The Sun. — London, England, 1839-06-18 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION a t _ Person convicted of larceny.—(Cries of " Oh, " 1 ") The question was in whom was tl e Power vested? If it was vested in the Court of Queen's Bench, then the Judges were to have the Power of defining the privileges of that House. They alight not only prevent the exercise of the privileges .of that House, but they might take away their wh le ,effect. He could im ag ine a person making a speech in shot House against a Learned Judge either in this Cou ntry, or Scotland, or Ireland. The question might "fte before the Court of Queen's Bench, who might ! I Y--a Member of the House of Commons certainly has P;privil ege to say w h a t h e p l eases i n hi s own C our t o f ~rliament, but the House has admitted strangers to usten to the debates, and when a Member delivers as opinion in the presence of strangers, it s slander, and an action will lie, not be- ' !Sale the opinion was pronounced by a Mem luer of th e H ouse o f Commons, but because t t he pronounced in the presence of the strangers in gallery. To suppose such a judgment on the part tithe Court of Queen's Bench would be not nearly so ~, s.tne a case as those supposed to deny the House of e cenmons the privileges which it possessed. There ass no extreme case which might not be supposed to t t h ik e away every prerogative or privilege possessed by e Crown or either House of Parliament. The Queen possesses the eole power of declaring peace or war ; it j, l s i ght be argued that she should not possess that power, t 7eause she might if she chose it declare war against all i Lle Powe rs o f Europe to-morrow morning. It might so, and there might be no means of restraining that "'e", but he would say that he would not deprive the Clu eeb, the Lords, or the Commons of their privileges Or , constitutional powers, because cases might arise in *pleb this would be unduly exercised. He would not admit that a Court of Law could interfere with the e i t t ereise of that power, he would admit that it might abused by the House of Commons ; hut he saw no m eans of maintaining the power, the authority, the d s dgaitY, and the independence of the House ofo Masons but by resolving that the House has PPeer to decide what are its privileges, and that that decl arat i on s h ou ld b e en ti re an d su ffi c i en t. Wi t h regar d hthe case now before the House, the Committee Beat felt th emse l ves ex t reme l y em b arrasse d as t o th e 'at course to pursue. That. Committee consisted cf t e ntlemen v er y co mp e tent t o d e cid e these sort of ques ans from b o th sides of the House, and under these cir t t stances he thought it would be better that he Ald not at present express any opinion as to the ~'rior measure w hi c h m i g ht b e d eeme d expe di en t. he would say was, that he would maintain the r „at er of thi s Hou s e t o publi s h its V o tes, as he thought was a p r ivil e ge essential to its very existence. He i; g ti a ,aegbt the House should not abandon that privilege, tut should be prepared to maintain, if they would main• `s), the power and authority of that House.—(Cheers.) l b he first resolution was then put. 4 S ir S. LUSHINGTON had been desirous that some b e ' f !n• Gentleman should have expressed his opinions 1 ,,.0re he had offered his on this subject. He was not 4eslensber of the Committee to whom the question had th en originally proposed, but he had been appointed on t e Committ e e which had recently sat on that subject. :der these circumstances, be felt himself bound to Ogle forward on this occasion, not to oppose the reso tian of his Noble Friend, but to support those op . 's Kahle which he had stated before the Committee. His Friend had stated that he considered that it was ti i ntially necessary to maintain the privileges of toHouse of Commons, without which it would to i mpossible for them to do their duty to their I,llstituents ; in that opinion he entirely concurred, but h os e a be considered the judgment his Noble Friend i o come to it appeared to him little short of an aban anent of that principle.—(Cheers.) This question q4 " 4 one of vital importance—(Cheers)—it was not a t i o estion of personal privilege ; but the privilege ques ted was one without which that House could never b gr actorily perform its inquisitorial functions, either e sPosing abuses or in doing justice to the people of ' 8 Country. He would beg the House to look at the te t e the ernstanees of this case, and consider what a case Ltv Y were abandoning, and see what courage they could sei s e , on any future occasion in case of acquiescing in h o Judgment. How bold were they in resolutions— tic," courageous in voting—but how vacillating in ac tlill:--(Loud cheers.) What was this case ? and how its it Come before the House of Commons ?—how did s 4h ° riginate in any extraordinary exertion of their L t 8 in carrying their duty to its extreme bounds ? th at iginated thus, they had instituted an inquiry into :nate of goals of the country. The Inspectors had th ported the state of the goals to that House, and in 1 4! report they found it stated that, not in a remote ' of the country, but within two miles of where they R ti , 44 ,e sitti n g, in the heart of the metropolis, in a gaol si:.`er the care and protection of the city of London, th s k h was so jealous of its privileges—(Cheers)— U` b had found that abomination of abominations— I s ,' corruptor of the youth of both sexes— elks t s , of such a nature that it was impossible th o glecribe them.—(Loud cheers.) Now, who was 11 11• Plaintiff in this case—one whose character had been th t ' s ,t'Y slandered, who was smarting under a calumny Pale,Leould not answer? No such thing. The very itieseTr of that obsene publication was the plaintiff t ° sup estior.---(Cheers.) If they were ever prepared tl ece s ik "te privileges of that House, let them pro -540421, aei n which they could bring forward a more ~ C11 , ,,,"1e combination of facts than the present one.— Pe s i -r s) But it was said it was unpopular, that the is t 'ne 0 1 England would support the Courts of Justice qs ° ,PPosition to the House of Commons. But he t s 'itlni tell them they would not do so.--(Cheers.) 'le would say, state the circum s t ances o f t h e case to t he poor widow who has an orphan, who may %come the victim of these infamous publications by %Tering in gaols—for the innocent might be sent there as well as the guilty.—(Great cheering.) It was ® Possible to have a stronger case. Look at the case ` s pot by his Noble Friend—he said it would be injus ;7 to proceed now. It would be no such thing. He ~,_nld not trouble them with any legal argument, but w auld contend that all that had been done by pleading e s not to pledge the House to abide by the jurisdic m2n, but to say to the Court of Queen's Bench, in the o at authoritative and respectful manner, that this was o pestion whi c h th e H ouse o f C omm o ns h a d deter oititned t o b e l ong to i ts pr i v il eges, t h at t h ere f ore t h ey i 4 ,,, 5 t dismiss the case, and put an end to all proceed he' They had shown a wise and proper forbearance 4 d actin g in strict accordance with former precedents, 4, the Court of Queen's Bench having thought pro sy:to disregard the authority of the House of Com- Os, they were told they were precluded from further ‘v ° , s eeed:ngs against the Sheriff on the ground ofinjustice. hi m '7, he did not propose to take up the Sheriff, but to give hi, notice that the House of Commons would hold i s ;,:' guilty of contempt if he proceeded to execute the ~i t• It would be his duty to obey the House of l i i, h 4 tnnons, and the House of Commons would protect ti; jn that obedience, by committing to the custody of 1,, - ''erjeant any individual who should attempt to:inter s,' with him in consequence of his obedience to the doers of th e House of Commons. He could not ima- 1 that ea), future measure that could be suggested gold place the House in the same position which they m! occupied ; and had he the slightest hope that a d ority of that House would have acquiesced in his lolS is i°n, he would not have shrunk from the responsi otlw4Y„ of proposing a resolution.—(Cries of " Move d o • ) It would be absurd and impertinent in him to b ~se in opopsition to the influence of his Noble Friend, ''''' c:l that of other gentlemen opposite ; and however It, , % t t'g his opinion . might be, he would not attempt to s et ce it by pressins the House to a division, but he ill'acere,ly deplored the course his Noble Friend had Cagbt proper to pursue.—(Loud cheers.) [The t : a i rned Gentleman dropped his voice at the end of hi'n sentence in such a manner as to render it impossi b e ,, at a ll times distinctly to understand him ; but we he the above to have been the substance of what e Stated.] Sir R. INGLIS felt on this question, as he did two ~' t sr s ago, that the House had placed themselves in a m os t difficult position, and that the easiest for them 0 h ave done would have been to have retraced their 'i 'k's, and to have done then what they were doing now. .1,. 0 Y had endeavoured to bully the Judges, but the a 'lges would not be bullied , and they had eaten the leek , I _ 4 eontentedly as any ancient Pistol ever did.—(Hear.) re Right Hon. and Learned Judge who had just sat 1 , 411 1 had stated that the proper course would be to W a rn the Sheriff by giving him notice that if he at o`to,lleteel to execute the writ, he would disobey its le r ''ts, and incur the high displeasure of that House. b , a tt with respect to that he apprehended that when a l '," r tY load obtained a writ, he had the power of putting ; t i n execution, and if the Sheriff was terrified by the th reats of his Right Hon. Friend, some other means itould be found to put it in execution. Then the :re j stion was, was the House prepared to seize the i lu ges—were they prepared to have the Lord Chief :Ls, tice of the Queen's Bench, who was himself a Peer ,T . t he Bar. He believed it would produce a convul l'att in th e country if the House were to go to the great s e s tl gths proposed by his Right Hon. Frie nd . Wh o was ri e Peeson that had set at defiance the privileges of that w as ? It was not the Jury or the Counsel ; but it 1. 