The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-21 00:00:00

EVENTING EDITiON begged to a k the date of el note from the Portuguese meat had such a r . ae_asu h re ut. in contemplation, but not for deny and reflise to the public eyery informati.otdion of Minister to Lord Howard de Walden. any prolonged period ; e thought it probable that it the manner in which our proceedings are came o had Lord PALMERSTON, in answer, begged to state would be limited to a period of ten years' expiration. I . must say . , w . ith regard . to this very question, that 1 that the note was wr:tten on the lath day of May, Mr. HERRIES begged to ask if there was any - been of opinion that it would be necessary to compel 1838. I the H0.i.,: would allow him, he would prilasuchainng,con templat ion for the re-building of the Royal the City of LOndiin to biiild a neW pristin; but in that o r wheth er aile it would be hard to do so if the City of London shortly exp.aM the affair. The history of the trans commencement of that work? there was any prospect of as early said," You are not able to give your proceedings to the action would be folio'', at the conclusion of the despateh, . - - . • ' •••• she Alderman WOOD stated t h at thee- - dated Lisbon l, Msy 20, (58S. Lord Howard de Walden I. ....... were thirty-tux pub lic—you are debarred by the law from given t 3 estimatesea ~e, for the re- . before the COM- information on the sullied which we would re9uife. , Do nixed upon tee Portuguese Minister thss necessity of .t,, ..-asulding sent in considerable delay with regard to every thattef et great public , import agorailating the Portuguese law rf!lating to tI!6 Slave I ml..ve, but in consequence of a much ance—Se with regard to Canada, ja r itfifttnee, Trade with ours, therby 'making the Slave Trade arising from all those estimates havingam ounted uldnot be entered how could we legislate for Canada; if we could not Piracy- The Pos'agucss Minister statsal that no Go- beyond the amount specified, it " There were six of give the public any information with regtird td its sittia , vortument in Portug:i' eould assent to that proposition. upon as soon as could be wished. h regard tb our Lord Howard de Wald best co then stated that if the those plans selected as bei n g the Minister would write him a n official note to that effect, of the best of those six be made it b eat, and until a report tion ? This may be said still more wit would be quite im- internal proceedings. The grounds I am ad vocatin g it would be unnece ss a ry t o make any other declare- possible to say farther on the subject. were those ) I imagine, on which this House went in lion as to the course they intended to pursue with Mr. EMERSON TENNENT wished to gain some 1796, *hen proteedings were taken with regard to a reference to the Poor-law Unions of Pritice of the eoiintry. These the tegarded irespeet to the Slave Tradc.—(Hear, hear.) H e information with poorhouses were in course of a Report in a case in which the parties Wished for had agreed to sign Cm:. - frosty sub spe rata, if the Ireland, and whether t he o Government should agree to the terms which had been proposed, and if they should not, then the whole was to be null and void ; and so far from there being any con cealment cu rb s part of Lord H. de Walden,er the Go- erection. He wislaad Government intended suppression ' of vagrancy ? learn P whether her Majesty's secrecy, but they were ordered to be printed by the to t bring forward any law for the House r' of Commons. A very important law was CHANCELLOR of the framed with regard to the state of the country, as it EXCHEQUER appeared from those proceedings, and therefore, whether The . said he was not prepared to give him any information this law was right or not, it being the opinion of the vernment in this matter, that dispatch, which perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet had not seen, was an i nc l osure upon t he sub j e ct i in the absence of the Secretary for Parliament of the day that such proceed in g s should be to the one which the Right Hon. Bart. had read ; it Ireland. taken, it was thought right to give the public every Sir DE LACY EVANS asked for information re- information on the subject, while duly tespeeting the was to be found at page 191, and was to the following effect • .—That Lord Howard agreed in order to recon- c ard i ng the metropolitan improvements. constitutional law of the country. With regard to one d JOHN RUSSELL said, Government would of theseproceedings action was commenced, not Lord an cite the objections made by Viscount Sr da Band eira' en the part of the Port uguese G overnmen t to be certainly inclined to recommend the re-appointment against a printer authorised by th e House, but against the required decl a ration ot pi racy , an d addressed of the Committee to re-consider the subject. a printer who had chosen , of his own accord, to a note to his Ex ce ll e n c y, o f w hi c h h e enc l ose d a copy. STOCKDALE is. HANSARD. publish those proceedings, having voluntaril y g iven That copy was the _. note which had been read by the Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the the public a copy of the matters taken before a Secret Ds, regarding the case of Stockdale v. Hansard. Committee. It was on that octillion that Lord Kenyon night Hon. Baronet the other evening. In reply to The Order accordingly that the Viscount ha d promised to make such a decla- Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—l sidered libellous. One of the parties urged his claim as ration as his Excellency should consider difficultytantamount to think it necessary t o call the attention of this House a loyal subject to issue that publication. The public, the one required to remove the only on the to the f ormer proceedings connected with this case , he said, were entitled to the information. Lord Kenyon pert of her 111n)esty's Government to the acceptance.. this House of the treaty. It appeared that Viscount Sa da Bandeira : and the position in which this House now stands. on that occasion said that the House of Commons had, on the Itith or 19th—the day of the date of the You have the resolutions of this House before you, was privileged to publish the papers . it might think neces- A A Walden that k aote—stated to Lord Hower.. -e the ou s which I will read : sary. It was impossible for him to admit that the pro jections in the way ot m aking the required declaration 1. That it appearing to this House that an action has ceedings of either House of Parl iam en t w ere a libel.— been brought against James Hansard and others for the (Hear, hear , hear, from the Ministerial benches.) were insurmos n n a ble. On the 19 th of May it had publication by them, under an order of this House, of cer- He said afterwards—" These are proceedings by been stated, i n a conference between Lord Howard tain papers containing libellous matter upon John Joseph one b ranch of the Legislature, and therefore they de Wald' - n a nd Viscount Sada Bandeira, that th e S toc kd a l e , an d t h at j u d gment h as b een o b taine d, a nd exe- cannot be i nqu i re d i nto . These are proceed dißieultos his Excellency laboured under as to the cation issued, by due course of law, against the,said James piracy article were instil - mountable. His Excellency Hansard and o thers, in such action, it is expedient that lag s on the part of those who, by the Constitution, stetei l l that no Member of the Government could the said James Hansard and others be indemni fi ed against ar e the guardians of the liberties of the subject. We venture to enter into any engagement for the pro- all coats and damages by them sustained in respect of such cannot say such proceedings are a libel, and therefore be cl . h d " The th Judg es the defendant must isc arge . o er g p oec t of such a law in the present state of action. popular feeling in Portugal with regard to this 2. That in case of any action or actions being hereafte r concurred in opinion, on that occasion, with Lord subject. There was on the one side active brought for the publication of papers un der the order of this Kenyon. were, say, j (apposition ot, the part of those interested in upholding House, the Attorney-General be instructed to defend such s i de ring the publication in question to have been for the lave trade, and on t h e other , to wh ich action, and to report thereon to the House. good of the country. There was no reason why we this alone the The Act which has been called in question is should question that the law was such as we imagined. eremant could look for support, total indifference to the subject. Under these circumstances Visco un t Act done b y the Messrs. Hansard strictly in We have found that the Judges an . thought differently, accordance with the resolutions of this House. and Ido not deny that they have thus placed us in a Sada makingßindeira considered the difficulties in the In 1it3,5 a Bill was proposed in the House of Lords situation of considerable difficulty. I do not wish to way able. of Lortl t h e required declaration insurmount- by the Duke of Richmond for the purpose of appoint- conceal from the House that I think the opposition we Howard then said that he was not , ing Inspectors of Prisons ; and, when in this House, it will have to meet with on a question of this nature is authorisedbeing to sign the treaty without the declaration was proposed that an examination should be made of very different from what it would have been in other days. he made, rd but that it he would make a declaration the Prison of Newgate, which comes under the general At former periods, the question of freedom from arrest (L 0 Howard de Walden) would sign the treat y Corporation:Act, it being in the opinion of this House for Members, and freedom of speech, were questions to sue spe rats. Lord Howard de Walden said that al fusion hail b een ma d e by the Viscount Sa da Bandeira no sufficient ground of exception. At the same time be contested for against the Courts o f Law. In those thequestion is possible that an Inspector of Prisons on times you had the Crown and the Courts of Law to to hie departure from Lisbon in May, and he there- •• • Newgate should have ma de report, that so contend with. A Sheriff then told you that a Member fore enclosed a copy of a memorandum which he had excellentvisitin g th t of d. r a 3v:omitted to Viscount Sada Bandeira before his depar- d a s was t h the l e an sys em carried discipline adopted, and so imprisoned , and that he should be bound to pay p re me so fre were the was l 00 / if he dismissed him. Still the House proceeded ture on this subject . This memorandum was not good was keptpf on e ' contamination by association, on' th e . universal sentiment that in eontending against signed, because it had never been executed, as the prisoners the rom any which difficulties re. e t . the preliminarieshad pee mg never been . and such was strictness with .. all was did not carry with provision and the introduction of spirits or improper flees of the Crown. These Judges overcome. 