The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-18 00:00:00

.:I'I4:\ING EDITION ---- Have you kept !hat copy in your poeenitii believe so ;I am not aware itS being out of my hands. Did you desire. !Asks? son to go for it, saying it was for the rmtrpos brioging an action ?—Most certainly. Tiva was the same pubiic.&on ter which you brought the second at:tiot , ?—lt was. In that se. nod action I believe there was no justifi cation as to whether it was an oh,oene publication ? I do not think there was. In the s con i action you executed a writ of ins airy before the Sher if ?.--1 _ . VV Did you ,how the book to the Jary ?—No, because the case ba..ing been tllrough ddault, I had no occasion to shox the. biok. . Arc there any plat;-' , ,b , _!longing to that ‘,noli.?—There are. ad ycu sh7r - any of Close plates to the Jury ?—No ; it was the lius;oess 0 . 11-e.! other party to show any thing that might be necessary. \Vas t bore any request ma(c,e. In any Court that the book shou.d be produced':—There was ; Mr. Han sard's solicitor produced, I believe, the book in Court, which I. (1,1 not know at first, having afterwards found it in the glace where 1 ',vas standing. \Vas that the Same bcok which the Jury had found obscene on the first trial ?-1 do not. know ; it was, ge nerally, speasKing the: same. _ _ . _ It was either tiro same or another edition of the same k ? —Tlrit I. cannot exactly tell. The t 6 .rce copies were purchased by your son?—Yes. Had you at that time receired, in the second ac:ion, 1001, for the injury tlune to your character ?—Certainly not at that time, hut alterwardr. Allow me to say, that instead of 100/. I should have received 8,0001., but for the omission of putting. to the Jury what was the sum of dama n gcs.—(A lauffh.) It was it Special Jury ?—Yes. \Vas not the issue tried whether the publication was obscene or not ?____That I don't know ; out I know that the Lord MAyo- and Aldermen stated that the hook was professional and not obscene, or that the plates were ohscene. Was this a copy of another edition ?—I have dis covered fac-simi,es printed in my name. Pirates printed fac-similes of the work, but they did not con tain the whole. Was not the work a tid to he edited by Dr. Bayley —lt was written by a Mr. Roberton, a pupil of Dr. Bav t ey and Sir It. Croft. Don't you know that a letter was written by the Doctor, de avant{ that he ever wrote it? —That I know. \Vas .iot that letter introduced in another edition to give: zest and currency ?—I know that Dr. Bayley of cr the work was in his possession, requested that it mivot be deilicAted to him under ail circumstances. Do you mean to say that that letter of Dr. Bayley requesting the dedication. was after his express repro be•iou or the work ?—Nn, it was before that time. That was done many yr.:ars after--a great many years— not less then ei g ht, or ten. A;:ow me to n.sk whether yo.: attended the inquiry on the third action ?—I did. Was tl . .e book produced on that occasion ?—I don't know it was not produced by me. Were the pktes produced ?—I discovered that while I was addressing the Jury they had been ex and were going the round of the table. By whom produced ?—Not by me. You very pro-erly, I dare say, thought it your in terest to prevent the Jury from seeing them ?—I told them 1 had no copy, anti I gave them my reason. You told me that You knew from the beginning that the report was published by the order of the House ? I was aware of it only through the Messrs. Hansard. Did you bring the action to contest the right of the Houle ?--Isubmit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a ques tion for me to answer. I trust I shall be protected. I am willing to answer any thing reasonable. The Attomey-General withdrew the question. Had you any notices of certain resolutions passed by this House, asserting their privileges, served on you ? believe I had two or three days before the close of last Session from Mr. Parkes, I think ; but I be lieved, from my own reasoning, usd from com munications with many great statesmen of the last age, that the House it of no such privilege.—( Laughter.) Did you bring the action after receiving those notices did. . Lord JOHN RUSSELL —H ive you them here ? No, Sir. Mr. 0/CONNELL.--Now, have you any objection, as ,1 matter of fact, to admit that you brought the action to try the question of privilege ?—Stockdale—l trust I shall be protected. Am Ito commit mvsulf Mr. O'CONNELL again rose and said he really thought the question was proper.—(Cries of " Order" and" Withdraw.") Stockdale having withdrawn, Sir R. PEEL said he really considered there was no necessity for the question, seeing that, in a letter, Stockdale had distinctly defied the House.--( Hear.) Mr. LAW said he should object to the question. Mr. O'CONNELL withdrew it as unnecessary ; he had nut before heard of the letter referred to. Mr. LAW hoped that Stocktiale might be permitted to offer any expianations ; it might appear that he had written the lett'tr under a conscientious conviction that he bad, as a British subject, a right to bring the action. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the proviso of the Learnftti Recorder was quite superfluous, as any party brought to that bar would of course bL allowed to make any explanations in his power. Stockdalc havin, been re-called to the bar, _ . The Al rORNEY-GENERAL desired him to ook to a letter, dated August 29, 1839, and purpor ins to he addressed by him (Stockdale) to the Messrs. Hansard, and to say if it was written by him. The letter spoke of the House of Commons as hay ing evinced the moat " reckless audacity"—(Laughter: —and tyranny, in endeavouring to prevent him from bringing the actions which be was resolved nevertheless to press. Stockdale, having had the book containing the letter handed to him, said, dryly, on receiving it, "Allow me to observe, Mr. Attorney, that I have never seen this book." The drollery of the style in which this observation was delivered created roars of laughter, in which Mr. Attorney, as Stockdale, with judicial familiarity termed him, heartily joined. At last Stockdale replied, that he had no doubt he had written the letter. He was then asked by Mr. LAW—At the time of writing that letter did you not believe that as a British subject you had a right to bring the actions ?—Stockdale—Most decidedly. Stockdale having withdrawn, Lord J. RUSSELL said—After what has been stated by Mr. Stockdale, Sir, I have only to move, that ' for hating instituted these action, he has committed a breech of the privileges of this House. Sir E. KNATCH BULL wished to know the course the Noble Lord ineant to pursue afterwards. Lord J. RUSSELL sei:.i he meant to follow up this resi,ution by one of puuishin-nt, and then proceed with the ot h . r eases. ( Mr. LA W said he did not consider that her Ma -1 jesty's Atterney-rjenerel had mule out a sufficient case before this Court—( A laugh, and ironical cries of " Hear, beer'') —!hi , tribunal, wiiich, if not possessing, the form , , has alt the sW;stance of a Court. True, they had extoi ted irons Stock dale that he had written a let ter—rerteinly written in the worst taste, and in term: , which it i.vis impossible to justify ; but substantially that letter only asserted that he con sidered he had, as a British subject, in common law, right et !tcton rc.; tinst the Mrssrs. Hansard, which that Hoes(' could net dem Ivo him of, and which he 'NW; prep:- e I to pro-s in a British Court of Justice. A n d bong pre, , s,:d upon the question, most distinctly declared Lis fi:-rn conviction to at by the laws of our cool:Doi cowitry he was entitled to maintain the action welch tr• bll 00:1)11;!!!CCfl to obtain redress for a gross o•-• .s , -ire Wl, i': to he endured that the privileges ~,ii., ~., lof t lint. H , 114; , , tv:iich had ail - P.44 been submitted to the dec.sien of . a Court of Justice, should not now he contras cried as matters of fact by another Court. He was unwilling that the Reuse shook! proceed with r , shness ter it t h e lle usc proceeded to determine the motion of the Neble Lord that night, they would find themselves in a position fr.-_.m which it would be difficult, if not dangerous, to recede. He wished them not t e pr nears! to adjudicate upon the conduct of Mr. Steckdal: ; it would he rather for the dignity of the House that the matter should not be determined then e tiller Ai r.n. , .t ive; y ~r nczatively, anti therefore he would move as an amendment that Mr. Stockdale bw now di, n ib 4 r 4 ed from his attendance on the House.— ( A laugh.) Sir H. ING (AS rose with much pleasure to second the motion of his Honour ible Friend. In no Court of Justice in Westminster Hall, or elsewhere, actuated by the pore spirit of je,tiee, could those questions which the H.iuse had leeiy heard, be put to a witness, i far less to a part y—more especially the last questions, ' which distinctly lel the party to criminate himself. That toter which had been read was ackn exlegedly written by him, but. he had no hand in its publication He :me'ored the tin-use to pause before they placed themselves in such an awkward situation. Siipposing the MOLl'lrl to he ,agreed to, w is the House prepared to carr) it out in all its coeseeuences ? The House had assarned to itself sovereign authority, and by that sovereign authority they might imprison a fellow-subject i n their common gaol of' Newgate. This warrant, of course, would be signed by the Speaker, Mr. Stockdale would to-morrow move fir a writ of habeas corpus— did they mean to say that the mere production of the Speaker's warrant by the Sheriff would prevent the Court from liberating the party ?—(Yes, g) • Y Mean to t i . s t n la t t ici i pat t, e4 s t i l n iat answer, their but power tosto d p i d they e nac_ • tion for false imprisonment brought against their offi cer. He apprehended that they could not, and there fore they would have a new difficulty in their way next week. Would the House follow up its resolution by a nother resolution threatening any one with the ptinisl;.