The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-22 00:00:00

ithis occasion. His Honourable and Gallant Friend had imputed meancss and dagardly conduct to 1 the majority. Had he read the names of that majority ? Did he mean to impute meanne.7s and dastardly con- Iduct to the Noble Lord opposite, to the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tarnworth, and to the many \ honourable men who had voted in that majority ? When the passion of the moment should have sub sided, he would sit down and repent, in sackcloth and ashes, for what he had Said. Hon. and Learned i Members, who supported the Courts of Lee, seemed to have forgotten their character as Legislators for the purpose of acting merely as a dvocates. The priuileges of that House ought to be defended, as well as those of the Courts of Law : and this view of the case seemed to be entirely lost sight of by those Honourable and Learned Gentlemen. It was well known that the House of Lords had impr:- soned one of the Members of that House. It was well tknown that contest after contest had taken place be tween the two Houses, and yet they had been told by 1 Hon. Members that their privileges were safe in the hands of the House of Lords. Others contended that they should submit their privileges to the exclusive con trol of the Courts of Law. No one could entertain a higher respect for these Courts than himself ; but if they looked at the decisions of the four Judges in the case then under their consideration, if they read them, as men of common sense, as representatives of a free peo ple, they must at once pronounce them most absurd and unconstitutional. He defied any man of common sense, acuteness, or judgment, to gather anything of sound constitutional law from them.—(Hear, hear.) I He had never until that night fully u nderstood the in fluence of legal habits and long legal practice upon the senatorial powers of that House. Hon. and Learned Members appeared to be trammelled among the snares and pitfalls of the law instead of legislating for their country as men of common sense, having a due regard for the interest of their constituents. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had struck at the root of the Lord Chief Justice's argument, when he showed that necessity would justify a privilege, and that it was upon necessity the privileges of freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, and others had been founded. But it was needless for him to recapitulate the argu ments of the Right Hon. Bar net, and he feared it might be said of him, as was said by Fox of a young -eeaker who was attempting to defend the speech of .' Er. Erskine, " the ,Right Hon. Gentleman has followed the steps of his Right Hon. Leader, weakening his ar guments as he went along."—( Hear, hear.) In a few ' weeks, or perhaps in a few days , they might be called to the bar of public opinion. They might be upon the hustings before their constituents.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He (Lord Teignmouth) had the honour of representing, and, as pleased God, he hoped to do for many years, a numerous and powerful constituency— a motley constituency possessing every variety of opinion. —(A laugh.) And, on the day of election, if there was one vote more than another on which he prided 1 himself—if there was one vote more than another on which he should be ready to stake his existence as a senator, he would say, not as the result of any mo mentary enthusiasm, that it was his having humbly but perseveringly endeavoured to uphold the privileges of Parliament, and consequently of his constituents.-- (Cheers.) If the Noble Lord (J. Russell) would allow him to offer him a few words of advice : He was no political admirer of his, but he had observed him for two Sessions, under circumstances of great political ember-, rassment, bearing himself gallantly, patiently, and honourably.—(Ministerial cheers.) He was speaking of his conduct within the House, where he had not a more sworn and resolute opponent of his measures, or one who more heartily wished him out of office than himself.—(Laughter and cheers.) He would say to the Noble Lord, however, as regarded the present question— " Tune cede malis, sed contra audentior ite." —(Cheers.) Let him go on still with his gallant pha lanx, despising clamour, and having public opinion on his side ; and when some future historian came to tread in his steps, to write the constitutional history of that country, 1 1 when the deeds which the Noble Lord had perpetrated ' would damn him in his (Lord Teignmouth's) estima tion--(much laughter)—or sink into oblivion, and be only remembered with abhorrence—the Noble Lord would be remembered and admired by every lover of his country's liberties, as the upholder and the defender of their Parliamentary privileges, and as one who had boldly, and zealously, and nobly maintained those privi leges against the e n cro ac h men t s o f C ourts o f L aw, and the taunts and reproaches, and, he grieved to say it with respect to his own side of the House, the in sults of his opponents.—(Much cheering.) Mr. FRESHFIELD denied that the indiscriminate publication of these papers was necessary for the exer cise of the functions of the House. He never felt more confidence in his life in pronouncing an opinion upon any subject than he did upon the present occasion, when he assured the House that they were proceeding in error. He called upon them, ere it was too late, to retrace their steps, and they would find that such a course would tend more than the one they were now pursuing to the honour of the House and the interests of the public.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME said that he would merely have given his vote on this occasion did he not consider himself deeply implicated in the question, as having been the person who recommended to the House the resolution of printing its,papers ; and having heard from Hon. Mem bers on the other side that by that means alone the action they were discussing had been brought for ward. The Honourable Member for Sussex bad ) said that but for these resolutions the — dispute which the House is now engaged in would never 1 have taken place. He now felt himself called on to discuss for a moment the question. The Lord Chief Justice at first stated from the Bench that it was be ' cause the papers were sold that he granted the rule. But when he found that the entire bar at Westminster Hall was opposed to him on these grounds, he modified that opinion. Mr. Hume proceeded to say, that if any thing was ever calculated to deserve the best efforts of , the House ot Commons, it was their right to distribute the evidence taken before them, and place before the people that information which would throw any light on public questions, end which would expose the abuses of our institutions, or point out the means of ameliorating them. He did not know any means by which these ends.could be better obtained than by giving publicity to . what happened within their walls. This was more useful—he should say ten times more useful— than all the speeches made in the House. Could any man deny this, who looked to the proceedings which daily took place before them ? The House was scarcely ever prepared to en ter into any reforms or alterations, or innovations without inquiry. That inquiry could not take place effectively if confined to themselves. He showed that before the resolution he had proposed on that subject was passed. many matters of moment were lost to the public. He hoped the House would never listen to any proposal for rescinding that resolution, and for con signing to the vaults of the Messrs. Hansard the impor tant documents which might proceed from the Commons England. He would ju,t iwntion that, previous to the l resolution he was alluding to, by which Parliathentary papers were ordered to be made public, there were two million two hundred thousand papers in the warehouse of the Messrs. Hansard, which had never seen the light. He. hoped, that after the exper ence they had had of giving public,ty to their, proceedings, nothing would now icduce them to abandon it. So anxious was he to preserve, lay every means, their pririleges,that if it were in the powcr of the House, he would summon the Judges them selves, who were the principal parties in the transaction _ . to,appear before them. IL understood, however, that as far as regarded. Lard Chief Justice Denman, there Nuttld have been ,a techn:cal objection to their proce,!d ing in that way ; but this could not be said of Justice Littledale, and he was sorry that that learned fun - tianuY bail not been summoned to their bar. Such APal(lhavgken..ttnn course which he (Mar. Hume) would have recommeaste4L,At: present,however, h e thought that the now t had no other ehoice to follow than to adopt the r:so'ution of the Noble Lord. He admitted that he actO with great reluctance against the Sheriffs,' and he would state-that,. as Lai- as their evidence enabled him to f.,rryi any opinion, they had acted with temper and moderation.—( The Hon. Gentleman here cited a de cis on of Lord Ellenborough, which he thought was fa vourable to the view which the House had taken of the question,) Lord Ellenborough had said, speaking of tha privileges of the House of Commons, that if there was no decision at all on the subject, the thing was too clear for argument. _ Mr. L NW asked what was the privilege of which Lord Ellenborough was then speaking? Mr. HUME said it was the power possessed by the H ouse of publishing the papers it might think necessary, the very power now in question. He (Mr. Hume) un derstood the Learned Recorder for London to have said that the powers of the House were to be regulated by the Courts of Law.—(" No, no," from Mr. Law.) He (Mr. Hume) thought the Hon. and Learned :;en tleman's opinion came to that—as he proposed that the Howe of Commons should bow to a decision of the Courco! Queen's Bench in one instance, and as he did I not mike any distinction between that case and others. