The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-17 00:00:00

P 1 V ENING EDITION . _, 1 Aistres s m i g h t be trac_____er), to the construction of the circulating medium. Th e r, peal of Peel's Bill, and the Poor Law Bill, wool') 1 in his opinion t en d greatly to restore tranquillity. persever e i n t h e co, If the Noble L or d s st ill d e t erm ined to arse hitherto pursued, he believed that i awful would b e the consequences—in fact he believed that they were r mw on the eve of a revolution. Lord BRO Y LTG HA M across the table briefly explained. The Duke o f R ICHMOND next rose, and said that he hoped * it would not go forth to the country that it was the opinion of that house that they were on the eve of a revolution --(Hear, hear.) He believed on inquiry that it 'dad b een f oun d th a t in Wales great d hat the istress had not been endured, and ho believed ( .peeple o f E n gland were much too lo!; al t o permit a deluded set of men to raise the poli.mlation. There might be some districts disturbed, test the energy of the local Magistracy ought and would put them down. He had heard of misguided men, in large numbers, coming together to attack the town of Newport. But by whom were they conquered ? By the Mayor doing his duty one lieutenant, and thirty soldiers of Ithe youngest regiment in her Majesty's service. And the leader —coward as he was—was captured skulking and running away. Such has been and will be the fate of the seditious ; and let them learn a lesson to their cost, that a few well disciplined soldiers will soon rout those who are convinced that they are doing wrong. For his part he had no fear for the country, provided the country was true 41 to itself--(Hear).—provided the Magistrates did their - duty, and the aristocracy and middle classes, with the loyal labourers, went together. Let their Lordships take every opportunity of mixing with the middle classes, i and encouraging the labourers when they deserved appro bation. He had been in hopes that he should have beard nothing about the Corn-laws on the first day of the Setf sion, as, last year, after long discussions in both Houses, it was declared by large majorities that they would not ruin the manufacturing as well as the agricultural interests. The great objection to entering upon the question at the present moment was, that it could not be calmly dis cussed, but only with heat and irritation.—(Cheers.) He trusted that petitions would be presented by the agri culturists for the continuation of the present system. Lord MELBOURNE then said, that as the amend ment was superfluous, and a mere formal introduction, he had no objection to accede to it. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE then said that he begged to express his sincere concurrence in the Address, and he would sacely say the same for his brother, who was ab f sent . - - Hear, hear.) He also begged to state, that having been much abroad, and having bad better opportunities of acquiring information than my Noble Lords, he had learned that th e Prince whom the Queen bas chosen for her consort was 'a young man from whom every thing was to be expected that would contribute to the happiness of her Majesty, and to reader him popular with the country. —( Hear.) The Noble Duke again repeated his entire concurrence with the Address.—( Cheers.) The amendment being agreed to, the Address was put and carried. Their Lordships then adjourned at Half-past Eight. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JAN. 16. The Members of the House of Commons began to assemble about half-past twelve o'clock, but the Speaker did not enter the House until a quarter before two, at which time there were between 60 and 70 Members present. The Speaker was dressed in his State robes. Mr. Greg, the new Member for Manchester, was in the House, and sat on one of the benches appropriated to strangers, behind the Sergeant's chair, he not having as yet taken the oaths. Most of the Ministerial Mem bers were present, and among them the Attorney-Ge neral. Lord Howick took his seat on the front bench on the Ministerial side of the House, but below the bench on which the Ministers usually sit. At twenty minutes past two Sir Augustus Clifford, the Usher of the Black Rod, summoned in the usual form the Speaker to the House of Lords, to hear her Majesty's Speech. On his return, the House was adjourned till a Quarter to Four o'Clock. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quarter before Four o'Clock, for the purpose of enabling those Mem berd who had been elected since the termination of the last Session to take the oaths. Mr. F. BARING, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the oaths and his seat for Portsmouth. Mr. GREG took the oaths and his seat for Man chester. Mr. WrsE took the oaths and his seat for Waterford. Mr. MANNERS SUTTON took the oaths and his seat for Cambridge. Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON took the oaths and his seat for Tyrone. NEW WRITS. Oa the motion of Mr. E. J. STANLEY, a . new writ was issued for Devonport, in the room of Sir Ed ward Codrington, who, since his election, had accepted the office of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Also for Birmingham, in the room of Mr. T. Attwood, who had also accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. E. J. STANLEY also moved for a new writ for Edinburgh, in the room of the Right Hon. T. B. Macaulay who, since his election, had accepted the office of her Majesty's Secretary at War. CHANGES IN THE CABINET. Mr. DISRAELI said, that at the close of the last Session he had inquired what was the course of policy that was to be pursued by the new Cabinet that was then in the course of reconstruction ; he now wished to inquire what was to be the course of policy to be pur sued by the new Cabinet now that it had been recon structed ?—(A laugh from the Ministerial benches.) He considered such on inquiry strictly constitutional. On that occasion a Cabinet Minister, whom he did not now perceive in the House, the Right Hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, had declared publicly in that House that the Cabinet was not about to be reconstructed, and that no alteration whatever was contemplated in the policy it was intended to pursue. The Right Honourable Baronet, not satisfied with this public declaration, had condescended to cross the floor of the House, and to aid his private affirmation to himself (Mr. D'lsraeli) that he was entirely misinformed on the subject, and that no reconstruction whatever of the Cabinet was in contem plation ; yet, within a brief space after the prot oga tion, which had followed immediately upon that assur ance, four Cabinet Ministers had either resigned their situations, or changed their offices, and among the number an individual not less eminent and not less distinguished than the Noble Lord who then led, and he supposed still continued to lead her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons. Within a few days after the prorogation one of the Mem bers of the reconstructed Cabinet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, meeting his constituents to celebrate his re-election had, in his address to them, laid peculiar stress upon the influence likely to be produced by the policy about to be pursued by the new Cabinet. That Right Hon. Gentleman had not been satisfied with the moderate phrase which be (Mr. D'lsraeli) had made use of—of reconstruction of the Cabinet—but he had called it expressly a new Cabinet. He thought that the facts which had occurred since the prorogation, had fully justified his assumption.—(Hear.) Four months had been occupied in the reconstruction which had taken Place, and it was only a few days since he had seen in the newspapers, that a Noble Lord, who had never be fore been a Member of the Cabinet, had lately taken the oaths to her Majesty. It was a part of the duty of the House of Commons to ascertain who were the responsible advisers of the Crown—(A laugh from the Ministerial benches)—such a doctrine did not appear to be in very great favour with a reformed House of Parliament— (Hear from the Opposition)—but it was doubly desirable in the present day, when the Ministers of the Crown had incurred a considerable degree of responsibility— (Hear, hear)—that the House of Commons should be informed of who those Ministers were. It was neither decent nor decorous that the Members of that House should be left to ascertain who were the respon sible advisers of the Crown, from the tittle tattle of the Clubs or the gossip of the Newspapers. And although it might be alleged that the information might be ac quired from the London Gazette—(Hear).—in answer to that he would remark that many changes might take place in the Cabinet which never appeared in the London Gazette. He would ask why the present Minis ters had deviated from a course that had been uniformly pursued by those who had preceded them in that House ? He asked the reason why there was any deviation from the usual course ? A Cabinet was never changed or reconstructed without Ministerial explanations ; and the greatest authorities have laid it down, and in particular Lord Grenville, that when a Cabinet is reconstructed it is more necessary to enter into explanations, because, when an open change takes place in the Government, a difference of policy took place ; but in changes of individual Members there was more necessity for explanation, to avoid the imputation of intrigue. Since the Reform Bill had passed, twelve Cabinet Ministers had resigned withotit explanations. He wished to know who were the responsibl e advisers of the Crown? —(Loud laughter on the Ministerial benches.) He again asked who were her Majesty's Ministers?—(Renewed laughter.) Would those Noble Lords or Hon. Gentle men who were Cabinet Ministers hold up their hands ? —(Continued laughter.) He wished particularly for explanation with regard to the Noble Lord, the leader of that House. He thought it was a proper occasion for these explanations, and he trusted he should not ask them in rain. NEW WRITS. Mr. E. J. STANLEY moved for a new writ for the borough of Penryn, in the room of Sir Robert Rolfe, who had become one of the Barons of her Majesty's Ex chequer —Ordered. A new writ was also ordered, on the motion of the same Hon. Member, for the bo rough of Newark, in the room of Mr. Sergeant Wilde, who had accepted the Solicitor-Generalship ; a new writ was also issued for the borough of South wark, in the room of D. W. Harvey, Esq., who had accepted the office of Commissioner of Police , also, for the county of Meath, in the room of Morgan O'Con nell, Esq., who had accepted the office of Assistant Register of Deeds in Ireland.