- / rent for contempt who brought an aoti•n for false im prisonment under such circumstances? Was it possi ble that any one could for a moment contend that such was the law of England. It it was the law, then let pe , op l o ge nerally know the fact. He cordially con eurre i d n the amendineet. vo ted yesterday He hoped that those who tor summoning the parties to the bar, and who had lately seen the inquisitorial proceedings which had taken place, wherein the party was obliged ' to convict himself, would reconsider the Matter; and give such a vote that right as Would relieve the House froth the position to which they were hurrying, which must end in confirmed degradation. Lord ELIOT, before the House divided, thought it necessary they should know on what ground they were going t punish Mr. Stockdale. If it was for the 1 1 letter which had been read, and which *as most dis= graceful and deserving of punishment, be would wil; lingly vote for the motion ; but if, on the other hand, they were going to punish him for seeking his remed y for a grievance in a Court of Law, he would, consist ently with the other votes he had given upon the ques tion, vote for the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said Mr. Stock dale was not to be punished on the ground of his having used bad language, but because of his having delibe rately brought an action against their servant, against the privileges of the House, and for treating that as a libel which had been published by the House of Com mons. The Hon. and Learned Member for the Uni versity of Cambridge said that the case against Mr. I Stockdale was a very meagre one. Surely he was un acquainted with the whole facts of the case. The Hon. and Lenrned Gentleman then recapitulated the whole facts of the case from the commencement of the action up to the present time, and contended that Mr. Stock dale had violated two resolutions of the House, and so long as they stood upon the Journals the House could not agree with the amendment. Sir R. PEEL suggested that, as the case then before the House would form a precedent, it was extremely necessary that there should be no misunderstanding upon any point, and he thought it would be better that the offence for which Mr. Stockdale was to be punished should be recited in the resolution. He certainly could not vote for the committal of Mr. Stockdale for having written the letter. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had intended to move the resolution nearly in the terms suggested by the Right Hen. Baronet, but the Attorney=General re marked to him that as the privileges of the House would, most likely, soon be questioned in another place, and as the action and the proceedings upon it would form matter of argument connected with their privileges, it was necessary that they should proceed with exceeding caution. That also was the opinion of his Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, who thought it was highly necessary to be very cautious in making any omission whatever, and he (Lord J, Russell) was the more inclined to follow that advice in con sequence of what had fallen from the Right Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Inglis) who appeared inclined to go much further than even the Judges, for he said that although the House might have the power to prevent, still they had no power to interfere, in order to prevent an action for false impri sonment against their servant. He saw in every step they took that there was more and more inclination upon the part of the Members of that House to make a stand against their privileges, and, therefore, he thought they should be extestdingly cautious in what they admitted. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE agreed with his Noble Friend (Lord Eliot) for he thought great doubt would rest in the minds of the public of the propriety of their pro ceedings, unless the alleged offence was recited in the resolution. Were they already shrinking from the reso lutions they had so hastily adopted ?—(Hear, hear.) That was what their present conduct amounted to ; and unless, they recited—unless they gave an exact de scription of the offence in the resolution, the public would say they had sent Stockdale and the Sheriffs, who, be it remembered, were elected by the public voice —they would say that they were smuggling them into Newgato. Many Members last night had voted in the majority under the idea that the parties were to be called to the Bar to account for their conduct only,which, in the case of the Sheriffs, would be doing only an act of justice. They would state that they were not the real offenders—that they had acted under the orders of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Judges of which had said that no subject of the Queen should meet with ag gression and be denied redress. Lord Denman in vited all who were aggrieved to come to him and they should receive redress. That was the position in which they stood, and he wanted to know how they would proceed when the Sheriffs stated at the bar that in all they had done, they acted under the authority of Lord Denman. The House had made a precedent last Session. In the Metropolitan Police Bill while regulating public-houses, they had declared that no child under sixteen years of age, should be served with spiri tuous liquors. In awarding punishment for an offence against that law, they did not punish the child, but the punishment was awarded to the person giving him the ardent spirits. Why not apply that precedent to the present case ? The Sheriffs had nothing to do with the matter, it was the Judges of the Queen's Bench. Would the House proceed to punish them ? He differed from many of his friends, but he differed conscientiously ; he might be in error, probably he was so, but if so, he was countenanced in his error by many eminent 1 Members of that House ; many great authorities in the law ; and, more than all, public opinion was cer tainly with him.—(" No, no.") That remained to be proved ; but he trusted that before they sent any one into confinement, they would state on the face of the record the offence which the party had committed. Mr. PEMBERTON then rose to address the House, but was totally inaudible in consequence of the noise occasioned by the Members leaving the House. We understood him to say, that in the present state of affairs and of public opinion, he did not think that it was proper or wise to advance a claim of privilege which had not been insisted upon for one hundred and thirty years, and against which there had been re peated decisions at law. He could not conceal from himself the difficultieswith which this case was surrounded, and this conviction he still entertai n ed, no twithstanding he had given it his best and most candid consideration. It was most important to consider the precise question which they wore called upon to decide. The Hon. Member then enumerated the principal facts of the case, and said be would earnestly entreat the House to consider whether there was any foundation for the course which they were now called upon to adopt, An action had been brought against Mr. Hansard, for the publication of certain pro ceedings of that House.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. Hansard admitted both the publication and the libel by allowing judgment to 4-0 by default.—( Hear. ) What good could result from the continued discussion of a subject with which he was convinced the House had no power to deal, unless it assumed a power which it could not maintain, of controlling the Courts of Law? Whether the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench were right or wrong, the question they were called upon to consider was, whether that House had jurisdiction to deal with that Court; he considered such interference was most per nicious—and be called upon it to pause in its present career, unless, indeed, it felt a perfect assurance of its power properly and fully to deal with the matter now under its consideration, which, he again repeated, it had not, however much the decision of the Queen's Bench might affect its privileges. Case after case had occurred before, yet the House had never interfered, though it had now decided that the privileges of that House were superior to the decision of the Courts of Law. Why was not this privilege alleged before ? Why, was it not alleged in 1823, when an action for a publication of precisely the same nature was brought? The Hon. and Learned, Member thin referred to several ca.es, amongst others that of Ashby and White, in 1703 ; from that period down to 1837, the House of Commons had never once attempted to vindicate that privilege. He would entreat Hon. Members to pause before they g ave their vote upon this occasion—there was danger in perse vering with it--and consequences which no man could fore see. He sincerely believed that House had taken an er roneous view of the decision of the Queen's Bench—a decision which he believed to be the very essence of law. In the case of Ashby and White the guilty party had been committed. Did Ashby's committal prevail ? Did it strike terror into other parties, or prevent them following the example which the House intended to discourage ? No ! it had a contrary effect, it created fourteen other different actions, and in every instance the parties were committed. and so would be the result in the present case. What had been the re sult of those actions? The House of Commons had passed a resolution to the effect that any party bringing an action affecting the privileges of that House would be held guilty of a gross violation of its privileges. He thought that resolution had never been brought before the Lords. The ATTORNEY -GENERAL said the caso of Ashby and White had been brought before the Lords in arrest of ,judgment, therefore they could not look beyond the record. Mr. PEMBERTON said, whichever way it was it did not affect his arg u ment. This was not a question for the House of Commons, but for the Lords; and he implored the H ouse to cons id er w h a t was the decision of the . Lords in March, 1774, i n d ec l ar ing Ashby not guilty in prose cuting an a c ti on i n d ue cou rse of law, and recovering . damages, th oug h h e ld b y t h at H ous e to be a violation of its privileges. H e was unw illi ng to interfere with the feelings of the H ouse on t hi s su bj ect, b u t what was the re solution which the Hou se h a d passe d but an attempt to deter parties from bringing actions it was exer cising an arbitrary power, and was an improper interference with the law of the land, with which it was in diametrical opposition, and of what value was the decision of that House, except it was in accordance with the law ? The Law Courts had power to decide questions affecting the Crown ; and would it be contended that the privileges of that House were greater than those of t h e Crown 7 He would ask, why, if the attorney was to be dragged to . the bar of the House, the Counsel were not to be dragged - there also, and he would say, but not in any spirit ofbra vado, that the Counsel were, to the number of 300, if ne cessary, to be dragged to the bar of that House ; and if they were to commit one half of the bar, that would not prevent the other half from doing their duty. What bad been the result of the case of Ashby and White, and of the conflict between the House of Lords and the House of Commons consequent thereon. The House of Commons had committed Ashby and his Attorney and his Counsel. The House of Lords committed the officers of the House of Commons, and with such viole n ce was this contest con. ducted, that a prorogation of Parliament became necessary, and the result of that prorogation was that every individual committed by the House of Commons was set at libe . rty at the close of the Session ; but such was not the case with the parties committed by the Court of Queen's Bench; every one 0± the plaintiffs recovered damages in the actions they had brought, and every individual com mitted by the House of Commons was discharged, and . this must be the result of th e p re s e nt proceedings. Did . the House of Commons, when they met after the prorogation, recommence their pro. rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1840. ceedings? 