The Sun. — London, England, 1840-02-04 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. ground s the Noble Lord could object to the resolution ; and tho ug h t h e N oble Lord and himself sometime' differed on political topics, there was no reason why. like professional gentlemen, who quarrelled in Court and dined together afterwards, the; should not agree upon this. He repeated it, that it was duty, and duty alone, th a t h a d i nduced him to stes forward on this occasion. He feared he had been very troublesome to the Noble Lord ; and he would not detain the House longer than to express the hope th it he should have their support to his motion, which he should then leave in th e hands of the Sneaker. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he gave the Hon. and G a ll ant Member full cred i t for the purity of his motive s ; and he was sure the motion was made with the sincerest respect and loyalty for his Sovereign ; hut, at the same time, he could not support it.—( Hear, hear.) He had supported the motion of the Hon. and Gallant Member when he proposed a diminution of the allowance to the future Consort of her Majssty, not from any mistrust of Prince Albert, but because he thought 30,0001. a sufficient sum to be allowed. He had stated then that it should be allowed in case n f the death of her Majesty, an event which he was sure every Member of that House, and every loyal man, hoped would be very far distant. He certainly thought it better not to fetter the grant with any restric tions, and that the wisest course would be to show confidence, and that it was most likely that Prince Albert, after his connection with this country had ceased, would continue to reside here, and it would be much better he should do so voluntarily than otherwise, and with regard to the second part, he thought it would be impossible for the Prince to comply with it, because the clause of his Hon. and Gallant Friend said—" The Protestant religion as by law established within these realms." It was not necessary to become the husband of her Majesty to become " a Protestant as by law esta blished within these realms ;" for instance, he did not know to what particular profession Prince Albert be longed, but if he belonged to the Lutheran Church, that would not disqualify him, and it was hard to say that, if a Lutheran he might marry her Majesty, but that unless he adhered to the Protest ant faith as by law established in these realms, upon her death he should forfeit the provision made for him He gave his vote on this occasion because he would not in any rustmer imply the slightest distrust of the future husband of her Majesty.—( Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, after what the Right Hon. Gentleman bad said it was quite unnecessary for him to enter into any reasons for opposing the Gallant Gentleman's motion. He entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that he did not think it at all ad visable in a matter of this kind to show any mistrust of the person about to be established among us, and whom he lived would become attached to the country, its people, and its habits.—( Hear, hear.) It was not done on former occasions ; and with respect to Queen Ade laide, she had become attached to the country, and conducted herself with that propriety, and exhibited those virtues which had ever distinguished her during the time she was Queen-Consort. With respect to the Duchess of Kent, he thought a similar proposition had been made ; but the general sense of country was that it would be far better to leave it to the sense of pro priety,attachment to the country,and love for her daughter, which animated the duchess of Kent, than to place such a provision in the Act of Parliament, and in that matter the country had nn reason to regret the trust placed in her Royal Highness. The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had gone into the case of the King of the Belgians, but every one was aware that after the un timely death of the Princess Charlotte, his situation in this country was entirely altered, and, having gone into a foreign country, and accepted its throne, he had shown a just and proper sense of what was due to the generosity and liberality which this country had shown to him. He must say, he did not entertain any Jealousy that persons a lli e d to t h e Ki ng of the Belgians or Prince Albert, were allied to Roman Catholics ; and with respect to the Royal Family of France, he was glad of any ties which could connect that country with this.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had truly said that the last clause was incapable of operation.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see how, as the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had drawn, it would be possible for Prince Albert to comply with it. The " Protestant religion, as by law established within these realms," was the Church of England, and the Episco pal establishment thereto belonging ; but the Protestant religion in Scotland, was the Presbyterian, and there fore according to the clause of the Hon. Gentleman, he would have to profess at once the Church of England and Scotland, which it would be impossible Prince Albert could comply with. He thought the House would agree with him in wishing that the Hon. and Gallant Member would not press a division on the sub ject. He had acquired great fame by the success of his motion the other night, and he would advise him to rest satisfied with it.—(Laughter.) Sir R. INGLIS could never see, without regret, and shame, the amount of money returned to that country by Prince Leopold, the King of the Belgians. If he could foresee that they would never be called upon to restrict the grant, he would vote for its being now passed without any restrictions ; but he could not conceal from himself that there might come another House of Commons which would, in the eveut of his Serene Highness going abroad, call upon them to restrict the future payments of his annuity ; on these grounds he should support the proviso.: Colonel SIBTHORP, after the suggestions that had been made, would withdraw tho amendment. The Bill then went thruugh Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. SUPPLY, On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House went into Committee of Supply. A vote of two millions from the aids to make up the deficiency of the last year, was taken, and ordered to be reported to. morrow. The House then resumed. LIBRARY COMMITTEE. On the motion of Sir R. INGLIS, the following Members were appointed the Select Committee on the Library :—Sir Robe: t Harry Inglis, Mr. Chancellor of the &cheap2r, Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Hardinge, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Shaw, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Williams Wynn, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Fazakerley, Mr. Gally Knight, Mr. Ac land, Lord Viscount Mahon, Mr. Pendarves. METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. Sir MATTHEW WOOD moved the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Metropolis Improvements as follows :—Sir Matthew Wood, Mr. Robert Steuart, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Viscount Lowther, Mr. Herries, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Wakley, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Clay, Mr. George Palmer, Mr. Pendarves, Mr. Bar nard, Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Planta, Mr: John Abel Smith. Colonel WOOD said a report had gone abroad that these improvements were intended to be effected by laying an additional tax upon coal. If such were the case, he was sure the House would not entertain the proposition for one moment. It was said that it was intended to pur chase up the shares of Vauxhall, and Waterloo-bridges, for the purpose c.f throwing them open to the public; and that the River Thames was to be embanked from Staines-br'd se to Greenwich, in a way that would convert it into a Du ch canal,—(A laugh.) When such extensive " improvements" were contemplated, he was anxious that some Members connected with the county of Middlesex be added to the Committee. He would propose, there fore, that the two Members for Middlesex, and one of the Members for East and one of the Members for West Surrey, be added to the Committee—making the entire number 19 instead of 15. Sir M. WOOD said the improvements of the Honourable and Gallant Member went far beyond those contemplated by the Committee. It was, he believed, intended to open a line of street from Oxford street to St. Giles's, a second from Coventry -street through Leicester- square , and another in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. These were the only three improvements at present in contemplation. The Hon. and Gallant Member could know nothing about how the money for these purposes was to be raised. With regard to the proposed embankment of the Thames, he thought it would be likely to rescue it from the appearance of a stagnant Dutch canal, which it at present presented, by having a rapid current flowing through it. It appeared that the Hon. and Gallant Member came forward more as the ally of the coal trade, than as the advocate of the interests of the coal consumers, because the tax in contemplation would fall much more upon the former than the latter class. He objected to the appointment of two Members for Middle sex, when there was only one out of the four Members for London on the Committee. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. HUME objected to the continuance of any tax upon coals—it was a very pernicious one, and interf,red very much with the comforts of the poorer classes. The country had derived great benefit from the efforts of the Hon. Member for London to effect improvements in the Metropolis : hut he hoped care would be taken to effect these in a manner which would not be objectionable to the great bulk of the community. He would suggest the ad dition of one Member for Southwark, one for Surrey, and one for Middlesex to the Committee. Mr. HERRIES hoped the Committee would fully con sider all the evidence laid before it, before it came to any decision as to the improvements to be carried out. He thought, however, the House need be under no apprehen. sion that the Committee meant to undertake any of the extensive schemes of improvement which h el alarmed the mind of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Middlesex. It was supposed that it was part of the business of the new Committee to propose the laying of a new tax upon coal. There was no additional duty to be imposed beyond that which had been originally granted. He thought it right to say so much to remove the misapprehension which generally prevailed on the subject, and which tended in some mea sure to obstruct the very useful labours of the Committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood to suggest that one Member for Middlesex and one for Surrey should be added to the original list. Colonel WOOD said that he would have no objection to accept the compromise, and if the rules of the House permitted him he would move that Mr. Kemble, one of the Members for East Surrey, and Captain T. Wood, one of the Members for Middlesex be added to the Committee. Ile would have preferred to have added the name of Mr. Byng, but he was afraid the lion. Gentleman might not be able to attend the Committee.