The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-31 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
STOCKDALE V. HANSARD.-JUDGMENT.
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case at great
length at the sitting of the Court. It was an action for 6
publication defaming the plaintiff's character, by imputing
to him the puiilication of obscene libels. The plea '
that the publication was contained in a report from the
inspectors of prisons to the Secretary of State—that the
Court of Aldermen had written an answer to that report,
to which the inspectors of prisons had replied, repeating
the former statement, and adding that the impr per boo
found in the prison was a book published by the plaintiff--•
that all these documents were printed by order of the Hos6e
of Commons, which camp to the resolution tr) publish end
sell all papers printed for the use of the Mambo's, and tbat
such publication was essential to the due performance °f
the functions of Parliament, more especially of the Hcil9."„
of Commous, as being the representative portion of it.
That plea, it was contended, would form a good defence
to the action on various grout, ds, first, that the act was dell
by order of the House of Commsons, a court superior to a
and answerable to none. The sunremacy of Parliament
there asserted could not be mainParliamentd, because the Haul
' of Commons was not Parliament, but only a component
onv
Pef,,
of it. Parliament could make and unmake laws, but
by the concurrence of the three estates •Pf the realo!'.
The next defence involved in the plea was, that the defenar
ant had committed the grievance complained
by ordes,
of the House of Commons, and by virtue of its In';siLeg,se
The Attorney-General told them that wherever the 1147--ci
of Commons exercised any authority on the grout to
privilege, in such a case the Courts of law had no rig"" he
interfere, and that they had nothing to do but declare
claim well grounded, because it had been made. It fa
not without the utmost respect that the Court proceed-Ø
to examine what had been promulgated by so high ~.:h
authority. They would willingly avoid an inquiry wul
might lead them to a different conclusion, but when
fellow-subject came before them and claimed redress for
n
an
injury, injury, they had no option, they were bound to inquire
the matter, and to give judgment as the law awarded 1t
Whatever defence might be made for the wrong dome, la
was their duty to examine its principle. It was conten,u_'t
that the defendant had a legal right to be protected agalu:f
all actions, for anything done by order of the 11011;,,g
Commons. The Court, however, could not avoid asie--oa
the question whether the defendant possessed that Se.
right or not. Parliament was said to be supreme,
anaonly
Court fully acknowledged its supremacy, but
supreme when all three branches of the L it was
were
acting together, and it followed that neither were
acting
was supreme when acting by itself. It was e
said that the privilege of one branch was the privi•eig_.
of all. In one sense that was true, because what
impeded the functions of one branch impeded the functions
of the whole. All the essential parts of the machine Inest
be in order before it could work as a whole ; but it n3:35,1
egislature
an
seen that the declaration of its privileges was well founoet
before it could be conceded by the Court. The argumee
then became historical, and it was said that the three",
tates of the realm never would have left their privilege
at the mercy of inferior Courts, the Judges of which 0
accede
dependent and paid by the Crown. They could not Wee
to that, although they were far from believing that the
Judges ever had or ought to have the smallest povVer
over either House of Parliament. The independence of
Parliament was the corner stone of the Constitution. and
the Judges who in the reign of James the Second invaded
it justly earned the abhorrence of all enlightened men..
But a mean submission to power was not exclusively at-•
tached to the Judges, for they could not forget the con-
duct of the House of Commons in the case of Floyd,
one of its members, for speaking disrespectfully of the
son and daughter of James, and how little sense of jus-
tice or independence it then evinced, when it directed-
his body to be tortured, his property confiscated, his
name degraded, and himself imprisoned for life. The
Lords rebuked the Commons for that invasion of it°
privileges, and the Commons humbly apologized,
sentence was carried into full effect. Could any and
believe believe that either House in that instance entertame"
any very high or just sense of its independence. The
Noble and Learned Lord then referred at some length, ;
the case of " Burdett v. Abbott," and the several other
cases relied upon by the Attorney-General in the course of
his argument pointing out in what they differed from ,t't
case now before the Court, and concluded by observing tsar
on the whole the Court was of opinion that the demur°
must prevail, and their judgment be for the plaintiff.
The Court was extremely crowded during the delivl
but the
of the judgment, which occupied nearly two hours. 1",,1ti
Brougham was upon the bench, until Lord Denman Pi,
concluded, and appeared to pay great attention to the
guments of the Chief Justice.