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

But though it is not a party question, it involves a
contention for power, and where that exists, a wise de-
cision is not to be expected. The House of Commons
and the Courts of Law are at issue, and really
contending for supremacy. It is a dispute be-
twixt law and privilege, and as the people gene-
rally prefer the former to the latter, as, in fact,
they venerate the one while they dread the other,
the supremacy of the law must in the end be acknow-
ledged. Of the two parties in the House, excluding
Sir ROBERT INGLIS, one seems as zealous to assert the
privileges of the House as the other. Sir ROBERT PEEL,
who supported Lord JOHN RUSSELL, was reminded by
Mr. HOME of his having on a former occasion made a
speech strongly advocating the privilege ; the Right
Hon. Baronet admitted the fact, and grounded his pre-
sent conduct on the fact that the House had for-
merly overruled his wish, and ordered the ATTOR-
NEY-GENERAL to plead before the Court. The
House had thereby acknowledged the. power of the
Court ; it had applied to it for a decision, which the
Commons must not question because it was adverse,
when the Commons would have profited by it had it
been favourable. He was still for maintaining the pri-
vilege generally, but for conceding in this particular
case, because the House of Commons had pleaded, and
so acknowledged the supremacy of the Court.
The party that contended for the privilege, and
wished the Sheriff to be at once resisted, dwelt
much on the fact that this privilege was no personal
immunity. It was necessary for the instruction
of the public, and was exercised exclusively for their
benefit. It was impossible to have a case more favour-
able to the House of Commons than the present to try
the question, and all the arguments used against now
estopping the Sheriff would equally apply to any case on
which the House of Commons might be disposed
hereafter to rest it. We are inclined to think the
latter had rather the best of the argument, in reference
to the present and future conduct of the House ; but we
do not think either party caught the merits, exactly, of
theimportant question at issue.
There is no difference of opinion as to its bring in-
dispensably necessary for the House of Commons, the
great inquest of the nation, to have the right to inquire
into every part of the State, nor any difference as to
its right to print, for the use of its own Members, all
the information it may require or gather. But Lord
DENMAN holds that this privilege of printing does not
extend beyond the Members of the House; it is to en-
able them to perform their functions; if a man cease to
be a Member lie must burn his parliamentary papers,
which contain libellous matter ; and the House is not
privileged to print or publish anything beyond its own
Members. That, Lord DENMAN and the Court says,
is the law ; the Commons admit that Lord DENMAN
and the Court are the authorised expounders of the
law ; the Commons always defer to them ; the Com-
mons admit, too, that law is above privilege, for the
Commons would never dream of placing privilege in
opposition to statute law ; thus the Commons, admitting
the supremacy of the law, and admitting the Court of
Queen's Bench to be the authorised expounder of the
law, must, it is plain, submit to the law. But then
comes the question, why this privilege of the Commons
which is indispensable to the performance of the duties
of the House, should not be clothed with the superior at-
tributes of law. For the House of Commons to act and
to operate it must be elected, and the whole matter of
the elections is prescribed by law. Why should not the
privilege of printing papers be, like the elections, consti-
tuted the law of the land, and then the Judges,
instead of being in a conflict with the House
of Commons, would obey and enforce the law
in its favour ? The Legislature, including the
.House of Commons, is in fault, in not having
given the privileges which are essential to the duties
of the House of Commons the force and attributes of
law.

But it is said it is a sacrifice of dignity in the House
of Commons to combine with the other branch of the
Legislature in making such a law. It must have the
power of declaring its own privileges, which means that
the conjoint Legislature is not fit to make laws, and
that the same House of Commons, which, on general
principle, insists on the supremacy of law, also
insists on the supremacy of privilege, which
is a gross and palpable absurdity. We have no
doubt, therefore, that the House of Commons is wrong,
though it is very likely that the Judges have strained the
law to get power to the utmost. We think so, because
in other and less important cases they acknowledge
with great readiness what are called privileged commu-
nications, which they might have acknowledged thin to
be without sacrificing their dignity, and without giving
a triumph to a too well known individual over the
Commons of England.