—The motion was agreed to. Mr. HUME then gave notice that to-morrow he would move that Mr. D'Eyncourt, Member for Lambeth,—and Ur. Humphery, Member for Southwark,--be added to the Committee. PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT. Sir R. INGLIS said that befcre ko brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, in reference to the petition of the Corporation of London, he wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir E. Su Igen) whether it would be Measure to pose: .:e his motion to mats way , far tiee of which the Hon. Member for East Stissec had giren notice Sir E. SUGD EN willingly pospJeed his motion. Whereupon Sir R. INGLIS said that be would not trouble', the /louse with Mr. DA RB Y then rose and sod, that he fain; craved the indulgence of the House, on account of the impertance of his motion. He would not ge into the question o f privi;egs, in avoiiling whi c h he m igh t fairly a s k that Hoe. Members from whom he fad differed on previous discussions, might not consider that he con ceded anything to them. He should first consider the peculiar situation in which the Sheriffs were placed, and the grounds on which the majority of that House had con sented to their committal. It had been admit ted, on every side, that they behaved with honour, and it could not be disputed that they were bound by their oaths to take that course, for which they were now suffering; they had not used that oath as a shield to protect their opinions—he thought no one could accuse them of that--(ilear)—it had been said that some friends of his took a narrow and even a quibbling view of this question. If the heir of England required a defence, he was not the man that would presume to undertake it. It appeared to him that they must be narrow-minded themselves, who would attribute narrow views to gentlemen of the highest literary and intellectual attainments, many of whom had obtained the highest honours at the Univer sities, and amongst whom were to be found men who bad adorned the Bench, and now graced the Senate. Those gentlemen had felt that the Sheriffs were bound to obey the law as they had done ; and every man in that House must acknowledge that the conduct of the Sheriffs at the bar was such as became English gentlemen.—( Hear.) Their conduct was such a; to convince any one that they were actuated by feelings that did them honour. They were merely the instruments of the Court of Queen's Bench, and if it were clear that they had acted with strict ness end sincerity, and according to what they conceived to be the obligations of their oath, he asked, were they to be coerced into a declaration of regret which they could not feel for having done what they conceive to be their duty. They had already stated that they regretted to have been compelled to act against the orders of the House, at the same time that they have no intention to treat the House with disrespect. The House might proceed to punish Stockdale, who was the principal mover in the ac tion, i n order to deter him from becoming the mover in another action. But what could be done with the She riffs? They could not without breaking their oaths pur sue upon another occasion a different course from that which they had pursued in this. It could not be supposed that any punishment inflicted upon them would prevent them from paying again the same respect to their oaths, and the House could gain nothing by their further incarceration. The principle upon which many Gentlemen voted for their committal was, that although they had acted conscientiously, it was necessary to 'mark the sense in which the House held its privileges. But they would not now further the vindication of privilege by their confinement. He was totally unaware of the time for which they might be confined, or of what might occur to put an end to all those proceedings ; he believed that he should again have the opportunity of addressing the House, but he was not aware what argument could be adduced to show why those men should be confined further, after they had, in deference to that House, placed themselves in a worse condition than they would have been in if they had otherwise acted. He concluded by moving that Wm. Evans and John Wheelton should be discharged from the the custody of the Sergeant at-Arms. The A TTO RN E Y.. GENERAL rose with great reluc tance to oppose this motion, but he felt bound to do so as a public duty. If the privileges of the House had been vindicated he should have been the first person to move the discharge of the Sheriffs. But he believed that nothing had been done at all to vindicate their privileges, and he must say that the Hon. and Learned Member for East Sussex might sec that nothing to that effect had been done. As far as he (the Attorney-General) had heard, the Hon. and Learned Member had advanced nothing to show that those who had agreed in committing the Sheriffs ought to con cur in his motion. The House, by a large majority, had determined that the privilege belonged to the House. But the Hon, and Learned Member had all along main tained that the law and the privilege were at variance, and that whatever was laid in a Court of Law, as law, must be so taken in the High Court of Parliament. But he (the Attorney-General) believed that it was necessary for the House to take upon itself to decide this question of privi lege. It had decided th a t th ose w h o o b eye d t h e C ourt of Queen's Bench, instead of the mandate of that House, should be committed. The Hon. Member for Montgomery had laid down the law on this subject, with a learning which belonged to him ; but no instance had been shown of a case in which a person committed by that House had been discharged without a petition applying for the dis charge and expressing sorrow. In this case there had been no such thing ; on the contrary, the Sheriffs had set the [louse at defiance. Look to their acts. The House had made an order, which still stood on its books, that the Sheriffs, having unlawfully levied the money on a servant ef the House should refund the same. But they refused to do so.--.( Hear.) They said they were the officers of the Court of Queen's Bench. But he (the Attorney-General) denied that they were the officers of that Court, more than they were the officers of the Court of Parliament. It was a mistake to suppose that they were bound to obey the mandates of the Court of Queen's Bench in opposition to the mandates of that House, which was superior to the Queen's Bench. He believed that House was superior ; and, if so, the Sheriffs would have discharged their duty by obeying it, as, in deed, they were bound by their oath to do. If a Member of that House were arrested for debt the Sheriff might keep him in custody notwithstand ing his privilege. If they did so, and were called before the House for breach of privilege, their auswer would be that they were bound to obey the Court of Queen's Bench according to the oath ; there was no justification of the line of conduct they had pursued. He did not think that their sufferings were very severe. They had had the consola tion of visits from Members of Parliament.--( A leugh.) They had been treated as martyrs, and they were laying the foundation of subscriptions and pieces of plate, with which, no doubt, they would be presented, —( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The question was, should they now be discharged, having sent no petition, and having done nothing at all to satisfy the House? What would be the consequence of the adoption of such a course. Why, the consequence would be that if another action was brought in violation of the privileges of the the House, the Sheriffs of Middlesex would act in obedience to any of the writs from the Court of Queen's Bench, and would totally disregard any order of that House, and would set their privileges at defiance. As to keeping Mr. Stockdale in custody, what benefit would be derived from that if the Sheriffs were allowed to escape?.—why, their actions would be brought, and if the Sheriff found that he could escape with a few days' confinement, he would execute the writs of the Court of Queen's Bench, and set the orders of the House at de fiance. The House would by that means ultimately lose all its privileges, or at least the Court of Queen's Bench would decide upon them. Every Member would be lia'ule to an indictment who showed any paper published by that House which was supposed to contain any thing crimina tory.—( Hear, hear.) He had been told by the Librarian of the British Museum that he was placed in a state of consternation, for he was afraid to bring down any report or papers printed by the order of the Commons or Lords, lest it should contain a libel. Under these circumstances, he (the Attorney-General) thought the motion of the Hon Member for East Sussex was premature. —( Hear, hear.) What might hereafter be done it was impossible for him to say ; but upon this he was clear, that until a petition was presented by the Sheriffs, or until they did something, allowing a sense of contrition it was utterly impossible for the House to release them. In his opinion, unless the House acre detesmined to persevere it would be much better that they should give up their pri vileges altogether.—(Hear, hear.) Under these circum stances he must strenuously oppose the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member oppissite.—( Hear, hear.) Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that the Hon. Member for East Sussex had, with good taste, abstained from in troducing the question of p r i v il ege , b ut t h e A ttorney- General had entered int) it at no inconsiderable length._ (Hear, hear.) Ile was satisfied that the eeneral feeling of the House was in favour of the Sheriffs, and he must confess for himself that be could scarcely reetrain his feel ings when the motion was made for their committal. He would ask the Attorney-General whether the privileges of the Sioux° had not been sufficiently vindicated. The right of the House to commit for contempt had been re cognised by the Court of Queen's Bench ; the case, there fore, was not now as it had hitherto been, for the Court of Queen's Bench instead of setting itself up against the pri vileges of the House had recognised them, and therefore it was that his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for East Sussex had brought forward his motion. The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had talked of the comfort of the Sheriffs, of the levees of friends that they had had, and so on : perhaps he was not aware that the room in which they were confined did not exceed in size the table before the chair.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would ask the Learned Attorney-General how he would like to be confined for ten days in his own chamber, or his own room, or in a chamber the size of the table before the chair ?—( Hear. hear, and laughter.) Ile ( Sir R. Inglis) had no doubt that the Hon. and Learned Gentle men would be most happy to get free from such imprison ment.