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

EVENfNG Er JITIoN iuntil, on making an apol, 7gy and sub mission, h e was re leased. In 1676, in the eye of S terling, an attorney ' was committed for breach i it privil cm in commencing 'an action against a Mem, t ‘ier. In 1704 occurred the memorable case of Ashby a nd NI /hits. ThiF, might be the; re th e y h denominated an extreme case ; ' h -a( / , committed several pe rsons f or cowmen clog actions , which the House of Lords had determi used migb' t be brought. The House committed these persons privil ege , an d t h e warrants e: tpressee4 on the face of them the cause o f comm i tment ; ar A il excep t H o lt, a ll the J u d ges h e ld that the comr aitineir far breach of ,ts were good. It I had been said that time the H oust) had not exercised this privilege, simply because tl ley had not been. called ou so to do. Eleven out of • 'the twelve Judgr.:s had decided in favour of the House ri Commons, and Black 1, s tone,Ellenborough,and Tends rden had held that. Holt was wrong, and that the eleven we . e right, and in their decision they had acquiesced from ti Jat time to the present. He would mention a ease, to, w hi c h his Learned Friend ' had referred, and that W as the case of. Joy v. Topham, which took place in the Convention Parliament, that Parliament to which we were indebt ed for the Consti tution as we at pr esent possessed it. Pemberton and Jones, who at th at time had ceasr i d to be Judges, were summoned to ene bar, and questioned . as to a judg ',neat they had delivered, in which privilege had been pleaded, and they had overruled the plea ; they ac knowledged that their decision was not just, if the plea had been properly pleaded, and they were com mitted to the custody ',f the Sergeant -at-arms. This could not be called a precedent taken from bad times. ' His Hon. FrieTad had referred to 1640 and 1641, but many of the tidings which had been done then had been done with he full consent of the Crown, and many laws wb.ich were then made continued still in force. At all events, such an observation -could not be applied to the time of the Convention Parliament, which was one of tide brightest periods of our history. What took ~ Alace then took place at a time when Lord So%nees was the highest legal authority in the country, and when Holt himself was a Member of the Hou se of Commons. Were not these sufficient prec'Jdents for the vindication of their privileges and over-ruling the decisions of the inferior Courts ? lie would now refer to the Reports of a Comraittee, of the House of Commons in 1771. At that time Crosby was Lord Mayor of London, and such a flagrant violation of privilege was committed by the Cit y aut h or i t i es, that the Serge an t- a t-A rms was arrested in the execution of his duty. It would be forted at page 199 of the 17th vol. of the Parliamentary Eistory, and it stated that the privileges of Parliament had been infringed by evasion, by force, and by abuses of the law. These points were proved by the evasion 'of the parties, and the riots which had occurred, and , the refusal to assist the Sergeant -at-Arms. In order to remedy these abuses, the House proceeded to address the Crown to issue its proclamation for the apprehen s i on of the persons who had evaded the orders of Coe House by renewing the orders previously issued, ant by issuing h orders to all mayors, bailiffs, sheriffs, to assist the Ser geant-at-Arms in apprehending such person., and directing 1 to call upon all such mayors and sheriffs for their assist ance, and by committing for breach of privilege those offi cers who had refused to assist the servants of the House, and by restraining the bringing of suits and actions begun and carried on against the officers, and directing that such actions should be annulled and discontinued, and that the House would proceed to annul those actions by committing those Judges, who had proceeded to treat of privilege for words or aotions spoken or done in obedience to the orders of the House. All he contended for was that the House was competent to restrain sui cs and actions brought con trary t'a its privileges, and to tinier them to be discontinued, and he would ask the House now to say whether it would submit to have its privileges subject to the interference of any tribunal in the country, and hold them at its mercy ? Aye or no. The 1.4r4V7 Courts had a ll exerc i sed the same pe•we r of committin g for contempt and of restraining actions from being brought. The Exchequer had frequently or dered actions brought against the authority of that Court to be brought there from other Courts or to be disconti nued. In the case of Baily v. Evans, the Court of Chan cery had not suffered the Court of Queen's Bench to pro ceed in an action brought against one of its officers, and there could be no doubt it would have interfered just as much after judgment as before—and if both Houses of Parliament and the Courts of Law bad uniformly acted in this manner, would the House of Commons now say that they would recede from the privilege and submit themselves to be buffettedmad insulted byeveryperson who may choose to do so? He (the Attorney-General) was aware of the difficulty of the j un cturr , --nobody felt it more deeply then he did; it had given isira the greatest anxiety, and it was not without having eieeply pondered the case that he could venture to advise the course now to be adopted. Let them do their , best, and employ all the means the law and Constitution 1 p'ir,c e d in their hands for the preservation of their rights.— (Cheers.) Then they would not be blamed whatever might be the issue; but it seemed to him that they would be much blamed by posterity if, without a strenuous effort, they surrendered the privileges inherited from their fore fathers. He (the Attorney-General) was not afraid of public feeling.—( Hear, hear.) The more the public un derritood, the more they would approve of the decided part proposed to be adopted. In fact, be believed the public would blame the House of Commons if they were then to fall back and succumb to the Common Law. '1 here was some difficulty, he admitted—( Hear, hear, from the Oppo sition)—but let them be firm—let them act with vigour-- and no doubt the issue would be successful ; their privi leges would be preserved and handed down to posterity. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN then rose and said, that he had entered on the subject with a fixed determination to let nothing aggravate or irritate him, and, in the end, to come to a conslusion with the greatest moderation. He owned that few speeches had ever struck him as more ex traordinary than that which had just' fallen from the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General.—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir E. S ug d en ) spoke not of the disagreeable posi. tion in which the Learned Attorney-General had been placed by being the Attorney-General of the Crown, and the urger of the resolutions against the law of the land. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had told the House that the opinion of the Judges was illegal, and that theirs was a just and legal resolution. If they said that they had privileges, which they contended were perfectly under stood, when they said they could support those privi leges by the power which the Constitution gave, they did not then deny that the Judges had made a most legal judg ment, but when they determined to leave the question to the decision of the law, their privileges were become law. His Hon. Friend had made assertions which he ( Sir E. Sugden, was bound to say were directly opposite to law, and the authorities of the Constitution.—( Hear, hear.) The Learned Attorney-General had told the House that their privilege depended on necessity, acquiesence, and authority. He (the Attorney-General) had said that they had been exercised for at least a couple of centuries, therefore there was acquiescence, and he presumed necessity. He had told them that since the case of Sir William Williams there had been no impeachment of the privileges of the House. He ( Sir E Sugden) asked what had become of Burdett and Abbott? Was not that an action against the Speaker himself, and the Speaker was not dragged before the Court of Queen's Bench, but he gracefully walked there accompanied by the whole House of Commons. They then went to the Queen's Bench with the Speaker—the Speaker did not withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the Court of Law—( Hear, hear)—but submitted the great legal point to a Court of Justice. It was argued with all the ability, learning, and zeal of the English bar. It was next I carried into th e Exchequer Chamber, a n d th e S pea k er went before the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber. They again decided against the plaintiff, but still he was dissa tisfied, and carried it to the Lords, whose privileges he (Sir E. Sugden) said were identical with theirs. In that case, the great question was the right to commit the Mem , bers for libellinglthe House. If ever there was a case which justified the House standing forth in defence of its privileges, that was the case. Whereas, in the present ease they were beset with diffi cu l t i es ; f or t h ey were de fending a person out of the House, for an act done by their authority. He (Sir E. Sugden) apprehended, there fore, that his Learned Friend was wrong in his first posi tion. As to the second position of the Learned Attorney - General, he was astonished at the assertion that the case was provided for by the Bill of Rights. Now that rea soning, he was certain, would astonish the profession, when they heard it stated by her M ijesty's Attorney- General that the case was provided for by the Bill of Rights. A more unfounded and more wantonly incorrect mis-statement ho ( Sir E. Sugden) had never beard of in the whole course of his existence.—( A laugh.) The passage to which his Learned Friend referred, was :beyond all doubt intended to apply to personal freedom and the rights of Members. As regarded the particular question in the case of Sir William Williams, the Speaker had acted by the order of the House, and that was con sidered one of the privileges provided for by the Bill of Rights. But actions were brought against the printers in that case. , Lord HO WIC K—Not against the printer of the House. Sir E. SUGDEN—Yes, against the printer of the House, and some thousands were recovered. His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, did not pre. tend to dispute those cases, for it did not appear that he was aware that they had ever existed.--( A laugh.) Now his Learned Friend had said—and it was important—that papers published by order of either House of Parliament, could give no right of action. The privilege was defended, but the power was not defended, and his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, maintained that they had the power to determine whatever resolutions hey thought fit. He (the Learned Attorney_General) eferred to the case of King and Wright, and said—he ( Sir Edward Sugden) had taken the words down, for he had great respect for his Learned Friend's legal knowledge-- that then it was decided that no action could lie for what was printed by the order of the House.—(The At torney. General—" No.") He was glad his Ho n. _ Friend h a d amended his language, for he had distinctly heard him say that no action could lie. There had been an applica tion in the case to the Court of Queen's Bench for a cri minal information. