The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-09 00:00:00

POWILAND CEMETERY BILL.

Captain BERKELEY then proceeded to say that he
understood that, in Committee on this Bill, a. proviso had
been added, on the 'notion of the lion. Aiember for Mary-
lebone, and that subsequently words had been struck out
of this proviso and ether wools added, without the consent
of the Committee, and that this had been done by the clerk
of the Committee, with the concurrence cif 'qaniuel
Whalley. He wished, then, to ask the Hon. Member for
Finsbury whether he was aware that any alteration of the
original words of the proviso had taken .place ?
Mr. D U NCO MBE had not been the originator of the
Bill in the House. But. he had on one occasion been Chair-
man of the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred.
Whilst occupying the position of Chairman, he felt anxious
to discharge his duties, so as to see justice done to all par-
ties. The Bill was nearly thro•Jgh Committee, when they
came to the consideration el* a elause respecting Primrose-
hill. His Hon. Colleague (Mr. Wakley) moved an amend.
meat to this clause, which was negatived, but on the under-
standing that a proviso, to be moved by the Hon. Member
for Marylebone (Sir S. Whalley), which did not go so fir,
would be agreed to. The next day the solicitor of the Bill
called on him to say, that he fbund words contained in the
proviso added to the Bill, which were not contained in the
proviso as it had been put from the Chair, and agreed to by
the Committee. The words added were, after the mention
of Primrose-hill, "or any part thereof." When he heard
this, he made inquiry of the clerk of the Committee, and he
informed him (as we understood the Hon. Member) that
the alteration had been made in the presence of Sir Samuel
IVhalley and Mr. Pittman. The clerk told him (Mr. Dun-
combe), that if he thought the words were improperly in-
serted, he would strike them out ; and he stated to the
clerk, that he was perhaps not aware that be was commit-
ting a great offence against the privileges of the House in
inserting those words, and that they should be expunged.
He (Mr. Duncombe) felt that he would be guilty of great
neglect of his duty to the House, if he had consented to
allow those words to remain in the clause.—( Hear.)
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN said that he had a peti-
tion to present on this subject from a Mr. Staples, the soli-
citor to the Portland Cemetery Bill, who complained that
the Hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir S. Whalley) had,
after the Bill had passed through the Committee, inserted
the words, " Primrose-hill, or any part thereof," and,
although that Hon. Gentleman had undertaken the chargr
of the Bill, and had supported the first and second rcadine
of the Bill, he yet told the solicitor that unless he consented
to these words being inserted in the Bill, he should oppose
the second reading. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
moved that the petition be read.
The petition was accordingly read at length by the clerk,
and was in substance to the effect stated by the Hon. and
Learned Member.
Sir S. WHALLEY could assure the House that in
what he had done he had only been actuated by a wish to
protect the public interests. Some constituents of his,
however, had requested him to take charge of this Bill,
and as he thought it the duty of a representative to take
charge of a Bill at the request of his constituents, provided
there was nothing objectionable in it, he did so, at the
same time giving the parties due notice thht if he found
any thing objectionable in the Bill he would take
charge of it no longer. He had moved, accordingly,
the first and second reading, but it was not till after
the. second reading that he was at all aware of the
contents of the Bill. It enabled the promoters of the Bill
to establish a Cemetery any where within ten miles of Lon-
don, so that no man living within ten miles of London could
be certain but that such:Cemetery might be established close
to his house. 'The Bill went into Committee, and the pro-
moters undertook to define their plan. The Committee
called on them to give in a plan of the intended site, and on
the plan being proposed it was found that the intention of
the promoters was to wrest Primrose-hill from the public,
a place to which they had access from time immemorial.
The insertion.of a clause was then moved in these words :
" Provided that nothing in this Act do allow the said Com-
pany to use Primrose-hill for any of the purposes of this
Company." He (Sir S. Whalley) had moved to add these
words, "or any part thereof." He made this addition to
prevent the inhabitants of the metropolis being debarred
access to this place of healthful recreation which they had
so long enjoyed. He was informed by a note from Mr.