'lt had not been forwarded to Viscount Sa food, or books or newspapers was carried into effect, them that weight which Judges of the present day phooss d, Bant!eira at the time, but he had merely read it to it was considered that it would be competent in sess. In fact, since the time of the Revolution co it has to 'Viscount Sade Bandeira, and he agreed to take the any future Bill to have relied upon that Report as an ar- been the unceasing aim of the House of he subject into his consideration —as a preliminary pro- ra ja: n or gument to have that prison made an exception, and make our Judges independent either of t he them position previous to the signature of a treaty, which w with have it exempted from the inspection of pri- of the popular voice. You have inves t e d should be subject to amendment on being discussed.w hich m ust ust sons. It will at once be perceived how closely this a character of sacredness—with a security The negociations were broken off, and the memorandum m t Report is connected with the present proceedings, add to their weight in any contest, if contest t here m us t in consequence was not signed. In this memorandum It did so happenhappenßeport to the distribution of the cells, the them. It is of the nature of all bodies of men, feel authorised under his instructions to affix his signa- associations in that prison, and the introduction of news- may be that of this House, and perhaps independence is t h at of ture to any treat. on the subject of the slave trade, which papers and books. From that statement a Report was the Bench of Judges, that having their did not declare, us a principle, the making that trade ordered to be /minted by the House, and it was in conse - secured they should endeavour to infringe en the privi piracy.be Viscount Sada Bandeira, on the part of the quence of that printing that an action was brought by Mr• loges of others ; and the Courts of Law may now Portuguese Government, stated that circumstances Stockdale against the Messrs. Hansard. I need not willing to assert their authority in opposition to ours. alone prevented his acquiescence in such a stipulation— relate the history of those proceedings to the House. It I feel the difficulty of carrying on the contest—l feel (Hear, hear)--- but he declared, on the part of was decidedly competent for this House to adopt any that in the course of it much inconvenience must arise, the Queen of Portugal, that her Faithful Majesty line of conduct with reference to that case that they but in considering our present situation, and the posi was ready to acquiesce in any general measure pleased. They might have altogether abandoned their tion in which we stand, it appears certain that whatever which might be adopted by the other European resolutions, but they determined to vindicate their pri- be those evils, and whatever that independence we may Powers on this subject. Viscount Sada Bandeira and vileges. The Attorney-General instructed the Messrs. have given the Courts of Law, it should not be used Lord Howard de Walden, having considered the Hansard not to take any notice of those proceedings against us. If we yield in this instance we shall not various inconveniences which must arise in consequence which were instituted against them. The result of those only give one privilege, but we shall be submitting to of any delay in the signature of the treaty, agreed to proceedings is already before the House. It was con- all future Judges any privileges of ours which they may affix their signatures to the treaty, sub spe rata, under sidered necessary for the vindication of our privileges to wish to destroy. As the House of Commons has such a mutual pledge that, in the event of the treaty, as it take one important step in this transaction by punishing important functions—being part of the High Court of then stood, not being accepted by the British Govern- one of the offending parties who were concerned in Parliament—being the grand Inquisitor of the nation, menu, that the fact of any signatures having been at- bringing this action ; and this House have voted that bound to examine into all grievances, to impeach and Cached to such treaty should be concealed, and the these proceedings against the Messrs. Hansard was a prosecute all offenders, to give those supplies w hich are whole p rocee di ng cons id ere d as nu ll an d vo id. N o breach of the privileges of this House, and in conse- necessary to carry on, even for a single week, the Go date had b een a ff i xe d to t hi s memoran d um , an d i t hail quence of which they have committed to the custody of the vernment of the country, to pass those measures of legis never been signed ; but it had been given by Lord Sergeant -at-arms Mr. Stockdale. The question now is, lation which the state of the country and the improve- Howard de Wald en t o Vi sco unt Sada Bandeira in the whether it may be necessary for this House to take fur- meat of the laws may from t ime to time:require=s g require—fee g e course of the csgoc i a ti o n, which had taken pl a ce t o - t h ee procee di ngs aga i nst any o f t h e o th e r parties con- as Ido that we have all these hi g h func t ions to die wards the end of May. In the course of those nego - cerned. And let me here state the particular situation —feeling thatwe h ave g reatduties to which we are bound, defiant' flesh difficulties had been started, and, in con- in which this House is now placed, in order to the yin- I think I should betray and des ert my obligatio ns if 1 sequence, this memorandum had never bees signed; dication of our own proceedings, and the exercise of recommended to the House of Commons to continue to but it showed the conditions , w hi c h a l one L or d the functions with regard to the C ourts o f L aw . exerc i se i ts hi g h f un ctions, to maintain it s p lac e the in sti Howard de Walden had consented to sign a treaty Any Court of Law which finds its proceedings Legislature, and to held its grou nd among t he con - wiehout an express stipulation declaring that all trade obstructed has decidedly an opportunity of questioning tuent parts of this noble empire , and y et consent t h at in slaves should be considered piracy. Viscount Sada those obstructions. We have heard from that clever their powers should be weakened and paralysed, or Bandeira had stated the impossibility of signing the and,intailigent man, Mr. France, who holds the office finally, perhaps, destroyed , when any of the courts of treat:- with the declaration required, and Lord Howard of Under-Sheriff, the course which the Court of Chan- justice may think fit to pronounce that those privileges, de Walden had answered that he would sign the cery would pursue in such a case. The Court of Chan- which were once ours, should be reversed or overturned tr e aty it' the Portuguese Government would make a c ery would no t comm it an y p a rty who were under the by the decision of any body in the State. —(C"rs.) fermi declaration, that although they were not jurisdiction of a n o th er tribunal, but they would proceed The Noble Lord concluded by mov in g the h following then prepared to declare the slave trade piracy, yet by an order for an injunction, and atop the plaintiff im- resolutions :--, they would de so at some future time, either alone mediately from taking further steps. The Court of 4, That it appears to this House that an execution in or in c,onjutietion with the other powers of Europe, Exchequer w ill p ro t ect t h e i r own o ffi cers , a nd support the case of Stockdale against Hansar d, has been l evied and se far was there f rom b e i ng an ythi ng . like the jurisdiction they possess. With regard to the House to the amount of 6401., on the property of Messrs. Han deuble-dealing on the part of Lord Howard de Walden o f Lords, in all the cases that have happened, it does sand, in contempt of the privileges of this House, and that throughout the whole transaction the papers which appear, generally s p ea ki ng , b u t w ith o ne or two exeep , that such money now remains in the hands of the She had already, been laid before Parliament, and those tion, that the plaintiff is stopped at once in his procee d- riffs of Middlesex." which lied been subsequently received, and which would ings, and both the plaintiff and his attorney committed The Nosee LORD said, that if that resolution should be laid on the table of the House with the next batch to prison by that House, in consequence of bringing be carried, he would then move the second resolution : of