—( Laughter.) The Attorney General had next stated that the Sheriffs were not bound to obey the Queen's writ, lie (Sir. R. Inglis) could scarcely believe his own ears, when he heard that statement from the first law officer of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) As the Learned Attorney-General seemed ignorant of the oath the She riffs had taken, he ( Sir R. Inglis) would take the liberty of reading part of it :—" I will fairly return, and fairly serve all the King's writs, according to the best of my skill and knowledge." Now he (Sir Robert In glis) would call upon any Member of that House to read through the oath taken by the Sheriffs, and then to say whether he entertained any doubt that it was the duty of the Sheriffs to obey the Queen's writs. The question was not whether the Sheriffs had sworn to obey the law, but whether they had sworn to obey the Queen's writs ? Was the writ of the Speaker of equal effect over those who were not Members of that House, as the Queen's writ ? Certainly not ; and he believed that o e u r the l d w s were p few o rt alnayw y s e u r e s h o p u r t op o o f si t t i h o a n t . HouseTh e A o r tto i r n n e i y t . that neral had said, what benefit would they derive if they kept Stockdale in custody, and let the Sheriffs free? Why, be said, by so doing they would make themselves the laughing st scks of the country. The question, and the only question, in his ( Sir R. Inglis's) mind was, had the Sheriffs of London done any thing to justify the House in retaining them in custody ? As to what the Honour able and Learned Member had stated as to the danger arising to the librarian of the British Mu seum, he thought that completely b es id e the question, because no malice conld be proved on his part. He appre hended that if any person maliciously circulated the Re ports of that House in the immediate neighbourhood of the party implicated in them, that that would be looked upon as malicious ; that the communication would not be consi dered privileged; and the party printing, and the party circulating, would reader themselves liable to have an ac tion against them. A great deal had been said about the SUN S LONDON. TUTI,SDAY, FEBRUARY 4,1940 iheriffs, but Fe. ( Sir R. lossis) considered that the jury who had assessed the damages were more mixed up in the transaction than the Sheriffs. The House, in his opinion. m i g h t consist e ntly punish Stockdaie, because he was the prime moving party in the whole concern ; but they could tot consistently further punish the Sheriffs, who had done nothing more than by their orths they had sworn o do. —(flear, hear. hear.) With respect to the power of the House to punish, it was limited, in his opinion, to a most injurious degree, because, if at a later period of the Session a party committed a most grave offence, the House had only the power to retain him in::prison 611 the end of the Session, while another party, who had committed but a small offence at the commencement of a Session, might be subjected to a much greater degree of punishment. H e th oug h t t h at the bst course to follow for establishing the privileges of the House would have been to have brought in en Act of Parliament net declaratory of the law, but a Bill enabling that and the other House of Parliament to do that which was neces sary for the establishment of their privileges. The House had not, however, taken that course; but they had in structed the Attorney-General to appear in the Court of Queen's Bench to defend their privileges, and by that means giving the Judges to understand that they were at liberty to come to the conclusion that they thought right—that they had the power of considering their privileges. He was not aware whether there was any other instance on record of a party having been committed for doing that • which he was previously sworn to do. The case of the Sheriffs was the only instance. He (Sir Robert Inglis) was in the Court of Queen's Bench when the Sheriffs were brought up on habeas corpns, and he heard the loud and general shout outside which announced the approach of the Sheriffs. That shout reminded him of the shout which attended the acquittal of the seven Bishops.—( Laughter.) Honourable Gentlemen who laughed at the shout that attended the acquittal of the sever, Bishops, forgot very much the elements of English history, and forgot how much the civil liberties of the people of England depended upon the courageous conduct of those martyrs of the Church of England. The Sheriffs having now been fif teen or sixteen days in close confinement, he trusted the House would think its privileges had been vindicated, and that the motion of his Hon. Friend would be acceded to. Mr. BAINES had attended with very great attention to all the discussions on this subject, and the result he had come to was, that if the House should forfeit the claim it now set up, it would in reality abrogate its powers, and become inefficient for all the great purposss of legislation. Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said about the close confinment of the Sheriffs. There had been a per son confined, for an offence much less than that which the Sheriffs were guilty of for thirteen months, not in a room twelve feet by twelve but six by six, and who, for sixteen hours out of twenty-four, was placed in solitary confine ment, having no levee every day to animate and console him. When the Hon. Baronet's ( Sir R. Inglis) sympathy had been so strongly excited in favour of the Sheriffs, it was a matter of great surprise to him that he had not come forward and expressed his regret that a person should have been confined for so long a time for 53. Gd. It was said the Sheriffs were confined because they had conscientious scruples—so had John Thorogood conscientious scruples, and yet he was to be left incarcerated in a gaol, dying from starvation and misery. He (Mr. Baines) had been informed that the Lord Chief Justice had been disse minating thoSe very publications for which Mr. Stockdale brought his action.—(Cries of " Order, order.") He was not out of order, and it was quite competent for him to say, that, even on Saturday last, the Lord Chief Justice had, in the generosity of his disposition, presented a series of those reports to one of the Colleges in this country. He did not see why the same process should not be issued against the Lord Chief Justice that had been issued against Messrs. Hansard. He did not think the punishment of the Sheriffs had been sufficient to expiate their crime, and, therefore, he could not vote for their discharge. Sir W. FOLLETT felt it incumbent upon him to say a few words, especially after the speech of the Hon. and Learned Attorney- General, which seemed to offer no prospect of a termination to these proceedings. He (Sir W. Follett) thought some course should be ariopted by which that desirable object might be effected. He did not at all venture to hope that any advice he could give the House would be of the slightest service in its difficult and embarrassing situation ; but he did feel the proceed ings had now come to such a point, that it was absolutely incumbent on the House to consider calmly what course it ought to take as it regarded the termination of these pro ceedings and the discharge of the Sheriffs; as to the future course of proceeding in the actions now threatened against the officers and the servants of the House, if it should turn out on the result of these procedings that the House had not the power effectually to stop actions brought against its servants or officers, he did not think the House would lose much either of its character or dignity if it adopted some different course to that which it had hitherto pursued.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") As be bed not on any former occasion troubled the House on this sub- ject, he hoped he might be allowed to state the view he entertained of the matter of privilege, and the broad distinction which presented itself to his mind between the power and right, which he believed the House possessed, of communicating to the public the whole or any part of its proceedings, and the power which they had now attempted, and ineffectually exercised, to inter fere with the administration of justice. It was that ques tion alone which had led to these discussions. It was the power of the House to publish its proceedings which Mr. Stockdale questioned, and he did regret that any other question than that of priVilege had ever been raised. Although he himself was a Member of the Committee in 1837, when these resolutions were reported to the House, which were so much the subjeet of comment, he was not able to say ; the more mature deliberation he had been able to give, made him regret that those resolutions ever were reported in that Committee, or ever received the sanction of the House.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) The assertion that the House made relative to undefined privileges led people to test those principles by putting imaginary cases. They tried it, not by what the House was likely to do, but what it might do, and the House was charged with arrogat i ng to i tse lf t h e functions of the entire Legislature, and assuming the power to make laws and not obey them.—( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that those resolutions were liable to that charge, but that misapprehension had gone abroad. Upon the powers of the House to communicate to the public. the whole or any part of its proceedings ho owned he was perfectly satisfied by the precedent collected by that Committee, that it was a power which that House had exercised, and which had never been questioned.—(Hear, hear.) It had been the practice of that House, beyond all doubt, for two centuries, to do so--( Hear, hear)—but, independently of that fact, looking upon it as a mere Constitutional ques tion—looking at the power of that House as one o f t h e branches of the Supreme Legislature, and its functions as the grand inquest of the nation, he, for one, could never entertain a doubt of communicating to the people the whole of its proccedingrs.—( Cheers.) It was not neces sary for him, after the speeches that had been delivered, and especially after the speech of the Noble Lord opposite, if he would allow him to point cut instances. It could not be doubted that they might origi nate in that House a Bill to alter the suc- cession to the Throne, and could it be said they were not to publish the grounds on which they wished to absolve the people from their oaths of allegiance?—( Ilear, hear.) It was no answer to tell him that there was no trace of such a power in the earlier periods of our history. In his mind the power of the House, and the mode in which it would exercise its functions, must vary with the altered state of society, and with the degree of political knowledge; and with the present state of society, and the present degree of political knowledge, it did seem to him essential to the due working or the Constitution of the country that the people who were to be bound in their property by the laws of Parliament should have an opportunity of knowing the grounds upon which Parliament passed laws.