--(Loud laughter from the Opposition.) On the motion of Sir T. FREEMANTLE a new writ was issued for the county of Denbigh, in the room of Sir W. W. Wynn, deceased ; also for the borough of Beverley, in the room of Mr. Lane Fox, who had accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. NOTICES OF THE CABINET. Sir E. J. STANLEY then gave the following notices. On the part of Lord John Russell for Tuesday, 21st of January, for a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the Eccle siastical Commissioners for England. For Mr. La bouchere, 28th January —A Bill to regulate Steam Navigation ; also a Bill to provide for Inland Bonding ; and for the 21st instant, for a Committee on Railways. IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. The HON. Gi:NTLEMAN also gave notice for Lord Morpeth, on the 23d of January—A Bill to regulate Municipal Corporations in Ireland.—(Cheers.) VOTE OF CENSURE ON THE CABINET. Sir J. Y. BULLER—Sir, I rise to give notice that on the 28th of January, I shall move a vote of want of confidence in her Majesty's present:Ministerc—(Cheers.) COPYRIGHT. Sir R. INGLIS gave notice, on the part of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, for the 23d of January, for a Bill to amend the law of Copyright. Mr. R. PALMER gave notice for 23d January for a Bill to provide for the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers. Captain PEC HELL gave notice for to-morrow that he would put a question to the Noble Lord the Mem ber for Stroud with regard to the introduction of Small Debt Courts.—(A laugh.) SPIRIT LICENSES. Mr. GILLON gave notice to-morrow he would move for leave to bring in a Bill with regard to the renewal of Spirit Licenses. NAVAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION. Lord G. LENNOX gave notice that to-morrow he would put a question regarding the Naval and Mili tary Commission, when they would make their Report. THE HANK. Mr. HUME gave notice that he would put a question as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bank and the Currency.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. BROTHERTON gave his usual notice with regard to closing business at 12 o'clock. CORN IMPORTATION. On the motion of Mr. E. TEN NENT Returns of the Corn and Flour imported into this country during the last year were ordered to be laid on the table. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. The Hon. MEMBER then moved for a continuation of the Stamps issued to the various Newspapers in Great Britain and Ireland up to the Ist January, 1840 ; also the amount paid by each as advertisement duty. Mr. HUME said it was understood last Session that these returns were to be made out in a more comprehensive form, and to be laid on the table without such motions. Such a course would be very convenient, even as the present system was otherwise, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly led the House to expect that such would be the case. Even if the present motion were complied with, the House would not have a complete return, and as it might lead to inconvenience by interfering with the new plan, he thought it would be better to postpone the mo tion till to-morrow, when the Right Hon. Gentleman might be present. Mr. TENNENT postponed the motion accordingly. RURAL POLICE. Sir E. KNATCHBULL, seeing the Hon. the Under-Secretary of State in his place, begged to ask him whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to bring in any Bill for amending the Con stabulary, or, as it was commonly called, the Rural Police Bill. Mr. P. MAULE said it was the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL would earnestly request that the Government would do so at the earliest possible moment. The Bill was one of much importance, and, last Session, was only one fortnight under the con sideration of the House, and at a time when many Members were absent. At half-past four o'clock Sir R. Peel entered the House, and was followed shortly afterwards by Lord J. Russell. THE PENNY POSTAGE. Mr. FITZROY KELLY begged to ask any Mem ber of the Government present, who was connected with the Post-office, whether the present regulations, as to the early closing of all the boxes for the reception of letters, was intended to be permanent, or only of a temporary and experimental nature ? Lord J. RUSSELL said the regulation was only of a temporary nature, and he supposed it would not be necessary to carry it on for any length of time. NAVAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION. Lord GEORGE LENNOX begged to ask when the Report of the Naval and Military Commission, which had been appointed more than two years ago, and which, if he was correctly informed, had closed its labours at the termination of the last session of Parlia ment, would be laid upon the table of the House? Lord J. RUSSELL did not believe that any Re port had been received from the Commission, but as soon as it was received there could be no objection to lay it on the table of the House. _ _ _ Lord GEORGE LENNOX understood the Com mission bad made a Report, and he was only anxious to know the proper way of obtaining the Report of that Commission. He could assure the Noble Lord that it was most anxiously expected by all the service, both naval, military, and the marines. Mr. LABOUCHERE believed the matter stood thus. The Commissioners had completed their labours, but the Report had not yet been prepared. He be lieved, however, that one or two meetings would com plete it.—(Hear.) CONVICTION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS. Sir E. WILMOT gave notie, that on that day fortnight he would move for leave to bring in a Bill, authorizing the summary conviction of juvenile offenders before Magistrates. GRAMMAR SCHOOLS. The HoN. BARONET then gave notice that he would bring in a Bill to authorize the masters of Free Grammar Schools to enlarge the foundations and extend the system of education, under certain restrictions. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—MESSRS. HANSARD. Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to address the House, and said—Sir, it is with great regret that it should be my duty to interpose between your reading the Speech which her Majesty delivered from the Throne, especially on the present occasion, but it is a duty which I cannot avoid, and which is incumbent on a Member of this House, regardful of its rights and privileges. Sir,!l have had placed in my hands a petition from Messrs. Luke and James Hansard, styling themselves, and properly, the printers to this Honourable House. It is signed by the petitioners, and it contains matter of the deepest importance to the power and privileges of this House. I feel that so much depends upon the accurate statement of what is contained in this petition, and the various particular facts recited in it, that I should best do my duty by requesting that the petition should be read at the table without en tering into the details of the subject. Sir, the petition relates to certain proceedings which have taken place in consequence of a resolution passed by this House in the month of August last, by which the Messrs. Hansards were bound. Sir, it would appear from the petition that certain goods belonging to the Messrs. Hansards were seized, and their property taken by certain persons in consequence of their obedience to the orders of this House. I trust, therefore, that the House will allow me to bring up the petition, that it may be read by the Clerk at the table. The petition was then brought up and read at length. After which Lord J. RUSSELL said, Sir, as this petition refers to notices which it is irregular to take without produc tion, I conceive there can be no objection on the part of the House to allow the petitioner to appear at the bar with a copy of the notices, in order that the notices and petition may be printed at the same time. Mr. Hansard was then called to the Bar, and pro duced the notices referred to. The SPEAKER then said—Are those the papers connected with the petition that have been alluded to. Mr. Hansard—They are. The SPEAKER—DeIiver them in. Lord JOHN RUSSELL again rose, and moved that the petition be printed, and taken into consideration, which was agreed to. _ The NOBLE LORD then proceeded to say—Sir, I have a further motion to make, because I think it is en cumbent on this House to lose no time in coming to a decision on this question. I need hardly allude to its importance, because every Member must be con vinced of the deep importance of our privileges in this case.—(Hear, hear.) I need only say, that I think in whatever way the House may choose to decide the question, they cannot leave it in the position that it is in at present. It has been stated as a fact which I believe is not denied, that the goods of the Messrs. Hansards, to the value of 6901., have been seized, and that the proceeds of the sale are in the hands of the Sheriff. Now, Sir, I can conceive of many ways in which this House may think it right to dispose of the question. This House may proceed according to the ancient, and as it is undoubtedly the course which it is right to pur sue, by commitment—and I think that course most consistent with the dignity of this House. This House may also direct the Messrs. Hansards to plead to all future actions, and raise the question of privilege before the Courts ; or the House may entirely abandon their claims of privilege, and, conforming to the directions of the Learned Judges, direct that the papers printed by Messrs. Hansards be confined to the Members of that House ; and ther e are var i ous other proceedings which it is unnecessary: to advert to except that the question may be i settled by P ar li amentary enactment. But, Sir, the position n whi c h th e quest i o n at present stands is one which I thi n k no b ody can wish it to papers for general distributi on — t h ose papers to continueprint in. —(Hear, hear.) We canno t cont i nue containing, as they necessarily must do (this House being the grand inquest of the n a ti on ), matters of a eliminatory nature, and without any answers being set up to those accusations, .and those accusations being perhaps perfectly just, actions may be brought against our printers and heavy damages recovered.