§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a matter connected with the maintenance of their Lordships' privileges, arising out of a Railway Bill now pending before their Lordships' House. Certain suitors under the Bill had applied to the Vice-Chancellor of England to obtain an injunction to restrain certain other parties from appearing as petitioners against them before their Lordships' House. With respect to the probable result he had nothing to do. What he wished to call attention to was the fact that the application for such an injunction was unjustifiable, as being an attempt to prevent a subject from appearing before their Lordships in the character of a petitioner. A more flagrant violation of the liberty of the subject or of their Lordships' power of legislation was never before attempted. He should make no Motion upon the subject at present, but merely beg leave to lay the petition upon the table of the House.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it was a constant practice of the Court of Chancery to interfere by injunction with the proceedings of parties in the other courts of Westminster Hall, and those courts never took offence at such interference. His noble Friend had not stated any of the facts of the case upon which the whole value of the question might really turn. There might be contracts existing between the parties whereby they might be bound not to oppose the Bill; and in such a case an injunction might very properly be applied for to enforce the performance of the contract. The matter lay entirely between the parties them-selves, and did not in any manner affect their Lordships' power of legislation.