The Sun. — London, England, 1840-02-08 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. IMPERIAL FA 'F. ROUSE OF LORDS, F. 7. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, ',TA the Earls of Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and Errol took cir seats at Four o'Clock, as Royal Commissioners, and ~ 11 e , Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod having been di rected to surnmoa the House of Commons, the Speaker, attended by several Members, shortly afterwards appeared at the be; when the Royal Assert was given in the usual form to Prince Albert's Naturalisation Bill, and Prince Albert's Annuity Bill. The House then adjourned during pleasure. The House resumed its sitting at Five o'Clock. The Earl of STANHOPE presented a petition from the Community of Rational Religionists established in Hampshire, praying for inquiry into the Socialist doctrines, and that Mr. Owen should bo examined at the bar ; also one from a number of inhabitants of Liverpool, belonging to Cie Society, also praying for inquiry ; also one from a number of the inhabitants of Brighton, net is embers of any political society, and a similar one from Halifax, all pray ing for inquiry. He was not present when the discussion on this subject took place, otherwise he must have agreed with what fell from the Noble Marquis, the Secretary for the Home Department, that anything savouring of persecution would, so far from doing good, have the con trary effect. He could not have concurred in the a ddreLs to her Majesty, as he could not see the propriety of such a course wh en th e i r L or d ships might have had a full in quiry into the matter before a Committee which would have the further advantage of allowing the stand. on his def ence . H e h a d no connection party charged to with the Social ists. He was only anxious that justice should be done to each PP-rtY• Chsrtism and Socialism were both evils arising :root the t!iz.content existing throughout the country, and the growin g opinion of the messes, that their condition would never be improved except by some great organic change. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER gave notice that on Thursday he wouldbringf. bring his motion respecting Railroads, and the better supplying of the metropolis with water. RURAL POLICE. The Duke of RICHMOND wished to ask the Noble Ylrquis, the Secretary for the Home Department, whe ther tie would have any objection to lay on the table a re turn of the counties who had adopted the Rural Consta bulary Force Act of last year; and whether it was the intention of the Government to bring into Parliament, during the present Session, any Bill to amend that Act ? And if so, whether the alteration would be merely tech nical, or affect the principle of the measure ; and also at what period the Bill might be expected to come under the discussion of the House. The Marquis of NO RMANB Y said that he should have no objection to make the returns as requested; but in many counties the Bill had not been adopted universally, but only by a division of the county ; and certainly it was tl2e intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of last Session, and that. the amendments would not be merely technical, but would affect the machinery and relieve certain classes who appeared to be t .:justly taxed, without receiving benef,t. He expected to receive the draft of the Bill to-morrow, which he should he happy to communicate to his Noble Friend. The Duke of RICHMOND said that his object in in quiring was, that the Act of last Session had come up at so late a period that it nas impossible sufficient attention could be given to it. It appeared to him that a matter of so great importance should be referred to a Select Corn nii!tee. In the division of the county of Sussex in which he resided its effect had been to increase the rate. A conversation ensued on the subject, in which Lord Doncannon, Lord Redeidale, and the Earl of Chi chester took part, when the Duke of Richmond inti mated that after Easter he should move, when the Bill was brought up that it should be referred to a Select Com mittee. to which the Marquis of Normanby said be should not offer any opposition. Tha Marquis - of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition f ro m several respectable persons, who had invested capital ;n the erection of flour mills in the County Down, against the Act for the importation of fareign flour into Ireland. The Marquis . of BUTE presented a pet•tiorm from the Presbytery of Ayr and other places, praying their Lordships to prevent the intrusion of ministers contrary to the wishes of their parishioners. Tile Earl of MINTO presented petitions to the same eact. The N0131.F. Emu_ also presented a petition for a mo d7fication of the Corn.lawi, but the name of the placu from hence it came we could not hear. Ti:eir Lordship; then adjourned, at Hall-past Five :)'Clock, till Tuesday nest. ROUSE OF CO.lL.llOlV,i' FEN. 7. The SPEAg.ER took the Chair at Four o'Clotk. The Report of the Shannon Harbour Commissioners vas brought up, and laid upon the table. Mr. G RIM SDITC H presented a petition, complaining that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, in respect to the Hull Docks' Bill. SOCIALISM. Mr. BARING WALLpTc;sented a petition from West Tivorly, complaining of the impunity with which the Socialists in Hampshire were allowed to profane the Sab- Lath by holding public meetings on that day for the pro pagation of blasphemous doctrines. Mr. COMPTON presented a petition to the same eZect from the parish of West Dean. TITHES.—(IRELAND.) . . Mr. BEA NILS El presented a petition from 9,000 inha bitants of the county of Cork, complaining of the opera tion of the Tithes Commutation Act, and especially in re 3pect to ministers' money. CORN-LAWS. Mr. VILLIERS presented several petitions from places in Scotland, praying fur the total repeal of the Corn-laws. MUNICIPAL REFORM (IRELAND). Mr. ROCHE presented a petition from a parish in tha c^unty of Cork, praying for Municipal Reform and the extension of the franchise. On the motion of Mr. EMERSON TENNENT the ;.'='_'age Carriages (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. CHURCH-RATES. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from a pace in Essex and from a place in Kent, praying for the release of John Thorogood, and also that the House would into its consideration the question of Church-rates, wi'h a view to the removal of that bitter grievance during the present Session of Parliament. He would take that opportunity of stating that it was his intention to conclude the motion of which he had given notice Tuesday naxt, relating to the case of John Thorogood, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to rc:ease from the payment of Church-rates that portion 01 her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissent front the rites and doctrines of the Established Church. The HON. MEMBER likewise presented a petition from ;kiln Joseph, of Dartmouth, in Devonshire, stating that he we the representative of Samuel Joseph, late of the Royal Yi..irines, to whom large sums of prize money were due; or applying for the same, he had been sent from Chelsea Hospital to the War-office, and from the War-office to tnelsea Hospital ; and praying the interference of the house. THE MONMOUTH PRISONERS. Mr. HUME presented a petition front the work ing men of Marylebone, stating that they deeply sympathised with those unfortnnata men, .John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, and William Jones, hoping that means might be taken to obtain them a free pardon, and praying the House to interfere to obtain it. CORN-LAWS. Mr. DENISTOUN presented a petition from the Royal Burgh of Arbroath, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr, BAINES presented a petition from a parish in Suffolk, praying- for the abolition of Courts of Ecclesias tical Jurisdiction. (Sir F. Trench entering the House, was received with a little cheering and merriment, congratulatory of the adoption of his favourite mode of lighting the !louse by chandeliers of wax candles, the effect of which is very superb, but at the same time very injurious to the eye sight, especially to those who (like usj sit on a level with, ani not beneath, them.) CORN-LAWS. Lord MORPETH presented several petitions from " .., .: ,, kahire. in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. '..:ONVEYANCE OF MAILS TO THE WEST INDIES. Mr. HUME moved for returns of any agreement en tered into by the Government for the conveyance of the mails to the West Indies and America._ Agreed to. - Mr. BROTHERTON gave notice of a motion for an Address to imr Majesty to bestow som e mark of approba tion on a certain Captain cf a Merchant ship for his ser. vices in savice human life from a wreck. Mr. BARNABYpostponed his motion respecting Canal and Railway Bills. _ _ ELECTION COMMITTEES. The SPEAKER said, that with tho permission of the I - Liuse, he would proceed to swear the Gentlemen who tr,re appointed to serve as Chairmen of Committees on cc,ntrovected elections. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON rose to put a question to the Noble Lord the secretary for Ireland, whom he then saw I in his place. The SPE AKER said that it would be inconvenient for the Hon. Member to put his question at that moment. lie then called Mr. Green, Mr. Miles, The O'Connor Don, Mr. Ord, Mr. Sturt, and Mr. John Young, who came to the Table, and took the oath as Chairmen of Election Committees. EDUCATION (IRELAND.) Mr. Sergeant JACKSON wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, whether any change had taken piece in the regulations of the Board of Education in Ire la-d, and if so, what that change was. He hoped the Noble Lord would give him a distinct and satisfactory an...ver, after which he should havo another question to propose. Lord MORPLTII said that be believed the only change which had taken place was that recommended in the Report in 1938, namely, that a certain time of the hours of school education should be set apart for religious :ruction. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged further to ask what cloinge had been made in the queries circulated by the Board, and also whether any alteration had been made iri the regulation which required that applications for aid should be concurred in by three Clergymen of different persuasions. Lard MORPETH was understood to say that certain changes had been mad e i n t h e query. I t was not necessary that applications shouli be signed by three Clergymen, but it was understood that the Board would give preference to those so signed. . Mr. Sergeant JACKSON again begged to ask the Noble Lord whether there had not recently been a conference between a deputation from the Synod of Ulster and the Commissioners of Education, and whether the result of that conference had not been that the Synod had withdrawn Heir propositions ? Lord MO R PETH said it was quite 'true that since '3 departure from Ireland echferences had taken place '...:tsvecn the Commissioners of Education and a Deputa tion from the Synod of Ulster, and that en one occasion a Confer nee had been held in +he pre sence of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and there was every reason to hope that the result of these conferences would be the establishment of a perfectly g,oed understanding between the Board of Education and the Synod of Ulst er . H e did not apprehend that this good understanding would arise in consequence of a de . p- i rturc by either side from the principles which ha d been on, Itid down, but it would arise from the removal of misap prehensions which had previously existed. fir. :could Sergeant have a e y JACKSONobjection askedoerdapi_f he u plication of the synod of Ulster and the answer thereto. t. o lay on the the Noble table Lord MORPET II said he would not object to laying those documents on the table. Slr FREDERICK TRENCH gave notice that at the next m eeting . , of the House. he should put a question to the. Charcellor of the Exchequer relative to the builclinu of a bridge over the Shannon at Athlone. Mr. GOUL BURN wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question referring to the transmission o r the Bills of that House through the Post-office. Ile wished to know whether any arraogernent had been made for the transmission of the Votes and Bills of that House through the Pcst-c,ffice free of postage The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would take that opportunity of stating to the House the course which he thought it would be most convenient to pursue. He had received within the last few days a resolution of the Printing Committee, stating their opinion as to what arrangement would be best with regard to the transmis sion of the papers of that House through the Post-office. They stated it was their opinion that the Bills and Votes should pass free. Sa strong was his objection to opening a door for the renewal of franking, that he hoped tine House would not grant that point. H e tho ug ht the following arrangem nt would meet the views of all parties. If the House were of opinion that that cl.ss of its orocee l ing should pass free of postage, he hoped the same course would be pursued with regard to their Votes and Bills, as to the letters of public officers. They would be charged with postage at the Post-office, against the House, and the sum could be liquidated by the House, that would produce the same effect as it they were free of postage, while, on the other hand, it would not open the door to the system of franking, which, as a public officer, he conceivedto be one of the greatest abuses that could exist.—(Cheers.) If he understood that this would meet the views of the House he would make arrangements accordingly. Mr. GOL:LB URN said that, as far as he understood, what bad fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman would entirely meet his views, that the Bills and Votes of the House should be transmitted by Members and returned to Members, and that the House should be charged with postage. Mr. C. BULLER wished to know whether it was the intention of her Mjesty's Government to bring in any Bill in the course of the present Session to alter the con stitution of the Privy Council. Lord J. RUSSELL said that his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had under his c , nsideration a scheme for the better administration of justice in the Courts of Equity, and that scheme would likewise embrace the Privy Council. Mr. DIVETT wished to know whether it was the in tention of the Noble Lord the Member for Hertford to pro ceed on Wednesday with the Bill that stood for a second reading on that day ? Lord MAHON could not at the present moment answer that question, IMPORTATION OF FLOUR INTO IRELAND. Mr. E. TENNEN T wished to know whether it was the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to proceed to-night with the Bill that stood in the Orders of the Day for a second reading ? The question of privilege would take precedence, and such being the case he was afraid that it could not be brouc•iit on till a late hour. Mr. L ABOUC H E RE said it was his intention to bring on the question to-night if he could do so at a reasonable hour. He was most anxious that the question should be discus.ed, and the Bill forwarded a stage. The Bill was one of an important description, and was not one of details, so that it could not become a subject of much discussion. He was therefore determined on bringing on the Bill that night, if he should find it con venient. _ _ Mr. F. SHAW thought that there was little chance of the Bill being fully discussed if brougnt on that evening. Mr. L A BOUCHERE said he had no objection to put off the Bill, were it not for his anxiety to remove the misapprehensions which existed on the subject. Sergeant JACKSON wished to know if the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade were aware that gentlemen were at present on their way from Ireland to this country for the purpoFe of affording instruction to Irish Members on this subject. Mr. L ABOUCHERE said that he was not aware of that fact. Oa the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it was then resolved that the House, on its rising, should adjourn till Tuesday. PRIVILEGE—(ADJOURNED DEBATE.) Sir M. WOOD said that before the Adjourned Debate on the Privilege Question came on, he had a peti tion to present for the liberation of the Sheriffs, signed at a meeting at the Common Hall by the Lord Mayor, Common Councilmen, and the Livery of the City of London on that day. They had met in the afternoon to consider the subject. They had come to resolutions of an important description, and the meeting was a numerous one, while those resolutions had been passed almost without a dis sentient. The I-lon. Member concluded by moving that the petition should be brought up. The petition was then read at length, it pre) ed the dis , charge of the Sheriffs. Mr. BL ACK STONE presented a similar petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Wallingford— ; ( Ironical cheers from Mr. O'Connell and other Liberal Members)—agreed to without a disentient voice. He moved that it be read, which having been done. Sir E. SUGDEN said that the question was one of , the deepest importance as involving the privileges of the House and the liberty of the subject. He should endea , your, in the course of his observations, to avoid saying any thing that might give pain to any individual, and give rise to any feelings of discontent on the part of the mino rity of the House agaiost the majority.--( Hear.) Before he went into the general merits of the subject, he would beg to observe, as some misrepresentation had gone abroad with respect to his own opinions on the subject, that with every deference to the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, he thought their judgment was wrong on that parti cular point.—( Hear, hear.) It had always been his opinion that the publications in question were privileged, and that the decision of the Judges ought to have been otherwise. He would be most ready to support any measure in order to give the House power, if it had it not, to publish its proceedings; but before doing so, he must have some pre liminary settlement. First of all, he could not allow the sale of this publication, and they must take particular care that, in whatever they did publish, they did not wan tonly and carelessly inflct injury upon any indivi. dual. He did not call upon the majority of the House to give up their expressed opinions, though he called upeen them to release the Sheriffs. He thought he could show the House that the time had arrived when those gentlemen ought to be discharged. It was a mere que;tion of time, for the time must arrive when they would be discharged. If the House did not the law would ; so therefore the whole question resolve) itself into a mere question of time, and what Hon. Mem bers had to ask themselves at this time was, had that time arrived? After calling the attention of the House to the whole proceedings and the various actions, he said in what situation were the Sheriffs placed ? In the first action the decision of the Court against the House was left un touched—in the second action the decision of the four Judges was left untouched, and tl e dem lees and costs wet paid. To the third action no Me, ce was made, Now the House could not support itself on no defence; for all the authorities, legal and constitutional, held that the plea of privilege must be raised, if only to show that the officer or the person claiming the privilege of the Huse had not I abused the privilege. No lawyer can contradict that. Now the House having in the two first actions submitted to the judgment of the Ceurt, and having to the third action made no defence, heavy damages were recovered. Why. if the House would not maintain its own privileges, could they expect the Sheriffs to maintain them ?—( Hear. hear.) Ought they to make the poor Sheriffs the scape goat of their neglect, like the whipping boy, whee vas thrashed for his rich patron's faults ?—( Laughter. ) The House had not the courage to attack the Judges. The House had made an order that the Sheriffs should pay tin money to Messrs. Hansard. Why the Lord Chief Justice had truly declared that the money as justly belonged to Mr. Stockdale, the plaintiff, as the estates of any gentleman in that House to their owner. No man could deny that in point of law. It was on that ground he should move that the resolution of the House, ' ordering the Sheriffs to repay to Messrs. Hansard the money levied on them, should be rescinded. The order was illegal. That House had no power to impose a fine upon any of the Queen's subjects. No man in that House could deny that proposition, and what the House could not do directly, it could not do indirectly, and ordering the Sheriffs to repa) to the Messrs. Hansard the money that belonged to Mr. Stockdale, was indirectly lining them. If they had paid the money according to that order, the House had no power to indemnify them. For his part, he had cautiously abstained from holding the slightest communication with the Sherifls, directly or indirectly, and he was only dis charging a p u bli c d uty i n the part he took on th i s occa sion. But he understood that k the Sheriffs had actually paid the money to Mr. Stoc dale, amid that person now had it in his pockets. He (Sir E Sugden) thought it would be a great deal better for the Sheriffs themselves, paid to Mr. Stockdale jnnir.a' and for the House of convenience to which the Sheriffs if the money bad been of their not havingmonths done ago. ,el„ 0 e l l l d o However, e a r , lessonth ei itio had been put in conse quenceother men, that it is always the h best way to take in e st a e r aa m ought u decided ght to h c a o v u e rs course.—( paid( H a e t ar. on h c C e a , r, uots f The hav e Sheriffsknown t eahtsedCourt of endeavour ing to conciliate that House, when the that they would be compelled) toHeoLreyp that h he Queen's Bench.