Pittman that the worde considered most essential were not
in the proviso as engrossed by the clerk of the Committee.
On observing this to the clerk he said be would put them in
if he (Sir S. Whalley) desired it. The next day the solicitor
of the Bill called on!hirn (Sir S. Whalley), and stated that
words had been added which were not in the original pro-
viso. To this he answered, that if those words were not
permitted to remain in the Bill, the object which he (Sir
Samuel Whalley) had in view would not be effected, and
he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill. Had the
matter stopped there he should not have had so muck
ground of complaint. But the promoters of the Bill had
come to him, threatening to present a petition unless he
should withdraw his opposition, and agree to support the
Bill. He thought this was a most improper course to pur-
sue with respect to a Member. His reply was, that the
presenting of the petition would not weigh with him, nor
induce him to withdraw his opposition. _ _ _

After a few words from Mr. ANGERSTEIN and Mr.
Sergeant GOULBURN, the conversation dropped for the
present.

Sir E. CODRINGTON wished to ask a question of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A great number of
communications had been addressed to him expressive of a
desire to erect a statue of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar-
squire. He wished to know whether the Government felt
disposed to afford any facilities towards such an under-
taking ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EHCHEQUER was
sure that Government would give every possible facility
consistent with the public convenience for the erection of a
statue to the memory of our greatest naval Commander,
and he was sure, in doing so, they would be only consulting
the feelings of the House and the country:74 Hear, hear.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose for the purpose
of calling the attention of the House to a matter of great
importance to its privileges, when
Mr. HUME inquired if notices did not on that evening
take precedence ? To accommodate the Ministry he had
postponed his motion till that day. He, therefore, claimed
the right of proceeding with his motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that questions of
privilege had precedence, and that he would give way, but
that the subject was one of great importance, and he felt
bound to proceed with it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to order. The question
which had just been under discussion he considered had not
been disposed of in a satisfactory manner either to his Hon.
Friend (Sir S. Whalley) or the public. He therefore moved
that Mr. Staples (the person from whom the petition ema-
nated) and Mr. Rose, the clerk of the Committee, be called
to the bar.
Mr. WALLACE seconded the motion.
After a few words from the Attorney-General, Mr. An-
gerstein, Sir S. Whalley, and hlr. Wallace,
Lord J. RUSSELL felt bound to oppose the motion.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place, as the motion was agreed te.
Mr. Staples was then called in and examined at some
length by several Hon. Members.
Mr. WARBURTON moved that the further consi-
deration of the matter be deferred until to-morrow.—
Agreed to.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved that Mr. Sutton and Mr.
Rose should attend at the bar of the House to-morrow.—
Agreed to..
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was in-
dispensably necessary that the House should come to a de-
cision on 'the question of privilege lately considered. He
would propose that the House should proceed at once to
consider the subject, as to-morrow it could not be brought
forward without inconvenience.
Mr. HUME, after a few words from Mr. Roebuck and
Lord J. Russell, admitted that the question to which his
motion related was not of so pressing a nature a 3 that of
the Right Hon. Gentleman ; but the Noble Lord had not
given any promise that he (Mr. Hume) would not be in-
terfered with on a future occasion.
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the question
to which he was about to call the attention of the House
was one of very great importance, and he had no hesitation
in saying that he felt it was one of very great difficulty.
They were now placed in a dilemma, and it was for the
House to say whether it would at once make a stand, and
depend on one of its greatest and at the same time most
undoubted privileges.—(Hear, hear.) In the motion which
he should submit, he would adhere rigidly to the resolu-
tions of the Committee, adopted with only one dissentient
voice, and sanctioned by a large majority of that House.