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had said that the House in that case bad ordered the Report to be'printed. He ( Sir Edward Sug den) ;said it was no suc h t hi ng . I t was a n order tha t the Report s h ould be printe d f or t h e use o f the Me mbers only--he thought, and no one could ever deny, but that was a privilege. In the Queen's Bench Lord Kenyon was of opinion that it was a libel. But that case was different from the case where a Report was pub lished to the world generally. The Attorney-General said the ease of the King and Wright had never been im peached—so far from that being the case, it had been fre quently disputed, and in particular by Lord Ellen borough, in the case of Burdett and Abbott. 1 The Learned A ttorney_General had said their resolutions were binding against the Courts of Law. He ( Sir Ed ward) should like to know where was his authority for that position ? His Hon. and Learned Friend had referred to Lord Camden. Ho (Sir Edward Sugden) was sure that Lord Camden never made any such statement as that the privileges of that House could not be examined into by the Courts of Law. The Learned Attorney-General, in DIE SUN, _LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 2l, 1840 referring to strong cases, was rather too late—it was too lion. and Learned Member for Ripon. In 1722 a formal late now to defend the commitment—it was too late after complaint was made in the House of Lords that in a Re the exercise of power to bring an authority to prove that port of the House of Commons, in which the evidence of a you exercised it properly. Lastly, as to the case of Ashby witness was quoted, they had imputed to Lord Kinnoul and White—out of the twelve Judges, five held that the and Lord Stafford, that they were aware of a contemplated commitment was good, and 1I" the reverse. The case was invasion of this eimritry by the Pretender. A Committee afterwards taken before the i rlouse of Lords, and 15 out of was '24 - T ainted to investigate that treaso na bl e pl o t, an d i n 66 of their Lordships 112 , - .1 voted that the action would lie the demition taken before that C omm i t t ee was t h e ttis House were those of the lime of charge that Lord Kinnoul and Lord Strafford had Lords ; thos'.... privileges were formerly held jointly, and a guilty knowledge of the invasion.—( Hear.) What was were only now held separately, as they formerly were to- the eourse those Noble Lords adopted ? They did not getter ;so that either House must, mutatis mutaxdis, know move the printer of the Report should not be proceeded the privileges of the other. Therefore what impropriety against; on the cont rary , a ll t h ey as k e d i n t h e H ouse o f was there in th e H ouse of Lords deciding the question of Lords was, that; the witness, who was stated to have privilege ?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The given the evidence, might be brought to the bar of the House of Commons, at the time they were considering House or Lords, and examined on the subject, in order to Williams's case, dragged the ex-Judges Jones and Pem- ascertain if there was any real ground for the charge berton to the bar for offences alleged to have been con- brought against them. They asked for an op mitted seven years before, on a judgment affirmed by the portunity of disproving the accusation by cross- Learned Attorney-General to have been illegal, but which examining the witness. Considering what was in those no other lawyer in Westminster Hall would venture so to days the manner of proceeding against the Press, he characterize. The Learned Attorney-General's speech thought it was little likely the minority would have adopted before the Court of Queen's Bench was a monument of that course if they had thought that the papers printed legal industry and talent ; but he, on the present occasion, were not protected by the privilege of Parliament.— had displayed only hurry and inaccuracy.—( Hear, hear, ( Hear, hear.) A long argument took place, and it was and laughter.) As to the resolution now before the House, at last overruled by a majority, and twenty-four he (Sir Edward) should vote against it with great confi- Peers signed a protest against it, as an act deuce of being in the right. Did the Attorney-General of injustice to Lords Kinnoul and Strafford. mean to affirm that the Court would consider it any Within a few days, however, an unfortunate printer of a excuse for the Sheriffs not paying the money to newspaper mentioned the fact without any comment or ex- Stockdale, that they had been ordered not to do se by that pression of opinion. What course was adopted towards House ? If so, th e L earne d G ent l eman was m i s l ea di ng that unfortunate printer, who was not privileged, for co the House. Hei ( Sir Edward) told the House not to pying the report? They immediately caused that printer rely upon the Attorney-General's statement on this head: to be called to the bar. He absconded, and peti it w as not—it never could be—law —( Cheers from the tioned, in the most humble manner, , stating that Opposition.) The Court had already, upon solemn he meant no offence, and begged to be excused argument, decided against the privilege. Could they be for the inadvertence he had committed. The House of expected to alter their judgment, on an application made Lords rejected the petition. Another newspaper made a at ',mother stage of th e motion ?—( Hear, hear.) It was similar publication. The House of Lords proceeded absurd to suppose this.—( Hear, hear.) Then, as to the aga i nst t h e pr i nter an d publ i sher of that newspaper , b ut t h e conduct of the Sheriff s —if th e y s h ou ld di so b ey the House, it name of the writer being given up, he was called to the was a paltry threat which the Att o rney- General had held out bar, and for the mere offence of copying that statement against them.—( Crie s o f " co r d er ,") If be had said from a published Report of a Committee of the House of an) thing disrespectful to the House, or to the Attorney- Commons, he was committed for a month to custody, and was General, he (Sir Ed war d Sugden) retracted it.._._(Hear, at last discharged on payment of the fees.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But he meant t o conve y this, that it was not hear.) Such was the course the House of Lords adopted worth while to threaten the Sheriffs with committal.-- with respect to a statement in an unprivileged paper, and (Hear, hear.) They were told by the House that they yet the original of that very statement was contained in a had power superio r t o th e C ourts . Well, if th e Court paper written for that House and having on the title-page, made them p a y th e money (as beyond a ll doubt they as might be seen in the printed report in the British would), would not the Sheriffs justly petition tho House Museum, from which he had caused a copy to be made, to repay the 6001. which th e y had thus been compelled to " published by order of the House."—(Loud cheers.) pay in order to obey the Queen's Bench without disobeying It was impossible to make out a clearer case of the House, and would the House be able to relieve their per_ acquiescence.—(Cheers.) The question, then, came to sonal honour from the obligation, unless, indeed, they this :—Upon the clearest grounds of the necessity for the meant the Sheriffs to pay it twice, or the At- exercise of their functions, and upon the undisputed ex berney-General to pay it.—(Loud laughter) Was erc i se of that power for two hundred years, the House of this not a farce ?—( Opposition cheers.) Sorry, indeed, Commons claimed the right of publishing those papers would he (Sir Edward) be to find the Sheriffs commit- which they thought it important to give' to the world. ted._(Cheers.) He trusted that the publication of the If they submitted to the judgment of the Court of book complained of would b e stopped..—(lronical cries of Queen's Bench, could they maintain by their own authority " Hear, hear" from the Ministerial Benches)—or there a ny one privilege which they possessed ?—( Cheers.) would be more actions.—( Hear.) At all events he hoped Th e House maintained the right of freedom of speech in the House would well consider the course they now Parliament. Could they maintain any other possible pri adopted. vilege, except by the concurrence of the Courts of Law, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begg e d, in esplana- if they yielded or faltered in this instance.-(Hear, hear.) tion, to say that the Hon. Member who had just sat With respect to the privilege of freedom of speech, he down had marvellously misunderstood him, for what he could conceive an action brought against Mr. Hansard, for said was, that the privilege of publishing such of its pro- reasons far stronger than those of Stockdale. It might ceedings as it deemed necessary, had, for two centuries, b e sa id t ru ly th a t the case of the private injury of an in been acquiesced in—not the general privileges—which dividual, for slander by words spoken, had never been had often been controverted.—(Hear, hear.) And as to brought before Courts of Justice.—( Cheers.) If an ac the Sheriffs—ha did not mean to pledge himself that the tion for slander, in such a case, had been commenced, and Court would hold the order of the House as sufficient ex- it had gone on to the point of the present action, cuse for non-payment of the money--( Ironical cheers would the House not think it right to inter from the Opposition)—but he sincerely believed that if the fere by its own authority, and protect its own Court ruled according to law they would so consider it.-- Member from the consequences?—(Hear, hear.) Most (Laughter from the same quarter, and cheers from the undoubtedly it would, and in what other manner, or by Ministerialists. ) what other means, or by what other power had the privi. Lord HO WICK apologized for interfering in a discus- loges of that House in all times been maintained and ad sion which had hitherto been almost confined to the pro- mitted ? In former times Courts of Law were against fession, but which, he feared, had been too much en- them—they had both the Courts of Law and the Crown tangled with legal subtleties—too much connected with to contend with, and yet against the Crown, and against splitting hairs on judgments delivered in former times— the Courts of Law, that House, by its own uuthority, did ( Hear, hear)—and too little considered in connection with maintain and did establish those privileges which they constitutional and national principles.--( Cheers.) He then enjoyed.—( Hear, hear.) Should they depart from had observed that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who that practice—should they then, from considerations never had just sat down had not clearly stated whether or not he istened to before, take a course by which they would would consent to submit all the privileges of the House in impair the value of that sacred trust they had inherited and an unqualified manner, to the judgment of the Courts ? give to their successors these privileges without the same secu- Would he consent thus to submit all those clear and indispu- rity and assurance they possessed.—( Hear, hear. )herlitffws if sf theyid table privileges which the House possessed ?—( Hear.) the House would be compelled to te r l e l iT h b e urse the S Right Hon. Gentlema Suppose the case of an action against the Speaker, and paid o r . that Stockdale. even He though w the Sheriffs were to repay Mr. upon execution a distress against the plate and furniture n Mansard, after the notice they had received, he (Lord Howiek) which he held as Speaker? Or suppose an action against the Members for slanderous words in that House—didand cheers.) e sh f o a uld hre c a o e n h ce e i f ve th t e h ir at pr in ivile s g o ea d . liT H ea. theyr, hear, would be guilty the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen mean to affirm that i n . these cases the House had no means of asserting their that Rut i i tf was t hey i ix:e theiru se d power topuy to over protectthe m th o e n m ey . he n e fe h l t el i convinced t privileges but by submitting to the Courts ?