—( Hear, hear_ had had no communication with the Sheriffs, but be lieved that they had brought themselves into theiaryptreoesde, predicament by putting off the payment from d in the hope of conciliating the House. There could be y no doubt, that in obeying the order of the House, and paying the money to the Messrs. Hansard, t h e Sheriffs would be 6001. out of pockets. If this were se, they were evidently imposing a fine upon these gentle- MQII for merely acting constitutionally ; an d , on that ground alone, these gentlemen were entitled to their dis_ charge. But there were many other grounds on which he would address the House as reasons for the release of these gentlemen. Those who held that they ought never r v o o c t c e e f d o i r n tghse werei r discharge; illegal, those o t b e w o h m o m ti i t l t ocigd,h w t o u tlitt of would of course vote for their dischar g e; but those who committed, these eo u r 3 e p held a contrary opinion might be moved by other con siderations, to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. In he first place, that difficulty had arisen which 1 he had unders•ood some Hon. Members who voted for the commitment to be desirous should arise, and by which the House were placed in this situation. He under stood that they had voted fur the committal of the Sheriff-, in order to see what step the Cut of Queen s Bench 1 would take. That step had been taken, and an attach ment had been issued, directed to the Coroner by the Court of Queen's Bench against the Sheriffs, demanding payment of that money. Now, that money must be paid under that attachment, and consequently this difficulty had arisen._( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell- ) 'Abe Hon. Member for Dublin seemed to think there would be no difficulty at all, but the fact was that in that case the Coroner would have walked into Newerate by order of the Court of Quee n ' s B enc h, an d the - Hovse would have found that they would have been as powerless to release the Coroner as the Queen's Bench was to release the Sheriffs. He knew that the proceedings of that House had engaged the attention of foreign juries, and what would they say if they were told that after having sub mitted to the judgment of the Queen's Bench, and ac quiesced in it, by paying the damages, that when another action was brought of the same nature to which no defence had been made, and after the officer had made a levy in consequence of the order of the Court who had said they would commit him to prison, if they did not make that levy, that the House had committed him to prison because he had done so, how ceuld they make foreigners understand this ? Why they did not under stand it themselves.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) You would defy any body to understand it—it was only an •J act of injustice that they were committing.--( Hear, hear, from Mr O'Connell.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin seemed to like that expression, but he was mis taken if ha thought he had intended to use it offensively. Nobody knew the grounds upon which that House was acting. When they issued a warrant for the apprehension of the Sheriff's, they kept entirely out of view all statement of the offence with which they stood charged.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He was surprised to hear the Honour able and Learned Attorney-General state, that the Sheriffs ought to pay the money according to the order of that House, and that the Court of Queen's Bench should consider that a sufficient justification. He (Sir E. Sug den) had taken the liberty of dissenting from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and the next day proved that he was right, and that the Attorney-General was wrong. He did not deny the authority of that House, to issue a general warrant. of commitment, but he doubted very much whether they could maintain it. When the case came for argument before the Queen's Bench, the Judges in observ ing- upon the warrant, said it was utterly impossible for them to decide whether the House of Commons had pro perly exercised its functions, no ground for the commit ment having been stated in face of the warrant. He be lieved that opinion was largely entertained out of doors. The object he bad in view was to show that the warrant had been so drawn as to take from the Sheriffs the secu rity it professed to give them, namely, a paper to show that they had obeyed that House, and therefore they could not obey the order of the Judges. It had been said that the Sheriffs were without excuse, because it was the law of the country that if an officer was ordered to do one thing by one Court, and then desired not to do so by a Superior, there was no necessity to obey the first order. Anything more grossly wrong in point of law had never been stated. He considered that the case had now come to that point when if it was thought proper to adopt reme dial measures they might be pursued. There was another ground which appeared to him conclusive in favour of the Sheriffs. Ile begged the particular attention of the House to that subject. It was this, that they had put the Sheriffs into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, because they had obeyed an order of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that they were determined to continue to obey t. That was the simple ground on which they had pro ceeded. Now, since the Sheriffs had been in custody, they had themselves, in a more solemn manner, obeyed the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, he asked if it was p-ssible for them to go into a Court of Justice when it suited their own convenience, and to punish a publee officer for acknowledging the authority of the sante Court? Were they to punish the Sheriffs for obey ing a Court which they themselves had obeyed ? They were now making history, and their proceedings would he handed to posterity, when thousands would calmly consider the steps they were taking; and what would be the impression of after ages, when they should learn that a House of Commons had punished in others an obedience to those very Judges whose jurisdiction they had acknowledged themselves ?—(licer, hear. ) I- was said that if the House were obeyed by the Sheri ffs it would protect thew. How ? By sending the Sergeant after the tipstaff, who attempted to arrest the Sheriffs, or, if the Coroner were attached for refusing to arrest them, sending the Coroner to take the tipstaff instead of alloµing the tipstaff to take the Coroner.—(A laugh. ) But how would that act? Why the tipstaff would be . waiting at the Coroner's door, and would lodge him in Newgate long before complaint cou ld b e ma d e to t h at House. It might be said the House could release the Coroner fir the Sheriffs. That was absurd.—(" Oh, oh," from Mr. O'Connell and others.) The House could not do it but byforce.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) Yes ; hut how would that be accomplished ? On one occa sion in ancient times, some Members were actually selected to storm Newgate for a similar object. But the Speaker happened to mention an "action on the case," and this frightened them from the insane project. Besides, suppose the Sheriffs were let out one day, they would be taken the next. The Noble Lord (John Russell) should not be actuated on this question by any irri tation of feeling produced by any language which might have been used in the City petition or others. He could not help thinking that the petition which he had presented from the bar of England, signed by 508 barris ters, embracing men of all political opinions, and which would have been signed by a great many more had it not been so moderately framed, and the petition from the Common Hall to-day, were ample grounds why the Sheriffs ought to he discharged. The question was, if the time had not arrived for the release of the Sheriffs, when would that time arrive ?—( Hear, hear. ) The Sheriffs had already paid the money to Mr. Stockdale ; the order of that House had stated that they should pay the some sum to Messrs. Hansard, and was not that imposing a fine? He had no hesitation in saying that it was a llegal. Th e Solicitor-General had carried the matter so far, that he in timated it would be proper to pray the Crown not to pro rogue the Parliament, but to adjourn from time to time. Worse advice was never given—anything more untenable in the face of that House and the country he had never heard, and he deeply regretted that his lion, and Learn e d Friend, in his first speech , on taking his seat as Solicitor- General, should have delivered such doctrines, and in a tone which ill became an officer of the Crown, who might have to prosecute the parties. There should be mcJeration, temper, and forbearance in official men.—( Laughter.) He understood that laugh; it meant, of course, that there should not be—that the So licitor-General had it not—that there was no mildness or tamper in his oration ; he must say he never heard a speech with greater regret than that. What did he tell the House? He said, " Act on your power; don't appeal to the Courts of Law." And then he falls into the incon sistency of saying, that they must address the Crown for a force, instead of acting on their own power. What if the Queen should deliver such an answer as a former Queen did to the House of a Commons on a similar occasion, when they wished to prevent a writ of error, after the House could proceed no further, and it was supposed the writ would he issued ? The House of Commons ad dressed the Crown, and told the Queen that they had passscd her Supplies and Money Bills, and, therefore, hoped she would do them justice, and deny the writ of error. He wculd read to them Queen Anne's re ply, from which they might form a notion of what Queen Victoria would say, it this address were to be pre sented to her—" Her Majesty is much troubled to find that the House of Commons are of opinion that granting a writ of error would be against their privileges, of which she is -s tender as of her own prerogative, and therefore the House of Commons may depend that her Majesty will not do any thing to give them just cause of complaint. But this matter relating to the course of judicial proceedings being of the highest importance, her Majesty thinks it ne cessary to weigh and consider very carefully what is proper for her to do in a thing of so great consequence." And what was the result ? The House of Commons were so displeased that they sent no answer to that address. But the House of Lords sent a contrary address, drawn up by Lord Somers, and in the answer to that address her Ma jesty said she should have granted the writ desired in this address, but finding an absolute necessity for putting an end to the Session, she was certain no further proceedings could be taken on the subject;" and the Lords thanked her Majesty for her gracious answer, Respecting the conduct of the Sheriffs, he wished !o say a word, to show what different vie—s were enter tained. The Lord Chief Justice, on a late occasion, had expressed his approbation of it, and, therefore, did tint view it in the same light as the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General said it was an insult to the House to mention the oaths which the Sheriffs had taken. He should have thought no person would have given so strong an opinion, but he was free to confess, that if the Heusi,' had the power it had assumed, to obey their orders would not have been in the Sheriff, a breach of their oaths. But the Courts of Law said the House had not this power, and how then were the Sheriffs to decide ? They must obey the Courts of Law if they were right, and not the House of Commons if they were wrong.