Lords Sitting of 17 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Churches Building, read a third time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by Lord DURHAM, from Old and New Brentford, and from Baling:— By the Earl of RADNOR, from Ramsgate, Market Laving-ton, and West Lavington:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Joseph Sparrow. By the same noble Duke, from the Clergy, &c., of Hailsham, Sussex, praying for a Repeal of that part of the Beer Act, which allows Beer to be drunk on the premises. By Lord CALTHORPE, from the Clergy and Churchwardens of Bristol, for additional facilities for the Building of Churches; and from the Clergy and Churchwardens of Kingston-on-Hull. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from the. Chamber of Commerce of Londonderry, for an inquiry into the misapplication of Funds by the Corporation of Londonderry; from the Newtownards, for the Abolition of the Duty on Sugar produced by free labour.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE — CASE OF LIEUTENANT WOODCOCK.
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.
The Lord Chancellor:—You must withdraw; but remain in attendance.
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.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE KING'S GUARD.
The Marquis of Londonderrytook that opportunity of calling the attention of their Lordships to an occurrence which, in his mind, deserved as much of their notice as the business which had just occupied them. They had just reprimanded a military person for having disregarded their privileges: and standing, as he did, in the situation of one attached to the same profession, he felt himself called upon to sustain the military authority, which had been as he understood, infringed, on a late occasion, by a noble Personage then present. He would, therefore, call upon his noble and gallant friend, the Commander-in-chief, to state whether there was any foundation for a statement which had appeared in the newspapers, and by which it would seem that the authority of his gallant friend had been treated with very little ceremony. Their Lordships must see how necessary it was that military orders should be upheld, and that no individual, however high his station, should be permitted to contravene them; and he was sure that, when it was alleged that the first law-officer of the country had broken through that authority, some explanation was due, and would, he had no doubt, be given. It was not too much for him to say, that, the first law-officer of the State had no more power to break through the regulations imposed by military discipline than any other person. He would not trouble the House with further details, but state, that the Lord Chancellor had been charged with

491
forcing his way through the King's guard on the day of the last Drawing-room. From the statement that had appeared in public, it would seem that all regard to military form was cast aside; but he had no doubt the statement was overcharged, for it was, in his opinion, impossible for the noble and learned Lord to have acted in so violent a manner. It so happened, however, that he had been informed of the circumstance by a noble friend of his, who was in part a witness of the transaction, and, in consequence, he had made further inquiries; from all which he collected, though there might be exaggeration in the accounts that appeared in the papers, there was no doubt of the main fact, that the King's guard had been forced by the Lord Chancellor. In order, therefore, that their Lordships should be in possession of the facts, he would ask his noble and gallant friend three questions— first, whether the King's guard had been forced by the Lord Chancellor, on the day of the last Drawing-room? Second, Whether that arose from mistake, or from a misconception of the orders given to the guard? Third, Whether the officer whose guard was forced had been put under arrest, or had satisfactorily explained his conduct? He hoped his noble friend would give the House and the country an explanation of the circumstances, as he was sure their Lordships were as deeply impressed with the necessity of maintaining the military discipline of the armed force, as they were of upholding the privileges of their House.
Lord Hillsaid, that he had no difficulty in giving the explanation required by his noble friend. In the first place he must state, that in the year 1815, an order proceeded from the late King, relative to the arrangements to be observed in the Parks on the occasions of his birth day, which order was still in existence; and it was in particular commanded that no carriage should be allowed to pass through the Horse Guards on days of ceremony. On the day of the late Drawing-room, the officer in command gave the proper orders to the non-commissioned officer of his guard, and a corporal was stationed outside the gate to prevent any carriage driving in. Several carriages had been stopped in the course of the morning, and when the Lord Chancellor's carriage came to the passage, the corporal held up his hand to the coachman to keep back; but the horses' heads having got inside the
492
gate, the sentinel laid hold of the reins, and prevented further ingress. The Lord Chancellor then, as he understood, inquired why he was detained, and, being informed that the soldier acted by orders, he desired to see the officer of the guard; and when the officer appeared, he first inquired did he know him. The officer replied, that he believed he had the honour of speaking to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor then inquired why was he detained? and the officer informed him, that no one but the Speaker of the House of Commons had the privilege of going through with the exception of the Earl of Shaftesbury, who had obtained leave for that particular day. The Lord Chancellor having asked, was he to understand that he could not go through, and being answered that it was not possible, said, then "we must go back," on which the officer waved his hand to the sentinel to let go the reins, and the coachman, who, it was supposed, had not heard the last observation of the Lord Chancellor, whipped his horses, and passed through the gate before he could be stopped. He had taken care to see the officer who had been then on duty, and the corporal and soldier, and to make inquiries into the subject, and he was bound to say, that after the fullest investigation, he came to the conclusion that the officer was not to blame, and that the corporal and soldier had both fulfilled their duty, and he was quite satisfied, from his communication with the noble and learned Lord himself, that the Lord Chancellor had no idea whatever of forcing the guard.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he must feel grateful to the noble Marquis for having called on his noble friend for the explanation which he had just made to their Lordships; but in the first place he should say, that he had not been aware of the comments that had been made on his conduct with regard to this transaction until his particular attention had been lately called to it. He must, at the same time, be allowed to mention that he wished the noble Marquis had chosen any other day but this for the discussion of such a subject, and that he, at least, had entered upon it without connecting it with that reprimand, which he, as Speaker of their Lordships' House, had just delivered, in obedience to their commands. He saw no reason why this case should be put in converse to the other, and because a military