—( Hear, hear.) th a t the Court s of Justice, in full consideration o! os t t h i ectrc o :u t rl d - It might be said that the Courts would never proceed con- s tances of the case, and in their anxiety tot to the d do Sheriffs.jce would The trary to the known and admitted privileges of Parliament. abstain frorrita.ny act o e os f e harshn ess cry l rest upon written law, Certainly not, in reference to the present Judges, but then privileges of ha t the House should suppose the possibility of future Judges really talso upon n the common law of the land. He, therefore, see any other course it would be possible for them being disposed to go beyond the limits of constitutional law could —(" No, no," from the Opposition)—for in the present ,to adopt not than that proposed by his Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) It had been asserted that every day they kept Mr. Stockdal e i n case, the ground of the argument on the other side was, ; that the House had transgressed those limits.—( Cheers confinement, they gave him a claim for founding an a c ti on f or i false imprisonment, and he might recover large damage s . O ne from both sides.) The real question is, whether we do Hon and Learned Member stated that an action could be possess the privilege, and if not, whether we are bound to brought by Mr. Stoekdale, and he might recover great damages; maintain it, without trusting to the other authorities— that Hon. Gentleman might one day become a Judge, he (Cheers)—without abandoning the rights which to us certainly had great talents to qualify him to fill that office ; but have been transmitted from our ancestors, and which we if he should ever ascend the Bench, he certainly would be likely are bound to transmit unimpaired to posterity.—( Cheer...) to carry the invasion of their privileges even further than Lord It was observable that none of the Hon. and Learned Chief Justice Denman. Here was another proof of the extreme Gentlemen on the other side had ventured to empress a danger and uncertainty ofrtaint Law. placing their privileges at to askatthedtihs-e clear opinion in favour of the judgment of the Que en ' s er o toisoevchether those privileges belong n of - a Court begged e in a word dto them or not? If th e y Bench. Indeed, the Learned Member for Ipswich had t believed that they possessedthose privileges let them answ er so a t gone so far as to say that he would not new disc uss the once, by boldly and unhesitatingly claiming that privilege in the question whether the book in this case was or was not a libel. way their ancestors did before them.—(Hear.) The same The necessity of the case was the whole argument in course they pursued that House 'should follow, and if they acted favour of the power. The power was only used by the boldly and decidedly on that occasion they would succeed.— House for the benefit of the public. The most important (Hear.) Let them at once establish the right they contend for; papers which came before that House, and which it was but if they then gave way—if they faltered—if they flinched necessary to publish, were generally the most criminatory. from their expressed opinions—there was an end to the privi- In 1790 there was an inquiry before the whole House into leges of the House of Commons ; all their security, all their I n a e t d n . e d . the nature of the Slave Trade. Mr. Wilberforce then rights and privileges would vanish before their eyes. brought forward a variety of witnesses in order to show the iniquity of that trade. Every page of evidence I tZ eox G eP L lxa l Pi s__Th e Hon. Member for Northum given before that Committee afforded ample ground for ber MLS I a iorr n r. d d ßFOE. sa l3l(L id EitilL th TTL at Yal no gentleman at that side of the House had legal proceedings, had it not been protected by the rivi_ p expressed any opinion in favour of the Judges. He (Sir R. loges of the House. One case in particular was that of a I ng lis) was one who, though unworthy, would hazard that master of a slaver, who was proved to have treated one of opinion, but the question was not whether they (the Judges) his crew with the utmost barbarity. It was proved that had acted right or wrong, l but whether the that were Co turithaaedteed o ot or -m -the man was labouri ng un d er a di sease i nc i dent to the cli- m i t i e d a b reac h of privilege in the m mate ; that he was un a bl e to wor k ; yet he was treated as war d s that House, and whether their interferenc e a never should have heard it questioned rightby that a skulker, and used with suc h b ar b ar i ty as to cause death. wron g, they s b e e e e r n eta in Secretary their i t r he fav co ou l r ontes H , e whetherwished th e is w asrepared to follow up step by step the consequences of resolution.P The alteration was yet possible. The Ser- Was not such a state a oment as that a lib e l un d er th e present ask ke theif law ? There was no reason why an action o r an indict- to menu would not have laid had itb een p re f erre d, un l ess it H had been protected by the p r i v il ege . B ut would thi s Noble v e r L d o i c r t d the had eeant-at-Arms might go to the Queen's Bench, and attempt the object have been answered had there been no pub- to seize the Judges on the Bench. The Sergeant lication ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) What obj ec t wou ld at - Arms wou ld b e unsu pp or t e d by the body o f th e Mem hare been answered had Mr. Wilberforce kept th e ev i.. bens o f that House, but he supposed the Treasiiry deuce in his own possession to protect himself from pos- Bench would be induced indifferentto follow him . there. —(Laughter. ) Bible prosecution. At that time the Slave-trade was treated in a very different manner from what it was in the? Would they not call on the She- Would the Judgesofthe House to any violent proceedings r o i n ff th t e o partraise a posse comitatus ? They had now a locus present day. It was then the policy of the nation not to put an end to that inhuman traffic, but to secure to this en e itentiw, and how long it might continue no one could tell. P He would warn them that they were in a critical position—to country the largest possible advantages of the bloody trade. The nation was relieved from the sin an d advance further would be dangerous to them, and destructive, perhaps, to the Constitution. It was probable, however, that crime of that inhuman traffic —by what other the House, by persevering in its present coucse, would merely means than by the publication of the evidence ? levy a fine on the Sheriffs of 6401., and that because they had and what was true of the Slave Tr a d e was true with discharged their duty. The Attorney-General had laboured respect to every other abuse that existed. All abuses throughout a long speech to make an identity between a decree were supported by the rich and powerful classes. They from the Court of Chancery and an order of that_ House. He were anxious to maintain them, and there were no othe r said, that because an order from the Court of Chancery to the means of remedying them but by acting upon the repr o - Sheriffs superseded a previous one from the Court of Queen's sentatives of the people through their constitu en t s , an d Bench, they circumstances, equal ly ances an order from Parliament. The ceedings, even if they were eliminatory. If the r e were feel themselves bound to obey' un , that could alone be done by the publication of their pro- der the same cimiumst cases, were, however, in his opinion, very different. The Court of Chancery and the Court of Queen's Bench both de complaints, there' must be some means of investigation. rived their authority from the Queen, and acted under the They were all aware that there had been great ex- Crown. An order from the House of Commons is but the citement in the country of late years respecting the opinion of a majority of individuals, and that majority might Poor-laws, and that a Committee had sat to investigate be composed of nothing more than a single individual. Would charges that were preferred by Mr. Walter, then Member the decisions of majorities thus composed, he (Sir R. Inglis) for Berkshire, and the Hon. Member for Oldham ( Mr. would ask, ever carry the weight of decisions of a Court of law ? Fielders). Those charges were of the most criminatory He should grieve to see the h da e y h s l v d he d n ea C os o i u h r ed ts of an L d aw he w t o h u n l i d l be t nature ; but would the public have been satisfied without subjectauthoritynettomerel having seen the evidence upon the points ? The charges and that,the dangersy regardin g wich he solemnly believed can scarcely be were disproved, but the parties had their remedy, not by overrated in the present state of the country—dangers which action, but by their vindication going forth to the world would be immeasurably increased by any discredit thrown in along with the accusation. He felt that so much might the Ceurts of Law, which would weaken their authority at a be said on the point of publication that he would not trust time when it was most essential to the interests of the coon himself to enter further into it. The necessity of pub- try that it should be unimpaired. He, therefore, earnestly lication was admitted by Mr. Justice Littledale implored Hon. Members to pause, in their present career. Did in the recent case. He quoted Lord Ellenborough, to the they suppose, that _in b thislaste o rizeJues would not n t t o lr . effect that the House of Commons must be armed with atte nded in trmmph of y hundreds authority to exercise their functions, whatever that might thousan ds the middle classes g entr y, l thcountry y ? He sand s tvas n a ot• addressing himself to the fears of the House, but to be.—( Cheers.) And Lord Denman, on the same occa sion, said that if the necessity eilited, no more need be their cool reason. He asked them, were they prepared for said, for all privilege rested upon necessity. Upon those such a state of things as that he had described? They should be prepared for this, that if the parties who were now opinions, he did not see how any doubt could rest upon the in attendance refused to obey their mandate they would, in such point. Even putting the case of necessity out of view, a case, be supported by the Courts of Law, sworn officers as he thought it was incontrovertibly supported by the fact, t h ey were . A dreadful collision would then be the conse that for two hundred years, with the single exception quence, and that collision would necessareily wished ins•olye a a ka d e ir w ec i t f of Dangerfield's case, the privilege had been uncon- appeal to physical force.—(Cheers.) fa.s 11 tested—( Hear, hear)—and although the Honourable the Noble Lord was prepared revil• such asth these? that if he Member for Ipswich said the year 1641 was .a bad year, Sir R. PELL . . thought it would be conceded, ad for precedents, still, in candour, he ought to have told hered to the opinion he had formerly given, or rather if he per the House, that in the reign of Charles 11., the privileges sisted in that course which he had till now followed, he could have no motive whatever for doing so but a conscien of the House of Commons were retained inviolate. Ever liens one.