papers, showed that nothing could be more fair or s uch action. But with respect to this case, during the ii That the said Sheriffs should be ordered to refund straightforward than Lord Howard de Walden's con- prorogation of Parliament an action may proceed, and the said amount forthwith." duct, or more conformable with the spirit o f his instruc- may be afterwards carried on er not by the original parties. tiers, although he bad, perhaps, taken upon himself to F. KELLY rose for the purpose of proposing but the Sheriff and Under-Sheriff are then made to de- Mr. • a n amendment to the motion of go rather beyond them. He thought it necessary tocertain resolutions as ride themselves what conduct the shall pursue. The assure the House that it state this in ja,tice to a most meritorious and zealous C this.. y . . question for House to consider is a most serious one, the Noble Lord. He could to differ servant of her Majesty. with sincere regret he felt himself obliged namely, whether they shall take any steps against the was with . Mr. Sergeant JACKSON had certainly made someon this question with many friends of his. It was ne on with re and to their interfering with the procee d- Strong observations upon the document, which most un- •cessary, however, to enter on the subject with a total that have g l d taken lace, and prevent the pay-ings a . rea y . doubtedlv he ',mild not have done bed he been aware this P of the of absence of party feeling, and of any prejudice on one meat to the plaintiff in case of any satisfactory explanation of the affair. He p roduced b h sale of the Messrs. Hansard's goods. by the e conli4sseo that although the Noble Lord bad entered Now it does appear to me that in considering this case to proceed on an occasion of this nature with too much into a long explination, he (Mr. Sergeant Jack-deliberation , with too much care, or with too much we must lay aside the degree and amount of blame or son) (mist say that it. was not at all satisfactory of moral c ulpability ,whichmay attach itself to the caution. He was sure that even . the Noble Lord would to hos :Mad, see that, from whatever cause it may have arisen, this what Sheriffs. The question with regard to us is, in . Si S. I•USIIINGTON rose to order. He thoughtence of the proceedings which have manner the privileges of this House may be best pre- H ouse, l in consequence the discussion, according to the rules of the House w ith regard to the several actions brought House, served. Ido not mean to impute either to the Sheriffs ta k en Pee waii total) , irregular. A Member might put a ques-Sto ckd ale , placed in a situation of great, of corn or to the Judges, or to any of the persons who acted by -and is difficulty. He should feel tion in perfect regularity, but he must be content with by an order of a Court of Law, that they have unlaw- placated, un examp led such answers as might he given him.—(Laughter.) If fully and intentionally done what was wrong in contra- himself exceedingly fortunateif he could suggest to the that rxns - ,Cr Wa , ; not satisfactory to his mind, he had vention to the privileges of this House. Ido not im- House any course which they could pursue on the oc au :triple . pport unity of bunging forward the clues- pute to them the blame of acting contrary to what they cation, and which, without compelling them to depart tom again by notice ot oration, knew to be their duty. But lam now merely consi- from the dignity and just privileges of their body, would The SPEAKER said there was no question but dering how your privileges are to be maintained. — allow the law and the Constitution to be upheld. He that the whole proceeding was irregular. It was (Cries of " Hear, hear.") The goods of a servant would state at once, and very briefly, the resolutions perfectly regular for an Hon. Member to put a question of this House have been seized because , in obedie n c e to which he would propose by way of amendment to the motion of the Noble Lord. It was his intention to end an answer to he elven to it. The Noble Lord,on rising, your orders, lie has printed and published papers which clanncti the inat;gence of the House while ho made you considered essential for the public information. submit to the House two propositions. The fi rst would a ra'her more lengthy answer than the rules of the The question now is, whether , his go ods having be, that, inasmuch as Hansard , the printers and the had acted a lbs t intenti on, House allowed him. He (the Speaker) understood that been thus seized, you w ill allow them to be serva nts of the House, strictly and lawfully, to obey the orders they that indulgence had been given, or he would have handed over to the plain tiff in the case? It all s had received from the H ouse in p rintin g the f. It it his duty to have interrupted him. The Hon. my opinion that you should endeavour a bove i which had led to the presen t p roceedin g s, mei Le • s.rited Gentleman was clearly irregular. things, to assert your privileges, and that you cannot p a p ers the House, and that it was expedient to in- Sir ROBERT PEEL—His Learned Friend had allow this to be done.—(Hear, hear.) Much has been it became to blame, and in asked a plan qtiestion in ten plain words. The Noble said as to how far the Sheriffs are . .. demnify the Messrs. H ansard for all the costs which they had incurred. He presumed that to that resolu which they Lord had not been content to answer the question sire- what respect, under the circumstances in . tion no objection would be made. The other resolution ply but had entered into a lengthened statement which, were placed, they ought to have acted. Ther e. is no was that, in the event of any future actions being brought to his mind, aas not at all satisfaetory. By the rules doubt but they must have been aware . .of the privileges . against the printers or publishers of the Ho use . by of the House i tau qiiestiou was to be prejudged because of this House, and they have had notice in the case ; reason of any publications made by its orders, it would no answer was made to the Noble Lord. and yet, notwithstanding that notice, they did proceed that the Mr. Sergeant JACKSON would not have said ato give authority for the seizure of the goods o f Messrs. be expedient Attorney-General should defend word upon the subj,ct had he not been alluded to ha' Hansard, and for the sale of their goods. O n the o the r such an action, and report the result to t h e House. the Noble Lord. He would give the N o bl e L or d up on b an d, we s h o uld consider that a question of this n snore ha ve ture expected some opposition to this resolution from those He who took a different view from him of the a fature occasion a formal opportunity o f ex pl a - h a d no t b een raised for many years, though we. nation ; that which he h a d r ece i ve d to-night was alto- merel exercised the uninterrupted practice of Puha- question. He felt it to be his duty to say, after what y Noble Lord, andafter the motion gether unsatisfactory to his mind.that, with had fallen from the meat in the case. I can, however, conceive which he had made, that resolutions more unwise, more Sir ROBERT PEEL—Would the Noble Lord few decisions on the subject, and having a . C ourt . ._ .. have any objection to the production of the instrutions of Law im • on them certain du , tie% it was unjustifiable, more i llegal, more unconstitutional— posing ( Cheers from the Opposition benches)—more impossible eder which Lord Howard de Walden had acted. situat i o n for them to pro- a most embarrassing to be obeyed without a total and direct violation of all Lord PALIdERSTON had not the slightest eb- nee d i n. Whil e wishing to awa rd a de g ree moral and legal obligations on the parts of those to r i ration, and they would be presented with th e oche, r o f pun i s h men t i n proportion to their g uilt, I the efo ou re ld w hom they were addressed, could not be brought for rapers. feel a t a grea t l os s to say what that punishmen t sh now ward by L , any legislative assembly even in the worst of Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged .to ask the Nobl e be. But that is not, i n rea lity, the question Ihave times. Before he came to the great question of privi ord whether the letter was written n consequence of to d ecide on. The quest i on i s , how I shall best aid in lege, in which the present discussion had arisen, he instructions from home, or did originate from Lord the maintenance of your privileges : and, if that is the begged to ask the Noble Lord how he was to enforce Walden. question, we can proceed no otherwise than by prose ' __obe di enc e to the resolutions which he had proposed. mid, the Is" was nes :- ' - - filling the Sheriffs • , f Shr iffy who are sworn officers of Lord PALMERSTOi. .., . letter . Jot conformity with the instructions from the House Go ,' vernment. i Mr. G. PALMER wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any arrangements were in pro grets for increasing the number of places for the deli very of letters by what were called cross - pos t s , in con tot mity wish the y promise of his predecessor. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER scarcely understood the question.—( A laugh.) 01 course a gradual extension of places for the delivery of letters wi,s being made, but that was a subject for the consideration of the Post-ofliee authorities. He was not aware that the subject had been under the 1 1 censideration of either himself or his predecessor. 