The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-02 00:00:00

CHINA.

An IloN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
was desirous of ascertaining from the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, it
there was any foundation for the ramours which had
been circulated that the British residents and merchants
had been seized at Canton, and imprisoned by the
Chinese authorities, and onlry released on condition of
g►v►rg up all the opium in their possession,which had been
destroyed. These reports. had created a great sensa-

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL having moved the. Order
of the Day for considering the petition of Messrs. Han-
sard, also moved that the Resolutions of the House, of the 30th May, 1837, respecting the privilege of print-
ing the proceedings and reports of the House, be read
by the Clerk. That having been done, the Noble Lord
said, he rose for the purpose of bringing under
the consideration of the house the steps which
it might be expedient to take with regard
to the notice which had been served upon Messrs.
Hansard, that an action was to be proceeded in against
them for publishing the proceedings authorised by the
House. In doing so he thought it as well to state the
position in which they stood with regard to the power
of publishing their proceedings. Upon a proceeding
somewhat similar to the one in question the House ap-
pointed a Committee to inquire into the precedents upon
which this power had been exercised by the House,
and the grounds upon which that privilege might
be maintained. That Committee found that the right
was inherent in the House, and belonged to the consti-
tutional functions of the House, and was necessary for the '
due performance. of those functions, and had been exer-
cised for a very long period of time, more particularly
at the time of the Revolution, when, under the sancti,m
of Speaker Williams, the Votes of the House were
printed and published, nay, sold, and the sale had be-
come so extended as to be a matter of profit, the re-
turns from the sale exceeding the expense for
printing. That was very likely to be the case in
those times, because the public had not then, as now,
the facility of reading in the newspapers of the day the
debates which occurred the evening before. The pub-
lic in general only obtained such information, scantily,
from month to month, in the magazines, and the
only authorized information the public had was from
the Votes of the House, authorized to be printed and
sold by the House. He only recurred to that fact be-
cause of a very prevalent opinion that the practice of
selling the publications, printed by order of the
House was totally a new practice, and did
not rest upon the same foundation as the
other privileges of the House. The fact he be-
lieved to be that the- practice in old times was much
more extensive than in the present day. In consequence
of the Report of that Committee, the House entered into
those resolutions which had been read by the Clerk at
the table. Discussions took place in the House as to the
manner in which that power was given, and how it ought
to be exercised when infringed upon by an action
being brought in a Court of Law for a publication
authorized by the House. It was contended that
the more regular way of proceeding was to go
into a Court of Law, and thereby inform the Judges
that the publication by Messrs. Hansard was one autho-
rised by the House, and the House claimed the privi-
17e, as one that was undoubted—the privilege of autho-
rising the publication of their proceedings. It was no
doubt the expectation of the House—at least it was
held out to the House—that that was the re-
gular manner in which to inform the Court of
their privileges, which were so clear and de-
cided ; and being informed by the Attorney-General
that the Court would allow the answer to be a sufficient
one, and that after that answer the case would not be
proceeded in—at all events, that the parties could not
proceed to claim damages with respect to such
publication—that course was proceeded in. The
result of the proceeding was certainly different from
the expectation that was held out, and the views which
were propounded by the Court of Queen's Bench.
Whatever they might be as a question of strict law, they
were undoubtedly of a most extraordinary nature aa
far as concerned the powers and functions of this
House, because it was held that a Report by an
inspector of prisons, with regard to the prison of
Newgate and with regard to the nature of the books
admitted there, was not a matter that could
at all concern this House in its legislation—(Hear, hear)
—and could have no effect as to any proceedings which
it might take with regard to that person, and that there-
fore such publication was entirely unjustifiable. With-
out entering into the question of law, he must say that
such an opinion propounded by the Chief Justice struck
him with astonishment, and convinced him that it would
not be right to entrust the decision of their privileges to
a Court of Law—(Cheers)—because the very narrow
and contracted notion which appeared to prevail in the
Court of Queen's Bench, if allowed to be carried into
their full effect, would entirely deprive their House of
the most useful, and most important of its privileges—
(Hear, hear)—and might prevent it from obtaining for
itself, and communicating to the public at large, that
general information which was necessary for the
maintenance of the authority of this House and
the satisfaction of the public in general, who watched
its proceedings. A question was then brought be-
fore the House whether the opinion having been
given against the privileges of the House, it was
necessary to proceed in order to prevent the execution
of the judgment, to prevent the damages being levied
by the inferior officers of the Court. On that occasion
the House was of opinion, by a very small majority,
that, having allowed the matter to go so far,
that having at least apparently pleaded in the
cause, and asked for the judgment of the Court—
that that was trot a stage in which they could
properly interfere in- vindication of the privilege.
The House, therefore, came to the resolution to take
such measures as were necessary, upon the Report of the
Select Committee appointed to consider the subject ;
but, at the same tame, in answer to a question by the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny, he (Lord J. Russell)
stated there was nothing in that resolution to prevent
the House proceeding should any case occur in which it
might be necessary to vindicate their privileges before
the Report of that Committee should be made.
It appeared that such a case had actually occurred, for
the Messrs. Hansard had received a letter from a person
calling himself the attorney of a Mr. Polack, who was
about to commence an action against them for printing
and publishing a Report of a Committee. Now, first
what was this Report ? And certainly it did appear to
him (Lord .J. Russell) that, rather extraordinarily, this
was in favour of the House a much stronger case than the
former one of Stockdale —(Hear hear.) In this case
the action was brought for printing and publishing a
Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords
respecting the islands of New Zealand. He would not
enter into the evidence—(Hear, hear)—but he would
state that the question relative to New Zealand was a
most important one ; it had been under the consideration
of the Government—it had attracted great attention—
and a Bill had been introduced upon the subject. That
House had ordered no special investigation of its own,
but had reprinted the Report of a Committee which
had been appointed by the House of Lords to examine
into the subject—" to inquire into the present state of the
New Zealand Islands, and the expediency of regulating
the settlement of British subjects there. The Lords
named upon the Committee included the Lord Presi-
dent of the Council, the Duke of Wellington, Earl of
Devon, Lord Hillsborough, Earl of Durham, Earl
Ripon, Viscount Gordon, the Bishop of London, the
Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Hereford,
Lord Glenelg, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Broug-
ham and Vaux, and Lord Ashburton. That Com-
mittee were engaged for a considerable time in
taking evidence upon New Zealand ; they came to a reso-
lution to make their Report, which they did very shortly
stating, that with regard to the main point of the subject,
the proceedings ought to begin with the Government,
but stating also certain opinions with respect to the settle-
ment of New Zealand, recommending at the same time
that a part of the evidence should be printed for the use
of the Lords. He thought it could be hardly asserted,
having been so printed, that the evidence was entirey
confined to the Members of that House—(Hear, hear.)
—and they had it now stated upon the authority of the
Judge, that the question of selling was not material in
this respect.—(Hear, hear.) The whole question
turned upon publication. It was extravagant to affect
that Hon. Members might have, provided they kept it
strictly confined to themselves, the proceedings of both
Houses of Parliament, because he could not be-
lieve that it was practicable. Whoever went into
the house of a Peer would find upon his table se-
veral large books and Reports, both of the proceedings
of the House of Lords and of the Commons, and there
could be no doubt that if any person wished to have infor-
mation with regard to New Zealand, a Noble Peer would
not think himself justified in keeping from such an indi-
vidual a copy of the evidence that had been given on that
subject. He would take it for granted that the Peers,
whose names he bad read to that House only re-
ported to the House, for the purpose of being printed,
such evidence as they thought material for the
consideration of the subject. They did not print evidence
wantonly, for the purpose of injuring private indivi-
duals ; and in the next place he was sure the evidence
so printed by them was in fact published by them,
and made known by them in the way the law csn-
ridered publication. The Report was then commu-
nicated to the House of Commons. He would not
now enter into the question of what might be
contained in it, or whether it had any effect on the
character of Mr. Polack ; it was sufficient for him to say
that that House. had received the evidence as taken
before a Committee of the House of Lords, and lisd it
printed by their order. Whether they were justified or not
in that proceeding, be (Lord John Russell) thought
the resolution of the House to print and publish
those proceedings was in itself a sufficient autlio
ray to Messrs. Hansard, and that they were jus-
tified. in what they had done by the fact of the order