—( Hear, hear.) The deliberate opinion of the Superior Court had been given upon the case, and it was against the case set up by the House. The question was not whether the Sheriff; would break their oaths by obeying the House, but did they think so. For all these reasons, he hoped the House would come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when it was proper these Gentlemen should be released. He could assure the Houao that the more time that was lost the case would become more difficult, and he had shown that I-lon. Members who held their original opinion might now vote for the discharge of the Sheriffs. The Solicitor- General said he was quite prepared to support the resolu tions of 1837, but there was not another constitutional au thority in the country who held the same opinion. If they were to be adhered to there was an end to the liberties of the country. They might punish the officers as they had done before ; and that as Sir Thomas More said once, " That was revenge—that was a sweet hit, and that was some satisfaction."—( A laugh.) The Attorney-General had given them up when he had advised the House to ap pear to the second action. His Hon. and Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) asked them to oppose the Courts of Law, oppose the House of Lords as a Judicial Tribunal, and ho promised success. Ho ( Sir E. Sugden) would show that upon all former occasions, when the House set up such privileges, they had always been obliged to give way ; and, if he made that clear to the House, then he thought he would have made out a case for the discharge of these G ent l e men. These resolutions were annulled the moment the Attorney-General went into Court. The Court decided against them—why then not go to the House of Lords, - which House would have decided the question judicially, and there could be no fear of a wrong decision for the privileges of both Houses were equal? They were trusted with deciding on all questions of pro perty-,nay. even upon life and death. Why, then, not take this question for the decision; if they decided against the privilege, they nave up so much of their 014 n privilege, therefore th ere cou ld b e no f e ar of a wron g d ec i s i on . Aft er going at great length into the case of Ashby v. White, wher.in the House of Lords decided that they had a right to question the privileges of the House of collllllolls, he THE SITN, LONDON, SATURDAY FEBRUARY said, at that time the House of Commons alarmed at ellen a decision caene to resolutions that any one interfering with or challenging their privileges by assisting Ashby in his action, were guilty of a high contempt ef the H ,use. The House of Lords had their attention drawn to these rmiolu tions, and the Lords drew up a Rapist showieg a case wherein the House of Commons itself a pp ee l e et tea then in support of their privileges, and they came to counter resolutions, sey ireg, thst those of the Commons were set ting all law at defiance, aid putting the H .u•e of Coal mons above all other bra- cues of the Legislature. Th e Solicitor-General said the [louse had always been sue. cessful, was that so? On the contrary, Ashby continued his action—he recovered damages, and other five actions were immediaiely commenced by the same attorney. The House ot . Lords again csme to reselutions, ;yid gav e their protection to all counsel meg:red in Ine s ., actions—was hat being euccessful ?—( Hear ) Gee was constitutional, the other unconstitutiemil ; one legal, and the other illegal. They resolved that by those resolu tions the House of Commons had assumed a new privilege to which they were not entitled ; thereupon a cord eenee was held, and after that the House of Con mons resolvsd that no commoner committed by the Hoene of Comieoe; ought to be made to appear to any writ of habeas.—that the Sergeant-at-Arms be ordered to refuse to make any return to any writ of habeas, and that the House would protect him in his refusal, and that the resolutions be communi cated to the Lord Keeper. That was going further then the Attorney-General. In the case of Lord Shaftesbury, the Lords had permitted him to be brought before the Court, and the House of Lords had rescinded the resolu tions. What was the result of the Aylesbury cases The Parliament was prorogued ; the plaintiffs in all those cases pocketed the damages. That case was the law of this country, and must remain so until it was reversed. There fore the Solicitor-General was not correct in stating that success had always attended this H use. In the case of Burdett and Abbott they had been successful because they had gone into the Courts. The Noble Lord would go to law when the Court was with him, but net when they were against him.—( Hear, hear.) There had been plenty of prudence in the present case. It was prudent to keep out of the warrant the cause of the commitment, but it was not fair or just. Yen suffered your prisoners and your Ser geant to go without protection to the Court, and you were strong in the justice of the Court. Stockdale would most likely bring an action against the Sergeant for false imprison ment ; and they would prudently plead, because they knew the Court would be with them ; but in any case in which they thought the Court would he against them, they would not plead. He could nit doubt but what took place in this House impeded the course of the Courts of Law ; and ho would ask if thee- proceedings were likely to in crease the respect for the law and the Judges in the dis turbed districts ? What could they think when they heard the Attorney-General deriding the authority of the Judges? The result of his Learned Friend's argument was to per severe, and that the Queen's Bench would not outrage the law by sending Sheriff after Sheriff to prison for obe. dience to the orders of the House. The Court must do it ; they were bound to do it. He believed the House ought to have the rights demanded, but they must be se cured to them by some other means ; and he implored of them, out of respect to the peace of the country, and to the Judges, to release the Sheriffs. He would receive it as a boon from the Noble Lord. He would ask the Noble Lord to grant this, that the festive board of the city of London, on the occasion of her Majesty's marriage, might not be ungraced by the presence of the Sheriffs. The LORD ADVOCATE !aid, that notwithstanding the forebodings of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentle man, they stood in a stronger position than they had done. Ile was glad to hear that his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Exeter was of opinion that the judgment of tire Queen's Bench was wrong ; and, in consequence, he had advised the House to go again to the Queen's Bench, and remove the decision by writ of error when their privilege would undoubtedly be effirmed, He trusted the House would not pursue this course. The privilege was undoubtedly theirs, and they ought to maintain it. The Right lion. Gentleman admitted that if they had stated in the warrant the particular case of contempt, that he would have held, in that case, that the privilege was so clearly theirs that if the cause had been expressed the prisoners must have been remanded. He thought they had gained a great deal in gaining that admission. That privilege had been as serted over and over again, during the cote , se of the pre sent session, by the committal of Stockdale, of the Sheriffs, and of Stockdale's attorney, and therefore they were en titled to assume that they possessed that privilege. It had always been held that each House possessed all those rights and privileges necess try to the energetic dis charge of their duties, and he would contend this House could never discharge its duties usefully, if it had not the power of communicating to the country at large those papers on which it founded its legislative enact ments. There was another point on which the light privil eges , an d t hi s po i nt was Hon. Gentlemen had said nothing, of the right o f that House to adjudication as a Court of Parli amen t an d ori roewsonlution o f 1837 . H e thought g no in t 4 a l it impossible for the House to abandon, a p o i n t so i mport . b ju an r d i s o d n i e c d t i o b n y o n t b i e t s ant as that it was the exclusive judge of its own privileges. This was a question if the law of Parliament was part of the law of the land, just as the law administered in the Courts of Equity and the Court of Admiralty was part of the law of the land ; but it was a most fallacious argument that, because it was part of the law of the land, it was sub ject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice. It was part of the law of the land only in an enlarged eignification, and in certain cases no doubt the Court of Queen's Bench might, and indeed would be bound to take cognizance of it; but another point was, that the Courts of Law could not know as well as the House what was necessary for the proper discharge of its duties. They might speculate omit it, and there might be individuals more learned in the law of Parliament than many Members sitting in that House, but that was not the question. Look to the danger which would arise were this the case, and see if any man could for a moment acknowledge that he was willing to put in jeopardy the power of the House, and to surrender its privileges by permitting the Courts of Law to adjudicate upon them, for by so doing they might be drawn on to appeal to the blouse of Lords, and thus to put their privileges in the power of what might be a rival ; and mark this, although with respect to many privileges, both Houses might wish to have them in common, yet the House of Commons, having different duties to perform, might requir e p owers diff e rent to th e H ouse o f L ords , and he knew nothing that illustrated this more than this question of publication. There was one very common case too, which occurred every year at the commencement of the Session—the declaration of the House that it was a breach of its privileges for Peers to ioterfere in the election of its Members ; but the House of Peers had never held that this was a breach of the privileges of Parlia ment. lie did not say that there might not be cases in which the question of the privileges of the House might not be incidentally raised in the Courts of Law, and in which the Courts, in order to expedite their own jurisdic tion, might be under the necessity, to a ce r t a i n extent, o f inqui r i ng w h at was the law of v Parliament, but then it must state the law of Parliament from Parliament itself, and administer the law as it received it from Parliament. not set up as such its own decision, founded on imperfect in formation. This was a case not left ir, ambiguity ; it was not a point on which Parliament had given no decision ; it bad not only declared what it held to be the law of privi lege, but in this very case of Stockdale and Hansard it had adjudicated and determined, in the most solemn man ner, that the publication of its proceedings was one of its privileges, and that to interfere with it was a breach of them. Now with respect to the Sheriffs, the language which had been held in that House and out of doors was that the House was doing injustice to the Sheriffs. He wished the House and the country to consider to whom this char.