1 Mr. GISBORNE begged leave to ask the Member 1 for Devonshire, whether he intended to make the mo -1 lion he had given notice of for the 28th of this month, in tile simple words of such motion, or whether he in terid.d to extend that nonce, in which case it would be very satisfactory for the House to be at once made aware of the exact form in which be meant to put it? Sir J. Y. BULLER said he was not prepared to give an exact answer to the question, but he thought he might say it would be in strict accordance with the motion he had given, although it might 110 t be in the precise words. Mr. C. BULLER asked the Noble Lord (John Russell) whether Government had it in contemplation to briug, forward any Bill with isii:renee to the Colo ' 'pits of. Van Dierueri's Land ? iLord J. RUSSELL stated in reply, that Govern euting this case still further, and by ca. ig before the bar of this House, not only in consequence of what they have hitherto done, but in order that the sums taken from an officer of this House may be re funded to him.—(Hear, hear.) I own I can see no other way in whi c h y ou can proceed on this subject. I cannot con ce i ve that it would be dignified in th is House, to give an or d er an d to require your Speaker i n the Chair to s i gn suc h an order, directing certain persons to print and publish docu ments for your use, and that when th e p erso n came afterwards to complain to you of the consequences of his obedience to your injunctions you should say, " We are not able to maintain that order, and you will obtain no redress, because the House of Commons is unable to maintain the power it has claimed of publish ing its proceedings." If you find that you have no such power, you had better then rescind all such orders.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.") You had better confine yourselves within the strict limits which the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench have laid down for you.—(Hear, hear.) You should, in that case, print your papers for the use only of the 658 Members of the House, and free Mr. Hansard from the danger of any future trials in consequence of his acting in obedi ence to your orders. I do not know who will think of proposing that mode of proceeding ; an d I h ave h ear d it generally admitted in the House, that it is for the public advantage—for the advantage of the kingdom at large, that our proceedings should not be confined to ourselves.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot con ceive that it would be right, in any view of this case, to They had a cue of the land, who are servants of her Majesty, bound to yield obedience to her writ, that writ being delivered to them by a Court of Law—those Sheriffs are now called before the House, after having received the Queen's writ, and after all the usual forms of law had been gone through in Westminster Hall.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) They were called on to yield obedience to that writ— they would have violated their oaths had they failed to do so, and they would have rendered themselves liable immediately and without redress, without appeal or de fence, to be committed to prison ; and now this House, not the entire Legislature, but one branch of the Le gislature—(Cheers from the Opposition benches) — having no power to make laws or to absolve the subject from obedience to them—(Cries of " Hear, hear") —by a single and unexpected resolution, commanded the Sheriffs to violate the law--to rescind the law—and to place themselves in a situation in which they would be imprisoned without redress, and that, too, where the parties have no other grounds to proceed on, than what he (Mr. Kelly) would show it was impos sible, by the law of Parliament which is but part of the law of the land, for one moment to maintain. This was the general nature of the resolutions which had been proposed. The House could not be called on to execute those resolutions unless the Noble Lord an d those who acted with him could convince the House that, by this means, the former orders of the House could be maintained not only according to those orders, THE SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1840. but aCcording to the general laws and constitution o f the country. He would no* at once call the atten tion of the house to the first of those three resolutions of 1837, in which the course now proposed to be car ried into effect was firs t pointed out. The purport of that resolution Wart, that the right to print their proceedings was an essential part Of their privileges. If the House would, instead of resting this matter on the questionable ground of privilege, rest it upon that of public utility, they w ould proceed much more use- Hit its their deliberations, and their discussions would be rittielt Meek likely to command public respect. It was, he Contended, of the tamest importance that the proeeedings of that House should be communicated to the public; Mid if the measures now contemplated with reference to this filtrate'r streeeeded, he should regret to find any of those with whOtti he *as accustomed to act, had been the meani of inflicting so great an injury epon the public.--(Heat', aii:. l cheers.) But while he adtilifted the utility of publishing the nroceedings of that House ; he Aid riot agree with those way advo cated an indiscriminate publication of all the docu ments which might come before them. The House of Commons, as well as the House of Peers, had certainly the power of publication—a power to which they had given the distinctive name and character of privilege. It was a privilege, however, not without its limits—it had its boundaries prescribed by law—it was a privilege as long as its exercise did not interfere with the rights of her Majesty's subjects ; but he denied that that House had a right to publish papers defamatory of and injurious to the subjects of this realm. He would not say that circumstances might not arise to justify a departure from the usual course of proceeding in a case like the present, but the great point of danger in the present case eras, that that House had placed itself in a state of conflict with the law, and the moment it as sumed to itself a power in opposition to the recognised law of the land, that moment there was an end to the corporate functions of the three united branches of the Legislature, with the independence of which such a usurpation of power was wholly inconsistent. He was not aware that such a power ever belonged to or was ever claimed by that House except in one single instance, he alluded to Dangerfield's Narrative. He maintained that House could not make new privileges for itself, and if, therefore, it attempted to do so by its decisions on this question it would establish for itself a privilege which could not be recognised by Parliament. It had ceased to be a question that no resolution could be found bearing any such interpretation, and the power it now asserted for itself rested on what was called Parlia mentary usage, originating, it appeared to him, upon re flection, at a most inauspicious period, for a less auspi cious one could not be chosen. It was in the time of the Long Parliament, in 1641 ; in that very year the same Parliament, forgetting the privilege of the other House, passed a resolution to deprive the Bishops of their seats ; and in the same year the Earl of Stafford was executed. To that year might the first assertion of that species of privilege be traced ; and from that year it had prevailed down to the present time. But the question was, was it lawful? The only plausible argument which be had heard advanced in favour of it, was, that for a century at least the pro ceedings of that House had been published, and yet no action had been brought for libel. He was not sur prised that now an individual should be found to strive against the power of that House. He could easily suppose parties smarting under provocation ; and instances where individuals, suf fering from the consequences of publishing the proceedings of that House, and who would doubt less be anxious to seek redress. They had, indeed, only to look to the past for many eases which were ac tionable, but none were brought till now. No doubt could be entertained but that even printers of news papers, publishing reports of debates in that House, if they contained anything defamatory, ware liable yet there never was but one instance in which such an action was brought. There was a case much animad verted upon and much discussed ; he alluded to Sir William Williams' case, who was prosecuted. The pub lication in question was called Dangerfield's Narrative. The statements contained in it were made public, and being highly defamatory of the Duke of York, an action was brought against Sir William Williams, the Speaker, for authorizing the publication, and 10,0001. damages awarded, but the action was overruled by that House, and he thought rightly and lawfully, for he maintained that every act performed by the Speaker was per. formed in obedience to the commands of that House. Yes ; he admitted that decision was in ac cordance with law.—(Here some Member asked " What law?") He (Mr. Kelly) would tell him what law—it was the law of England—(Hear, hear, and loud cheers)—which ever respected, and ever upheld the privileges of that House. They were part and parcel of the law of Parliament, and the law of Parlia ment was part and parcel of the law of the land.