CHAP. VII. Lord Den man and libel. that transports in which troops had been embarked were not seaworthy, a fact which might have been distinctly proved, and which, for the public good, ought to have been made A.D. 1844. known. But, most unaccountably, I was now opposed by Lord Denman, who delivered a violent speech against allowing the truth to be given in evidence in any prose- the law of cution for libel whatever. He pointed out the hardship lately imposed on the refugee Duke of Brunswick, against whom, while residing in England, very serious charges had been made by the press. It so happened that those charges were proved to be true; and his Serene Highness soon after was obliged to fly the country,-an indictment being found against him for subornation of perjury. All were astonished and grieved to hear the Chief Justice of England, so long a steady and rational supporter of liberty, thus bitterly condemn the Bill which had passed with his entire approbation the year before, and which had already operated most beneficially. Lyndhurst in a much more moderate tone tried to draw a distinction between prosecutions by individuals and by the government, and made a great impression by hinting at the possibility of a prosecution for a libel imputing crimes or vices to the sovereign on the throne, with the privilege conferred upon the libeller of bringing forward witnesses to establish the truth of his charge, the issue perhaps being whether the King had married a Roman Catholic, thus making our allegiance to depend upon the verdict of the jury. I expressed my readiness to introduce an exception as to libels on the King and Queen or the heir to the throne; but my bill was thrown out on the second reading by a majority of 33 to 3.* Bill thrown out by Lyndhurst likewise, with equal success, opposed another Bail in Error bill which I introduced to allow persons who, having been convicted of misdemeanour, and sentenced to imprisonment, Lyndhurst. have upon the fiat of the Attorney General sued out a writ * Hansard, vol. lxxvi., pp. 395, 417. There had been a whip on the Ministerial side, and our benches were empty. Lord Brougham made a strong speech for the Bill, but being engaged out to dinner, went away without voting or pairing. CHAP. of error, to be admitted to bail while the writ of error is pending. This appeal may be decided in their favour when A.D. 1844. the period of imprisonment has expired-the established practice being, according to the procedure of the Court of Rhadamanthus, "Castigatque auditque dolos "first to punish, and then to consider whether the punishment was lawful. The Chancellor, who had always at this period an overwhelming majority at his beck, not only objected to the bill on the ground that it might be supposed to favour O'Connell, whose writ of error was then pending, but likewise contended that it would generally be extremely mischievous, by enabling persons justly convicted of misdemeanours to escape punishment altogether. A.D. 1845. Relation be tween Peel and Lyndhurst. In the Session of 1845 Sir Robert Peel's Government was immensely strong, and many supposed that it would be as durable as Sir Robert Walpole's. His income-tax, instead of proving his ruin as had been foretold, had made him popular; he had restored our financial credit; his free trade measures had all succeeded, and, as he had hinted no change of opinion respecting the Corn Laws, he was still warmly supported by the landed aristocracy. A rumour was industriously spread that he was about to transfer the Great Seal to some one for whom he had more respect. This, I believe, was without foundation. Follett had been prematurely cut off by disease; Pemberton Leigh, having succeeded to a large fortune, had retired into the country and taken to foxhunting; and Lyndhurst, giving no trouble in the Cabinet, disposed of his judicial business, if not without criticisms, at all events without any open scandal. The Chancellor, however, was certainly treated with undisguised neglect by his colleagues. For example, a government Irish Bill being in the House of Lords, one clause of which was to vest in the Lord Lieutenant the patronage of appointing all the officers in all the superior courts in Dublin, an amendment was moved that this should, as in England, be exercised by the chiefs of the several courts; and, the Chancellor supporting the amendment, it was carried. But in the next stage of the bill this decision was reversed by a ministerial majority, notwithstanding the taunts uttered against those who preferred VII. the power of doing jobs at the Castle to the advice of the CHAP. Keeper of the Queen's conscience and the pure administration of justice. Whether spontaneously, or by command, I know not, but to my great astonishment, without any communication on the subject to me, he early in the session introduced the Bail in Error Bill which he had treated so contumeliously, and, without any allusion to what had before passed on the subject, represented it as a new and beneficial measure, although it remained almost exactly as I had framed it. There was a prodigious laugh against him for his forgetfulness and versatility, but this he took in very good part.* The Bill now passed both Houses nemine dissentiente. A.D. 1845. Bail in Error Bill passed by Lyndhurst. Charitable Trusts Bill. He introduced, in a most beautiful speech, a bill for the Lyndhurst's regulation of Charitable Trusts,-taking occasion to describe with much humour the guzzling propensities of corporate trustees of charities, whereby the will of the donor is often sadly disappointed. He was particularly happy upon the lunch of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London when going to visit some almshouses, showing how light and delicate the dishes then tasted were, lest they should spoil the solid dinner looming in the distance.