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

EVENING EDITION

at_ Person convicted of larceny.—(Cries of " Oh,
" 1") The question was in whom was tl e
Power vested? If it was vested in the Court of
Queen's Bench, then the Judges were to have the
Power of defining the privileges of that House. They
alight not only prevent the exercise of the privileges .of
that House, but they might take away their wh le
,effect. He could imagine a person making a speech in
shot House against a Learned Judge either in this
Country, or Scotland, or Ireland. The question might
"fte before the Court of Queen's Bench, who might
!IY--a Member of the House of Commons certainly has
P;privilege to say what he pleases in his own Court of
~rliament, but the House has admitted strangers to
usten to the debates, and when a Member delivers
as opinion in the presence of strangers, it
s slander, and an action will lie, not be- '
!Sale the opinion was pronounced by a Mem-
luer of the House of Commons, but because
t
the
pronounced in the presence of the strangers in
gallery. To suppose such a judgment on the part
tithe Court of Queen's Bench would be not nearly so
~,
s.tne a case as those supposed to deny the House of
ecenmons the privileges which it possessed. There
ass no extreme case which might not be supposed to
tthike away every prerogative or privilege possessed by
e Crown or either House of Parliament. The Queen
possesses the eole power of declaring peace or war ; it
j,lsight be argued that she should not possess that power,
t7eause she might if she chose it declare war against all
iLle Powers of Europe to-morrow morning. It might
so, and there might be no means of restraining that
"'e", but he would say that he would not deprive the
Clueeb, the Lords, or the Commons of their privileges
Or ,
constitutional powers, because cases might arise in
*pleb this would be unduly exercised. He would not
admit that a Court of Law could interfere with the
eittereise of that power, he would admit that it might
abused by the House of Commons ; hut he saw no
means of maintaining the power, the authority, the
ds
dgaitY, and the independence of the House ofo
Masons but by resolving that the House has
PPeer to decide what are its privileges, and that that
declaration should be entire and sufficient. With regard
hthe case now before the House, the Committee
Beat
felt themselves extremely embarrassed as to the
'at course to pursue. That. Committee consisted cf
tentlemen very competent to decide these sort of ques-
ans from both sides of the House, and under these cir-
t
tstances he thought it would be better that he
Ald not at present express any opinion as to the
~'rior measure which might be deemed expedient.
he would say was, that he would maintain the
r„at
er of this House to publish its Votes, as he thought
was a privilege essential to its very existence. He
i;gtia,aegbt the House should not abandon that privilege,
tut should be prepared to maintain, if they would main•
`s), the power and authority of that House.—(Cheers.)
lb he first resolution was then put.
4 Sir S. LUSHINGTON had been desirous that some
be'f!n• Gentleman should have expressed his opinions
1,,.0re he had offered his on this subject. He was not
4eslensber of the Committee to whom the question had
then originally proposed, but he had been appointed on
te Committee which had recently sat on that subject.
:der these circumstances, be felt himself bound to
Ogle forward on this occasion, not to oppose the reso-
tian of his Noble Friend, but to support those op.'s
Kahle which he had stated before the Committee. His
Friend had stated that he considered that it was
tiintially necessary to maintain the privileges of
toHouse of Commons, without which it would
to impossible for them to do their duty to their
I,llstituents ; in that opinion he entirely concurred, but
hosea be considered the judgment his Noble Friend
io come to it appeared to him little short of an aban-
anent of that principle.—(Cheers.) This question
q4"4 one of vital importance—(Cheers)—it was not a
tioestion of personal privilege ; but the privilege ques-
ted was one without which that House could never
bgractorily perform its inquisitorial functions, either
esPosing abuses or in doing justice to the people of
' 8 Country. He would beg the House to look at the
tete
the ernstanees of this case, and consider what a case
Ltv Y were abandoning, and see what courage they could
seise, on any future occasion in case of acquiescing in
ho Judgment. How bold were they in resolutions—
tic," courageous in voting—but how vacillating in ac-
tlill:--(Loud cheers.) What was this case ? and how
its it Come before the House of Commons ?—how did
s4h°riginate in any extraordinary exertion of their
L t 8 in carrying their duty to its extreme bounds ?
th atiginated thus, they had instituted an inquiry into
:nate of goals of the country. The Inspectors had
thported the state of the goals to that House, and in
14! report they found it stated that, not in a remote
' of the country, but within two miles of where they
Rti,
44,e sitting, in the heart of the metropolis, in a gaol
si:.`er the care and protection of the city of London,
thskh was so jealous of its privileges—(Cheers)—
U`b had found that abomination of abominations—
Is,' corruptor of the youth of both sexes—
elks
ts , of such a nature that it was impossible
thoglecribe them.—(Loud cheers.) Now, who was
1111• Plaintiff in this case—one whose character had been
tht's,t'Y slandered, who was smarting under a calumny
Pale,Leould not answer? No such thing. The very
itieseTr of that obsene publication was the plaintiff
t° sup estior.---(Cheers.) If they were ever prepared
tlecesik"te privileges of that House, let them pro-
-540421, aei n which they could bring forward a more
~C11,,,,"1e combination of facts than the present one.—
Pe si-rs) But it was said it was unpopular, that the
is t'ne 01 England would support the Courts of Justice
qs °,PPosition to the House of Commons. But he
ts'itlni tell them they would not do so.--(Cheers.)