— (Cheers.) No Member of that House was punishable in Common Law for a nything done in that House, and could only be punished by the House itself. It was a very different thing to say that every other man %%as not punishable for what he might do. Dangerfield's, he considered a most unworthy and dan gerous proceeding. In the case of Topham the Judges were summoned to the bar—a Bill was brought in making the Attorney-General liable to pay the penalty. but which was subsequently thrown out. Dangerfield had been prosecuted in respect to the libel, and yet the judg ment was never challenged or impeached. He (Mr. Kelly) held it impossible for Members to exercise their legislative functions if they were liable to have actions brought for what they said. Then, as to the second resolution, he (Mr. Kelly) main tained that it could not be supported but with the annihilation of all the Courts of Justice in the country. This resolution was to the effect that, by the law of Par liament, that House was the sole and exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that it was a high breach of its privileges to bring any question of its privileges before any other Court. Now, first, as to the word " exclu sive." What was implied in that ? That no Court of Justice could enter upon the consideration of any pri vilege of that House. That was the view argued for by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, who con tended that the Courts of Law had no mode whatever of arriving at any knowledge of the law of Parliament— the lex parliamenteri. To a doctrine so alarming —so y e ) n w m o a u n l :I o w p h p o o s s e a i d t h , e , , h i f i g h t h e s e t A a u t t t h o o r n r i e t y y . , G t e h n a e t r o a f l utterly subversive of all the Courts of Law—he (Mr. l F LO K rd el p was right, the Court would have nothing to do but to declare privilege whatever was claimed as such. Now, he (Lord Denman) considered that, whenever any of his fellow-subjects demanded justice in his Court, he could not have any option as to withholding redress " —(Opposition cheers)—" and that, therefore, when in any case that came before him, the law of Parlia mentary privilege was concerned, he was bound to examine into, and decide upon it."—(Hear, hear.) Now, in all the discussions on this question, he (Mr. F. Kelly) had heard no answer to this. The Judges had been sworn to administer the law according to the best of their judgment, so that when questions were raised before them relative to privilege, or to any other subject—they must decide those questions. When the question was whether the House of Commons justly claimed any privilege, were the Judges to abandon the Court—to abdicate their functions ? The moment the name of the House was uttered, were they to decline entering into the question—to declare that they had no power ? Certainly not.—(Opposition cheers.) There could be no question, that whether it was a perogative of the Queen, or a privilege of the House of Commons, which came before the Court, the Court was equally bound to discuss and decide.—(Hear, hear.) The law of privilege was part of the law of Parliament, which was part of the law of England ; and this the Judges were bound by their oaths to administer in every point, to the best of their abilities and judgment.—(Hear, hear.) There were often mixed questions before the Courts of Law, involving questions of law with which they were not customarily cognizant. Take this case : an action to fulfil a contract for purchase of land, the defence being a defect of equitable title ; thus the Court of Law must incidentally decide that equitable question. So of questions involving Scotch or Ecclesias tical law. And was this novel doctrine ? On the contrary, in every case where the privilege of Parliament came C before tig. Courts o f Law, they had decided it ; as in that of rosby, where the question was, if the House could commit it s M em bers. Did the Court of Com mon Pleas de c li ne t h e p o int ? No. The y heard the arguments, and d ec id e d the case. -- ( Hear, hear.) Sup pose a Member committed to the Tower, the day of the prorogation of Parliament —suppose him committed on the warrant of a Secretary of State, for alleged slanderous words of the Queen or her Ministers—what would be th e a d v i ce o f the Attorney-General, if ap plied to by suc h a M em ber ? Why , to apply for his habeas corpus, unquestionably. But, on the Attorney- General's d oc t r i ne in this case of Stockdale, if the Court could not at all decide cases in which privilege was involved, the Court could not liberate the Member, who would thus be confined all the recess. Was it not the more reasonable doctrine, that the Court would enter on the question and liberate the prisoner, on the ground of his clear undoubted privilege, not to be liable out of the House for what he, uttered in it? —( Hear, hear.) So, in Burdett v. Abbott, Lord Ellenborough clearly heldthat the Court coulddeterminc on cases which involved privilege, and they did. But, then, in that and most other cases, they upheld the privilege. Was it, then, argued that only where they did support the privilege they would interfere in it, and that if they decided against the privilege, then they acted improperly ? Truly however enormous, this was the only reasonable expo sition of that second resolution. Was it to be said that if the Courts should be allowed to decide in this case, they would go on gradually depriving the House of all its privileges one after the other ? When they looked back on the legal history of this counts.), and on the decisions to which Courts of Law had come, did they really entertain the opinion that the Courts of Law would not maintain their privileges ? Why, dur ing the last century, since the case of Ashby and White, in every singl e case i n which the question of privilege had been raised in any Court of Law—from the ear liest cases down to that of Burdett and Abbott, the Court had upheld their privileges ; they had found that even to the dissatisfaction of many members the legal profession, the Judges had gone as far as ever the law would enable them, to uphold and defend their privileges ; and what reason had they to apprehend, be cause in this single case—single during a whole century, in which the people had been agitated with political questions—what reason had they to apprehend that there was some systematic usurpation contemplated by the: Judges, by which their whole privileges would be sacrificed ? It had also been observed, wen they had been urged to try the validity of this judgment, and bring a writ of error, that it was not right to commit their privileges to the consideration of the House of Lords. He begged their consideration for a few mi nutes to the real meaning of those who objected to a writ of error or any other proceeding. It was equivalent to saying, " You will—you never can extricate yourselves from the present diffi culty." He had heard it suggested by some Ho nourable Member, why not attempt a declaratory Act of Parliament ? and if they did so, to that proceeding they must obtain the assent of the other House of Par liament, which would be declaring it to be the law that t h e ti " ; . !ise of Commons possessed the privileges they „„h t i me ,;, .so that in making a declaratory Act of Parliament, they 1 ,,,;:21d submit the question to the House of Lords. If, therg:?e, they thought the House of Lords would agree to a declaratory Act, it would be at pri because in their opinion the House p,;,!tsessed th it, then vilege. If the law was that they possesse j upon a writ of error the House of Lords would ti:cree the same thing. Instead of a declaratory Act, there fore, if they were desirous the House of Lords should decree they did possess that privilege, they could be induced so to do, by proceeding legally, fairly, and ' constitutionally. It was said the Court of Queen's Bench acted on erroneous views of the law upon the question ; if so, let the House bring a writ of error, and appeal from their judgment to the House of Lords, and if the House of Commons, was right in supposing those: were their privileges, they were equally the same privileges on which the House of Lords must act in passing a declaratory Bill, and so must, upon this principle, decree the judgment to be erroneous, and reverse it. When he heard some alarm expressed of submitting their privileges, be deemed it to be chimeri cal. No Hon. Member was ignorant that the House of Lords was the highest Court of appeal in all civil and criminal judicature known to the law of this king dom. If, then, they trusted the House of Lords, as a court of appeal in all matters relating to their property, their liberties, and their lives, why hesitate to trust them on this question of their privileges. He must say it appeared to him that, if there was one question more than another on which an unfavourable view was least to be dreaded, it was this very question ; for it was not to be forgotten that if they removed this cause, by a writ of error, to the House of Lords, where the question would directly arise whether it was their privilege to publish all their papers, the House of Lords would not deny this to be the privi lege of the House of Commons, without at the same time denying that they possess it them selves. What reason had they, then, to apprehend their privileges would be treated lightly by submitting them to the House of Lords ? They must be aware the House of Lords had a claim to legal jurisdiction as a Court of Appeal, if either party in a cause desired to carry it there ; and if so, why should they object to submit their privileges to the House of Lords, which was not only the proper tribunal constituted to deter mine according to law, but had a common interest with themselves. But if the House of Commons were determined, while professing the judgment of the Queen's Bench to be wrong, to forbear putting that opinion to the test by appealing to a higher tribunal—if the House resolved to persevere in the course it had begun, he prayed its attention to the certain consequences. Let them take the case of Stockdale first. Was it be lieved, was there any Hon. Member who could believe that Stockdale was dragged an unwilling prisoner to their bar—that he came not only willingly, but they must have even despaired of bringing him before them, and continuing this unseemly contest ; if he had been desirous of eluding their pursuit, he need not