48 the erpositors of the law themselves. He thought t hat the qucrtation of his Noble Friend from the judg- Illa ta of the Judges had given but an imperfect view of , what th e i r op i n i ons w ere. The Learned Judges had gone ve r y fully into the question of what were or what 1 w ere not p r i v il ege d communications , but these load not be en alluded to by the Noble Lord. The whole diffi- Z i ltY bad arisen from the carelessness and reek ,,,s's,°,,ess of the House, for if the name of the ',,, - ,. s .usher, as well as the author, bad been omitted, the di !cult would never have taken place. They had got into , the dilemma, and the question was how were they t ° got out of it. The proposition of the Noble Lord ° PPo.site left the Judges in precisely the same situation, and ill the course of the next week another qeestion si milar to the present might arise, but the Noble Lord was to meet that by another resolution. How he was t o proceed be did not know ; if it was by Bill would it ?el)) , a declaratory or an enabling law. In the first instance i t would be a bsurd to d ec l a re that to be law which the ~ 1 highest law court in the country had declared not to be Mr. HUME had a deep interest in the question, for probably no man had exposed more abuses, and conse quently had caused the circulation of more libels, than himself—(A laugh)—and therefore it was with pleasure that he seconded the amendment. It would be destroying the privileges of the House, if they succumbed upon . that occasion. If that judgment were established, they might us well shut up their doors, for their powers of doing good would be abrogated. He was astonished that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite was now prepared to give in, in the most dastardly manner, after the clear and manly speech he made to the House when the case first came before them, and he trusted he would favour the House with the reasons for his change of opinion. On that occasion he was prepared to commit the prose cutor on the instant—why, then, was he now prepared to give up the privileges of the House in so dastard a manner? Again, the Learned Judge (Sir S. Lushington) had favoured them with a noble and manly speech, and lie (Mr. H.) had cheered him loudly—he expected as be had so demolished the arguments of the Noble Lord that he would have concluded with an amendment, but a more milk and water conclusion he had never heard. —(Laughter.) If the House succumbed on that occa sion, their privileges were gone, for if they committed any one who refused to give evidence, or any one who misbehaved at the bar, the Court of Queen's Bench would immediately discharge him. He cordially joined in the amendment, and he hoped all who were willing to support the privileges of the House would support it against the resolution of the Noble Lord. Sir It. PEEL—Even had be not been appealed to by the Hon. Member, it was his intention to have addressed the House, as he for one was not willing to shrink from the responsibility of the advice he had given to the Committee, and he had no doubt that he would show he was quite consistent in his conduct. He was one of a Committee which reported that, by the law and privileges of Parliament the Houses of Parliament had the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine its pri vileges, and that the bringing of any action was a gross breach of their privileges, and subjected the party to punishment ; and that for any Court to assume to deter mine in such a case was contrary to the law of Parlia ment and a breach of its privileges. A few days after that, the Attorney General advised that House to give their printer leave to plead to the action. Upon that occasion he had strongly opposed the recommendation, and he was supported by the Hon. Gentleman who had rspoken last, who, in language which it would be in vain for him (Sir Robert Peel) to attempt to imitate said—" It will be impossible for us to retrace our steps. 'lt is dragging us through the mud in a very unpleasant manner."—(Laughter.) The Hon. Member for Newark had certainly preferred a different course, and distinctly said the House would be placed in a very difficult position, for the appearance of the Attorney-General to argue the matter must ap pear something very like a submission. They had, however, given their officers orders to plead to the ac tion, and the public feeling would be that they had asked for the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and would have taken advantage of its decision had it been in their favour ; but having been given against them, they set up their privileges, in order to render it nought.—(Cheers.) They:did not propose either to go to the head of the Court—to punish the Judges—they proposed to pounce upon the mere ministerial officer, the Sheriff—whom they threatened to commit if he levied, and whom the Court of Queen's Bench would commit if he did not obey, the writ. It was a bad plan for the House of Commons to teach a ministerial officer to disobey the law.—(Cheers.) They had subjected themselves to the Court, and the Attorney-General, after three days of most ingenious and able pleading, in conclusion said, " My Lords, I pray your judgment for the defendant." They had obtained that judgment, and must abide by it. He would say that the privilege of publication was essential for that House—(Cheers) — and no Court had the power to say what they should publish, or question it ; if they had not that privilege they had better suspend their functions at once, they could not exercise them under such controul.—(Cheers.) He deeply regretted any necessity for taking any back ward step.—( Hear, I ear.) The real question for the consideration of the House was, was it better to decide to-night at all hazards, notwithstanding the apparent submission to the Court ? Was it wise to retrace their steps in this case, and direct the Sheriff not to execute the judgment, or to wait until they could review the whole of the circumstances of the case, and consider what was best to be done ? If they now determined on resist ance they would exclude the consideration of all other courses. His opinion was, that the best course would be, if the case rose to-morrow, to retrace their steps, to de termine that they could in the first instance refuse to submit the question to decision ; and he had a strong warrant for that opinion in the decision of some of the Judges. Mr. Justice Littledale said—" In the case of commitments for contempt, there is no doubt the House is the sole judge whether there is contempt or not, and the Courts of Common Law will not interfere." He should be sorry to be obliged to-night to come to a re solution which would have the effect of committing the Sheriff of London to Newgate to-morrow, and next week call the Judges before them, and commit them. They would support the Sheriff. There was no reason to deter the House from doing this, if the case were a clear one, but they ought to hesitate before doing so, having once submitted to the Court. If the opinion which he had read was shared in by the other Judges, he would prefer fighting the battle of privileges on a commitment for contempt, in conformity with the pre cedents of the House, rather than permit an officer or printer to plead. These were the grounds on which he cordially concurred in the resolution moved by the Noble Lord. He could not say it would be advisable to tell the Sheriff to-morrow, that if he enforced the judgment of the Queen's Bench they would commit him. He could not advise them to appeal, because that would be a further recognition of the power of the Court. He would not consider those remedies until they had tried that which they had; namely, the commitment of him for contempt, who in the first instance was guilty of contempt. According to their own resolution, and the dicta of the Judges, there was one resource open to them. Now, upon the balance of convenience and in convenience, he thought it desirable not to acquiesce in the present judgment, but to take no nctive step to prevent it, and apply themselves to the consideration of the manner in which the judgment bore on their pri vileges. He still maintained the opinion that these privileges were necessary to the exercise of their au thority and the discharge of their functions—(Hear, hear) —and while they were evading the present diffi culty, he was persuaded it would in a few weeks be necessary to determine in what manner to proceed for the vindication of their privileges.—(Hoar, hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt called upon to differ from the line recommended by his Noble Friend and the Right Hon. Baronet opposite.—(Hear, hear.) Now was the time to make a stand, and unless they did so their privileges would be gone.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, was quite consistent, and from his premises he came to a just conclusion. He was of opinion that the House pos sessed no such privilege ; that it was a right and just decision ; and, therefore, ought to be acquiesced in.— (Hear, hear.) But when he found his Noble Friend declaring this to be an essential privilege of the House, without which it could not discharge its duty to the public—when he found him declaring that this was a judgment contrary to the necessary privileges of the House—when he found the Hon. Member far Tam worth conforming to that opinion—he must say, taking their premises to be just, their conclusions were most erroneous.