The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-23 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. ing, would such a course be likely to have any weight with the Bench ? Hansard could certainly have been enabled to show that, in acting as he had done, he was entirely exempt from any moral offence, but the Court of Queen's Bench would have paid no attention to such a defence. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") In the abstract, it might be fairly contended that the Sheriffs had only executed their orders, and paid obedience to the duties of their situa tion ; but as it regarded the privileges of that House, they were undoubtedly guilty of having committed a breach of them, and have incurred the penalty which the vindication of this authority had called for.— (Hear, hear.) He assured the lion. Member who had just sat down, that nothing but the intimate conviction that it was absolutely necessary for that House to vin dicate their privileges and to support their authority would have reconciled him to take a determined course on that occasion.—(Hear, hear.) His opinions, from the commencement of those proceedings, had undergone no change, and he would never shrink from adopting every means which the law and Constitution would permit, to justify the course that, in his opinion, they ought to have adopted in vindication of their privi leges. The powers the Constitution gave them are within their reach ; let them grasp with con fidence, and as he said before, he would not refuse to adopt the exercise of any powers which the law and Constitution gave them to support them.— ( Hear.) He would then feel a consolation in his breast that he lent his assistance in preventing the effort then made to compromise one of their most important privi leges, and not abandon that power which the Constitu tion of the country gave them.—(Great cheerin g .) 1 Mr. DARBY said, that recollecting what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, he was surprised at the course that Gentleman had thought proper to take on the present occasion. As he (the Right Hon. Baronet) was generally considered by that House and the c ountry as the great Conservative leader in that House, it was very extraordinary that he should think proper to desert his class. There was one part of the Baronet's speech which he was sorry it had fallen to his (Mr. Darby's) lot to comment upon. The question before the Judges was not whether a Member of Parliament had the power of vindicating his own conduct, but whether the House of Commons had the power of giving the general orders to the Messrs. Hansard, or in other words, to give a power to one man to libel every other man in the country. He thought that it was an assumption of power by that House which they could not support.—( Hear, hear.) This , particular privilege claimed by the House of Com mons, it appeared, was denied by a Court of Law ; he did not deny their right to attempt a vindication of their privileges, but he denied that they possessed such an extensive privilege at all. He could not help re marking upon the inconsistencies of the Right Hon. Baronet, who, upon the 17th of June, 1839, made a speech in that House which he begged to read for them. (Here the Hon. Gentleman read a quotation from Sr R. Peel's speech, which seemed to discounte nance the idea of proceeding against any party except the Court or Tribunal by which the case was enter tained : that the superiors of the party should be cora -1 mitted, and not the inferior officers.) He (Mr. Darby) did not wish to charge the Right Hon. Baronet with in consistency, as that Hon. Gentleman had always fol lowed a consistent course, with that exception he (Mr. Derby) had just alluded to ; and as he (Sir R. Peel) had great power in the country, the Conservative party ''' will naturally look up to him for his opinions on this great matter. These were the whole of the observa tions he then wished to make. &r ROBERT PEEL, hi explanation, said, it was necessary to enlighten certain Members of that house 1 upon particular subjects, and still more necessary the public at large. He was very much mistaken if he did not make h;s Hon. Friend Mr. Darby learn how dan gerous it was t. be making particular quotations. In charging bins (Sir R. Peel) with inconsistency he (Mr. Darby) had taken every means he could to promote his 1 views. With respect to the speech of June last—and he wished that every Gentleman charged with implied inconsistency 'night be as well able to disprove it as he (Sir Robert Peel) could they had not acted in the case of Stoekdale v. Hansard according to the advice he gave them ; he advised them to commit the plaintiff in the action, without consulting the Courts of ' Law, for as it was decided in the case of Burdett v. Abbott, it was ruled that they had the right of deciding upon their chrn privileges, and they should have com mitted Stockdale rather than have pleaded before the Court. (Here Sir Robert Peel read a quotation front the speech mentioned by Mr. Darby as having been spoken by the Right Hon. Baronet last June, and in which he expressed his opinion that the Sheriffs should not be arrested :—" If they allowed it to be supposed that the House of Commons only held their privileges by sufferance, it would be better to suspend the exercise of those privileges alto gether.") Ile (Sir R. Peel) would now ask it be were 1 as inconsistent as the Honourable Member would sup ; pose ? He stated at that time what his opinions were en the subject, and foresaw the possibility of a new case arising, and he advised that llouse not to submit it to a Court of Law by pleading, but to let it be decided by the House of Commons itself. He thought it would ' leave been most dishonest of him, with his present views, to other any advice to so great a party in that House as were so dreadfully troubled with the ghost of Han ( surd.—(Cheers, and laughter.) He would not hesitate, as he had often done before, from certain f circumstances which had occurred to change the opi -1 nions which he had previously held, if he felt convinced, that he was wrong. In this case, however, he was per fectly consistent, and had advised the commitment of Stoekdale in the first instance, but his advice was over ruled by the Right Hon. the Attorney-General, who taougnt otnerwise. I Mr. GODSON begged leave to bring back their at tention to the question whether the attorney who is brought before the House was to be committed or not. If that House possessed those privileges, surely they were sufficiently vindicated. The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had misled the House in a point of fact, in arguing the case as if Mr. Howard issued the writ him self. He did no such thing, for Mr. Hansard himself said that the writ was issued by this John Joseph Stockdale in person, on the 26th of August, but the subsequent proceedings were carried on by Mr. Howard, of Norfolk -street, Strand, for the said John Joseph Stockdale. He understood the reason for calling the attorney before the bar of that House was for the purpose of making an example, and to prevent other • attorneys acting in a similar manner. The attorney did not bring this action, nor did he act until it was absolutely necessary for an attorney to act It was the duty of an attorney to attend and prosecute upon a retainer, and he had no more right to refuse to do so than a counsel had a right to refuse to defend and iman. In acting as Mr. Howard had done, he acted purely ministerially, and as an officer of the Court. The very next step that was to be taken after Mr. , Howard interfered, counsel would be called upon to ) sign the pleadings. In so doing, he also acted merely ministerially ; and if they committed the attorney, they must go on from one officer of the Court to ano ther, until they came to the Judges. It would be in the recollection of most Members that there had been a case of a Queen in this country who had been a defendant. In what a state would she have been placed, had her counsel reined to render her their assist ance until they had first seen whether she were guilty of treason . or not ? The cases were precisely similar ; for if a counsel were nut called upon to inquire into a case before they lent their legal assistance, how could they possibly insist upon an attorney doing so ? If they called Mr. Howard, the attorney in the action, to their bar, he promised them that their difficulties were only beginning, for he would try the question with them whether the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench ought not to be examined at their bar.—(Hear.) He assured them that they would not be able to put down the inferior officer, and by so doing strike at the independence of the bar with out trying their strength with the Judges. He was • sorry that his Learned Friend tho Attorney-General was not present, for he could have assured him, as he now did the House, that the Judges had not the slightest hesitation on the subject, but that Lord Denman, with his tine and commanding countenance, and in his maul y and musical voice , at once and without hesitation I gave his able judgment, and stated that what the ja k i g e s waited for was merely for the purpose ' of sending an inquiry into Mr. Justice Paulson in the other Court, to know why he had refused to interfere in the case at Chambers. The answer was that he thought it a case that ought not to be argued before a single Judge at Chambers. The Attorney-General had said that he had no confidence in the opinion of the Judges. Let him carry the case a little further. On Saturday those very five Judges in whom the House of Commons had no confidence might form a majority of 9 ; possibly the whole 13 might sit, but it might also he that only 9 would sit, and that those 3 would form the majority of the Court that were to decide upon that point of law reserved in favour of Mr. Frost and the other Chartist prisoners ; they might decide that point against dingo prisoners, and upon that judgment they would have to i die, and yet in that majority the House of Commons bad no confidence. True,it was said by the Learned Attorney- General, that it was only in cases of privilege that the House had withdrawn their confidence from the Judges ; hut by so doing did they not proclaim t o th e w or ld - that the Government, the great heads of the Conservative party, with . a large majority in that H ouse , h a d with drawn their confidence in the Judges on a point of law. They were going to punish Mr. Howard for ignorance, yet he was supported in his view of the matter b y five Judges of