The substance of those resolutions held that the House
had a right to publish such of its reports, rules, and pro-
ceedings as it should deem necessary or conducive to the
public interests. " That by the law and privilege of Par-
liament that House had the sole and exclusive jurisdic-
tion to determine upon the existence and extent of its
privileges ; and that the institution or prosecution of
any action, suit, or other proceeding; for the purpose
of bringing them into discussion, or decision, before
any Court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament,
was a high breach of such privilege, and rendered all
parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure,
and to the punishment consequent thereon." These resolu-
tions he believed to be founded on the law of Parliament,
and also that they were part of the law of the land.—
( Hear, hear.) The course, then, which he (the Attorney-
(ieneral) intended to t4l was in perfect consistency with

those resolutions, and was founded on the precedent of Sir
Francis Burdett's case, with which they were all fa-
His intention was, to move that the petitioners
ho instructed to plead to the action, in order that the_
Courts of law inieht know that this was a question of
~rivilege. The Judges had no means of ascertaining from
he pleadiugs that Mr. Nichols or Mr. Hansard were
the servants of that House, and that they aced under
its authority. Tee), had, therefore. no means of informing
the Judges of this fact. but by the plea on the record, avere_
ring that the defendants acted in obedience to the orders of
that House. In former times when an action affecting
:he privileges of the House was brought in a Cou!t
Lax i the Speaker wrote to the Judge to apprise IWO
f the fact. It had, however, been decided that such s
proceeding, was contrary to law, and he would not, therce:
fore, recommend it. Another muse adopted in former
times in cases of this nature was to commit the part!cf
bringing the action, together with the Counsel and solici-
tor. This, no doubt, might be considered a strong tutea;
sure, and it was doubtful whether they w( ould be supp!)r ea:.
by the public if they came to such a tiecis:on.—lie
'dear.) Lord Denman had no doubt stated that such .801
action might be maintained, *out then it must be recollec
that this was the opinion of a single Judge at nisi con t:,
o
given at a time when he had not an opportunily of ee
dering his judgment. But there was still another couric,
open to them. They might suffer judgment to Iv by,
fault, and instruct the Sheriff of Middlesex, throts..ef,
the medium of the Speaker, that he was not to obey th
writ of inquiry, as it was a violation of the Privileges:
the House. Suppose the Sheriff disobeyed their instill--
; on,
tion, their only remedy would be to commit him to Prir„
and if he did obey their order he might be
thY
the Judge, in which case he would be obliged to Plead
order of the House of Commons. This course, 1°4'1%;
he was not disposed to recommend, but he should
them to adopt the precedent of the ease of Burdett V.
bott, which in his judgment was the most prudent they
could follow. The defendant in that instance was instruct(i
attackes
to appear, and plead the privileges of ParliaMent. Seveora,t
distinguished Members took part in that discussion, aren't
;whom was the
Lori
levinsbearlsofosrupl‘ploornttegdombyerysiarnvaic;rerey
EMilton. The mlooltli M
a on
Gibbs, Davis, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Windham, and m
Ponsonbv, all of wham were of opinion that the case was it
direct violation of the privileges o f the House ; that
was for the House alone to determine its own privileges
and that the defendant should appear and plead. The I.l°P.
and Learned Gentleman then read several passages fret*
the Parliamentary Debates. Lord Hale, and Lord Der
man had already admitted that the publication 0111 i:"
liamentary documents for the use of Members was Pi::
tifiable ; but he (the Attorney-General) was '
sure—
would see that the distinction he had drawn was wholly
immaterial, because if a Member of Parliament shooed
those documents to any of his constituents, or to any ether
person, it would still be publication ; and if they were de"
posited on the shelves of a public library, the party deP°
siting them and the librarian who received them would
liable to an action if they contained any thing which COO 7
give rise to such a proceeding. Again, a Member was at
liberty to make use of those documents so long as he e,",ni.
tinued in Parliament, but the moment he accepted the C"".
tern Hundreds, and ceased to he a Member of Parliament,
he was to be liable to an action. Upon the same principle
Lord Denman, if he showed those documents to his brothel:
Judges, would, as well as the whole twelve Judges, be nab'
to action for libel. Indeed, that very petition of Nicholti
if read by the Judges (if that reasoning held good), ocji,',
subject them to actions for libel. To what purpose, ",e
asked, were the doors of the gallery thrown open, if the
public were not permitted to read the documents
which the deliberations of the House wire founded ?'