—( Hear, hear.) All the evidence taken before their Commit tees--all the Reports made by the House—all the grounds on which they legislated, he thought the people ought to be informed of, and if there did arise a feeliag against the privileges contended for by the House, he was sure that if the people were made to know that what the House claimed was the right to communicate to them what was passing in that House, they would be backed by the public voice. -(Cheers.) It was idle to tell them that they might publish what was not defamatory, but not what was. No precaution would enable them them to publish that which was defe;natory. Of what use, would have been a Commit tee on the Poor-laws, if they were not allowed to publish the evidence ?.—( Hear, hear.) Although be agreed with a Noble Lord ( Howick) that it would be much better if more care were taken in the publication of evidence, yet no care could prevent defamatory matter being published, and if any one was appointed to overlook the reports, no one in the House could say that even on this particular subject, where the Commissioners had made a report, stat ing that there was an obscene book published by Mr. Stockdale—nobody would have thought of striking , out that passage.—( Hear, hear,) Looking at the proposi tion as a lawyer—not that this was a legal question because this was not a question on which lawyers could form any better opinion than any other person--( Hear, hear)—it was a great constitutional question; but even looking to it as a lawyer, with respect to the publication of defamatory matter the propositions were, in truth, identical, and if it were essential Jo the House to publish its pro. ceedings, then any publication, no matter how defamatory, made by order of that House, was a lawful proceeding.— ( Hear, hear.) He could not help feeling that the publi cations of that House ought not any longer to be the sub ject of an action. The case of the King and Tait had frequently been alluded to; but in that case it was not a publication by order of the House, but of a stranger to the House, who had presented a petition defaming the character of an individual.—( Hear.) But surely there was a distinction between the acts of strangers and the acts of the House itself. In the present case the publica tion was ordered by the House of Commons for the in formation of the public, and, as such, he did not con sider it otherwise than a lawful proceeding ; and he thought, that when the matter was discussed in any Court of Justice, and when the party set up as a defence that the publication was ordered by the House of Com mons, the Judges of the Court ought to have given credit to that House for not being actuated by any impure or improper motives.—(Cheers.) They ought to hare given credit to that House, that in the publication, by their order, they had no other object than the public good.—(Loud cheers.) He regretted that the Court of Queen's Bench had not come to a different de cision than that which they had pronounced. It was not possible for him Sir W. Follett) to state too highly the re spect he felt for the character and learning of those Judges. but at the same time, Hite could not, after all the delibera. tion and inquiry he had given to this case, bring h:s mind to go along with them in the grounds of that judgment, he felt that when that judgment came to be canvassed in that and did House he should be wanting to that House Hon, if he n L o e t arn st e a d te Fr h ie i r s id o , p th in e io A n I . e — m ( Z he fo e rßeadin g his (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) would allow him to say so, he did not even think that the Judges of that Court would be in the least dis pleased with any difference of opinion stated in that House with respect to their judge - tent, or of the grounds of that judgment being canvassed in the delicate manner in which he admitted they were canvassed by his Right Hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth. They bed a right to canvass the judg,rneire itself, as if they were canvassing it in a Court of Appeal. The Judges would not be displeased with it. A much bigiser authority than him, his Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden), and his Honourable Friend the Member for Liverpool (Me, Cresswell) had expressed opinions that the judgment of the Court was erroneous, but he must say he had heard in the course of these debates, knowing so well as be did the Learned Judges of that Court, and the high position they occupied, not only in the opinion of the pro fession, but of toe had heard with pain some of the observations made in the course of this debate.-- ( Hear, hear.) He would say nothing further. There was nothing which had excited so strong a feeling as the reso lution of the House to sell their papers. He knew that, speaking legally, it made no difference as to the publica tion—( not Hear, h ear )—b ut t h at misapprehension was confined alone to those who looked at the mere surface of thinge, but to those who were highly educated; and they would take their stand on this position--" w e do not deny to you the right to pub lish your proceedings, but we deny you the right of allowi ng your servants to keep a shop for the sale of these peblications." He should be very glad if a different resolution were come to than that order of sale. Observe the distinction there was between that power of privilege and the power they were then seeking to enforce. It was the practical position in which they were then standing that had created all the difficulty. In the last Session of Parliament, after the adverse decision come to by the Court of Queen's Bench, that House came to the resolu tion in the case of Mr. Polack, to direct its officer not to plead to the action, but to allow judgment to go by de fault That aetioa was not proceeded with. But in the vacation the Speeker, acting on that resolution, directed Mr. Hansard not to plead to the action that had been brought by Mr. Stockdale. Judgment was taken by de fault, and hence all the consequences that had since arisen. That resolution, no doubt, was carried by a large majority, composed of all parties, and therefore he ad mitted that the Speaker had no other course but to give the direction s he did. It was hardly possible for the Noble Lord or her Majesty's Government to take any other course; he had been no party to their resolutions ; he had not been able to attend in his place in Parliament, but he could not bring himself to concur in them, nor in the proceedings that had been consequent thereon. He thought that the House would find that the power of come rretinent was inadequate for the objects they had in view. He hod seen from the reports, that the Noble Lord had thro en on him his share of the responsibility, in having advised the House to plead to the action of Mr. Hansard in 1837. Ile had no hesitation in saying, that it was his decided opinion, and that he had expressed that opinion out of the House, to others as well as to Members, that the House ought to allow its servant to appear and plead to that action. That was the opinion he entertained im mediately after the resolutions of 1837 were passed. It was the opinion be still entertained. The proceedings that had taken place since the adverse opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, had in no degree shaken their opinion, nor did he agree that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench had placed that House in a worse con dition. If they had not pleaded to the action in 1837, judgment would have gone by default, there would have been execution, and just the same proceedings as had now taken place would have followed. The House might have attempted to evade the payment of the money ; they would not succeed: they might have imprisoned the Sheriffs; but, as far as regarded the fruits of the action, their position would have been as it was at present.—(hear, hear.) But, so far as his (Sir Wil liam's) judgment went—and he did not speak as a lawyer merely, but constitutionally—so far as his judgment went, he did not think the House had a right to order its ser vant not to plead to any action—( Hear, hear)—or to in terfere in the proceedings of the Courts below.—( Hear, hear.) It was no doubt true that the House was the sole and exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that it had the power of committal for the breach of them.—( Hear, hear.) But it did not follow, that if the servant of the House was questioned for any act under the authority of the House, that fact was at ones to operate to deprive the Cours of Law of their jurisdiction over the case.--( Hear, hear.) A plaintiff might have a right of action uncovered by the Order of the House. (Hear, hear, hear.) But if the House tried, after suffering judgment by default, to stop the course of law, and attempt to deprive a British subject of his undoubted right--( Hear, hear)—let him illustrate this argument by what might follow out of this very case. Stockdale would doubtless bring his action against the'Sergeant-at- Arms, for the com mittal. What course would the House take? If the House acted in consistency with its resolutions of 1837, it must direct the Sergeant not to plead to the action.--(Hear, hear.) Judgment, then, was suffered by default. A Sheriff's Jury would be empanelled to assess damages, and what amount did the House think would be given in such a case ?—( Hear, hear.) And how would the House pre vent the plaintiff from receiving the fruits of his verdict ? --( Hear, hear.) The house could not do it.—( Hear, hear.) If out of session, it was admitted the Hould could not do it. And even if in the session, what would the House do? Imprison the plaintiff, imprison the attorney, imprison the Counsel, imprison the Sheriffs—but the action would still go on—( Hear, hear)—and in the end the plaintiff would receive the fruits of his action.--( Hear, hear.) It had been decidedly held that the general war rant of the House was a sufficient legal justifica fief. for a committal.--( Hear, hear.) But what right had the House to deprive a person of any right of action he might have over and above the abstract com mittal?—( Hear, hear.) That right of action might be, that the Sergeant had used more force than necessary to execute the warrant—(Hear, hear)—or that he had kept the plaintiff in custody longer, to extort money.—( Hear, hear.) Surely the plaintiff had a right to have his action for that I Well, would judgment be suffered by default in such actions? If not the House would not be acting con sistently with their resolutions.—( Hear, hear.) Decidedly the House ought to do so—( Hear, hear)—and, unquestion ably, on the right of committal the Court must decide against the plaintiff in the action. He (Sir William) agreed with the Attorney-General, that the privileges of this House, or of the other House of Parliament, or the prerogatives of the Crown, were all part of the law of the land—(Hear, hear)—and it was impossible to deny that occasions must arise, on which each and every of those subjects should come before the Courts for decision— ( Hear, hear)—and, if so,' surely they must bo decided as all other questions that came before the Judges—on their judgment, of course honestly and conscientiously.