the land, who said that he was perfe c tl y ' in advising his client to go on ; yet they were goir ' , to punish him for the very same act as had been committed by the five Judges. They were about to lay clown - law that it might be right in five Judges to b e wsarr- ; : is but if an attorney should err on the same point, in the same degree, aid to the seine extent, he must be punished. Mr. BERNAL thought the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had introduced subjects which most cer tainly had not the slightest connection with the case then before the House. What he would ask had the unfortunate case of Mr. Frost to do with the question whether Mr. Howard should appear at the bar of the House of Commons? It was not for him (Mr. Bernal) to say that the gentleman would not be committed, it was enough for him to state that the question before the Honse was merely that he appear at the bar, in order to give some explanation of certain transactions between him and Mr. Stockdale, which it was highly necessary that the House should inquire into at an early period. He,with many other Hon. Members, lamented the being obliged to take the course which his duty compelled him to do ; but, because he lamented it, did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman suppose for an instant that he or others were to be frightened by the fear of popular clamour from a course which was absolutely necessary for them to pursue in order to maintain the highest privileges of the Mouse. The Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon, in the Committee up stairs, at the end of last Session, had recommended a Declaratory Act, but the time for that course to be pursued was past. It was now too late in the day for them to take that course, for they had entered upon another, and they must pursue it or for ever throw away their high privileges, which were necessary, absolutely necessary, for the due perform ance of their duties. Suppose the case of a repre sentative for an important county, or a large borough : any Gentleman placed in such a situation must know that he was under the imperative necessity of commu nicating great part of what took place before Commit tees of that House to his constituents ; they all knew that much matter there might be construed into libel, yet it was held by the Judges of the Queen's Bench that any communication of the proceedings, whether by sale or otherwise, was a libel and punishable. It had been asked why proceed against an inferior officer of the Court and not against the Judges ? Ho would most unfeignedly state that he would be most sorry to pro ceed against them, but if a high privilege of such im portance could not otherwise be maintained, it would be his duty, however painful, to give his vote for calling them to the bar. He lamented to have read such a judgment as that delivered by Lord Denman. He was not surprised that it should not be upheld by any one lawyer in that House, for it was not borne out by either Statute Law, Common Law, or Parliamentary Law. These privileges of the House were held for the benefit of the country at large, and without they could not be useful, and they might as well shut up the doors of the House as allow them to be invaded. He was surprised to hear the terms oppressive and ty rannical applied to the conduct of a majority of the House. It was said that popular feeling was against them ; and were not the terms they used calculated to excite public opinion against the House ?—(Hear, hear.) He asked whether the course they pursued was not fitted to awaken opinion out of doors against them ? He would ask whether the grounds on which the opposition to the majority of the House had been put, and the expressions which had been used, might not direct public opinion against those Members who were endeavouring to support their honest and conscientious convictions? Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not, however, think that he denied the conscientious mo tives on which they were acting ; but he thought that these gentlemen should equally believe in the sincerity and in the purity of intention with which others were acting. At the same time, he should say that they were guilty of a great and important error, when they abused their position to talk of - revenge and tyranny, rand unjustifiable assumption.—(Hear, hear.) These expressions on the part of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, had a good deal of the appearance of bitterness, and of tt. want of sincerity for which he, (Mr. Bernal) was willing to give them credit ; and he thought Ciat such language would not do good with regard to the refection of their opinions out of doors. i-ion. Members might be assured that there were individuals out of that House who could analyse the opinions and expressions of those within it, and who could separate the chaff from that which was solid, and who could distinguish between the true nature of things from that false glare which might be thrown round them.—( Cheers.) It was now, he felt, too late to enter at length into the question. The proceed ings had been already drawn out in a most elaborate, and, perhaps, an unnecessary manner. It was a matter, how ever, regarding the privileges of the House, and one which merited their serious attention, and he was sure that ever; man in the House, whatever might be his opinions, would decide as he thought most likely to contribute to the good of the country. The House of Commons could not abandon its privileges without injury to the Constitu tion. No one could know the issue of this unfoi tnnate struggle ; they should, however, do their duty. They should not loo:k either to the right or to the left—they should not trust solely to the opinion that might exist either out of doors or in-doors. Ho knew that the true sense of the situation in which they were placed, and of the difficulties which surrounded this question, could not be easily estimated. Let them act earnestly and tempe rately, but at the same time with firmness, assuring them selves that they would not then have to regret the issue. Mr. PE MBE RT ON said that he should apologize to the House for venturing to iaim again their attention. It was not, however, in his opinion, an ordinary case—he might he entirely mistaken, and he trusted he was ; but he did in his heart and conseie nee believe that the question now at issue was neither more nor less—he knew it was not so considered by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side ; but he did believe that the question now was neither more nor leas than this, narcely, whether the people of this country were hereafter to live under the rule of the law, or whether they were to be subjected to an uncontrolled authority. Ho was anxious to address to the House a few observations on the subject. He would assume that the House of Commons had the privilege of publication which it claimed—he would assume that it was their duty to vindicate that privilege, not by legislation nor by law, bnt by force. Assuming all these things to be so, he would apply himself to this, and to this alone—whether the course they were now proposing to pursue was con sistent even with their own notion of the law. It could scarcely be said that the privilege which they had claimed was consistent with the law of precedent. He was per fectly persuaded that Hon. Members opposite had no other object in view than to perform what they believed to be their duty to their country. On the other hand, he claimed for himself the same favour able opinion, and he claimed for himself the merit that, from the earliest moment this question was introduced, from the year 1837, when the Resolutions which they were now acting on were first submitted to the House—he had declared that he considered them illegal. The question was not whether they had the right of publication—for the sake of argument he would assume that they had such a right ; nor was the question whether the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were justified in giving the deci sion they had made—for the purpose of argument he would also assume that they were wrong. He thought, however, that _unjust conclusions had been drawn in those admissions. They had been told that no lawyer had at tempted to support the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench regarding the limits of the privilege of publication claimed by the House. That was not, however, a fair view of the state of the question. The right of publica tion, and the subjection of that right to the cognizance of the Courts of Law, were two totally different questions. The great question was, whether the Court of Queen's Bench, in an action brought by an individual against an officer of the House, had or had not the right of inquiry. That seas one question. The other question was, whe ther, assuming that the Court of Queen's Bench had the jurisdiction, it had come to a just conclusion. He had heard it held that the publications in cuestion were pri vileged, because they were published under the authority of a privileged body. That, however, was an entirely distinct question—every body must see that. The one subject for their decision was, whether the Courts of Law were capable of entering into the examination of their publications ; the other was whether, being capable of that examination, their publications were to be held privileged or not. The Court of Queen's Bench decided that they had the right of examination, and they afterwards held that the publica tions should not be looked on as privileged. On the one point he would say, without the fear of contradiction, that with respect to the right of examination, ninety-nine out of every hundred of the barristers in Westminster Hall, were of opinion that the Judges had not the right of inquiring into those publications. He did not believe that any one could entertain a different opinion on that subject. He believed that the profession was agreed upon it, end the Hon. Member for Chester, notwithstanding his vote in ' 1837, would not be thought now to deny that position. It was, however, a very important question whether the Court of Queen's Bench was right or wrong on that point, but it did not follow that because the unanimous decision of the bar was against them on that subject that they were therefore wrong on the other point. What he now wished to draw the attention of the Honse to was this —that supposing all the lawyers in Westminster Hall were unanimous against the right he alluded to on the part of the Judges, it would not follow, in the second place, that the House would be