—(Cheers.) Unless some plan was pointed out by which justice might be done to this House, and to their constituents, this judgment ought not to be ac quiesced in. The Noble Lord said what was unjust must be wrong; and if it were assumed that Mr. Stockdale had a right by a lawful judgment to recover 1001. damages, they would be guilty of injustice by depriving him of the remedy which the law conferred on him. But that was not the opinion of his Noble Friend, for he said the judgment was wrong, and that it was a flagrant usurpation on the part of the Queen's Bench to overrule the privileges of the Commons. — (Cheers.) If so, where was the injustice of resisting this judgment, which was so contrary to law. If it were a lawful judgment, let it be obeyed : if unlawful, let it be resisted.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Tam worth rested his argument on the ground of having appeared when they ought to have resisted in the first instance.—( Hear, hear.) There was no cause to regret the course. which had been pursued. At that time they could not have carried public opinion in their fa vour by committing Mr. Stockdale. (Hear, hear.) Their situation was now most essentially different, and very much improved.—(Cheers.) They could not have committed Mr. Stockdale in the first instance, with the precedent in the case of Sir F. Burdett. But in com mitting Mr. Stockdale they could not have stopped the action. If there had not been an appearance and plea there would have been judgment by default, and a writ of execution would have issued. Although Mr. Justice Littledale intimated an opinion that a Court of Law would not examine into the privileges of either House of Parliament ; Lord Denman clearly expressed a diffe rent opinion, and if they had committed Mr. Stockdale, they would have run the risk of his being liberated from Newgate by habeas corpus ; and if he had re mained there his action would have proceeded. They were therefore in a better situation now than before, for they had done everything to avoid a collision.—( Cheers.) Suppose the event had been the other way, would not any Member of the House of Commons have rejoiced at the line of conduct that had been pursued, and that collision bad been avoided ? He could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that if Stockdale had been com mitted, the collision would still have taken place. He would have applied for his habeas corpus, and even if he had remained in prison the cause would have still gone on, the writ would have issued, and they would not have avoided one of the difficulties. Those diffi culties were unexampled, because it was unexampled that a Court of Law should take upon itself to decide on the privileges of the House of Commons. The Consti tution had not contemplated such a state of things, and bad not provided against it. The Judges of Westminster Hall had, except in once case, uniformly respected the privileges of both Houses of Parliament. In his opinion the decision of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, in Stockdale v. Hansard was totally contrary to law, and instead of this being a usurpation of privilege on the part of the House of Commons, it was a flagrant usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the Co•ert of Queen's Bench.—(Cheers.) As to the question of pleading, it was a mere fallacy to suppose that when the authority of any body was pleaded, that authority was subjected to the tribunal before whom such authority was pleaded. If so, pleading the authority of an Act of Parliament in justification would render the Court of Queen's Bench judges of the power of the Houses of Parliament to make laws. What then was to be done? He certainly should not advise the issuing a writ of error, that would be their voluntary act, and if judg ment were given against them it would be impossible to resist it. A declaratory Act would be inexpedient. The law was clear already, and though such an Act might pass this House, he was not certain of its fate elsewhere ; and another objection would be, how could they say the judgment would be illegal if they acquiesced in it. An enabling Act would be still more objectionable, as it would be acquiescing in the deci sion in the humblest manner, and acknowledging that they had no privileges but what the Court of Queen's Bench chose to allow—that that Court was the judge of all their privileges. The present Judges were disposed to allow that the House possessed some privileges, but he could not be certain that their successors would allow them any, for their predecessors had always said that they had no knowledge of the Law of Parliament, and that the Houses of Parliament were judges of their own privilege. An enabling Act was therefore inexpe dient. The Right Hon. Baronet said, in the next case commit the plaintiff—but what were to become of the damages ? He presumed Mr. Hansard was not to pay the damages out of his own pocket. Most probably they would appear in the Miscellaneous Estimates, and be voted by the House of Commons. Having acted in this manner in this case, how could the Right Honourable Baronet commit the plaintiff in the next similar case ? But committing the plaintiff would not stop the action—there would be the same judgment, and the same assessment of damages.— He felt that all these courses were inexpedient, and that the course suggested by the Hon. and Learned Member for Newark was full of difficulties, and he would not adopt it if any other course could be pointed out. The plan of the Right Hon. Baronet would be only deferring the evil day. Some difficulty might arise to the Sheriff of Middlesex, but he would not be in the disagreable situation that had been pointed out. The Court of Queen's Bench, in this instance, had been is suing an illegal order, and if so they were only calling on the Sheriff not to execute an order contrary to the law of the land. He had the greatest respect for the Court of Queen's Bench, and the greatest personal regard for the Judges, but he would contend that in this instance the crisis had not been brought on by the conduct of the House ; but now all their privileges were in danger—either the Parliament or the Courts of Law must be paramount in this country, and the Courts have said that they are paramount. The case was sur rounded with difficulties, but he believed the least dif ficult course to be pursued was to resist the execution of the writ.—(Cheers.) He believed public opinion would be with them—(Cheers) —because this was not a privilege for themselves as Members, but a privilege for the benefit of their constituents, in order that they might be enabled to know on what grounds they le gislated ; and he thought that when the people saw that 658 copies might, according to the opinion of the Court of Queen'sßench be printed,they would know that all the injury that could be done to any man's character by the circulation of libels on him, would be done by suffering 658 copies to be printed.—( Hear, hear,hear.) But who was the hero of this application ? Who was tie upholder of the rights of the people ? Why the publisher of the " Memoirs of Harriet Wil son," who, when sued for the printing, had pleaded his own infamy, and had said that the book was of so in famous a nature that the contract for printing it was void as an immoral contract. The very publication in question had been made the subject of an action for libel by Stockdale, justification had been pleaded, the book had been handed to the Jury for inspection, who, on looking at the plates, had found a verdict for the defendants, thus stamping it as an obscene publication. Now was the time to assert their privileges or they would be for ever gone. He had been most anxious to avoid extremities, but he could find no other mode so unobjectionable as that pointed out by his Hon. and Learned Friend, and therefore he should support his proposition.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. PEMBERTON had understood his Hon. and Learned Friend to say previously that whatever mode they might adept it would be impossible, having sub mitted the matter to the arbitration of the Judges, and taken the chance of a decision in their favour. now to turn round and impugn that decision. He was ready to concur in any measure that would give the House the power which it did not now possess, of protecting persons who acted under its authority ; but he was not prepared to sanction the resistance of the law. He thought the House could not in common jus tice or decency interfere at the present m oment to re strain the execution of the writ. The Ho use h a d vir tually decided as to the legality of the proceedings inas much as it had called upon the Attorney- General to defend it. One of the very foundations of the argument that had been urged in that House, was founded upon a mistake in the important point of the date of these c3le brated resolutions. In the printed document on their table, they were stated to be 30th May, 1836, but it turned out that they were passed the 30th May, 1837. The plaintiff had stated that the plea was not sufficient in law, while the defendant insisted that it was, and they both joined issue upon that point, and went before the Judges for their decision. Now, where was the con tempt in that ? Was it in the Judges having pro nounced a decision upon the case ? No ; the House had courted and invited that decision, and having been foiled and defeated in the result they had antici pated, like a disappointed gamester, they now turned round, and refused to ac knowled g e the authority of the Court to which they had appealed. The Hon. and Learned Member here referred to the resolutions of 1837, which declared that any party calling that House to account, or bringing anything done by it for discus sion before any other tribunal, was guilty of a contempt of the House, and was liable to be punished. Now lie would appeal to his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General, or to any Hon. and Learned Mem ber of that House, to say whether that position could be for a single moment maintained in law ?