—( Hear, hear.) Judges setting themselves up corruptly, or unconsti tutionally against either privilege or prerogative, might be punished by impeachment—( Hear, hear)—but if their judgment was honest and conscientious, it could only he questioned by a writ of error.—(Hear, hear.) And he could not feel the force of the argument adduced by some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the effect of this would be to place the privileges of this House under the decision of the other branch of the Legislature. For, were riot every day the most solemn questions of property, liberty, nay, even of life, submitted to the other House, sitting as a Judicial Court?—(Hear, hear.) When the prerogatives of the Crown were at their highest pitch, the other House had repeatedly decided upon them. And was it to be said that the House of Lords were unable, then, to decide on any point affecting the privileges of this House ?—( Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General had said that the House would lose its character unless it brought this matter to something like a consistent consummation.—(Hear. ) But what end could the Attorney-General anticipate of these proceedings ?—( Hear.) Unless the House pleaded —or unless a legislative enactment was established —fresh actions would continually be brought, and their proceedings must be interminable. Let the House reflect that they had already submitted to the Court of Queen's Bench that most important of its powers—the privilege of general commitment—on the return to the writ of habeas corpus, which had been ordered by the house unadvisedly by the Attorney-General ; indeed it was the only course. He did think the House was too easily satisfied in suppos ing the Judges wore going to set themselves up against the privileges of the House, aed he could not but also think the House would have stood in a better position if' the judgment had been questioned, and taken to another Court. Was it aight, because in one act the Judges had given an erroneous judgment, to set the Conrts at defiance, and say that in no case in which the privileges of the House were in question they would permit the, Courts of Law to entertain it. Ho said the House could not do it, and that the Constitution never supposed that sort Of hostility between the Courts of Law and the House of Commons—nor that the Courts would decide against the law in - this matter more than in any other. He would ask the Solicitor- General this question, no person's opinion was entitled to greater weight—Wa s he prepared to say that the House of Commons ought to in terfere and prevent the Courts from giving judgment on matters affecting the privileges of the House ? Did he say the Courts of Law ought not to entertain these questions? If so, the course advised respecting the return to the habeas corpus, was inconsistent. Now he might say he had given no advice, and that if he had been consulted he should have advised shiide iiinbeociouosnroeseqofeenceof traced it further? The subject now was a civil action— ' the officer not to make a return to that vrariti;.fe wereßut had he . b lost • of the Speaker's warrant, what tribunal the execution the e g n h o t n t r h s e e re th b e e y n h o ad cr t Com mons had no power to inquire . into a matter of proceedings sn p of the House that description—it • the S 'Libre° Surely or dinary triJuna , again distinctly brought before the would therefore be would investigate tha m t ? ust on the guilt or innocence of the persons Judges, because be bound to declare e tee law to tuts I accused they would also be bound to act on what was stated Jury, who would lainkeinnal? • 1 Is and the privileg es be the law, and stated byif what the Judges by the Judges to thought was the law as regarded the pow er o f t h e H ouse, in cases on which life or death of the p art i es d epen d ed was binding, w as it to be said the Judges had n o j ur i s • diction in matters affecting the priviliges of the House? The House would now exercise its power for purposes for which it never was intended, and not effective ; for after all what'were its powers ? That of punishment he admit ted, and - also of committal, but not of preventing actions. It was clear if this matter had terminated in vacation the House could not have interfered at all. They could not have prevented it unless they had s h ut up all the offices and Courts of Westminster, and sent the attorney, who did not care about being in cus tody, to prison ; the Jury being empaneiled, the verdict given, and the Sheriffs levying for the damages, what course in this case would they have taken for the Sheriff to pay the money to Messrs. Hansard ? But he refused to o b e y, and Stockdale had," not the money. There was no question but he would have 4. If the She riff had obeyed the House he thought lie would be in a still worse position, for what would have been the conse quence? The plaintiff would have brought his action against the Sheriff, and they must have stopped that. Suppose the action had not been brought, and the Sheriff had been attached by the Court of Queen's Bench, and sent to prison, what course would they have taken ? Ac cording to the Solicitor-General the House must send an order to the keeper of Newgate to discharge him. But, suppose he refused, then his Hon. and Learned Friend said they would come at once into collision with the Court of Queen's Bench, and one must give way. Ay, but which one was to give way ? Why, said the Solicitor- Gen sral, the Court must give way—for this reason, thst the House would appeal to the Secretary of St ate, who would address the Crown, and the House would have a civil and military power granted to assist them. That was the was' the contest vets to termi nate.—(Cheers.) Then let him ask, if that course were taken, if the Sheriff had refused, and the House had come into this contest with the Courts, if it was proposed —he did not say at a time like the present, when con tempt of constituted authority' was an evil of astounding magnitude—but be asked whether, at any time, they were prepared to employ a civil and mditary force in this coun try in a contest like that ?—(Cheers)—What good would ar i se fr o m it? He (Sir W. Follett) should shrink f-em such a contest, and so he believed would every Member of that House. What was the right course to take ? He admitted that the House, on privileges which were essen tial to the performance of its functions, had a right to say that it was dissatisfied with the judgment of a Court of Law ; but he did not think, because the event had been decided against them, that they were now prepared to work cut those proceedings to the termination spoken of by his Learned Friend, which was nothing but a contest, of course, with the highest tribunal of the king dom. He did hold, therefore, not in any party spirit, that in the action now pending, and in which the House had taken no steps, it ought at once to depart from that broad resolution, not to allow the Courts to interfere, and that it ought to allow its servants to defend the action ; and with regard to the poker of publishing, if there was any feeling, as probably there was, that they would not again apply to a Court of Law, or Error, then it must come to this—the House must, with the consent of the other branch of the Legislature, secure itself the power by a declaratory act, or some other legislative enactment.—( Cheers.) One or the other must be done, for no one could suppose the House could go on losing the public time, not merely night after night, but Session after Session (for he knew the sort of man they had to deal with) and be thus harassed in the exercise of its necessary function. He could not, there fore, hesitate to say, he did not think it would be any abandonment of their privileges, with the concurrence of the other branches of the Legislature, to say there was a psrti cuter power, the possession of which was necessary to its functions, and which they would find the only effectual mode of preserving their privileges, unless they got the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench reversed. He thought the matter was now come to such a point, that any person who entertained an opinion on the course to be adopted, was bound to state that opinion. It was for these reasons he had made these obsei rations which had for effect the discharge of the Sheriffs. On that point he should wish to address to the House one word. After what he had said, nos one could entertain any doubt in disproving of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that he should hare been ready, in the first instance, with. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side. But he should now rather address himself to the Noble Lord and those who had been most ready to maintain with him the privileges of the House. He did not stand on the technical merits of the case, but he would ask the No ble Lord and those who had taken part with him, whether enough had been already done to vindicate the privileges of the House ? Their proceedings had led to one resolu tion, which must be satisfactory to those who had been contending for the privileges of the House—they had now a resolution by the Court of Queen's Bench, confirming clearly and specifically their power in the case—the great and enormous power of the House to be the sole and exclusive judge of its own privileges, and their right to commit a party by warrant, without stating the ground of that warrant. That had been established. It was clear, therefore, that' no one disputed the power of the House to detain the Sheriff,: in custody. They had a right to keep them in custody from this time to the prorogation of Parliament. He wanted to know for what purpose they could now in tend to do so.—(Hear, hear.) Was it for the sake of punishment? The House itself admitted that, morally speaking, they had been guilty of no offence. Could they do it with a view, which he could hardly believe they en tertained, that after the Sheriffs had stated that they thought they were bound by their oaths, and by their duty, to pay the money ?—could they do it from a de termination, under these circumstances, to kee the Sheriff's in custody, in order that, by intimidating them, they might extent from them the money ?—( Hear.) That could not be their object. What was their object, then? His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had told them, in the course of his .speech, that the House was imprisoning the Sheriffs in order to deter other offf. cers from taking the, same course. Would it, however, have that effect? He asked the House whether any punishment would prevent others from imitating the ex ample of those parties, in a case where public sympathy and public feeling were entirely with them ?—( Hear, hear.) He thought that no one without had a second feeling on the question. He thought that, whatever opinion might be entertained with regard to the privileges of the House, there was but one universal opinion on the other question. Hear, hear, and No, no.) He thought that Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in denying his assertion, were mis taken.