On the whole we are glad to see this important case
certainly argued without much party spirit, and parti-
cularly glad to see that Tories, as well as Whigs
and Radicals, profess a great desire to consult public
opinion, and carry it with the llouse in enforcing its
privilege. As long as so much moderation and such
deference guide the decision of the House, though
it may in the first instance give up something to the
supremacy of the law, it will in the long run lose
nothing by the contest.
After this question was disposed of the Jamaica Bill
was postponed till Wednesday. The Winthor Sta-
bles Bill was read a third time and passed, and the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. obtained leave to
bring in a Bill to improve the navigation of the Shannon.
The House sat till nearly Two o'Clock.

All the Tory journals throughout the country
echo and repeat an unfortunate and incorrect as-
sertion, made a few days ago by a Ministerial
Contemporary, to the effect that the country is
without a Government. Such piteous wailings as the
Tories utter over the lost honour and degradation
of the country, are enough to melt the hardest
heart. A fond mother weeping for her children,
" and will not be comforted, because they are not,"
cannot send forth more piercing shrieks than do the
broken-hearted, patriotic Tories. We fancy,:as we
read their doleful lamentations, that we also hear
the wild cry of revolution ; that it is proclaimed
aloud that the army has turned out against
the Duke of WELLINGTON, and frater-
nized with the Chartists ; that the Judges have
shut up their Courts ; that the administration of the
law is suspended ; that the tax-gatherer has thrown
up his books ; that the Custom-house officers have
ceased to visit ships which come and go, if any
living being has the courage to come and go in
them, unmolested ; that the Palace is no longer
surrounded with guards, and that her Majesty has
neither a file of Hussars, nor a train of courtiers
to defend her. All this, however, is mere fancy, for
though there be no Government, the affairs of the
Government at home and abroad, the collection of re-
venue, and the payment of salaries, the due ordering,
of the army and navy, the due administration of jus-
tice both civil and criminal—both in Westmnister Hall
and in the Old Bailey, are all carried on just as before;
•and if we have no Government, all its functions are
at least continued with a wonderful vitality. NV hat
our Contemporary, however, meant, and it is a pity he
has never defined his meaning, was that the present
Government is powerless to make laws. It is in
a minority in the House of Lords, it is in a bare
majority in the House of Commons, and is impo-
tent therefore to legislate. This may be curious
and anomalous, but the Executive Government, ex-
cept this influence over the Legislature, is as power-
ful as ever it was.

There may be some persons indeed, looking at
the present encumbered state of the Statute-book,
who regard this condition of the Government as not
an evil. There are others looking at the discrepancy
between the Statute-book and society, between the
laws and public opinion, between the distribution
of political power on the one hand, and of physical
and moral power on the other, who think the impos-
sibility of moving the Legislature the worst of all
possible conditions, except that of impelling it in a
Tory direction. We have long joined with all our
Liberal friends in urging the Government to attempt
to influence the Legislature in one direction, and
overcome its immobility. Like them, borrowing
our notion of the functions of Government
apparently from what it performed in Tory
times, when a borough-mongering House of Com-
mons, a Tory House of Peers, and a Mi-
nistry, were all only different names for the
same agglomeration of political power, we have
regarded the Administration as having for its chief
business to make good laws, and to repeal bad
ones. For that mainly, in common with other
Reformers, we preferred one Administration to
another, and we have continually required that
object at the hands of the Whigs. We now see,
however, from time condition of political parties,
that we must give up that object ; that the Ministers
have no power over the Legislature, and in this
sense there is no Government. If the present
Ministers are to be preferred to the Tories, it must
be because they administer the laws more to
the satisfaction of the country, or because
their possession of office prevents the bigotted and
savage Tories from using political power, as here-
tofore, to crush the people. The latter seems the
principal object ; and the late debate on Education
having again brought out all the latent and inherent
qualities of the Tories, who are untamed and un-
altered, as ferocious as ever in their advocacy of
ignorance—as bigoted as ever in their adhesion to
their own exclusive creed, we are more sensible
than we were before of the advantage to the coun-
a them out of office. The plain facts
try of keeping
of the case, then, are, that while the Government
is as strong as ever it was to administer the laws