It occurred in the reign of William III., when a person named Gee prosecuted certain individuals for petitioning the House, and in their petition making allegations against his character. The matter was heard, and Gee alleged by his counsel that what he had done he had done in ignorance; when he found the question was taken notice of by the House, he ceased his action; but, notwithstanding that submission, the House voted it a breach of its privileges, and gave him in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Sir G. Grey

said, that as the witness submitted to the House, there was no doubt he would consent to present such a petition; and he suggested the question should be adjourned till to-morrow, to enable such a petition to be prepared.

Mr. D. Dundas

had more than once felt that they were proceeding against the rules of natural justice. Here was a man standing without counsel or help before an assembly of this kind; in the case cited by the right hon. Baronet, that of "Gee and Kemp," the party rebelling against the authority of the House was furnished with counsel. In the present case they were not acting according to justice; they called on this unlearned person at the bar to explain the meaning of legal declarations, and asked him other questions which many learned Gentlemen in that House would find it difficult to answer. In the case cited, the question was referred to a Committee of that House. He believed that Committee was attended by counsel, and on the Report of the Committee the House acted. In the case of Gee, the petitioners were a number of hackney coachmen, who alleged several grievances; among them that Gee, as a commissioner of hackney coaches, had received bribes for licensing, and had acted harshly towards them; and prayed the House to remove him from his office. Gee brought an action against the petitioners, calling the allegations scandalous libels. But it was held that such a course was a breach of privilege, tending to discourage people from seeking redress of grievances in the form of petition. The case was referred to a Committee on the 9th of February, 1696, which made a Report. Gee said that what he had done was entirely in ignorance of the privileges of the House; this witness said the same. Gee said he did it to save his reputation and character; so did this gentleman. Unless the House showed itself firm, they would have a plentiful crop of actions; they would have small attorneys, and perhaps large ones, bringing actions against witnesses for what they stated before Committees of that House. He hoped, before the House took any step that would shut the door against further inquiry, it would refer the matter to a Committee, and when the parties had been heard by themselves or their counsel, take such steps on the Report of the Committee as would maintain the dignity of the House, and prevent actions from being brought which were not only harassing to the parties, but, if successful, destructive to the authority of the House.

Lord J. Russell

, after what had been said, thought there was little doubt except as to the mode of proceeding. If it was more regular that a petition should be presented to the House, he thought it better they should not proceed further without deliberation. He would move as an Amendment, that "to-morrow" be inserted in the Motion instead of "to-day."

The Speaker

having put the Question,

Mr. Divett

said, if it was the wish of the House that he should give way, he had no objection; but if he did so, it would be with the reservation of the right to call the attorney and the other parties to the bar.

Sir T. Wilde

said, he would be prepared to move a Resolution to the effect that it was made apparent to the House that Mr. Phillips had brought an action on evidence given before a Committee of that House, and that his having done so was a breach of privilege. He believed that a petition from Mr. Phillips was already in the hands of an hon. Member.

Sir J. Y. Buller

said, he had such a petition. It expressed the petitioner's regret that the action should have been brought. It stated, that at the time of commencing the action, he was not aware that he was committing a breach of the privileges of the House, but that he had since been informed that it was; and he now expressed his humble regret and contrition, and assured the House that no further proceedings should be taken in the said action.

Sir R. Inglis

thought that it would be better, if the House determined to release Mr. Phillips, that he should be brought to the bar for that purpose immediately, as his detention till to-morrow would cause him considerable inconvenience and injury. At the same time, he doubted whether they ought to terminate their inquiry on the mere expression of Mr. Phillips's regret, and without being prepared to act with respect to the other parties also.

Mr. Warburton

hoped the hon. Member for Exeter would withdraw his Motion, so as to enable the House to dispose of Mr. Phillips's case, leaving that of Mr. Edwards and the other parties to be dealt with afterwards.

Lord J. Russell

said, that in moving his Amendment, his object was to enable the House to come to some arrangement with respect to Mr. Phillips, before dealing with the case of Mr. Edwards and the others. He would withdraw his Amendment, if the hon. Member for Exeter would withdraw his Motion, the question as to the other parties being still left open.

Amendment and Original Motion withdrawn.

Sir T. Wilde

then moved— That it appears to this House that the Action brought by David Phillips against Jaspar Parrott, Esq. is brought in respect of the Evidence given by Mr. Parrott before a Committee of this House.

Motion agreed to.