-(Cheers .) No particular blame could be attributed since the Revolution they had maintained the power of publishing what papers they thought necessary. The Hon. to him one part of the present House of Commons, if he looked only to the character of our existing institutions, and not and Learned ember for Ripon ( Sir E. Sugden) had to the opinions of a party. That body had reposed no particu said the power of publishing was a new p ower . Now, in lar confidence in him, and, therefore, had no claim on any ex point of fact, it was not for a long period after they had traordinary effort on his part to allow himself to be misled from begun to print, that they printed in any other manner what he msideredtobe hi n h his duty. wouldy. If not m now ereparty eersid r e a ra d . than by publication, and defraying the expense of that couldtionsas he have influenced had done, from those with w h om have heu a n e Ff a te ormly Members looked back to all the important Par- printing by publication.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If Hon. himself, acted, rather than bring on himself temporary, but short-lived, ularit with oth. din erfet.cordia with liamentary papers and votes printed up to nearly Gentlemenopposite ers on last He had a cte p week, and if he had not done lity so he the time of the American war they would find them uni would be for ever perfectly unworthy of public confidence.— formly published by order of the House, and the price at (Loud cheers.) He said, therefore, that if he did not which these papers were published and printed on them, deviate from the course which the majority of his Honour --( Hear, hear.) The practice was discontinued when the able Friends were inclined to take, nothing but a sense papers became vo lu m i no us. The sum rece i ve d f r om their of duty could have induced him to act as he was doing. sale ceased t o cover th e ex p en s e , and the Speakers pre- In the last Session of Parliament,. in a case analogous to the Polamckight wh a e r o ise b f e rom a decessor finding it a losing concern transferred it to the present, w ith all their experlene s eof the past—with a ll th e Treasury--( Loud laughter)—and from that period the cx- forewarnings of h the memorable e ue e n a c s e e of which penses have been defrayed by a vote of the House of Corn- collision—in t e that hie thee m m ea e nt to bring an action against the Messrs. gave mons like the rest of the public service. It hay nlloailie- rd, the House resolved by the greatest majority he ever ing been the practice for so long a period to publish papers remembered sa in that Parliament—by a majority of 106 to 4-- of a criminatory tendency, was it true that the acquiescence by majority of 21 to I—they deliberately resolved that the in that publication could be accounted for by the Messrs. Hansard should not plead, but that they should con weakness of those who might have thought them. shier Polack guilty of a breach of privilege if he persevered selves justified in complaining of those publications, with his action.—(Loud cheers.) He was .trot- acting and who if the publications had not been therefore duly in c onformity with his Own opinion, but, privileged would have founded proceedings upon them ? what he had a right to presume was the almost unanimous Far otherwise ; for in the case he had mentioned of the slave- opinion of the House of Commons. lle would, in the plainest trade, that very particular fact with regard to the alleged and simplest manner, give them the.grounds upon which his cruel treatment of a seaman on board a ship, was afterwards opinions were formed, and he would_ invite . the . House to their positively denied at the bar of that House by thesqar for the ' ' consideration.—( Hear, hear.) s „site maintained, then, the individual accused, who was named Clement Noble. the functions of the h ouse according could not, therefore, be said he felt his guilt, effectual discharge o f ...ouse to the said supposition of Lord Denman. position, that whatever was rex- - y proper and of Commons, that privilege the House possessed. according Still less could it be he was a weak and powerless in- His second position was, that in strict logical reasoning, that particular privilege of free publication which was not liable to dividual. On th e contrar y , it was k nown that he was question in Courts of Law, was absolutely necessary:for the supported by a very powerful b o d y o f m „ . B ut looking proper discharge of their functions: His third posi acquiescence of all parties in the further back there was a case still stronger, and clearly t e io , n o was that tha the • had no security for.. the proper t essential privilege unless they were exer provingenin- that the general a in the o pu bli cat i on o f papers of c . riminat"Y nature of that kind potent, by their own deliberate power, to vi n di cate t h ose opportunity which was not to be accounted for in the manner supposed by the 1 privileges.—( Cheers. ) He rejoiced had been afforded them of considering that question more minutely than they could have done on Saturday last. He had spent that interval in reading the opinion of judicial authorities—of the Judges who had delivered judgment in the case of Stockdale against Hansard, and he had retired from that perusal with a perfect conviction that the position main tained by the Judges was inconsistent with the privileges of the House of Commons--nay more, that the judgment ought not to have followed from their own positions.--( Cheers.) Now, in the first place, if a certain privilege was necessary for the peeper discharge of their functions, had the House of Commons that privilege ? He referred to the authority of Lord Denman on that point--and he offered his opinion in proof of it —for Lord Denman admitted it most fully. The Right Hon. Baronet here read an extract from the judgment of Lord Denman, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of Stock dale and Hansard, in which, after referring to the privileges of the House of Commons, he observed, " if the necessity be made cut, it sanctions every privilege, and justifies every step." —(Loud cheers.) He could anticipate no answer to that, be cause they Lad a distinct admission from one whom he must consider a hostile, and therefore a perfectly disinterested wit ness—they had an ample admission from him, of the princi ple which he (Sir R. Peel) maintained. He thought the ad mission was important in that respect. He agreed with the Noble Lord, that they could not prove long prescription, but it was of immense importance, that necessity alone with out long prescriptive right, should give them the privilege.— ( Hear, hear. )• He agreed also with the Noble Lord that their security for the privilege of free debate rested on its ac knowledged necessity and nothing less, and he was not certain if they were obliged to abandon the privilege of free publica tion that they would have any security for the privilege of free debate. Lord Denman said that the privilege of having their debates, unquestioned, although denied when the Members began to speak their minds by Queen Elizabeth—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—and punished for its exercise by that Princess and her two successors, was soon perceived to be in dispensable, and was universally acknowledged. It would be seen, then, that they had no prescription to plead for the free dom of debate. Elizabeth denied it, James denied it, and Charles denied it to them • but it was granted on account of some gene ra l conviction that it was indispensable, and it came to be universally acknowled. By whom—who was the Judge of the necessity—who was the judge of the necessity for the existence o f t h at pr i v i lege ?—( Long con tinued cheering.) The same le arne d aut h or i ty sa id t h a t a ny power which the Court of of Quarter S ess i ons, an d every b oroug h C ou rt, and every Court Queen's Bench possessed, was possessed by every Court that could entertain an action for libel, might bring their privi ieges into question: Then it naturally followed that the privi lege was liable to be questioned, not only by those high and eminent legal characters, with regard to whom not one word of disrespect should fall from him, but he wanted to show that the privilege of free discussion rested upon the same ground as the privilege of free üblication, viz. clear and acknowledged ne cessity.—(Hear. He wanted to show that not merely had that privilege been questioned by a Sovereign on the throne, who, actuated by arbitrary principles might be tempted to interfere with the freedom of debate, but he wanted to show that the judicial authorities of that very Court of Queen's Bench, had, in other times, absolutely denied to them, not the right of free publication, but the right of free dabate.—( Hear, hear.) They had no prescription for free debate, and he would prove to them that there was a period when the Judges denied that the House of Commons had the privilege of free debate. He felt that freedom of debate was not secured to them by prescription, for it had not been invariably acquiesced in. It had not been acknowledged by the Judges of Charles 1., therefore it was not secured to them by Courts of Law, but it was secured to them by the necessity of the case. On the first point of his argument, he trusted ho need urge nothing further.—(Cheers.) Secondly, was the privilege necessary for them, or was it not—that was the point on which they must stand or fall—was it necessary for what Lord Den man called the energetic discharge of their duties ? How could they hope that their commands would meet with that universal obedience to which they were entitled unless they were supported by public sythpathy ? How could they hope, more especially in times like the present, that their dictates would meet with general acquiescence unless the reasons of them were known 7—( Cheers.) Was it not of the utmost importance that the public mind should be enlightened respect ing their actions ?—( Cheers.) What was the right of petition? Surely it was not intended that petitions should be presented by persons who were to be kept in ignorance of the subject on which they were petitioning ? What great legislative act had received the sanction of Parliament within the last fifty years that was not owing to the force of public opinion acting on the HooSe of Commons ? Let them take the Abolition of Slavery. Did they believe that slavery would ever have been abolished if the public mind had not been enlightened as to the abominations of slavery by the publication of papers by that House ? or did they believe that had It not been for those publications they could ever have persuaded the people of England to pay twenty millions willingly rather than sanction the pollution of slavery? Would the people have willingly acquiesced at a time of great financial embarrassment, in the imposition of a pecuniary burden of twenty millions if they had contented themselves with saying to them, we re commend you to make this payment of twenty millions, but we are unable to state to you freely the grounds on which we ad vise you to make this sacrifice? Did they;believe that this sacrifice would have been made, and the immense impression produced by it on foreign nations, be produced, if the people had believed the statement at that time so industriously circulated, that the condition of the slave was superior to that of the labourer in this country.?