The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAI, JUNE 18, 1839.

Sheriff? That would not prevent the execution of the
writ:; and did they- believe that a court of law would
permit its officer to be thrown into prison—or did they
believe that the people of England would stand tamely
by and see the law set at nought—or did they believe
that the House of Lords, the supreme court of judi-
cature of the country would permit it? Would they
then attempt to commit Lord Denman ? No, they
would shrink from that.--(" Hear, hear," and cheers.)
They might wreak their vengeance upon the inferior
officers of the Court, but they felt that the law did not
authorise them, and that the people of England would
not stand by and permit such an outrage.—( Cheers.)
What did the House of Lords in the case of Matthew
Ashley ? He had obtained damages in a Court (ex-
actly the present case), and they declared that it was
an unprecedented attempt upon the judicature of Par-
liament, and was in effect to subject the law of England
to the votes of the House of Commons.--(Hear, hear.)
The House did not dare to touch the plaintiff—they
had never told him not to go on, the attorney not to
act, the counsel not to plead, or the Judges not to
consider the case ; yet they now, for the purpose of
upholding their privileges, proposed to punish them.
Were the House aware that by the oath of their office
the Sheriffs of London were bound to obey all writs which
came to them from the Queen's Justices, yet the House
proposed to punish them for discharging the duty cast
on them by the law. Was that a time when there was such
a spirit abroad throughout the country for the House of
Commons to set an example of setting the law at de-
fiance. They ought to allow the law of the land to take
its course, and discharge their:resolutions—threaten not
the attorneys or counsel. No one who had the honour
of being a barrister, who would care one moment for the
resolution. They might commit one to-morrow, but if
they did so, hundreds would eagerly offer their services
—there was not, from the head of the bar to the lowest
profession, one who would refuse his professional ser-
vices to any plaintiff, because the House of Commons
threatened him with punishment for performing his
duty. Let them do this, and then the time must soon
arrive when they might with calmness discuss the im-
portant question.
Mr. Sergeant W I LDE felt the immense importance
of the question then:under discussion, and knew that any
one who presumed to offer advice to the House upon it
must do so under great responsibility. He had given
tome attention to the subject under that feeling ; he
would give the House,the resutt-of his conclusions.
He had also beet unwilling to rise, because he bad
heard that the interference of professional men had often
embarrassed the House rather than assisted them, in
consequence of the opposition they had expressed.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He had heard the last
speech, not with less astonishment than the Hon. and
Learned Member (Mr. Pemberton) stated he had heard
the one preceding.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
could not have thought such a speech could have
been delivered by any lawyer much less
by a lawyer as eminent as any one in this day, or as
any one in bygone days. The House was in a situa-
tion in which it was compelled to act—( Hear, hear)—
he used that word in its largest sense. It had no fault
to lay to its own charge—it had not voluntarily em-
barked on this question—it had been forced into it, and
if the House had shrunk from it, it would have aban-
doned its trust in the highest degree.--(Hear, hear.)
This was not a case in which the House had come for-
ward to claim exemption for any Member on the ;round
of privilege. It was a case that had passed by the
name " privilege," but as the Judges had said it was not
a case of privilege but a case of the power of the House
of Commons. Between power and privilege there was
this distinction. One, though given in order that the
House might be able, through the community of its
Membe- s, the better to discharge its duty, necessarily
operated to the benefit of the individual ; but. the ques-
tion here was,—what was the power of the people of
England to be exercised by their representatives in car-
rying on the real affairs of the country Hear, hear.)
What were the duties that belonged to that House ?
The country looked to it to inquire into the execution of
every department of the State—to search out abuses--
to apply the remedy—to administer punishment, and to
legislate according as the wants and necessities of the
State might require.—(Hear, hear, hear.) What
wereo•their powers to enable them to do this
efficiently ? That was the question in which they were
now engaged—(Cheers.) What would be the situa-
tion of the House, if instead of claiming in the terms
of a resolution which seemed to be generally approved
of, the right to publish, and the right to publish as
incident and necessary to the discharge of their
duties—what would be the situation of the House and
the country if they took the reverse course and de-
termined not to publish ?—(Cheers.) They had peti-
tions complaining of abuses—they had petitions pointing
out great occasions for amendment of the law, and
pem haps correction of misconduct. The conduct of the
public Minister was inquired into, what was the conse-
quence of the inquiry ? The House of Commons
dared not tell.—(Cheers.) Why he was retained in
his place after the petitions of the people had charged
him with malversation. The public were to be kept in
ignorance, and the information was to be rendered ano-