'le would say, state the circumstances of the case to
the poor widow who has an orphan, who may
%come the victim of these infamous publications by
%Tering in gaols—for the innocent might be sent there
as well as the guilty.—(Great cheering.) It was
®Possible to have a stronger case. Look at the case
`spot by his Noble Friend—he said it would be injus-
;7 to proceed now. It would be no such thing. He
~,_nld not trouble them with any legal argument, but
wauld contend that all that had been done by pleading
es not to pledge the House to abide by the jurisdic-
m2n, but to say to the Court of Queen's Bench, in the
oat authoritative and respectful manner, that this was
opestion which the House of Commons had deter-
oititned to belong to its privileges, that therefore they
i4,,,5t dismiss the case, and put an end to all proceed-
he' They had shown a wise and proper forbearance
4dacting in strict accordance with former precedents,
4, the Court of Queen's Bench having thought pro-
sy:to disregard the authority of the House of Com-
Os, they were told they were precluded from further
‘v°,seeed:ngs against the Sheriff on the ground ofinjustice.
him '7, he did not propose to take up the Sheriff, but to give
hi, notice that the House of Commons would hold
is;,:' guilty of contempt if he proceeded to execute the
~it• It would be his duty to obey the House of
lii,h4tnnons, and the House of Commons would protect
ti; jn that obedience, by committing to the custody of
1,,- ''erjeant any individual who should attempt to:inter-
s,' with him in consequence of his obedience to the
doers of the House of Commons. He could not ima- 1
that ea), future measure that could be suggested
gold place the House in the same position which they
m! occupied ; and had he the slightest hope that a
dority of that House would have acquiesced in his
lolSisi°n, he would not have shrunk from the responsi-
otlw4Y„ of proposing a resolution.—(Cries of " Move
do • ) It would be absurd and impertinent in him to
b ~se in opopsition to the influence of his Noble Friend,
''''' c:l that of other gentlemen opposite ; and however
It, ,
%t t'g his opinion. might be, he would not attempt to
s et ce it by pressins the House to a division, but he
ill'acere,ly deplored the course his Noble Friend had
Cagbt proper to pursue.—(Loud cheers.) [The
t:airned Gentleman dropped his voice at the end of
hi'n sentence in such a manner as to render it impossi-
b e,, at all times distinctly to understand him ; but we
he the above to have been the substance of what
e Stated.]
Sir R. INGLIS felt on this question, as he did two
~'tsrs ago, that the House had placed themselves in a
most difficult position, and that the easiest for them
0 have done would have been to have retraced their
'i'k's, and to have done then what they were doing now.
.1,.0Y had endeavoured to bully the Judges, but the
a 'lges would not be bullied, and they had eaten the leek
,I_4 eontentedly as any ancient Pistol ever did.—(Hear.)
re Right Hon. and Learned Judge who had just sat
1,4111 had stated that the proper course would be to
Warn the Sheriff by giving him notice that if he at-
o`to,lleteel to execute the writ, he would disobey its
ler''ts, and incur the high displeasure of that House.
b,att with respect to that he apprehended that when a
l',"rtY load obtained a writ, he had the power of putting
;tin execution, and if the Sheriff was terrified by the
threats of his Right Hon. Friend, some other means
itould be found to put it in execution. Then the
:rejstion was, was the House prepared to seize the
iluges—were they prepared to have the Lord Chief
:Ls, tice of the Queen's Bench, who was himself a Peer
,T. the Bar. He believed it would produce a convul-
l'att in the country if the House were to go to the great
sestlgths proposed by his Right Hon. Friend. Who was
rie Peeson that had set at defiance the privileges of that
was
? It was not the Jury or the Counsel ; but it
1.48 the erpositors of the law themselves. He thought
that the qucrtation of his Noble Friend from the judg-
Illata of the Judges had given but an imperfect view of
, what their opinions were. The Learned Judges had
gone very fully into the question of what were or what
1 were not privileged communications, but these load not
been
alluded to by the Noble Lord. The whole diffi-
ZiltY bad arisen from the carelessness and reek-
,,,s's,°,,ess of the House, for if the name of the
',,,-,.s.usher, as well as the author, bad been omitted, the
di !cult would never have taken place. They had got
into, the dilemma, and the question was how were they
t° got out of it. The proposition of the Noble Lord
°PPo.site left the Judges in precisely the same situation,
and ill the course of the next week another qeestion si-
milar to the present might arise, but the Noble Lord
was to meet that by another resolution. How he was
to proceed be did not know ; if it was by Bill would it
?el)), a declaratory or an enabling law. In the first instance
it would be absurd to declare that to be law which the
~1 highest law court in the country had declared not to be

Mr. HUME had a deep interest in the question, for
probably no man had exposed more abuses, and conse-
quently had caused the circulation of more libels, than
himself—(A laugh)—and therefore it was with pleasure
that he seconded the amendment. It would be destroying
the privileges of the House, if they succumbed upon.that
occasion. If that judgment were established, they
might us well shut up their doors, for their powers of
doing good would be abrogated. He was astonished
that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite was now prepared
to give in, in the most dastardly manner, after the clear
and manly speech he made to the House when the case
first came before them, and he trusted he would favour
the House with the reasons for his change of opinion.