1 ney (lid no such thing. They tacitly acqui esced in the resolution of the House of Lords, and the question „at . stli4antially the Carte with the one now - ander corisideietiOri, whether it was part of the privileges of the House of Commons to close the doors of the Courts of Justice against the subjects of this realm, on any question which they might consider involved the consideration of their pri rileges. Burnett states in, his " History of his Own Time" that the people flocked iti croWds athose who had i comniitted be the House Of Corriiiioni; esere Id okeu upon as martyrs, that the effect of this investiga tion was to bring the privileges of the House of Commons into discredit, and the result to lead to the opinion that the House possessed no power of committing any one but ita own Members. Another action of a precisely similar nature to the one of Ashby and White eras then brou g ht, and the House of Commons never interfered. Heen treated Hon. Gentlemen to recollect that the question now under consideration was not if their privileges were valid in point of law, but if they were examinable in Courts of Justice. It was said to be e ssential to the exercise of their authority that they should have the power of pub lishing whatever papers they chose with impunity ; but how was it the people became acquainted with the grounds of . the votes, not from reading the cart-loads of papers which, published under the designation of Parliamentary Papers, were little more than waste paper, but from the full substance of these which appeared in the debates. Surely then if it was right they should publish these papers, it was also right they should publish autho• rized reports of their debates; and yet this they could not do even were they so inclined, for if he were to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that there were strangers in the gallery, even if every oth er Member of the House divided against him, the strangers must be ordered to withdraw. The fact was, that the privileges of the House of rommons were not privileges of publicity but privileges of secrecy. secrecy was the essence of the privileges which were intended to be used as instruments of defence against the Crown and the Barons, and never as instruments—if he were not anxious to avoid irritating expressions, he would say—of tyranny and oppression against the people. He would not allude to the last and greatest case of all, in which this question had arisen, he meant the case of Sir Francis Burdett. He had told the House of Commons that he would do that which they so much dreaded, make their privileges the subject of decision by the House of Lords, and he had done so, in the boldest manner; he had brought an action against the Speaker himself. Had the House in that case interfered to stop the action ? Certainly not. Arid why ? Because they knew that ever since the case of Ashby and White, the ques tion of privilege, like every other porition of the law, had been subject to the detertninations of the Courts of Juss tic*. On that occasion the majority of the House of Com mons, so far from degrading themselves, had, he thought, ennobled themselves by offering to the people the example of the subjection of the highest authorities of the land to the supreme tribunal of the law. The question had been argued and decided in their favour.—s(" Hear, hear," from from Sir Charles Grey) Did the Hon. and Learned Gentlemean mean to say that the decision of the Court had any thing to do with the question at issue ? The question was, would the House of Commons permit a question of privilege to be entertained in a Court of Jus tice ? It was impossible to conceive a case in which the House of Commons was more imperatively called upon to interfere than in this case of Sir Francis Burdett. That case had been tried before the House of Lords, and after that Sir F. Burdett had again mooted the question by bringing actions against the officers of the House, and yet the House of Commons had not interfered. He would earnestly intreat the House to consider if there was any distinction between these cases and the present one, and if not, he would implore them not to ente r into a conflict for the assertion of a privilege which had remained un asserted for 130 years. He would ask what would be the effect of acting on these resolutions, and saying they would permit no question involving the consideration of the privileges the House of Commons to be entertained in Courts of Justice. Would they in all future cases adopt the high tone they at present assumed, and refuse to appear to actions ? He would ask what must the effect of this necessarily be. Why had Stockdale appeared there, when he might have escaped beyond the jurisdiction of the House? He appeared there because be knew he was supported by public opinion. He had recovered but one far thing damages in the first action, because they had appeared to it. In the scond action he recovered 1001. not because the Jury believed he had sustained any damage, but be cause they believed that their assertion of privilege was contrary to the law of the land ; and in the third, in which they refused to appear altogether, the Jury gave him 6001., not because it was a contest between Stockdale and Han sard, but because they believed it to be a contest between the law of the land and the liberty of the subject on the one hand, and the despotic authority of the House of Commons on the other. He bad appeared there only because he chose to be committed, and he would make an annuity and an income out of the contest. They should recollect that a dissolution was not impossible, and if it was de sirable to avoid a dissolution on political grounds he would say there was nothing so likely to render a dissolution im perative as persevering in the present course. Did any one believe that the House of Lords would now recede from their resolution of 1704, confirmed as it had been by the acquiescence of the House of Commons for 130 years. Their great mistake throughout these proceedings had been that they had committed themselves by taking one step without considering what the next must be, and thus the whole course had been one series of blunders. But if a dissolution did not take place, a prorogation must neces sarily do so ; and what would be the consequence? that Mr. Stockdale would be discharged, and mi g ht again commence proceedings ?—(Cries of " Hear.") He asserted that this action cannot lie. They let this question go before a Court of Law, they then per mitted judgment to go by default, and then you seek to punish Mr. Stockdale, after he has obtained large damages by the verdict of a Jury. They now said they repudiate the protection of that Court of Law because it has decided against them. They said to that Court of Law that they would admit their jurisdiction when they had a good case, but they denied it when they had a bad one.—( Hear, hear.) Let them not think that they could act so. Why did they permit judgment to go by default ? The people's right' were vindicated by this popular branch of judication, and a jury in a Court of Law had given 6001. damages against them. He begged to ask them if Mr. Stockdale was then thrown into a dungeon for six months, did they not think that a jury would be found to give him damages to the amount of 6,000/. If the Parliament had assem bled at the usual period—( Cries of " Order, order, an unusual haarviseenbienenantheevecnatsethahtaadll her Majesty's subjects should rejoice in most cordially, Mr. ) ' w order")—which circumstance ch w oul d Stockdale would have recovered his damages of 6001., and had the money safely stowed in his pocket.—( Hear.) He would then have gone to France, and would return again after the prorogation of Parliament, purchased a new work, and brought a new action, recovered fresh damages. and have gone off again to France.--( A laugh.) Let them remember that they would not always have a Royal marriage to bring them together earlier than usual.— ( Laughter.) As certain as they were then discussing that question, as certain would his prophecy take place. Was that a discussion that ought to be entertained by that House ? or was that a desirable situation to place the House of Commons, or he would say to place a Court of Law in ? The contest was simply whether they would proceed according to law or against it. Whose officers were the Sheriffs? They were the ministerial officers of a Court of Justice, and they had no more discretion as to levying or not levying, than the humblest individual in the country —they were mere machines, executing the process of the Court, and they cannot refuse obedience to the orders of that Court.—( Hear, hear.) Would that House call upon them to disobey such orders, proceeding from a Court of which they were the officers? What was that House about doing? They were about to call upon them to disobey those oaths which they had solemnly taken to observe. Let them recollect that it was not the order of Lord Chief Justice Denman, but it was the order of her Ma jesty Queen Victoria, whose name was inserted in the writ, and they (the Sheriffs) had sworn to obey that writ. They (the Commons) might send them to New gate, but they had not the power to dispense with the obligation of their oaths.