—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend said the judg ment of the Queen's Bench was illegal—if so, why did they not at once reverse it? Would they commit the law, and which the house had admitted not to be law, because they had not appealed from that decision. If the Noble Lord proceeded by an enabling law, how, he would ask, could they limit the privileges that House might claim and what the other House of Parliament would accede to?—(Hear, hear.) He felt strongly the difficulty in which the House was placed, but he thought it was their duty as good subjects to obey the law, and as an amendment, he would move, though it was not his intention to press it to a division—" That the House, having directed the Attorney-General to appear on be half of Messrs. Hansard and Son in an action against them for the publication of certain papers alleged to contai libel lous matter against John Joseph Stockdale, which papers the House directed them to publish, and the Attorney- General having accordingly appeared on behalf of the defendants in the Court of Queen's Bench, and argued the question of law that arose upon the demurrer, and judgment being passed against the defendants by the unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the ordinary appeal not having been adopts I, and damages having been awarded agasnst Messrs. Hansard' and Son, and the same being able to be levied—the House do not resist such execution of the law." That Iva.? yielding the question in his opinion, but not more than was necessary under existing circumstances. The original motion and the amendment haring been put, Sir R. INGLIS withdrew his amendment- Mr. WARBURTON deprecated the course pur sued by the Right Hon. Member for the Tower Ham lets, who had expounded strong opinions, but had come to no conclusion. He should me ve as an amendment to the motion of the Noble Lord the adoption of that part of the report that bad been suggested by the Hon. and Learned Member for Newark, to whose exertions the Committee were greatly indebted. That which he should move as an amendment was to the following effect :—" That an acquiescence in the judgment pronounced in the case, will create, on the part of the House, great impediment in the future necessary ex ercise of the Parliamentary authority in vindication of its privileges, and therefore it is necessary that the House should forthwith declare, that the prosecution of the said action, and the attempt to levy any da mages upon the defendant for the publication by him, in pursuance of its orders, directly impedes the effec tual exercise of their Parliamentary functions, and is a high contempt of the privileges of the House ; and that the House will visit with its severe displeasure all officers, ministers, and others, who shall act or aid any in manner in enforcing the judgment in such action, or otherwise troubling or mo lesting the said defendant for such publication." The House had already decided upon the case, and all that the Hon. Member for Newark called upon them to do was to stand by their resolution, to which they had already agreed.• But some said, " Be prudent in this case, and we will be valiant in the next." That was supposing that a new action would be commenced —that another Stockdale would arise. But suppose that, immediately after they had prorogued, this Stock dale or another one, were to commence an action or press it on, they, on meeting again, might find that the action had been tried and execution levied, what would become of their threat in such a case as that—what would they care then for the severest displeasure of the House ? They would again be told that the poor Sheriff was not the guilty party—that it was too late to commit him—they would again be recommended to allow judgment to go by default—to let execution be levied, but they would be more valiant next time. For these reasons he moved his amendment. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAI, JUNE 18, 1839. Sheriff? That would not prevent the execution of the writ:; and did they - believe that a court of law would permit its officer to be thrown into prison—or did they believe that the people of England would stand tamely by and see the law set at nought—or did they believe that the House of Lords, the supreme court of judi cature of the country would permit it? Would they then attempt to commit Lord Denman ? No, they would shrink from that.--(" Hear, hear," and cheers.) They might wreak their vengeance upon the inferior officers of the Court, but they felt that the law did not authorise them, and that the people of England would not stand by and permit such an outrage.—( Cheers.) What did the House of Lords in the case of Matthew Ashley ? He had obtained damages in a Court (ex actly the present case), and they declared that it was an unprecedented attempt upon the judicature of Par liament, and was in effect to subject the law of England to the votes of the House of Commons.--(Hear, hear.) The House did not dare to touch the plaintiff—they had never told him not to go on, the attorney not to act, the counsel not to plead, or the Judges not to consider the case ; yet they now, for the purpose of upholding their privileges, proposed to punish them. Were the House aware that by the oath of their office the Sheriffs of London were bound to obey all writs which came to them from the Queen's Justices, yet the House proposed to punish them for discharging the duty cast on them by the law. Was that a time when there was such a spirit abroad throughout the country for the House of Commons to set an example of setting the law at de fiance. They ought to allow the law of the land to take its course, and discharge their:resolutions—threaten not the attorneys or counsel. No one who had the honour of being a barrister, who would care one moment for the resolution. They might commit one to-morrow, but if they did so, hundreds would eagerly offer their services —there was not, from the head of the bar to the lowest profession, one who would refuse his professional ser vices to any plaintiff, because the House of Commons threatened him with punishment for performing his duty. Let them do this, and then the time must soon arrive when they might with calmness discuss the im portant question. Mr. Sergeant W I LDE felt the immense importance of the question then:under discussion, and knew that any one who presumed to offer advice to the House upon it must do so under great responsibility. He had given tome attention to the subject under that feeling ; he would give the House , the resutt - of his conclusions. He had also beet unwilling to rise, because he bad heard that the interference of professional men had often embarrassed the House rather than assisted them, in consequence of the opposition they had expressed. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He had heard the last speech, not with less astonishment than the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Pemberton) stated he had heard the one preceding.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He could not have thought such a speech could have been delivered by any lawyer much less by a lawyer as eminent as any one in this day, or as any one in bygone days. The House was in a situa tion in which it was compelled to act—( Hear, hear) — he used that word in its largest sense. It had no fault to lay to its own charge—it had not voluntarily em barked on this question—it had been forced into it, and if the House had shrunk from it, it would have aban doned its trust in the highest degree.--(Hear, hear.) This was not a case in which the House had come for ward to claim exemption for any Member on the ;round of privilege. It was a case that had passed by the name " privilege," but as the Judges had said it was not a case of privilege but a case of the power of the House of Commons. Between power and privilege there was this distinction. One, though given in order that the House might be able, through the community of its Membe - s, the better to discharge its duty, necessarily operated to the benefit of the individual ; but. the ques tion here was,—what was the power of the people of England to be exercised by their representatives in car rying on the real affairs of the country Hear, hear.) What were the duties that belonged to that House ? The country looked to it to inquire into the execution of every department of the State—to search out abuses-- to apply the remedy—to administer punishment, and to legislate according as the wants and necessities of the State might require.—(Hear, hear, hear.) What wereo•their powers to enable them to do this efficiently ? That was the question in which they were now engaged—(Cheers.) What would be the situa tion of the House, if instead of claiming in the terms of a resolution which seemed to be generally approved of, the right to publish, and the right to publish as incident and necessary to the discharge of their duties—what would be the situation of the House and the country if they took the reverse course and de termined not to publish ?—(Cheers.) They had peti tions c omplaining of abuses—they had petitions pointing out great occasions for amendment of the law, and pem haps correction of misconduct. The conduct of the public Minister was inquired into, what was the conse quence of the inquiry ? The House of Commons dared not tell.