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he had hitherto supported, and that he should continue to sup port. the course which the House had entered on. Mr. LAW said that, considering the ground taken on one or two occasions by the Hon. Member for Kul ' kenny, he could not refrain from offering a few observa tions on the petition which had been presented by the Sheriffs. That petition stated that those Gentlemen had, in the proceeding which gave rise to the present discussions, acted to the best of their ability, con sistently with their conscience, and in accordance with the oath they had taken. Now no one could have sup posed that, in a Court assumiog, to itself a regard for the rights and obligations of conscience, the discharge by those gentlemen of the obligations of a sacred duty, would be condemned in the strongest terms which could possibly be applied to the circumstances of the case. Those gentlemen had not instituted or prose cuted any action for libel, they had merely execut e d a writ which was in accordance with the office which they held, and yet it was against them that her Ma j: sty's Ministers had passed the two resolutions upon which S 3 much discussion had been spent, and which had already occupied so touch of the time and atten tion of that House. Did it occur to that Hon e to c wider that in 99 out of every 100 of such cases those resolutions were disregarded, and that under the same sanction by which those resolutions had been re.,) riled the most eg,regious absurdities had been printed, and sent forth to the publi c , without ever having been previously read or remarked upon? Were Messrs. Hansard obliged to print the proceedings of that House, or did they act at their own option, receiving only the reward which the price of their labour pro cured ? and were they under those circumstances to be clothed with the sanction and authority of that House, end taus communicated to the public at large. He maintained that it was the duty of that House, before they made it a crime to publish what was untrue, to know what it did publish ; for if they published what was wrong, there was no means of reaching any Member within the walls of that House. He would put it to the House on the general principle whether the privilege if publishing libellous matter should be permitted, without giving the party affected by such publication an opportunity of obtaining redress ? If, for instance, they desired the publication of documents for their own use, and those documents should after wards appear before the whole country, would they then set up their justification of privilege ? That could not avail in the present instance. for he would venture to say, with reference to the volume which formed the foundation of their present proceedings, a majority of the Members of that House were cognisant of its contents.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to the proposition by which it was laid down that Parliament had the exclusive right of de termining what action was or was not a breach of privilege ; and a hatever might be the' foundation of that now asserted it must be supported by some better authority than a mere Ministerial majority—(Loud cheers,) supported, he regretted to say, by a small fraction on the Conservative side of the House. — (Hear, hear.) He was satisfied that their present assertion of privilege was not in conformity with law, and that, whatever success might attend their assump tion of a privilege now for the first time set up, expe rience would show that not from themselves, but from the people, did those privileges emanate, and ought to be held and exercised but for their pro tection—( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers) —while in this instance they had turned the arms obtained from the people, against the people themselves—( Hear, hear) — and they were living in times when their hasty decision might teach them a lesson.—(Hear, hear.) He main tained that the priyilege contended for was not the law of Parliament, much less the law of the land ; a doc trine most ably laid down and supported by the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon, and which, in point of law, had never yet been answered.—(Hear.) He ad mitted that he (Mr. Law) had departed a little from the question of the petition—(Laughter)—but not from the subject rnatter before the House, and he would ttell the Learned Solicitor and Attorney-Generals who had 'displayed such great ability in this debate not what he bad heard out of doors, but had been expressed within the walls of Westminster, that the opinions laid down by them were not in consonance with truth and justice, and that the steps taken by that House were in oppo sition to the law of the land, as laid down by the most eminent law authorities of the Courts that in the worst of times would hold even the balance of justice be. tween man and man. He would implore the House before they resorted to the desperate step which to morrow's reports might publish to the world, to reflect well on the important duty the House had to discharge before they committed individuals who had been guilty of no dereliction of duty, who in personal cour tesy had done all they could to satisfy that House, and who in doing what they had done, had only acted in obedience to an authority to which they felt bound to submit. But if, in yin dication of their privileges, the House felt it ne cessary to commit the Sheriffs, he hoped they would have the manliness to record the reasons by which they meant to justify that proceeding. The Honourable and Learned Member begged, in conclusion, to remind the House that the Sheriffs were constituted to the important offices which they held, by no less than nine thousand citizens of London, who would not be indifferent spectators of what was now passing.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He would therefore return to his subject—(Laughter)—notwithstanding the disa greeable interruptions which had occurred. He would bee- to remind the House that the office filled by the Sheriffs was no lets created by the election of the citi zens of London, but an office delegated by the voice of the people, constituting a solemn compact between those raised to that position and the Sovereign of the realm, and sworn to perform their functions as well on the part of that people as on the part of that Sovereign.— , (Hear, hear.) He submitted to that House whether, after having pronounced those gentlemen perfectly inno cent of any moral offence—after their general conduct had been so highly extolled—he submitted whether it would be just or equitable to punish them ; for what ? For not violating their oaths, which, if they bad been guilty of doing, would, in his opinion, render them unfit to hold the high office they now fill, and quite unworthy of the trust they received from their constituents. This House, on Saturday last, had committed the originator of this action to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and he (Mr. Law) then begged to ask what did they further seek to do? He submit ted to those around him if it was not an exertion to ex tract a SUM of money from the pockets of the Sheriffs by the most dishonest coercion ; for they said if that money was not immediately handed to the defendant Hansard, they would find them guilty of a breach of privilege ; but if they (the Sheriffs) assisted them to rob the plaintiff of his just claims, that House would be against them.—(Hear.) Mr. EARLE next rose and said he threw himself upon the indulgence of that House while he begged to make a few observations upon the question before them. He begged leave to state the grounds upon which he thought it right to vote for the motion of the Noble Lord. In his (Mr. E.'s) opinion the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, had discussed a question that ought not then have been discussed at all. He agreed, however, with him that that House was then sitting as a Court of Parliament, adjudging in the matter of the Messrs. Hansard as to whether they were called upon to protect him in his rights while acting as a servant of this House, alai in obedience to its orders. His Learned Friend who had preceded him had argued against the resolutions passed in that House in the month of May, 1837, and that the print ing whatsoever they pleased was a great evil and should not be continued. The publication of Hansard was adjudged by a Jury sworn to try the record to be per fectly true so far as the charge related to Mr. Stock dale. Mr. Hansard was occupied in printing what he thought he had a right to do, and, in his (Mr. Earle's) opinion, a man was perfectly justified in printing every thing that. he could establish to be true.—(Murmurs.) They were endeavouring to protect the servant of the House of Commons in an act perfectly lawful as far as the Common Law was concerned, It was well known that Mr. Stockdale was a person who dealt in libels of the most disgusting description. The question, he (Mr. Earle) considered, was confined in much narrower space than what the gentlemen who argued on the other side would wish them to believe. A great part of the debate was occupied in establishing the fact of its being absolutely necessary to have published whatever the House of Commons thought advisable, and many of the Members who had preceded him had, in the most eloquent and unanswerable manner, proved that it was of the utmost import ince to that House that their rights amid privileges should b,.! protected. He would not attcrnp to weaken those arguments by going over the same ground. It public opinion be kept in a healthful state, it is absolutely necessary and conducive to the general interests of the country that it should obtain the utnaost circulation possi ble ; but if' the public mind became diseased by bigotry,in tolerance, or prejudice, it was calculated to poison the eery fountains of justice, and lead but to anarchy and contusion.—(Hear, hear.) It was an undoubted pri vilege of that House, and vitally necessary, that they should give every info7mation concerning its proceedings. to the community at large—the right of proceeding in that course had always been nobly defended by the House of Commons, which also possessed the power of adjudiet ting on those privileges, whether they arose; from the direct act of the particular party, or by the in- direct act of that party resorting to illegal measures, The great contest of those who opposed the motion of the Noble Lord and those who supported him was. , , whether that House had the power of judging of,, what their privileges were, or whether they ,were,,, bound to appeal to, or t a k e t h e advice from, another quarter. If they looked at the history of the„ House of Commons, they would see whether,. that privilege r t a t b e o % t i l l : e I . , o r;, d ' existed or not. Before he would consider:..the evils that rightswould andarise prigin :l e g allowing es, he a, . n v y ou o l t d ile s e it fin p e oin t t hr o ir r their consideretion : how any such right s ;: e l e the Judges.