Sir R. INGLIS said he should oppose the resolu-
tions, and he could not help expressing his regret that
the Noble Lord standing there, not only as a
Minister of the Crown, but as the guardian
of the law, should have indulged in the expres-
sion which had escaped him in reference to
tho Supreme Court of Judicature.—(Contemptuous
cries of " Hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.)
He had not expressed himself accurately, if he had cen-
sured the Noble Lord's declaring his unwillingness to
trust the privileges of that House to the keeping of the
Judges in that Court; but he was sorry that the
Noble Lord should have added that those
Judges were men of narrow and contracted views.
But what were the facts of the case as related to the
case of Polack. The House had no real cognizance
of the case ; but he apprehended that the Court of
Queen's Bench had not only decided the case of Stock-
dale, but also that of Polack. His information led him
to believe that Polack had brought an action against
the. Times for publishinr, an extract from the very Re-
port in question, and had recovered damages. 'Was the
House then to come forward and say that the Court
had given a wrong decision, they having had nothing to
do with it. His Noble Friend said he wondered that
Polack had allowed the publication by the House of
Lords to pass, and waited to pounce upon that House
the moment they published the document : but the
Noble Lord assumed two things—he first assumed that
the Lords had published the document.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) Now the very first witness put into the box
would say that he went to Hansard's and bought the ,
Report for 3s. 4d. Could they say so of the Lords .
He did not pretend to say what west, la:
whether there was, any difference in
po'in point law in the selling of the papers, but certainlye,
there was
Abingdon-street
o of
proofpurchase
from any
proved compared to the proof of -'s'etrryeeetssoerntiTalurdnifft,:lreenwcasinfoeprastihle
publicationuseless to g
t Ito wg:aos t. o the whole-o
ndividual Peer.—(Hear, hear.)
on unless they were preparedheered in that way they
extent.—(Cheers.) If theydee
y the
had very strong nerves in ed.
believedthey must indeed
exert their courage, for he Igreat
body of the House would not go along with them.
Did they suppose that Charles Shaw would, upon
the first proceeding fall down upon his knees—at once
succumb and beg pardon .of the House? Suppose he
were to do so, were there no more Charles Shaws
in the profession ? Did they suppose that their weak I
thunder would frighten and bring Mr. Joel humbly to
their bar as a supplicant for mercy. Under such circum-
stances Mr. Polack would do what Mr. Pearman
had done on a certain occasion; he would take advantage
of a fine morning and a steamer for Calais, and then what
would become of the orders of that House? The difference
between the orders of that House and those of the Court
of Queen's Bench was, that that Court was a permanent
body, while the House of Commons was dependent for
its breath on the will of the Noble Lord opposite.—
(Laughter.) If that Noble Lord's friends should say 1