—(Cheers.) Why he was retained in his place after the petitions of the people had charged him with malversation. The public were to be kept in ignorance, and the information was to be rendered ano- nymously of what were the facts proved against him. —(Hear, hear.) The observation equally applied whether it re'ated to a Minister retained or removed. —( Hear, hear.) Look - the ebowear the liouse-of Commons had exposed—look at the alterations they had made in the law ; they had abolished the Slave Trade—had corrected the errors and inconveniences that had arisen in the course of time in the Carporations—had altered the Poor Laws—(he would not detain the House by relating instanes) —and how had they satisfied the country respecting the efficiency of their legislation ? By the publication of their Reports.—(Cheers.) Did they want to know what would be the situation of the House if the lawyers in Westminster Hal prescribed the limits of its power? Read the judgment in Stockdale v. Hansard.—(Cheers.) No privilege that cou'd be named had passed without being questioned and negatived in Westminster Hall. Each in its turn had met the same fate. But they had had a new era, and, as it struck him, by the de cision in Stockdale v. Hansard. He had heard with regret Members in that House do them selves great injustice. They said they were judges of their own privileges—that the law and constitution of Parliament was distinct from the common law, and yet Members of great intelligence declared their incom petency to judge of the question. There might be tech nical considerations mixed up with it ; but it depended not on technical rules—not on the confined view which belonged to practical lawyers, but on great constitu tional grounds. Who should decide what was necessary to the discharge of the functions of the House of Com mons, or what were the powers necessary to administer the duties belonging to it ? Who could judge ? Not the lawyer, but the man conversant with the constitu- Lion and history of his country.—(Cheers.) His Right Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir S.Lushington), who spoke early in the debate, had called tho attention of the House to the circumstances out of which the inquiry had arisen. Ho: (Sergeant Wilde) had ven tured to think lie did so with real respect, but he could not so control his understanding as when it was satisfied after mature consideration of a particular truth to enter tain any doubt—and he had ventured to believe that there was no pretence f or ca lli ng th a t_ Report a libel — still less when it was published by order of that House. —( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He knew that Cap tain Bailey was held to have been g uilty of no offence when he published a letter relating to the abuses of Greenwich Hospital—be knew that by the theory of the Constitution the Commons of England were all in that House—he knew that even Lord Holt, the enemy of privilege, said, and truly said— " You can build no room urge enough to contain the whole Commons of England, but they are virtually there by their Representatives." He knew that by the law of libel, however extended the community might he, they might address each other on matters in whi ch they had a common interest, and though reflecting on individuals, still that con"st;tuted no libel.—(Hear, hear.) He begged to ask whether the people of Eng land generaly were interested in the inquiries as to the state of prisons ?—( Hear, hear.) Had their gaols con duc2d to the public advantage or otherwise?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Should it be said that they might pub!ish a trial in a court of justice, in which A and B were concerned, but that as the general management and conduct of prisoners of England, into which Parliament had. directed an inquiry, that the publication of the result of that inquiry, by an almost judicial officer, the Commissioner, was to be considered as a libel ?—( Loud cheers.) Was it to be said that the Commons of England , on a sub j ect of uni versal interest, r should not com municate with each ot her , when tradesmen m i g ht write and correspond, an d t h e i r letters be filled with libels, if those letters were only t un used as occasion re q uired. Who was to de cide what occasion required ? Not the Judges—their duties were of a much more lim ited nature. The y de serted their f proceeded to inciuie into abuses. what au hnrcittiyons Parliamentf t inquir e —(L ou d c heers.) Here was a sub ject of great interest, and on which Parliament had en g a ged its par tieular att en tion. They had a pp ointed a Commissioner under a n Act of Parliam ent, who was t o inquire and report as to books, papers, and other thi ngs ; those were expressly mention ed. The y were to be laid be iy had to be fore the House. What did Parliament direct they should be laid before the House f ur ? That they should be kept a secret 2—(Cheers and laughter.) In the prison were found fou r books, a copy of one of which he had procured and which was now in the library. And Dr. Bailey, in speaking of that " scienti fic" work said, " From obscenity the writer had for feited his character." But Lord Denman asked, what has this to do with the reglation of prisons ?—_(Cheers.) What had it to do with the regulation of prisons? Was it no part of the regulation of prisons deserving attention what books might be introduced to a lad of seventeen ? Was it no part of prison regulation to know how indi viduals were passing their time there? What did be long to the regulation of prisons if this did n o t ?____ (Cheers.) Lord Denman first said this did not relate to prison matters, and then said Mr. Stock dale's name ought not to have been mentioned. What credit would be given to an annonymous publication.—(Cheers.) It was asked, might the House ' of Commons libel whom it pleases ? But what motive had the House to libel any one ?—(Cheers.) What motive induced the House to make this publication ? None, but the public good.—(Cheers.) An action was previously brought against Mr. Hansard by Mr. Stockdale, in which the House took no part ; and upon that trial, where Lord Denman himself presided,' a special jury found the man entitled to no damages, because the book was obscene and a nuisance.— (Cheers.) But in this case, which might have been decided - upon its merits, Lord Denman thought it his duty to make strong declarations respecting the privi leges of the House.—(Hear„ hear) He believed if there was a man above courting popularity by the exercise of any improper display, Lord Denman was that man.—( Hear, hear.) But he thought his Lordship was hasty ; that he was pure, he was quite certain. His Lordship expressed himself in such strong terms, as to impress the public mind with the belief that the House had no authority whatever to cause the publication of any matter what ever, however necessary it might be deemed, for public purpose. What was the House to do ? It could not pass this by. Was it proper to go on in breach of the law, or ascertain if the doctrine were well founded ? A committee was then appointed. And the report which he (Mr. Wilde) had drawn up, lie had submisted to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R Peel), to the Attorney General, and Sir Wm. Follett, who had all given it their attention, he bad carefully looked into all the authority ; and would sustain by legal re ferences his opinions on this suhject,—to the last jot. The Court of Queen's Bench admitted that this House might exercise the privilege if necessary. But who was to decide upon the necessity ?—(Hear, hear.) It was absurd to deny that the House ought to have the deci sion. —(Hear, hear.) The Governme n t wou ld su ff er more in public opinion —and justly so—by what he (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) must regard as their abandon ment of the privilege of this House.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It was holding up Parliament to con tempt, to represent it as uttering threats which it was . afraid to execute.—(Hear, bear.) Least of all let this House be afraid of doing its . duty.—(Hear, hear.) It was said, public opinion was against it. Public opinion had been misled—and misled by the course which the House had taken in wavering as to the course it should adopt, instead of acting promptly and decidedly.—(Hear, hear.) If former Parliaments had shown equal timidity, the privileges of that House would long since have been destroyed.—(Cheers.) All tribunals were inclined to extend their jurisdiction.— (Hear, hear.) The courts of law had always been especially disposed to enlarge their authority—(Hear, hear.) There was something very attractive in the idea of pre-eminence ; and the contest now was—whether the Courts of 'Westminster Hall should be the para mount authority in the country, and overpower the authority of Parliament.—(Hear, hear hear.) The authority of Parliament was supported by the high character it maintained. That authority was superior to that of all other tribunals. This right was now sought to be invaded—they could never again be so useful to the public as they had been. The question was this, was the Parliament to be the paramount power in the State. The Attorney-General, on this question, had been very peculiarly situated. He (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) on that occasion had stated what he felt ; he had disagreed with his Learned Friend, and had recommended aeother course to be pursued, and yet lie could not say that his Learned Friend had done wrong— as Attorney-General he was acting according to precedent, and was pursuing a straight-forward, legal course. What did his Learned Friend mean by saying that Mr. Hansard had invited Mr. Stockdalc to meet him on this question in West minster Hall ? Whoever thought to have heard of a defendant inviting a plaintiff to meet him in Westmin ster Hall ? Why Mr. Hansard had been dragged there as a defendant—that was the card of invitation.