justified in pursuit)g the course it had adopt e d if t h at judgment were impeached. He should say that he had himself expressed no opinion on that second point. ill he should say was, that it was a point of great difficulty. On the question of the resolutions of 1837, there were great doubts and difficulties on which lawyers might entertain different opinions, and on which he would not pronounce an opinion. He believed that if they had carried that question by writ of error before the other Judges and before the House of Lords, a different con teheenseiso c e l n u t s r i c o a n might have been come to. He begged leave to eeitlotuhsee case, o se consider whether,. if this were a fair statem t en th t attempting to take was' and with their own views of theirn t u e rs t ewhich they were then r mt l h ege tl s i . eir H ow e n im o p bj l e o c re ts d , in what position the case now stoodi of them to consider what it was they were e now Courts doin g, o o f Law, a and w, and before the public, and in what situation situation they were othought ii themselves placed. lion. Gentlemen 5 that the right of publication was essenti a l 'psit to the He only begged of them to consider whether wlatotnehseei were doing would not drag them into th e utmostwhat to say the least of it, and whether it would not be 11)etrtter, to pause in their proceedings. In the action to which lie alluded, the question of the right of publication had not been raised at all—they had never brought it before the Court of Queen's Bench in any form whatever. The case of law stood thus :—An action had been brought with re spect to which a Court of competent judisdiction had pro nounced its opinion, while the House had acquiesed iu had brought no writ of error—tiwy had yielded They the decision. A similar action was again brought. and what (he would ask) had they done? They had permitted judgment to go by default. The Judges had not the opportunity of considering whether that case differed from the last, or if it did not differ, whether their decision was right or not. As the ease appeared before them they did not known under what circumstances the publication had taken place. All they know er could know, was that a certain action had been brought for a certain cause. The defendant had admitted the fact—had admitted the rule, and the jury having been called on to ascertain the amount of injury thus admitted, had stated it at G4O/. In that state of the proceedings an officer of a Court of Justice was called on to execute the writ which had been issued by a competent authority. The question was whether or not it was part of the privileges of the Commons—whether it was part of the privileges of Par liament—that they might make an order in a case pending in a Court of Justice, and command the Sheriffs to disobey the authority of a Court of which they were the sworn officers. The question was whether that ,course which they were now called on to take was consistent or not with the law of the land—whether it was allowed them by their privileges to stay the execution of a proceeding, and having stayed it, to commit the attorney who had acted on the occasion? Was that part of their privileges? Was it consistent with the common forms, or the common sub stance of justice to take that strong course (he might at least call it so) to which he alluded ? A few days ago be invited Honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House to point out a single case since that of Ashby and White, in which the House had made an order staying the prosecution of a proceeding before a Court of Law in an action pending between individuals. Had any case of this kind been produced ? He would ask an answer to that question from the Noble Lord to whom were com mitted the peace and safety of the kingdom—in greater danger he believed than was conceived. He entreated the House to consider whether any such case could be produced —whether there was a single instance in which that House had cited parties before it, attempting to stay proceedings in a Court of Justice in an action still pending between the individuals concerned.—( Hear hear.) The question was this and this only—could the House, consistently with the usages to which it referred, consistently with the pre oedents which he invited them to produce, maintain its present proceedings ? There was one case of analogy which had been referred to, and only one, and without which he should not have presumed to address the House. It was most important, however, that whatever they did, they should do for reasons that would justify them, and that they should not rest on false analogy. Their proceedings could not be confined to themselves—they would Le scanned most accurately—they would be examined, at all events, as being an infraction of the rights of the subject. The question would be brought before a Court, when whatever was most profound in law, or most acute in ingenuity, would be employed in sifting and examining the grounds on which they had proceeded. Now the only analogy which could justify the House in the course it was pursuing, was one drawn from the Court of Chancery. They had been told that inasmuch as the Sheriffs obeyed an order of the Court of Chancery, and refused to execute a writ suspended by that Court, they might equally refuse to execute the order of the Court of Queen's Bench, to which the House had opposed itself. That was the way in which the Attorney-General and the Noble Lord had stated the case. Was the House, it was said, inferior to the Court of Chancery. and were their privileges to be violated in con sequence ? He ( Mr. Pemberton) entreated the at tention of the House to that matter. He would observe, in answer to the case which had been put, that the House had no authority to make orders in any case which might come before any Court of Justice. The Sheriffs, in the instance alluded to, were obeying a Queen's writ, which they were bound to do by their oaths ; but they were not so bound with regard to an order of the House of Commons, for that would be violating their oaths. The writ of the Court of Chancery was not obeyed, because that Court was superior to the law—it was not founded on any breach of privilege—it was nothing more than the Queen's own order addressed to the Queen's own officers. The same thing, however, could not, in any way, be said of the proceedings of the House of Commons, and the cases were, consequently, totally different. The writ was not addressed by the Judges of one Court to another, but by the Queen herself. Now observe what it was which the Sheriffs were bound to do : to execute all the Queen's writs, and in the case of the interference of the Court of Chancery it was one writ issued under the authc. rity of the Queen, interfering to prevent or suspend the execution of a previous one. In such case there was no contest between the Courts. The Sheriff was merely, in such case, obeying the order which, upon a further investi gation of the merits of the case, might be issued from the Court of Chancery, but in that there was no violation of his oath. He contended, therefore, that it was impossible to maintain the position that there was any analogy in their proceedings. Was that House a Court of Law? Did it assume or pretend to any analogy with the Courts of Law ? Why, their whole proceedings were entirely in opposition to the proceedings of Courts of Justice. In Court; of Justice there was no evidence taken except upos oath, and when he heard it urged that that House possessed every power necessary to en able it to circulate the truth, they must admit that the power of elucidating it by examinations upon oath, did not belong to it in such cases. The Courts of Justice had no power to compel witnesses to criminate themselves. The House of Commons proceeded in a different course. The Courts of Justice allowed parties to be heard bcfcre they were committed—they allowed them the benefit and as sistance of Counsel, but the House of Commons pursued s, different course. They did all that, because they were not a Court of Justice, and, not being a Court of Justice, they could not claim the powers or privileges of such Court. It appeared to him that there was not the slightest foundation in law for the course they were pursuing. Was that course likely to be effectual, or to produce the re sults they anticipated ? Did they believe that commit ting the attorney would prevent him from bringing another action ? In the cell of the Sergeant-at- Arms he could proceed with it.—(Cheers.) They could not deprive him of one particle of the power which, as an attorney, he possessed. The only way they could do tba• effectually, would be to strike him off the rolls, but the, had no power to do so. Did they believe they could deter others from doing the same thing ? The declaration of his lion. and Learned Friend ( Mr. Freshfield) was conclu sive on that point. Instead of deterring, they would ra ther instigate hundreds of them to come forward. Tin , attorneys—nay, the counsel—were anxious to become martyrs. Let them talk of their privileges after to-day, when they were told before the public in a Court of Jus tice, by a legal gentleman, that he knew he was commit ting a gross breach of the privileges of the House, and that he he defied it. Why ? Because, if they committed him, hun dreds of them would come forward, and they must enlarge the cell of the House of Commons.—( Hear.) They might depend en it that the struggle was but commencing.— ( Cheers.) They had not ventured to attack the bar, who were certainly the most guilty of the two, because the attorney had merely acted in the discharge of his duty. In the first action Stockdale sued as a pauper, and had counsel and attorney assigned to him. Would they imprison th counsel and attorney so assigned, and who could not refuse to act? Let them search Westminster Hall, and they would not find a single man in it who would refuse Co move for a writ of Habeas Corpus in the case of the Sheriffs. They could not find such a man in all West minster Hall.