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

publication.—(Cheers.) It was asked, might the House '
of Commons libel whom it pleases ? But what motive
had the House to libel any one ?—(Cheers.) What
motive induced the House to make this publication ?
None, but the public good.—(Cheers.) An action was
previously brought against Mr. Hansard by Mr.
Stockdale, in which the House took no part ; and
upon that trial, where Lord Denman himself presided,'
a special jury found the man entitled to no damages,
because the book was obscene and a nuisance.—
(Cheers.) But in this case, which might have been
decided -upon its merits, Lord Denman thought it his
duty to make strong declarations respecting the privi-
leges of the House.—(Hear„ hear) He believed
if there was a man above courting popularity
by the exercise of any improper display, Lord
Denman was that man.—( Hear, hear.) But
he thought his Lordship was hasty ; that he was
pure, he was quite certain. His Lordship expressed
himself in such strong terms, as to impress the public
mind with the belief that the House had no authority
whatever to cause the publication of any matter what-
ever, however necessary it might be deemed, for public
purpose. What was the House to do ? It could not
pass this by. Was it proper to go on in breach of the
law, or ascertain if the doctrine were well founded ? A
committee was then appointed. And the report which
he (Mr. Wilde) had drawn up, lie had submisted to
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R Peel), to the Attorney
General, and Sir Wm. Follett, who had all given it
their attention, he bad carefully looked into
all the authority ; and would sustain by legal re-
ferences his opinions on this suhject,—to the last jot.
The Court of Queen's Bench admitted that this House
might exercise the privilege if necessary. But who was
to decide upon the necessity ?—(Hear, hear.) It was
absurd to deny that the House ought to have the deci-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) The Government would suffer
more in public opinion—and justly so—by what he
(Mr. Sergeant Wilde) must regard as their abandon-
ment of the privilege of this House.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") It was holding up Parliament to con-
tempt, to represent it as uttering threats which it was.
afraid to execute.—(Hear, bear.) Least of all let this
House be afraid of doing its
.duty.—(Hear, hear.)
It was said, public opinion was against it.
Public opinion had been misled—and misled by the
course which the House had taken in wavering as to
the course it should adopt, instead of acting promptly
and decidedly.—(Hear, hear.) If former Parliaments
had shown equal timidity, the privileges of that House
would long since have been destroyed.—(Cheers.) All
tribunals were inclined to extend their jurisdiction.—
(Hear, hear.) The courts of law had always been
especially disposed to enlarge their authority—(Hear,
hear.) There was something very attractive in the idea
of pre-eminence ; and the contest now was—whether
the Courts of 'Westminster Hall should be the para-
mount authority in the country, and overpower
the authority of Parliament.—(Hear, hear hear.)
The authority of Parliament was supported by the high
character it maintained. That authority was superior
to that of all other tribunals. This right was now
sought to be invaded—they could never again be so
useful to the public as they had been. The question
was this, was the Parliament to be the paramount
power in the State. The Attorney-General, on this
question, had been very peculiarly situated. He (Mr.
Sergeant Wilde) on that occasion had stated what he
felt ; he had disagreed with his Learned Friend, and had
recommended aeother course to be pursued, and
yet lie could not say that his Learned Friend
had done wrong— as Attorney-General he was
acting according to precedent, and was pursuing
a straight-forward, legal course. What did his Learned
Friend mean by saying that Mr. Hansard had invited
Mr. Stockdalc to meet him on this question in West-
minster Hall ? Whoever thought to have heard of a
defendant inviting a plaintiff to meet him in Westmin-
ster Hall ? Why Mr. Hansard had been dragged there
as a defendant—that was the card of invitation.—
(Cheers and laughter.) And now the defendant hav-
ing been dragged into Westminster Hall, having pro-
tested against every stage of the proceedings, his Hon.
and Learned Friend said that common justice demanded
that he should pay the plaintiff.—(Cheers.) That the
stones of Westminster Hall would cry out unless this
were done, after having pleaded to the action.—
(Cheers.) Now what was the meaning of this ? how
could the action be stopped but by plea. By pleading,
nothing:had been conceded ; the Attorney-General had
pursued a strictly legal course, and there was no pre-
tence whatever for asserting that he had conceded one
jot on this occasion.—(Loud cheers.) Did not Justice
Pemberton and Justice Jones state that they had pro-.
ceeded on a former occasion to give judgment, because
such a plea as that of the Attorney-General had not
been pleaded, and that had such a plea been put in,
they should have stayed proceedings. Here was the
precedent for the course adopted by the Attorney-Gene-
ral, and he would ask his Learned Friends on the other
side to state to the House and to the country if any other
plea could have been pleaded than the one that had been?
and he would also ask them if the defendant's having
pleaded in bar, could ever be construed into an admission
of the authority of the jurisdiction ? This course had not
met with his approbation, because he was afraid that the
use which had been made of it would have been made of
it ; and he had caid at the time, in order to impress his
view of this subject on the House, that if they did take
disc' coarse arid 'Were beaten, they would not be able to help
themselves. The Government, therefore, knew as far as
his humble opinion was concerned, what would be the
consequence of the course they were about pursue.
