Lords Sitting of 17 July 1832

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—CASES OF MR. ALLISON AND MR. THORPE.
The Lord Chancellorasked whether James Allison, who had been accused by John Joseph Wright, solicitor for the parties opposing the Sunderland Dock Company, of a Breach of the Privileges of the House, was in attendance, and being informed by the officers of the House that he was,
Lord Dundasmoved, that James Allison be brought to the Bar, and he was brought to the Bar, attended by the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod.
The evidence given by Mr. Wright on the day before, the purport of which was, that Allison had given him a blow on the face, while attending a Committee, was read to him, and
The Lord Chancellorasked Mr. Wright whether he had any other account to give of the matter.?—No.
Mr. Allisonwas then examined. He was described as a ship-builder, and stated that he had been examined as a witness in the Committee on the Sunderland Dock Bill, on behalf of the supporters of the Bill, and that Mr. Wright, one of the Solicitors for the opposing party, had, in the course of an address to the Committee, cast, what he considered to be, very injurious reflections on him in reference to his evidence, and that he had, under the influence of excitement and irritation, taken
496
Mr. Wright by the nose. He was very sorry for what he had done; he acted under the influence of irritation, not merely on account of the reflections cast upon him, but also on account of a scornful look cast at him at the time by Mr. Wright; and at the time of the transaction he was not aware that he was committing a breach of their Lordships' privileges. He was sorry that he had allowed his feelings to get the better of his judgment, and threw himself on the mercy of their Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: Did you consider that Mr. Wright meant to insult you.?—I did, my Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: Have you since made any apology to Mr. Wright?—I have not; I am very sorry for what I have done.
Ordered to withdraw.
Lord Dundasmoved that James Allison had been guilty of a gross breach of the Privileges of the House, which was agreed to nem. diss.
Lord Dundasthen moved, that James Allison be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, which was also agreed to nem. diss., and Allison was taken away in custody.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought it his duty now to state, that this was not the only case of Breach of Privilege that had occurred in reference to the proceedings on the Sunderland Dock Bill. There were other Breaches of Privileges that had arisen, or were likely to arise out of the same proceedings. It had been intimated to him that a message, implying a challenge, had been sent to Mr. Wright by Mr. Abbs, the Solicitor for the other party, and he was informed, not by Mr. Wright, but by another person, that the parties only delayed settling their differences in a hostile manner till their return to Sunderland. He moved, that John Joseph Wright be brought to the Bar, and questioned about this matter.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. John JosephWright was brought to the Bar, and, being questioned by the Lord Chancellor, stated, that on Saturday gone a week (as he expressed it), he met Mr. Abbs the Solicitor on the opposite side, in Parliament-street, and that Mr. Abbs said to him, that when the business of the Bill was over, he intended to call upon the witness for an explanation. The witness said, that if he wanted an explanation from him, he had better tell him what it

497
was about. Mr. Abbs replied, that it was about a statement made in a printed paper circulated by the witness and his party among their Lordships. On the following Monday, at twelve o'clock at night, after he had been for some time in bed, he heard a noise at the door of his bed-room, and on his asking who was there, a person answered that he had come to him with a message from Mr. Abbs. He opened the door and admitted the gentleman, who stated that his name was Thorpe, and that he came on the part of Mr. Abbs for an explanation relative to some expressions in the printed statement already mentioned. This printed statement was an answer to a previous statement circulated by the parties supporting the Bill, in which it was stated, that the adverse feeling of the people of Sunderland to the Bill, arose from the misrepresentations of the Solicitors for the parties more immediately opposing the Bill. In the printed statement in answer, which was prepared and circulated by him and his colleague, under the direction of their clients, it was said, that the other party had, in their usual course of misrepresentation, stated, that the adverse feeling of the people of Sunderland arose from the misrepresentations of the opposing party, and it was then denied that such was the fact, and asserted that the adverse feeling of the people of Sunderland to the Bill arose from a conviction that its passing would be most injurious to their interests. Mr. Thorpe asked, on the part of Mr. Abbs, whether Mr. Abbs was alluded to in the passage about misrepresentation? The witness said, that he and his colleague had acted professionally in the business, and by direction of their clients, and that he did not consider Mr. Abbs entitled to any explanation about the matter. He added, however, that he wished that the explanation required should be distinctly stated to him in writing. A copy of a letter from Mr. Abbs was then brought him, requiring an apology or a disavowal as to the misrepresentation. He then required a more exact statement in writing, and to this he received an answer that his request was a mere subterfuge, and Mr. Abbs would expect to hear from him, or something to that effect, but not having expected to be called upon, he had not the letters with him. He had denied the right of any one to call upon him for an explanation of what was done professionally, and by direction of his clients. In answer to this he had been told, that he had no right to
498
shelter himself under his professional character, and there the matter rested for the present.
The Lord Chancellor: Did this matter originate from the printed statement circulated among the Lords?—That was the origin of it, as alleged on the part of Mr. Abbs; but he believed the real cause was something which he had thought it his professional duty to say in his address to their Lordships' Committee.
Witness ordered to withdraw.
The Duke of Richmondobserved, that the witness had spoken only to copies of letters, and did not appear to know of his own knowledge whether such letters were written by Mr. Abbs; and the first step ought to be to summon Mr. Thorpe to attend, that they might get the requisite information from him.
The Lord Chancellorconcurred in this. In the last case there was a direct and immediate Breach of Privilege committed in the House, and it was therefore a case which required immediate notice. In the present case the Breach was more remote, and it was not committed in the House, and therefore proceedings so immediate were not called for. But if in the meantime, and while the question was pending in their Lordships' House, there should be any further breach committed, it would be a breach of the grossest kind, and one which would call for proceedings of exemplary rigour. But there certainly did exist in the minds of many Members of Parliament considerable doubts whether the circulation of such statements among them was strictly regular or proper, although it was, no doubt, a common practice to circulate such statements among the Members of both Houses. He wished not to be understood as meaning to say, that the irregularity of the practice would be any justification of a breach of Privilege; but it might be proper to take a little time for consideration.
The Marquess of Londonderryagreed that there was a difference between the two cases.
The Duke of Richmondmoved that Mr. Thorpe be summoned to attend at the Bar of the House to-morrow.
Ordered nem. diss.