--(Laughter.) He begged r'ia e a vested r n i n back to the tone when the House of COO-mons fli.ttslesten parated from the other branch of the, legislation, in the I reign of Henry the Third.—(Hear, bear.) B efore they allowed any matters regarding their privilege s to be questioned by the Judges; they assembled and con , tended for their rights to hold and adjudicate upon their own privileges. Such privileges they considered most essential to the due performance of their func tions.—( Hear, hear.) It was contended by the Mem bers on the other side of that House whether the privileges really existed or not, and that the Judges before whom it was . brought were the most corn petent umpires. He (Mr. Earle) appealed to the time of George 111., when the Judges were removeable at any moment. It might be in the recollection of every Hon. Gentle Man in that House, that there were then on the Bench' characters who were remarkable not merely for 1116 grossest servility, but stained with a guilt of a much deeper dye. He need scarcely say he alluded to Jeffreys—a name known in all history for the infamy of his judicial conduct. Unquestionably, from such quarters,a decision of those rights upon which the interests of the people depend would not be calcu lated to render their proceedings actuated by the best and most equitable motives.—(Cheers.) It was not, therefore, probable that the privileges of the House of Commons could take-their rise from such a source. Although that remfatk might not then be applicable, they were bound.to'consider the possibility of having at a future time Judges on the bench of that description. —( Hear.) Under the reign in which they at present lived, there was; it was true, no danger of such appointments being made, but the Sovereign of the country might alter.— (Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.) But, supposing a man to be on the Throne of England, whose mind was debased by the most into lerant bigotry—(Cheers) —and his conduct influenced by the most despotic and tyrannical motives—(Cheers) — would not such a man be anxious to find out convenient instruments to carry his vile and infamous views iuto effect ? Human nature might be altered from what it was, then would not such individuals be pretty arbitrators in defining the privileges of that House, and, of course, upon whom the liber ties of this country would depend ?—(Great cheering.) In contending that the privileges of that House be left to the decision of the Courts of Law, it appeared that it was possible such a state of things as he described might exist. This House, then, was mot pe remptorily called upon to contend for their own rights, pri vileges,and prerogatives, as their functions depended upon the maintenance of such claims. He would ask how it was possible that that House could know whether the arbitrators of their privileges would decide in their favour or otherwise, if they yielded them to the powers of the Court of Queen's Bench ? It Stock dale should bring his action for false imprisonment, Chief Justice Denman had stated the right of ques tioning the opinions of the other Judges. The free dom of speech was the very essence of their privileges. In the time of Charles the First it was decided that the control of :their own privi leges lay in their own hands, and any observations made by Members of that House were exempted from any inquiry after the Session was over " Se cundum more Parliamentorium." The Learned At torney-General, for his powerful exertions to support the privileges of that House, had been attacked in the grossest and most abusive manner, but he (Mr. Earle) thought he was entitled to the thanks of the country for the manner in which he acted. In the time of Richard 11. the question was put—" What did a Member deserve, who, instead of discussirea the subject before the House, brought for ward other motions, calculated to reflect on the charac ter of other individuals ?" The answer then given was—" That such Members deserved to be put to death."—(Hear.) The Judges' names were given in history. Was it not possible to have such another ex ample if that House submitted to the judgment of the Courts of Law ? He did not mean to say that it was likely that any case of that extent could occur, but if they had even a bad King to rule over them they might find Judges closely resembling those of Richard the Second.—(Cries of " No, no.") If any Member de parts from his trust, or surrenders his privileges, they would be gone for ever from them to another tribunal to decide on them. It was, therefore, of the greatest im portance to maintain the right of deciding for themselves. It appeared to him that the power of the House to vindicate its own privileges, was also most important to be maintained. In case of the breach of the privileges of the House, by the direct act. of any party, it was the usage of Parliament to vindicate those privileges, and of course a privilege must be vindicated by the party possessing it ; but if he was obliged to go to another power he was at its mercy ; but to a breach of privilege by an indirect course of attack on the privi leges of the people, by means of the law, he begged more particularly to call the attention of the House. It did not `aPpear. tit - •-tiim Honourable Members were aware of the extent-they were running to by contending in the manner they had done,: that if any roan chose to question at law the privileges of the House, he had a right to do it, and they were bound to go into a Court of Law and answer him there, and take the judgment of any tribunal the party chose to drag them to.— (Hear, hear.) He begged the House to look at the consequences of this. He would not now consider the case of Mr. Stockdale ; but would ask the House to consider, supposing it had been in the exercise of an unquestionable right at Common Law —he said Common Law because they argued falsely in treating the law of Parliament as such—(Hear, hear) if that principle were established, let them look further at the consequences, and although aware that he was speaking rather technically, it was important for the House to know the consequences of the step taken. The point for consideration was whether the privileges Parliament claimed were law. It was now half the question what was the power of the law. Take it that a Member had made a statement in the House respecting the misconduct of some public functionary, charging him with gross delinquency, and the person so charged brought aa action for slander against him—had the House the right to say that their privilege of uttering what they pleased was not to be worked out in a Court of Law, to restrain the proceed ings, and to say that if the party obtained judgment against them they would send him to prison and all who assisted him ; or must the Speaker go into Court and meet him there ? If he must, this justification must be pleaded, that the Members had spoken the slander in his place in the House, then the party would have the right to deny that justification, and the Member would be called upon to prove that he did so speak it. Probably Hon. Members thought nothing was more easy. He took it the party came, w hich advised and had got an examined copy of the return. It was unlaw fully stated in the House, that by the privilege of the House of Commons, it had the sole right of deciding who should sit in it, and the point must be decided by bringing the electors into Court, and supposing the majority should say," we voted against you, you are not our Member ;" and perhaps some question arose respecting bribery, were Hon. Members prepared to say that any person who complained of such an act done in Parliament had not the right to moot it in a Court of Law, and that it was not liable to be there examined ? He wouldtake the liberty of putting another case: supposing any Member when coming into the House, for some cause, was assaulted by a person in the lobby, this was undoubtedly a breach of privilege. The Member would probably come into the House and state what happened. The man, he presumed, would be immediately committed by the Speaker, and taken to prison. Now lied that man a right to contest, in any way the law permitted, the validity of that commitment —had he the right to bring his action against ail Members who voted for his commitment ? If the House met him in a Court of Law, he (Mr. Earle) would defy any Member to point out to them any other mode than that of going to a special pleader and to trial ; and if he deemed the Jury were preju diced against him, he would htive the right to bri. his action in any co unty h e m i g h t choose—nay; the same man might go before the Grand Jury 'tit the Quarter Sessions, and indict the Speaker and eters such Member for assault.