—( Cheers.) Did the House believe that the abolition of the slave trade would ever have been carried in the teeth of all the prejudices with which Mr. Wilberforce had to contend, had it not been for the information published by order of the House ? Evidence on the question of the slave trade had been taken before the Privy Council, and pub lished in 1788. Mr. Wilberforce brought forward the ques tien of the abolition in 1789, and he raised a doubt as to the truth of that evidence, and asked for a Com mittee, and obtained it, with a view to remove from the public mind the feeling—if he might be allowed the ex pression —cast on it by the evidence as to the agreeable voyage of the middle passage. Mr. Norris, one of the delegates from Liverpool, had before the Privy Council stated that the apart ments of the slaves were fitted up as agreeably as the circum stances would permit--that they were, to be sure, secured by a slight ring rivetted round the ancle, and in some cases by another round the wrist, by which they were fastened together ; that for their diet they had, in addition to all the most luxurious productions of their own country, served up to them, with the richest African sauces, a plentiful meal, daily, of wholesome English pulse ; that after breakfast they were supplied with water to wash themselves, and their apartments were perfumed with frankincense and lime-juice; - and that before dinner they were amused after the manner of their country, L and the song and the dance prevailed. Mr. Wilberforce said that this was a false statement of the facts of the case , and he felt that if the • impression produced on the public mind by th ese statements were suffered to' continue, the continuance of the Slave Trade was inevitable. He therefore invoked the assist= ante of the House to remove this film from the publi c m i n d . Evidence in contradiction to these stateme n ts was published, from which it appeared that the meal of pulse was a meal of horse- beans ; and the song and dance prevailing , when explained, was found-to mean that for the sake of exercise, the unfortunate, wretches were compelled, under terror of the lash, to dance a s certain time on the deck ; and one witness who was examined, that it was his duty to dance the men , whilst another man danced the women. The songs were songs of lamenta tion at being compelled to leave their native country, and were most frequently accompanied by tears ; and one captain, more tender-hearted perhaps than his fellows, had threatened a woman with a flogging, because her melancholy songs affected his spirits. With respect to the food served op with African sauces, it was found that an instrument was sometimes carried out for the purpose of forcing food down the throats of the slaves. Did the House believe that these abominations would ever have been brought to light if the captain of every slave-ship had possessed the right of dragging the printer of the House into any Court of Quarter Sessions in which he might think fit to bring an action against him for libel? Then, again, with respect to the abuses in India. Did they believe that Warren Hastings would ever have been impeached, or those monstrous abuses remedied, if every man in authority,whose abuses had been detected, had possessed the right of bringing actions against the printer of the House for the publication of libels? And ob serve the position in which they were placed. Persons in authority had as much right to commence actions as other sub jects, and the Court could recognize no distitiction in their cases on account of their responsibility. Did the House believe that any abuse of Indian authority, or of any Governor of distant provinces, could ever be brought to light, if this power of commencing actions were acquiesced in?—( Cheers.) There was the case of the Duke of York.—( Cheers.) Did the House imagine that the army and the people of this country would have acquiesced in the temporaray re moval of a favourite Commander-in-Chief, if they had contented themselves with saying we have safis• fled ourselves from the examination of evidence that such a removal is absolutely necessary, but we are afraid to tell you the grounds upon which we recommend it ? The freedom of publication was as necessary for the due performance of their duties as the freedom of debate, and whether he leoked to the proper exercise of their legislative functions or to the exposure of official abuses, they would be utterly incompetent to the adequate discharge of their duties unless they were enabled at their own discretion to enlighten the public mind, In 1628, the Court of King's Bench and the Star Chamber determined that they were perfectly competent to take cogn zance after the prorogation of Parliament, of speeches de livered during the Session, and had imposed fines of 2,0001. and of 3,0001. on Members, whose only offence had been in speaking too freely of the conduct of Ministers of State. In 1640, the House of Commons had remonstrated against this power ; and, in 1667, the House of Lord.; and the Ho use o f Commons, not,by legislative enactment, but by resol u ti on , tiad declared these decisions r cirthe'Coeirtiiinegai. - The' resolution stated that this jiidgivient ' the 'Court of 'Eteneh; in the sth Charles, imposing fines on Messrs. Denzil, Hol lis, Elliott, and Valentine, was illegal. . Those Mem bers had relied on an Act passed in the reign of Henry VIII., commonly called the Act relating to Richard Stroud. Thus lie (Sir Robert Peel) came to the conclusion, that this privilege was necessary. The tkird proposition was, that it could not be secured, unless the House was the sole judge of f o r the use of the Members. But on its nature and extent. Now, the Judges themselves admitted the right of publication , ) Supose the e the J Judges were to attack it. Suppose hthe ve he a a t r least the udges were to hold that there was no necessity topu papers to the absent to Members—hole was the House failed,s_ proceed ?—( Hear, hear. ) Were they to plead? they exhaust should they submit?— ( what security did failed, they t r h e e st y ! Hear) —or would they not every:method of defence ? and then, if they d done their duty satisfac tion of reflecting that they had done would —( 11 e a h r that they ; that they had not tamely surrendered their rig iey had struggled to that the last for their privileges-- they had lost them through • •and legal difficulties alone..,_( legal technicalities ear, and cheers.) The Judges, admitting publication foisthe.use o f Members, still fettered that privilege s (Hear hear-2 Th so that it was useless.— k e question of sale Lor was entirely out of the question. Denman said the plain of action tiff acquired no. additional right by the sale.---( Hear, abolishing the might, by hear.) The House sa le, remove any n c, from it unfavourable impression _a c r u is it i „ (Loud ;but it would not thereby lessen the difficulty.—(Loud of Y. the — cries Of " Hear, hear.' ) For the use ll embers alone, said papers may be published. T a k e the Judges, these Robert) was question e d as t o th e vote he gave on that subject. He would not divulge the evi dence on which he had given the_vote.--( Hear, hear.) M r. A Justice Littledale, indeed , said a Member mi g ht commun i cate any matter that was not crinsinatory,—( Loud laughter. ) Why that was not the whole question.—(Hear, hear.) It s truggling for, to was not a privilege worthtransmit what was not criminatory.— (Hear , hear.) s , There would oth erw i se b e no impeachment of 'any publ ic officer.—(Hear, hear.) J us t remark the glaring inconsistency. Ile (Sir Robert) might, as a Member of that House, address her Majesty to remove a Judge, but lie could not, according to the doctrine of the Judges, communicate any of the information on which he had come to that conclusion.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Was it for a mo ment to be supposed that he was to be at liberty to vote for the removal of a popular .fudge , b ut at the same time he was to be prevented from informing the public of the grounds on which he gave such a vote, because if he did so he would ren der himself liable to an action for libel ? Mr. Justice Littledale said all defamatory matter must be kept, within the walls of Parliament, otherwise the moment it went beyond them, it be came a libel. Was the authority of the House and the Speaker thus to be set at n aught ? Ile went on to say that no agent of the House was privileged, and they must all act upon their -own responsibility. Let them acquiesce in the present decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and they would soon be in as great difficulties as before. Mr. Justice Patteson went a step further, He said if a Mem- ber ceased to be a Member, or if a Member died, all his Par liamentary papers must be destroyed.—( A laugh.) He would take the case of Lord Dunfermline, the late Speaker. No doubt he had a large quantity of Parliamentary papers, but having ceased to be a Member of that House he must cease to use the papers—he must be careful that no one should see them—he must destroy them, or he would be liable to actions for libel.—(Laughter.) He would be liable to be drawn not only into the Court of Queen's Bench, but into any Court of Quarter Sessions in the country. He would for a moment allude to the papers which were printed often on the motion of hi* Right Hen. Friend ( Sir R. Inglis) relating to the Foreign Slave Trade.—(Laughter, and cheers.) Why every one of them teemed with libels and what L-if the House acquiesced in the present decision— what was to prevent the foreigner from inundating the Court of Queen's Bench with actions for libel ? Let the House ac quiesce in the judgment, and then any communication made by a Member would render him liable to an action for libel, and the functions of the House of Commons be set at naught. The privilege was absolutely necessary for the proper exercise of their functions, and then even upon the Authority of Lord Denman himself, he had made out a case. The Right Hon. Baronet referred to several other authorities. Justified by such authorities, he said, he could not consent to resign these privileges which he thought they did possess, and which he considered to be essentially necessary for the due performance of their functions. They said the Speaker was free from accu sation, but how if those who acted under his orders, were to be dragged into Court upon every publication ? Did they not interfere with the functions of the Speaker, when they pounced upon those who were acting under his orders ? He (Sir R. Peel) said that every instrument that persecution could invent should be employed before he ( Sir Robt. Peel) would abandon the privileges of that House.—( Cheers.) He had heard with much pain that the House of Commons had net that influence on the public mind it once possessed. A great alteration in the Constitution hati certainly been made to which he had not been a party, but which he had long ago suspected. It might be that they were inferior to the great men that had once sat within those walls.-- (Ironical cheers.) But he would be allowed to say that if infe riority and degeneracy had been produced in the character of the House of Commons, they ought not to make that a reason for departing frora one of their noblest privileges. —( Cheers. ) Whatever inferiority there might be, they were but the tenants of a fleeting hour—the temporary occupants of a noble fabric, which they were bound to hand down entire as they received it, and with filial reverence to guard it from decay.—( Tremendous cheers.) But it had been said that no public object Gould be gained by a violation of the Constitution—true ; but he would first exhaust all the armoury of constitutional weans—(Renewed cheers)—and if ever:the House of Commons should, by the destruction of its privileges, be annihilated—if ever the chasm should be shown where once stood the House of Commons—depend upon it there would rush in and fill up the void a thousand fierce and turbid elements—by those who acknowledged no re spect for authority, and were bound by no regard for right— usurping powers to which they have no title, and defending the possession by all the means that usurper, ever resorted to.