—( Hear, hear.) In that state of thing: would they imprison the wretched attorney when there were hundreds of others openly defying them ? He believed that they would have, if they persevered, in that course, a petition signed by every member of the bar. Not many days would elapse before they would have a petition signed by mote barristers than had ever attached their names to a petition. In the city of London and throughout the country the deepest interest and anxiety existed with respect to the course they ware pursuing. Let them not disregard those opinions, because they did not come from roaring demagogues, or noisy declaimers, who were anxiously courting martyrdom, and setting themselves up in opposition to the House of Commons. There were hundreds, like himself, who would, even if the punishment were a thousand times greater than than any they possessed, and really it was not very formi dable, but whatever it was, he and they would rather submit to these punishments, than to what he believed would be the inevitable consequence of a submission to that House, the contempt and scorn of the profession to which they belonged, and of the community of which the v were sworn to be the advocates when called upon.-- (Cheers.) He asked them calmly and dispassionately to look back to the most ancient times, and tell him whether upon any one occasion, whether right or wrong, when they had come into conflict with the Courts of Jus tice, the people of that country had been able to maintain the privileges of the House of Commons against the Judges and the law of the land.—( Hear, hear.) In the case of Stowell, that House had been obliged to resort to a false entry in its Journals, because its committals had been at that period so numerous, that Stowell refused to attend, and they entered on their Journals that Stowell was sick, and that he be allowed three weeks to attend.— ( Hear, hear.) They wished to prevent Stockdale re ceiving his damages in the present case, but he had already received them, or very soon would receive them. The Sheriffs had been imprisoned for refusing to hand over these damages, but he trusted the House had not subjected them to the indignity of being imprisoned in the same cell, and snaking them the associates of Stockdale.—(Cries of " No, no.") They had sent them to prison for doing what every honourable and honest man in that House had de clared would have been his conduct under similar circum stances.—( Hear, hear.) The prorogation of a single day would defeat their object, and they might rest assured that ere long they would have the throne besieged with petitions praying that Parliament might be prorogued, if but for a day, because that day would set them at liberty.—( Hear, hear.) Why did they not make these proceedings lawful by Act of Parliament ? Why did they not establish an authority which the Judges of the land might consistently with their oaths obey, ai,d thus put an end to a conflict beginning with Stockdale and his attorney, but ending, he verily believed, with the people? Mr. PIG OTT thought the whole of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speech had been addressed rather to the case which had been already decided upon by the House than to the present. The question was not now whether the Sheriffs should be committed--the question was, whether, having committed the Sheriffs, they were now to stop short in that which appeared to him the nee, s sary sequel of what had already been done.—( Hear, hear. ) It had been urged that they had no right to interfere be tween the subject and his legal right of action in the Courts of Law. The answer to that was, that the House of Com mons, as a portion of the Constitution, was itself a Court, and entitled to decide upon its privileges without any in terference from any inferior Court of Law. The jurisdic tion of the Court of Chancery' was precisely analogous. When an injunction was issued by the Court, the party who in violation of that proceeded with his action was attached and imprisoned for In n contempt o on f the m Court t of Ltred attachmentE ld s i e wasin s i e l e C a h se anc e e f ry c .— re ( w H th e e a r r, v h . aside on the ground of irregu larit y . The party who set aside the attachment brought an action a g ainst the person who h a d arreste d him, and that actio n he was entitled to ear.) L a wrence, maintain in a Court of Law. It was contended that no legal right vested in him to recover damages in a Court of Law, and an application was marls to the Court of Chancery to stop the action. What said Lord Eldon ? " The defendant, after the attachment was discharged, brought an action at law f,r damages. and a motion was mad e f or an i nj unction to restrain him breci menu, from Lord then went on to s h ow t h e importance of the subj et go ng on with it." The Noble and Learned possessing the right to brine' an action of damages when he had been deprived of his 'liberty, and after adrnittiez that the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was very great, he observed that it did not extend so far, and that it THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, J ‘NUARY 23, 1840. did not pay the money to Stockdale, but in that case the hardship would be indicted by the Court of Queen's Bench, and not by the House. The Hon and Learned Sergeant had not replied to that part of the argument of the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General for Ireland, which went to show, that when an injunction had been issued by the Court of Chancery, and it was disregarded, it was invariably followed by an attachment against the partyl offending, and against his attorney' also; and that attachment was precisely analagous to a commit ment for contempt by that House. The Sheriffs had said that they were sworn duly to serve and execute the Queen's writs to there directed. Now, the word serve being adopted from the Latin word " ser vire," to obey, and the French word "servir," it was evident the proper interpretation of the oath was, that they should duly obey and execute the writs. He, therefore, contended that the Sheriffs in abstaining to levy, in consequence of the intervention of the privilege, had obeyed the writ. The motto of the family to which he had the honour to belong—( Hear, hear)—was " servir le roi, le bon, la loi ;" if " servir" in that case vacant to execute, the House would easily perceive the awkard position of his family. He contended that if the Judges bad been acquainted with all the resolutions of that House, they would have con sidered for some time before giving their decision. As re garded the decision they had already pronounced, it was evident they must be either right or wrong. One or the other must yield; and be contended the High Court of Parliament was superior to the " Aula Regia." The House then divided, and the numbers were— For the Motion Against it 92 Majority Thomas Burton Howard was then called in, and exa mined as follows : The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Were you the at torney in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard ?—I was. Did you file the declaration?—l did. Did you sue out the bill of inquiry of damages ?—I did. Were you served with a copy of the resolutions of this House ?—I was not. _ . By Mr. GODSON—Was it you that took out the writ in this case ?—No. ......._,..... By Mr. „ Sergeant TALFOU RD—Were you aware of the judgment in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard 2—l was. Were you aware that the Attorney-General had argued the case on the part of this House ?—I was. By Mr. KELLY—Were yon aware that the Solicitor of the Treasury had acted as solicitor in this case ?—I was. Did you understand that the House of Commons had charged the Solicitor of the Treasury with a breach of privilege for appearing in the Court 7—l did not. When did you first proceed against the Messrs. Han sard?—ln October last, when the declaration was filed. Did you know, or had you any reason to suppose at the time, that the ouse of Commons could interfere to stop one of the Queen's subjects taking proceedings against any officer of this House ?—I had not. Do you believe the House of Commons had any such powers ?--(Loud cries of " No, no," from many of the Members. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged leave to ask his Hon. Friend if he intended to persever in asking such a question ? Mr. KELLY said, if the Hon. and Learned Gentle man meant only to ask him that question, he begged to say be did, and, if necessary, would take the sense of the House on it. And as to whether his question be either just, proper, or Parliamentary, he would answer by say ing that he intended to maintain his right in putting the question. Sir E. SUGDEN hoped his Hon. and Learned Friend would not persevere in putting that question, in the pre cise terms he had framed it. His Hon. Friend only meant to a-,k what the witness's impression was upon the matter. Mr. KELLY said he would be anxious to accede to the suggestions of his Hen. Friend and the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, but he felt himself bound to say distinctly that he would put that question. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he did not think it a very advisable question, nor could it produce a very valuable answer. Sir R. INGLIS held that the object of the House was not to elicit an opinion from the witness or party, but to get at the state of facts—not what another body had a right to do. He hoped the question would not be per severed in, because he was afraid that the answer might be taken advantage of. Sir R. PEEL thought the objection of the Attorney. General a perfectly valid one.—( Cheers.) The question put to the party was, what he held to be the privileges of the House of Commons, not what be did when he was en gaged to go on with the cause. If any advantage was to be taken of the witness, it would not be of the impression under which he acted then, but of what was his impression at the present moment, after he had become acquainted with the resolutions of the House. He had put a similar question to Mr. France, who at once objected to it, and he, seeing the force of the objection, at once gave way.— ( Cheers.) Ile should hope it would not be asked of the witness what his constructions of privilege were after the deciiion of the House. Mr. C LIE SSWE L L considered the question to be per fectly irrelevant, and trusted his Hon. and Learned Friend would not persevere in it. Mr. KELLY hoped he would not be out of order if be submitted some observations in answer to his lion. Friends on his side of the House, for whom he had every respect. He felt it hit duty to put the question—( Cries of " Spoke, spoke.") Mr. HECTOR said the Hon. Member had spoken two or three times on the same subject, and he submitted that he had no right to speak again on the same subject. The SPEAKER.