(Hear, hear.) The Courts of law had universally ree"gs-
nised and protected the privileges of that. House, ea"
for upwards of 200 years had the practice existed of
liament ordering the documents relating to its proceeds'v
to be printed, aye, and to be sold ; and never before
tb
case of Mr. Speaker Williams had this authority been
tioned. But they had a decided case (and he said it 1574",
every respect)—a case decided by as learned a Judge, ,a!
Lord Denman—the case of " The King v. Wright, L
which it was laid down that the reprint of a report, the
publication of which was authorised by the House of Coil
mons, was justifiable, and could not be made the subject Of
a criminal information.—(Hear.) The other House °f
Parliament had an equal interest in this question, because
their privileges were the same. He would, then, conclude
by moving, " That it is the opinion of this House that the
defendants should appear, and plead that they acted by the
authority of that House, and in conformity with the Priv..
leges thereof."—(Cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS would not follow the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman through his inconsistencies, but he would ask
whether his speech, from beginning to end, was not a roe'
tition of all those extravagant assumptions of Privilege.
claimed for that House, but which he. was now ready
leave to the keeping of the Court of King's Bench.—(gear.)
Had the Hon. Member pledged his professional character
that the Judges would come to an unanimous opinion in his
favour ? Did he mean to say that this would be the case;
and, if not, would it not at once be better to rescind the re-
solutions from their Journals, than have them set at nougg
by the Court of King's Bench? Was there, he asked, al
analogy between the privileges of the Courts of Law an '
of that House, and when the Hon. and Learned Gentlenla!:
instituted the comparison, was there any Member 01
.btown profession in that House who signified his assent to
the opinions he had stated? One Hon. Gentleman cf.
tainly cried out " Hear," but he was not a member of slit
profession to which the Attorney-General belonged.
wits not necessary that the House, to support its privileger.
should claim a right to publish libels through the wba°l.
dominion. The Hon. Baronet here referred to a dec:cleti
of Lord Chief Justice Holt in support of his view of ei°
question ; but in so low a tone that he could neither hen
the case nor the argument. This case, he said, showed
that no declaration of the House could make that
lege which was not so before the declaration, for these P
vileges were a well-known part of the law of the 181,";
and no declaration of the House could destroy
legal rights of a British subject. He claimed for t"-
people an immunity from the consequences of a dechlf
tion of either House of Parliament, which the Judges
the land could by law render as nugatory as waste par:::
Why should a declaration of that House shut out the peer
from the protection of the law ? That protection tf
claimed. They asked no more—they would be content'
with no less.—(Cheers.) Was it consistent with justicet°r'
•
publish statements, regardless whether they were true
false, and then not suffer the parties injured to appeal ju
redress to the national tribunals? Should they have a:
power to bring the cases before the Judges ? No, sal
the second resolution, for " the institution or prosec,?;
tion of any action, suit, or other proceeding, for t")
purpos.? of bringing them (the privileges of the Ileasci
into discu.ssion or decision before any Court or tribe °b
elsewhere thtee in Parliament is a high breach of sacio
privilege, and reoders all the parties concerned there t
amenable to its joy` displeasure, and to the punish."ll,
consequent thereon." Why should the reports be
li:hed for others than Memi,ers ? Why should that flealsa
resolve itself into a great booliselling concern ? It to°
haVe been discreet to have allowed the report of the Cost:li
mittee to be received without the House committing 4.4
by resolutions, and thus avoid the mortification of hev:ois
those resolutions set at defiance afterwards by the d,fee's-i..).
of the Court of King's Bench and the Judges.—(He
The House had no locus standi in the case, and the thinuratt
solution precluded even a locus pcnilentice. The wide
were—" That for any Court or tribunal to assume to cic%se.
upon matters of privilege inconsistent with the deter to
tion of either House of Parliament thereon is come the
the law of Parliament, and is a breach and contenaPt t to
privileges of Parliament." This was 'a threat held et! any
the Judges of England, and could not be construed'','
thing else, but which the Judges would disregard.