-, of tyranny and o pp ress i on proper l y app li e 1 . He did' no hesitate to say, he thought, that• when this matter wa considered, the House would be freed from all charg e o oppression, and that charge would be apphed to the Court , of Law, for if the Sheriffs found that the p ison narnee in the writ was privileged by the law of Parliament, and stated this to the Court, it had no right to compel them ti, execute it, for it had been decided in the else of Kensingt Palace., that it was a good excuse for a Sheriff not to exe cute a writ that it was against privileged goods or a privi leged person. Could the Courts, therefore, say the I would not take this answer, when, if the House forb.:e them to execute it, the Courts of Law had no rich to dispute that order of the House ? .dust not, he riskei . protection and responsibility go together ? Who were the sheriffs ?—not the officers of the House of Commons. The House owed them inn protection, for they were the officers of toe Courts of Law, and were efficers cotitlec! to protection, for they did not serve by choice, but by elec tion, and were bound to serve, and he did not undergone' how the Courts of Law could separate responsibility front protection. It was hi s most confident opinion, that wee, such a question as this raised in Scotland, and the officers of the Courts there were prevented executing a writ under such circumstances, the Courts would not compel them to do so. So far as he was able to consider the matter, he thought th e o ppression of the Sheriffs rested not with th e House, wh o were on ly vindicating e their privileges, but with the C our t s o f Lave--( Hear, hear.) They had been told of the monstrous conduct of the Sheriffs, but the House must look to i ts own interests as well as their's. in not paying over the money, and he thought the Sheriffs, 1 for they not only did were guilty of an act of contumacy, but Navin;the • not obey the order of the . House, . contumaciously disobeyed it.—( Hear.) of doing so, had contum _ thef course they h They had been blamed extremely or . without expressing the taken in giving a general warrant, cause of the contempt. They had been blamed, and he thought very s trangely blamed, by the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Ripon, who admitted that if th e particular cause of contempt had been expressed, the Court of Queen's Bench would have equally remanded the prisoners, and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman said that that House had been guilty of great injustice, in not ex pressing the cause of contempt. It had been also urged that they were guilty of inconsistency, in submitting some of their privileges to the decision of a Court of Law, while. with regard to others, they allowed of no interference But what inconsistency was there ir, that ? Some of their privileges had been admitted and recognized for a long period by the Courts of Law, as, for instance, per sona l freedom from arrest; and therefore, in such cases, they went into a Court of Law and pleaded that as their de fence. Why did they do so ? Because they knew that the Courts of Law had already recognize I that privilege, and that it formed a valid defence. It had been said that th. powers of that House were imperfect. That was admitted on all hands, because they had not the power of the House of Lords, or the Court of Chancery, of perpetual impri sonment. But because their powers were imperfect, were they not to exercise them, as the only means of meintain ing the most valuable privileges they possessed ?-4 Cheers.) Strong persons might use their strength with mo !oration, but persons who were weak, or whose powers were imperfect must admit of no evasion of the in, otherwise they would run the risk of forfeiting them altowether. For these reasons, lie trusted the House would not liberete the Sheriffs, who had been guilty of contumacy, but that they would persevere in the course they had hitherto pur sued. Ile begged to apologize for having detained the House so long; but he felt it his duty to state the grounds on which he trusted the House would persevere in its present course until it had obtained •he utmost satisfaction fur tile breath of its privileges that had been committed.— 6ir s• ,, i, r .L,!•.1 dluiio3 that h.n.l been inatic to him the o:in.-r night. Ly the Hon C .ni tieman, the Solicitor- Gneral, he hoped he should be cx. cued for trespassing for a few minutes ti,on their atten tion. He should state briefly the opinion he had come to ,iftfx the most mature ,nd anxious d , litieratir,n, and actuated by the most sincere sense of the duty he owed to iii.nself and ta that •ott shou!d the calm, and temprrat-, and in licious. of argunnent which had been adopted by the Lora-Advocate who had jut sat down.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He should, before he went further, state openly and fairly that in his opi nion undoubtedly the House possessed the privilege in question—( Ministerial cheers)—and that opinion he would not be induced to state by any man, it it was not his honest col:viction ; an! he thought they pos-eased t'eat nrivdcg, on the grs,umi that it was essential to the due performance of their functions. He was surprised, he must say, to find that the Courts of Law did nut concede to the House the privilege in question, on the ground of antiquity alone, for they had possessed it for a very long series of years. He renwrobered a case• in the Old Bailey where an order was made that the pr,,ceedings should net be made public while the trials were pending. A person at a consider able distance published the proceedings, certainly not ob structing the coursA of justice in any way, and the Judge, without the intervention of a Jur), fined the man 500/. ( Cheers ) Now, what authority had the Court for that proceeding ?_( Hear, heir.) They asserted it as their privilege, and that was tutu to be a sufficient ground for the course they had adopted.—( Cheers.) He thought chat was a sufficient explanation of privilege as it re garded that House, the proceedings of which were much more liable to obstruction from the course recently adopted by the Courts of Law. He confessed he did not quite participate in the strong expressions he had heard used towards the minority of that House on the present ques tion, because he gave every Hon. Member credit for vot- ing conscientiously and honestly on the question. It appeared to him that it was not a digoified course o f th at House to commit wretched plaintiffs and Sheriffs' officers when they ought to have contended with the higher par ties. They might have the question before a Court of Error, arid from thence to tile House of Lords, and they would then be in a condition to say to the other House of Parliament, that the Commoners of Eng land would not allow their privileges to be questioned.— (Cheers.) That course he admitted was liable to objec tion, it might perhaps be atteaded with danger—(Cheers) —still it appeared to him to be the only course which, under the circumstances, the House could have taken. They ought then to declare, by an Act of Parliament, that this privilege was essential to the exercise of its fund tions, and the House of Lords could not refuse to pass such an Act.—( Hear, hear.) The House would find it self as powerful in legislating on that subject, as it would in committing Sheriffs, and Bailiffs, and Tipstaffs.— ( Hear, hear.) The House had itself brought the ques tion before the Court of Queen's Bench, and had called on that Court for its judgment, which judgment having been so pronounced became the law of the land. If the Judges had committed an error, as he believed they had, the committal of their officers to prison was not the best way to enlighten them. The Lard-Advocate who had just addressed the House said that protection and responsibility should go together. But whilst the House held the Sheriffs responsible, in what way did it render them protection? He admitted that they were riot solely the officers of the Queen's Bench, and that they were equally responsible to the Court of Chancery and to that House. But they could not go back to the Judges, and tell them their deci sion was not law. He admitted that it was not law ; but the practice of teaching law by commitment belonged to a barbarous age. He believed that the Sheriffs had given to the House every assistance that they could. He did not attach much importance to the oath, for the obligation would have been satisfoctory if they had obeyed the order of the House —(Cheers.) But they might have released themselves from every responsibility weekc before the House met. If they had suffered an attach ment to go against them, Steckdale would have receives the money, and how could that House afterwards protect them. The Solicitor-General had said that the Court of Chancery had maintained its privileges by sending plait - tiffs and parties to prison, instead of earning into collision with the Judties of the Law Courts; but surely his Hon. and Learned Friend would not say that such power couli be maintained in these enlightened times ? No oni could doubt that the decision of the Judges seat giveni according to the best of their judgment.— ( Hear, hear.) The House had decided according to the leist of its judgment, and he believed that the House we, right, and that the judges were wrong. He deprecated a humiliating warfare with the inferior officers of th , Courts, when it became the dignity of the House to entct at once into the contest with the higher parties. Thi House ought to hold a conference with the House e , Lords, and to see what could be &me towards enlighten ing the Judges by an Act of Parliament. That would no• be a novel expedient—it would net be the first time thet a declaratory Act was passed to correct an error as to what was the law. He thought that the Sheriffs had not car ried their assistance to the fullest extent, but they ha,' shown every willingness to assist the House, and the had remained long enough in the custody of the Sergeant. —( Hear, hear.) Having the fullest confidence in the judgment of the House, he respectfully submitted thou opinions to its consideration, and if he failed in convincing it of the correctness of his own views, he would rest satis fied that his judgment was in error. Mr. O'CONNELL said no person need make ans , excuse for addressing the House on such a subject. Hs could not but congratulate the House on the entire ab sense from party spirit which had marked those discus ' sions.