—The Hon. and Learned Member is quite in order. Mr. KELLY had very great reluctance to detain the House, and would not do so had he not a firm conviction that he was right. What he wanted to know was whether the witness knew from his own conscientious conviction whether he now conscientiously believed that the House had the power to stop him from proceeding in any action that might be brought wherein he might be called to assist. When the Sheriffs were recalled, it appeared from ques tions put to them that they would not have been punished had they paid over the money to Hansard—the former breach of privilege would have been passed over had they acknow ledged the power of the House. If the witness were to say now that he thought the House had the power to atop him in proceeding, then probably, following the same precedent, it would not proceed to punish him, therefore he thought the question material. If he answered that he held the same opinion as he did when he brought the action, then he (:Mr. Kelly) admitted he would be guilty of great dis respect to the majority of the House—but if, on the other . hand, he declared that, notwithstanding the resolutions of the House, he acted according to the duty cast uponhim by law, and, bona fide, according to his understanding of the law, still he hoped the House would not proceed to punish him. The gallery was ordered to be cleared for a division, bnt none took place. Mr. Howard was then re-called, and in answer to ques tions from Mr. Kelly and the Attorney-General, stated that he had been for twenty years an attorney, and never knew of the House of Commons interfering in an action brought by him before. That he had never seen the notices served upon Stockdale. He had commenced the action in October, and had received the notices of the House after he had filed his declaration. Sir E. SUG D EN—Have you any explanation to give ? —I humbly conceive that I was only doing my duty to Mr. Stockdale, and that if I had discontinued it he would have brought an action against me,. If I have been mis taken as to the manner in which I have been compelled to proceed, and if I leave incurred the displeasure of the House ,I deeply and honestly regret it. Mr. W. AT T W 00D—Have you given your answers under the impression that by refusing to answer you sub ject yourself to a committal for contempt ?—Most cer tainly. The witness, in answer to further questions, stated that he was employed in the first action, when Mr. Stockdale recovered 1001. damages. He was also con cerned in the action in which the publication was found to be an obscene libel. Stockdale prosecuted that action in person, and in that trial a verdict was given in the mate rial issue, without any medical gentleman being called. Ile (Mr. Howard) had never seen the book, but he had heard it was of a scientific character. When the last action was brought he fully expected that the Messrs. Hansard would have pleaded the same thing on which they had been previously successful.—(Hear, hear.) If, on the contrary, they had pleaded the order of that Hon. house he certainly should have taken very considerable advice, indeed all he could have procured, before he proceeded further in the action, lest he should incur the displeasure of that House. By Mr. O'CONNELL—I was the attorney on the record in the first action. Stockdale then sued inform pauperia, and defended himself. I did not see the book then, although it was shown to the jury, for I was not in Court at the time. I was appointed the attorney, by or der of a Learned Judge. I consented to act before the order was obtained, it being certified that Stockdale had a good cause of action. I asked Mr. Stockdale to show me the book: ---- ---- ----- Mr. L &NV objected to the last question, and it was withdrawn. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought thaw ought not to in quire into what had occurred between attorney and client. By Mr. I'. HOBHOUSE—I was not aware before I commenced the action of any particular privilege of the House of Commons. I never received any notice of them. Sir R. PEEL-- Have you any further statement to make to the House?—lf I could in stronger language apologise for any displeasure I may have justly incurred hare, I would do so. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said that, understanding the gentleman was desirous of making the most unqualified apology if he had done anything to incur the displeasure of the House, he wished that he should now be recalled, and asked if he was desirous of making such submission to the House, for having been engaged in opposition to the privi leges of that House, and in support of Mr. Stockdale.— ( Loud cries of " Adjourn," and calls for Lord J. Russeli.) Lord J. RUSSELL said he found himself in some dif ficulty after hearing the examination, as to the answers which Mr. Howard had given to particular questions; he therefore wished that the examination should be now read by the Shorthand-writer. The Shorthand-writer then read his notes of the exami nation of Mr. Howard. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the question then be fore them was, would it be consistent with the maintenance of their privileges to take the same course with Mr. Howard as they had with Mr. Stockdale. The conduct of Mr. Howard at the bar had been so exemplary, and his apology and regret had been so amply expressed, that he ( Lord John Russell) thought it was unnecessary to pro cued any further, and he should therefore move that he should be discharged. He knew many instances in which tile course now proposed had been adopted. There was an instance in 1775, in which a newspaper proprietor, who had misrepresented a Member's speech, was dealt with in the manner now proposed. On the whole, he thought that, basing committed the plain tiff in the case, and the Sheriffs who had seized the goods of the servant of that House, the House would be satisfied that there had been a sufficient vindication of their privileges.—( Loud cheers.) As was a right which only belong to the Legislature itself. The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery which had not a constitutional power, differing from the power of the Judges of the Courts of Law, could not be exercised with out asserting that right before a legal tribunal. Once re move that tribunal, and the power of the Court to admister justice was gone—once prevent that House from the exercise of its power, and it privileges iseme gone, and it ceased to be useful. He thought the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was called upon, having assumed as he did the existence of a privilege and the necessity of exercising it, to point out what course was to be adopted ; having committed the Sheriffs, he said they had next to proceed against the attorney. Now, what was the practice of the Court of Chancery? It was said they were interfering with the privileges of the House and the right of the party to obtain the benefit of advocacy. What did the Court of Chancery do in all proceedings in which they stopped an action at law ? Could he refer to higher authority than those who were listening to him for confirmation, in saying it was the practice in cases of disobedience that the party and the attorney stood committed? lie eould refer to a multitude of cases to prove that this was the practice of the Court ; and in one case, which must be familiar to them, where a party against an injunction proceeded against the bail, the Court of Chancery were called upon, not to commit the party, but the attorney ; and that was the ground on which the order was made; he thought the Hon and Learned Member fell into an error in) the case of Stockdale and Hansard, which was necessary to be remembered by the House when they came to deal with the attorney. The Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Pemberton) said nothing appeared in these proceedings but that in an action for libel judgment had gone by default, and that the question whether or not the House had the privilege of publication had never been submitted to their determination of a Court of Law, and therefore they ought to submit to a legal tribunal. Did the Hon. and Learned Member forget that in the first action brought by Stockdale for this very publication, the question was raised before Lord Denman, who then de livered the same opinion as when the question was argued on demurrer, and directed the Jury that the fact of the House of Commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish was no justification of any publication containing libellous matter. This was then established, every course had been tried by which it was possible in this way to assert their privileges. In the first place they bad gone to a Court of Law and the Court had directed the Jury as he ha] just read; it came again before the Court, which a second time decided against the House of Commons. Now what, then, was the Hon. and Learned Member's meaning when he said they had not tried the question in a Court of Law? How did that avail upon this quest tion ? Were they, or not, to surrender their privilege ? No expedient remained but that adopted. Now how did the case of the attorney stand ? He believed there was no Hon. Member who did not deeply deplore the necessity of raking these proceedings against Mr. Howard, but in what other way was it possible to prevent the constant bringing of such actions? It was said in the course of the argument that Stockdale had but to bring his action, and that he could go to France and laugh to scorn their authority. Aed so he might ; but however actions might be corn .a , nced, they could not be prosecuted without the instru mentality of attorneys, and if they published to the world that whoever assisted in bringing actions in contempt of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons should be pu eished, it would be an effectual bar to them. He had been asked to point out an instance in which the House of Commons interfered to pre vent actions, at the same time that an action so pre seated was pointed out to him. This he would say, that if they once established the power of commitment for eon :zmpt of the privileges of the House—that its jurisdiction Wes not examinable—and that it was armed with authority to punish those who assisted therein, he would venture to predict very few would be found to follow their example. Wa s this upon the face of it a case in which a great de gree of tenderness should be exhibited towards the party before the House? Stockdale had prosecuted the former action as a pauper, therefore the attorney had not the temptation of gain.