nymously of what were the facts proved against him.
—(Hear, hear.) The observation equally applied
whether it re'ated to a Minister retained or removed.
—( Hear, hear.) Look - the ebowear the liouse-of
Commons had exposed—look at the alterations they
had made in the law ; they had abolished the Slave
Trade—had corrected the errors and inconveniences
that had arisen in the course of time in the
Carporations—had altered the Poor Laws—(he
would not detain the House by relating instanes)
—and how had they satisfied the country respecting
the efficiency of their legislation ? By the publication
of their Reports.—(Cheers.) Did they want to know
what would be the situation of the House if the lawyers
in Westminster Hal prescribed the limits of its power?
Read the judgment in Stockdale v. Hansard.—(Cheers.)
No privilege that cou'd be named had passed without
being questioned and negatived in Westminster Hall.
Each in its turn had met the same fate. But they had
had a new era, and, as it struck him, by the de-
cision in Stockdale v. Hansard. He had heard
with regret Members in that House do them-
selves great injustice. They said they were judges of
their own privileges—that the law and constitution
of Parliament was distinct from the common law, and
yet Members of great intelligence declared their incom-
petency to judge of the question. There might be tech-
nical considerations mixed up with it ; but it depended
not on technical rules—not on the confined view which
belonged to practical lawyers, but on great constitu-
tional grounds. Who should decide what was necessary
to the discharge of the functions of the House of Com-
mons, or what were the powers necessary to administer
the duties belonging to it ? Who could judge ? Not
the lawyer, but the man conversant with the constitu-

Lion and history of his country.—(Cheers.) His Right
Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir S.Lushington), who spoke
early in the debate, had called tho attention of the
House to the circumstances out of which the
inquiry had arisen. Ho: (Sergeant Wilde) had ven-
tured to think lie did so with real respect, but he could
not so control his understanding as when it was satisfied
after mature consideration of a particular truth to enter-
tain any doubt—and he had ventured to believe that

there was no pretence for calling that_ Report a libel—
still less when it was published by order of that House.
—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He knew that Cap-
tain Bailey was held to have been guilty of no offence
when he published a letter relating to the abuses of
Greenwich Hospital—be knew that by the theory of
the Constitution the Commons of England were all in
that House—he knew that even Lord Holt,
the enemy of privilege, said, and truly said—
" You can build no room urge enough to contain the
whole Commons of England, but they are virtually
there by their Representatives." He knew that by the
law of libel, however extended the community might
he, they might address each other on matters in whi ch
they had a common interest, and though reflecting on
individuals, still that con"st;tuted no libel.—(Hear,
hear.) He begged to ask whether the people of Eng-
land generaly were interested in the inquiries as to the
state of prisons ?—( Hear, hear.) Had their gaols con-
duc2d to the public advantage or otherwise?—(Hear,
hear, hear.) Should it be said that they might pub!ish
a trial in a court of justice, in which A and B were
concerned, but that as the general management and
conduct of prisoners of England, into which Parliament
had. directed an inquiry, that the publication of the
result of that inquiry, by an almost judicial
officer, the Commissioner, was to be considered as a
libel ?—( Loud cheers.) Was it to be said that the
Commons of England, on a subject of universal interest,
r
should not communicate with each other, when
tradesmen might write and correspond, and their
letters be filled with libels, if those letters were only
tun
used as occasion required. Who was to decide what
occasion required ? Not the Judges—their duties were
of a much more limited nature. They deserted their
f
proceeded to inciuie
into abuses. what au-
hnrcittiyons
Parliamentf t
inquire
—(Loud cheers.) Here was a subject of great
interest, and on which Parliament had engaged its par-
tieular attention. They had appointed a Commissioner
under an Act of Parliament, who was to inquire and
report as to books, papers, and other things ; those
were expressly mentioned. They were to be laid be-
iy had to
be-
fore the House. What did Parliament direct they
should be laid before the House fur ?
That
they should be kept a secret 2—(Cheers and laughter.)
In the prison were found fou r books, a copy of one of
which he had procured and which was now in the
library. And Dr. Bailey, in speaking of that " scienti-
fic" work said, " From obscenity the writer had for-
feited his character." But Lord Denman asked, what
has this to do with the reglation of prisons ?—_(Cheers.)
What had it to do with the regulation of prisons? Was
it no part of the regulation of prisons deserving attention
what books might be introduced to a lad of seventeen ?
Was it no part of prison regulation to know how indi-
viduals were passing their time there? What did be-
long to the regulation of prisons if this did not ?____
(Cheers.) Lord Denman first said this did not
relate to prison matters, and then said Mr. Stock-
dale's name ought not to have been mentioned.
What credit would be given to an annonymous