come at all ; but he came at the first summons, and with greater courage than they had themselves—(Hear, hear) —he addressed them in language which, though apparently very submissive, plainly indicated that he despised their threats, and defied their power. And why ? because he knew that upon the rashness of the course pursued he was building up his own fortune. He had already, in con sequence of the House instructing the Attorney-Ge neral not to defend the second action, recovered seven hundred pounds in the shape of damages, not against Messrs. Hansard, but against the House of Commons, because the House of Commons was his real antago nist. Did they suppose he would stop where he was ? The House had said they would defend no future action, and that it was in its own power to maintain its own privileges ; that if one presumed to commence an action questioning these privileges, they would punish that person and all who assisted him ; but the action itself should be undefended. Were they aware of the consequences which must take place whenever a proro gation or a dissolution occurred ? Stockdale might afterwards commence an action for trespass and false imprisonment, and every day that he remained in cus tody was a day gained to him—every day he remained in their power would only swell the sum against them at last. In what position was the Sergeant at Arms placed? He would bring his action, not against the Ser geant at Arms, not against the Speaker of the House of Commons, but against an individual named Sir W. Gossett ; there would be nothing on the record that the Act was done in the exercise of their privilege. They would suffer judgment by default afterwards ; it must again proceed to judgment—the case would come before a Jury, who would be told that he had been oppressed, imprisoned, and ruined in this contest with the House of Commons. Did they suppose the Jury would be scrupulous upon the amount of damages ?—( Hear, hear.) And then what would that House do when damages were so recovered ? what course would they pursue ? He would still defy them ; they might impri son his person for contempt, but they could not take the money out of his pocket, and put it into that of the Sergeant at Arms. He would ask some Hon. Members on the other side if, in their zealous assertion of the principle of power, they thought this course would be of advantage to the public, who would be made victims to the amount of the sums recovered in the many actions that would be brought against them ? Had not the public a right to say " We, the people, have confidence in the law—we know that the law will be administered to you and us ; why, then, raise this question about privileges which you claim, not for our benefit, because they tend only to our injury ?"--(Hear, hear,) The publicwould have a right to call the House to account for the expense in which they were involved, as well as for the discredit and degradation the House would bring upon itself.— (Hear, hear.) They had entered into this contest — they had brought forward a man from the most un fathomable obscurity, one who defied them, one they could not injure, and one who would enrich himself at their expense. And, then, what was the next case ? The people would look at the case of the Sheriffs, if not of Stockdale, and deem the resolution unconstitutional when they saw the House stop an action because they said it involved their privileges. What justification had they to interpose with the Sheriffs ? They were in that situation wherein as officers of her Ma jesty they had duties to perform duties which they had sworn to perform—duties forced upon them, since they acted only in obedience to the writs issued to them. They had in this cause had various writs issued—they had faithfully and without any disrespect to the House, endeavoured to execute those writs, for which they were liable to fine ; and which had they not obeyed they would have been liable to the same fine : and now for the first time in history the House declared, that by the mere arbitrary power they possessed they would put their hands into the pockets of the Sheriffs, and compel them to pay it over to their order. He said that in the most tyrannical times, in 1641, in the very worst period of the Long Par liament, they would scarcely find an instance of more arbitrary power than this, that in an action begun by one of her Majesty's subjects, to which no defence was made, the House of Commons should interpose, and cause the Sheriffs to disobey the writ, and take the money from their hands, for which they were accountable to the Court and to the plaintiff— taking it from them by the strong arm of arbitrary power, and leaving them to take the consequences.— ( Hear, hear.) Why, it was observed by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that their conduct was not merely free from blame, but (he believed he added) commendable. If it was so, was it anything more than an usurpation—was it anything more than an act of arbitrary power—to take out of their hands a sum of money which the Attorney-General would tell them, and they knew, they would be compelled to pay into the Court of Queen's Bench ? Were they to be the losers of it, and obey the order of the House, and pay the money to Messrs. Hansard, when they would be called to pay the same sum into the Court of Queen's Bench? Was it to be said seriously that those gentlemen, whose conduct was ad mitted to be free from blame or suspicion, were to pay the sum of 6901., because they presumed to do their duty ? Had the House endeavoured to select an Act to bring reproach upon the House from the whole country they could not have selected one more calcu lated to effect that object. It was not his intention to trespass longer on the attention of the House--(Hear, hear)—but he entreated the House to consider that the cause in which they were about to interfere was not merely a regular proceeding of a Court of Justice, but that they were about to take money out of the pocket of a subject without any Parliamentary authority to do so. He therefore entreated the House to pause on these resolutions of the Noble Lord, and to look well before by assenting to them they brought disgrace and degra dation on the country.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then moved as an amendment his resolutions (which appear in the early part of his speech). Lord ELIOT said he was very anxious to say a few words on the course he deemed it their duty to pursue. It was his serious opinion that this was not only an important question, but that it ought to be care. fully kept from party feeling. He thought some lion. Members had not so considered it, but he should EVENING EDITION. not follow the example of those Hon. Gentlemen. No man was more anxious to maintain the just and necessary privileges of the House, but he remembered those privi leges were held on trust, and must be clearly es tablished to be just and necessary. If he might ex press a doubt, he should say the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just spoken, had laid down, rather broadly, the law of Parliamentary privilege, in stating that no Member was liable to any other jurisdiction for any crime committed within the walls of Parliament. He should not suppose that if any Hon. Member had was not only entitled to-morrow morning to get his 6001. but he would lay it down that every Court of Law in England was to judge of their privileges. If they adopted the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend, they i stabbed another he was liable to that House, but to another tribunal ; but whether so or not he would not then stop to inquire, but he conceived in order to assert and maintain privileges they should be just and necessary. How stomithe case of their pretensions ? He asked whe would come to the conclusion in all time to come, whoever chose to attack their privileges might go into a Court of Common Law, and that no attempt should be made on their part to vindicate their privileges. Was there no difficulty in that? Were they always to thrust themselves before the Courts of Law ?—( Hear, hear.) Their ancestors thought otherwise, for they took the law into their own hands, and decided upon their own privileges. He was rejoiced to think that they were not engaged in any struggle by which the Members of that House themselves might be' individually benefited, but that it was a struggle entirely and exclusively for the public. Let them now consider whether th e pro posal of his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colo nies was not one which would be attended with less danger, and one which they ought to follow. What was that proposal? That the Sheriffs should pay back the money to Hansard, and that if they refused they should be subjected to the displeasure of that House. Where was the objection to that proceeding ? His Hon. and Learned Friend said that it was contrary to law—that an action had been brought and judgment obtained, and therefore that it was contrary to law to deprive the plaintiff of the fruits of his judgment. If it had deen proved that the action had been properly com menced, and that Stockdale was entitled to obtain da- ther they would inflict a greater amount of injury on an individual than the community would derive good from it ? It must be remembered, this was not a grave and deliberate Parliamentary proceeding, for in Stockdale's case it would not be sufficent that there had been found in Ne w gate an obscenebook ; he considered caution should be exercised in the publication of mat ter considered libellous, but if it were necessary that all their papers should be laid before the public, he thought it fair the commu nity should pay for it, for he conceived the House could never do a wrong without there being a remedy. He admitted that every individual should be allowed to vindicate his character against aspersions brought against him. He believed the course the Noble Lord proposed would involve them in great difficulty, which every hour would become greater. He had therefore great pleasure in seconding the amendment. On the question being put, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not rise to follow his Learned Friend the Member for rnswich, in the very elaborate legal arguments he had b ro c , ght before the House. He had two strong reasonsfor avoiding that course. The first was th at hi s H on „,:able and Learned Friend had net moved to rescind the res,'lution of May, 1837, and the second, which was a very powet.ful one, and which he would wish to im press upon the House, was that there was now no room for delay, for from informato l cm which he could rely heknew that a motion would be math: at the sitting of the Court to morrow morning to make the rule absolute to compel the Sheriffs of Middlesex to pay th.l money to Stockdale. So that the House must that night nme to a resolution. night come —(Hear, hear.) He hoped they would that e Sheriffs sho o to a resolution which would be obeyed by Middlesex, and give them ample cause tot. bew against the rule, upon which the rule woe, . discharged.