--( Hear.) Did he, then, engage in this proceeding to forward the object of Stockdale, or as an experiment by which he might acquire those damages which would accrue in the course of the action ? Take, it another way : if he lent himself to Stockdale as a voluntary agent in disobeying the .rders of the House, ho thought it would hardly be said they should stay proceedings against him in tenderness to course adopted under a sense of professional obligation. :le would not enter into the general discussion, he merely yrished to point out that the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Pemberton) in referring to the practice of the Court of Chancery had misapplied the argument employed, and to •ay, with Lord Eidon, in tha case cited, that these privi leges were committed to the House as trustees for the public, and it was not at liberty to give them up. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged to offer a few obser vations in answer to what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House, aad who had asked the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon why he stopped where he did? He (Mr. Jack son) would ask the Hon. and Learned Member why he ;topped short—why he did not follow up the principle he advocated—why did not he attack the Counsel ? The reason was obvious, and it was the same reason that prevented his attacking the Judges, and left him nothing but to lay hold of the Attorney. To compare the prac .ice of the Court of Chancery with the present proceedings of this House, between which there was not the slightest analogy, was to call that precedent which did not fiord the slightest example. He did not consider courage persevering in a cause we were satisfied was wrong, and iie maintained that to do a thing that was wrong never yet made one thing right ; but they were told the course they had taken was one of necessity. The argument of the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) was based on that assumption, out he did not think that the case was by any means made out. The Right Hon. Baronet on a former evening had irked how he could justify himself to his constituents if he was not armed with the power of circulating publication under the authority of the House. He replied that no lawyer in Westminster Hall would deny that a statement made by a Member to his constituents of the evidence on which ho had acted was a privileged communication. There were two distinct propositions involved in this case—first, whe ther these matters were examinable in Courts of Law, and, secondly, if they were, had the Court come to a right conclusion ? The Court it was said might decide wrong, but so they might in all cases that came before them ; then why not go to the last resort? This, it was objected, was sub mitting their privileges to the House of Lords; but they would net go to the House of Lords as a branch of the Legislature, but as to the highest Court of Justice known to the Constitution. The Right Hon. Baronet had also said he had the decision of a large majority on a former occasion, and that Hon. Members did not meet him fairly, but the Right Honourable Baronet should remember that on that occasion there was not one practised lawyer in the House, save Sir Robert Rolfe, and it was rather too much to expect mem bers of the bar should remain in town attending Par liament while it was doing nothing at all, but had they been present, he was sure they would have given the same opinion as they had now done. Ile would say they ought not to go on. They were wrong, and, without meaning to speak disrespectfully, he verily believed that they now thought themselves they were wrong.—( Cheers.) He contended they bad been wrong from the beginning. They were not to wield their privileges for the purposes of aggression, and ought never to have adopted the resolutions except pro re nata. They should never enter into abstract propositions. The first re solution was perhaps well founded. The House had the power of publication—( Hear, hear)—he would not deny that; but it was altogether another question to what ex tent that publication was advisable. He would contro vert the necessity of publication to all the world. He de nied that they had a right to set up a shop to sell these publications. He would maintain the right of Mem bers to communicate to their constituents the proceedings of that House.—( Cheers.) But if that right should be questioned in a Court of Justice, the proper course would be to bring in a Bill for the purpose of settling the law on the subject. Was there any doubt that the House of Lords would join in such a Bill ?—(Hear, hear.) Why the same thing was necessary for the House of Lords, who must also publish their proceedings. But this was a matter open to abuse, and no publication made with a malicious motive ought to be protected. That was the course which the House ought to pursue to put an end to this matter, and not to persevere in this conflict with the Courts of Law. He should vote against the examination of the attorney. Sir CHARLES GREY perceived from what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon, and from the Hon. and Learned Sergeant, that at least they were gaining ground as they proceeded. The anxiety dis played by the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon, was certainly very natural, as he believed that a work of that Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in which he had displayed great learning, research, and ingenuity, but in some por tions of which he had perhaps been unfortunately mistaken, had exercised great influence in the decisions which had been come to on this subject in Westminster Hall, and if any doubt had since crept into his mind as to the justice of the conclusions to which he had come, he must feel some anxiety that the unfortunate consequences of those deci sionsshould if possible be avoided, even at the expense of the privileges of that House. Th e y might, if as was ad mitted by the H on . an d L ear ned Gentlem an, one half of the profession ent erta i ne d d ou bts upon this snb j ect, resort to the Judges and say-- " Si pergama dextris defender° posse, Etiam ille defensoris fuisient." He made inqui r i es a f ter t his work, but found that no bookseller possessed it—it had vanished.—( A laugh.) Now, unless some doubt had crept over his mind as to the justice of some of the positions there laid down, be was confident he would have reprinted it. Sir E. SUGDEN—A new edition has just come out. Loud laughter. ) Sir C. GREY hoped it was with considerable emenda tions, corrections, and qua lifications.—( Ro ars of lau g hter.) The Hon. and L earned M e mber had that night argu ed upon the suppositi on t h at t h ose privileges existed, which in the outset had been so pointedly denied ; and the Learned Sergeant had at last openly admitted that the House possessed the right to publish its p roceedings, for the information o f i ts constituents. It was impossible for him to stop there, and deny their right of publication to all their mansion und er l oc k an d key the world. It wa s i m p oss ibl e f o r them to dra w the line. W e re Members to keep th ese pu bli c ation Why s in a secret cham wberre of if any per on eto look through the key-hole of such a chamber it would re mind him of the blue chember in the story of Blue Beard. ( A laugh.) Th e progress made in this p art of the ques tion enabled him a t once to dismiss tha t p art of the argu ment, and the co aun i tta l o f Stockdale naturall y followed as a consequence of th at a dmission. ' A g reat effort had been made to exc i te a feeling of compassion for the Sheriffs ; it had been said it was hard that they should be amerced in their m one ys Did it not occur to Hon. Members who made use of this expression, that the moneys in question were the produce of the sale of the property of Messrs. Hansard, who were the servants of that House ? The moneys were Messrs. Hansard's, and when the Sheriff's admitted they had the money in their possession, arid refused to give it up, ought they to be permitted quietly to want out of the House with the money in their pockets ? It had been argued that the Court of Queen's Bench would commit them if they EVENING EDIFION. this matter in an amicably manner. He thought the motion of the Attorney-Gertral was the best. Strangers were then ordcrzd to withdraw. The House divided, when the numbers were— For the motion For the amendment Majority for the amendment The announcement of thy numbers was received with loud cheering. Sir ROBERT INGLIS could not allow the attorney to be called to the bar without pointing out the injustice of which the Noble Lord had been guilty, in discharging that individual, when he had imprisoned the Sheriffs, who had apologised to the House in nearly similar terms. If the legal adviser of the pla:ntiff was reprimanded, why not reprimand Mr. France, the legal adviser of the Sheriffs, who stood in precisely the same situation ? He protested against the entire proceeding. Mr. L ANY said if there was one party more than ano ther who had taken an active part in the proceedings it was the attorney. The Noble Lord had acted with admirable consistency throughout—the parties who had done nothing were committed to prison, while those had done every thing were discharged. Mr. GODSON moved that the word " reprimanded" be omitted, and the word "admonished" be inserted i the resolution.—( Cries of " Oh.") The SPEAKER made an observation we did not hear, as to the informality of the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL said if his Hon. and Learned Friend wished to have any alteration in the wording of the motion, he might have Mr. Howard admonished for the future, and reprimanded for the past.—(Laughter.) Mr. Howard was then called to the bar and addressed as follows by The SPEAKER.._" Thomas Burton Howard—l have to acquaint you that the House has come to the following resolution—That Thomas Burton Howard having bee' guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of this House, and having expressed his regret at having in curred the displeasure of the House, be now called to the bar and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker." In pursuance of this resolution, I have further to acquaint you, that, whilst acting in the capacity of attorney to Mr. Stockdale, you caused a writ of inquiry to 'be executed, and a levy to be made upon the goods of Messrs.' Hansard. You did that deliberately and advisedly, after having, according to your own admission, :received notice of the resolutions of this House. I have to admonish you that conduct of this description is a high contempt of the authority of this House, which ought justly to be visited with its severe displeasure. The House, however, having taken into its consideration the contrition which you have expressed, are disposed to deal leniently with you for this offence. lam directed by the House to reprimand you, and I reprimand you accordingly. Mr. Howard then withdrew. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL the Speaker's reprimand was ordered to be entered on tho Journals of the House, Mr. EATON said the House having dealt so leniently with the attorney, he moved that Mr. Stockdale be now called to the bar and reprimanded, by the Speaker and dis charged. Lord J. RUSSELL moved, as an amendment, that the other Orders of the Day be now read, which was agreed to without a division. that was the last motion he intended to make on the pre. sent subject, he would just state that it was his intention, on a future day, to propose the appointment a Commmittee on Privileges, to pursue the inquiry in which they had been engaged last Session. In conclusion, the Noble Lord said that the House, he was sure, must feel much in debted to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, for his can did conduct on the present occasion. (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) He congratulated the House that it had not been a party- question, for, had it been, un doubtedly their privileges would have been in the greatest danger, and he was confident the House would never forget the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam worth. Lord HO WICK could not allow the motion to pass without expressing his deep and heartfelt regret at hearing such a notion made. By an overwhelming sense of duty they had been compelled to commit the Sheriffs—( Hear, hear)—and ho (Lord Howick) urged, that the conduct of the attorney, at the commencement, was wrong from the beginning, and that he had not the least cause for con ducting the action; for Mr. Howard must have been aware of the privileges of the House when he undertook to conduct Stockdale's cause. Mr. Howard had not ac knowledged that he was wrong, or that the House was right.—( Hear.) Even if he had, it would have been pro. per to reprimand him.—(Hear.) Under the present circumstances, however, he (Lord Howick) thought that this person should be committed, and left to his petition. He thought this the first re-commencement of that fatal course of retrograding wis ch had before been so pernicious in its effects, and at least he wished to clear himself from this timid hesitating policy.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. WARBURTON cordially concurred in what had just fallen from the Noble Lord, and wished that he had concluded with a motion that this person should at all events be recalled and reprimanded by -the Speaker, and then on his submission he might be discharged. Mr. HUME said that having concurred in the commit tal of the Sheriffs, he should feel that the House deserted their duty should they not commit the attorney, who was really more guilty than the Sheriffs.—( Hear. ) Mr. EW ART conceived the apology to have been merely hypothetical; and that something more satisfactory should have been required.—(Hear.) Mr. O'BRIEN wished to know if the attorney had in tended to make an unqualified submission? Could he not be recalled and asked that 7—( Hear, and " No, no.") Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Duncombe, and Mr. Wakley here rose altogether amid some laughter; the three first Hon. Members gave way to Mr. WAKLEY, who trusted the proposition of the Noble Lord (John Russell) would be acceded to. They could not proceed one step without satisfying the public mind that they went no further in punishment than was absolutely necessary to preserve their privileges, and the committal of the Sheriffs was sufficient for that object.— ( Hear, hear.') He believed that the more the public reflected on the question, the more they would feel the necessity for the national welfare of the souse possessing this privilege.—(Bear, hear.) lie could not forbear expressing his concurrence in the com pliments that had been paid to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who, by the course he had pursued upon this occasion had conferred a lasting benefit upon the country. Sir R. PEEL said he wished to state his opinion on the case of Howard, which was that he was the party mainly responsible to the House—( Hear, hear)—because the plaintiff was presumed an unprofessional and ignorant man, labouring under a sense of injury, and thirsting to re sort to the law for redress, but a professional man was acquainted with the nature of the jurisdiction and right the House possessed to judge on its own privileges. It was the duty of the attorney to warn an unprofessional man who begged his services of the position in which he would be placed, and tell him he would incur the displeasure of the House of Commons, and to discountenance the action, and if he abstained from doing that, he incurred a greater responsibility on account of his superior acquirements, and the absence in his case of personal prejudice. It ap peared to him their proceedings would have been incom plete if they had not summoned the attorney to their bar, and that they had made a mistake in not dealing with him immediately after Stockdale. He did not hesi tate to say it had been his intention to commit him unless he made a satisfactory explanation ; he confessed he thought his evidence equvocal, but at the same time he felt bound to say he was fully prepared to go to all just extremity, but not beyond the necessity of the case. As he had expressed his sorrow at having incurred the displeasure of the House, and they had already committed three persons, lie thought his committal would be rather a severe exer ' cise of power.—( Hear, hear.) But he would not imme diately discharge him, but, tempering justice with mercy, have directed the Speaker to inform him that he had committed a breach of the privileges of that House, and at the same time state, that as he appeared desirous to the submission required, the House would not pro ceed to extremities. They would thus leave it upon re cord that the attorney was the responsible party, and that they abstained from extremities on the express ground of his submission.—( Cheers. ) Mr. O'CONNE LL hoped the House would not shrink from asserting its privileges unequivocally, and he thought It would become the Noble Lord (J. Russell) to accept the good advice of the Right Hon. Baronet upon this question.—( Hear, and a laugh.) Sir R. INGLIS said no Hon. Member had proposed to commit the attorney, though they had expressed their opi nion that he ought to be committed. He rejoiced that for once he could agree with his Noble Friend (Lord J. Rus sell), and he trusted he would not be induced to deviate from the course he had proposed. and on the faith of which many Members had left the House.—( Hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, with the con currence of the House, he rose to move—( Loud cries of " No, no.") He thought the Honourable the Re corder of London might have exercised a little more patience before he had interrupted him. He rose to make a motion ; according to what had fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman, he did not retract any thing he had offered : he believed the attorney was the responsible per son, and that according to the precedent, principles, and practice of the Courts, it was necessary to hold him, and if he had not expressed sorrow for the part he had taken, he should have felt no hesitation in moving his commitment. Mr. Howard had expressed his sorrow and regret if he had offended the House ; and he (the Attorney-General) thought it now became them to temper justice with mercy. He thought they might do so, and still maintain the ground which they had assumed, and set an example which might be acted on in future times. He thought they might preserve their privileges unimpaired, though Mr. Howard were not committed. He felt it advisable, however, to have some record of their opinion on the subject, and he , would now move an amendment to the motion of his Noble Friend—( Loud laughter from the Opposition benches) — an amendment which he was sure would be approved of by the majority of the Members present, although it might be disagreeable to those who bad done all that they could to lower the dignity of the House.—( Cries of " Order.") Lord MA HON appealed to the Chair whether it was in order to impute to any Hon. Members an attempt to lower the dignity of the House. The SPE AK ER said that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber was certainly out of order in attributing what he had done to any Members of the House. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL bowed to the deci sion of the Chair, He was certainly led into an irregu larity by his eagerness on the subject. He now wished to move, by way of amendment to the motion of his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that Thomas Bur ton Howard, having been guilty of a breach of the privi leges of the House, and having expressed his regret that he had incurred the displeasure of the House, be now called to the bar and reprimanded by the Speaker. Mr. D. MACLE AN could not approve of the course which the Noble Lord and the Attorney-General were pursuing on the occasion. He begged leave to ask whether they were prepared to liberate the Sheriffs on the same grounds on which it was prepared to liberate Mr. Howard ? Mr. F. KELLY said he could not but think that the House would agree with him in believing that the sooner the case was brought to a conclusion the better for the dignity, and the character of the House.—( Hear, hear.) He rose almost entirely for the purpose of saying that he would cordially support the motion of the Noble Lord, and that he would oppose the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General. He could not but hope that, as the Noble Lord had taken on himself the re sponsibility of the office of public prosecutor on the oc vision— (Cries of " No, no")—lie hoped that the Noble Lord would now take on himself the merit of the only act of what the Noble Lord might call lenity, but which he (Mr. Keily) would call justice, which had proceeded from the other side of the House. He should also say that he feared, from a statement in the speech of the Attorney- General, that he (Mr. Kelly) differed with the Court of Queen's Bench as to the legality of their judgment. His Hon. and Learned Friend must have misunderstood him, and ho would take the opportunity of saying—what ever might be the charges it should draw down on him, that he held the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench to be sound, legal, and constitutional, and he trusted that it would remain a monument of the justice,:learning, and integrity of the Judges as lasting as the law itself. The lion. and Learned Gentleman concluded by saying that it was very unjust to overlook the Counsel in this business and punish the attorney ; he could only account for it by a want of courage on the part of the Government. Sir E. SUGDEN—The Counsel were the persons who alone carried on the business in the Court, and con sequently were the persons more deserving of punishment than the attorney in this cause. Mr. PRYME said a few words in answer to the Hon. Member for Ripen. Mr. JOHN JONES said there were persons in that Ilouse who preached about liberty outside of these doors whom he considered were more fit to be consigned to the dungeons than the unfortunate individuals who had been sent there. He would wish to ask the Noble Lord whether it was his intention to pursue the same course towards Messrs. Black, Carrington, and Kennedy, who acted as Counsel in the proceedings. Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no objection to an swer the question, although not the most courteously put. Ile would not reply in the same style as the Hon. and Learned Member who had just sat down, but the wish of that House was simply to maintain the privileges of that House. It appeared, however, that those gentlemen who were opposed to his views, thought their opinions could be best maintained by carrying further and further commit ment of parties. By those who wish to abandon their privileges, he thought they must have had some advantage to expect "from some excitement of popular feeling.—( Hear.) For that reason ho should decline to take the course they would recommend, by cal ling the counsel to the bar for the purpose of committing them. Their only object was to maintain their privileges, which they thought was fully vindicated by the commit ments which had taken place. These were sufficient for their views, and proved the determination on their part never to abandon the assertion of possessing tile right of deciding upon their own privileges. He should much ra ther withdraw the motion he had made, if he might be al lowed to do so unan i mously—(No, no I much pre ferred the am en d ment of his Learned Fr i en d . Mr. JONE S explained. Sir T. D. ACK L AND would be well pleased to agree if possible with the suggestion of his Noble Friend. He trusted the House would take some measures for ending PROVISION FOR PRINCE ALBERT. Mr. GOUL B URN wished to know what course the Noble Lord intended to pursue on going into the Commit tee of Supply, with regard to the provision for Prince Al bert. He thought it desirable that the same course should be pursued on this occasion that he had pursued in proposing the Civil List for his late Majesty, and that the Noble Lord should substitute a specific motion for his proposition, so as to state the circumstances under which he proposed the specific sum. He could not, in asking this question, be accused of any disrespect to the Illus trious person in question, because it was the course he himself had followed, but he thought it desirable the House should have 48 hours' notice before they were called upon to vote on the subject. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would be glad to comply with the Right Hon. Gentleman's request if any mode could be devised which would satisfy him. In the pro posing this grant he did not purpose entering into a par ticular statement of expenses, but should rest upon the principle of the vote of the Civil List of 1830. 110,0001. was proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and the Committee made no alteration in this sum. 60,0001. being appropriated for the use of his late Molest} , and 50,0001. for Queen Adelaide, and the Committee stated in their re port that these allowances being sanctioned by the prece dent of 1779 they did n o t d eem i t respect f u l to hi s M a j est y to institute an inquiry into the details of his private ex penses. At Lord John Russell's request, Mr. Goulburn repeated his question._ Lord J. RUSSELL then said that be had no objection that the estimate should be made on Friday, and that the House should come to the vote on Monday. Mr. HUME then said he should postpone his amend ment till Monday. PRINCE ALBERT'S NATURALIZATION. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on this Bill. Mr. FRESHFIELD drew the attention of the Noble Lord to the propriety of some alteration in the law upon the subject generally, to which Lord J. RUSSELL having acceded, the Bill went through a Committee, and was then read a third time and passed. On the motion of Mr. F. TRENCH, Mr. Emerson Tennent, and on the ►notion of Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, Mr. French, was added to the Committee on Railways. Adjourned at Twemy Minutes before Two o'Clock. The following Committees and Returns were omitted in our report of Tuesday night's debate : Petitions for Private Bills—Committee nominated—Mr. Strutt, Mr. Baines, Mr. Robert Clive, Captain Gordon, Mr. Rice, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. Wrightson, Mr. Geo. Cavendish, Mr. Compton, Mr. Handley, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Robert Palmer, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Finch, Mr. Henry Thomas Hope, Mr. George Philips, Lord Vis count Eastnor, Mr. Bingham Baring, Mr. Bell, Mr. Gib son Craig, the O'Connor Don, Sir Charles Style, Mr. Aglionby, Sir John Yarde Buller, Mr. Crawford, Captain Jones, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Barneby, Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Stansfield, Lord Worsley, Mr. Greene, Mr. Pease, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Mildmay, Sir: William Heathcote, Mr. Halford, Mr. Morgan Join O'Connell, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. Packe, Mr. Emerson Tennant. Railway Communication.—Select Committee appointed, " to inquire into the state of Communication by Railways, and to report their observations thereupon to the House :' —Mr. Labouchere, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Thornely, Lord Sandon, Mr. Loch, Mr. Freshfield, Sir John Guest, Lord Stanley, Mr. Greene, Sir Harry Verney, Mr. He nr y B ar i ng, Sir James Graham, Lord Seymour, Mr. Easthope. Newspaper Stamps (Quarterly Accounts)—Returns• ordered, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, " of the number i of Newspap er S tamps at one penny and a half penny issued to the several newspapers is England, Scot land, and Wales, in the quarters from the Ist day of July to the 31st day of September, and from the Ist day of October to the 31st day of December, 1839, inclusive ; specifying each newspaper by name, and the number of stamps issued each month during that period to each newspaper. Of the number of stamps issued to each newspaper in Ireland, in the same period." TtlE QUEENS OF ENGLAND.—Among the few Dedications which our present Queen has accepted, that of Miss Agnes Strickland's " History of the Queens of Ens land," will, we imagine, be received by her Majesty with the greatest satisfaction, since the subject is one which orix So vereign, in common with all her subjects, cannot fail to regard with more than ordinary interest, especially as there is at pre sent nothing like a comp l ete wor k on this singularly fertile topic—fertile not less in the most strange and romantic inci dents than in the most important moral, social, and political considerations. We observe that, in anticipation of the suc cess likely to attend it, this work is to be published volume by volume, and at a price which makes it accessible to all classes of readers. NEW PLAY.—The new five-act play, by Leigh Hunt, is in a fort,ard state of rehearsal at Covent-garden, and will be speedily produced. Sheridan Knowles has also com pleted his ballad opera for the same theatre. PATENT LEVE:3, WATCHES. With silver double-bottom cases With silver hunting cases This celebrated construction (t a most accurate on which a watch can be made) is now offerzsl, with the latest improve ments. i. e. the detached escapernmt, jewelled in four holes, capped, hand to madt the seconds, hard enamel dial, and main taining power to continue going wi,:le winding up, at the above price. A printed warranty is given, with fixed terms, on which the u hi r ,l c 4 : 7 : ,B se e d or in nh e i x ll e , h L a o n n g d e o . n, ot SAVORY'S, dh A sem V s i purchased Watches will always receive any attention needei, at _T v he . r a andICdO:G a W N at . c il hm . ik s e e r e , o S n i d l (Seven doors from Gi-street).-street). B IR TITS. On the 2d inst., at Rome, the lady of J. R„: Shaw, Eeq Arrow Hall, Cheshire, of a daughter. On the 19th inst., at Lower Clapton, Mrs. Richard Marit, of a daughter. On the 19th inst., Mrs. Edgar. Papworth, of a daughter. On the 20th inst., Mrs. M. T. Husband, of Penryn-villa, Regent's -park, of a daughter. On the 20th inst., in Cheapside, Mrs. A. M. 73arghes, o r a son. On the , at 1 8th inst. MARRIED. of St. Mar Y's, E. T. Roe, Esq., surgeon, Henry Rage, Clifton, to Catherine Maria, second daughte r o f th e late Esq., and gra n dd aug ht er o f th e l a t e Li eutenan t- Colonel B. Johnstone . DIED On the 15th inst., at Yardley House, Tunbridge, Kent, Avila Maria Charlotte Shaw, daughter of the late Charles Shaw, Esq., R.N., and granddaughter of the late Sir John G r egory Shaw, of Kenward, Kent, aged 11 years and 11 months. On the 18th inst., in Upper Woburn-place, Elizabeth, relict of the late William Fssex, aged 70. On the 17th inst., at Tranby House, near Hull, Yorkshire, henry Godfrey, second son of Henry Smith Boolderson, Esq., of the lion. East India Company's Civil Service, aged E. On the 18th inst., at New-grove, Mile-end, Captain James T. Brown. On the 18th inst., at Newington-place, Kennington, Charlcs Cole, Esq., aged 82. On the 18th inst., at Kennington, Miss Sarah Jephson , aged 62. On the 18th inst., at Kingscote, R o b ert Kingscote, Esq. , Colonel of the Royal North Glocester Militia, aged 88. On the 18th inst., at Seabrook, Kent, Sarah, the wife of J. H. Wilkinson, Esq., aged 70. On the 19th inst., the Rev. John Francis Mieville, of Can' terbury, aged 79. On the 20th inst., in Camden street, Camden-town, E d ' ward, youngest surviving son of tha late William Fisher, Esq" of the Victualling-office, So merset -house, and Mus , ,vell-hill , llornsey, aged 17. --- London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG , . bf No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112. Strand, .i the county of Middlesex. -'1 hursday, January 23,1840.