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that public opinion was divided, and parties differed as to the direction of it ' No doubt many persons differed from the House in thei, judgment on this question, and hence it was the duty of ' the House to endeavour to settle and satisfy the public mind upon it. Great professions had been made bs souse Gentlemen of att ac h ment to pu bli c lib erty. N on he believed no person made stronger professions, at al' events, of attachment to public liberty than he did, bu still he would not court popularity, to the sacrifice of prin ciple.—( Hear, hear.) And if he believed that the public had fallen into error on any subject he would not, for few of offending the public, give in to their error.—( Hear hear.) Nor could he in the present instance consent to ad mit that the public were right and the House wrong. It was gratifying to reflect that by the highest possible authorities in that House the privilege now claimed was admitted.— ( Cheers.) These propositions had been admitted by the first legal authorities on the opposite as well as on this side of the House. First, that the privilege of publishing matte , which might be defamatory, without incurring the penal ties of legal libel, resided in that House ; secondly, that this privilege was essential to the due discharge of its functions. Or, rather, the first would necessarily follow out of the second. And, thirdly, that this House, like every othcrsuperior Court, was the only judge of its own privilege. Who could doubt these propositions after the able, the lucid, the unanswered speech of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)? Even the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman ( Sir E. Sugden), the Member for Ripon, assented to them, and agreed that in this particu lar case the judgment of the Queen's Bench had been erroneous. Well then, on this general admission of the privilege, was it to be abandoned?—( Hear, hear.) Who would counsel that course ? What course then should be taken fur its support? Legislation had been suggested. It was said that by pleading to the action the House had estopped itself from further proceeding in the maintenance of the privilege. Now, he denied that the House was, or that it could be, in such a position.—( Hear, hear.) The House were trustees for futurity.—( Hear, hear.) rhey would not, if they could, give away the privileges of their posterity.—( Hear, hear ) These privileges were Let personal to themselves—they were vested in thaf House fur the public benefit—they could never be surren lored —( Hear, hear.) Certainly his opinion was that bs hey bad created some embarrassment. But this iiiliculty would easily be removed, unless they now corn inenced a faltering course. The subject had been to , , long clogged with petty details—let the House now firmly proceed on principle.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Learned Recorder of London had been very active in opposition to the privilege, and had treated with great ;corn the idea of maintaining it. This scorn came witl , lad grace from that personage, seeing that he well knew hot if, in trials at law, que,tions of the privileges of the 'sty came into dispute, certificates from him on behalf the Corporations were held conclusive. There could be )ow no doubt that the Queen's B:neh were wrong in their udgment. The question now was, how the House should .roceed.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) His coswer was a very obvious one—in the same manner es It courts whose privileges were infringed, by attachment and imprisonment of the person.—( Hear, bear.) That was the course which had always been pursued by the Court Chancery, by the Court of Queen's Bench, by the Court of Exchequer ; the Court of Chancery had by this .neans alone maintained its power of injunction over the proceedings of the Conrts of Law, in opposition to the stern resistance of Lord Cuke, who had gone so far as to permit indictments against Counsel and one or two Masters and other officers of Chancery, for being con eernel in an injunction to stay execution, and on this power of attachment the House need only rely to succeed. He (Mr. O'Connell) felt confident that they were now on the point of success. They had got the Sheriffs, and could keep them till the middle of September—( Ironical cheers continued)—was that nothing? It was one thing to " have a giant's strength," and another thing 'to use it like a giant."—( Hear, hear.) Yes—but Gen tlemen opposite one moment ridiculed the power of the House as a mere nullity, and, the next, assailed it with indignation as cruelty and tyranny.—( Hear, hear.) He mks now showing that this power was not to be despised. —( Hear, hear.) It could hold the Sherif& till September ; and snore than that, the House could address her Ma jesty not to prorogue, but to adjourn.—( Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Would her Majesty be advised to resist the almost unanimous address of all parties in that House ?—(Hear, hear.) The question of imprison ment, let it be recollected, was always oae of time— ( Hear, hear.) Now, as to the point (which he admitted was quite a distinct one) whether the Sheriffs should be kept in custody. He felt it a painful question. The She riffs had incurred no moral guilt, but they bad displayed a continuous contempt of that House. And, in his nuinion, the House could not shrink from keeping them longer in enstody.—( Hear.) He could not help observing, that as to their oath, which had been so much talked of, if it was to be literally construed, the terms being "to execute all the Queen's writs," hoe happened it that the Sheriffs never executed a single writ—but left the oath to be obeyed by others—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition)—by others :ho might be either honest and intelligent—honest, and not intelligent —or knaves— ( Loud laughter.) Somebody in another place—( R e . C.rrin g , we believe, to Lord Brougb im)—harl advised the Sheriffs to withdraw tneir authority from their Under-Sheriffs, and thus embarrass the admini tration of justice. Now, it happened that the Coroner, in such case, would have to execute the writs. Did the Noble Lord who had given such grave advice know this ? If so, his recommendation was absurd, and if not, why he could not he a very " Learned" Lnrl w —(l.l,'nr e y.)_ lnd the Learned Lord forgot, too, that the Sher:ffs would th, n be ruined by actions from pe sons whose wry s th , y not executed. What sagacious advice this was therefore No xit was worthy oark it. the Se e , „see , er. te inderse on writs delivered to their lisil:ff e " 'fake care not to execute tile writ ce Amtjeasai ota or theis servants, or other privileged p..r.sons."—( Heer, ) What became of their oath then ?—( ) Why were the Sheriffs in their present position, then ? Because the Q Bench had pronounced 'Nhat the I. gal author ties of all side;,: de e l ate d t judy. moot —( lier, ) he Seerdr; eeturearily assitueel air iefice.—(Ne. ) lis was sue he had heard of their canvassing for the office.—( Yea, yes.) Supposing their deputies made mistakes in the execution of writs, they, the Sheriff's, would be answerable. They took the office with all those risks and responsibilities.— ( Hear, hear.) But if the Sheriff; had to the writ in this case returned nulla bona, the Court would have held the justification, complete. —(" Oh, oh," from the Oppesi `ion.) He gould give authority for so saying : House of --- v. Mills, 10th Edit, ash =re to a writ the Sheriff returned nulla bona, be rause the good were in a palace, and there fore privileged.—(Sir E. Sugden—" The privilege was there tteti.") No. the t,ct went to the Jury on evidence.—( Sir E. Sugden—" Yes, but there was no doubt about it")—and so in the present case. That was his (Mr. O'Connell's) argument, that there was no doubt, or ought to be no doubt, on the privilege. It had been acid that the Sheriffs had now paid the money over to slr. Stoekdale. Well, if they had obeyed this House, they ahould have been, and doubtless would have been protected. If the Sheriffs had paid the money to Hansard, would not the House protect them against the Court of Queen's Bench, and, by liberating any parties whom that Court 'night imprison if the contest were continued, was not that the course they would ultimately have to take?— ( Hear, hear.) Suppose the Court of Queen's Bench sad put under arrest a Member of the House, what remedy .could they then have ? Would they not be bound to 'ommit the Judge who had issued the decree, if that Judge should stand in the way of the Commons of Eng land? They should either do so, or surrender their rights and privileges—they might shrink from doing their duty they might reverence the Judges more than the rights of the people, but if they had any re spect for those rights, it would be their duty in such a case to commit the Judge. If a contest arose, he would still rather follow that course than refuse to give every remedy which the laws and usages of Parlia ment might offer against any one who should interfere eith an officer of the House. The Sheriffs, however, had not placed themselves under the protection of the House ; they bad, on the contrary, set it at defiance, and they would suffer an imprisonment of many months if they per sisted in disobeying an order of the Commons of Eng. land. The proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon to terminate the difficulties of their pre sent position by legislation, appeared to him (Mr. O'Con iiell) not to be replete with that Leained Gentleman's usual good sense. How were they to proceed by legislation ?—( Hear.) If it were to be by a decla ratory act, that act might be annulled by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.—(Hear.) Again the House of Lords might refuse to pass the Bill which they should propose. If they thought they lad the right on their side it would be pusillanimous not o assert it, and while they compassiouated the individual: who were the objects of their coercion, they should either continue to coerce them, or abandon their privileges. Mr. F. SHAW was ready to admit much of what had been asserted by the Honourable Member who had just sat down. lie admitted the importance—the necessity —and the existence of the privilege of publishing its eroceedings claimed by the House of Commons. But that which he protested against was the monstrous as sumption that they could annul at pleasure the es tablished laws and usages of the land.