—( Hear, hear.) Would that House, then, descend to act in such a manner? Would they say they would deal with those men as they pleased, because they thought they could do so with safety? So far from acting voluntarily in the business, they had, in his opinion, paid more respect to the opinions of that House, than he believed they had a right to do. The opinion of the Court had been obtained by them ; they had the Queen's writ, attested by the Lord Chief Justice of England, ordering them to perform that duty which, by the solemn oaths they had taken, they were compelled to de.—( Hear, hear.) Would that House then commit them? Was there ose Ge-itlernan in that House who would say he would commit them for obeying the law on legal orders? But he would not shrink from the contest with any Gentleman who would assert so. Every point that was thought necessary was put to the Jury who tried the case, but in defiance of all, that Jury found the most exorbitant damages. If then, there were any offenders in the case, the Jury were the guilty men. They were the men who exercised their own opinions as to the privileges of that House. Why did that House not touch them?—( Hear.) 'Or why should they ever think of touching the Sheriffs, who acted in such a manner as they could not avoid? Everything had been done to mitigate the damages with the Jury, and yet they were not to be touched, who were the real offenders in giving such enormous damages. Where was Mr. Black ? Where was Mr. Carrington ? Or where was Mr. Kennedy, who on that occasion disputed those privi leges in such terms as he would not mention there ? Why confine their attention to the smaller party, who were weak and feeble in their conduct on that occa sion compared to those gentlemen he had first mentioned. Where was the Chief Justice, who openly denied their privileges, and, he believed, strained the law to a great de gree on that occasion? Against any of these personages not one charge had been made by that Honse, and he blushed to say, because they dared not. Surely it would have been more mardy for them to call upon the Chief Justice, and to s ummon all the offending parties to the bar of that House than to attack those who had promised to administer the law of England according to their oaths and consciences. Lord Chief Justice Denman, who had dared in an action between two individuals to express his opinion upon the privileges of the House of Commons, was the party that that House ought to censure. He begged to mention a case which h e recollected having read of, wherein the Chief Justice decided in a cae directly opposed to the decision of the House of Lords. 1 It was the case of Lord Banbury, which r iced the ques tion of Peerage or no Peerage. The House o Lords considered that under a writ from the Crown, they were the prop er p ersons to decide who those individuals were who were fit to sit in the House of Lords, but when the same question arose in a Court of Justice, they assumed the right of de c idi ng i n t h at ca se, and accordingly ruled that Lord Banbury was a Peer, and qualified to sit in the House of Lords. Chief Justice Holt considered that it was a question of law, and decided against the House of Lords, deeming it a question within the jurisdiction of a Court of Law. The House of Lords then threatened to call Lord Chief Justice Holt to the bar of their House. The answer that Chief Justice Holt then gave, when ho had been summoned in due course of law to explain was, i privilege was to be carried through the Courts of the i that a judgment had been given in a Court of Law, country, and ultimately to the House of Lords, who were 1 but it would not be given at any other time or place. to decide whether it wis privilege or not ?—( Cheers.) 1 There was at that time much talk and vapouring in the The Hon. Bart., the Member for Tamworth, in the last House of Lords ihicy, threatened Chief Justice Holt, Session, had put this question upon its proper footing, but it all ended in smoke. Thi; difFcuity. wonfd lateen for he said, that if the public were with them, they in the present case as they went on, so that he advlsed theft? i sthould be sure to succeed ; but, if not, they were sure to recede in time. Three years ago, before they were in- to fait-a( Hear, hear. ) He (Mr. Wakley) did not wish volved in these difficulties, he made a suggestion that the to say anything irritating, but when he stated his opinion question ought to have been then settled by an Act of Par- he would do so candidly and fearlessly ; and he was pre ".i?tnept.,Eassed by the whole Legislature of the country , p ar e d to m ake any sacrifices rathef than see—he might and thereott set dt teat al! dissatisfaction on the pa: tof the call it the prerogative of that House, the privileges or the people; if they went on in their present c our s e t h e y wou ld powers of that House. determined by the hereditary branch I be obliged to do it at last. They could not avoid it ) of the legislature of this country. How was this Houle at, they must ultimately settle the question, and they never the present moment treated by the other House of Par could settle it by any other mode than by an Act of Par- liament ? To show that, he would just. state, as far as liament.—( Hear.) Let them not continue this ignoble his memory served him, what was one of its Standing Gr and unworthy conflict with such an individual which never ders. He believed it ran as follows ;--." And be it oh could succeed. In conclusion he begged leave to thank , served, that in Conferences with the Lower House no the House for the attention with which they had heard him. 1 Member of that House be permitted to sit either at Con- Sir CHARLES GREY said when he saw this House ferences or Committees in our presence, except ii be SCOW so long engaged on a subject like the present under their decrepid old man, who then by connivance may be allowed deliberation since the prorogation of Parliament, and made to sit in a corner, but not covered."—(Great laughter.) the matter of a long and anxious debate, he had the fullest , Were Gentlemen who framed such resolut ons as that to reliance upon the result of their decision. He saw a ! determine what the privileges and the powers which were clear course to be pursued to bring them out of their diffi- to be exercised by the House of Commons should be ? He culties, although he might take a more superficial for one never would consent to such degradation—( Con view of the matter than others.—( Hear, hear.) At the tinued cheering)—and he entreated of the Government to outset of the case it was alleged that a great deal go on calmly arid steadily in pursuing the course they had of difficulty arose upon the argument of whether the privi_ pursu d.—( Cheers.) He entreated that every f !ctions le ee was one that the House ought, or ought not to sup_ consideration—every private , onsideration—every feeling port. It appeared to him that there was a material dis- of a violent and agitating nature, should be discarded.— tinction between the case of the individual who had been (Cheers from the Tory side of the House.) The Hon. called to the bar and the rest of the parties concerned. Member sat down amidst continued cheering. Every assembly which had rights and duties to perform, as Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to answer the questions that House must have if it existed as part of the institu- put to him by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, and lions of the country, had the right of protecting likewise to suggest some alteration in the framing of the itself from interruption. Now, any interruption, any resolutions. The Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him thing that prevented its proceedings going on in whether it would not be more proper that the House a right and proper course was in the language should go into the rest of the case of the persons sum of Parliament and the Courts a con tempt. When the moved to attend at the bar, before it proceeded further House had made an order, any person proceeding in vie- with the case of Mr. Stockdale. To that question he must cation of that order was guilty of a breach of privilege, answer decidedly in the negative, because he did not see and it was not necessary to consider whether that order any connection whatever between the cases. The offence was right or wrong. He could not, however, go the length committed by Mr. Stockdale he conceived to be the of saying that if an order of that House was brought to bringing of this action, well knowing the proceedings the knowledge of the Judges by the working of the ordi- taken by the House. Mr. Stockdale had originated the nary machinery of their Courts, and that it came before complaint in going to the Court of Law, and he ( Lord them for their consideration —he could not go the length John Russell) could not see any thing that, in the course of saying, that in his opinion they were bound the moment of the proceedings against the parties who had been they saw it was an order of the House of Commons to summoned to the bar as well as Mr. Stockdale, shrink back and say--" We cannot consider the ques- which would exonerate him in bringing the action tion."