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that there was a public feeling and sy m p a thy i n favour of parties who had been imprisoned for discharging a public duty according to the dictates of their conscience. Hon. Gentlemen appo site would recollect that the Sheriffs were not voluntary agents in this case—they had not come forward willingly— they were persons holding a public situation, and bound to perform its duties, in obedience to a writ issued by the Court of Queen's Beach. How long. he would ask, would the House keep them in custody? They had already been there a fortnight. His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Attorney. General, had said, however, that the punish ment was not a severe one. He (Sir W. Follett) could not agree with his Hon. and Learned Friend, because, though it was true that they had been confined in a room of the House, and not in a prison, yet his Learned Friend should recollect that they were men of business, h av i ng their trades and affairs to look after._( Hear.) He thought therefore, that under .such . circumstances, the punishment was a serious one, and he should say, though he knew not whether that was the feeling of the House, yet he should repeat, that, looking at the matter even as a vindication of these privileges, he for one should be glad that those Gentlemen were discharged 'unconditionally.— ( Hear, hear.) He said unconditionally, because ho felt it would not be tight to extort, as a condition of their re lease, any expression of regret on their parts for having done what they considered themselves bound to do. He did not think that that was a situation which men of cha racter and of honour should be placed in. He therefore did not know why petitions should be presented, or why expressions of regret shpuld be insisted on as essen tial to their discharge.—( Hear.) He believed they should be released without any such expressions of regret for hav ing acted as they were bound and authorised to do. He thought that if the House adopted this proceeding it would go farther than any other to satisfy the public mind, which should not be disregarded in the present instance ; and even though the House should have taken an erroneous view of the matter it would be right to show that they had no other wish than a desire to preserve those privileges which they thought essential. He thought that would be the just course, and he felt it would have less than half its weight and effect if it arose from any petitions presented to them. He should say that he denied the Noble Lord had made a proposal, and he wished even now that the Noble Lord should come down with some proposition, for discharging those Gentlemen. If any one thought that course ought not to be taken he could only say that, though he should do so with great reluctance, because the ques tion was one which he thought should not be submitted to the House, yet he would, in that case, feel it to be his duty to vote with the Hon. Member for Sussex, for the immediate and unconditional discharge of the Sheriffs. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged to assure the flouse that he should not now have troubled them, had ho not felt himself placed in circumstances of considerable anxiety and great responsibility. From the moment his attention had been first called to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, he was so struck with the consequences of that decision, that he did not anticipate that the House would be able to escape from very serious difficulties. When the Committee had been appointed to take into consideration the proper course for the House to pursue in consequence of that decision, he certainly did not spare any diligence on his part to inform his mind on the materials for corning to a correct view of the case. But, feeling deeply as he did, the importance of the question, and feeling also the. infirmity of h's own judgment, when at the same time he entertained a strong opinion on the matter, he had takep•all possible care that he should not offer to that Committee any suggestions of his own without taking the utmost pains that those sug gestions should not be unworthy of the Committee. When, therefore, he had learnt the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, he had sent to the Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Hotise (Sir W. Follett), for:whose judgment he, in common with all who knew him, enter tained the highest respect. He had sent to his Learned Colleague, the Attorney-General, and to another Hon. Friend of his, the Member for Huntingdon, and he had solicited that Gentleman to read and consider a paragraph of that report, and he had solicited a meeting of those gentlexien at his chambers, in order that on that occasion the lawyers, instead of assisting might not em barrass the Committee by having a difference of opinion on a matter on which the Committee should expect to be guided-by them ; suggestions had been made by his Hon. and Learned Friends, and he had adopted:them all. He had inserted in a draft of the report to be submitted to the Committee the reasons why he thought the House had not been wisely advised in alluding to the case of Burnett and Allen. He had stated the grounds on which he supposed the House had acted at the time, in order to enforce the conclusion that, however good the reasons might have been which had influenced the House in that case, they were not reasons of a permanent nature.—(Hear, hear.) They did not stand on the same grounds now, and that ought not to form a precedent to the House. He considered, that as the subject-matter of the complaint in that case was that the House did not truly represent the people, and that as very strong opinions bad been ex pressed upon the subject, the House probably did not think it worth while to stand on public opinion on the oc casion, while they entertained considerable confidence in the Courts of Law as then constituted, and while they knew that there was a much greater chance of judgment being given in their favour in the Court of Queen's Bench than by the public. Under these circumstances, they did not wish it should be said that the House did not cor rectly represent public opinion. His Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir William Follett) had, however, objected to anything being said on the subject and accordingly the whole had been struck out. The pleadings in the case alluded to had merely been introduced in consequence of a previous resolution of the House. The Committee that presented that Report, not only had the benefit of the. judgment of all the professional Mem bers of the House, bat also of the professional Members of the Committee. That Report was presented to the House, and the resolutions were founded on it, of which they were all aware; and although he r e j o i ce d that his Hon. and Learned Friend had favoured the House with his views, be regretted that having given his sanction to the Report, upon which the resolutions were founded, he had since then had occasion to change his opinions upon the subject. He had before stated, that he never addressed the House without deeply feeling the importance of the subject, and if such' were his convictions when he stood before it as an individual Member, his additional responsibility, from the office he had then the honour to hold, must be much ENT IV r q ) 1 1 f t i 1 ON. ,7 LA LP greater. Aithru b h he, opinions might not be entitled tc. 1 jurisdicticn, their character was 'lmproved but their much weight or ridiaece, he could assure the House that ! jurisdiction was the St.72lC ; they had no more power they were the result of as much labour, research, and eon- 1 with respect to Parliament now, than they bad in the worst sideration, as he could bestow upon them.—( Hear, hear.) .of times, when the Judges of the land were the most ser if.., felt that that House had never been called upon t o ; vil e b e i ngs i n the kingdom. What privilege of that consider any question o f more vial importance then the j House had not been denied by the Judges in former times? present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who brought ! Five Membern of that House had been held to be forward the motion had taken credit to hirnstelf ; guilty of treason for wh a t they had said, but that decision for omitting altogether the questi on o f privilege; but bin bad been overruled by th a t H ome. W hen Parliament was Hon. Friend beimid iiirn had justly remarked that that was constituted it; was invested designedly with the power an omission of all the importance belonging to the ques- each of resisting the other branch, and if that were so, was tion.—(Hear, hear.) The House he was sure hnd no re- it, he would ask, consistent that one b ranc h s h ou ld b ecome sentiment against the Sheriffs ; no Member cou ld f eel other tenaet-at-will I titan of its privile ges t o t h e ot h er b ranch ? B ut an regret at the necessity of the case which imposed a t it was framed to resist prerogrative.—( Hear, hear, hear.) restraint upon them ; and when his Hon. and L earned i Where did the King found his claim for ship- Friend, the Attorney-General, stile' that they had not money ? Not in Parliament, but in the Courts suffered much, in alluding to their levees and visitors, he of Law. Each branch of the Le itilature was independent was satisfied that h e did no t mean , i n a Briti s h House of I of the ether, and how could it be g consistent therefore that Commons, to under va l ue th e l oss o f liberty, whether I one branch was to decide on the privileges of the other? for I —(Hear, hear.) Would Parliament be Worthy the name for a day, or for any longer perio 1, fur ii tympathy such an infliction was le g 'f e l t i n it B r ent a Flame o f Corn- if its power and privileges were dependent 111011 Judges mons where was it t o b e met w i t h ?_( Hear.) wh at was appointed one day and-remved the next ?—(llear, hear.) the position of the House at the present moment? It had The Howes of Parliament were a check upon the Courts resolved th a t th e pri v il ege of publishing pr i nte d p a p ers was of Jastice, and they were to be the prosccuters of those essential to the due perforrna e c e of its functions—that the who imProPerlY administer e d it. I n t i mes gone by the House was the exclusive judge of its privileges, aid that Judges were in the habit of referring cases to Par any action or proceeding to bring those privileges under bainent, beca use t h ey were too difficult far then:. the delib erat i on o f the Courts of Law was a contempt. artoactecrouorftstlieof Douse Jtstiee i , ts z ed i f, o c o n 1 1 e lo ri o o k d in He, therefore, asserted, that looking et • the Censti- Was the House sincere in that opinion ?—( Hear.) If so i t it u s tio r n e a la l iio c u li s did that or did it not form a question in considering whether or not the Sheriffs s h ou ld be discharged? the Courts of Justice in a situation to exercise aritdiction over Parliament. Every prege which the They had been taunted with the observation that the .i lockin g at powers of the House were insufficient, and that if th e y t r i e d House bad, Lad been given to it, not for the benefit of any to assert them, they would only bring the mse l ves i nto of its Members, but the public good. The privilege of contempt, and he admitted that if they had followed the freedom from arrest, which was . given to its Members, was advice given by some Hon. and Learned Members on the for the benefit of the public, in order that no Member other side, such would not have been the case.