—(Hear.) I shall therelo7a proceed to move that certain parties mentioned in the petition be summoned to our bar to morrow. It will then be competent for any Member to ask such questions as he considers proper upon the con tents of the petition, and the House can take such farther course as it may consider necessary. The persons I refer to are—lst. John Joseph Stockdale, the plaintiff ; next, Thomas Howard, his attorney; then the two Sheriffs, the Under-Sheriff, and Air. Burchell,the Deputy Under- Sheriff, who presided at the trial of the cause ; lastly, the Bailiff, who acted in the case.—(A laugh.) Sir, I therefore now move that John Joseph Stockdale be summoned to attend at this bar to-morrow. Sir E. SUGDEN said he saw many difficulties in the way of this proceeding.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He entirely agreed that the question could not remain as it was as present.—(Hear, hear.) Nobody was more disposed than he was to vindicate the just privileges of this House ; but he could not disguise from him se lf th a t if the House had embarked in this course they would have to go much further, and perhaps to commit the Judges.—( Hear, hear.) They were not then on the question of their personal privileges, and, except in the way of illustration, that question might be laid aside ; the question was, on the right to authorize the publication generally, of those papers they might choose to print, and to sell those papers to whomsoever might choose to buy them, whatever might be the contents. The first question, what form the House adopted in in cases where its privileges were affected, it was not disputed, as he understood, by any body—(indeed the Lord Chief Justice himself appeared rather to hold a doubt on the question)—that upon the authorities that House had the power of committing any person for a breach ef its privileges. (Hear, hear.) In the case of the Queen and Lord Shaftesbury, the commitment was by the House of Lords, and the Judges gave their opinions that the commitment was not a good commitment on the face of it, but they re fused to examine the commitment. The House of Lords ultimately rescinded their own resolution as to that Noble Lord. He did not see any difficulty on account of that, because the House had the power to do so, and the very circumstance of its rescinding an improper order showed to all, that if it made a mistake and went wrong, it was willing, and had the power to correct it. The next case was what was called the Aylesbury case, and when the House bore in mind the extraordinary circumstances of that case, it would see how great the power was in regard to commitments. In Ashby and White it was decided that an action could be maintained against the return ing officer for rejecting a man's vote. That was con sidered by the House as a breach of its privileges. A vote to that effect was passed, and the point was so decided in the House of Lords as a Judicial Court. Other persons brought similar actions, and among them was a man of the name of Patey. That House com mitted Patey for a breach of its privileges for bringing an action in a similar case, in which Ashby had brought an action. Upon the commitment the Habeas Corpus was sued out for Patey, and the case came before the Court of Common Pleas. Lord Chief Justice Holt was of opinion that the commitment was bad and illegal, and ought not to prevail. The other three Judges of the Court were of quite the contrary opinion. In this respect the House had exercised a power of commitment, and it appeared from the statement of Lord Cowper, and of all the other Judges in the case of the House against Holt, that the House did possess this power, and the result was to establish the power.of this House to commit, for breach of privilege, beyond all possibility of questioning from any other Court. It would be said that this power would lead to abuse, but the same might be said of every other Court in England ; and Lord Chief Justice De Grey had decided that the Courts would not decide on commitments in that House, as there was no doubt that it possessed the power of commitment for breaches of its privilege.—( Hear.) They might take it, therefore, as settled that the House possessed the power of commitment, and no man could enter an action for damages on account of false imprison ment if that power were duly exercised—he said duly exercised, because its officers, if they exceeded their power in the commission of those acts were amenable at common law, and it was not left to the House to decide if those officers had exceeded their powers, or if they were punishable for their misconduct. The law inquired into the circumstances of the case, and if they had ex ceeded their responsibility in the eye of the law, no reso lution of that House could protect them. A resolution of that House would be of no avail in a Court of Jus tice, except upon an action brought for excess of powers , by the officers. The Judges were sworn to act accord ing to law, and they were bound to inquire incidentally into what the privileges of that House were, and to decide according to their oaths and their conscience. —( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The authorities on this subject were scanty. In one case an action was brought on a double return against a returning officer, and the Lord Chief Justice had decided that that was a question of privilege, and that this House was the judge of its own privileges.—(Cries of .' Hear." In another case, Chief-Justice Ridgway laid it down that no resolution of the House could bind the Judges in an action upon a question of law. The case of Ashby and White, the Aylesbury case, illus trated the situation in which the House was placed in a most striking degree ; there there was an action brought against the returningofficer in consequence of a difference in the poll-books ; there it was said an action did not lie ; but upon appeal to the House of Lords,notwithstanding a resolution to the contrary of the House of Commons, the House of Lords decided against the action, although the House of Commons had previously decided that it was a breach of privilege to bring it. The House of Commons thought it was a breach of privilege to bring that action. After that action had succeeded, the House voted that it would be a breach of privi lege not to proceed with it. The House of Lords, as a Court of Justice, heard that appeal, and de cided against the resolution of the House of Commons. The House _of Commons never re scinded that decision. How then could they ask the Court of Queen's Beach to attend as a Court of Justice to their resolution, when a Court of Appeal had decided against the resolution. If the Court below refused to decide, or decided for the House of Commons, there might be an appeal, in which case the appeal would appear ridiculous. He thought the House would find itself under the necessity of admitting, that no resolution of that House could bind a Court of Law. The Judges had in various cases expressed their opinion against the power of that House in cases of privilege. He would now call the attention of the House to the point of publication which might prejudice a third party. The question was not whether they could print, but whether they could print and publish papers reflecting on the character of an individual. The authorities on that point lay in a small compass. It had been decided that the Speaker was not liable for what he did under the authority and direc tion of that House. There was one great case which was an authority with them—he meant the case of Horne Tooke, and Wright, the bookseller. In that case there was a Report of a Secret Committee, and the report was adopted by the whole House, and or dered to be printed for the use of its Members. Wright, the bookseller, printed that Report. There a criminal information was moved for against the party, and in that case Lord Keny on a nd the other Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench held that the Court could not grant the criminal information, and in another instance Lord Ellenborough had said that what was printed for the House and the Members was a privileged communication, but he was not prepared to say that that Court would justify the circulation of that which was intended for the use of Members, and which might, if published, prove injurious to several parties. There were two other cases in which actions had been brought against Members for libel in publishing their own speeches ; and in those cases it was held, that although the Members had the undoubted right to deliver their speeches in that House, they were subject to an action for libel if they pub lished them when they contained matter reflecting seriously upon individuals. He had reflected deeply upon this subject, and he was anxious with great sub mission, and with a sincere desire to assist the House, to state the opinion he enterta;ned upon the subject. His impression was that in a Court of Common Law when a question was raised similar to the one that had been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench in this case, which involved the privileges of the House of Commons, that there the Judges were bound to come to the best conclusion th( y could upon the subject. He was strongly impressed with the right of the Court of Queen's Bench to decide this question. He con sidered they were bound to decide it one way or other. The House could not bring the Sheriffs before the bar and stop there.—( Hear, hear.) If the Sheriffs came before the House they would be asked if they had the money in hand? They would say they had. They would then be told by the Speaker not to part with it . but the Sheriffs would tell the House to its face tha t the law would compel them in four days to do so, an that they would obey the law. The House would then be bound to vindicate its own privileges, and to commit the Sheriffs. Was there any gentlemad prepared to commit the Sheriffs?