On that occasion he was prepared to commit the prose-
cutor on the instant—why, then, was he now prepared to
give up the privileges of the House in so dastard a manner?
Again, the Learned Judge (Sir S. Lushington) had
favoured them with a noble and manly speech, and lie
(Mr. H.) had cheered him loudly—he expected as be
had so demolished the arguments of the Noble Lord
that he would have concluded with an amendment, but
a more milk and water conclusion he had never heard.
—(Laughter.) If the House succumbed on that occa-
sion, their privileges were gone, for if they committed
any one who refused to give evidence, or any one who
misbehaved at the bar, the Court of Queen's Bench
would immediately discharge him. He cordially joined
in the amendment, and he hoped all who were willing
to support the privileges of the House would support
it against the resolution of the Noble Lord.
Sir It. PEEL—Even had be not been appealed to
by the Hon. Member, it was his intention to have
addressed the House, as he for one was not willing to
shrink from the responsibility of the advice he had given
to the Committee, and he had no doubt that he would
show he was quite consistent in his conduct. He was
one of a Committee which reported that, by the law and
privileges of Parliament the Houses of Parliament had
the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine its pri-
vileges, and that the bringing of any action was a gross
breach of their privileges, and subjected the party to
punishment ; and that for any Court to assume to deter-
mine in such a case was contrary to the law of Parlia-
ment and a breach of its privileges. A few days after
that, the Attorney General advised that House to give
their printer leave to plead to the action. Upon that
occasion he had strongly opposed the recommendation,
and he was supported by the Hon. Gentleman who
had rspoken last, who, in language which it
would be in vain for him (Sir Robert Peel) to
attempt to imitate said—" It will be impossible for us
to retrace our steps. 'lt is dragging us through the
mud in a very unpleasant manner."—(Laughter.) The
Hon. Member for Newark had certainly preferred a
different course, and distinctly said the House would be
placed in a very difficult position, for the appearance
of the Attorney-General to argue the matter must ap-
pear something very like a submission. They had,
however, given their officers orders to plead to the ac-
tion, and the public feeling would be that they had
asked for the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench,
and would have taken advantage of its decision had it
been in their favour ; but having been given against
them, they set up their privileges, in order to render it
nought.—(Cheers.) They:did not propose either to go
to the head of the Court—to punish the Judges—they
proposed to pounce upon the mere ministerial officer,
the Sheriff—whom they threatened to commit if he
levied, and whom the Court of Queen's Bench would
commit if he did not obey, the writ. It was a bad
plan for the House of Commons to teach a ministerial
officer to disobey the law.—(Cheers.) They had subjected
themselves to the Court, and the Attorney-General,
after three days of most ingenious and able pleading, in
conclusion said, " My Lords, I pray your judgment for
the defendant." They had obtained that judgment, and
must abide by it. He would say that the privilege of
publication was essential for that House—(Cheers)—
and no Court had the power to say what they should
publish, or question it ; if they had not that privilege
they had better suspend their functions at once, they
could not exercise them under such controul.—(Cheers.)
He deeply regretted any necessity for taking any back-
ward step.—( Hear, I ear.) The real question for the
consideration of the House was, was it better to decide
to-night at all hazards, notwithstanding the apparent
submission to the Court ? Was it wise to retrace their
steps in this case, and direct the Sheriff not to execute
the judgment, or to wait until they could review the
whole of the circumstances of the case, and consider what
was best to be done ? If they now determined on resist-
ance they would exclude the consideration of all other
courses. His opinion was, that the best course would be, if
the case rose to-morrow, to retrace their steps, to de-
termine that they could in the first instance refuse to
submit the question to decision ; and he had a strong
warrant for that opinion in the decision of some of the
Judges. Mr. Justice Littledale said—" In the case of
commitments for contempt, there is no doubt the House
is the sole judge whether there is contempt or not, and
the Courts of Common Law will not interfere." He
should be sorry to be obliged to-night to come to a re-
solution which would have the effect of committing the
Sheriff of London to Newgate to-morrow, and next
week call the Judges before them, and commit them.