—(Hear, hear.) According to all the doctrines against which a resolution of the House had been di that had ever been instilled into his mind, he could not rected. With respect to the other question, whether Mr. give his consent to such a proposition. He believed Stockdale should be asked or not, whether he had any the just and true limit to be that the Court thing to say in defence of his conduct, if any Hon. Gen should look at it, so as to be able to say tleman thought he should be again called to the bar, lie "Is this one of the class of orders which either House ( Lord John Russell) did not see what farther could be of Parliament is competent to issue ?" When a commit- drawn from the examination. The statements of Messrs. ment for contempt or breach of privilege was made out Hansard in their petition were that they were served with by order of either House of Parliament, the Judges would a legal process at the instance of John Joseph Stockdale, say, "We cannot inquire into the matter, inasmuch as for printing the papers of that House. If they had made any Parliament is competent to inquire into the matter." false statement in that respect, it would have appeared Supposing in times of revolution and dissension, such as from the examination of Mr. Stockdale himself, but so far occurred in the 17th century—supposing the House of from that being the case, Mr. Stockdale avowed at the Commons made an order arrogating to itself the whole bar that he had brought this action, knowing the functions of the State, and directed the execution of an orders of the House, and having received the notice individual, if the Courts at Westminster Hall, were still from Mr. Hansard. and with a knowledge of the permitted to exercise their functions, they would be in- resolution of the House, and boldly avowed t that titled to say, " This is an order of a class which the he did so for the purpose of trying the right of the House of Commons is not competent to make ? It is House of Commons. He (Lord J. Russell) had stated therefore an order which we cannot regard." It that he intended to move resolutions which should state in was part of the duty of the Court in which he the first place that Mr. Stoekdale has brought an action, ( Sir C. Grey) had the honour to preside in and thereby was guilty of a high breach of the privilege India, that it was not permitted to decide upon of that House. His Hon. Friend had suggested a change any orders made by the supreme authority under in that resolution, and with that change oe had proposed which the revenues were collected. It happened to him it to the House ; but upon further consideration, be thought that an individual was brought before his Court charged that it would be better that the resolutions should state the with a violation of the law, but it was contended that the fact with respect to Mr. Stockdale. He should then pro offence had been committed in the collection of the re- pose another resolution, declaring him guilty of a high con venue, and it .was therefore a case in which they were tempt of the privileges of the House, and if that resolu not authorized to interfere. There might be a breach of tion was carried, he proposed further another resolution the privileges of Parliament from very different motives with respect to his commitment.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) —there might be a breach of their privileges from negli- He ( Lord J. Russell) would therefore beg to withdraw his Bence, from mistake, or from error : in that case the dif- original motion, and move that John Joseph Stockdale, ference would be, that the party had not been guilty for having prosecuted the Messrs. Hansard, &c., had corn of contempt, but of a breach of the privileges of matted a breach of privilege. the House through error. It was to that part of the case Mr. LAW submitted that that motion could not now be he wished particularly to call the attention of the House and put. They had been debating on the original motion of Learned Members opposite, and if it were correct, all the the Noble Lord. A new case had then sprung up, and difficulties of the case, and all the awful visions of the even now he did not apprehend that the motion suggested Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench appearing at the Bar by the Noble Lord opposite, gave the true reason on which of that house in his robes, and all the difficulties of deal- the House should act. He therefore trusted that, if the ing with the Sheriffs and the Jury, with which the Hon. Noble Lord asked for the amendment to be withdrawn, he and Learned Member had attempted to alarm them, van- (Lord J. Russell) would state the case fairly, arid put it on ished, and were comparatively of no weight. In that case its proper footing. the Judges were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the Sir E. S hiG I) EN said that if the Learned Recorder House, but they would be guilty of it through error, were to withdraw his amendment the Noble Lord might although it might be presumption in him to bring such a bring forward his amended motion, and then the Learned charge against the Judges of the Queen's Bench. That Gentleman might move his amendment. breach of privilege would comprise the Sheriffs, the Jury, Mr. O'CONNELL said that much embarrassment and the other ministerial officers. The Hon. and Learned would occur in consequence of the willingness of the Noble Member opposite had stated that they dared not call the Lord to consult the wishes of the other side. The House Judges to their Bar, but there was evidently a great dis- was in the power of the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. tinction between the parties ; and if he ( Sir Charles Grey) Law). A second resolution could not be moved unless thought it necessary to call the Judges to the Bar, he the amendment were withdrawn. The question was, was should have no hesitation in voting for emotion to that effect. there to be a compromise with the Hon. Gentleman. He lie conceived the Judges should have acknowledged at (Mr. O'Connell) thought that in discussing the original once that the order was one which the House was at li- question they should net enter upon a new discussion. betty to make. So long as the House took this view of 'ormer resolutions had declared that what Mr. Stockdale the case—so long as they said that these proceedings of had done was a breach of their privileges ; those gentle the Judges were a breach of their privileges, they should men did not propose to rescind those resolutions, and it They was useless to consume time in discussing their propriety. consider that t t , h h a o t w th e e v y er w . werefundamentally w release themselvese rr o nwithout d iffi . So it seemed that they had but to argue gravely, and eulty from the folds of law which were wound round the m. when they came to the point not to act at all. —( Hear, and No man certainly had a right to publish anything that a laugh.) When topics of liberality and popularity were might be considered injurious to the characters of others, talked of on the other side, he (Mr. O'Connell) could not unless there may be grounds recognized by the law— help congratulating Hon. Gentlemen on their client.— grounds of public expediency and general utility, which ( Shouts of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition, and might be justly looked on as of greater importance than " Hear, hear, hear," from the Ministerial side. ) the characters of individuals. The Judges themselves ac- This British subject, forsooth—this so much injured man— knowledged that the House have the privilege of publics- had been indeed convicted, by twelve jurymen of his tion for the use of its Members. The Judges had in effect country, of publishing an obscene work This was the admitted the whole case. He defied the ingenuity of any man who was under the protection of the representatives of man to point out a mode by which the publication could be the religion and literature of England.—( Laughter from limited to Members of Parliament only. The venera- the Ministerial benches.) If this mar, indeed is now com lion - due to the Judges from their characters, mitted, it is not the world that is to be dissolved, but Pat and high stations, could not prevent him from saying that liament.—( Laughter.) Having discussed the question it was absurd to establish a privilege which was to extend so often, he for ene thought that the time was now come to the House of Lords, to six hundred and fifty-eight to act.—( Cheers. ) Why, they talked much of the Court Members of the House of Commons, as well as to the of Queen's Bench, he ( Mr. O'Connell) said that the Hon. various officers of the Crown, and yet to expect, at the Gentleman, the Recorder of London, was in fact interested same time, that the proceedings which might follow that in the question, for he ( Mr. Law) might have every one of privilege should not reach the public. The Right Hon. the members indicted before him for slanderous libels if . Baronet concluded by saying that there was but one course the doctrine of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite was which they could adopt, and that was to accede to the mo- held to be just.—( Hear, hear.) And let him suppose tion of the Noble Lord. that a Judge filling the situation of the Learned Gentleman Sir E. SUGD EN rose to call the attention of the Noble had introduced politics on the Bench—( Loud cries of Lord (Lord J. Russell) and of the Attorney-General to a a Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches) —Suppose point connected with the case. He wished to know whether they considered this a proper time to ask Mr. Stock- a Judge who, while trying prostitutes, indulged in political dale what he had to say in his own vindication, or whe- -- ' e • • lectures (R Renewed cries of " Hear, hear")—suppose a Judge who, while trying a pickpocket, censured the ther they intended to give him an opportunity of defending Administration himself. He ( Sir E. Sugden) wished to know what was empire—( Loud cries of " Hear , hear") — could a n y thin g the proper stage at which this opportunity might be af- be committed without hearing what all the parties might more indecent take place? He (Mr. O'Connell)thoug h t forded him. Why, he would ask, should Mr. Stockdale that a' it was impossible that there could be.—( Cheers. ) have to say in succession ? Let them be called to the Asfor the decision of the Bench , really it was a paltry one. In fact , it was ridiculous in every bar, and let the House then decide on what it might think the way.lt was a paltry judgment, devoid of rea proper measure for puoishing them for violating its rights. so He believed no body could feel any consideration for Mr. n and sense.—(Hear, and derisive cheers from the Opposition.) If his professional reputation were worth Stockdale, but still he could not vote for his committal. anything, he would boldly affirm that there was not a par- Though he looked upon this as a very high offence, he title of law in the judgment.—( Laughter from the Opposi trusted that the House, taking all the circumstances of the lion.) Why the Judges hold that the publication of 658 case into consideration, would not consider it necessary for copies for 658 men was no publication at all. Was not that the protection of their privileges to commit Mr. Stockdale, ridiculous ?—( Laughter, and hear, from the Ministe but that they would temper justice with mercy, by calling rial benches)—and if a man died with a copy in his pos upon the Right Hon. Gentleman who filled the Chair to session, and his executors sent it to his attorney to know reprimand him at the bar.