__( Hear.) Fie admitted in common, he believed, with the highest law authorities on both sides of the House, shat the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had been trroneous. But was it hecause the Court of Queen's Bench had come to an erroneous judgment that they were to commit another error. They had first directed that the luestion of their privilege should be pleaded before the e:ourt, and by the proceedings they had afterwards adopted they had been led into great embarrassments. lie .vas convinced that no Court whatever could decide on the privileges of the House. But what had they done ? They ad left those privileges to the judgment of the Court of 'queen's Bench, thereby virtually saying " if you decide for us—if your judgment is in our favour, we can avail ourselves of it, and respect your,authority ; tut if your judgment is egainst us we will disrespect it, ind we will commit every officer who obeys your order." ?.very lawyer should say that there was neither law nor 'itatice, nor reason, in such a course as that (Hear, hear.) They were contending with the Court, and they afterwards seized on an officer of that Court. In that also he thought 'lacy were wrong. The Court of Queen's Bench had pro eounced an erroneous decision, aid they pursued the ser 'ants of that Court. The contest, however, was not one eetween the House of Commons and the Sheriffs of Mid ilesex. The public knew that well, and they therefore , lid, if the House had the courage and manliness of which it boasts so loudly, why do they not grapple at once with the Court, and not with those officers who were wound to obey its order.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would ask every Hon. Member in the House if he did not respect and honour the Sheriffs for what they had suffered, for nothing but the discharge of their duty. Ha would ask them if there were any men of spirit and .onstitutional feeling among them, who, if the Sheriffs sad taken a different course, would not have considered diem unworthy of their high station, and wanting in that udependence which he hoped would ever characterize the functionaries of this country. It would, he thought, go forth to the world, and he thought .the fact would enlist 'he sympathies of every one in favour of the Sheriffs—it could go forth that it had come from her Majesty's Soli citor-General and from the Hon. Member for Dublin, .hat the Queen should be asked to adjourn the House, and not to prorogue it, in order that they might keep the Sheriff; for a longer time than they otherwise could do in custody. He believed, however, that in the struggle which was impending, the Judges of the land could have the popular feeling with them, and that they .could ultimately prevail against the despotism of privi lege. prerogative, and power R H ig e h s t ho H u o ld n. I say ,r a ie w nd o , rd th a e s so the co urse a d opte d by his Vernber for Tamworth, on the present question. He should say, that while he acknowledged that Right Hon. Gentleman as his leader in the House, and while he had the most entire confidence in his prudence, integrity, and talent, he could never think of putting his vote in Ne,s keeping in a question of that nature. He thought tha i t sy moderation on the part of all the persons concerned d that m atter , t h e i r difficulties might be terminated, a n , that th e y cou ld yet uphold the supremacy of the law, and the character and honour of the country. Mr. WYNNE felt bound to say a few words upon this question. He considered the privileges of that House vere not of such a nature as that they could enforce them sr not, at their discretion. Those privileges had been committed to their charge by their ancestors, for the be eefit of the people, and theS were bound to preserve them as they had received them, and to hand them down to pos -erity unimpaired. If, however, some of the p r i v il eges of the H o us e , w hi c h were necessary in former times to the due discharge of their duties, were now no longer neces rary, let them be given up. The House had already shown .ts willingness to do so during the late reign, by thgiving up the privilege which it possessed of protecting e land of Members and their servants. There could be eo doubt that the present privilege was essential to the due discharge of the duties of Honourable Members, 'ant whether that privilege had been exercised pro vidently and discreetly in the present case remained to be decided. —( Hear, hear.) The law of Parliament, was to be looked fur in the practices of Parliament, and he could not but think, even if the House had exer eaerl its authority properly, that the Sheriffs had under eerie sufficient punishment to satisfy the privileges of the House. With respect to the statements that had been made relative to having either a declaratory or an enabling act, stating what the privileges of the House were, he must declare that he should prefer a declaratory Act to originate in another place under the sanction of the first Law Officer of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) Admit .ing that this privilege was essential to the House, and that :t had been thwarted by the Sheriffs, still he thought that hey would not descend from the high ground they had eiken by releasing the Sheriffs.—( Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the immediate ques !ion before the House was whether the Sheriffs should be discharged or not, and that motion was supported upon two grounds. The first was that the House had no such privi --ge as was claimed in the present instance, and that it had done wrong in committing the Sheriffe, and that it could not too early repair the error which it had fallen into. That view of the question was supported by a petition to that House from the Lord Mayor and Common Council of the City of London, who, in their petiti3n, state that the course which has been adopted was an infringement of the privileges of the Crown and of the subjects of this country. Upon that ground, no reasons having been stated to induce the House to retreat from its former course, he thought there was no reason for complying with the motion:that was now made. Another ground had been put forward by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite—he alluded more particularly to the Hon. and Learned Members for Exeter and Huntingdon, who in the course of this debate had given their opinions. As be un derstood them they claimed the privilege to the fullest extent, but those Hon. and Learned Members, con cetving that this was not the proper way in which the pri vilege was to be asserted, advised the House to refrain from the course of committal, and at once to discharge the Sheriffs. He (Lord John) felt a very obvious and inse parable objection to taking that course, because, whatever those Hon. and Learned Gentlemen had suggested with regard to the course by which they could maintain this privilege in future, they had not pointed out any course by which is abandoning the position which the House had at present taken they could immediately assert and :taint-tin ti-.se privileges. (Great cheering.) ui Was not undervaluing their suggestions, but in pursuing them the might entirely fail in obt a i n i ng any remedy, and then, hay ing) parted with the power of commitment, which was the undoubted power of that House, and a power by which the privilege h a d b een asserted in former times, and by which they c ou ld now assert it, they mightnd they had no alt ernative, an d might utterly fail in the means of maintaining that privilege which they themselves asserted was indispensable to the clue exercise of the functions; of that House.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, he did not think the House could entertain any Crowe as to the decision to which it would come.--( Cheers.) But there were greater questions involved in this debate, and it was impossible for him not to advert to mane questions that had been started, and likewise to the notions that appeared to be prevalent out of doors —not representing public opi n io n , a s he th o u g ht, for he wou ld not admit that public opinion was against the House on this subject__( Cheers) —but opinions prevalent among those who, as he thought, took an erroneous view of this subject out of doors. The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman to whom he had alluded, and the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Ripon, asserted as strongly as the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, as strongly as the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for I-eland, the necessity of 'he power whi..ll w &aimed, They ass, reed that in their ol)inim- 1 ib is; t the Court of Law was e:r.r:e.,us —(Hear, hear.) Now, was not that an importan 7-1 TT "4" "k" - ^, "••• 77 1 if N r 4 Th -‘,:r ~I::i i i ' ••• ' / Toe judgment of the o Csist of Law •ti+ tee ,‘ -. length of saving thee the esolutioe sa that house t till lately, had not been questioned, that the fl eas the sole judges of its pri vileges, tt, ,sitseti. 'SC ill punt was that for tof he du. , • e : es. Atteerling to the (;.:suit Qtes• . Ca. t• - • s. - se . aubeeetien by the House „ , ;., t. : eet heleng to the House of Comeroas to circulate, , distribute, and publish its pro• ceedine s, because that was n o p art of the power which be longedh to the House. That was the opinion of the Judges, if they were allowed to be the judges of their pri vileges, but it was against the opinion of every Member in that House who had formed an opinion upon the subject, who all declared that the possession of Chet power was necessary, and that the functions of the Hews • could not be duly performed without it. Where then ought the power of judging of their privileges to be placed—in th e C our t s o f L aw or i n the House of Commons? He theught that few would doubt that the House of Commons, with respect to a point of this kind, was the best judge ; and that, if it transferred to Courts of Law the power of saying what it might or might not possess, the House would be in danger of losing its most valuable pri vilege.