The hon. and learned Member then mov— That the commencement of the said Action was a Breach of the Privilege of this House.

Also agreed to.

Sir J. Y. Buller

presented the petition of Mr. Phillips, expressing his regret that he had unknowingly violated the privileges of the House, etc., which was read.

Sir R. Peel

moved the following Resolution:— That in consideration that David Phillips has in his Petition, presented to this House, disclaimed all intention to violate its Privileges in the commencement of the said Action; and has expressed his contrition for his offence, and prayed the lenient consideration of the House for the same, and declared his intention not to proceed further in the said Action, this House does not deem it to be necessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence. Resolution agreed to, and it was ordered that David Phillips be discharged from any further attendance on the House.

Mr. Divett

moved that Charles Edwards be brought to the bar.

Sir T. Wilde

suggested the expediency of allowing the attorney until to-morrow to present a petition, if he thought fit. At all events, whether he came prepared to make his peace or not, the House would be in a better position to-morrow to deal with the case. He moved an Amendment accordingly.

Mr. Roebuck

said, he could not see any use in delay. The whole matter might be got through in half an hour.

Viscount Howick

was in favour of postponing any further proceedings until tomorrow. It would, in his opinion, be exceedingly impolitic to call the parties to the bar before they knew whether they were prepared to make concessions or not.

Mr. Hume

was for proceeding immediately. It appeared to him that they would be lowering their own dignity by delay.

Mr. Divett

would be very sorry to divide the House on a minor point of this description. If he could gather the general feeling of the House, it was in favour of postponement until to-morrow. ["No, no."] Some hon. Members, at all events, were opposed to proceeding that evening; and with the consent of the House, therefore, he would withdraw his Motion, and move instead, that the parties should be ordered to attend at the bar to-morrow.

Mr. Wakley

said, they had settled the matter with the principal; but the lawyer, who was the real sinner, was then in the lobby. The unfortunate Phillips had acted, no doubt, under the advice of his solicitor. With regard to him the proceeding was at an end, he having declared that he would abandon his action. All that the attorney could do was to show his contempt for their authority. If Edwards were called in that evening, he would probably tell them under whose advice he had acted, and what counsel it was who drew up the declaration.

Mr. Granger

said, that he could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, who said that it was inexpedient to call the attorney to the bar until he was prepared to state that he would make a submission to the House. There was no doubt that bringing an action, under the circumstances of this case, was a breach of the privileges of this House, and as they had already dealt with the principal in the action, he did not see why they should not have the attorney at the bar. He thought the most dignified course to pursue was to call in the attorney at once, and if he were prepared for submission, then they might postpone any further proceedings till to-morrow.

Viscount Howick

stated that he had not said one word bearing the remotest approach to what the hon. Member (Mr. Granger) had attributed to him. What he said was, that the true mode of proceeding was, for the party to present a petition, expressing his submission, as, by asking him if he would submit, the House would invite refusal.

Sir R. Peel

said, that they had received the declaration of the plaintiff, to the effect that he would not go on with the action; and after that declaration, it was quite clear the attorney could not proceed. All that the attorney could do in the case was to express his contrition for having undertaken the action, and after that expression of contrition, the question for the House to entertain was, whether or not the expression of his contrition was to be received as sufficient. He thought they had properly disposed of the case of the principal; but he was not so clear in his opinion as to the course recommended of entering into a contest with the attorney, as the case could not now go on, the principal having expressed his intention of not proceeding further with it.

Mr. Hume

hoped the right hon. Baronet would, under those circumstances, either move that the order for the attendance of the parties be discharged, or that they should be summoned to appear without delay.

Sir T. Wilde

said, that in this case the attorney could not go on without the consent of the plaintiff. There were cases in which the attorney might proceed to save his costs, when there was collusion between the plaintiff and defendant, to prevent the attorney from getting his costs; but in the present case there was a bonâ fide cessation of the action, and the attorney could not proceed with it even though he should lose his costs.