— (Cheers and laughter.) And now the defendant hav ing been dragged into Westminster Hall, having pro tested against every stage of the proceedings, his Hon. and Learned Friend said that common justice demanded that he should pay the plaintiff.—(Cheers.) That the stones of Westminster Hall would cry out unless this were done, after having pleaded to the action.— (Cheers.) Now what was the meaning of this ? how could the action be stopped but by plea. By pleading, nothing:had been conceded ; the Attorney-General had pursued a strictly legal course, and there was no pre tence whatever for asserting that he had conceded one jot on this occasion. —(Loud cheers.) Did not Justice Pemberton and Justice Jones state that they had pro- . ceeded on a former occasion to give judgment, because such a plea as that of the Attorney-General had not been pleaded, and that had such a plea been put in, they should have stayed proceedings. Here was the precedent for the course adopted by the Attorney-Gene ral, and he would ask his Learned Friends on the other side to state to the House and to the country if any other plea could have been pleaded than the one that had been? and he would also ask them if the defendant's having pleaded in bar, could ever be construed into an admission of the authority of the jurisdiction ? This course had not met with his approbation, because he was afraid that the use which had been made of it would have been made of it ; and he had caid at the time, in order to impress his view of this subject on the House, that if they did take disc' coarse arid 'Were beaten, they would not be able to help themselves. The Government, therefore, knew as far as his humble opinion was concerned, what would be the consequence of the course they were about pursue. His Learned Friend said, you took your chance of a judgment in your favour, and, now it is against you, you disagree from it. Why, did not all defendants say so ? Did not all defendants take the chance of a judgment in their favour, and if it was against them dissent from it ? He only regretted that more opportunity had not been furnished the Right Hon. Baronet for investigating this subject, for he was sure that his intelligent mind would have discovered the gross fallacy of this proposition. There had not been the slightest departure from the strictest hostility from the beginning to the end of their proceed ings, and the House was now in as good a position for re sistance as if it had suffered judgment by default. He would beg to call the attention of the House to the opinions of Mr. Perceval, Mr. Ponsonby, and Sir Vicary Gibbs, in the case of Burdett and Abbott. Sir Vicary Gibbs said that no doubt when the Judge read the Speaker's plea he would not suffer the action to be continued. This was the lan guage of Mr. Attorney-General Gibbs and Mr, Attorney- General Campbell had used similar language; but, con tinued, Sir Vicary Gibbs, " 1 doubt whether this will be the case ; the second action, meaning the action against the Sergeant-at-Arms, for breaking into the house, thereby drawing a necessary distinction, for although a thing may he done by the authority of the House, the orders of the House may be carried into effect in an improper manner. Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Percival were both confi dent that no Judge would take cognizance of such an action, because the House of Commons was sole judge in any question relating to its privileges, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read extracts from the speeches of Sir Vicary Gibbs, Mr. Perceval, and Mr. Ponsonby, on the occasion referred to. These were the opinions of lawyers of opposite parties in politics, .and their opinions all completely justified the course which the Attorney-General had pursued. He had recommended his Learned Friend not to argue the question, but there was nothing improper in the argument, but when his Learned Friend said that the Attorney-General had ap peared to pray for judgment ; but he would ask him in all cases when the day of trial came, what did all parties ap pear for but to pray for judgment? Although his Learned Friend had not adopted his advice yet still he must do him justice.—_( Hear.) Let the house examine what Lord Denman thought of his argument- Throughout Lord Denman's judgment it occurred four or five times, that lie said, the Attorney_ General argues that this appearance was made by order of the House of Com mons, and therefore the judgment must be for the defendant, so that throughout the Attorney-General had protested against any jurisdiction. There were no special circumstances in the case—the petition set the House at defiance, so that there was nothing but special contumacy on one band, and on the other special timidity on the part of the House.—( Cheers.) If he advised resistance, it would only be if all parties were agreed in opinion w ith him--but not to resist if th e Right Hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord did not concur in his opinions. The proper course was to send their resolution to the Shetiff: when he received the writ, he would come to that House, and he would ask for instructions—he would be told not to execute it, and instructions would be given to the Sergeant to protect him, and he would take such civil power as was necessary, and the Home Secretary would no doubt afford all the aid in his power.—(Cheers and laughter.) They might laugh, but did they care for their privileges? What would the Court of Queen's Bench do? They might attach the Sheriff, but it would be like the taking of the bear—the beer took the man.—( Laughter. ) There would be no resort to physical force between the two Courts, but such a collision must bring about a settle ment of the important subject. The two Houses, when they separated, were co-ordinate for many purposes_were they to allow the House of Lords to grasp a power over them by a side-wind, by having a writ of error from the Queen's Bench to the House of Lords. The Reform Bill was passed after a very hard struggle for the purpose of rescuing that House from the power of the house of Lords, but it was totally useless if they ever allowed them to sit as a Court of Appeal upon their pri eileges.—( Cheers.) He allowed that privileges:had been abused, many eminent Counsel had been committed, an d some Judges, but how was it that not one had ever applied to a Court of Law for a Habeas Corpus. The House had voluntarily given up many of their privileges, but none bad ever been taken from them by a Court of Law or any other power. The step now taken would form a iasting precedent. Let hies suppose that the House of Lords were to vote a privilege, and to commit a man who brings an action, and the Queen's Bench said there was no privilege, and the case went hack again to the House of Lords —was there any such ab surdity in the law?—yet the two Houses were co.oidinate in this matter. It was said that the House of Commons was a check upon the House of Lords —how could that be said to be so if the House of Lords could restrict and cur tail t h e privileges of the House of Commons. The Learned Gentleman said the Judges, of whom he spoke with great respect, had not taken time to consider the immense mass of authorities cited by his Learned Friend the Attorney- Gene ral. Hethen cited the opiniens of Lord Chief Justice Abbott, and Lord Kenyon, Mr. Justice Lawrance, Lord Camble den, all in favour of the privileges of the Commons, and l a yi n g it down that their adjudication was a conviction, and could not be questioned in a Court of Law. The ques tion was, whether this House should rest satisfied with this judgment. What should the House do ? If there were any special circumstances to justify the House in not as. serting its privileges, let them be stated. He called on the Noble Lord to state his special circumstances, and defied him to state one which should not lead to an oppo site conclusion to that at which he arrived. The House had passed resolutions. Why did it keep resolutions on its books, and yet be afraid to act on them ?—(Cheers.) There was a judgment against them. Let them now take their stand—let them do nothing harshly, but let not Parliament be treated with contempt.---( Cheers.) They would never command public opinion by their vacillating conduct, for no tribunal could rise in dignity that per mitted itself to be treated with contempt.—(Cheers.) This was the case of an actual interruption. That inter ruption they ought to remove in the regular and constitu tional manner. It was said they ought not to deal with the wretched officer, but to go to the Judges. But how did the Courts act? The Court of Exchequer, for in stance, would not allow any cause relating to the revenue to be tried in any °tint. Court, and if a party persisted in going on they would commit him.—( Cheers.) What was the course they ought to pursue ? There was no precedent for what the Noble Lord now proposed to do. He therefore said that if a considerable majority of the House was of opinion that privilege was necessary to be enforczol, the safe and constitutional and respectable course was to stop the execution through the Sheriff.— ( Cheers.) But if there should be so much difference of opinion as that the amendment would be carried only by a small majority, the privileges of the House had better die a natural death than that the House should enter into a struggle, of which the Courts would take every advantage. The lion. and Learned Gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud and lung continued cheers. Sir E. SUGDEN said, in a great deal of what had been said he entirely concurred, and the only difficulty which he felt was the special circumstances in which the House was placed. The Court ought not to have looked at the publication as a libel, but as a confidential publica tion.