—(Hear.) And in cases of excitement—he put an extreme case—if they were bound to go into a Court such as that of the Old Bailey, mid liable to be harassed in the manner he had men tioned, surely it 'was essential to the performance of the functions that such a wrong doer ought not to have this power. If it was said the Attorney-General had power to stop any prosecution, he asked was the power of the House to depend upon the discretion of tbe At torney. General for the time bring ? and if Stockdale— he put that case—could get a bill found against the Hon. Member in the chair, by the grand jury of the county, he knew of no way of getting rid of it at Common Law but by giving bail at the sessions, and saying—" I am Speaker of the House of Commons, and com mitted that man in the execution of my duty," and it would be sail that is a question to go to the Jury who might he violently prejudiced, they would have the right to decide thereon. Now, on every one of those libels for which Stockdale brought his action, he might indict the Speaker by whose authority they were published (and it was not improbable he would adopt that mode), and there would be no defence. He prayed, therefore, Hon.. Members who said they were bound to meet in a Ceuri of Law any complaint against the House of Com mons, to say if they were prepared to go this length, or adopt a .course that would prevent them from being so harassed ? What had been said about the hardship to the Sheriffs in the present case ? Much bad been said about preventing the Judges from giving answers to que s ti ons put to them; the Houe would perceive the judgment of the Court could do no harm unless carried into execution. The party was not incommoded until the Sheriff came to execute the writ. It was known that in the case of a writ against the person of any Member, the Sheriff would for bear to execute it, on account of his privilege as a Mem ber, and the Court would hold that by the Common Law he had undoubtedly this privilege. Much bad been also said about Stockdale having recovered judgment, and it was stated that judgment by default, was an admission that many bad been committed, but Hon. Members had omitted to state a material exception to that rule. It was tree if wrong admitted the wrong, without meaning to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court. This was a known rule of 1 ie, but he could refer the House to a case in which he was himself cone,-rn-d in whit h Judges said that it was eke;, if the. defend.int had omitted to give his answer, intending to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court, this was no evidence of wrong. —( Hear, hear, hear.) And, therefore, would it be contended that if the House withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Courts, it was beggi ,g the question to say . that they admitted . the perpetual T heherfri occurrence s ee P c a u u t s i e n o a f apna painful l o n s t a u g a a t i i n o s n t , t b h u e t S o h n e e r l o ff f s in the office, to be put between contending parties, and they were bound to make their election, and if they decided wrong, they did it at their peril.—% Hear, hear.) He be lieved there was not a Member who voted with the Noblo Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, who would not lament anything harsh that might be done to the Sheriffs, but if it was a question deeply co ncerning ages yet to come, he thought it should not be affected by any personal feeling towards those gentlemen.—( Hear, hear.) Much had been said ab out t h e popu l ar ity of this measure ; he believed no H on . M em b er wou ld say this subject should affect himself. Th e house w as part of the nation, and they need not fear the House of Commons would be injured by unpopularity ; and i f th e House maintained the rights of the people, it must b e suppor ted by the voice of the people. He asked the Ri g h t Honourable Baronet ( Sir R. Inglis) who repeatedly menaced them with violence, if they persevered, whether it was not their duty as in dependent representives of the House of Commons to I defend this most invaluable privilege ? This was his con scientious opinion, to state which he bad felt it to be his duty to trespass upon the attention of the House. Lord TEIG NM 0 UT [I explained. Mr. D'ISRAEL I took the opportunity of expressing the reason for which he gave his vote. The lion. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Earle) had referred to the con duct of the Judges, from the time of Charles the First. It would have been but fair if he had also referred to the conduct of the House of Commons, He need not re fer to instmices familiar to the House. Let them not forget that the House of Commons, in that favoured age to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded, had appointed a Committee to confiscate, by their arbi trary decision, the estates of the gentlemen of England ; and that members of that Committee purchased those estates at a price fixed by themselves. That was the pri vilege of that House in the age of Charles the First. Let them remember that the House of Corn mons, in that same age, declared that any definition of the Trinity contrary to the opinion of the majority, was a breach cf privilege, and that a fanatic quaker, for entertaining his own religious opinion, was by their order branded with a hot iron, and, still persisting in his contumacy, had his tongue cut out. Let them re member that the same House of Commons had sent eight of the Judges to prison one morning for breach of privilege, and shortly after meeting for transac tion of business, and finding nothing to do, but a conside rable sum of money in the Exchequer, voted it should be divided among the Members of the House. But the Honourable Gentleman said human nature was always the same ; they had had a Jeffreys and a Scroggs upon the Bench—( Hear, hear)—and would they trust Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Pave on? Let him consider the Judges were now independent of the Crown. The House of Commons was as powerful now as it had ever been, not less independent, and for its ambition he would himself answer. Although a Layman, he differed with tho Learned Ge m _ tleman—(oll, oh, and laughter)—he differed with the Hon. Gentleman on a point of law, and he was supported by the words of a Lord Chancellor. The Learned Gen tleman quoting an argument that had fallen from the No b'e Lord, the Member for Stroud, for what office the No ble Lord filled he ( Mr. D'l. ) did not know.—( Laughter. ) But it was not his fault that he was kept in ignorance ; that Noble Lord had laid it down that that House was the sole and only judge of its own privileges. Now, he held in his hand a book, to which he was astouished that the Learned Attorney-General, in that sp'.endid and learned oration which he had addressed to the Bench in another place, had not alluded, nor had any one of the Learned Gentlemen opposite referred to the passage, was a very long one, and he was sorry teat he had not weight enough in the Hou e to entitle him to read it all— it was the fourth book of the rebellion, and it would well repay a perusal from Gentlemen on either side. In it Lord Clarendon ridiculed the idea that the House of Commons alone was the judge of its own privileges, other than those privileges which were recognised by law. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had met the question in a very bold manner, and he had at once placed it on the plea of necessity. But what did that prove ? It did not prove that the law was different than it was formerly—it merely proved that it might be expe dient to alter the law. If that resolution were passed, what became of the privileges of the other two branches of the Legislature. But he would at once tell the Minis try, that if they would dare to put their reasons on the face of the committal, he would vote with them.—( Hear, hear.) He knew they would not—he knew they dared not, because it was only by omitting them that they stopped the power of the Courts. In his mind, and it was the general opinion out of doors, the resolutions if carried would have the effect of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act—( Cries of " Oh, oh")—and then what would become of the liberties of the people ? It was a question which would not have excited the public mind in any way had it not been that the people felt their liberties were deeply involved in it. All sides agreed that the case had been blundered in from first to last. Only fancy the man ner in which the men who were now sending Sheriffs to their cells and bullying the Judges on the bench had ma naged their case. The Hon. and Learned Attorney-Ge neral had so managed, or rather mismanaged, his case as absolutely to have created a feeling in favour of Stock . dale. Stockdale should have been as nothing—he should have been allowed to remain as a scarecrow, or a man of straw. But the Attorney-General had, by inquiring into his life, given him a notoriety far above his deserts. Not con tented with that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin got up as if he had been addressing 500,000 fighting men laugh)—and by his questioning obliged Stockdale to admit that he had been convicted of publishing obscene books. Before entering into that subject it would have been well for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to have consulted the journals of that House, for then they would have found that a man who had been convicted of a false, foul, scandalous, and obscene libel—a man whom twelve of his countrymen had convicted of a crime, he would call it—was subsequently returned to that Houae as a Member for a metropolitan county. Nay, not only so, he not only entered into hostilities with the House of Commons, but he beat them, and compelled them to erase from their jour. nals that very resolution by which they bad expelled him. The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had a horror of erasing resolutions of 1836 and 1837 from their Journals. By so doing they w o uld stultify themselves he said. He wished' the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been with them on his side of the House when the Appropriation principle was thrown overboard—(A laugh)—for he be lieved that the Hon. and Le,:rned Gentleman was one of those who stultified themselves by throwing that principle overboard. The parties were as nearly equally balanced in 1640 as they were in 1840. The remonstrance, Lord Clarendon said, was carried by nine voices, and lie added, by the cavaliers who absented themselves. He trusted that would be a lesson to Gentlemen on his side the House upoe an occasion that would soon present itself —(Loud laughter) —and he saw nothing in the present House of Commons which would induce him to trust it more than the Parliament of former times. He admitted the law of Parliament was supreme, but there was a vast distinction between the law of Parliament and the law of the House of Commons, and he for one would lift up his voice, weak though it was, against the latter overruling the former, well knowing what would be the result. He would oppose such an attempt on the part of the House of Commons, as be neither wished his property to be segues trated—( Laughter) his person tortured, nor a held usurper walking up to the table of the House, and ordering that bauble (poin.ing to the Mace) to be removed. Mr. CeessweLn and Mr. EARLS severally explained upon a point of law. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT would not at that late hour of the night detain the House long, but he was un willing to give a silent vote upon a question of such para mount importance. He thought that the great preponde rance of the common sense of the debate was against the resolutions—nor did he yet think that the safety and liberty of the people of England were so entirely at the mercy of a resolution of the House of Commons. Nor did he ever hope to see a vote of that House overrule the law of the land, which had been made so by an agreement of the two Houses of the Legislature, sanctioned by the Crown. Such a principle would be so subversive of all principles of justice, and of the English Constitution ; that he could not allow it to go to a vote without expressing his strong sense of the impropriety of the course which the House was pursuing.—( Hear.) It reminded him of the words of Macbeth before he had murdered Duncan ; " He's here in double trust, First as my Sovereign—then, as my guest, I should against the murderer bar the door, Not bear the knife myself." The people of England might reply to this, but it was the sole duty—the paramount duty of the House of Com mons to administer impartial justice and individual liberty to every English subject. When the Commons interfered with the officers, in his (Sir F. Burdett's) opinion that was a proceeding incompatible with its dignity, and with its exercise of powers. If that House chose to assert its privileges let it manfully assert them—let it assert them in a way in which they had been frequently and success fully asserted, and let it assert them in the same manner as when he once had the honour of a contest with that House, and in which they were manifestly wrong, and had not the least foundation to stand on. Why did he (Sir F. Burdett) then resist the Speaker's warrant ?—why did he declared that it was no warrant, and why did he stand a siege of the whole House ? Why, because be would not submit to the illegality and tyranny of a House of Com mons, and because he was sure there was no legal instru ment by which the order that had been issued could be enforce How had the privileges of Parliament arisen ? It was not at such a very great distance of time—it was only since the time of the civil war, when privileges were introduced and made a wall against prerogative. Till that time, privileges enabled Members to do their duty to the public with security to their persons and property. The privilege then was that the Crown should be restrained from attempting and assuming to itself that which the House now assumed to itself. It was that which produced the civil war—it was that which subverted the Constitution, brought a King to the scaffold, and intro duced those privileges which have since become so neces sary to the public welfare. The great cause of the dis turbanco in the reign of Charles the First was, whether he should have the power to commit —the q uestion now was whether the House should have the same power, ?—( Hear, hear.) Why, the Hoe. and Learned Attorney-General had stated the most strange position be had ever hoard. It was that the Bill of Rights g ave this power, whereas it only referred to the freedom of Members of Parliament. " And now (said the Hon. Baronet suddenly) what is all this about ?"—( Shouts of laughter, and " 'Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The dignity of the House was concerned, it was said, but he (Sir Francis) would say, " that it was good to have a giant's stre,ngth, but. t it a gi was tyrannous to use it like the," Liberator," This privilege, forsooth, was supported by .—(Che ) —a man who for so many years had followed the maxim " Put money in my curse."—( Cheers from the Opposi tion, and cries of " Order" from the Ministerial benches.) What he ( Sir Francis Burdett) said wa s, let their privi leges be defined, a nd let th em be made la w, but do not le t any men build up privile ges for t h e mselves.—(Cheers. Where was the indignity, h e as ked, in that definition of the privileges for them ? Th ey would be in a situation to assert them more manfully and boldly.—(Cheers.) He (Sir Francis) remembered the expression that was current in the Revolution among Danton and Robespierre—that expression was the motto of the former celebrated revo lutionist—it was " L'audace encore, toujours l'audace." But this was not the doctrine for a British Attorney-Ge neral, for such language had never been heard from the Learned Attorney-General o pposite.—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord opposit e h a d b een pleased to state that was law which was delivered from the Treasury Bench, or in fact from the majority of the House of Commons; he (Sir Francis), how ever , would rather take the law from the Queen's Bench,__( Hear, and loud cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had at Edin burgh congratulated the country on its tranquillity, when in fact, it was upon a slumbering volcano, which had since broken out with a violen ce f ar beyond that of those tern poray disturbances whi c h us ed to be made a standing Whig argument against the Wellington-Peel Govern_ ! ment.—( Opposition cheers, and cries of " Question' from the iVlinlsterialists.) The Ministry had, under pre tence of maintaining the dignity of the House, and sup porting its privileges—when, in fact, both were never in a worse position ; they had got to what in America was called "point no point," that is, a situation in which the further they approached, the more were they removed from their object.--( Hear, hear.) The whole ques'ion might be summed up in the emphatic words of Cicero—" Privile giunz perm:. iosum ; quod hoc minusjerre possit." Nothing could be mord usurped, nothing more pernicious, nothing more unbearable, than this privilege. What were they now called on to do? To crush the innocent—to punish men for doing what their duty compelled them to do, in a strictly Ministerial capacity.—(Opposition cheers.) And this was supported by the " Agitator" forsooth—it might be Irish justice—it was not English justice.—(Question.) But what did that person know of justice ?—( Question, and Hear, hear.) What did it matter, whether the per son bringing the action in this case was the most " unac countable vagabond "—( Laughter)—the more unworthy he was ; the greater honour to the justice of the laws which protected him. Stockdale had dared to appeal to law. Why the Attorney-General, particeps criminis, had like wise appealed to the law. And truly, there was nothing in that course at all compromising the dignity of the House. Privilege, under proper limitations, ought to be supported, but not that tyranny which only assumed the name.—( Cheers. ) Mr. O'CONNELL said, to borrow a phrase from the Hon. Baronet, he could not help asking " What is ell this about?"—(Laughter, and cheers.) The Hon. Baronet had been going about—and about—and about everything, but had touched little indeed.—(Cheers.) As to his parenthetical attack upon himself, he (Mr. O'Connell) could forgive him. To be sure he once had been afflicted with the praise of :he erratic Baronet—(Laughter)—that, he trusted, he would never again be troubled with. He could forgive anything but the Hon. Baronet's praise.— (Cheers, and laughter.) Now tie Hon. Baronet had made a long tirade about tyranny and resolutions, and so on. Why, the Honourable Baronet was in an awkard position—the very " point-no-point" of which he accused the Ministers—( Laughter)—for on the Ist August, 1839, the Hon. Baronet supported this Resolution in Polack's case—" That to bring any action for the publica tion of papers ordered to be published by this House is a breach of privilege."—(Loud cheering.) And the Hon. Baronet had made a short speech on that occasion—a very unusual thing, by-the-bye, with the Hon. Baronet— (Laughter)—and what was still more remarkable, it was a rational speech.—(Laughter, and cries of " Order" from the Opposition.) The Hon. Baronet said—" The House ought to possess every privilege necessary for its proceedings.—( Cheering from both sides of the House.) The privileges of the House were not intended to be used as powers of oppression against other persons."—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Were Hon. Gentlemen opposite surprised at a little inconsistency in the Hon. Baronet ?—(Cheers, and laughter from the Ministerial benches.)—" But should be used as a protection for the House against the exorbitant power of the Crown, and to secure the exercise of free discussion and the agitation of Parliament."--( Hear.) The agitation of Parliament, whatever that might mean, was a phrase of the Hon. Baronet's own.—(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then continued the quotation.) "It cer tainly was never intended that these privileges should be used for the private purposes of Members ; and the privi vilege of exemption of arrest from the payment of their debts, was undoubtedly a privilege of this nature. But," and he begged Hon. Gentlemen opposite for a while to lend him their ears—(Loud laughter)—" he considered the House to have all powers necessary for the welfare of the public, and therefore he should not oppose this reso lution."--(Cheers and laughter.) Hon. Members had in terrupted him; ho would, however, now proceed to finish his quotation from the speech of the Hon. Baronet. " Which he thought natural and consistent with a proper respect for the liberty of the subject."—( Immense cheering.) He would now make his bow to the Hon. Baronet until his next wheel about.----( Loud cheering.) • - Sir FRANCIS BURDETT was not answerable for the reports of the Hon. and Learned Member, nor did he feel himself bound by the quotation of words without the context—( Laughter)—but he really could see no incon sistency at all in it.—( Roars. of laughter.