—(Hear, hear.) But if the gentlemen did not pay the money, they would, within four days, be committed by the Court of Queen's Bench for not obeying their order. What were those officers of justice to So ? They would be sent to prison either by that House or by the Court of Queen's Bench. Was that a situation in which officers of justice ought to be placed? But they were I placed in that situation in consequence of the acts of the I Houseand itsown tardiness ; theyhad shrunk from exer cising that power which they possessed, and would now visit on the innocent officers of justice, who were bound to obey the law, the consequences of their own delay, and their own unwillingness to proceed. They might commit Stockdale if they would, although he thought it would be impossible to do so, because Stockdale had beat them on the issue joined by them selves. It was well for them to say that they would not follow him from the Queen's Bench to th e E xc h eque r Chamber, or from the Exchequer Chamber to the House of Lords ; but suppose the decision hal been the other way they would have been dragged to the House of Lords in spite of themselves. The House was in this difficulty ; if the House of Lords TH SSTN. LONDON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 17,1840. passed a resolution, they themselves in the last resort could decide on that resolution ; but if this House passed a resolution, and the Judges of the land over-ruled it, they must go before the House of Lords they could not help themselves. He would suggest to this House, before taking any further steps, the propriety of having a conference with the House of Lords, and of ascertain ing the opinion of the House of Lords upon that subject. —( Hear, hear.) By so doing this House would be submitting to no degradation. It would not be sub mitting the question of its privileges to the House of Lords as a concurrent branch of the Legislature, but it would, on a point of law, be taking the opinion of the highest tribunal which the country recognized. He certainly considered that as regarded this particular paper the House possessed the right to publish it. As regarded the sale of the proceedings that was not essential to constitute it a publication. But no one could read the judgments of the four Learned Judges without being impressed with the opinion, that the cha racter of the publication had been materially affected by the circumstance of these proceedings being sold in the manner they had been. The House, in fact, were now acting in the character of booksellers, and although before the resolution authorising the sale of their pro ' ceedings, such proceedings were procurable by the public, yet the person wishing to pur chase them had to buy the whole set, and could nat go as Stockdale in this instance had done, and purchase merely the particular libel against himself. Could any body doubt but that Stock dale had already purchased another copy of this libel, and was ready with another action ? He would therefore advise the House, as a measure of prevention, to rescind the resolution authorising the sale of its papers. Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped the Attorney-General weuld be present to answer or to attempt to answer the speech of his Right Hon. Friend. He had sum moned officers of the Court before this House. He had not, however, answered the speech of his Right Hon. Friend. He took the liberty of rising, because he remembered that Sergeant Wilde had addressed the House on this subject in a very memorable speech, which he wished to allude to.—(Ministerial cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite might cheer, but everything memorable is not necessaril:, good.—(Hear, hear, and laughter from the Opposition benches.) Sergeant Wilde stated that it was not a question so much of law as of general constitutional principle. No one could have argued more forcibly than his Right Hon. Friend that it was the duty of the House to examine the motion. He was surprised that the Noble Lord had not added two words more to the motion which he had before the House ; he one was the names of the jurors who had tgiven the verdict. The Noble Lord had not moved that the jurors should appear before this bor.— ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord was content to move for the appearance of the officers who had acted on the occasion. He did not dare to move for the twelve honest Jurors who had given the verdict. Neither did he dare to move for the appearance of the Lord Chief Justice of England. Might he ask why he ventured to make such an assertion. It was the duty of the Noble Lord to have pro cecded thus, and not merely to have summoned the officers in Court. In any case those persons who are the sworn officers of the country, without any interest in the matter, would be sure to suffer. Those officers might be punished by the House for a breach of its privileges, or by the Court of Queen's Bench, for a breach of their's. is the Noble Lord aware—is not the Attorney-General aware—that the right of the Sheriffs to execute their writ is a right given by that law which is their common master? The Sheriffs, the moment the writ was put into their bands, were bound to obey it. Ministers, how ever, were content with one trial in the case, and he asked the Attorney-General whether it was not in his power to have moved for a new trial or for a writ of error ? Why, be might have had the opinion of all the Judges, or of the House of Lords, the highest tribunal in the kingdom. His Right Hon. Friend would have told the Attorney-General that if the case were re ferred to the fifteen Judges, he would not be in a worse position than now, and he might have been in a better one. Did the Attorney-General believe that the fifteen Judges would have been against him ? If he did believe it, it was the strongest proof that his position was a bad one. But if, on the other hand, the Attorney-General believed that the majority of the Judges would be in his favour. he should have referred the case to their decision. If the matter was referred to the fifteen Judges the Attor ney-General could not be in a worse situation than he was now, and if they had decided in his favour he would be in a much better one. Did the Attorney-General suppose that the fifteen Judges of England were against that House? If he did, in what situation would he be placed ? Why, that he bad advised the House to adopt a course that was against the law of the land. Did the Attorney-Ge neral believe that the Judges were in his favour? If be did, he was in no better condition tben, because the parties had the privilege of going to the House of Lords. Why, he would ask, was judgment in the present case to go by default? The defendant by that admitted that there was a ground of action; and now they turned round upon the unfortunate Sheriff; who had only acted ministerially ac cording to the duty of his office in taking the proceedings that he had done. For his own part be could not see any thing more shabby or unworthy of the House of Commons than the adoption of such a course ; they were going against the Sheriff, while the highest branch of the legal adminis tration of the country was left untouched, because the truth was that the House of Commons dare not, attack them. Why, he would ask, were the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be called to the bar? He called upon the House to pause one moment before it proceeded, if it was prepared to do so, to the last extremity. There was a time when a collision of that House with the other House of Parliament would have been cheered, but that hour was now gone by. But the Noble Lord, if he persisted in the motion he had proposed for the adoption of the House, mast not expect that the subject would drop with out that collision taking place. Could the House sum mon the Lord Chief Justice to its bar ? Certainly not. Was the Noble Lord prepared to move that the Speaker should issue his writ to the Sergeant -at-Arms to seize Lord Denman on the Bench ?—( Cheers.) It was in vain to disguise from themselves that they were on the brink of a precipice, and that if they advanced farther they would only confer upon themselves greater degradation. He trusted, therefore, they would well and seriously consider not only the motion before them but the inconsistency of adopting it. If any Honourable Member moved an amend ment to that motion he would gladly second it. The ATTORNEY-GENEEtsIL trusted that he might be excused for not taking part in the debate at an earlier hour, as the fact was that be was within an hour of his return from the discharge of important duties elsewhere, which for the last three weeks had ab sorbed the whole of his attention. Those duties he had performed to the best of his abilities, and he must confess that he was entirely ignorant of what had been done respecting the case of Stockdale and Hansard, until he entered that House ; but be had not the slightest he sitation in saying upon being made acquainted with what had taken place, that he entirely approved of the motion of his Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colo nies. He thought that the usefulness of the House of Com mons would be at an end, and that its Members would be guilty of treason—( Cries of " Oh,") if they abandoned their privileges, and succumbed on the present occasion, and did not follow the precedent set them by those who for merly represented the people of England, and defended their rights. The Hon. Member for Oxford complained of the motion of the Noble Lord, as did the Hon. Member for Cambridge ; but neither of them had ventured to sug gest the adoption of a course that was better calculated to effect the object they had in view. He admitted that there was great difficulty in the question, but no Hon. Member had suggested a course that was likely to do good. Would the House allow a fourth action to be brought by Mr. Stockdale, or would they allow any other ,person to bring an action against an officer of the House for what had been done in obedience to its orders ? Mr. Hansard was the officer of that House. —( Cries of " No.") He was the printer of the House—he had acted under its orders, and an action had been brought against him for that which he had done in pursuance of those orders. Were they to allow the damages to be levied on the goods of Mr. Hansard for what he had done in pursuance of the resolutions of the House? Were the damages that bad been awarded