The Lord Chancellorlaid upon the Table the Report from the Committee appointed to search for Precedents in reference to the petition of Thomas Baker for Protection. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and to be printed.
§ The Duke of Richmondwould now move that Thomas Baker be called to the bar, to deliver in the declaration he had received.
The Lord Chancellorstated the course he would recommend: The Report was of some length, and it would be some time before it could be printed, and in the hands of their Lordships. He would merely now call the petitioner before them to identify the transaction; after which the plaintiff and his attorney, if their names could be ascertained, should be ordered to attend on Monday. By that time the Report would be printed, and before any other step, such as calling them to the bar, was adopted, there might be a discussion; and those noble Lords who dissented from the course proposed might state their objections.
Lord Radnorhad no objection to the course, except that when the petition was presented, a Committee had been appointed to search for precedents; and now, when the Report had only been handed in, and not printed, they were called upon to take a step.
The Lord Chancellordid not consider 385 this a step by which the House would commit itself.
Lord Broughamdid not object to calling in the petitioner, which was a very different matter from calling the plaintiff and his attorney before them.
§ Thomas Baker was then called in, and examined by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
§ Were you examined before a Committee of this House in the month of April of last year?—Yes.
§ What was that Committee?—A Committee to inquire into the Gaming Laws.
§ Were you aware that that Committee was appointed to inquire into the laws affecting gaming?—Yes.
§ Did you give evidence before that Committee?—I did.
§ Have you since been served with a declaration in any suit, or with a copy?—I received one, which is now in the hands of my attorneys.
§ Is your attorney in attendance?—Mr. Barnes is here.
§ Will you ask him for the declaration? Is that the declaration?—Mr. Barnes informs me it is the copy of one filed against me in the Court of Queen's Bench.
§ Have you read it?—It has been read to me by the clerk of Mr. Lyons.
§ Does the statement in the declaration correspond with the language used by you before the Committee?—It don't make use of the whole language made us of before the Committee.
§ By Lord BROUGHAM.—Do you find any of your evidence before that Committee made use of?—Some of it.
§ By the LORD CHANCELLOR.—In the declaration do you find those words of yours charged?—Yes.
§ Do the words charged correspond with part of the evidence given by you before the Committee?—Yes.
§ Did you ever before any other Committee make precisely the same statement as is contained there?—Not precisely the same.
§ By Lord BROUGHAM.—Did you make anything like the same statement?—Not with respect to him.
§ Not with respect to Mr. Harlow?—No.
§ Never?—Never.
§ By the LORD CHANCELLOR.—Did you make any statement with regard to him except that to which you were sworn, and before a Committee of the House?—Never.
§ Is that a copy of the declaration which was delivered?—Yes.
§ By Lord BROUGHAM.—Did you say anything with respect to Mr. Harlow except before this Committee?—No.
§ By Lord CAMPBELL.—Have yon any doubt that this action is brought for the evidence given by you?—I believe it is solely brought for that evidence.
386§ Do you know the names of the plaintiff's solicitors?—Messrs. Ward and Harbin.
§ What solicitors do you employ?—Messrs, Lyons, Barnes, and Ellis.
§ Are they in attendance?—Mr. Barnes is.
§ Then Mr. Barnes was called in, and examined by his Lordship.
§ Did you receive a declaration of the plaintiff in this suit?—No; it was filed by the plaintiff's attorney, and taken out by my clerk.
§ Is that a copy?—That is the original.
§ Who is the plaintiff's attorney?—Mr. Peter Tait Harbin.
§ By Lord BROUGHAM.—How did you know it was filed?—Notice was served on the defendant.
§ By Lord CAMPBELL.—With a notice to plead?—Yes.
§ By Lord BROUGHAM.—What notice?—Eight days. The declaration was filed on the 7th of July.
§ By the LORD CHANCELLOR.—Do you know where the plaintiff's attorney lives?—The address on the back of the writ is 16, Clement's Inn.
§ Thomas Baker was recalled, and examined by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
§ Do you know where the plaintiff lives?—Yes, my Lord, in Leicester Square.
§ By Lord BROUGHAM.—What number?—16.
§ What sort of a shop does he keep?—A tobacconist's.
§ Thomas Baker and the other parties in attendance were then ordered to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellorthen moved, that Peter Taite Harbin and John Harlow do attend their Lordships' House on Monday next.
Lord Broughamwould not at this stage of the proceeding take an objection to the course suggested, which, however, was not the same matter of course as that of calling the petitioner before them. He purposely abstained from raising the question at that moment; and he trusted that those who agreed with him would also abstain; and he would take such objection as he might be advised, if any further proceeding should be urged against the plaintiff, or if he should be called to the bar. The present, however, was a material step, and he should content himself with protesting against it.
The Lord Chancelloralso reserved his opinion, and upon the same grounds. Their Lordships could not be properly prepared to discuss this question till the Report of the Committee should be printed; 387 but for the purpose of saving time, he proposed that the parties should be ordered to attend.
The Marquess of Clanricardehad not had the good fortune of attending the Committee, as he had been obliged to attend a Railroad Committee; but it now appeared that no inconvenience would have been felt if the House had proceeded last night in the straightforward course he had suggested. The same course they were now about to take could have been taken yesterday, and the House might have taken it whether they bad found a precedent or not. It was a gratification to him, as he had entered a Protest on the Journals against the step taken yesterday, that the opinion he had recorded had now met with unanimous approval.
§ Motion agreed to, and
Lord Campbellwas so delighted at the turn the matter had taken, that he would not charge their Lordships with inconsistency, though they were no doubt reversing their decision of last night.
Lord Stanleysaid, there was this material difference in the two courses; last night it was moved that the parties be summoned to the bar, when they had not determined what to do; whereas now they had the advantage of precedents.
§ After a few words from Lord Brougham,
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the great difference in the position of the House that evening, and the position last evening, was this:—a petition was presented by the noble Duke sitting on the cross-benches yesterday evening: he (the Duke of Wellington) for one, believed every word contained in that petition: but they were in a different position that night as a House of Parliament. He last night believed in the statements of the petition, as the noble Duke had vouched for them; but that night they had evidence before them on oath, that this man had given evidence before the Committee; that the evidence was the same as the words contained in the declaration, and that he had never stated anything respecting these matters anywhere else. Therefore this declaration must have reference to the evidence given before a Committee of their Lordships' House, and to nothing else. That was the difference of the situation in which they stood that night; and he thought it would turn out that the 388 plaintiff who had filed this declaration would rather find himself in a difficulty.
§ Motion agreed to.