—(Hear, might be prevented attending to his duties to the public, hear.) The privileges of the House, bad they been vie- and yet, if the Queen's Bench were to proceed in the dicated ? Why, the persons under their restraint were course they were adopting, every privilege of that House defying them. If the Sheriffs had been at any time in must come under their cognizance. There could be no the opinion of the House contumacious, what were they doubt that the House had committed abuses in the way of now ? Were they not pertinacious in defying the Ho l is m , privilege more or less, but floes whom had the public and would discharging them vindicate their privileges? •rcceived redress? Not from the Courts of Lew, hut from He begged to say that he was not indifferent to the pain the Hous.e itself. In these times did thny have recourse of imprisonment, but feeling that the question was on e to the Court of Queen's Bench ? Certainly not. When deeply affecting the best interests of the country, he was Sir Francis Pemberton and others nere committed ftr for detaining them in custody until the privileges of th e a co n t empt did t h ey appeal to the Courts ? N o, b ut to Haute bad be en v i n di cated.—( Cheers.) He was not a the House itself ; and it would invariably Ire found, that cruel person, nor did h e w i sh to see these gentlemen when the Howe had stretched its privileges - too far, confined longer th an was a b soluely necessary; but tic the public would find safety not from the Courts, but question really was, whether they were to have an inde- from the !douse ittelf.—(,sear, hear.) The • lending pendent House of Commons or not. He did not consider cars upon which the Court of . Queen's Bench himself fit to represent the interests of the country decided it judgment was the case of I.3tnycn and in that H ouse , if h e di d not stand up and defend Evelyn which had been mentioned in that House. their privileges, so far as lay in his power. They were It was a case is which a point regarding the • privileges of told that their power was little. What then ? Were they that nfouse had been decided extra-judicially by Sir Orlando to give up that little ?—( Cheers.) They were told that Bridm.man, a Jodgc who had :lives detested the fltuac, they could not vindicate their privileges. Why should and was a great partizan of Charles the First ; he had gone they give up the means they possessed of makin g th e at- out of iris way to express an opinion regardirg the privilege tempt?—(Hear, and cheers.) As the question at present of thet House, and he had riven it as his opinion that Mem stood, they had affirmed a resolution that these privileges hers were not free f rom su i ts during' the sitting of Parlia were essential, and yet th e y were ca ll e d upon, while the ment. Non; this was a privilege which the HOUTC had ex- Sheriffs continued contumacious, to discharge them. That ercised unchallenged up to the lime of giving that opinion, was a course h e certainly could not take. While these rose- —had exercised an frequently since that opinion had been lutions existed, that House could notovithout incurring the given,—which had been asserted by the other House of contempt wish which it is threatened, discharge these gen- Parliament, and which was at last given up by the Haute demon from custody. lie recollect e d w h en t h e j udg- itself by Act of Parliament. It had been limited by an Act merit of the Court of Queen's Bench was under discus- in the time of William the Third ; it had been still further sion, that some Hon. and Learned Members complained restrained by an Act of George the Second, and in the that the House had not shown sufficient respect to the time of George the Third the House hail voluntarily given Courts of Law. He recollected no instance of that disre- up the privilege, abolishing it by Act of Parliament, spect, but he certainly wished there had been something and this was the judgment quoted as the foundation of like reciprocal respect.—( Hear.) He had the highest re- the judgment recently come to in the Court of Queen's spect for that Court, and he believed that respect was Bench. The question to decide was this. Was the House felt by every Member of the House ; but he regretted of opinion that it was a part of the British Constitution, to . that on all occasions that Court had not considered what have an independent House of Commons ? Was the was due to the House of Commons, because most disre- House of Commons charged with the duty of watching apectful comments had been made the basis of arguments, and resisting any attempts at encroachment on the part of in that Court, and insinuations had been thrown out even the other branches of the Legislature? If so, was it against the f orm o f t he comm i tment. He aereed with his consistent that me ry privilege they had, should be subject Hon. and Learned Friend that the laws and the cor.sti- to the revision of aJi ffries or a Keeling. All the present tuted authorities of the country should be respected ; but Judges were, be knew, most honouteble men, but the he would remind his. Hon. and Learned Friend that th a t House should not look at them, it should look et the times Hoes° was one of the constituted authorities.—(Cheers.) which it had pesled through, and which it had been If the House was disposed to take exception at trifling enabled to pass through sucetsfully, Imeauae it had stood matters, (and he hoped it never would stoop to do so,) by its privileges, without the possession of which, it was there was ground enough in snatch of the proceedings be- impassible for the House to exercise its constitutional fore the Court cf Queen's Bench. Nay, even the vary functions. He would read to the House a few names of line of argument permitted and sanctioned by the Court high legal authorities, who admitted that the House was was such as had not been permitted within the memory the sole judge of its own privileges. There were the of his Honourable and Learned Friend himself. twelve Judges in Thorpe's case ; there waa Coke, Pem- The House was engaged in a matter of too much import- Berton, Jones, Denison, Wright, Foster, De Ore}, For ance to attend to any little attempts at insult like that.— tescue, Mansfield, Tenterden, Best, Holroyd, and a host of (Hear, hear.) It would be unworthy of it t o d o s o, but he others, who had all admitted that in cases of privilege the hoped at the present time they would f ee l th e necessity of Courts had no jurisdiction. Had the House learned nothing being treated with a proper de gree o f re s p ec t, to which by the judgment which had been recently pronounced? and they were entitled, and of which th e y c ou ld no t be deprived, contrasting it with the former judgment, if they were He had been, lie confessed, somewhat surprised at the line exposed to the decision of the Courts in one of their of argument adopted by his Hon. Friend. He hoped when privileges they were exposed to it in all. Suppose a the Committee whi c h h a d b een reappo i nted came to con- case, in which the House was called on to suspend the sider and mak e a re p ort on t h e j udgment of tho Court Habeas Corpus Act, or to do any other' legislative act of Queen's Bench, th a t th ey would do so in a spirit suddenly, th ey summoned a witness before them ; I'eof independ ence wort h y o f t h e character of that House. refused to attend, or attending, refused to open his mouth; No judgment ever given was less in accordance with the the House ordered him to be arrested ; he aPPes i .s to the spirit of authorities covering- a long course of ages in this Court of Queen's Bench; that Court decide), whether the country, nor was there ever a judgment more unwarranted arrest . is a legal one or no. They het , : the power of in conclusion. He begged to call the attention of his arresting your progress in every Hon. and Learned Friend to what was the constitutional Every function will be impeded vta • td—mou cannot go on. Pad vou mill be driven to part of the question. - Hi; Hon. and Learned Friend said, the House of Lords, or ba t without a remedy. If the You must submit your privileges to the Court of King's Commons owed it to the nteople of Eneland to maintain Beech. You should bring a writ of error. You should their proper position in the Constitution,lie woiald contend go to the House of Lords." What would be the result ? they would not be properly executing that duty hy releasing (Hear, hear.) Was it t rue th at t h e b eauty o f the British those Sheriffs. Now, what was the position of these Constitution consisted in having three distinct and inde_ Sheriffs? Toey had a writ of execution against Hansard, pendent branches? House the Hoe of Commons n o power ? and he was not s ur p r i se d to h ear the Hon. Member for Ox- Why its existence in the year 1840 was the best proof. ford pitying them, end saying they were bound by their oath Through what conflicts had it passed ?_( H ear , h ear. ) to execute it, but reall y t h at any of his Learned Fr i en d s What opposition had it overcome ? what pe r il s h a d i t over- should express such an opinion, appeared to him—he come ? (Hear, hear.) Yet it existed.---( Renewed begged their pardon for saying so—an insult to the under cheers.) Mie Justice Coleridge was one o f t h e J u d ges standing of the House.__( Cheers; and Oh, oh !) Of who passed the judgment out of which all those proceed- course, if these Sheriffs were to be considered 'martyrs, ing had arisen. But that Judge had published an edition and bound by their oaths to execute this writ on the iof " Blackstone's Commentaries," and he (the Solicitor- Messrs. Hansard, then all Ambassadors must be arrested, General) would read a passage from that edition of Black. all Members of that House, and Peers of the realm, must stone, which bore directly on the question. The passage be arrested ; and, of course, all franchises must be consi was this:—" But the Constitutional Government of these dered at an end.._(Clieers, and cries of seam el lie islands is so admirably balanced and combined, that was quite sure if Hon. Gentlemen saw the' ieffect of the nothing can endanger it, except destroying the equilibrium statement, th e y w ou ld not admit it ; but if the oath was between one branch and the rest, or that it should happen as had been supposed, then any Member or Ambassador that its independence should be lost, or that it should be- might be arrested. • The writ was not issued by the Court, come subservient to the other two."—((;heers.) There any attorney's clerk might go and issue a writ, - on paying would soon be an end to the constitution of that House, the fees of office, of coarse. If the oath of the Sheriff should he be obliged to have recourse to the Courts of binds him to execute all write, how is it that an occur- Law, or to the House of Lords, in the last resort. Would rence of this nature takes place every day? A writ is is the equilibrium in that case be maintained, or would it sued, the person against whom it isistued•tells the Sheriff not be entirely destroyed? If he understood his Hon. and I intend to dispute, and will give you an indemnity. Learned Friend rightly, there was no law of Parliament, The Sheriff takes the indemnity, and returns mina as distinct from the common law of the land. His Hon. bone when there is a house full of goods; he is protected and Learned Friend said that the privileges of that House by his indemnity, and never looks to his oath as to depended upon the general law of the country.