—( Hear, hear.) what it was, that would be an actionable publication.— Mr. W AKLEY hoped and trusted that the House (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Was not he right in calling would agree with the Hon. Member for Ripon in the the decision a ridiculous one ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, it is propriety of giving Mr. Stockdale an opportun i ty of being now that we ought to take our stand. We ought to have heard, because it was his (Mr. Wakley's) firm belief that taken our stand sooner. The great mistake was i n su b_ nothing would damage that House more in the public mitting the question to the Queen's Bench, and glad, i n s opinion, or in the general est i mat i on o f t h e country, than deed, was he that he had protested against it.—( Hear, their calling upon a party to appear at their bar, and after hear.) In his opinion, they had heard the best sense a n d putting a few questions to him consigning him to a dun- reason from the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet the goon, without giving him an opportunity of defending M e mber for Tamworth.—(Loud cheers.) The Right himself. He would remind the House and the country and Hon. Baronet put the question on the right footing, some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who appeared on this ques- when he said that if the privilege was not supported lion to be seized with such an extraordinary fit of liberalism by public opinion, it would never succeed.—(Cheers.) —(Great cheering and laughter)—what was actually done This was no party question, but one which involved the in the case of Sir John Hobhouse. There a pamphlet very existence of that House. He (Mr. O'Connell) would was written by that gentleman in 1819, entitled " A not detain them on the point of law—he would just put Trifling Mistake." In that pamphlet he made some strong this to the House—the Learned Recorder, sitting in his r remarks on the conduct of this !H ouse , remar k s not so Court, would vindicate his privileges against them and all strong or stringent as in the excited state of the public at the world.—( Hear, hear.) Would they, the superior the present moment were made now, and which were met C our t, yi e ld their dignity with more pusillanimity than the with every day—( Hear, bear)—and no legal proceedings the inferior had ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.) Would they were taken. Now, what did Sir John Hobhouse say in not stand up manfully on behalf of the people of England, that pamphlet? Why, that the House of Commons was an d d e fend their right to disseminate among their consti not protected by love, but by fear; arid that the real pro- tuents information of national importance ?—( Cheering. ) tectors of the House were the Horse Guards.—(Cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS said he first rose in explanation, to He said further, that he should like to know what complain of the Learned Gentleman, for having accused there was to prevent the people coming to the him, with other gentlemen of that side of the House, of House, locking the doors, and throwing the key in to having Stockdale for his client.—( Loud laughter.) " 1 the Thames.—(Hear, hear.) What was done in that am surprised," (continued the Hon. Baronet) that the case ? Why, it was voted a high contempt of the House Learned Member who has so often traduced the women of ---the printer of the pamphlet was ordered to the bar—he England— attended the following dap—he had permission to give up ai r . O'CONNELL (starting with great vehemence the name of the author, and what was clone then ? Why , , from his seat, and with g reat violence of manner)—That is a Member of the Hou se got u p and stat ed that he had r false 1_ (Shouts of " Order," and immense uproar. authority to say that J o h n C am Hobhouse was the author Sir Sir R. INGLIS rose from his seat, and appealed to the Was that individual of the pamphlet.—(Hear, hear- ) The SPEAKER—If the Hon. and Learned Member called to the bar and asked what he had to say with re gard to the publication? No. No such course was taken (we unfortunately did not hear him clearly) has stated that o h o is m o m w it n ted ju t s o tifi N c o a w ti g on at .-- 0 w ( in the good old Tory times of that day.—(Cheers.) John any other Hon. Member said what was untrue, he has un- Sp , eaker. Cam Hobhouse was not brought to the bar to be heard in doubtedly stated what is a breach of the orders of the House.—( Hear, hear.) the opportunityh o Mr. O'CONNELL, with great warmth—Well, Sir, saying a single word in his defence.—(Great Gentleman I appeal to you upon the facts. An Hon. Member, rising That act was done by the friends of the Hon. ho to explain, as he said, introduced an attack upon me. He opposite—(Cheers) —by those good Conservatives, ilitheoarulhheaavri.o)g He was absolutely f. in their time preferred some of the principles . advocated who char charged me with "traducing the women of England." I am not now alluding to him—but I say that the charge by Hon. Gentlemen now.—( Cries of " Question, ques is false.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Order, order. ") lion.") An Hon. Gentlemen cried q uestionthat A w o was Sir R. INGLIS—Does the Hon and Learned Mem always the case when the shoe pinched.—( Cheers.)y_ her meant to say that I have made a charge against him, thing to drive off a statement, when an Hon.GentlemanFor his which he lls me I know to be untrue ? is going to state the truth.—( Great laughter.) F Mr. O'CONNELL—Does the Hon. Member mean to own part he was willing to take upon himself all the re- impute to me tl h •le eying traduced the women of England ? sponsibily that could belong to him, as an humble Mem- P If he does, he says that which is untrue, and what he knows her of that House, for the course the Government were. order.") rig} it to be untrue.—( Cries of " Order, pursuing, because he felt no doubt they were in the lie i path. He thought th ey wer e taking the p ro p er course, The SPEAK ER—I must call upon the Hon. and Gentleman to retract that expression Learned • on ; as I under an d he had only to express his regret that it had not been him he taken earlier,—(Gre a t c h eer i n g.) He had said this much standlanother asserts t iat Hon. Member has said . what he knows to be untrue.—( Hear, hear.) with respect to the conduct of the Government, and he _. Mr. O'CONNELL—WeII, Sir, perhaps I went too far should not discharge the duty which he owed to his own 4 in that. I will say then " which he ought to know feelings, if he were not to express his warmest approbation to be untrue."— ' ' Laughter and cries of " Hear," and of the conduct pursued on the present occasion by the " Order.") ( - ' Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.—( Hear, hear.) The question under the consideration of the t The SPE AKER—I must entreat the Learned Mem ber for Dublin to make C. more unqualified retractation. House was one of th e mos t important that ha d ever en gaged any portion of the Legislature —it was a question, Mr. O'CONNELL—'ir, I appeal to you. lam ac in fact, the determination of which was to decide whether cused of having ma d e a charge against the women of England. Ought to be there was to be in England a House of Commons or not .Hear, hear, not that charge . withdrawn?- -( Great cheering)...._ a question whether it was to be a ( (Shouts of " Order" House of Commons which had the power to exercise ) any privileges for the benefit of the people, independent The SPEAKER—If the Hon. and Learned Member of the authority of the hereditary branch of the Lewis- 1 denies the truth of that assertion, I am quite sure the lature.—( Great cheering.) Was it to be endured that 4 Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Ox everything that the house of Commons asserted as a ' , ford will not persist in his statement.—( Hear, hear.) It EVENING EDITION. is, then, my duty to call upon the Hon. Baronet to with- l A conversation then took place as to postponing the thaw that assertion.—( Hear, hear.) Then the Hon . urther proceedings till Monday, or pursuing the m to- Baronet can call upon the Learned Member for Dublin to morrow, and it was generally admitted that, as the Court retract an expression quite contrary to the rules of the of Queen's Bench might make the rule absolute to-ntor- House.—( Hear, hear.) row, and so place the parties in a i'iffetent situation: that Sir R. INGLIS--Then, Sir, I understand the Belo. it would be advisable to meet to-morrow. and Learned Member for Dublin does ia his place m Mr KELLY, however, moved that the House at its Parliament, distinctly deny that he ever did traduce the rising adjourn till Monday, which motion was lost by 36 to women of England, as it has been reported he did. is 116 It was finally or de red that Mr. France attend to that so?—( Hear, hear.) t,'-morrow with M . Burch, II (at 12) ; and Messrs. Mr 0 4 CONNELL (with great enetuv)—Certainly I Hoe nrd and .Jackson on Mendas, cannot hesitate for •ne moment I ear. , rt,,t what adsee THE ADDRESS. tage may be taken of me—l answer, the House teat the rhe Report on th e /Viol e-s is ,s brought up and agreed to. charge is totally Hear, hear.) PRIVATE BUSINESS. Sir R. ING L IS— Then, noon that ur,ler-r,inflic) , :r, Sir, Mr L A 130 UCH ER E moved see sseeppeintment of I withdraw the expression, which was psrcnthelical the Private Business Commit, e merely.—( Laughter. ) But the Learned Member ived PRIVILEGE brought in matters quite for,..ip,:n to the question.—( He a r, Mr. F. KELLY gay, no ce that on Monday he should hear.) l move as an arm-mimeo r hat Messrs. Hansard should he Mr. LAW then rose, mid raid mid to offer an eel( mnified tor the rt cent see tons, and that the Attorney ' G e. vieral should he instructed to defend my future acti o n s . explanation of a weighty eharsee xhich h le en made against him in his judicial cat ,cite —( He o. he r ) Hs TL'e House then adjourned it One &Clock. I complained of the tone, the manner, .and the assertion, I the Learned Member for Dublin. It :vas easy to pervert isolated expressions in the newspapers, but the Learned Member had grossly misrepresented the facts—uninten tionally of course—for the Learned Gentleman, so sensitive to aspersions on his own character, wousi never willingly 1 attack another's. —( Loud dry e rivi-ned , beers. ) be impression perhap s, tnir.4iit o ve h. er,,att_d by this I incident. In the ( t; T.' for an offence which had become prevalen,. lie happened to observe, in answer to a remark in favour of mitigation of punishment, that an example was necessary, adding that if a olistsken I lenity had been shown elsewhere—( Cheers from the Minis terial benches)—but he had net mentioned Lord Norman. bi's name.