time was passed when the Chief Justice of the 11.'4
be
Bench could be dragged to the bar of that House, *athe
could with sincere truth bear his humble attestation 5:0.r..
course adopted by Lord Denman. Not only the couidti;
but the House should feel indebted to him, and it wca boo
well if the He-use took the warning in time. It ipion
said that they should take care not to come into r° then'
with the press, but he would conclude by cautioning
not to come into collision with the laws of England. n the,
Mr. POULTER thought it would be found, loge
question question was sifted, that the Judges of the Court or
Bench always supported the privileges of ParliaMentiit wag
And
as to printing papers for the use of Members, h
w liar thin
the practice of the other House constantly to sell
ni roils
Reports of the Commons. The Act exempting. tllcity', he„.
postage showed that they were intended for a publ
tho
vond the Members of that house. The libel w
Hon. Member for Oxford made use of was an assunw
fbr that which constituted a libel, the wilts
vin „art,
wanted in such publications as these. For his op_sreco.
he was of opinion that the 'promoters of thes:
arrnucters,
tions had in view not the clearing up of their
.b_
coming
but the unworthy desire of acquiring noteriety des
of; that
into collision with, and combating the privileges
Hesse. t the apirli°r
Sir H. PEEL had not heard without regret
cult, under f
of the Attorney-General, that it would be
than thstbe
the circumstances, to take any other coursieth
actions el,.
directing the parties who were threaten that of that noa.s_.
Stockdale and others to plead the psivilegeswith regret,
Doc,
intrinsic g
00
He had, he repeated, heard this opinion
owe .
cause lie had hoped that the House had
the assertioner;
thority by which it could of itself vindicatehot 800 irtion
its own privileges. The privilegei t t
° f any otherr rvital
higher and more important than those
of
with the was
of the Constitution, for they were interwi_.
ors.) Nbo°
essence and fuections of Parliament.— up
which bad
aware of the case of I3urdett against Abbott,

411luded to, but as the result of that case was a confirmation
h •
e the highest judicial authorities in the land of the privi-
lLgcs now claimed by the House he had hoped that the
__74ln• and Learned Attorney-General would rather have
r&olined t
Tel he H n
blouse to u assertion of its own privileges
Tell_ a constitute a rule, recommending a second applica-
lisi.o
,to the Court of King's Bench. He (Sir Robert Peel)
'4(l been one of these deputed by the House to inquire
ilit° the subject. He had, as was his duty, given the
,matter every consideration in his power, and the result at
''leli 11e confidently arrived was, that the House was per-
fectlyl tight, when any investigation was thought necessary,
to enter into the fullest inquiry possible—( Hear, hear)—to
'loaidate all the facts connected with, and trace all the
htlenees which might bear upon, the subject.—(llear,
tar.) This was not only the right but the duty of the
4, use, and it was equally its right to publish, if it thought
4V the result of its inquiries, either for the use of its own
eicrnbers, Or of the publicat large.—(Cheers.) How
it the House teach loyalty to the people, or expect.
Yom them, if it upheld the doctrine that it could by
e mere assertion of its opinion, and without any rei-
n shown, thrust from the Throne the legal claimant ?
Cheers.) I such a thing could be done, and no sa-
actory reason assigned, how could the people assure
liiilaiselves of the enjoyment of liberty ?—( Hear, hear.)
Ow could the House, in justice or in honour, resort to
alto
there
course, unless the public were made this of
,"ere being sufficient grounds for its adoption ? if this doe-
Tne were permitted 'that House could ',,reserve to itself no
Tll't to institute inquiries upon tt_e of br-
e Conduct pule men.
The House would not be to to itself the right
...ate reserve
c(4o4l3rTteeting its own servants friim the jurisdiction of a
of rarnat this would clearly be the result no
Onq
Agibiy deny. The Courts of law, it was true,
e
e uectde upon the abstract question of libel, but that
se".ellion was not co-equal with those powers which were
:fercised in support of the public convenience. If a Court
l'tw were to be permitted to decide on this question, it
null be impossible that any public functionary could be
alight to trial for his delinquencies, and those delinquen-
t ade public, and therefore any person, such as Mr.