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and tho House divided, when the numbers were— For Mr. Kelly's motion Against it ... Majority -111 The resolution of Lord John Russell for taking the Sheriffs into custody, was then put from the Chair. Mr. H. KEMBLE feared that the most serious con sequences would result from the course they were pur suing, and that the privileges of the House would be most materially injured. One very important feature had been almost wholly forgotten in the course of the debate, viz., that in the action that was brought against the House in 1838, the Attorney-General had been ordered to defend it. They were about to commit to prison men who were de servedly popular—who were the first men in the county, and who held office, not from the Crown, but from the people ; and they were about to send them to prison, when it had been admitted, on all hands, that their conduct bad been most honourable—when they had manifested no disposition to act contemptuously towards the House, but, on the contrary, had done eve r ythi n g in their power to support the privileges of that House. The House having on a former occasion sanctioned the payment of damages in an action brought against it, it would be an act of the most flagrant injustice if, with that example before their eyes, the Sheriffs should be committed to prison. If the House did that, it would damage itself with the country. There was a strong feeling on the part of the country that they were advancing pretensions injurious to the liberty of the subject. Whatever feelings might be entertained with respect to the privileges of that House, he had seen enough in the examinations that had taken place upon that floor —( Opposition cheers)—to believe that the privileges which they arbitrarily possessed themselves of were arbitrarily exercised. (Renewed cheering.) He had seen, when the witness —or whatever he was —for they did not know what to call him—he had seen, when that party endeavoured to protect him self from the consequences of answering certain questions, he was told that they were not to be bound by the techi calities of a Court of Law. He trusted that these techni calities, as they were called, which were the great protec tion of the liberty of the subject, would be long preserved to them.—( Hear, hear ) When he looked at recent events—when he considered that men who had been found with arms in their hands, waging war against their Queen, had been allowed a copy of the indictment, had exercised the privilege of challenging the Jury, and when on the other hand he saw a man brought to the bar and questioned in a way which no Court of Justice would have suffered—when he found that his accuser was his judge, and not only his judge, but his gaoler—when he found that instead of committing him to one of the Queen's gaols, which was under the superintendence of the magis uates, they had committed him to what he understood from the papers on the table was called the cell of the House of Commons—he could not sufficiently express his indignation at the whole of their proceedings, and lie should give his most decided opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. GODSON said he was not about to trouble the House at any length on a subject so much debated, but to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the present con. duct of those whom they had condemned, and whom they were about to punish. With respect to the decision of the House, he bowed to the decision of the majority, as he was bound to do ; but still, whatever might be his opinion of their privileges, he was convinced that so long as the law made libel an indictable offence, they could no more legalize it than they could other crimes. In his judgment, they had no more right to violate the law than the lowest subject in her Majesty's dominions. He would now ask them to attend for one single mo ment, to the personal conduct of the two gentlemen whom they were about to commit. On Saturday 'night the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had told the House that the conduct of the Sheriffs had been most honourable. All gentlemen on the other side of the House, whether Reformers, Whigs, Radicals, or Chartists, had proclaimed, bad agreed in that opinion. The Noble Lord who had conducted the prose cution, with the assistance of the Attorney-General, seeing that the feeling of the House was so strongly in favour of the Sheriffs, had taken time to consider what they should do in consequence of the supposed breach of privilege which had been committed. They had found that they could not punish the Sheriffs for acting as ho nourable men, and therefore a new mode of proceeding was invented ; and the Sheriffs were entrapped into a new breach of privilege. It was plain that it was not for the first charge against them, but for the second that they were about to be committed. Up to Saturday the conduct of the Sheriffs, in the opinion of the House, had been most honourable---they had del s yed as much as possible execu tion of the writ they were charged with—they had given the House every opportunity that could be afforded of its privileges, and were they now, he would ask, to be pu nished for having thus acted in a manner so blameless? The House had unanimously applauded their conduct, and should not now show itself too ready to treat them with severity. The present Parliament might not, for a long time, be dissolved, and the motion of the Noble Lord would, perhaps, condemn the Sheriffs to eight or nine months' imprisonment, while it was ad mitted that their conduct was honourable, just, and proper. Could the House think that this was a due exercise of their power, or that it was tempering justice with mercy ? It could not be supposed that those Gen tlemen, when once committed, would come forward and beg of the House to release them. If they should be com mitted to-night the consequence would be that to-morrow the rule might be argued, and in all probability the Court of Queen's Bench, seeing the second resolution of the House, might refuse to make the rule absolute. He asked of the House to delay its proceedings, and it might thus be enabled to give those men an opportunity of avoiding unmerited punishment—time should be given, and the matter might come less embarrassed before them again. He wished briefly to trace the consequence which would follow if the rule was made absolute that the She riffs sho - uld pay over the money. They would not pay it till an attachment was directed againt them. That attachment would be directed to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, as Coroner for the County of Middlesex. He (Mr. Godson) supposed, from the opinions that Hon. Gentleman had ex pressed, that he would refuse, in that case, to attach the Sheriffs • he would then re f use to obey an order of the Court of Queen's Bench. If the lion. Gentleman should be then taken into custody, as he would be, the privileges of the House would be violated in the person of one of its Members. The Hon. Member for Finsbury would then appeal to that Hour, complaining that he had been taken into custody, and calling to be released. He warned the House against these embarrassments, and he would conclude by moving that the debate h. adjourned to that day week. Sir E. SUGDEN hoped that his Hon. Friend would see the necessity of withdrawing his motion. Every possible opportunity for consideratiou had been given the House, and it had shown great patience in investigating the matter. A time should come, in any case, when the wishes of the majority of the House should be oarried into effect ; and he hoped that his Hon. Friend would enable the House, at once, to come to a decision. Mr. GODSON said that after what had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, he would not persevere with his amendment. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when on the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL (that the Sheriffs be com mitted) there appeared— For the motion 195 Against it 94 Majority . . .. —lol Lord J. RUSSELL then stated that in the course of these proceedings, he (Lord J. Russell) had been called the prosecutor in the case. He would merely observe in reference to that remark, that he had been requested to present Messrs. Hansard's petition with which of course he considered it his duty to comply. That was all he had to do with the prosecution. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the order of the House requiring the attendance of the Under- Sheriffs at the Bar, be discharged, which was agreed to. His Lordship then moved that Thomas Howard, Stock dale's attorney, be called to the bar. Mr. Howard then appeared at the bar. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Were you attorney in the action of Stockdale v. Hansard ? Mr. LAW moved that the question be not put.— (Cheers.) It was a step antecedent to punishment, and if the House wished to keep up even a semblance of jus tice they would not at so late an hour commence a new case of such a nature. It was then twelve o'clock. Members had been detained in the House until half-past three o'clock in the morning. They were fatigued with the argument which had been ad dressed to them, and it was a most unseasonable hour to proceed. They had imprisoned the plaintiff—they were about to imprison the attorney. In fact, looking at the state of proceedings in the case they were about to snatch a judgment in the absence of the party and his legal ad viser. If the question were persisted in he would persist in motions for adjournment.—(Cheers.) Sir E. SUDGEN was entirely against punishing the attorney ; they had not ventured to call the Counsel in the cause to the bar--( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers) — arid he was just as much guilty of a breach of privilege as any one. Mr. BL E WITT rose to order amidst much confusion, which was for a moment put an end to by The SPEAKER saying the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman was quite in order. Sir E. SUGDEN was about observing that the House dared not call the Counsel to the bar. Mr. BLE WITT again rose to order, and the confusion was renewed. The SPEAKER said if an Hon. Member persisted in interrupting another Hon. Member when he was quite in order, he must say he was acting against the rules of the House.—( Cheers. ) Mr. BLE WITT begged pardon if he had been dis orderly, but he thought he had been quite in order.