— ( Tremendous cheers.) He would conclude by a simple sen tence of a senator of old, who thus emphatically spoke—" If the question were one of form merely it would be less important, but the privileges are so paramount, that if we should yield, the very walls that held them would blush to see a degenerate posterity thus tamely surrender their liberties and rights."— ( The Right Hon. Bart. sat down amidst tremendous cheering., The House then divided, when there appeared— For the Motion 205 For the Amendment Majority for the Motion —ll5 - - On re-entering the Gallery, we found Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving that the Sheriffs be called in, and ordered to return the amount in their hands forthwith to Messrs. Hansard. Captain BOLDERO having presented a petition from Mr. Stockdale, did not think he would discharge his duty as a Mem ber cf that House unless he asked that the prayer of the peti tion be complied with, and he would therefore move as an amendment, that Mr. Stockdale be at once brought to the bar of that House, so that the opportunity which he sought might be afforded him of vindicating himself. An Horr. MEMBER on one of the Conservative benches having seconded the amendment, Mr. WAKLEY would seriously ask the Hon. and Gallant Captain, who really meant that Mr. Stockdale should be heard in explanation, whether he thought he was serving the cause of that person by moving and dividing the House upon a motion that he should be called to the bar at that hour in the morning, when in all probability Mr. Stockdale was in bed ?—( Great laughter.) He earnestly entreated the Hon. and Gallant Captain not to persist in his motion, because, if he did, it was quite clear Mr. Stockdale would be prevented from ob taining that opportunity of defending his conduct which he was quite sure the House would at a more fitting hour be willing to grant.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord MAHON hoped the Gallant Captain would not pe rs i s t in his amendment. Those who were in the minority on the last division were most anxions to meet the Government pro position with a direct negative, and would vote with the great est confidence that the public feeling would support them.— (Hear, hear.) Even rf vanquished in the House the popular voice of England would be raised in their favour.--( Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the Gallant Captain would not press his motion. __ Captain BOLDERO h a d no t t h e sl i ghtest wish to put tke House to inconvenience, and hoped the House would agree he had merely done his duty. Amendment withdrawn. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided on the second resolution, when the numbers were— For the resolution 197 Against it Majority ..... —ll2 On our return to the gallery, we found Lord JOHN RUSSELL on his legs, moving that the Sheriffs be called to the bar, and that the Speaker be requested to communicate to them the resolutions of the House. Mr. KELLY wished to know whether the Sheriffs were to be called on to pay the money at any particular time, or whether time would be afforded them to take the opinion of Counsel in the difficulties of the position in which they were placed. He hoped they would not be called upon at once to declare their as sent or dissent. Lord J. RUSSELL thought the better course would be to have the Sheriffs called to the bar, in the first instance, and have the resolutions read to them. After a few words from Mr. LAW, The Sheriffs were called in, and the resolutions of the House read to them by the Speaker, who also informed them that the House would hear anything they had to' say.—( The Sheriffs bowed and retired amidst the most deafening Tory cheers. ) Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and was met by loud cries of " adjourn" and cheering. He said the House had hut one course to pursue.—(Loud cries of " Adjourn.") The Sheriffs, in proceeding to levy upon the goods of the Messrs. Hansard knowing them to be the officers of that House, and in defiance, of the resolutions which . had been officially , communicated to them, might justifiably have been at once ordered into the cus. tod3r of the Sergeant at Arms. By the course which the House had taken they had had an opportunity of fully considering the matter, and all doubts must have been removed from their minds as to the authenticity of the resolutions which had been served upon them by the Solicitor of Messrs. Hansard. All doubt was now removed ; and as the Sheriffs had not ex pressed their readiness to comply with the order which the House had signified to them he had nothing to do but to move that the Sheriffs, having committed a breach of the privileges of this House, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms. - - Mr. LAW said he was surprised to hear that the Noble Lord had expected the Sheriffs to comply at once with what he considered to be the most unlawful order ever issued.—( Opposition cheers.) Surely they never would be weak and wicked enough to do so.--( Cheers.) Her Majesty's Ministers had prevailed by numbers.—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) They, with the Attor ney-General, sworn to obey the law, had endeavoured to in duce other officers, sworn to obey the law, to disregard their oaths.—(No, no, and Opposition cheers.) The advice which he gave to them was, to avoid the advice of f a l se h oo d . — ( Cheers from the Opposition.) Sir H. INGLIS said the Sheriffs were hound to obey their oaths, which were to execute the Queen's writs ; and it would be perjury to act in contrariety.—( Oh, oh ! from th e Ministe rial benches; cheers from the Opposition.) Sir E. KNATCHB ULL then rose and said, he begged to ask a question of the Noble Lord opposite. The proposition before the House was for the commitment of the Sheriffs. He did not doubt that in the warrant the Noble Lord would be called on to sign, his Lordship would take care not to insert the cause. He wished then to ask the Noble Lord what the cause was, whether it vi as in consequence of the breach of pri vilege, or on the last resolution that had been communicated to them. Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought he had already suffi ciently explained the grounds of the proposed resolution. He had stated that the Sheriffs had been guilty of a breach of pri vilege in seizing the goods, and he was anxious, if possible, to avoid extremities, and give the Sheriffs every opportunity of setting themselves right with the House. He (Lord John Russell) had heard some declamation about breaking of oaths, now the Sheriffs were sworn to obey the law, and the only question, therefore, was, what was law.—. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The law officers of the Crown who might be considered to know something of law, held that the Sheriffs would have answered their oaths and executed their writ if they had made a special return of privilege.—(Cheers.) The question was not whether they were called on to disobey the law and violate their oaths, but whtther thy, law,,a,nd their oaths did not require th a t th e y s h ou ld Pursue a different course of conduct. He owned he s ho u ld no t entertain such a favourable opinion of them if he were to take their characters from the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if, when-they came to the bar, instead of saying as they had said, that they were sorry they had offended the House, - they had set themselves up against the House of Commons as a usurped authority, he should be more disposed to feel harshly towards them than he did at present. awl he still hoped that when they had time for further reflec tion they would feel disposed to payobedience to the resolutions of the House; he certainly hoped they would not take the Hon. and Learned Recorder for their counsel.—( Cheers. ) Mr. Sergeant JACKSON moved that the House do now adjourn ; he was anxious to afford the Mouse time for reflection, which would probably induce them to desist from the steps which they were about to take. and which he considered mist harsh and unj ustifiable to the respectable men who had just left the bsr—(Cneers)—and to tally unbecoming the Commons of England. Was it becom ing in the House to assail them, and to pass over those who had set them in motion ? Why was the officer who had con fessed that he was the person who had actually seized the goods of Messrs. Hansard passed ever ? Because he was merely acting in a ministerial capacity. And would the House be guilty of the gross injustice of punishing the Sheriffs, who were also acting in merely a ministerial capacity ? The Noble Lord had stated, upon the authority of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, that the Sheriffs might have avoided being implicated, by making a special return. With very great respect to those gentlemen, he should entirely dissent from them. He was perfectly satisfied on the law of this case, that no such return could be made which would be allowed by the Court of Queen's Bench. The Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland, had said that no Member on this side of the House had attempted to show that the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench had taken a correct view of the law ; and it was said that the opinion of the bar was against them. Now he ( Ser„gt. Jackson)believed that it was the opinion of every nineteen out of twenty professional gentlemen in the Court of Queen's Bench that the conduct of the Judges was perfectly lawful. He could also state from his own knowledge, if it was a thing that could have any weight, that the lawyers on the other side of the Channel were almost , all of the s ame opinion. The Court of Queen's Bench was o. opinionth that papers published were an unjustifiable libel on Mr. Sto ckdale. The lion. and Learned Gentleman con cluded by moving the House should then adjourn till to-morrow (this day), w hen they met again they would be better able to deliberate on a proceeding which involved, in his mind, a gross injustice. Mr. H. B. BARING seconded the amendment, li e de _ precated the system of vicarious punishment by which it WIS attempted to coerce the Sheriffs. Upon the amendment of adfournment moved by Sergeant Jackson, a division took place, when the numbers were— Aye 5............. . ..................... 86 N0e5............... 189 Majority in favour of Lord John's Resolution —lO3 Alderman WOOD moved that the Sheriffs he allowed until the House meets this evening to give in their answers. Mr. HUME saw no objection to this motion, if in the in ' crime there were no fears of the Sheriffs being obliged to pay over the money. Lord HOW ICK thought it a most strange proceeding after the House had declared them to be guilty of contempt to give them a certain time to declare whether they were guilty or not. He believed the invariable rule was, that a party having been adjudged guilty of contempt he was committed, and that on that party's submission by petition, and declaring his readiness to make what amends he could for his offenc e , the House would grant him such indulgence as i t thought ' fit.—( Hear, hear.) The course, therefore, recommended by the Hon. Baronet was entirely irregular,: and would lower the dignity of that House.—( Hear, hear.) After a few words from Sir E.. Knatchbull, Sir E. S ug d en, and Sir T. D. Ackland in, support of the amendment, and the Attorney-General against it, Mr. 6ISBORNE believed that every Hon. Gentleman on that side of the House was willing to respond to the sentiments of the last speaker, could they have security they would net thereby endanger their situation. Was the Honourable Alderman who made the motion prepared to say the Sheriffs would be in the same situation at four o'clock as at the present moment—if net it was not fair to argue on the merits of the case. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, an d it was un d erstoo d that t h e Sheriffs were ordered to attend at the sitting of the House (this day). PRINCE ALBERT. In answer to Colonel SIBTHORP, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that it was his intention to pro pose a sum of 50,0001. as the annuity to Prince Albert. The House adjourned at Throe o'Clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. (From the rotes and Proceedings' of Me House of Commons.) FRIDAY, JAW. 17. PRIVILEGE OF THE COMMONS. Motion made, and question proposed, " That John Joseph Stockdalo has been guilty of a high contempt and a breach of the privileges of this house." (Lord John Russell. )—Amend ment proposed, to leave out from the words " John Joseph Stockdale " to the end of the question, in order to add the words "be discharged from further attendance upon this House," instead thereof. (Mr. Law.)--Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. The House divided :._... Alvoreroraby, G. &dam, Admiral Sir C. Adore, Lord Aghonby, H. A. Ainsworth, Peter Alston, Rowland Anson, Hon. Colonel Archbold, R. Bailey, J. Baring, F. T. Barnard, G. Beamish, F. B. Bellew, R. M. Berkeley, Hon. G. Bernal, R. Bowes, T. Blackburn, John I. Blair, J. Blake, M. J. Blake, W. J. Blakemore, R. Blennerhassett, A. Biewitt, Reginald Bolling, W. Brabazon, Lord Bramston, T. W. Bridgeman, H., Briscoe, J. I. Broadwood, Henry Ilrocklehurst, J. Brodie, W. D. Bretherton, J. Browne, R. D. Buller, C. Bulwer, Sir L Busfield, W. Callaghan, Daniel Campbell, Sir John Cav idish, Hon. C. Cavendish, G. H. Chapman, Sir M. Chetwynd, W. Chichester, J. P. Childers, J. W. Clay, . Clayton, Sir W. Clements, Lord Clerk. Sir G. Collier, John Collins, W. Colquhoun, Sir J. Compton, H. Con yngharts, Lord Coote, Sir C. H. Courtenay. T. P. Cowper, Hon. W. F. Craig, W. Gibson Crompton, S. Curry, N.. Dashwood, G. H. Denison, W. J. DI Winton, W. Divett, Edward Donkin, Sir R. Douglas, Sir C. Duff; James Duke, Sir James Dunbar, George Dundas, C. W. D. Dundas, F. Dundas, Hon. J. Dundas, Sir R. Du Prc, George Easthope, John Edwards, Sir J. Eliot, Hon. J. E. Ellice, E. Ellis, John Ellis, Wynn Erie, W. Etwall, R. Evans, Sir G. De Lacy Evans, G. Evans, W. kJORITY—AYES, 249. Ewart, W. Pendarves, E. W. Ficklen, J. Philips, Mark Finch, Francis Philips, G. R. Fitzpatrick, John Pigot, D. R. Fitsattnen ' N. Price Sir R. Fleetwood, Sir H. Prothersre E. tort, John Pryine, d. Gisborne, T, Pryse, P. Gordon, R. Ramsbottom, J. Gore, 0. W. Reddington, T. N. Goulburn, H. Rice, T. a Craham, Sir J. Rich, H. Grattan, J. Rickford, W. Greg, R. H. Roche, W. Grog, D. Rumbold C. E Grey, Sir C. E. Rundle, John Grey, Sir G. Rushbrooke, Colon& Haneley, H. Russell, Lord John Harcourt, G. G. Rutherford. A. Hardinge, Sir H. Salwey, Colonel Hastie, A. Sandon, Lord Hawes, B. Sanford, E. A. Hawkes, T. Scholefield, J. Hawkins, J. H. Scrope, G. P. Hayter. W.IG, Scale, Sir J. Heathceat, J. Seymour, Lord Heathcote, G. J. Shelburn, Lord Hector, C, J. Sinclair, Sir Geerge Hill, Lord k. M. C. Slaney, R. Hinde, J. H. Smith, Benjamin Hindley, C. Smith, Vernon Hobhouse, T. B. Somers, J. P. Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Somerville, Sir W. Hodges, T. L. Speirs, A. Hodgson, R. Standish, Charles Hope, Charles Stanley, Lord Horsman, Edward Stanley, } dward Hoskins, K. Stanley, Massey Howard, F. J. Stanley, W 0. Howard, P. H. Stansheld, W. R. Howick, Lord Stauntan, Sir G. Hughes, W. B. Steuart, R. Hume, Joseph Stock, Dr. Humphery, J. Strickland, Sir G. Hutton, Robert Strutt, E. James, William Stuart, W. Villiers Jenkins, Sir It. Surrey, Earl of Llbouchere, H. Sutton, Hon. J. Langdale, Hon. C. Talbot, J. H. Ir. Lascelles, W. S. Tancred, H. W. Leader, J. T. Teignmouth, Lord Lemon, Sir C. Thornely, Thomas Lennox, Lord G. Tollemache, F. J. Lister, E C. Troubridge, Sir T. Loch, James Turner, E Lushington, S. Turner, W. Lynch, H. A. Vigors, N. A. M'Namara, W. Villiers, Charles P. Marshall, W. Villiers, Lord Maunsell, T. P. Vivian, Sir It. H. Melgund, Lord Waddington, H. S. Mildmay, P. St. J. Wakley, Thomas Milnes, It. M. Walker, R. Monypenny, I'. G. Wallace, R. Mordaunt, Sir J. Warburton, H. Morpeth, Viscount Ward, H. 0. Morris, David Westenra, H. R. O'Brien, C. White, ndrew O'Brien, W. S. Whit more , T. C. O'Callaghan, D. Wilbraham, G. O'Connell. D. Williams, W. O'Connell, M..J Wilmot, Sir J. O'Connell, Morgan Wilshere, W. 0 Connor Don Winnington, '1 O'Ferrall, More Winnington, H. Palmer, C. F. Wood, C. Palmerston, Visct. Wood, G. W. Parker, John Worsley, Lord Parker, R. T. Wrightson. W, Parnell, Sir H. Wyse, Thomas Pattison, J. Young, John Pease' Joseph TELLERS. Pechell, Captain Maule, Hon. lox Peel, Sir R. Fremantle, Sir T. Acland, Sir Thomas Acland, 'f. D. A'Court, Captain Ashley, Lord 'ORITY—NOES, Gladstone, W. E. Glynne, Sir S. Godson, Richard Greene, I'. G. Grimsditch, T. Grimston, Lord Grimston, Hen. E. Halford, H. Hamihon, Lord C. Heathcote, Sir W. Heneagc, G. W. Herries, J C. Hope, H. T. Hope, G. W Ingestre, Lord Ingham t. Robert Inglis, Sir R. H. Jackson, J. B. James, Sir Walter Jones, John Jones, Thcobald Kelly, F. Kemble, Henry Knatchbuil, Sir E, Lefroy, Dr. Lincoln, Earl of Lowther, Colonel Lowther, J. H. Lygon, Hon. GM. Mackenzie, Thomas Mahon Lord Maxwell, R. Nicholl, J. Ossulston, Lord Packe, C. W. AttwOOti, W. Attwood M .._ Pakington, John S. Palmer, George Pemberton, T. Pivot, R. Bagse. *. Joseph, jun. Baring, H. B. Baring, W. B. Plinn'ptre, J. P. Polhill, F. Pollen, Sir J. W. Powerscourt, Lord Praed, W. T. Barneby, John Barington, Lord Bentinck, Lord f Blackstone, W. S. Bradshaw, James Broadley, Henry Bruce, Lord E. Bruges, W. H. L. Buck, Lewis W. Castlereagh, Viscount Christopher, R. A " Conolly, Colonel Copeland, W. Pringle, A. Richards, R. Rolleston, L. Round, C. G. Round, John Rushout, George Shirley, E. J. Smyth, Sir H. Stormont, Lord Stunt, H. C. Thompson, W. Tyrell, Sir J. T. Verner, W. Walsh, Sir J. Williams, Robert Wood, Thomas Wood, Colonel T. Wyndham, VI. Young, Sir 1. 4 , W. Cresswell, C. - D'lsraeli, Benjamin Dowdeswell, W. Duncombe, T. S. Duncombe, A. East, James Buller Eaton, 11. J. Elint, Lord I Filmer, Sir E. Fitzroy, Hon.ll-1. Forester, Hon. G. Freshfield, J. W. Neehi, JOEeph Nceld, John TELLERS. Law, Hon. C. E. Darby, George GREAT DINNER TO SIR WILLIAM BRABAZON, M.P. ( Abridged from the Telegraph or Connaught Ranger.) On Monday, the 6th instant, our excellent and worthy representative, Sir William Brabazon, was entertained by his constituents at a public dinner in the Court-house of Swinford, on the occasion of his departure from Brabazon Park, to resume his Parliamentary duties, and as a mark of the approbation in which his conduct is held since he entered the Imperial Parliament. The Court-house was tastefully festooned and decorated with lowers and ever greens—and at one end of the room a brilliant transpa pareney was displayed, bearing the Brabazon Arms, and the mottoes " Brabazon and the Independence of Mayo," "Vota vita niea," and the " Freedom of Election, 1834." At the other extremity of the room, behind the Chair, the bench was devoted exclusively to the accommodation of the ladies, who graced it with their beauty and fashion. Indeed on no occasion do we recollect to have witnessed such an astounding array of loveliness as that which brightly beamed and shed a lustre over the intellectual and joyous entertainment of the evening. The stewards are deserving of all commendation for the truly admirable manner in which everything was conducted, and the comfort of every individual sedulously attended to. The town was brilliantly illuminated throughout the evening, and bonfires blazed in all directions. A few minutes after seven o'clock the company sat down to dinner, which was served up in a style that gave uni versal satisfaction. The viands were of the richest and finest qualities • and the wines, which we re i n a b un d ance , were of the oldest vintage and finely flavoured. The Chair was taken by Joseph M'Donnell, Esq., of Doo Castle, and the office of Vice President was admirably filled by John Browne, Esq., of Brownstown. On the right of the Chairman sat our esteemed representative, Sir William Brabazon, the illustrious guest of the evening., and on the left the Honourable and Reverend Dean Gore. We also observed in the immediate vicinity of the Chair, the Honourable F. Cavendish, Captain A. O'Malley, Thomas Gore, Esq.. Daniel Jones, Esq., of Banada Ab bey, Robert Gore, Esq., Robert Burrowes; Esq. Edward P. Macdonnell, Esq., J. D. Ellard, Esq., Counsellor O'Dowd, Doctor Jordan, Roslevin Castle, Doctor Bourke, Henry Waldron, Esq., Wm. Waldron, Esq., Thomas Waldron, Esq., L. Goodwin, Esq., Thos. Kelly, Esq., Pat Howley, Esq., J. Jordan, Esq., D. Jordan, Esq., P. Durkan, Esq. ; the Rev. Messrs. Muldooney, Durkan, Hughes, M'Hugh, Coleman, and Bourke. The cloth having been removed and grace said by the Hon. and Rev. Dean Gore, The CHAIRMAN rose, and said :—" Mr. Vice- Chairman and Gentlemen, fill a bumper, if you please, as I am about to propose the first toast on my list, instrumentco iced o t f h a t our pro_ which is the health of our young , good , and gracious Queen.--(Loud cheers.) I feel a peculiar pleas ure , believe me, in being 'as, the first who has determin e d to confer posing Sovereign this t i o s a s t in my the he hanrint, e am nvn • tice on Ireland—misgoverned Ireland —and to cr us h t h e justice Tory party who would lord it over the people. To our Queen we owe affection and loyalty affection is not fo reign to the Irish heart--and our nation has ever been characterised for its loyalty. It is in good truth, a pleasing we have regret no Col that r eflection, that Ireland contai ns not a man who would dare insult Thom Thomases Sovereignisswinford. and,;_( thank Cheers.) cannot do full justice to the proposing of this toast—but whatever may be wanting on my part in eloquence, I must n c o o n m e a f s n s Gentlemen,in loyalty and withoutlove further tohuerr Queenpreface, I wi g ll is y c ie y ld ou Queen, to " The health o f our lovely Quand I long may she live to reign over us."—Drank with all ll the honours and the most enthusiastic acclamation. The CnAtamitN, after a short interval, again rose, and said—The secon d toast which I have the honour of pro posing, is one which I rest assured will be enthusiastically received by all present. Gentlemen, fill your glasses high, for " The Pecple, the true source of all legitimate power." —Received with immense applause, and drank amidst loud and long continued cheering. The CHAIRMAN, again rising, said—Gentlemen, have you a bumper? The toast I am about to propose needs no con.ment ; and although I am well inclined to give every credit to our gracious Queen, for the excellent manner in which she has governed us since her accession to the Throne, yet I must not forget the men who have ever counselled and advised her. I therefore give you " Her Majesty's faithful Ministers." This toast was drank with rapturous plaudits, which lasted for several minutes. Nine timefnitie, and one cheer more full many a time, and oft repeated. The CIIAIKMAN said that he had to propose a toast de,ir to the hearts of all those who heard it. It was deserving ' of a bumper— *VN "fa t VENING 14.:0111.01ie " The Duke of Sussex, and the rest of thq:.fto a . , mily resident in England."—( Great acelamatiii ' ----- The CHAIRMAN next prop ose d I t A , " The Lord Lieutenant, end prosperity to ‘,trifi (Tremendous cheering, followed by a call o more, which was warmly and willingly responds The CHAIRMAN again rose, and said—Genfifitrtrd now call upon you to fill your glasses to the brim, " and no mistake." We have arrived.at the all-absorbing toast of the evening--" The Health of Sir William Brabazon, our excellent RePresentative, and Guest."