—( Hear, how he is to execute his writs. This is a matter of every hear.) What did he mean by this ? Did be day occurrence, as must be known to every Member of the mean to deny that the re was a l aw of Parlia- profession ; and, really knowing this, to h e ar Learned merit distinct from the common law, as much at least Gentlemen contend that what the Sheriffs did was inlY as ecelesiasecal law? The vs-bole law of Parliament had done in chedience to their oath, did Teem to him something its origin in one maxim, which was to be found in Justice very like an insult. Their oath only binds them to execute Blackstone, edited by Justice Coleridge—fur they were such writs as ought to be executed. —( Cries of " Oh, oh 1") both Justices, and the only difference between them was Hon. Gentlemen cried Oh, oh I If he were wrong bow that, through a long life, Justice Blackstone maintained was it that privileged parsons were not arrested ? Now, his opinion, whe reas J ust i ce C o l er id ge changed his.—(A Mr. Hans ar d was a privil ege d p erson—( C heers ) —an d a ll laugh.) The maxi m was th us expresse d — " W hatever mat- that the Sheriffs had considered in that case, W.IS not the ter arises in either House of Parliament ought to be exa- stringency of their oaths, but which was the strongest, the mined, discussed, and determined in that House, and riot House or the Court of Queen's Bench. They had con elsewhere.—( Hear, hear.) The maxims on which they sidered that the Court of Queen's Bench was the strongest, proceed, together with the mode of proceeding, re s t and had acted accordingly. In cases where there was a entirely with themselves—( Hear, hear)—.and their inde- return of nulia bona, or:non es! inventus, when the pendence consists in their keeping their privileges clear and Sheriffs had received an indemnity, no being ever heard intact."—(Cheers.) It is necessary that each branch of in such cases of a Sheriff's oath. They had executed that the Legislaturii should be able to stand firm and resist the writ on their own responsibility, mid they were not bound others. Whoever would take that view of the question to execute by their oath. They were bound by their oath must see that the nature of the conflict to which that to execute their office according to law. If they consi- House might be exposed, and the quarter from which the dered this en it did not ieterfere with a privileged person, attack might come, could not be judged a priori. Tire then they were bound to execute it, but not otherwise. House of Common s was d es i gne d as a c h eck upon the It has been said that the former proceedings in the Court House of Lords and t h e C rown, an d especially on the had led the Sheriffs to suppose this, that, and the other. House of Lords, w hi c h stoo d b etween the people grid the That argument could n o t p reva il i n thi s case , b eca use the Crown. Now, if either of those Houses held its privi- Sheriffs had express notice, before they received the writ leges subject to the judgment of the other, bow was it to ex- or knew anything of it,tof the resolutions of that .House.s ercise its function s as an i n d epen d ent b ranch of the Legis- Why did they do that ? Because they were misa t e a vie inie d. lature ?—( Hear.) By w h at means cou ld t h at House resist T hey thought the House had not the. power of maintaining the encroachments of th e o th er b ranc h es ?—( H ear, h ear.) t h e pr i v il ege a l leged to be infringed. They tho a thoughtthe, It was not for imm e di a t e b ene fi t , • or t h e co l lect i ve advan- were sa f er i n y i elding obedience to the Court of Queen's tage of the House itself, its privileges were to be main- Bench. And now he came to consider what were those tamed; but if it we re not a bl e t o res i st t h e encroach- means b y which each House of Parliament ha d , mi ents• of the, other b ranc h es , i n w h at was t h e equ i l i br i um up to the prevent day, maintained its stationin the of the Con s tit u ti on , to be preserved? How o ft en m i g ht Constituti o n. By constant l y committing Sheriffs and the question of pri v il ege ar i se ? Th ere was not a ques- committing Bailiffs. N o b o d y ever dreamt of an oath in tion which they might put—there was not a person terfering. In some few instances Parliament had inter whom they might examine—there was not a paper for fered with a higher authority, but • the general cause was which they might call—.but the Quee n ' s B eec h m i g h t this—a person was arrested who claimed the privilege. interpose a question whether it was necessa r y The House ordered the Sheriff to attend with his prisoner, or not for the - exercise of their functions. and if the Sheriff had arrested the party, with notice of the The Queen's Bench lied admitted that whatever was no- privilege, the practice was, to commit the Sheriff and to emery for the exercise of their functions was for acquit the prisoner. If Hon. Gentlemen would turn over the decision of the Houses of Parliament themselves. But the law journals, or any of the other journals, they would at the same time that the Court gave the House the con- see that that had been the constant practice. The House trol of its necessary privileges the judges assumed to de.. had no other means of vindicating its privileges.—(Hear, termine what privileges were necessary, and you might bear.) Then it was said, "but there will be no you end to this." Why the House by that course had over reserve give o bo body yourselfthe power thp 0 wtoerdot to ( h i e a t t e r i is iuehe necessary,t the en the come worse times than these—when it had Courts, and necessary and the unnecessary. If you do, the power Crowns, and Lords against it. The privilege was assailed would be perfectly harmless.—( Hear; hear.) If through the Sheriff, the officer of the law. The officer was that House was to have the power necessary to di s _ dealt with. It was extraordinary that those who admitted charge its functions, but another tribunal was to decide the privilege was essential to the proceedings ofthe House, what power was necessittY—he begged to ask what became and that it existed, should tell them to have pity on the of the privilege?--( Cheers.) The Courts of Law had Sheriffs —that they had acted under a sense of duty and the decision as to what was the common or the statute law ; ought to be let out. Yes, if they were inclined to tell but they could not decide what was necessary to that Sheriffs they might disregard their privileges, let them out. House for the exercise of their functions ; and when those —( Cheers.) Then it was said suppose this happened, Courts said that the communication of what passed in that and suppose that happened. Why suppose everybody defied House was not necessary for the exercise of its functions the House at every step—let it go through every Court in there was pretty certain indication as to that would be their ' the kingdom—it - would come round to the same point course if the privileges of the House were in their bands. —commitment.—( Hear, hear, h e a r .) Wh y i t wa s that •—( Hear.) Not only would the House be subject to rod- power of commitment which had preserved the Constitu sion on every question which they might ask, on every tion aid preserved the Courts.—(Hear, hear.) The person they might examine, and on every paper they might House could never maintain its privileges except by pre send for—but if a Member were sent for to be examined in venting the officers of justice yielding obedience to man es Court of Law aS to what assed in that House who was dates inconsistent with its privileges, yet that was their ,to decide whether he should disclose Bench or that House ? The House had • decided that bers ? By fear of conamitment.—( Hear, hear.) The it or not The Queen's only mode, How were Sheriffs prevented arresting Mem no one should be called on to answer elsewhere for any Sheriffs had now the money of Mr. Hansard in their statement made before it, and that witnesses should not pockets ; but suppose instead of the moeey they had Mr. criminate or endanger themselves by their answers t o que st Hansard's person. They had got Mr. Hansard in their tions of the House. But if the Court of Queen's Bench pockets in the shape of money.--.(A laugh.) Would they_ that thought proper to call Mr. Gurney before it, how could permit Mr. Hansard, entitled to the protection , of t t li e t the House protect him from disclosing what p as sed there? House, and that protection technically describad as theh Again Members were exempt from attending upon Juries. privilege of Parliament—would the House discharge _ But if the Queen's Bench c h ose to requ i re t h e ser- Sheriffs while they retained:Mr. Hansard in their . custody_?_ vice of a Member, wh o was to decide that his The question, therefore, was, whether the Sheriffs should attendance in that House was necessary to the ex- be permitted to render this breach of privilege effectual et ercise of his functions as a Member of Parliament ? to Mr. Stockdale's purpose by giving him the fruits t Look again at the course of impeachment; if you want to the proceeding. That was the question. It was sai d , . examine into the administration o f justice, the Court of how long will you keep the Sheriffs ? His answer was, till Queen's Bench wou ld say we must j u d ge first whether that the privileges of the House were vindicated.—(Cheers.) the for ._ is one of your privileges, the witnesses would refuse to at- If the House was contending for their privileges, Cheers.) tend, and, in f act , t h ere was not a single function of the benefit of the people of England, no pity for the Sheriffs House which cou ld b e di sc h arge d without subjecting the ought to be put in competition with their duty.— be com- House to be met on the subject of privilege in the Court Would the Court of Queen's Bench so outrage duty.—(Cheers.) Queen's B enc h, w hi c h was arro gating to itself the right tional Law as to send Sheriffs after Sheriffs to „ e of deciding the privileges of Membe r that House.—( Hear, hear.) nutted by the House? Certainly they would not. " There could b e no doubt th at the character of the Judges had read in the newspapers that a diatingtiisht ta M rf e : ing had bee n muc h i m p r o ve d b y t h os e laws which made them had said, " was there any instance of this H o use independent of the Crown, but they had no new with an action ?" Why, if that Honoura ble Member oid LhiS nost )use sely It of the to ting Ho- H.) hick at- .ar.) of they at-- light pre- Yard iuite the Oat oble ;sen med into land rder rved y at ;ling ouse for been ask C is him? that bin), for ,t of rider the, o uld the ask arse n, in b. lepdr from icity Den'i this 06' burr that that , its steps for that; -ssio ion• Ira I tho mY the .now Elie bad itiOa pe t° OP ding cud t lo fie t be (or las'e, gii“ tn e 'en°