—( Cheers.) The doctrine that he (Lord J. Rus sell) and those who agreed with him, advanced, was no other than the doctrine rnsintsined by Lord Coke, Sir Mathew Hsle, and Sir William Blackstone, at different periods of our history, but all great ornaments of the l a w in the times in which they live. Then coming to the opinion that it was essential the House should be the sole judge of its privileges, there was the further question remaining, which bed been argued with so much ingenuity—whether they could maintain those privileges by the course they were then pursuing ? There certainly did arise the great difficulty on this point to which the Right Hon. Gentle man had alluded, viz., that if the Court of Law was not informed it was a question cf privilege, it might be well argued that the Court of Law could not know whether Messrs. Hansard were persons authorized by that House. Then, if the other course was taken, they would un doubtedly render th e m is] ves liable to the impu tation of apparently submitting to a Court of Law—( Hear). — without being ready to bow to its decision. He (Lord J. Russell) had always thought that the doctrine held by Mr. Ponsonby, at the time of the case of Burdett and Abbot, was both constitutional and practicable; and he was sorry to find that it was an opinion which, at this time, no party seeeaed inclined to follow. Mr. Ponsonby hnld highly the privileges of that House, and objected to taking no notice of the parties in the action. (The Noble Lord here read an extract front Mr. Ponsonby's speech, in which he stated that, reverting to the ancient rule of prac tice, it was invariably the custom of the House to commit any person who made himself the instrument of calling into question their privileges, and that he thought the solicitor who served the notice of action on the Speaker ought to be committed ; yet he thought the Speaker ought to appear, and put in his plea to the action, as such course was open to him without any apprehension of sur rendering his privilege.) It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that there was sound reason for what was stated by Mr. Ponsonby, and he, having been a lawyer, who bad practised in Courts of Law, and who had held the office of Lot ci Chancellor in Ireland, was an authority entitled to considerable weight. Therefore he (Lord J. Russell) did not see the inconsistency of at once committing the plaintiff and his advisers who took part in the action, and at the same time pleading in a Court of Law, that what had been done was by the authority of the House of Com mons. Although that was his opinion, yet he would not wish to persist in that opinion if any course was suggested that would meet with more approval. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, proposed another course in a motion that stood upon the books for that night, viz., that without involving the question of privilege; Messrs. Hansard should be at liberty to plead to the action brought against them by Mr. Stockdale, as they should be advanced. If they took that course they would be bringing into a Court of Law some of the highest quo ' tions which concerned the interests of this country. He would take the case which in 1805 occupied so much public attention, viz., the. Tenth Report, —suppose a party had brought an a ct i on aga i nst t h e printer, they would have a decision on the question whether tha persons mentioned in that report had been guilty of certain crimes and misde meanors against the public, while the House was consider ing whether, by persecution or impeachment, those alleged, offences oug h t to be punished.—( H ear , h ear. ) I t wou ld be impossible for the House to direct their printer to take such a course. He believed the commitment of the plaintiff and the attorney, and the refusing to plead in a C our t of Law, would be sufficient to prevent them from bringing an action. The course they had been pursuing certainly had this disadvantage, that it placed persons in the situation of the Sheriffs, in what must be allowed to be a very ern' barrassing position, whether they obey the orders o f the House or the directions of the Courts of Law. H i e thought the Sheriffs would have been perfectly justified: and would have been more in the right, if they had obeyed the orders of that flouse.—(Hear)—and looked t o the protection of that House.—( Cheers.) But at the seine time he admitted that men honestly following their own judgm nt might think it was more consistent with their duty to take that course which they had taken.-- It was a public disadvantage that they. should be obliged to prosecute over and over again, but the House was quite justified h a doing it—just as the C ourt o' , Queen's Bosch and the Court of Chancery would issue an attachment against persons not because they had com mitted any moral crime, but because they were impeding the functions of the Court.—( Hear, hear.) But then , going farther, there was that course which his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Soliciter- General, had pointed cut' and by which, ass he (Lord J. Russell) thought, they mig ht effectually assert their privilege. He had stated at the commencement of these discussins, that with reg fe ard to the power of the House of Commo o ns, he did not el the least doubt; but there were other qutstions which it behoved the House to look at, whether they could maintain the privileges that were essential, and maintain powers that were necessary, w i t h out b ringing into collision a House of Pa r li ament and the Judges. and w ithout bringin g i nto di spute, and in some respects into disregard' persons to whom every authority and every respect ought to be paid.—( Hear, hear.) If they could avoid any breach of the peace; or any collieioa in the course of these van' actions, it was their duty anxiously to seek for, and t O adopt that course. —(Cheers.) Among the courses sug: i Bested, one w as l eg i s l at i on, and a declaratory law had been proposed. His (Lord John Rnssell's) opinion rr i al that, if such declaratory law could be maintained, it woe' be perfe c tly cons i stent with what had been done in former times; and if carefully framed, it might secure to th e House the possession of that necessary power, withou t injuring their powe rs . I t had been suggested that tbo Lord Chancellor mi g h t i ntroduce a measure on tee subject. It was the opinion of the Lord Chan cellor, before that suggestion was made by th e Right Han. G en tl eman opposite, looking at the matte' , calmly, that it was necessary to maintain the privilege; but his Lordship did not think the present contest could well close without some legislative measure.—( " ear ; hear.) H e (L ord J. Russell) had asked his opinion a to the v ar i ous courses that might be pursued, and hi s Lordship pointed out the objections which existed to them' and likewise the objections to a Declaratory Act, but he stated that on the whole he thought a Declaratory Act the preferable course.—( Cheers.) He was not entitled to sag that his N o bl e F r i end had so far made up his mind, or bad_ so far fra me d t h e provisions of the Bill that he Wir, ready to introduce it.--(Loud cries of " Hoar, hear.") If, however, they should not agree to that course, they might pursue the course recommended by the Right Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, and a Bill of that nature, might be int ro d uce d i nto t h at H ouse _ ( H ear, hear) —an d he thought such a course ought to be pursued before they came to any u l t i mate d ec i s i on on the subject.—( H ea r ' hear.) S uc h a course was not without precedent—he, le one, did not b e li eve that their privileges were of so refine d and aeri a l a nature as to resolve themselves into thirsal` , if they were once discussed. In a former instance, suc h remedy was adopted. In the first year of the re ign e_ James I. thi s course had been adopted with respect to tbu personal privilege of Members of freedom from arrest' Sir Thomas Shirley had been taken prisoner for debt b y the Ward en o f t h e Fleet, and so fearful was he of renderie himself liabl e t o arrest for th e d e b ts o f Sir T. Shirley, that; ;as had be stated in a for mer d e b ate, he had refused to up his prisoner i n o b e di ence to the orders of the House,uet; he had b :en comm i tted to the dungeon of Little gas' The House of Commons felt the difficulty of his positil and yet they were determined to retain their privilege freedoin from arrest, and they consequently passed an en actment that no Sheriff or Bailiff, from whose custody prisoner should be taken by the privileges of the Hou ser should be liabl e t o any act i on for the discharge of suet t prisoner. Thus while they showed their determination n e t to allow their privileges to be brought in question, Y e t ... finding the Warden of the Flee: in a position of great di ti m e e u d l tyy foras t s ol thethat st l a a t w e , of the th House gsby of declaring Commons the the c th u e t o r S n P h ocr privilege iffies theirga e n d ( b a r ß d e r : r i s s l I ff: y u s Friend the So'icito G • . r- enetal had admitted that the shoe' tion of the Sheriffs was one ofan d be tfiroona enactment.an liability tty Histt h o e arrestH same on .a t e fn i o fx m o dr i useLttnhefdeernaecaerce:ri neeoeed° embarrassment, thought that in the Act of Parliament they might to a ; - r provision to avoid such a state of things occurring A i'a the future. It was almost unanimously conceded e c e that the Houses of Parliament seossessed the power of t" - r publication of their proceedi g and which the Courts e t Law had denied ; and he felt if that was the case, t b to . while they vindicated their privileges they ought Iw t .,; put the public peace to hazard.—( Cheers.) A s this pri:; ciple was almost universally conceded he felt that the! ought t o b e some precise manner of notifying t hi s to tn' Courts o f L aw, and no doubt if that could be do ne in the j u d gment which had been recently given 0 the Court o f Queen ' s Bench, and which now admitted to be erroneous, would not lead to 1 , 1 t " o further p rocee di ngs. He thought the House ought now go on in t hi s course of commitment, without eudeavour i he tto discover s ome ot h er reme d y.—( Cheers, ) But at ior same time he w ou ld say t h at i t was a power essent i a l the House to possess, and that, in the case of Burdert doe Abbott, and al so i n th e second action in this case, 'to House had lost authority b y not h av i ng had recourse. 4, that method ; but they m ust h ave recourse to comm itmeißi, if there were no oth er met h o d o f v i ndicating their Prvo, leges. It was the ancient established method of doing di- But while the House adopted every method for the vin cation of its privileges, it had an important duty to I c e form, in doing everything in its power for the maintene ko Cheers.) He had ta sal o f th e peace of the country.—( this opportunity of stating his oVations on the g elle d question, but still he was decidedly against this In ° :id for liberating the Sheriffs from custody, for which ho w e ile not exerci s e thi s power in a vindictive manner. t thought it a b so l ute l y necessary to preserve it, because i t is was the only p ower they possessed for preserving the P vileges of that. Honse.—( Cheers ) Mr. F. KELLY thanked the Noble Lord for the calm temperate, and, i n most respects, just observations he had just offered to the House ; but he was unspo ak r. a or d disappointed in th e conclusions to which the Noble ""'bc-ea had come. He had a d m i tted that the Sheriffs had t it exposed to a s it uat i on of great embarrassment, a nd tha t had been ti t gl s u i t f or them to determine whet co urse ought to lase pursued, nod Set the Noble Lord, not vindication of the privileges of the House, for any