—(Cheers.) He should like the House to rescind the sale of R ports, and that a Committee should be ap pcieted to consider the propriety of publishing them.— (Hear, hear.) The Judges were strongly impressed with the opinion that the House was selling publications with out sufficient consideration. He did not consider the House to be the sole judge of its privileges, for there were cases which must of necessity go before a court of law ; he wished the attention of the Court had been confined to whether the House was entitled to publish the Rlsort or not : but unfortunately it became a question in which all the privileges of the House were involved, and so the Judges considered it. His Learned Friend seemed to forget what took place in the case of Buidett v. Abbot: 1 1 that cause actually went to the House of Lords, and that House allowed them to judicate upon it. He fully believed that the House had tho right to publish the Report in question, and that the judgment of the Queen's Bench was wrong. If his Hon. and Learned Friend had addressed his speech at the time when Stozkdale com menced the action, he would have agreed in every thing be proposed, but they having submitted to the Court, 'and had judgment against them, they dare not now prevent him from obtaining the fruit of his judgment. Then suppose they were to proceed against the Sheriff, who would most undoubtedly obey the Court—well, then, the House would commit him to Newgate—mast undoubtedly the Judges of the Queen's Bench would discharge him, and then they must proceed and call the Judges of the land to their bar, and they would tell them they did callthe case before them— that it was brought in the regular manner into their Court, and they were obliged to adjudicate upon it, which they had done according to their conscience; what more, then, could they do? He hoped the House would agree to the resolution of the Noble Lord, and reject that of the Hon. Member for Bridport. _ _ _ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." lie was anxious to explain the grounds upon which be had formed his judgment upon that important case, the more so because he had the misfortune to differ from many of his friends around him. The Judges were compelled to adjudica'e upon every case that came before them, and they hsvirg only performed their duty, of course the House would never think of pro ceeding against them. Well, then, suppose they were to commit the Sheriff till the end of the Session, he would then come out, and what course would they take next Session. lie would then be fructus officii—he would be no longer Sheriff, and they would never take the new Sheriff who bad nothing to do with the case. He hoped the House would adopt the Resolution of the Noble Lord, which was the only manner in which they would es cape from the dilemma in which the House was placed. Mr. WYNN supported the amendment. He said that any person might sue out a writ against any Member of the Ikuse, but from the time of Henry VIII , any Sheriff who had attempted to carry it out had been laid by the heels.—(Cheers.) The lion. Member addressed the House at some length, amidst frequent and loud cries of ' Divide, order," &c., which rendered the greater part of his observations inaudible. Lord HOWICK rose amidst much noise. He said as Chairman of the Committee he begged to say that the Honourable Member for Newark had ably and unanswerably demonstrated that the House had the power of printing any paper they pleased, and the higher power of adjudicating solely upon their own pri vileges.—(Loud cheers.) That speech had not been answered in any way, and therefore he need not take up the time of the House in trying to add his testimony to it. It was admitted on all hands that the sale of papers made no difference in the question, yet the Honourable Member for Ripon said we ought to rescind the resolution allowing that sale—and even the Judges had shown a blameable ignorance of the manner in *which the sale of those papers was conducted.—(Cheers.) The Lord Chief Justice said that House made a profit by the sale of papers, and he did not know how far that war; constitutional. Now the House no more made money by the sale of papers than it did by the sale of old stores in the Ordnance Department, or any other Govern ment office. What was the course they were now to pur sue ? He believed they had committed a mistake in having instructed the Atto,ney- General to argue the plea; it ought to have been put in and left there, and at the same time the House ought to have committed Mr. Stockdale, his attorney, and counsel.—(Laughter.) He had long thought that it would be better to concede in the present case, as they must make a stand somewhere, and lie thought they would do it with more dignity then than after they had afforded a bad precedent. He was afraid the majority would be against him, but he hoped that it would not in future preclude the House from as serting their privilege. ' Mr. KELLY rose, but the House was very impa tient, and the Learned Gentleman was scarcely audible in the gallery. He said unless he could obtain the attention of the House, he should move the adjournment of the debate.—(ol), oh.) He entirely agreed with the resolution of the Noble Lord, and disagreed with the amendment. He could not sit down without protesting against the manner in which the judgments of the Court had been dealt with. —( Loud cries of " Divide.") The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority —lB The first resolution was then agreed to. Mr. HUMI?, said this was the commencement of a system of humiliation disgraceful to the House of Com mons, and he trusted that some Member of the Committee would state when they might expect ulterior measures. Lord JOHN RUSSELL did nut think the House was bound to wait for the production of any report from the Committee, supposing any case should arise which might make it necessary for the house to take any measures. He was sorry the Mon. Member for Kilkenny should feel so humiliated.—( Laughter. ) Mr HUME denied that he had any share in the humi liation. He told them before that they were being dragged through the mud ; they were now thick in the quagmire.—. ( Laughter.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House divided, when there appeared— For the Resolution 133 Against it 36 Majority —97 Lard JOHN RUSALL postponed the third reading of the Jamaica Bill till Wednesday. WINDSOR CASTLE STABLES BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the third reading of the above Bill. Mr. HUME objected to proceeding with such a Bill at that late hour. Lord DUNGANNON hoped no obstruction would be thrown in the way of suck a Bill. After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the Bill was read a third time and passed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the Improvement of the River Shannon. Also a Bill to amend the Acts for Public Works. _ . '(he other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o"Closk. ASHTO.N-UINDER-LYINE, JUNE 15 CHARTIST DELEGATE MEETING. At a meeting of Delegates from the towns of Man chester, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Coke, Burnley, Po diham, Middleton, Hyde, Ashton-under-Lyne, Staley- Btidge, Radcliffe Bridge, &c., held at Mr. Wheeler's Printing Office, in Whittl e - s t ree t, M anc h es t er , thi s day, the following resolution was unanimously passed : " Resolved—That this meeting having taken into con sideration all the circumstances connected with the present movement, do consider it absolutely necessary that a meeting of Deputies from all the Radical Associa tions in the counties of York, Lancaster, Chester, Derby, &c., shall be held at the sign of the Flock-up to-Glory Inn, Clover-street, Rochdale, on Tuesday, the 25th of June instant, for the purpose of resolving on the best means of creating a better and more effective organisation throughout all the northern districts of England : to adopt measures to prevent the further arrests of any of the advocates of the people's cause : to establish a national defence fund for the support of all Chartists who are, or may be, arrested : to decide on measures relative to the Rural Police ; to consider the position now occupied by the Convention, as well as to ascertain and declare our capabilities of carrying out the ulterior measures recommended by the Convention, r. n(1 to decide on every possible means of co-operating with our br4thren in all parts of England, Scotland, an d Wales, and for the purpose of securing as soon as possible the great Charter of the people's liberties." As many Members of the Convention as can make it convenient are expected to attend. JOHN RAWSON, Secretary, pro tem. BODIES FOUND IN THE THAMES. —From in quirie • s made of the authorities of the var i ous parishes situated along the banks of the River between Vauxhall Bridge and Greenwich, it appears that during the present year no fewer than one hundred bodies of persons above the age of sixteen have been picked up in the Thames be tween the places above n - .entioncd, being for the most part females. One-half or more were buried by tho parishes, their names and residences being unknown. EVENING EDITION MURDER OF A FOREIGN CAP TAIN IN SUNDERLAND. On Friday, the inhabitants of this borough were thrown into a state of excitement by a rumour that the body of a murdered man had been found in the river. The body was discovered by a ke.clman, who saw the head moving in the water, and giving the alarm to the people on board the Atlantic, a man named Ralph Stafford, and anothe r person, assisted him in raising the body, which was found to be tied to a large square piece of lime -stone, weighing upwards of a hundred weight, and which,l by some mortar on one side, seems to have been used in building. The rope, which appears to be of a foreign make, and to have been used in the running rigging of a ship, was tied tightly round the waist of the body, and both ends bad been safely knotted in a very complicated manner about the stone, leaving: about four feet of rope between the stone and the corpse. On the body there was no other apparel than a pair of stockings, a flannel shirt ,and a cotton shirt, torn open, and marked at the bosom, with red cotton, "J. 8.