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") With .re . gard to the resolutions of his Learned Friend, he thou& they had met with strong support in that House ; they had passed unanimously, and no motion was made to rescind them, and it was but lately that they were considered as the foundation of any proceedings to which the House might resort. As to the question of the privilege of publishing whatever they conceived ne cessary for the public to know, he trusted there were not many Members who entertained any serious doubt —(Hear.) That privilege rested on the foundation of necessity, of exercise, of acquiescence, and of authority. It was allowed on all hands that that House could not properly perform its functions unless it was at liberty to publish all that it was necessary the public should be informed on. For two centuries back they had enjoyed that privilege ; and it was unnecessary to go beyond the time of Richard the First, or to the origin of legal me mory before printing was known. Down to the present period these proceedings had been maintained, and if there was any additional mode by which information could be communicated to the public, he contended that that should be adopted by the House of Commons,and it would rest upon the principles on which the House of Commons had always acted. Had there not, he would ask, been uniform acquiescence, with the excep tion of the indictment against the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Wm. Williams, in 1641 ? No at tempt had been made to interfere from that period, by civil or criminal proceeding, with any officer or Member of the House, for anything done in pursuance of the orders of the House of Commons. In the case of the King v. Williams, an information was laid by the At torney-General, which was now generally allowed to be illegal and unconstitutional.—( Hear, bear.) Since that time the practice of publishing had been held to be legal, and no action had been brought or prosecution instituted for so doing. There had been since that time various persons like Mr. Stockdale, who, if they had met with any encouragement, and thought that an action might be maintained, most undoubtedly could have prosecuted them ; but until Mr. Stockdale, in the present time, prosecuted the printer of the House of Commons for what he had done in pursuance of its orders, the House would observe that no attempt had ever been made to impugn what was done under the authority of that House. Well, then, as an authority had been quoted against him on the other side, he would remind the House of the Bill of Rights itself, which in the most express terms said—" No one is to be questioned for what is done in Parliament ;" which meant by the authority of Parliament.—(Cries of " Ohl" from the Opposition benches.) He believed that construction could not be questioned by any law yer on the other side of the House. It was clearly the intention of the Legislature or Parliament, by which that enactment was made, that the Speaker should be exempted from any indictment or action, and that nothing which was done under the authority of Parliament should be the foundation of an indict ment or action against the clerks at the table—against the sergeant-at-arms, or against the printer. It was quite clear, therefore, that those who framed that Act of Parliament were of opinion that what was done by authority of either House of Parliament was to be con sidered, so far as the Courts of Law ware concerned, as that which could afford no opportunity of bringing any action, prosecution, or indictment.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, he bad only to remind the House of what was laid down in the case of the King v. Wright, where all the Judges, with one voice, not only declared that no action could be brought against the printer for printing anything by authority of that House, but that that which the House had authorised might be republished and could never be considered a libel. His Hon. and Learned Friend opposite had referred to the case of the King v. Dangerfield, but he (the Attorney-General) would say that that had not the smallest bearing on the case now under consideration.—(Hear, hear.) There was not the slightest trace by which it could be shown that the indictment of Dangerfield was for what he had done by authority of the House of Com mons. He hadlooked with the greatest anxiety and care over all the reports of the proceedings, and he would venture to say that there was not the slightest reason to suppose that in the indictment against Dangerfield there was anything to show that he had been proceeded against for what he had done by the authority of that House, or that he ever set up the authority of that House as a defence to the prosecution. For anything that appeared it might have been an indictment for something that he had done before he had presented that Narrative before the bar of the House. There was, therefore, no authority for supporting the doctrine which his Noble and Learned Friend had maintained, and they had necessity, exercise, and acquiescence, and all the decisions that had ever taken place, in their favour.—(Cheers.) With respect to the point of the House being a judge of its own privileges he might oc cupy their time for many hours in referring to decisions from the earliest times down to Lord Tenterden, in which the Courts of Law and Equity had determined over and over again that the Houses of Parliament were the proper Judges of their own privileges.— (Hear, hear.) Not only had he resolutions of both Houses on that subject, but he had these resolutions confirmed and acquiesced in by all the Courts of 'West minster Hall. He might refer to one or two names of Judges by whom that doctrine had been laid down. First, there was Lord Coke, Blackstone, Powis, Justice Powell, Lordeamden, and Lord Chief Baron Comyn. Sir E. SUGDEN—What does Lord Camden say ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The only in stance of the kind which came before his Lordship was that in which it was argued that the House of Commons had power to commit without examining upon oath, and in that case he said" the rights of that Assembly are ori ginal and self created—they are paramount to our juris diction, and above the reach of prohibition, injunction, or error."(—Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Thenit was said, what are the Judges to do ? Upon a former night the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Ripon had cited an authority to show that they had a right to inquire into the privileges of Parlia ment. With great submission he thought that :the Right Hon. Gentleman had fallen into a mistakelas to what was laid down as there decided, because if he examined into other authorities, he would find that that referred to one of the cases, first—where the question arose incidentally, and in that case of necessity the Judges must decide it, just as they would have to decide upon a point in the law of France or of Scotland, if it came incidentally before them. Secondly, where the Court entertained an opinion that the other House had clearly travelled be yond its jurisdiction, by asserting something which was monstrous, illegal, or preposterous—for example ; to take an extreme case where the House of Commons might order a man to be put to death for any supposed offence. It would require very little pains or time to determine that that was illegal—that in that instance they had travelled entirely beyond their jurisdiction, and therefore the Judges might inquire into it. But had it ever been said that in the present instance the House had travelled beyond its jurisdiction? He ap pealed to the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, or the Hon. and Learned Members for Huntingdon or Liverpool, or any other great lawyer on the Opposition side, and he believed they would admit that the House of Commons had acted strictly within its jurisdiction in the present case, and, therefore, no Court of Law had authority to inquire into its exercise. All of them must admit that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, was contrary to law. They were now to consider what was to be done in the present position of afairs.