against him to be paid out of his own pocket? Or was the House prepared;to say that it should be included in the Estimates and come out of the revenue of the coun try ? ,If the House did that, it would not only give up the particular privilege, but every privilege which bad been deemed essential to the performance of their functions. By adonting such a cours e the House would sub ject the whole of its privileges not on l y to the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench but e ver y other inferior tribunal in th e c ountry—similar action s would be brou g ht aga i nst the officers inferior r ior Court of Request s , i n t h e County Courts of th e Ki ng d om. —( Hear, hear.) The House would act u p o n this princi ple—that if an action w as brou g ht a g ainst a n officer of the of Courts, ur the ts , and Hu b House, and he pleaded to it, it would then be competent for any Court in the cou ntr y to ride over t he whole of the privileges of the Ho use. If an action was brought against a messenger of the House for ent ering a person's o b s t e e in r dwelling in order to obtain the attendance of a wit ness, he might, if the House gave up its privileges, be indicted for an assault. But then it had been said that in this case of Stockdale v. Hansard, although the Court had decided against the right of the House of Commons in the pre sent instance, yet that it respected its other privileges. Supposing that it had done so, what assurance had he for the length of time that it would respect them ? That House, he considered, was the best judge of its own privileges, the Judges seemed to think that they were not ; and therefore it was necessary that some conclusion should be come to, and something should be done; and, in his opinion, nothing was more calculated to assert their rights and privileges than the motion of his Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He had been in Lopes that in the present occasion it would have been thought reasonable to have avoided the general question. The motion now before the House was, that Mr. Stock dale and the Sheriff should attend at the bar, and if the latter did attend, it did not follow as a matter of course that he should be committed. The course most usually adopted was, and it was the best course to assert the privileges of the House when they had been vio lated by an officer of the law, to commit that officer, but it did not follow, as a matter of necessity, that he would be committed. Under what circumstances was the Sheriff called upon to attend ? Why, Mr. Hansard, in conse quonce of a resolution of the House, had not appeared to an action that bad been brought against him, and the result was, that his goods had been seized to the extent of six hundred pounds by the Sheriff. Ought not, therefore, the Sheriff to attend at the bar ? because if he did so, he might justify the seizure he had made, though he (the Attorney-General) doubted extremely whether he would do so, looking at the fact, that after repeated notice to the contrary, he had ventured to proceed against an offi cer of that House, and to sell his goods. Under these cir cumstances, he could not see how the House could come to any other decision than that he should be committed to Newgate for a gross contempt of the privileges of the House. The Hon. Member for Oxford had said that if the House committed the Sheriff, why should they not seize the Judges ?—( Hear, hear.) In the present ' hastance the Judges had little or nothing to do with the matter—they were not to be complain e d of. The She riff,[ ' and he alone, was the party blameable. Looking, therefore, at the whole, he could not see why the Sheriff and !Ir. Stockdale should not be called to the bar. It was his impression that that would be the host course to adopt : but if any Hon. Member could suggest a better mode let the House adopt it, if it thought proper; but if no better mode could be suggested, then he called upon Hon. Members fearlessly to assent to the motion of his Noble Friend. What was the course pursued by the House of Lords in the case of Bell v. Plass ? In that case, in the year 1827 an action had been brought by Mr. Bell against Mr. Plass, who was one of the door-keepers of the House of Lords, because he had taken an umbrella from him according to the rules of the House. In that action, which was brought in the Court of Requests,the Court after hearing the case, awarded damages, and Mr. Bell proceeded to levy execution, in order to obtain the fruits of his verdict ; and in that case the House of Lords inter posed, and summoned the party to the bar, together with the Judge and Officer of the Court ; and it was only upon the promise of Mr. Bell, that he would not proceed fur ther in the execution of the judgment, that the House did not commit him. He had been in hopes that the conflict which had taken place with the Judges and that House would have been avoided. He considered that the House had acted with great forbearance—they had done their ut most to avoid the evil—it had now, however, come upon them, and they must determine whether the House of Com mons or the Courts of Law were to have the superiority— and whether all their privileges were to be at the beck of every Judge in the land, high or low. An application had .been made to the Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of Mr. Stockdale for a rule calling on him to show cause why he should not pay over to him the amount he had recovered from Messrs. Hansard in consequence of the execution. He appre hended that it would be a sufficient answer on the part of the Sheriff in asking for the rule to be discharged, if the Sheriff was to say that he had been ordered by the House of Commons to return it to Mr. Hansard. It had been said that the House of Commons had taken upon itself to overrule the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. That was true ; but it was equally true that the Court of Queen's Bench had taken upon itself to overrule a re solution of the House of Commons. He agreed that the resolution of the House was not taken notice of by the Court of Common Law ; but he apprehended, that when such a resolution was brought judicially before a Court of Law, the Judges would be bound to take judicial notice of it. For these reasons, he trusted that the House would pursue the course which was proposed by his Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) Lord M A HON thought that no Member ought to vote for this motion unless he was prepared to submit to the consequences of it. The present motion ought to be fol lowed up, if it was a right one, with a motion summoning the Judges to the bar. He called upon the Noble Lord and the Attorney-General to reflect on the final issue of this measure before they adopted the step that was now proposed. It was no light thing to to tell the people that their re presentatives would set them the example of resisting the administration of the law. Could the Attorney-General doubt that there would be found out of doors thousands, and tens of thousands, of the people, ready to follow that example ? and if they were prepared to stand by their re solution of May, 1837—if they were prepared to say that the Members of that House were the sole judges of their own privileges—that those privileges depended on the will of a majority necessarily fluctuating, which might be on the one side of the House to-day, and on the other to morrow—was the resolution of a fluctuating majority of this sort to overbear the authority of the Judges ? If such were the case, what security would they have that these same principles would not be applied out of doors to the support of any doctrines which might be in accord ance with the wishes or desires of the physical majority of the people Cheers.) The Attorney-General said that if they did not act up to this resolution, they would be al most guilty of treason. He should have thought that the recent important :trials in which the Attorney-Gene ral had been engaged, might have prevented this asser tion. The Attorney-General had also told them, that if they rejected this motion, they must be content to renounce henceforth all their privileges, he could not doubt the attention of the Attorney- General had been paid to the remarks of the Judges, and if so, he must have found them containing many distinct recognitions of the existence of the privileges of this House. The Attorney- General had spoken as if all their privileges were attacked ; but‘every one of the Judges had guarded himself against this construction of the Attorney-General's. (The Noble Lord here read extracts from the judgments delivered by Lord Denman. Mr. Justice Littledale, and Mr. Justice Patteson, all recognizing the existence of many and valu able privileges as belonging to the House of Commons)— and yet, in the teeth of these passages did the Attorney- General assert that there was an end of every privilege if they now submitted to the Judges. Like those high au thorities he also admitted the existence and value of the privileges of that House. He admitted the value of free dom of speech, of personal immunity from arrest, and of that privilege which secured individual Members from obstructions or intimidations in the discharge of their public duty ; he also recognised their right to publish and circulate to every Member of their body any document con ducive to the public interest, but he must protest against the assumption. that this ancient and valuable privilege bore any resemblance to that which had been assumed within the last five years, a right to distribute for sale to any person who chose to become a purchaser, any state ment that they might think fit to order for publication. He would maintain that they could not possibly maintain their privilege intact unless they renounced the exer cise of it in the present instance; and he regretted to say that on this point it was his misfortune to be at issue with many whose opinions he revered. They should re, collect that this was only the; commencement ; he had resisted this motion, not so much on account of itself as because they would be bound to follow it up, and they could not enter on this course of contention with the Judges unless public opinion were on their side, and he would maintain that pnblic opinion, so far as it had been expressed, was decidedly against the assumption of this privilege. Wherever it was mentioned in public it was uniformly mentioned in terms of reprehension ; the most influential portion of the press had declared against it—the voice of the most distinguished public men had declared against it—and he would ask if on the one hand the public snpport was essential to the success of their cause, and if, on the other hand, public opinion had stigmatised the course they were pursuing as the legalizing an iniquitous attempt to open a shop for the sale of libels, was it wise to continue these proceedings? Allusion had been made to the speech of Mr. Sergeant Wild, in the conclusion of that speech, the Learned Ser geant had expressed his belief that these privileges were just, and that the House ought to maintain them, but they could only be maintained by the almost unanimity of the House, and the support of the people out of doors, and if they could not be maintained in this manner it was better that they should die a natural death than that the House should: enter upon an ineffectual struggle in support of them ; on that speech he took his stand, and he called upon the House, in the words of Sergeant Wilde, to let this privilege die a natural death if they were not sup ported by the feelings of the people out of doors.