493
attack (which, by the way, the other was not) had been made on the privileges of the House, it should be held forth that an attack had been made by a civil functionary, a Member of that House upon the military. It was thus he had been put on his trial by the noble Marquis not at the Bar, certainly, but on the Woolsack; but he must tell the noble Marquis that there was no more comparison between the two cases than existed between any of the two most opposite things in the world. Still he could not be otherwise than obliged by the noble—Marquis having drawn forth the clear and explicit, statement of the noble and gallant Lord, and he had little more to do than to confirm the statement of his noble friend. He could assure their Lordships, that no one in the world thought less of the state and pomp of the office which he held than he did. The observances of that state and pomp were to him certainly the most irksome and the most oppressive parts of his public duty; and it was not from any foolish wish of passing through the Horse Guards, instead of going round by Piccadilly and down Constitution-hill, —though, indeed, this was the way he should have preferred, if time permitted, inasmuch as he would have attained a little more air and exercise—that he had ordered his carriage to the Horse Guards. But the fact was, he had been sitting in the House the greater part of the day, having made a great effort to bring to a conclusion the hearing of a cause which had been Long protracted, in which one of the parties was in distress, and in which it was, therefore material to save expense; and he had extended his sittings for an hour longer than he intended, in order to keep down an expense to that partly of 80 l. or 90 l. But, as the time approached when he ought to be at the Drawing-room, he thought he should greatly shorten the road if he ordered his carnage to go through the Horse Guards. He should mention that he had before gone through the Horse Guards on the occasion of the Queen's Drawing-room; and when he was stopped, on the occasion in question, he supposed it was done by mistake. On being told too by the officer of the guard, that only the Speaker of the House of Commons had permission to pass, he observed, it was very extraordinary that the same privilege should be denied to the Speaker of the House of Lords. The officer then said, that Lord Shaftes-
494
bury also had the privilege for that day; and when he heard that, he was confirmed in his opinion that the whole arose from a mistake—for he might mention, as their Lordships had been occupied on the subject of privileges, that his noble friend was only Chairman of the Committees, and he concluded that his noble friend was not the person to whom the accommodation, which he thought was meant for the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament, was intended. The officer, however, satisfied him that there was no mistake, and he then said, that he must turn back. He would now mention a circumstance which he had been compelled to withhold from the noble Marquis when he had the kind ness to inform him of his intention to bring this matter before the House, which was, that he had given orders to turn back, but he supposed the footman had not communicated them on the instant to the coachman—and certainly he was never more surprised in his life than when he found his coachman had taken him through, and he was in the Park before he could pull the check-string. Certainly, he then thought it would have been ridiculous to have turned back, as the mischief had been done by the mistaken zeal of his coachman, who had acted upon his former peremptory orders to make as much haste as possible. He had, in his conversation with the noble Marquis, taken the whole blame upon himself, being desirous to save the man; and he could only assure their Lordships, that he was the last person, either in or out of the House, to set an example of placing military discipline at defiance, and that he was far from entertaining the idea of forcing the King's Guard. He did not, indeed, well see how he could do that single-handed, even with the aid of the Mace and the Purse. English guards were not to be forced by the one, nor to be bribed by the other—and far be it from him to make the attempt. Nothing could be more foreign from him, than to sanction the breaches of any of the orders of his late or his present Majesty; and he entertained too high a regard for, and was too well aware of the necessity of maintaining military discipline, to attempt to violate it. He had only to add, that nothing could have been more correct than the conduct of the officer who commanded the guard—and he must also say, that the corporal and the soldier behaved with Strict propriety.

EXPLANATIONS.
The Earl of Fifepresented a Petition from Banff, for Parliamentary Reform. He would take advantage of that occasion, to correct a misstatement which had appeared in some of the public prints, of what had fallen from him on a former occasion. He was represented as having disapproved of the measures of legal Reform brought forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. This was an error. So far from disapproving of the bills brought under their Lordships' consideration by that noble and learned Lord, he cordially approved of them, regarding the noble and learned Lord as one pre-eminently competent to effect those improvements in our laws, which the growing intelligence, and the growing-liberty of the people required. His censures were intended to apply to two bills, which had passed that House under the auspices of the noble and learned Baron opposite, (Wynford) as he conceived them to involve principles seriously affecting the liberty of the subject. One of those bills, —the Suits in Common Law bill, —went in degree, to interfere, —indeed dispense, with that safeguard of liberty, Trial by Jury; and the other, the Frauds on Creditors' bill, would place the most dangerous power in the hands of creditors. By the law as it stood, the creditor had, under certain circumstances, the option of redress between the person and the property of his debtor; but the noble and learned Lord's bill would give him a power over both, which no wise and liberal-minded man could, as it struck him, regard without horror. He regretted that bills so constitutionally objectionable should have passed that House sub silentio, and that, too, in the presence of those competent from their professional habits, to hold them up to the House in their true colours. The laws of arrest for debt, as they now stood, were an anomaly which called loudly for amendment; and either their Lordships should forego their own privileges of personal exemption, or they must equalize more than at present the relations in which they and their less wealthy and less privileged fellow-subjects stood with respect to creditors.