The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-14 00:00:00

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

JOHN DUFF, feuar, Scotston, New London-road, Glas-
gow, Dec. 18 and Jan. 8, at twelve, at the Black Bull Inn,
Glasgow.
ARTHUR and CO., merchants, Glasgow, Dec. 18 and Jan.
8, at two, at the Black Bull Inn, Glasgow.
PETER STIRLING, horse-dealer, Edinburgh, Dec. 20
and Jan. 13, at one, in the Old Signet Hall, Royal Exchange.
THOMAS 11PLEAN TAYLOR, brewer, Clockserie,
Bridgend, Perth, Dec. 20 and Jan. 17, at ene, at the chambers
of Messrs. Gray and Jameson.

STOCKDALE v. THE HOUSE OF

COMMONS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR,—The extraordinary silence of the Liberal
Press of London respecting the course which the
House of Commons ought to take in the vindication
of its privileges, insultingly trampled upon by the
Judges of the land in the case of Stockdale against
the printer of that Assembly, induces me to trouble
you with a few remarks on the subject, which I
trust you will be good enough to publish in your
excellent Journal before the meeting of Parliament.
As the question is one of considerable magnitude,
and as there are circumstances connected with it of
a very peculiar nature, it will not be possible for
me to condense within the limits of one letter all
that I deem necessary to say respecting it. For
this, the subject itself is my only apology. I shall,
however, be as brief as possible.
Allow me first to put the question to be decided
in what I conceive to be its simplest form. The
House of Commons, in the exercise of its legal and
constitutional functions, and as a necessary prelude
to a deliberate course of legislation, claims the right
of appointing Committees of Inquiry, and of sub-
mitting the evidence taken before them to Parlia-
ment and the country. In the appointment of such
Committees it is invariably guided by the petitions
of the people whose representative it purports to be.
The removal of an evil—the remedying of an abuse
—or the concession of a right—is prayed for ; and
the House appoints a Committee to inquire whether
the indicated grounds for legislative interference
exist, and to what extent. It must be clear to every
person that this inquiry can only be conducted by the
citation of individual caszs. An evil affecting no
individual in particular, or an abuse perpetrated
by no person, would most certainly fail to convince
any rational deliberative Assembly of the necessity
of legislating for the reform of the one, or the re-
moval of the other. Having recourse to asterisks
or blanks for the names, would be preposterous
and unjust—preposterous because they would lead
to no real concealment, and unjust because they
would give slanderers a handle for affixing evil
imputations upon innocent persons. To attempt,
therefore, to fetter the House of Commons by re-
stricting the powers of inquiry claimed by its Com-
mittees would be to strike- at the root of all wise
and just legislation.
But in the case of Stockdale versus Hansard,

the Judges decided that it was not the reporting to
the House of Commons, but the publishing of the
matter so reported, that exposed the servants of
that Assembly to actions for libel. Now if the
House of Commons made laws for its Members
only, this reasoning would be quite conclusive.
But as it claims to bind the country by its enact-
ments, the case is widely different. The House is
morally as much bound to make the country ac•
quainted, as far as it can, with the grounds upon
which it presumes to enact laws, as is a Committee
of the House to report the result of its inquiries to
the whole of that body. Here the grand and
sole -rule ought to be the public good—the
fostering: of respect for, and obedience to the
laws; not the possible inconvenience to the class
of moral offenders whose mal-practices rendered
the passing of such laws imperative upon the
Representatives of the people. That the House of
Commons could be actuated by the malicious
feelings of a private or individual libeller is what
no man in his senses ever did, or ever could sup-
pose for an instant.
The House of Commons can undoubtedly secure
to itself the exercise of its privileges by Act of
Parliament, and after the shameful way in which
it has been compromised by the Attorney-
General and the other Law Officers of the Crown,
I would not object to its adoption of such a course,
though decidedly a humiliating one. As the
Attorney-General's share in this business is not
over-creditable to that Learned Gentleman, either
as a lawyer or a patriot, I propose, with your per-
mission, to confine my next letter to giving it
.hat notoriety which I think it deserves.
I have the honour to remain, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
Brooke's Club, St. James'•street, Dec. 12.