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) If the House desired to stand high in the estimation of the country there was no point on which they should proceed more warily than this one of privilege. Were Honourable Members aware of the monstrous extent to which in former periods these privileges bad been carried, an extent which be was cer tain no person now living could be found to justify ? He would relate a few instances from the Journals of the House. On the 20th of March, 1539, they would find that on a complaint of Lord Galway, that several persons bad entered his warren and killed his rabbits; the House decided that this was a gross breach of privilege. In 1629 occurred the case of Admiral Willoughby ; in 1640 Lord Barrymore complained that certain persons had entered his park and pulled down his fences ; this also was voted a breach of privilege. In 1648 Sir Robert Grosvenor complained that certain persons had entered his lead mines and stolen property therefrom ; the House decided that those persons had committed a gross breach of privi lege.—( Loud cries of " Order, order !" " Bar, bar 1" in consequence of the noise occasioned by the crowd of Members at the bar, which frequently rendered the Noble Lord inaudible.) On the 22d of January, 1729, Henry Lord Viscount Palmerston stated that a cita tion from Doctor's Commons had been served on one of his menial servants. This complaint had been referred to a Committee of Privilege, who were inclined to consi der it as a breach of privilege, but on the 11th of Febru ary, the Committee reported that the authorities of Doc• tors' Commons had rendered their submission, and the case was pursued no further. It might be said that these were mere personal grievances, but was the House aware of a resolution for the maintenance of another privilege which still remained unrescinded? On the 13th of April, 1736, it was re..olved that it was a high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege for any news-writer to give any account or report of any proceedings or debates in that House, and that any person offending in this respect, should be proceeded against with the greatest severity ? —( Hear, hear.) This order still continued unre scinded. Would any Hon. Member contend that it woula be right to proceed to the enforcement of it, ? He was willing to admit that in former times these privi leges were useful and necessary to protect the Members of the House from the unconstitutional interference of the Crown; they were the scaffolding, by the assistance of which the fabric of constitutional government had been built up, but which were become, some of them, useless, and some of them obstructive, now that the fabric was finished. Under the Tudors and Stuarts it was necessary that this House should be possessed of every privilege in order to protect itself against the power of the Crown. Elizabeth had treated the Members of that House as a mas ter would treat a menial, and even such a man as Lord Bacon had been obliged to beg pardon on his knees for having given his opinion on an affair ofstate. In the time of James the First, any individual could be sent to the Co lonies on the ground that the Crown required his services there, and this had been made use of' as a means of intimi dating Members from the performance of their duties. If privileges were required now it was not as a protection from the encroachments of the Crown, but to enable them to do that which no man nor any body of men had any right to. do, to set themselves above the law of the land. It was remarkable that as these privileges had become useless for their constitutional purpose, so had they had become a subject of complaint. Blackstone men tions 1679 as the time when the Commons bad attained security against any aggressions on th e part of the Crown, ' and in 1680 Bishop Burnett complained of the extent to which certain of their privileges had been carried The last few days had brought to light a most remarkable au thority on this subject, he meant that of the great Lord Chatham. In the last volume of his papers recently pub lished, under the date of the 9th of May, 1770, it was re -1 ited that at a meeting of the Members then in opposition, General Cavendish had said, " I do, f rom my sou l , d etest and abhor, as unconstitutional and illegal, the abominable doctrine that a resolution of the House of Commons can make, alter, or abrogate the law of the land . ." In this opinion General Cavendish was supported by Burke, by Grenville, and by Sir George Savile, and these opinions were approved of by the illustrious Lord Chatham in his retirement at Hayes. Encouraged by the aut h or i ty of these eminent men he would take his stand upon this point and declare his abhorrence and detestation of the uncon stitutional and illegal doctrine, that a resolution o f that House could make, alter, or abrogate any thing in the law of the land.—( Hear and cheers.) With respect to the present privilege—that of publics_ tion—it seemed to him that there had been a good deal of fallacy advanced, he would not say this evening, but Noble Lord, in fo rmer even i ngs , part i cu l ar ly by the Lord, the Member for Stroud. The Noble Lord had talked largely of our Constitution, and of our venerable privileges. Now, what they were at present discussing, waa founded on a resolution of the House, which was passed on the 13th of August, 1835, which ordered that the publications of the House should be given not only for Members, but also be given for sale. It is perfectly true, as his Right Hon. Friend, the Member for Ripon, had said, that there is a difference between the publica tion and the sale—that is true, in point of law, but he could not help thinking that it was the sale alone which produced all the animosity, and all the injury and incon venience which have followed the resolution of the House. He subscribed to the opinion of his Right Hon. Fri: nd, the Member for Ripon, that their present embarrassments have grown out of that resolution, and, he would say, that that they should now either rescind it, or take sthee effective steps for preventing the publication of anything injurious to the characters of others, on the part of the House. He re membered that his Noble Friend, the Member for Northum berland, stated on a former occasion, that he took care that some parts of evidence taken before him in a Committee should be expunged, in order to leave no room afterwards for litigation. He (Lord Mahon) thought that the papers published by the House required some superintendence. They published in each Session more than it would be pos sible for the Members to read. Could it be said that their enormous piles of books should be given to the world under those circumstances ? He was of opinion, a•id it was not an opinion which be had formed without careful perusal, that many of these publications might bo dispensed with. It is said that Members are bound by their duty to their constituents to afford them every information in all the steps which they may take. This was, he thought, the ar gument likely to make most impression on the House. It was certainly, desirable that Members should afford every pos sible information to their constituents. There was, how ever, a case in point on this subject, to which he thought the House was not sufficiently attentive—he meant the case of Select Committees. Select Committees might be said to bear the same relation to the whole House that the House itself does to those it represents. Now, in Se lect Committees, every publication may be revised or al tered previous to its appearing before the House. Why should they not, however, apply the same principle to the public which their Special Committees applied to them ? But it might be said that they are bound to give the House fully the evidence taken before them. The Hon. Mem ber for Northumberland has himself told you, in reply to this, that he found it necessary to expunge part of evidence taken before him, in order to avoid injury to certain indi viduals. Either the course of his Honourable Friend, the Member for Northumberland, was not consti tutional, or else, in case it should be thought fit, a Special Committee: can expunge part of evidence taken before them, and, by a parity of reasoning, the whole House could do so too. On these grounds he entertained serious doubts whether the resolu tion he referred to was really warranted. His present argu ment was that if he thought it advisable to protect their printer, they should do so by Act of Parliament; they should do so in a constitutional manner, and not by inviting subordinate officers to violate their sworn duties, or by punishing them for their discharge of those same duties. If an act of the kind was brought forward, he would give it his support; to any measure, on the contrary, that might attempt to vindicate their authority by mere force, by attempting to set privileges above the law, he would give his most decided opposition ; and he trusted the House would never be a party to such a proceeding; he trusted the House would not consent to any such resolution. The Attorney-General had said that though they summoned those gentlemen, it did not follow that they would adopt any harsh measures towards them.