4arren Hastings might come to a Court of law and com-
t
Pinin of any allegation made against him on public grounds
t e as
tir"oll:de of Commons. No matter what the extent
h ellarge might be that might be preferred against him,
4t House could not interfere and give to it publicity.
Ile Court of law in that case would only have to consider
%ether the published allegation was in violation of the law
"iflihel or not. If this were the state of the case, and if the
'erd Chief Justice were right in his manner of laying down
the law, then the functions of Parliament were altogether
a Par 1
Yse( • So, at least, he should judge from the charge of
—la Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice had
that
his charge as follows :—" Gentlemen, I think
the case which has been quoted on that subject is not
applicable to the present ; it does not go the whole length ;
and it seems to me that it is not in any respect capable of
/ehing Urged as an authority to prevent my going the length
„Ls. ye just now stated. Therefore my direction to you,
()
'plea to a question hereafter, is, that the fact of the House
Gammons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish
all their Parliamentary reports, is no justification for them,
r for any bookseller who publishes a Parliamentary report
evensontining a libel against any man." This did not allow
etdo distinction between selling and publishing, upon
17-e" the whole of his Hon. Friend's (Sir R. Inglis's) argu-
tt appeared to go. It reduced the privilege of Parlia-
eet to this, that libels were made to be published only for
Use of Members of that House.—( Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS—To be distributed.
anSPEEL—Why, thii was contrary to the power
" ,
.Privileges of Parliament, such as were exercised in
iirs the Bill of exclusion and in the suspension of the
6t'ea•E Corpus Act.—(Cheers.) So far as the protection of
reivate individuals were concerned, it might be urged that
t 8 Umbers of that House had no right to give publicity
11°1 anything reflecting on their character. This was a nice
eoretical distinction that might be drawn. It was quite
naht to sa thatprivate feeling should not be invaded by
whatthe YHousepprinted ; but then, by such a distinction,
The feelings of the popular body, which was intended, would
ellect in any way be protected.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared,
Lnerefore, to him, in accordance not only with the dictates
ti reason, but of common sense, that such privileges should
exist ; but that, without a doubt, the House possessed in
been
such privileges. True it was that such power as had
but
urged by his Hon. Friend might be liable to abuse ;
0(4 in that House alone existed the right to determine
Upon it, and none but themselves had the power.—(Cheers.)
-15ut, independent of this inherent right, all his assumptions
were fortified and confirmed by a continued stream of pre-
cedents. They were confirmed by common sense and by
the highest. Constitutional authorities known in this coun-
try. They were expressly maintained by the Bill of Rights.
--(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Previous to the
passing of the Bill of Rights it had been asserted that the
Speaker of the House of Commons printed and published a
certain document relating to certain persons. Now, the
authority of the Speaker was an authority derivative from
the House of Commons. On the publication of this offen-
6ive document an information was filed against the Speaker,
end he was convicted. After the abdication of King
mnes and the accession of King William, the Bill of Rights
teas framed, and it -was expressly declared that " the late
ding (James the Second), assisted by divers evil friends
"d Ministers, by prosecution in the Court of King's
bench and elsewhere, prosecuted certain persons for offences
etenizabl,, only in Parliament." There it was expressly
softd that the Crown prosecuted the Speaker in the Court
eleelking's Bench, and the grievance was because it was
4"4 matters " cognizable only in Parliament."—(Cheers.)
this was one of the reasons given, which would be
found in the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights :—" That
lib: freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Par-
tr Inentt ought not to be questioned in any place out of it."