† I may here observe that in making.an introductory statement of any measure he ever displayed powers unrivalled in either House of Parliament. Whatever the subject might be, no one could be within sound of his voice without earnestly listening, and warmly admiring, although he might remain unconvinced.‡ He next brought in a bill which went a great way Jew Bill. towards the emancipation of the Jews. When Attorney General I had passed an Act to allow a Jew to be sheriff of a corporate town-not then venturing to go farther, from the dread of entire failure-but now Jews were to be permitted. to fill all corporate offices, and almost everything was to be open to them except a seat in parliament. I privately advised him to go all lengths, but he said "he was afraid * Hansard. lxxviii., 123. He might have mentioned one Lord Mayor who, although famous for his gastronomy, denounced luncheon altogether, saying, "I consider luncheon as an insult to breakfast and an injury to dinner." Hansard, vol. lxxx., pp. 766, 782. CHAP. of the Bishops and Sir Robert Inglis." In public I congratulated him upon his growing liberality, and expressed A.D. 1845. a hope that, in another session of parliament, we should find him pointing out the inconsistency of the clamour that the country would be "unchristianized" by allowing a few Jews to sit in the House of Commons while we are willing to allow the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London all to be Jews,when Jews may be sheriffs and justices of the peace, when a Jew may preside in the Central Criminal Court over all the Queen's Judges, when Jews holding India stock join in governing India, and when Jews, having the same right to the elective franchise as Christians, by their representatives legislate for the empire.* Bills thrown vernment in the Commons which Lyndhurst supported in Lords. In return Lyndhurst supported bills which I introduced for out by Go- the Abolition of Deodands; for giving compensation to the families of persons killed by negligence, and for allowing suits to be brought against British subjects resident abroad for causes of action which had accrued within the realm. These bills were all sent down to the Commons; but there the Government refused to support them, and they were lost. In great wrath I moved for a Committee in the House of Lords to search the Commons' Journals, and to report how these bills had been disposed of after reaching the Lower House,intimating what the probable result of the search would be, complaining of the disrespectful usage of the Lord Chancellor by his colleagues, and denouncing the mischievous discord which seemed to prevail between the members of the Government in the two Houses; for the Duke of Wellington, as well as the Lord Chancellor, had voted for the bills, and had expressed particular satisfaction with the bill intended to meet fatal accidents by railways. Brougham followed, and was much more severe than I had ventured to be,-charging Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, with the crime of usurping the woolsack. Lyndhurst remained silent, but looked unhappy, as if struck with a presentiment of his official death. This was at no great distance, but it came about in a manner which no one then anticipated, and which gave him little * Hansard, vol. lxxviii., pp. 515, 775, 885. pain; for the ministerial vessel went to the bottom, and instead of the Chancellor being thrown overboard, as he dreaded, the rest of the crew perished with him. CHAP. VII. A.D. 1845. treatment of proper breach of privilege. There were several cases of breach of privilege this session Lyndhurst's which, by the advice of the Chancellor, were treated very properly. Actions for defamation were brought without leave cases of of the House for evidence given upon oath before select committees. According to Lord Denman's doctrine in Stockdale v. Hansard the Peers ought not to have interposed, leaving it to the courts in which the actions were brought to determine whether the actions were fitly commenced or not. But, by order of the House, the plaintiffs were brought to the bar in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and, being ordered to remain in custody till the actions were discontinued, were afterwards, on a humble petition stating that the actions had been discontinued, set at liberty, with a suitable reprimand by the Lord Chancellor. To my great surprise, Lord Denman did not oppose or protest against this proceeding.* on the Sove reign can tionally leave the realm without making tices? The only point on which I differed from my noble and Q. Whether learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, this session, was respecting the Queen's proposed visit to Germany without constituappointing Lords Justices to represent her during her absence. Such an appointment had invariably taken place the sovereign going beyond the sea ever since the time of Lords Justhe Norman Conquest; and, as it was quite certain that the Great Seal could not be carried out of the realm without an impeachable offence being committed, there was strong reason for arguing that it could not be used within the realm by warrant from the sovereign signed out of the realm,—the facility of communication between Vienna and Dover by means of steamboats and railways not altering the ancient law. However, the Chancellor laid down, and the House agreed, that although the Great Seal could not be used out of the realm, the mandates of the sovereign by sign manual out of the realm are valid, and that it is in the breast of the sovereign, on going abroad, to appoint a representative or not, as may be deemed for the public good. I rather think that this was a stretch of authority, and that it would have been * Hansard, vol. lxxxii., pp. 303, 384, 526, 1678. |