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Mahon) said that this was but the first step in a course, the results of which no one could forsee. This was but the first act against the independence of the Judges—this was an act which be would never believe that the House would be a party to. Ho wished the House to stand high in the estimation of the public, and he thought it would degrade its character by abusing its privileges on the present occasion. If there was a feeling which marked the present time more strongly than any other, it is that any man or body of men should not set themselves above the law. Let the House beware how they opposed them selves to this feeling—let them beware how they forfeited the character of this House for fighting, on all occasions, the battles of liberty. Let it not be said that, after the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus—that after unjust power had been overthrown—that, after privileges without law had been expelled from the castles of the feudal Barons, they had found a refnge within the walls of the Reformed House of Commons.—( Heat, hear.) He considered that any such attempt would be dangerous ; and, much as he regretted to differ from some friends of his, he felt himself bound to follow the dictates of his own conscience, and to vote against this first attempt to make the House of Commons a new and worse sort of Star- Chamber. Mr. CRESSWELL did not intend to enter then, at any great length into the general question. He could not, however, avoid saying a word or two on the grounds which induced him to resist the motion of the Noble Lord He hoped he understood the grounds on which the Noble Lord opposed the order which had been regularly given to the Sheriffs, who had been charged with its execution. If he did rightly understand these grounds, they are that the Judges had no jurisdiction, and, consequently, that the Sheriff could not execute their order. He could not but agree with the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, that if any persons were to be brought before the House, it should be the Judges; and the Attorney- General is under a mistake when he thinks that you can not attack the Judge, because he had not a sufficient no tice of the petition. It is stated, however, that the Judge's order reached the Sheriff to retain the writ, and therefore the Judges must have have had notice on the subject. The Jury, which had indicated its opinion pretty strongly, did so by the advice of the Judges ; and the Judges afterwards pro ceeded to give judgment, and they have therefore adopted the proceedings. He therefore called on the Attorney-Ge neral to say why he shrunk from bringing before the House the parties from whom the order issued. Let us sec on what grounds the House proceeds to call on any officer concerned in the transaction. He had not the honour of sitting in the House during the former debate on the question. He remembered, however, that con siderable blame was attached, at the time, to Mr. Justice Littledale, for not allowing the defendant to escape the sentence pronounced against him. Where was the At torney-General then—where was Mr. Sergeant Wilde, who has since discovered that he was under a mistake at the time? You went to trial—you submitted to it—you considered then that the Judges had the power they have exercised; and it is not till after you find their epinions are against you, that you complain of them. Is that the mode, he would ask, by which the House of Commons was to elevate itself in the opinion of the country ? You first admit that the Judges had the power, and then, when the award is against you, you turn round and refuse to sub mit to it. He could not but regret that the Attorneys General should have brought so grave a charge as he had done against Chief Justice Littledale, by stating that it is his fault if the present difficulties of the House have taken place. He (Mr. Cresswell) said that the fault, if there was any, was on the part of the Attorney-General him self. There were two things to be tried in the case—the first was, whether the publication was true or not, and that question was found for the defendant. There was another question, whether, under the general issue, the matter could be made a subject of action. It would be quite enough for the Attorney-General to contend that the publication was made on a lawful occasion, and that, therefore, it was no libel ; and, he should say, that the publication of the proceedings were put on these grounds,.was not libellous, and that the publication was made on a lawful occasion, it being for the benefit of Parliament. There is not merely a solitary in stance. There are abundance of instances in which you may publish defamatory matter, and in which you arc justi fied in doing so. Suppose you are aware that a friend of your's, a merchant, was about to take a person into his em ployment as a confidential clerk, and that you had reason to believe that person to be a swindler, you might write to your friend in such a case, and though your statements were not true they would not be libellous, if you could be supposed to have acted from fair and honourable motives. Suppose, again, you knew a person who had been guilty of libel, or exciting disturbances in the country, and that y ou had reason to think that one of her Majesty's Secr e t ar i es of State was about to make him a Magistrate—(A laugh on the Opposition benches)—you would be right in addres sing the Secretary , and cautioning him against puttin g suc h a person in the commission of the peace. But the Attor ney-General insists that, before the H ouse of Commons ordered the publication to be made, it was legal. Now, I defy the Attorney-General to prove that whatever the House chooses to do is therefore legal. The Attorney-Gene ra l a f terwards made a - pro posal, which Lord Denman repudiated. The House took offence at what passed—resolutions were agreed to, which he would only say h e h a d not signed, as he had not an opportune) , at the time of doing so—when the House gave Mr. Stockdale th e means of becoming a martyr, he was too good a judge not to see the advantages of it. The House made an order that the Attorney-General should plead for Mr. Hansard on the occasion. The House did not then deny that the Court had jurisdiction, but the Attorney -General appeared in order to say in a few words that the House came to justify what it had done. But . then it was s a id th at t h e H ouse did not g i ve l eave to de cide against them.—( Hear, hear, from the Attorney- General.) The Attorney-General says " Hear;" it would appear that the Hon. Gentleman allowed the juris eietion of the Court, but gave leave only to decide for hint. He would seem to have said, "If your opinion ie against us, still decide for us."—( Hear, hear, arid laughter.) Were the Judges not to decide at all, or were they not to decide according to their consciences ? But it is said that if the House pleads an Act of Par liament, it does not give leave to judge of it. You should, however, allow the Judges to decide according to their con sciences. The Court gave judgment against the House. The Judges pronounced against the House. Why did not the House send for them. It would seem to have thought it more convenient to go before a Jury. The House con vinced Mr. e , tockdale that the character of a martyr was a good one, for it paid the damages. The declaration charged Mr. Hansard with . libel, and you, by n o t sav i ng anything in answer, admitted it to be true.—('. No," f rom Lord John Russell.) Ife end,r.itet-ni. the Noble Lord to EVENING EDITIOI4-. ! tell hint lie was wrong on the point, but he would certainly s.y that the defetelaet did not plead, but admitted the charge to be true ; and he was sure the Attorney-General si °slid be with him on that point. (—A laugh.) Where there is a judgment of the Court, no other Court has any right to inquire into its adjudication. He denied their right to in. quire into the judgment of the Court whether they may question the justice of such judgment or not. If they were disposed to act properly, send for the Sheriff, and show him that he is guilty of contempt of Court. They are under no re,ponsibility to anything in existence, save that rem sponsibility which they owed to the country for their mis deeds. It has been asserted in this case of Stockdale and Hansard that Parliament can claim a new privilege; how were :hey to ascertain whether this privilege was new or old ? There can be no doubt that this House entertained questions of privilege connected with the Courts of Law, but this is n et a case o f th a t description, as this is one that arises from the judgment of the Curt. It is far too late for this House io interfere. If the House called upon any one to answer for their conduct, let them call upon those who issued the order, and nut upon those who were com pelled to obey the law Sir R. I'E E L thought it was most important that the House should understand the position in which it was placed. It was important that they should exactly under stand what was the course they themselves had taken upon the question. In the year 1837, a Committee was ap pointed comprising, among its Members, men who were the most eminent legal authorities ie that House, which contained the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam bridge, e the Right Hun. the Attorney. General, Mr. Ser geant Wilde, the lion. Member for H unt i ng d on , t h e Attor n e ri d cetera' of the late Government, the Solicitor- General ; and that Committee, with no exception, came to the unani mous resolution that the House of Commons had the privi lege of publication, and that the H ,use was the sole judge of its own privileges.