— ( Cries of " Chair, chair," and laughter, amid which the Hon. Member sat down.) Sir E. SUGDEN then resumed. It was very desir able that the House should then separate.—(Cheers.) He was altogether against punishing the attorney—they had not called the Counsel to the bar, and they dared not do so.—(Cheers.) Mr. Burchell and Mr. France had been a long time in attendance and apparent peril : the latter had been called, but the former had not been called to the bar ' - and why ? Because he acted as a Judge, and they dared not.—( Cheers. ) Mr. O'CONNELL rose to order. That was not the question that they were now discussing. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN then said, that there never was anything more relevant, because the ques tion was, whether the witness was to be examined or not.—(Cries of " No, no," from the Ministerial side of the House.) If he (Sir E. Sugden) were opposed, he would persist in a dj ournmen t to the latest hour in the morning. Was not the vengeance of the House satisfied? Lord JOHN RUSSELL now rose to order amidst immense cheers from the Ministerial side of the House. lie thought the best method that could be adopted w.s never' to allude to any expressions that had fallen re proachful to the Government. But after the House had come to a vote, impelled by a conscientious sense of duty, he asked, was it not disrespectful to the House for any Hon. Member to ask whether the vengeance of the House were satisfied ?—(Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Sir EDWARD SUGDEN again rose, and said that in proceedings like the present many Hon. Gentlemen were hurried into expressions which at their cooller mo ments they regretted. In his opinion it was not worthy of the House to pursue the attorney of the plaintiff'. Were not their privileges satisfied by what had already been done ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir E. Sugden) could tell them that the universal voice of Westminster Hall was against them.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," front the Ministerial side of the House.) And if they now seized the plaintiff's attorney, they would turn round and seize a judgment. He therefore trusted the Noble Lord would not object to the motion then under discussion. The Right Hon. Baronet then concluded by stating that it was his intention, at a proper opportunity, to move that the Sheriffs be discharged. Mr. GODSON reminded the Government that Baron Smith had been accused of trying prisoners after twelve at night.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Mr. O'CONNELL thought this somewhat irrelevant— ( Hear, and laughter.) The only question was whether the particular query objected to should be put, and he saw nothing in it differing from the ordinary practice.—( Hear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL said if any number, however small, of Hon. Members, thought the time too late—( Hear, hear)—he bad no objection to postpone further proceed ings.—( Hear, hear.) But as to the general question of the committals, he must say he considered them the only means the House possessed of vindicating their pri vileges.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir E. KNATCHBULL put it to the Noble Lord if the question could be considered decent under all the cir cumstances. Lord J. RUSSELL understood the Right Hon. Gen tleman to say that he should persist in his opposition, if the question were brought forward this evening. Sir E. SUGDEN would resort to every means in his power to oppose the motion for the commitment of the at torney, whenever it should be brought forward. Lord J. RUSSELL would not enter into such a con test at that hour of the night. Mr. DARBY would assist in any opposition to the mo. tion of commitment. Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would persist in his motion, as otherwise men of straw might be set up to oppose the privileges of the House, which would not be the case if the attorney were rendered responsible. Str R. INGLIS thought that to be consistent in their misdeeds they should com m it every p erson w h o h a d t a k e n a part in these transactions.—( Hear, hear.) He would assist by every means in his power in defeating what ho considered the injustice of the House. Why had they not had the courage to visit the Counsel in the case with their—he supposed he must not call it vengeance —as well as the attorney ? Whatever might be the consea quences, they must be visited upon the heads of her Ma jesty's Government; but he trusted the House would not lend itself to any similar proceedings. Mr. WAKL EY thought it was to be regretted that, in a solemn case like the presnit , one side of the House should be constantly imputing improper motives to the other. He was surprised to hear such expressions as vengeance, and that the Hon. Baronet should impute deliberate injustice to those who differed from him. He himself thought that Hon. Members opposite believed . they were acting consist ently with what they deemed the ir duty to the country. He could not but recollect that when a motion was made in that House at the close of the Session, the object of which was to effect the delivery of Thorogood, who had been incarcerated from January to July for contempt of the Ecclesiastial Court, because he had a conscientious scruple against appearing to a citation of that C ourt f or the non-payment of five shillings Church -rates, the Hon. Baronet was the party who opposed that motion, who divided the House against it, and who persisted in his opposition to the last, and yet he would ail who on that side of the House had accused the Hon. Baronet of deliberate injustice, or being actuated by motives of ven geance, in the course which he had thought it right to pur sue. —( Cheers. ) After a few words from Lord ELIOT and Mr. FRENCH, Lord J. RUSSELL moved that Mr. B. Howard do attend to-morrow. Mr. KELLY could not assent to the motion, and should take every step the rules of the House would allow him to oppose what seemed to him the punishment of parties merely from arbitrary caprice.—( Cries of " Order.") The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member must be aware that such language was unparliamentary. Mr. KELLY said no Member of the House was more unwilling to attribute arbitrary caprice to the Noble Lord than himself, and begged to withdraw the expression. He should, however, give the motion for bringing that party to the bar, or committing him to custody, every opposition in his power. Mr. LAW moved as an amendment to the Noble Lord's motion that the House do now adjourn. Mr. E LLIS said the Noble Lord had given them no precedent for the course he was nnw pursuing. Lord J. RUSSELL said the plaintiff and attorney in an action bad been committed by the House of Lordp , . Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the adjournment .. For Lord John Russell's motion ll3 Majority in favour of the Ministry ----74 It was then ordered that Mr. James Burton Howard should attend at the bar of the House on the following evening. Mr;LABOUCHERE then moved that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject of Railways. Mr. PLUMPT RE suggested the propriety of such Committee being instructed to consider the propriety of having them stopped from going on the Lard's day. Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that he could not say whether that point formed part of the Committee on the subject the last Session, but he merely wished to have that Committee revived this Session. Mr. WARBURTON stated that if such a subject as that were to be considered, he would a:so hope that turn pikes and public roads be closed on the Lord's day. Mr. PRINGLE stated that they only required the pub lic traffic by the public railways to be stopped on the Sab bath day. Mr. HUME objected to such a motion being made, without ample notice be given. Committee appointed Mr. FINCH gave notice he would move the addition of Mr. Emerson Tennent's name to the Committee. COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS. Mr. E. TENNENT brought in his Bill for enlarging the copyright of designs for cotton printing, from three to twelve months. Mr. LABOUC HE RE hoped the second stage of the Bill would be deterred for some time, in order to give the trede an opportunity of becoming acquainted wi h i t s provisions. The LORD-ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the taw of heriots in Scotland. Mr. O'CONNELL moved for a return of the number of electors and the number of inhabitants in the different electoral districts in Ireland.—Agreed to. Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the commutation of tithes. On the 17th inst. BIRTHS. , at Stoughton Lodge Bedfordshire, the lady of J o h n Edward Venables Vernon, Of Clontarf Castle, Dublin, Esq., of a son. On the 16th inst. at Hellens, Much Marcie, Herefordshire, the lady of Robert Duffield Cooke, Esq., of a son and daughter. On the 18th inst., at Westall House, Cheltenham, the lady of Dr. Swiney, of a son. On the 18th inst., Mrs. J. E. Fox, of Finsbury circus, of a son, who survived only a few hours. On the 18th inst., at Potterne, Wilts, the lady of the Rev. Joseph Medlicott, of a son. On the 19th inst., in Albany-street, Regent's-park, Mrs. William Grimble, of a son. EVENING EDITION. THE SUN. LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1140. .EV ENING IN)111014. Mr. HUME moved for certain returns relative to Green. wick Hospital.—Agreed to. Lord CLE ',VIE NTS moved for returns relative to the times of holdin g the several Grand J u ri es sat f or th e dis charge of fiscal business at the several Assizes in Ireland. —Agreed to. SUPPLY. Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Committee of Supply. ANNUITY TO PRINCE ALBERT. SIBTHORP gave notice that he should move a pr vim), when the vote of 50,0001. per annum to Prince Albert, came before the House, in case he survived her Majesty, that if he resided six months consecutively out of England, or if he cont - acted marriage with any foreign Princess, or did not continue a Protestant, that the grant should cease and determine. Adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock. PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION. (Film] the Poles and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) FRIDAY, JAN. 17. PRIVILEGE OF THE COMMONS. Motion made, and question proposed, " That Joha Joseph Stockdale be, for the said contempt and a breach of privilege, committ•ci to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this Home, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accord ingly."