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted that the question was fraught with great difficulties, but these difficulties were not all on one side. They were involved in still greater diffi culties if they receded from their present position. Ac cording to the doctrine laid down by his Hon. and Learned Friend who had last spoken, Mr. Stockdale mages, they would be guilty of a most monstrous injus tice in preventing him from reaping the fruits of his verdict ; but—and he addressed himself to that portion of the House who were of opinion that the action was commenced contrary to their privileges—that the judg ment had been illegally obtained—that it was a nullity and contrary to law ; and he contended that they would be acting in accordance with the law when they set that judgment aside. He thought the house was entitled to call upon the Sheriffs to pay back the money, and that they would incur no responsibility by obeying the orders of the House. They were told that the Sheriffs were sworn to execute all the Queen's writs ; the oath they had taken was relied on, and it was argued that they would be guilty of perjury if they did not execute the writ of fieri facies, and pay the money over to Stockdale. He, the Attorney-General, contended that the Sheriffs were bound to obey the law, and if the law was to obey the mandate of the House of Commons, that then they would act according to the law and their own conscience. If it was part o€ " the good laws of the realm" that the House of Com mons had privileges, and that the Sheriffs were bound to obey them, they would be acting in accordance with them, and with the letter and spirit of their oath, in re paying the money to the Messrs. Hansard. In the warrants ued to the Sheriffs, there was a caution to them not to execute any writ upon persons who had privilege. Was not their officer a privi leged person, by order of the House of Commons ? He contended that he was a privileged person as much as an Ambassador, or atiy other privileged person. Hon. Members on the other side of the House appeared to hope that they would be disappointed.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But did they wish that House to be brought down to the le , . el of Pie- Poudre Courts ? (Hear, hear.) Where the Sheriffs acted in a bona fide and reasonable manner, he was satisfied the Court of Queen's Bench would not do anything in so odious and arbitrary a manner as to send these gentlemen, for obeying the order of the House of Commons, to prison. He concurred in the character which had been given to the Sheriffs by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He thought that they had behaved fairly and honourably, and as might be expected from officers doing their duty.—(Hear, hear.) They were now engaged in a vital struggle. They were compelled to take the present steps or submit to be for ever stripped of all the privileges which they enjoyed, and which were essential to the performance of their duty. Unless they proceeded against the ministerial officers, whom he con tended had violated the law, they must give up those privileges which had been handed down to them from their ancestors. If the Sheriffs refused to obey the order of that House, and insisted on paying the money over to Stockdale, then he thought they would have violated the privileges of that House ; and although it would be with the greatest reluctance and pain that he should do so, he thought no course would be left them but to pro ceed against the Sheriffs.—(Hear, hear.) He ought to have stated, when he expressed a hope that the Court of Queen's Bench would not deal with severity with the Sheriffs, if they obeyed the order of that House, that he trusted they would act according to the precedent which had been set in the case of Miles and Windsor In that instance a writ of fieri facies was issued against a resident in Kensington Palace, and the Sheriff re fused to execute it. In that case, Lord Ellen borough laid it down that the Sheriff was not called upon to expose himself to the risk of a prosecution from the Board of Green Cloth, for invading one of the Royal Palaces, and that he was justified in his refusal. He trusted on the authority of that case, that if the Court of Queen's Bench should see that the Sheriffs had acted bona fide in obedience to the mandate of the House of Commons, they would not proceed with severity against those officers, who were not officers of that Court, but who were bound to obey the law. He had collected a num ber of precedents, which, with the leave of the Houses even at the risk of appearing tedious, he would pro- ' ceed to detail, and which showed that both the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, had frequently acted upon the principle now laid down as the founda tion of the present proceedings. His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Ripon had stated that the House of Lords would not interfere with an action, but would suffer every case to proceed regularly, according to the forms of the Courts of Law ; and he had quoted. the resolution of 1704, in the case of Ashby and White, Now he would quote various cases, to show that the House of Lords had constantly interfered with the pro ceedings of Courts of Law in vindication of the privi leges. There was the ease of Parks in 158.5, in which the Lords had ordered thiat the Marshal of the . Queen's Bench should stand discharged from any act i on that might be brought against hio fot the liberation of a debtor in consequence of their o rders. In this case the Lords did not say, according to ttie doctrine laid dawn by his Hon. and Learned Friend, that the Attorney- General should appear in Court, and should put in the plea of privilege, but they issued an injunction against the bringing of ally action at all. Again, in 1625, the Viscountess Purbeck complained of an arrest. On that occasion the party arresting, and the boiliff exe cuting the writ were ordered to appear at the bar of the House of Peers, and the plaintiff was committed to prison. In 1695 occurred Sir John Butler's case. Sir John Butler and Mr. Clayton were, by order of the House of Lords, attached for indicting the Sergeant at Arms, for an action done in obedience to the Orders of the House. According to the Honourable a nd Learned Member for Ipswich, this was an exceedingly improper proceeding. They ought to have pleaded to the indictment, but they did no such thing ; they in terfered in a summary manner, and sent to gaol the persons offending. In Keys' case, the House of Lords had ordered their Gentleman Usher to bring before them a person who had been committed by the Barons of the Exchequer ; and having heard the Barons of the Exchequer and the party, had ordered him to be set at liberty, and had al s o ordered that no furth er action should be brought but what had already taken place. In Cogan's case, a servant of the Queen had been arrested by the Under-Sheriff of Surrey ; the House, after debate, ordered that the Sheriff s hould attend at the bar, that the prisoner should be discharged out of custody, and that the Warden of the Fleet should be free from molestation on account of Cogan's discharge. In Digger's case an action had been brought for false imprisonment against a Justice of the Peace, who, in obedience to the orders of the House, had com mitted a person to prison. In that, the attorney bring ing the action, and the plaintiff, were both committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman having cited some more cases he should conclude this part of his argument by citing the case of Bell and Glasse ; that case had been sur f posed to be a casein which an action had been brag"' dst f egwmt J ao o se nhrt recover onav Bell tneh dr a the washrt e o h proces s value for taking away an umbrella from the House, but it was not so ; it was an action to recover the value of the um brellaiptsiois;:neutdmosfba;:cseatitlink7sn—etgnFh.eexr eer A dceeuc t rtoi t i evo h ken e r, e s aGd u ni i dja t us o i of Lords interfered. They ordered Bell to the bar, an d would have committed him to Newgate had he not made the most humble submission and p romised not to proceed any further. This occurred in p lB o 7 and-thus it was found from the earliest time down to 1827 that the . Houso of Lords was constantly interfering to asser t ls.nuo said : t u ' s s O e f e their privileges, and putting a stop to actions in Courts of Law. Now, what h a d the H ouse o f C ommons done in similar cases ? There was Burrowes's case in 1543, in the time of Henry the Eighth' Burrowes had been elected Member for the Borough of Kingston ; he had been arrested in the Ci t Y of Lond on an d carr i ed to the C ompter . Th e S er gean" , at Arms had been sent to liberate him, and this wil ts the r prin c ipl e on w hi c h t h e H ouse h a d a l wa ys acted . Thu Sergeant at Arms, on his arrival at the Compte r ' was assaulted by the City officers, and his mace broke°' The Sheriffs arrived and took part with their bailigs, and the Sergeant at Arms'returned without Burrrowe9' On complaint being made, the House again ordered the Sergeant at Arms to go to the Compter to liberate th e prisoner. Having obtained more support he liberate the prisoner ; the Sheriffs and all the officers concerned were summoned to the bar. The Sheriffs were CO °1 ; mated to the Tower, and the other o ffi cers to differ e n t prisons, and all were retained in custody until they peti tioned the House and apologised for their condu e " This was an instance of the House of Commons assert ing its own authority, and not having recourse , t° Courts of Law. In 1604 Sir Th omas Shi r l e y, `",..° had been recently elected a M em b er o f the lieu was arrested by the Se rgeant at M ace an d et mitted to the custody o f t h e W ar d en o f t"" Fleet. Upon this the House issued a ward rant of Habeas Corpus. The Warder appea r l at the bar, and refused to give up his prisoner. •", was . ordered to be con im i tte d to t h e T ower ; an d, p° refusal, he was com m it te d to t h e d ungeon o f Little-ens