Mr. Borthwick

said he was authorized to say, on the behalf of the parties who were the subjects of the Motion before the House, that if they had committed any breach of the privileges of the House, they were sorry for having done so.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that what those parties were prepared to do could not for a moment enter into his mind so as to influence the course which he should recommend to the House; and he, therefore, could not feel the more inclined to call them to the bar, because the House had an assurance that they were sorry. It would be a shabby course, if they called in those parties, because, forsooth, they knew that they would express their sorrow at the bar for the course which they had adopted with respect to this action.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that the right hon. Baronet ought to bring the parties to the bar at once, or to discharge them altogether. If they gave the parties time until to-morrow to consider what course they should pursue, there might be many learned Gentlemen in this town who would advise them not to present a petition to the House expressing their submission. The question might then arise what redress an individual was to have who was slandered or defamed before a Committee of that House. If a witness gave false evidence before an Election Committee, he was likely to be indicted for perjury; and he did not see why witnesses before other Parliamentary Committees ought not to be equally amenable to the law. It would appear as if the House must in the end allow an action, if a witness gave false and slanderous evidence. In the present case the plaintiff stated, that by the evidence of Parrott, he had been ruined in his profession, in his purse, and in his prospects; and what redress could he obtain? He thought it would be better to discharge the order for attendance, and he should have been pleased if all the parties had been mentioned in the Resolution discharging Mr. Phillips.

Sir T. Wilde

said, that the Resolution discharging Phillips was directed only to him, because no other parties were then before them. There was a very great difference between the evidence of an individual before a Committee of that House, and the evidence in a court of law; for before the Committee of that House there was no particular issue to be tried, and the witness had his mind ransacked by every question which the Committee pleased, being left no option. So that where questions were put at large to a witness, and in such a manner, it would be monstrous to confine him to the technical rules of evidence. When a man volunteered evidence of a defamatory character, the person so defamed would be in a very different position as regarded reparation; but where a witness was compelled to give evidence, it would be monstrous to allow the common law means of punishment to be brought against him, as if he had volunteered it. They should not come to a side-wind decision as to what was to be done for a person who had slanderous evidence given against him before a Committee of the House. The question as to what justice should be rendered to a person in such a situation should not be gone into at present, because it would not facilitate the decision of the present question, which was, what was to be done with the attorney in the action? He agreed with his hon. Friend that the other question was an important one; and if his hon. Friend should bring it before the House, he should be ready to render him all the assistance in his power. At the present it was expedient that the House should confine their attention to the question, whether it were proper that they should call the attorney to the bar to answer for his conduct, or whether, instead of calling him immediately forward, they should postpone calling him before them till to-morrow? He hoped the House was prepared to maintain its privileges; but he hoped also, that as it was not necessary to do so, they would not embark at present on the question raised by his hon. Friend. He thought that all that was expedient now was, that the parties who had violated the privileges of the House should be called forward tomorrow.

Mr. Roebuck

observed that the noble Lord had suggested that the matter should rest where it was until to-morrow, and that the parties should, in the meantime, find out what the House had resolved upon. Now the dignified, straightforward, simple, and manly course was to bring them forward to the bar immediately, and to say to them that they (the House) had read their petition, and had resolved that the action which they had brought was a broach of privilege. Thereupon he had no doubt what would follow. Knowing the will and determination of the House in the matter, the parties would bow in submission to them, and would say that they had been wrongly advised in the step which they had taken; that they were mistaken in what they did; that they were sorry for it; and that now, upon being informed what was the determination of this House, they were ready to submit. That was the simple course to adopt. The noble Lord virtually proposed to shut up the whole matter. Could they do the parties any injury by calling them in? Could they risk the dignity of the House by calling them in? He was desirous that they should be immediately called to the bar, and that the proposal to postpone their appearance till tomorrow should be rejected.

Sir T. Wilde

apprehended that the noble Lord was quite right in suggesting that the other party should not be called immediately in. They had resolved that the commencement of the action was a breach of privilege. They had also an acknowledgment by the attorney, who presented a petition, that he was the party who had brought the action, and he stated his reasons for bringing it. Therefore there was no doubt but that he was guilty of a breach of privilege. The only thing in which he differed from the noble Lord was, that they should now come to a resolution that their privileges had been infringed, and then adjourn the matter over till to-morrow. In order to avoid placing themselves in a situation of being compelled to act, they should give the parties an opportunity of presenting a petition, and making their peace with the House. [An hon. Member: If called now, they might apologize.] Apologize! How are they to apologize? The House could not accept an apology at the bar. The Parliamentary mode of apologizing was by petition. That was the only mode in which the House could entertain an apology. The more dignified course would be to adjourn the consideration of the subject till to-morrow. If they called the offending parties to the bar to-night, they would, he apprehended, be compelled to come to-night to some sort of resolution or another. If they must commit Mr. Edwards and Mr. Baker, as for breach of privilege, unless in the Parliamentary mode they made an apology to the House, and if the House thought fit to sit still whilst the parties prepared their petition, all he could say was, that such was neither the usual nor the dignified course of proceeding. By adjourning the matter till to-morrow there would be no difficulty, as they might then vote that the parties had broken the privileges of the House, and then, if they thought fit to accept the apology, which the parties might make in the proper form, they might resolve that such apology was sufficient. It was not expedient to call them forward to-night, when, by their so doing, the parties would not have the opportunity of conciliating the House, and confessing their error.