wasptc: now speaking constitutionally—dolus yenera-
,' was not speaking of privileges generally. • The
43"ught of printing and the right of publishing had been im-
begtZd,—it had been questioned by the Court of King's
and, being so, it was brought before Parliament,
4N. Parliament settled it.—(Cheering.) With respect to
rtUsis article,
on the 11th of February, 1688, the Lords re-
ed
lto agree to all of that article, and wished to know if
so e. House would insist upon it. The House did insist., and
iportant did they think it that they accommodated
sham_o artirder cle in the Bill of Rights to their own special case.
also to leave no doubt to all posterity of their in-
-I,%.le,etion they added Sir William 'Williams, the Speaker,
) had been convicted, to the Members of the Com-
mittee
appointed to draw up the Bill. He mould con-
cludelvr: this part of the subject by the express assertion that the
oe'vilFge of printing resting in that House was not to be
'-estimled.—(Cheers.) He now came to that part of the
31.ebiect which more particularly related to the Courts of •
• It might be said that their uthority was not so pos:-
'4,‘e as the House of Commons ;abut what in addition was
ino decision of the House of Lords ? That they were right
en. Publishing and printing. But by far the strongest case
of a recent one. It was a case which related to the trial
H▪
orne Tooke. On this occasion a bookseller, named
right,
not having any sanction of the House of Commons.
reprinted accurately and fully the evidence and report of
of the committeeolthough it was a Committee of Secrecy.
That report WAS couched in exceedingly, and even ec'u-
liarly, strong terms, with relation to the individuals to whom
it referred. These individuals stood in recii injuria. The
expressions used certainly were strong. The Right Hon.
Bart. then read an extract from the Report. If a case of
aggravated libel were required, he would submit that the
ease was the one he had quoted. The case was the same
against all the pa:ties—they were Hardy, Thelwall, and
rne Tooke. Horne Tooke obtained a criminal informa-
tion against the printer. On the trial the first exception
%taken was, as to the fact of printing. This was overruled
113' the Judges, and they had to decide, not whether Mr.
(hansard was appointed by the House of Commons—
Cheers)—but whether a bookseller, selling for profit, ae-
tiording to the argument of his Hon. Friend, was guilty of a
ee"ch of privilege. The Judges were Lord Kenyon,
e tinge Gore, and Judge Lawrence. They all took the
tie .!fttlu ground, that, apart from the privileges of Parliament
h Publication might be a libel, but, protected by those
.e:'ivieges, it ceased to be so. In the charge of Chief
~
41-st'co Kenyon he particularly used the word " proceed-
the word used in the Bill of Rights.—(Cheers.)
tris IN, Judge Lawrence did not let his Hon. Friend take
I,ja,ntage of a fiction of law, but put it upon the ground of
iisiune advantage, and said, as only a true copy was pub-
euiied, although not authorised, " I am of opinion that the
.otipight, to be discharged."—( Hear, hear.) Now, if this
all be applied tinder circumstances of aggravated libel,
(Iv klttietions to the present assertion of privilege must be
4rtuled• It might be said that the precedent of 1638 had
In into desuetude, but lie doubted whether the uninter-
11Pfted acquiescence of 180 or 140 years was not a reason in
4"").• \\lien Mr. Kenrick was attached at the her of'that
it, c se what would have been said if !hie Mr. Justice Kenrick,
tit: sequence of his examination being published, in which
was much evidence against him, bad filed an informa-
oci 48n the
Court of King's Bench ? Mr. Denman, on that
eo'", moved that the evidence he printed, which of
(chee iticluded all those who gave evidence against him,—
end 'Ts and laughter.) In 1771 a Member of that House,
eon 4 Lord Mayor of London, released from prison a person
clillitted under the authority of the Speaker of the
s House
th- mons. The Right Hon. Gentleman then went into
tter tetement of this case at considerable length, and girt cd
1'4141 Judicial authorities on the subject. He (Sir R.
eh: )latter these authorities, would say nothing more on
ject H
lie
, • e had got through the legal parts of the
tiF 114_001:led to the satisraction of the House, and, trusted
vile succeeded succeeded in establishing that not only was the pri-
hut; consistent with common sense and comthon reason,
also •
of taie with common law. His case was, that the right
16g
-and publishing evidence was inherent in the