—( Laughter. ) It was only an observation — (Renewed laughter)—he meant no political allusion.— (Laughter.) Mr. DARBY said the Noble Lord (John Russell) had virtually sounded his retreat by declining to state the exact cause of commitment on the resolution, and the Attorney-General cleverly wished the commitment to be indefinitely for contempt, hoping that thus the commit ment would not be inquired into on habeas corpus, as the Judges had stated that into mere committals for contempt they could not inquire.—( Hear, hear.) The law was really triumphant at this moment.—( Cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENE ~IA L said it was most un pleasant for him in the discharge of his duty to defend the privileges of the House, to come personally into col lision with the Judges of a Court in which he had ever practised, and in which he must continue to practice while he remained in his profession.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He had no hesitation in affirming that his advice would be that the resolution should not state the precise cause of commitment.—(lronical cheers from the Opposition.) But Lord Denman had stated that he should reserve to himself the right of inquiring into any commitment.—( Hear, hear.) Lord HO WICK said he hoped the amendment would not be withdrawn, so that the original motion would be compelled to be put—( Cheers)—for that motion would bring the question most boldly and decidedly to issue.— ( Cheers.) "It will then appear thus upon our Journals (said the Noble Lord)—that on the petition of Messrs. Hansard, Mr. Stockdale was called in, and admitted that he was the person who brought the action against them for what they had done by the orders of this House; whereupon, naturally and immediately, the House resolved that he has committed a contempt—( Hear, hear)—that is perfectly plain, perfectly clear, and simple—(Cheers) —and there is no occasion to add any other statement." (Hear, hear.) As to calling in Mr. Stockdale and hearing him in reply, he (Lord H.) appealed to the Speaker whe ther its practice was ever to hear persons speak in defence of a contempt ? and whether the usage was not, after exa mining the person and ascertaining the fact of the contempt —instead of giving an opportunity perhaps for an exceed ingly insulting speech—( Hear hear)—to commit the party at once, and leave him to petition, to state anything in pal liation.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. R. PALMER was for calling in Mr. Stockdale. The House then divided— For the motion For the amendment Majority ---149 On our re-admission we found— Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving that John Joseph Stockdale be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms attending this House. Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that with all deference to the House he trusted that it would not bethought presump tion in him to offer a few words upon the present motion— in doing so he would endeavour to avoid going ever the same ground occupied in the former debate. He felt perfectly satisfied with the arguments used by the Learned Gentlemen on his side of the House—indeed it was a singu lar feature in tine case, that with the single exception of the Attorney-General all the high legal authorities took the same view of the question, and that was against the proceedings of the House. He considered that a question which deeply involved the liberty of the subject, and he could not give his concurrence to such arbitrary measures as were proposed. He would therefore propose as an amendment, " That in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, judgment having been suffered to go by default, the House was not in a condieion to take further proceedings." Mr. Alderman COPELAND looked at these proceed ings with a degree of jealousy, believing their object to be the prevention of that boast of Englishmen, the Trial by Jury, and to attack the independence of the Judges. If they committed Stockdale to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, how could they avoid committing the Sheriffs ? and he would put it to the House whether it would be advisable to commit those officers who are responsible for the peace and safety of the metropolis. He should sup port the amendment, as he was fearful that the privileges of the House might be lost in the struggle upon which they were about to enter.—Cheers Mr. KELLY thought it was of the last importance that the House should distinctly understand the course which the Nibble Lord intended to pursue. He wished to ask first Whether the Speaker's warrant would state on the face of it what the breach of privilege was, for which Mr. Stockdale was committed ; and next supposing it should not be so stated, by what means Stockdale would be deprived of the power of being brought before the Queen's Bench, by a writ of Habeas Corpus. Yet there was nothing to prevent Stockdale from commencing an action against the Sergeant-at- Arms for false imprisonment, and in that case would the Noble Lord advise the House to remain quiescent, or would he instruct the Attorney- General to appear and defend the action ? because in the latter case it would be abandoning the principle upon which he was now acting, but if he adhered to the principle of the resolution, and refused to appear to the action, so that judgment should go by default, the probability was Stock dale would obtain very large damages, and nothing could prevent those damages being transferred from the pocket of the Sergeant -at-Arms to the pocket of Stockdale. Lord J. RUSSELL though it necessary the House should understand that in 1837 certain resolutions were passed declaring that the House was the sole judge of its own privileges, and that the prosecuting of any action before any other Court calculated to bring those privileges into question was a gross breach of privilege, and contempt of the House of Commons; these resolutions were not a new law, but were merely declaratory of the ancient and undoubted privileges of Parliament. Mr. Stockdale had acted in contravention of this resolution, and had brought an action, calling their privileges into question in a Court of Law. It was now competent for the House either to pursue the course indicated by their former resolutions, or to abandon all proceedings ; but not to pur sue that course, and yet to maintain the resolu tions, would be to place the House in an absurd and ridiculous position.. The Hon. Gentleman had asked if it was intended to state, on the face of the warrant of commitment, the nature of the contempt of which Mr. Stockdale had been guilty. It was not for him to advise the House what should be the nature of the warrant to be issued, but after having heard the advice of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General, he presumed they would act upon that, and that the warrant would not con tain any recital of particular acts, but that Stockdale would be committed as having been guilty of a breach of privilege. He wished to call the attention of the House to the im portance of the amendment which the Right Hon. Gen tleman had proposed, which was to the effect, that because they had allowed judgment to go by default, they were precluded from taking any further steps in the matter. That was overturning indirectly the resolution of 1837, which declared that the House had the sole jurisdiction in all cases in which its own privileges were concerned. Let them consider what was the effect of the arguments of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. They said if an action was brought in a Court of Law questioning the privileges of the House, and you appear before that tribunal, and the decision was against you, it was argued with great plausibility that by going before that Court, you do in effact submit to the decision of that Court. But if they took another course, and did not appear at all, it was then said that because they did not go into Court, but suffered judgment to go by default, that therefore they were bound to submit to the decision of that Court ; so that whether they go be« fore a Court or hot, according to Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, they were bound to submit to the jurisdiction of their privileges to the Courts of Law ; and that not one privilege, but every privilege which they possessed, must be decided according to the judgment of the Courts of Law, and not according to that of the House. That was a most important question raised by the amendment, and it was necessary the House should fully understand the im portance of it, as, in his opinion, if they were to pursue the course recommended by the amendment, it would be subversive entirely of the privileges of that House. Mr. CRESSWELL said he thought it bad been con tended they ought not to commit that miserable man Stock dale, for whom individually he had no sympathy—ne, it was not Stockdale, but the liberty of the subject, that formed the grand object. He understood the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to say the House was to commit for a breach of privilege, and that they were justified by the pre cedents on their Journals, On which then of those prece dents were they to act ? Let them net step short new. He would advise them to recollect there was another resolution on their books yet more dangerous, under which they might commit the Judges. If they acted on the one, they would have to act on both ; only that the Judges might be committed to Newgate, where they would be near their place of business, when they had to try the cri minals confined there. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the Motion For the Amendment 2 •••• ..... 105 Majority —134 On our return to the gallery we found Lord JOHN RUSSELL on his legs, stating that it appeared to him the Messrs. Ha nsar d h a d paid the- money into the hands of the Sh er iff s , i t m i ght be with the in tention pf waiting for the instructions of the House.