Mr. Greene

wished to ask the Speaker a question in reference to the point, as to whether a verbal apology at the bar was or was not sufficient to entitle a party to the indulgence of the House. He apprehended that a party standing at the bar, and there stating, in the presence of the House, that he regretted the course which he had taken, and praying the indulgence of the House, would adopt a course sufficient to maintain the privileges of the House, and that the House might act upon such a statement. If the parties were called to the bar, and were disposed to make such statement and application to the House, he apprehended that such would, in the present instance, be sufficient, without calling upon the parties to petition. Such a course would be quite sufficient to maintain the privileges of the House.

Sir James Graham

wished, before the Speaker answered the question put to him, to remind him of what the right hon. Gentleman had most likely not forgotten, that on the first appearance of Howard at the bar of the House, submission was made verbally, and not by petition.

Mr. Speaker

observed that the right hon. Baronet had reminded him of a case which supported the views which he had originally entertained of the matter, that it was not absolutely necessary that the parties should petition the House. If the parties should appear and submit themselves verbally at the bar of the House, that, he apprehended, would be sufficient. In this case it was necessary that the House should come to some determination as to what he should address to the parties when they were called to the bar.

Mr. Bernal

said, that although he was disposed to concur in what the hon. Member for Finsbury had said, he was also disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Thomas Wilde), who suggested that that question could not properly be brought forward on the present occasion. Unless they were prepared to say that the parties should be at once discharged, he was not disposed to have their attendance at the bar immediately.

Sir R. Inglis

did not feel satisfied with the statement of the parties that they had acted in ignorance, because he saw in their declarations a most studied avoidance of any reference to the source whence they obtained their information.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that in the first petition which they had presented that evening, these gentlemen stated that they apprehended that the state of the law was that a witness was protected, except when he maliciously and slanderously stated facts which were not true, in giving his evidence; and that, as a witness was not pretected, under such circumstances, in a court of justice, they had argued that the protection of the House of Commons extended no further than that afforded to witnesses by a court of justice, and that it was under that impression that they had brought the action against the defendant. He had himself looked into the law on this matter, and found that there were strong opinions on the one side as well as on the other, as to whether witnesses were or were not to be protected who gave evidence in a court of justice of matters not true, with a slanderous and malicious intent.

Sir R. Peel

would repeat that he thought they were entering into a very unworthy contest with the attorneys in the cause, as they had got a sufficient apology from the principal; and if any inducement were wanting to desist from proceeding further in the matter, it now appeared that an apology in a proper form was to be given immediately by the attorneys.

Mr. Granger

observed, that to him the debate had been very unsatisfactory. He feared that their course to-night would teach the public that if a man were bold enough to stand at their bar and defy them, the House would shrink from proceeding against him.

Motion and Amendment withdrawn.

Sir John Yarde Buller

presented a petition from Charles Edwards, Thomas Baker, and the other parties summoned to appear before the House, stating that they were not aware, in bringing the action complained of, that they were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, expressing their contrition at having violated its privileges, and throwing themselves upon the indulgence of the House.

Viscount Howick

observed that all that now remained to be done was that the House should come to the same resolution as it had come to in the case of Mr. Phillips, and state that, in consideration that Charles Edwards, Thomas Baker, and others, had, in the petition presented by them, disclaimed all intention of violating the privileges of that House, and had expressed their contrition for their offence, and prayed for the lenient consideration of the House; on account of the same, the House did not deem it necessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence. He begged, therefore, to move that Resolution; and he would not prolong the discussion further, except to state, that nothing could be a more complete misapprehension of his views than what was stated by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Granger) when he observed that he (Lord Howick) and others were disposed to shrink from asserting the privileges of the House. He was disposed to maintain the privileges of the House.

A Resolution similar to that agreed to in the case of Phillips was adopted, and all the parties ordered to be discharged from further attendance on the House.