—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That " to the end of the question, in order to add the words " in the case of Stockdale and Hansard, judgment having been suffered by default, this House is not in a condition to take further proceedings," instead thereof. Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."—The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, Abercromby, G. R. Fitzsimon, N. Adam, Admiral Flaetwood, H. Adare, Lord Fort, John Aglionby, H. A. Fremantle, Sir T. Ainsworth,lPeter French, F. Alton, R. Gisborne, T. Anson, Sir G. Gordon, Robert Archbold, Robert Gore, 0. J. It. Baring, F. T. Goulburn, H. Barnard, E. ON Graham, Sir James Beamish, F. B. Grattan, J. Bernal, It. Greig, 111. B wes, 'l'. Grey, Sir C. Blackburne, I. Grey, Sir G. Blair, J. Handley, H. Blake, M. J. Harcourt, G. G. Blake, W. J. Hardinge, Sir H. Blakemore, R. nestle, A. Blennerhassett, A. Hawes, B. Blewitt, Resinald Hawkins, J. H. Bolling, W. Hayter, W. G. Brabazon, Lord Heathcoat, John Bramston, I'. W. ise.lor, C. J. Bridgman, H. Hill, Lord A. M. C. Briscoe, J. Hinde, J. H. Broativvood, H. Hindley, Charles 13rocklehurst, J. Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Brodie, W. B. Hobhouse, T. B. Brotherton, J. Hodges, 'l'. L. Browne, It D. Hodgson, Richard Buller, C. Hope, Hon. C. Bulwer, Sir E L. Horsman F. Busleild, William Hoskins, K. Callaghan, D. Howard, F. J. Campbell, Sir J. Howard, P. H. Cavendish, Hon. C. Howick. Lord Cavendish, Hon. G. Hughes, W. B. Chapman, Sir M. L Hume, Joseph Chetwynd, Major Humphery, J. Chichester, J. P. E. Hutton, It. Childers, J. W. James, %V. Clay, . Jenkins, R. Clayton, Sir W. Jervis, J. Clements, Lord Labouchere, H. Clerk, Sir George Langdale, Hon. C. Collier, J. Lascelles, W. S. Collins, William Leader, .1. T. Colquhoun, J. C. Lemon, Sir C. Comp on, H. C. Lennox, Lord G. Conyngham, Lord A. Lister, E .C. Courtenay, Philip Loch, James Cowper, Hon W. Lushington, Hon. S. Craig, W. G. Lynch, A. H. Crompton, S. MacKenzie, W. F. Curry, W. Macnamara, W. Dashwood, G. H. Marshall, W. Denison, W. J. Maunsell, T. P. Divett, F. Melgu . d, Lord Donkin, Sir Rufane Mildmay, P. St. John Douglas, Sir C. E. Milne.:, Richard Dull; James Monypenuy, T. G. Duke, Sir James Mcrdaunt, Sir J. Dunbar, George Morpeth, Viscount Dundas, W. D. Morris, David Dundas, Frederick O'Brien, Cornelius Dundas, Sir R. O'Brien, W. Smith Du Pre, George 0 on. C. n Easthope, John O'Conell, Callaghan,fi. FAwards, Sir J. O'Connell, M. J. Eliot, Hon J. E. O'Connell, Morgan Ellice, E. O'Connor Don Ellis, J. O'Ferrall, More Ellis, Wynn Palmer, C. Fyshe Erle, William Palmerston, Viscoun' Etwall, It. Parker, J. Evans, Sir De Lacy Parker, R. T. Evans, G. Parnell, Sir H. Evans, William Patten, Wilson Ewart, W. Pease, Joseph Finch, Francis Pechell, Captain Fitzpatrick, J. W. 239. Peel, Hon. Sir R. Pendarves, E. W. Philips, M. Phillips, G. Pigot, D. R. Price, Sir B. Protheroe, Edward Pryme, G. Pryse, P. Ramsbottom, J. Redingtou, T. N. Rice, T. S. Rich, Henry Roche, E. B. Roche, W. Rundle, J. Rushbrooke,Tolonel Russell, Loid John Rutherford, A. Salwey, Colonel Sanford, E. A. Scholefield, J. Scrope, G. P. Seale, Sir J. H. S.qmour, Lord Shell, It. L. Shelburne, Earl of Sinclair, Sir G. Slaney, R. A. Smith, 8.- Smith, R. Vernon Somers, J. P. Somerville Sir W. Spiels, Alexander ntaudish, C. Stanley, Lord Stanley, H. Stanley, Hon. W. Stansfield, W. 11.' C. Staunton, Sir G. I'. Steuart, R. Stuart, Villiers Stock, Dr. Strickland, Sir G. Strutt, Edward Talbot, J. H. Tancred, H. W. Teignmouth, Lord Thornely, Thomas Tollemache, F. J. Troubridge, Sir T. Turner, Edmund Turner, William Vigors, N. A Villiers, Charles P. Vivian, Sir R. Waddington. H. S. Wakley, Thomas Walker, R. Wallace, It Warburton, H. Ward, H. G. Westenra, Hon. H. White, A. Whitmore, T. Wilbraham, G. Williams, W. Wilmot, Sir E. Wilshere, W. I Winningtou, I'. E. Winn ington, H. . Wood, C. Wood, G. W l Worsley, I trd Wrightson, W. B. Wyse, Thomas Young, John TELLERS. Maule, Hon. Fox Stanley, E. J. Acland, Sir T. D. Acland, T. D. &'Court. Capt. E, AlThley, Lord Attwood, Wolverly Attwood, M. Bagge, Wm. Bailey, Joseph, jun. Baillie, Colonel H. Baring, H. B. Baring, W. B. Barneby, J. Barrington, Viscount Bentinck, Lard G. Blacketone, W. S. Boldero, H G. Bradshaw, James B Bruce, Lord ce,o E. Bruges, W. H. L. Buller, Sir J. Y. Castlereagh, Visa. Christopher, It. A. Condly, E. Copeland, W. Darby, George De Horsay, S. H. Disk, Q. D'lsraeli, Benjamin Dowdeswell. W. Duncombe, T. S. Duncombe, A. East, J. Buller Eaton, Richard J. Egerton, W. T. Eliot, Lord IORITY—NOES, Filmer, Sir E. Fitzroy, Hop. H. Forester, Hon. G. Freshlield, J. W, Gladstone, W. Godson, H. Greene, T. Grimsditch, Thomas Grimston, Lord Grimston, Lord E. H. Ha'ford, H. Hamilton. Lord C. Heathcote, Sir W. Heneage, E. 'ferries. J. C. H Hope, H. 'r. Hope, (3. W. Ingestrie, Lord Ingham, Robert Inglis, Sir It. H. Jackson, Serjeant James, Sir \V. Jones, John Janes, T. Keznble Henry Knatchhull, Sir L. Law. Hon. C. E. Leftoy, J) T. Lincoln, Earl of Litton, Ecward Lowthtr, colonel Lowther, J H. Lygon, General Mackenzie, Thomas Mahon, Lord Maxwell, S. R. 105. Neeld, John Neeld, Joseph Nicholl, J. Ossulston, Lord Packe, C. W. Pakington, J. S. Palmer, G. Pemberton, Thomas Pigot, D. R. Plum ptre, J. P. Polhill, Frederick Poweirecourt Lord' Praed, W. T. Pringle, A. Richards, Richard Rolleston Colonel Round, C. G. Round, J. Rushout, Bowles Shirley, J. K Somerset, Lord G. Stormont, Viscount Sturt, H. C. Thompson, Ald. Verner, Colonel Vivian, John Ennis Walsh, Sir John Williams, R. Wood, Colons T. Wood, Colonel Wyndham, W. Yorke, Hon. K T. Young, Sir W, TELLERS, Cresswell, C. Kelly, Fitzroy COURT OF ALDERMEN. THE SHERIFFS OF LONDON AND MIDDLESEX AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. At the meeting of the Court yesterday, Sheriff EVANS rose and said that he considered it to be his duty to in form the Court that a communication had been made to the Sheriffs that certain resolutions had been passed by the House of Commons, which were calculated to place those officers in a difficulty. The Sheriffs had no ob servations to make upon the subject, but merely to ex press a wish that in case of emergency the Court would take care to provide that the public should not be in convenienced.—Hear.) Alderman BROWN said that it would be improper for the Court to interfere in the matter. They held the Sheriffs in all possible respect, and he was convinced that the conduct of the Sheriffs would be such as would entitle them to the respect and vene ration of their fellow-citizens ?—(Cheers.) He ad vised the Court not to contemplate the possibility of any proceedings against the Sheriffs. If it happened that a public body placed the Sheriffs in a difficulty, the consequences be upon the heads of those who acted in such a manner as subjected those officers to inconve nience. He, however, repeated that the Court ought not to contemplate such a possibility. Alderman FAREBROTHER stated that the law of the land could protect the Sheriffs. Alderman COPELAND said that the public were likely to suffer much inconvenience and annoyance if any offensive proceedings were adopted towards the Sheriffs, and he thought it would be proper to make provision against such an event. Alderman BROWN said the time might come when the Court would be obliged to make arrangement to meet an unpleasant emergency. He recommended, however, that they should wait to see whether they lived under the law, or under some other kind of regi men.—(Hear, hear.) Here the conversation dropped. GOLD WATCHES, £7. 7s. each. Highly finishtd Horizontal Gold 'Watches, jewelled in four holes, with enamel dial, hand to mark the se ., intis, &c. Seven Guineas each. These elegant little Watc•ies will be found exeellea time-keepers, and a printed warranty is given with fixed term on which they will always receive r.ry attention required. T. COX SAVORY, Watchmaker, Jeweller, and Silversmith, 47, Cernhill (Seven doors from Gracechurch-street), London. N.B. Second-hand Watches purchased in exchange. PLATE.—A. B. SAVORY and SONS, Manufacturing Silversmiths, No. 14, Cornhill, (opposite the Bank of England), offer the best rich SHELL-BORDERED SILVER WAITERS, of every size, with plain centres, at Ss. per ounce, or with chased centres, at 9s. 6d. per ounce. Price, with Chased Centres. . Oz. A round liver Waiter, w ith s h e ll border, II Diameter in. 12 at Os. 641. 6 14 0 A round Silver Wait er , w i t h shell border, 9 17 $ 1 I A round Silver Waiter, with (hell border, In 20 •10 I A round Silver Waiter, with shell border, 12 30 i 5 5 0 A round Silver Waiter, with shell border, 15 42 19 19 11 A round Silver Waiter, with shell border, 10 lie 411 17 11 A round Silver Waiter, with shell border If 124 511 1s • The Plate room s o f thi s Establishment, which aro exten sive, contain a large and choice selection of Silver Plate, Fated Goods, and every article requisite to complete a ser vice. List of Prices gratis. A. B. Savory and Sons, Manu facturing Silversmiths, No. 14, Cornhill, London, opposite the Bank of England. MARRIED. On the 24th of October, at Jhansi, by special license, George of the Bengal Artillery, t o L et i t i a , Sandeman, Esq., o f P ert h . Paris Salmon, t u h btEgg inst., o stl i , at Kinnordy, North Britain, the Rev. Gilbert Heathcote, of North Tamerton, Cornwall, to Maria, daughter of Charles Lyell, Esq., Vice-Lieutenant of Forfar. On the 18th inst., at St. Nicholas Church, Brighten, Mr. Robert Charles Hinam, of Brighton, to Caroline onlydaughter of the late Daniel Folkard, Esq., of the London -road, South wark. DIRD, On the 13th inst., at Lymington, Mrs. Charlotte Taylor, daughter of the late John Taylor, Esq., of Grosvenor-place, London. On the 7th inst., Eliza Dyer, youngest daughter of the late Edward Dyer, Esq., of Shepperton•green.~ London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, i the county of Middlesex. — Wednesday, January 22,1840. "T