— , -(Loud and vehement cheering:) " I willingly confess that, in propo sing this toast, I experience sensations of mingled pleasure and pain. The subject is one which I almost fear tp .\ proach, and a th eme f ar b eyon d my humble abil iticitnne political conduct of Sir William Brabazon is well knotvn to you all—he has been tried, and weighed in the ba lance of public opinion, and I am indeed proud tz.•• say that he has not been found wanting.—( Herr, hear, and loud cheers.) Weie I possessed of the eloquence of my friend, Counsellor O'Dond, might probably be able to expatiate in a becoming manner on the exemplary con duct of Sir William, both in political and private life ; but as I am " few in words," I must simply 'content myself with expressin g from my heart and soul, my 'entire con currence and appri.bation in his Parliamentary career. To speak . with regard to his conduct as a landlord in this county, would indeed be superfluous on my part, as his kindness has been so often experienced, and is so Well ap preciated—but I shall refer to the line of policy pursued by him during the past Session. When the interests el his country, and more particularly of Mayo, were con cerned, Sir William was ever to be found at his post— and be never missed an opportunity of voting for any measure which he conceived would tend to the prosperity of Ireland. Gentlemen, with these few observations, I give you " The health of Sir William Br4azon, M. p., our excellent Representative and esteemed friend." The health of Sir William was drank with the most rap turous and reiterated bursts of app,lause. Cheer folz lowed cheer, and the scene was one of heart-stirring de scription. • Sir William Brabazon arose, and was , again greeted with the most enthusiastic and . vehement demon strations, which lasted tor" some mintites. When, the thunders of applause had in some degree .died, away, he said,—" Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chair fmecl man, and very ndGe gr nt e le a m t e b n o , no u u n r fei a g n n d edl ferred on me, not only on thi s , b ut. en -many Simil4T previous occasions, and th e emot i ons .to w hich your proud l ud :distinction sre y oud con ferred kindness has given rise incapacitate me frcnn expressing my gratitude in a manner at all suitable to my wishes. Most gratifying to me are thole proofs that my put politica conduct has been in unison with your wishes and expectations, and I feel_not s Iltat proud that my humble exertions in battling for toy canary's rights and liberties, have not remained unnoticed by you. Gentlemen, it is, I presume, hardly necessary for me to mention, that ever since I took p ar t i n th e p o litical affairs of Mayo, I have advocated her rights, and struggled for her independence ; and I am vain enough to think that I have, in a great degree, been instrumental in ren dering your county as independent as she is--(Htenr, hear, and loud cheers. )—a measure which all mail confess is absolutely and essentially necessary for pant happiness, prosperity, and welfare.—(Load erica 9/ " Hear, hear.") The Hon. Baronet continued to speak g considerable length on the independence of the County Mayo ; and having reviewed the condition of that county within the last ten years, he next proceeded to detail tlia principal features of his political conduct since he entered Parliament. With regard to my Parliamentary career (said Sir William Brabazon), I think it oar safely be asserted by me, that I never performed any one action which was incompatible or inconsistent with the welfare, prosperity, and liberty of Ireland; on the contrary, I always made it my study to contribute in every possible way towards those measures which I con ceived tended to the amelioration of my country. That great political measure, the Reform question, had my strenuous support, and I am, and ever was, in favour of the Vote by Ballot. On the manner in which Ministers acted with regard to this question, I am not disposed at present to speak in harsh terms— but this I do maintain, that the Vote by Ballot is the great bulwark, the heart's-blood of the Reform measure.. Sir Wm. Brabazon then alluded to the dissatisfaction which his vote on the Jamaica question had given to some of his constituents, and assigned his reasons for opposing Ministers on the subject; he said that he was particularly anxious to address sonic words to the electors of: Mayo with regard to the line of policy adopted by him on this occasion, and he felt confident that after he had done so, all doubt would be dispelled from their minds. The substance of the Jamaica Bill was neither more nor less than to deprive a country of its representative body. This was the measure be had opposed, and he did so from conscientious motives ; he reflected on Ireland, and his conviction that he had acted honestly and impartially increased, "I felt within myself, said Sir William, that if Jamaica' were deprived of her representative Parliament, her hap piness, her prosperity, and her independence, would naturally vanish. I imagined what a • country would be bereft of these, and I voted against , the Minis ters.—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) In a few days 1 re turn to London to resume my Parliamentary duties-- and a question of a similar nature to the Jamaica one will be brought under the consideration of the House of Commons ; an attempt will be made to do away with the Gevernment and free Constitution of the Ca nadas. I now wish to know from my constituents how they would wish me to act--for unless you tell me, I will not vote with Ministers, to deprive any country-of her representative Government. On the contrary, my bumble exertions shall he directed in opposing any measure of the kind.—(Hear, hear, and applause.) I voted for a liberal education of the poor.—( Hear.) I conceived that measure would tend to ameliorate the condition of my countrymen— and if my polar star guided me in the wrong- course, I come bare to be set right.-4 Applause.) As I said before, I am about resuming my parliamentary dutias-and If these is any measure which say' constituents arc anxious should be carried into effect, I will aupport it heart.esid hod. You have but io suggest it, in order to enlist my advocacy. I am sorry that I go to Parliament single handed—bat perhaps it is better not to dwell on this topie. The Rail. way question was next adverted to by Sir \V. Brabaxos. The Ministers, he said, had held out this Measure as a dupe to the people—they but raised We 4 - to the lips, and then dashed it, _ from. them, r-AVith !meet* the poet-ra i ivse'EC;rriS i alwaysaciverst to their introduction into Ireland ; but now that they bad become the law of the land, he was anxious that no opposition should be given to them, as he felt satisfied that the measure would not be . of long duration. Again, Gentlemen, Ibe to return jell my thanks.—(The lion, and Learned Baronet then sat down amidst a burst of enthusiasm, like that which re. ceived him on rising, and which baffles all description.) " The health of our excellent Chairman, and my friend, ' Joseph M'Donnell, Esq., Doe Castle."—(Great applause, and drank with all the honours.) Mr. *Dos:cent. returned thanks, and said that ble felt himself under deep obligations for the kind mantisr In which his health had been proposed, and the equally flat tering reception it bad met with at the hands of the cats pany. Hu trusted that he never would be found wanting when his country required his assistance. With the men of Gallen he felt peculiar gratification in being identified, and he hoped that as long as he breathed the breath of life, his connection with those honest fellows would not cease. The CHAIR/4A N, after a short interval had,clapsed, pro posed in appropriate language, " The health of the second Representative of the County Mayo, Robt. Dillon Browoe, Esq."—( Drank with all the honours and loud cheering.) Tho Rev. Mr. Hrc►iEs, P. P., Clarcmorris, spoke to this toast at considerable length, and concluded by ex pressing a hope that the Comity Mayo might long continue to be represented by Mr, Browne. The CHAIRMAN next gave, after some prefatory remarks, " The Catholic Hierarchy and Clergy of Ireland."— ( Drank with rapturous applause. ) The Rev. Mr. COLEMAN being loudly called on from all parts of the room, responded to this toast, and eulogised in glowing and deserving language the body of which . he had the honour of being a member. The next toast which the CHAIRMAN said it fell to. his lot to propose, was that of an honest, high-minded, and Liberal Protestant—an exemplary and charitable man— one whose name was to be found connected with every liberal measure, and who was foremost on all occasions ti) d p i r t o io m u o ai promote the ep ie r i os u pe o r u i l t d y g o i f ro hi t s h c e o m untry. Wit, bout any ad " Tho lion. and Rev. Dean Gore." The announcement of this toast was, the ,signal for the most•onthusiastic cheering, and the health of this exem plary and beloved man was drank in a manner-worthy of his name and patriotic conduct. Tho Hon. and Rev. Dean Gore rose to return thanks, and the scene of spirit-sti-ring enthusium was again re newed. When silence was in some degree restored, he said that he could not find words capable of expressing his gra titude for th e h onour d one h i m, but he felt a peculiar pride • in being possessed of the universal and individual friend ship of those around him. The praise which my friend, the Chairman, has lavished on me, I cannot possibly lay claim to—but I shall endeavour to merit even a very humble portion of h s culogiurn.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I know not how or in what manner I can at tempt to express my gratitude for the favours which you confer on me, but believe mo that those favours will be an additional stimulant to my exertions in Oae cause of liberality.—(Cheers.) I confess that I am at tached to the faith and doctrines of my forefathers. In that faith will I live and die—( Cheers)—but I think it would indeed ill become me on that account to entertain . a hostile, invidious, or bad feeling towards those hold ing different tenets or opinions.--(Loud cheers.) Did I, Sir, even cherish such unchristian-like prin ciples, the recollection that my worthy father had voted for the emancipation of Roman Catholics, would in itself be sufficient to dispel them.—(Cheers.) I have evne been the advocate of purely liberal principles. lamso at present—rind I shall always combat for civil and religions liberty—equality to all--ascendancy to none.--(Cheers.)"' Sir W. Brabazon I conscientiously believe to be as bone"_ sterling and upright man—an excellent and worthy repre sentative. On this account, at former elections, I gave him my humble but ardent support • and I feel a sincere pleasure in reflecting that Sir William's parliamentary career has been such as obtained the well merited com mendation of his constituents. (The Hon. and Re,. Dean sat down amidst the most enthusiastic cheering.) • The CHAIRMAN proposed, " The Freedom of Election, and the Indepetscleace of Mayo."—( Loud cheering, and drank with nine timeellrsne.) Counsellor O'Down responded to the toast. " The health of the Hon. P. Cavendish, and the Isiberal Press of Ireland." The following toasts were afterwarils given:— " Daniel Jones, Jun., Esq., of Banada." The health of " Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M:P„ the Man of the People, and the Regenerator of his Country." Responded to in the most soul-stirring and vehement manner by the company. " Lord Teynham," a man who at all times evinced the greatest anxiety to increase the prosperity of the Irish people. Several other toasts were then proposed, and responded to by excellent speeches from gentlemen present: 1 ~~,f .~. ~~11~ Pl- SAati