His Learned Friend said, you took your chance of a
judgment in your favour, and, now it is against you, you
disagree from it. Why, did not all defendants say so ?
Did not all defendants take the chance of a judgment in
their favour, and if it was against them dissent from it ?
He only regretted that more opportunity had not been
furnished the Right Hon. Baronet for investigating this
subject, for he was sure that his intelligent mind would
have discovered the gross fallacy of this proposition. There
had not been the slightest departure from the strictest
hostility from the beginning to the end of their proceed-
ings, and the House was now in as good a position for re-
sistance as if it had suffered judgment by default. He would
beg to call the attention of the House to the opinions of
Mr. Perceval, Mr. Ponsonby, and Sir Vicary Gibbs, in the
case of Burdett and Abbott. Sir Vicary Gibbs said that
no doubt when the Judge read the Speaker's plea he would
not suffer the action to be continued. This was the lan-
guage of Mr. Attorney-General Gibbs and Mr, Attorney-
General Campbell had used similar language; but, con-
tinued, Sir Vicary Gibbs, " 1 doubt whether this will be
the case ; the second action, meaning the action against the
Sergeant-at-Arms, for breaking into the house, thereby
drawing a necessary distinction, for although a thing may
he done by the authority of the House, the orders of the
House may be carried into effect in an improper manner.
Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Percival were both confi-
dent that no Judge would take cognizance of such an
action, because the House of Commons was sole
judge in any question relating to its privileges, and the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read extracts from the
speeches of Sir Vicary Gibbs, Mr. Perceval, and Mr.
Ponsonby, on the occasion referred to. These were the
opinions of lawyers of opposite parties in politics, .and
their opinions all completely justified the course which
the Attorney-General had pursued. He had recommended
his Learned Friend not to argue the question, but there
was nothing improper in the argument, but when his
Learned Friend said that the Attorney-General had ap-
peared to pray for judgment ; but he would ask him in all
cases when the day of trial came, what did all parties ap-
pear for but to pray for judgment? Although his
Learned Friend had not adopted his advice yet still
he must do him justice.—_( Hear.) Let the house
examine what Lord Denman thought of his argument-
Throughout Lord Denman's judgment it occurred four or
five times, that lie said, the Attorney_ General argues that
this appearance was made by order of the House of Com-
mons, and therefore the judgment must be for the
defendant, so that throughout the Attorney-General had
protested against any jurisdiction. There were no special
circumstances in the case—the petition set the House at
defiance, so that there was nothing but special contumacy
on one band, and on the other special timidity on the part
of the House.—( Cheers.) If he advised resistance, it
would only be if all parties were agreed in opinion with
him--but not to resist if the Right Hon. Baronet and the
Noble Lord did not concur in his opinions. The proper
course was to send their resolution to the Shetiff: when
he received the writ, he would come to that House,
and he would ask for instructions—he would be told
not to execute it, and instructions would be given to the
Sergeant to protect him, and he would take such civil
power as was necessary, and the Home Secretary would
no doubt afford all the aid in his power.—(Cheers and
laughter.) They might laugh, but did they care for their
privileges? What would the Court of Queen's Bench do?
They might attach the Sheriff, but it would be like the
taking of the bear—the beer took the man.—( Laughter. )
There would be no resort to physical force between the
two Courts, but such a collision must bring about a settle-
ment of the important subject. The two Houses, when
they separated, were co-ordinate for many purposes_were
they to allow the House of Lords to grasp a power over
them by a side-wind, by having a writ of error
from the Queen's Bench to the House of Lords. The
Reform Bill was passed after a very hard struggle for the
purpose of rescuing that House from the power of the
house of Lords, but it was totally useless if they ever
allowed them to sit as a Court of Appeal upon their pri-
eileges.—( Cheers.) He allowed that privileges:had been
abused, many eminent Counsel had been committed, and
some Judges, but how was it that not one had ever applied
to a Court of Law for a Habeas Corpus. The House
had voluntarily given up many of their privileges,
but none bad ever been taken from them by a Court
of Law or any other power. The step now taken
would form a iasting precedent. Let hies suppose
that the House of Lords were to vote a privilege, and to
commit a man who brings an action, and the Queen's
Bench said there was no privilege, and the case went hack
again to the House of Lords—was there any such ab-
surdity in the law?—yet the two Houses were co.oidinate
in this matter. It was said that the House of Commons
was a check upon the House of Lords—how could that be
said to be so if the House of Lords could restrict and cur-
tail the privileges of the House of Commons. The Learned
Gentleman said the Judges, of whom he spoke with great
respect, had not taken time to consider the immense mass of
authorities cited by his Learned Friend the Attorney- Gene-
ral. Hethen cited the opiniens of Lord Chief Justice Abbott,
and Lord Kenyon, Mr. Justice Lawrance, Lord Camble-
den, all in favour of the privileges of the Commons, and
laying it down that their adjudication was a conviction, and
could not be questioned in a Court of Law. The ques-
tion was, whether this House should rest satisfied with this
judgment. What should the House do ? If there were
any special circumstances to justify the House in not as.