— ( Cheers and laughter.) He would now propose to the House that the Sheriffs be ordered to attend again on Mon day next. Alderman COPELAND said that the Sheriffs would be compelled to pay over the 6001. to Mr. Stockdale, or to his assignee in the Insolvent Court. Col. WOOD trusted, before the House separated that it would come to the resolution to discharge the Sheriffs from attending, pOLICk. INTELLIGENCE. -- N_ - Bo -STREET. Yesterday Mr. Hall and Mr. Jardine were occupied the entire of the afternoon in di,posing of charges brought against twelve Chartists v‘ho had been apprehended, some of them armed with deadly weapiais, on the previous night, while holding a meeting ":n the Trades' Hail, Abbey-street, Bethnal-green. On being taken into custody, they were all lodged for the night in . the Denmark-street Station, which is within the district of .the Lambeth-street Police Court, but in consequence of a communication received from the Home-office they were beought up under a strong escort of the t- division, under the direction of Superin tendent Pearce, to be examined at thiN Court The Rev. Lord Augustus Fitzclarence was on the bench. The first five prisoners, who appeared to belong to the working classes, and whose names were L?aniel Byrns, Thomas Clarke, Thomas Rennard, Thomas Hope. and Win. Wilkins, were charged with illegally meeting with arms in their possession for unlawful purposes. Mr. Wooller appeared for the prisoners. Mr. Superintendent Pearce having been sworn, and ex amined by Mr. Hall said, there is a house in Abbey-street, Bethnal-green, called the Trades' Hall, part of which is a b•er-shop, where several Chartist meetings have been held, from time to time, &nd in conseqn:ence of information I had received, I felt it to be my duty to report the whole circumstance to the Commissioners, by whom I was directed to proceed with Captain Hay and a sufficient number of constables to the place. On entering the room we found about 500 persons assembled, some of whom had great coats, and we proceeded to search them, having had every reason, to believe they were armed. It was then about half-past nine o'clock. There was a raised platform in the room, upon which was a person, apparently the Chairman, who was holding forth to the meeting, among which the prisoner Byrne was standing, and from whom, I saw the knife taken by one of the officers. fie held it shut in his hand, and there was some difficulty in taking it from him. I did not see him do or hear him say any thing, and he was standing in the body of the hall. I afterwards saw Rennard searched, from whose bosom the brace of pistols produced, which were loaded with balls, were taken. The sword produced was taken by an officer from the prisoner Hope, and he offered great resistance before he was compelled to give it up. This sword was without any scebbard, and, on mounting the• platform, the pike produced was found concealed behind the wainscotting, together with a number of bullets which were discovered lying on the stage. I also picked up two or three ball .cartridges about the room, and seve ral others were subsequently found by the officers. _ There was no violence used in searching the prisoners, except by themselves. Inspector Lewis, H division, stated that he accompa nied the last witness to the Hall at the time in question, where there were about 500 persons assembled, and some person, seemingly the chairman, addressing them. There was a general rush to the door on seeing the police, and the speaker desired the people to sit down. Hope, from whom he took the sword produced, was about to strike an officers with it, had his hand not been stopped. He had been more than once at the same place, but could not say if the prisoners were at those meetings; and the meeting in question had been adjourned from Tuesday, at which h• heard the speakers desire each person to bring as many as they could with them, but he heard no mention then made about arms. Henry Herris, another Inspector, identified the prisoner Wilkins, whom he saw searched by the last witness. On the rush being made to the door, be attempted to mairce his escape, but, on witness preventing him he feltlsomething in his pocket, which, upon searching him, turned out to be the pistol produced,and which was subsequently discovered by the Superintendent to have been loaded. A bullet and some powder, with a slug were found upon him, and upon being further searched, he said he would sootier loose every drop of blood in his body than be in witnesses's situation. Mr. Webb identified the prisoner Clarke as having been in the body of the hall. J. Davidson, 146 H, deposed to being resisted in search,. ing Rennard, when the pistols were found, and he also saw the other prisoners searched. Mr. Wooller—Did you meet with any resistance in the I execution of your duty ?—None whatever. Joseph Weston, 140 H, confirmed the testimony of the other witness. James More, 71 H, in assisting to search the room, found a pike on the platform, and he found the short knife: produced on the prisoner Byrne. Richard Baker, 31 H, picked up two knives in the upper part of the room—they were lying on the floor, and had scabbards. He heard the prisoner Byrne say that they (meaning the constables) would rue their conduct. Joseph Price, 133 H, observing a noise under the stage as the meeting was nearly dispersed, went under, and, finding it very dark, he procured a candle, and discovered a pistol, produced. loaded, primed, and half-cocked. It was lying on the floor, with a dozet2 ball-cartridges and a quantity of loose powder. There was also another pistol near to the same place, which was not loaded. The Superintendent found a knife produced, and he had reason to suppose that the ammunition had not been many minutes where it was found. Mr. HALL inquired what was the number of pistols and other articles which were found. The Supertendent produced twelve pistols, nine daggers, seven knives, two pikes, one sword, twenty-three ball cartridges, and a quantity of gunpowder. Mr. Wooller said he could not see there was any case against the prisoners stronger than that each of them might, or might not belong to a particular society, and as such, each of them was answerable for his own acts in the same manner as any man might enter into a church or- a chapel. Mr. HALL said the case presented very strong features against every one of the prisoners, except Clarke, who, although it appeared, he carried nothing, yet was heard to cry out to the people to stand to their posts ; the prisoner Byrne appeared to be actuated by very bad feeling by his threatening the officers that they would rue what they were doing. As all the circumstances connected with this case were of a very grave nature, the prisoners should be remanded until Tuesday next. The prisoners being removed from the bar, Joseph Williams, David Williams, Charles Hodson Neesom, Richard Spurr, John Cherry, George Livings, and Thomas Evans, were brought up charged with being pre sent at the meeting for unlawful purposes. The Superintendent proved that on his entering the room the prisoner Nelson was acting as chairman, and on seeing the police he called upon the meeting to stand firm, and keep their ground, and to be quiet. He also made some observation about the police which witness did not understand. He commenced to search all who were on the platform, and on searching Joseph Williams he said " If you handle me I'll take and knock you down," and on taking hold of him he raised a stick to strike, but wit ness drew his sword and told him that if he struck him be would cut him down, and after much difficulty he was se cured with handcuffs. Mr. HALL considered it quite unnecessary to go over the ground again by re-examining all the witnesses, as the evidence of the Superintendent was the same, and as he understood that other evidence would be added, he would pursue the same course that he had done with the other prisoners. Mr. Wooller applied to have bail accepted for as many of the prisoners as were able to procure it, to which Ms. Hall assented. DEATH OF PRINCIPAL BAIRD.—With Sincere regret we have to announce the death of the venerable Principal Baird, which took place on Tuesday, at his residence near Lin lithgow, in the 79th year of his age. Besides the high office in the University, which he had held for nearly half a century, Principal Baird for forty years had the honour of being one of the ministers of the High Church of Edinburgh.—Edinburgh Paper. SPOONS and FORKS, strongly plated with Silver on a white metal, and consecuently not liable by wear to show any other colour. Table Spoons or Forks 21. 19s. per dozen. Dessert Spoons or Forks, l'wo Guineas per dozen. Tea Spoons, 255. per dozen. Gravy Spoons, 9s. lad. each. Soup Ladles, 16s. each. T. COX SAVORY, Silversmith &c., 47, Cornhill (Seven doors from Grace church-street), London BIR THS. On the 16th inst., at Nelson House, Kingsland, the lady of George Gabain, Esq., of a daughter. On the 17th inst., Mrs. B. Evans, Trinity-street, Southwark, of a daughter. On the I 7th inst., in Upper Harley -street, the Lady Agneta Bevan, of a son. IVIARRIE On the 15th i ns t., at St. Giles's, D. Camberwell, John Nailor Topping, Ecq., of Whitechapel-road, to Eliza, only daughter of James Smith, Esq., of Hill -street, Peckham. On the 16th inst., at Old Windsor, tho Rev. James Elliott, of Hartfield-grove, Sussex, to Marianne Grant, youngest dzughter of John Calvert Clarke, Esq. of Coworth-park, Berks. On the 16th i nst., at S t. P ancras, ' H. B. Burford, Esq., of Lisson-grove, Surgeon, to Emma, youngest daughter of the late W. H. Wright, Esq., of Sydenham, Kent. On the 16th inst., at St. George's, Camberwell, Richard George, eldest son of Richard Hedgeman, Esq., Norwich, to Anne Marshall, eldest daughter of Captain T. C. Sherwin, R.N. DIED. On the 10th inst., at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Charles Pre s b ur y, Esq., formerly of ew-street, Covent-garden, London. On the 10th inst., in Fenchurch-street, Mr. Thomas ToMil ton, aged 50. On the 12th inst., James Orchard, Esq., late of Amwell street, Claremont-square, aged 20. On the 15th inst., at Islington ' John C r ibb , E sq., l ate o f Bloomsbury-square, surgeon, aged 76. On the 16th inst., Eleanor, third daughter of B. Pead, Esq., Upminster, Essex. On the 16th inst., at Clifton, Georgians Frances, the wife of Eir Simeon H. Stuart, Bart. On the 17th inst., Elizabeth, the wife of D. T. Alston, Esq., of Savage-gardens, aged 30. London . . Printed and Pim:shed by AIURDO YOUNG, of .No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Of f ice, No. 112 ,Strand, c omity of Aliddlesex.—Saturday, January IS, 1840.