-1." Attached to the neck, was a small camphor bag, and on the fourth finger of the left hand a plain gold ring. The body being removed by the police and the per sons who found it to the Monkwearmouth old work house, was soon after recognised by two of the crew of the brigantine Phoenix, of Stettin, as that of their cap tain, John Frederick Berkholtz. This ship which is in ballast from Leith to the address of Messrs. Grenwell and Sacker, has been lying for some days off Mr. Alcock's building-yard, a considerable :distance below the place where the body was found. The captain spent Tues day evening on board of a Prussian vessel lying along side, and went on board his own ship about eleven o'clock. The account given by his crew is, that the captain went onshore at the ferr3-boat landing on the north side of the river, about half-past four on Wednes day morning, dressed in a new silk hat, new pilot coat, &c., and had with him a watch, with gold chain and seals. From that time, they say, they never saw him alive, but his absence excited no uneasiness till yester day morning, when the Phcenix was in turn for coals—it being supposed that the unfortunate man had gone over to Newcastle on a visit to some fo reign captains of his acquaintance, now in that port. 'The police investigated the matter, and the result was that the mate of the vessel, who is in custody, was suspected of being the murderer. CONFESSION OF MULLER: The Sunderland Herald, from whose report our in formation is derived, in a second edition publishes the following confession of Muller— After the examination before the Magistrates on Friday morning, the apprentice, Muller, unable to bear the tortures of concealed guilt, Voluntarily offered to make a full disclosure of all the circumstances attendant on the horrid affair. He said—l had the watch on deck on Tuesday night from twelve till two. The mate came on deck about half-past one, and asked me to go with him below. I asked the mate what I had to go down for ; but the mate said, " Follow me." He had a hammer. I went down, and the mate told me to hold a lighted lantern, which he had under his jacket, and we went into the captain's cabin, and the mate struck the captain on the head with a hammer (a macker). I hell the lantern, and the mate struck him three blows on the head. The captain was lying in bed asleep. When the mate had struck him, I cried out, " Mate, what are you doing?" and wanted to run away. The mate desired me to stay, and took hold of me, saying, " You must remain here." The mate then took the body out of bed, and slung a rope round the neck. The rope was about the thickness of my little finger. He put a pair of stockings on the body, and put on it a pair of blue trowsers, then fetched a bag, made of sail cloth, and drew it over the body. I attempted again to go out, but he would not let me. He said, if I would not help him to put away the body he would kill me with a knife, which he drew out of his pocket. He opened the knife ;it was a clasp knife. I began to cry, and said I could not help the captain away. The mate said, " you must help me ; if you do not, I will kill you ; but if you do, I will give you 3004" The mate also said, " the captain has so much here, that I can give you 3001." 1 went out of the cabin to the roof, and wept baterly, and the mate came after me and took the cap window (sky-light) off. The mate was in the captain's berth when I took the opportunity of going on deck. The mate took the sheet, which I have seen here, from the bed, rind rubbed the blood from the floor. The mato ran after me, and ts hen I was resting against the roof, he cut a cord from the gear, and went below again, and tied it round the body, and came on deck and pulled it up the sky-light, hand over hand. I did not help to lift the body out of the cabin. The mate took up the body and threw it over the stern. I heard the body plunge in the water. The mate came up to me, and desired me to bring the boat round to the stern. When I bad got the boat round, the mate came down into the boat with the end of the line, and fastened it to the boat. I then attempted to get away, but the mate held me fast. I had tit take an oar and help to row the boat to the south sieo of the river, where the ships are built. The mate ' a - it on shore and brought a square stone that was lying near the river ; and put it into the boat. The mate desired me to pull up the river for a good end (a good distance), and then told me to lay the oar by. In pulling up the liver the body lost off the bag and trowsers. 't i re mate then pulled t'le body, so that it was above the water, and laid a stone on it. All this was done by the mate alone. He let the stone and the body go into the water, and they disappeared. Then we both returned on board the ship, and the mate told me to say I had been called up to set the captain on shore. None of the crew but myself and the mate knew anything about it either before or after. If I bad been asked any questions this morn i ng, b y t h e Magistrates, I should have said what I have done now. The prisoner was then removed. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. The opera of La Cenerentola was revived at this theatre, on Saturday evening, for the purpose of intro ducing Mdlle. Pauline Garcia in the character of An gelina. Beautiful as the music of that opera is, and redolent as it is of sweet melodies, we do not think it is one that is calculated to elicit the peculiar excellen cies of the fair cantatrice's voice, or to exhibit her full dramatic and vocal powers. To a rich, full, and great compass of voice Mdlle. P. Garcia unites much uncertainty, and it is in the more effective parts—as was the case with her sister Malibran—where expres sion is to be given to the passions and feelings, that she shows herself a great artiste. Her voice is, however, one of the very highest order, and its capacity great in the extreme. Fow voices combine such a variety of tones, all of them perfect. Her personation of the character of Angelina was entirely successful ; and in the course of the opera, the style, expression, and feeling she infused into her singing, and the science she displayed, deservedly elicited the warmest applause. The house did full justice to the effec tive and chaste manner in which she executed the concluding aria, " Non piu mesta," by unani mously calling for its repetition. When the curtain fell there were loud calls for the fair vocalist, and she appeared to receive the congratulations of the audience. The other characters in the opera were sustained by Lablache, Rubini, and Tamburini. The former, as Don Magnifico, was excellent ; and Rubini as DO7l Ramer°, and Tam burini as Dandini, performed and sung in their usual unrivalled style. In the ballet of La Gitana Taglioni exhibited her unapproached and unapproachable powers, and displayed the beau ideal of grace and lightness. Her attitudes are the personification of "to xaA , ;v," and her move• ments poetry in action. The house was very fully attended, and was honoured by the presence of her Ma jesty, accompanied by the Duchess of Kent, the Duke of Saxe Coburg, Princes Leopold and Augustus of Co. burg, Prince and Princess Leiningen, and Count Mens dorfT. The Royal box was not vacated until the termi nation of the first act of the ballet. CARLOITELECTION COMMITTEE (YESTERDAY.) The vote of Thomas Maginnis was again proceeded with, and occupied nearly the whole of the day. The Committee decided in favour of the vote, and therefore retained it on the poll. The vote of Pearce Kelly was next objected to by the petitioner, and was under consideration until the Committee adjourned at four o'clock. COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. Yesterday a Court of Common Council was held for the purpose of taking into consideration the Bill for Regulat ing the Police in the City of London, as amended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. After a lengthened discussion relative to the appointment and the dismissal of the Commissioner of Police, an amendment was moved to the effect of vesting the power of dismissing the Commissioner in the Court of Common Council instead of the Court of Aldermen. A division took place, when there appeared— For the amendment 27 For the original motion Majority for the Clause —3 Another amendment was proposed to the effect of giving to the Secretary of State the power of dismissing the Commissioner. It was negatived by a large majority. An amendment was moved regarding the salary of the Commissioner, the Clause stated that not less than 8004 a-year should be given, and the Court agreed that the sa lary should not be less than 8001., or more than 1,0001 . per annum, by a majority of 5, the numbers being 35 to 30. The Court was then proceeding to discuss a not h er Clause, when it was observed that there were rot Mem bers enough present to constitute a legitimate Court. The Loan MAYOR then said the Court was adjourned. --- VERA CRUZ.—It IS rumoured (but we k n ow not on %%hat authority) that the Custom House at Vera Cruz has been consumed by fire, and that property valued at 60,000/. sterling was destroyed. A French house is supposed to have suffered more severely thai any other in the city. NW -