—( Hear, bear.) On the Report heinc , made, the House of Commons, as a body, affirmed the resolution. When the second action was brought by Mr. Stockdale, very much to his regret, an appearance was entered by Mr. Hansard. He thought that it would have been better for the House of Commons to assume the vindication of its own privileges, and not permit them to be adjudicated up.ei elsew re —( Cheers.) He admitted that the question was exceedingly difficult, but he had on a former occasion predicted the consequences that were likely to ensue. Mr. Stockdale was successful in that second action, and a question then arose whether, as the House had pleaded to the action, they could pre- vent the execution of the writ ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) had certainly then contended that having once pleaded—having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench, there was something in consistent and unjustifiable in their interfering, and the Noble Lord (J. Russell) and himself had great difficulty in inculcating forbearance on the House on that occasion. Notwithstanding that, those who took an active part in the discussion of the question pointed out that such was the resolution of a large majority of that House. On the latter occasion there was only a majority of 22-188 to 166. After hearing the speech of Sergeant Wilde, be with great difficulty persuaded the House not to proceed with its threatened opposition.—( Hear.) In the course of the last Session, the damages having been paid, he would not say with the consent but without the opposition of that House, in the course of last Session, after all that had passed, and the repeated discussions that had taken place on the great principle of the question, after hav ing fully p edicted the consequences that would arise, they had received notice from a certain attorney, on be half of a person named Polack, that he intended to bring an action against Mr. Hansard for the publication of a libel. It was necessary to determine what course the House of Commons should pursue; and the Noble Lord proposed two resolutions, to the effect, that the Messrs. Hansards printing and publishing the Report and Minutes of Evidence on the present state of New Zealand, which had been transmitted to that House by the House of Lords on the 7th of August. 1835, had acted in obedience to the orders of that House, and that to bring, or assent to the bringing of any action a gainst them for such publication, was a breech of the privileges of that House. The Noble Lord also proposed a tesolution that the Messrs. Hansards be directed not to answer the letter of Mr. Shaw, mentioned in his petition, and to take no steps towards defending tho action.—( Hear, bear.) These two resolutions were car ried with the full knowledge of all the parties concerned, by a majority of 106 to 4. After the termination of the Session, Mr. Stockdale being aware, as they all were, of the imperfection and hollowness of their case, brought a third action against the Messrs. Hansards for the publica tion of the very libel which was the subject of the two previous actions. The Messrs. Hansards, it appeared, did not rely on what the House had done in the case of Mr. Polack, although the principle then laid down was precisely the same ; but they apply for advice to the highest authority of the House of Commons, viz., the Speaker, and asked his advice; and the Speaker, concluding the House meant to abide by that principle—( Loud cheers)—which had been laid down in the case of Mr. Polack, and carried by a ma jority of 106 to 4—( Hear, hear)—naturally and justly advised Messrs. Hansards not to make any appearance. And the Messrs. Hansards acted on that advice, and their officer bad been subjected to a penalty of 6001. for acting under the authority of the Speaker, who himself was acting intermediately, but as it appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) under the immediate :authority of the House of Commons. He would therefore beg of the House to consider the posi tion in which it was placed.—( Hear, hear.) The ques tion now was, what course should they take, and he could only regret that all the legal difficulties which were inter posed in the case had not been fully and deliberately con sidered in the first instance. What course were they to pursue? What had been suggested to them ? Should they abandon the privilege altoeetter ? Because if they permitted the Sheriff to pay Mr. Stockdale the da mages which the Jury had awarded him; what was the next step ? Of course they would not prevent him in stituting a fourth action. They must at once admit that their officer, Mr. Hansard, was liable to an action in any Court of Law, civil or criminal, for performing , his duty. --(Cheers from the Ministerial benches. l He appre -1 hended that was their only course, unless they would be prepared to take some further step. The question was, ad they really any privileges, and were they the judges of what they were ? His Noble Friend had stated that in former times their privileges had been greatly abtied, but these times had long since passed away. His Noble Friend admitted that -they had some privileges; be .thought they had the privilege of publishing papers for the use of the Members of that House. 'Well, that was a greet conces sion to make. He admitted, also, that they had the pri vilege of publishing them for the use of Parliament. Who was to be the judge of the proper exercise of that pri vilege ? lie presumed that if it was a privilege available to the House of Commons, the House of Com. mons must be the judge of the right of ex ercising it. What avail would the right of publishing these papers for the use of their own Members be unless they were the exclusive judges of it ?—( Hear, hear.) But suppose the Court of Queen's Bench decided that they had improperly exer cised that privilege, what course were they to take when their exclusive jurisdiction is questioned ? Suppose they agreed with his Noble Friend in his condemnation of these resolutions as being utterly condemned and ab horred—as being impious and heretical —( Much laughter) —and that all parties should utterly protest against the doctrine that the resolutions of that House could be opposed to the laws, their position would be equally unsatisfactory. —( Hear, hear.) Suppose, on the other hand, the Court of Queen's Bench bad disregarded their resolution, and gave damages against their officer, how were they to deal with that Court except with the Sheriff as their minis terial officer? His Noble Friend had observed that they had added to the privilege of publication the power of sale. Now he ( Sir R. Peel) thought the power of sale had created prejudice in the public mind against them, and it appeared to him that the public recognised a dis tinction between publication for the use of the House and publication for general sale. But that was a question of policy, and did not enter into that particular question, because the Court of Queen's Bench had determined that in the legal consideration of the question the power of sale had nothing to do with it. It might perhaps be advisable to return to the order of things as the existed seven or eight years ago, but if they did so to-morrow it it would not assist them in the Conrt of Queen's Bench. He presumed that when that Court had decided the ques tion, upon the strict principles of law, the question of sale had been dismissed altogether from its consideration. Therefore, if to-morrow they abolished the power of sale, they should have no security that the Court of Queen's Bench would not question their right to publish papers for the use cf their Members. There was an inquiry into the state r o egula fgaotns. An inquiry w l io discipline,and itwasas made proposed int o the abuses t o introduce ases which existed, end as an instance of these, it was stated that the prisoners were in possession of publications which, professing to be medical, were in point of fact, obscene, and calculated to contaminate their minds. It was neces sary to establish the truth of that statement, in order to vindicate the new regulation. His Noble Friend said that might have been made knows. for their own use, but he ( Sir R. Peel) would ask, how was it pos sible to confine it? How were they to prevent a Member communicating important facts of that nature to his con stituents ; and it was useless to determine that they might publish for their own use, unless they themselves were to be the judges of the exercise of that privilege. If he felt that they had hastily and inadvertently committed them selves to these proceedings, he should certainly think the wisest course would be (however painful the alternative) to withdraw from publication ; but he believed that that privilege of publication was essential to the due discharge of their functions.—( Loud cheers.) He could not con ceive how they could act as a House of Commons unless they had the power of publishing, not merely for their own use, but for the information of the public, that which they thought necessary. They had the power of address ing the Crown for the removal of a Judge. Was it likely that they could remove a Judge on the allegation of his want of legal information, or integrity, or impartiality, without satisfying the public mind that the grounds for such an Address were well founded?—(Hear, hear, hear.) And that could only bo done by the publication of the evidence upon which it rested. There fore, with respect to these acts of legislation, that the public mind should be informed as well as their own, he contended that the privilege of free publication was essential to the performance of their functions. Now, it had been admitted by the Judges that whatever was ne cessary for the proper performance of their functions was possessed by the House of Commons. He for one be lieved that that privilege was essentially necessary.— ( Hear, hear.) The House should recollect that Mr. Stockdale at the termination of the Session instituted his action, and without any power of interferencet on their part had proceeded with it. The truth was, that the be lief of the House hitherto had been that the 'Courts of Law would assist them. His Hon. Friend near him said, " Why don't you proceed to commit the Judge ?" He (Sir R. Peel) was not prepared to do so. He knew very little of those technical matters of detail, but he understood that it was the opinion of high professional authorities that the proper course was to follow the analogy of the Courts of Law, and take the ministerial authorities of the Court ! With regard to the present question they were rysw to 0 " - sider what was best to be done. and it was the - Woe ite.s. cessary that some arrangements should be corns' to, because I I i ''''