They would support the Sheriff. There was no reason
to deter the House from doing this, if the case were a
clear one, but they ought to hesitate before doing so,
having once submitted to the Court. If the opinion
which he had read was shared in by the other Judges,
he would prefer fighting the battle of privileges on a
commitment for contempt, in conformity with the pre-
cedents of the House, rather than permit an officer or

printer to plead. These were the grounds on which he
cordially concurred in the resolution moved by the Noble
Lord. He could not say it would be advisable to tell
the Sheriff to-morrow, that if he enforced the judgment

of the Queen's Bench they would commit him. He
could not advise them to appeal, because that would be
a further recognition of the power of the Court. He
would not consider those remedies until they had tried
that which they had; namely, the commitment of him
for contempt, who in the first instance was guilty of
contempt. According to their own resolution, and the
dicta of the Judges, there was one resource open to
them. Now, upon the balance of convenience and in-
convenience, he thought it desirable not to acquiesce in
the present judgment, but to take no nctive step to
prevent it, and apply themselves to the consideration of
the manner in which the judgment bore on their pri-
vileges. He still maintained the opinion that these
privileges were necessary to the exercise of their au-
thority and the discharge of their functions—(Hear,
hear)—and while they were evading the present diffi-
culty, he was persuaded it would in a few weeks be
necessary to determine in what manner to proceed for
the vindication of their privileges.—(Hoar, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt called upon to

differ from the line recommended by his Noble Friend
and the Right Hon. Baronet opposite.—(Hear, hear.)
Now was the time to make a stand, and unless they did
so their privileges would be gone.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, was quite
consistent, and from his premises he came to a just
conclusion. He was of opinion that the House pos-
sessed no such privilege ; that it was a right and just
decision ; and, therefore, ought to be acquiesced in.—
(Hear, hear.) But when he found his Noble Friend
declaring this to be an essential privilege of the House,
without which it could not discharge its duty to the
public—when he found him declaring that this was a
judgment contrary to the necessary privileges of the
House—when he found the Hon. Member far Tam-
worth conforming to that opinion—he must say, taking
their premises to be just, their conclusions were most
erroneous.—(Cheers.) Unless some plan was pointed
out by which justice might be done to this House, and
to their constituents, this judgment ought not to be ac-
quiesced in. The Noble Lord said what was unjust
must be wrong; and if it were assumed that Mr.
Stockdale had a right by a lawful judgment to recover
1001. damages, they would be guilty of injustice by
depriving him of the remedy which the law conferred on
him. But that was not the opinion of his Noble
Friend, for he said the judgment was wrong, and that
it was a flagrant usurpation on the part of the Queen's
Bench to overrule the privileges of the Commons.—
(Cheers.) If so, where was the injustice of resisting
this judgment, which was so contrary to law. If it were
a lawful judgment, let it be obeyed : if unlawful, let it
be resisted.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Tam-
worth rested his argument on the ground of having
appeared when they ought to have resisted in the first
instance.—( Hear, hear.) There was no cause to regret
the course. which had been pursued. At that time
they could not have carried public opinion in their fa-
vour by committing Mr. Stockdale. (Hear, hear.)
Their situation was now most essentially different, and
very much improved.—(Cheers.) They could not have
committed Mr. Stockdale in the first instance, with the
precedent in the case of Sir F. Burdett. But in com-
mitting Mr. Stockdale they could not have stopped the
action. If there had not been an appearance and plea
there would have been judgment by default, and a writ
of execution would have issued. Although Mr. Justice
Littledale intimated an opinion that a Court of Law
would not examine into the privileges of either House
of Parliament; Lord Denman clearly expressed a diffe-
rent opinion, and if they had committed Mr. Stockdale,
they would have run the risk of his being liberated
from Newgate by habeas corpus ; and if he had re-
mained there his action would have proceeded. They
were therefore in a better situation now than before, for
they had done everything to avoid a collision.—( Cheers.)
Suppose the event had been the other way, would not any
Member of the House of Commons have rejoiced at
the line of conduct that had been pursued, and that
collision bad been avoided ? He could assure the
Right Hon. Baronet that if Stockdale had been com-
mitted, the collision would still have taken place. He
would have applied for his habeas corpus, and even if
he had remained in prison the cause would have still
gone on, the writ would have issued, and they would
not have avoided one of the difficulties. Those diffi-
culties were unexampled, because it was unexampled
that a Court of Law should take upon itself to decide on
the privileges of the House of Commons. The Consti-
tution had not contemplated such a state of things,
and bad not provided against it. The Judges
of Westminster Hall had, except in once case,
uniformly respected the privileges of both Houses
of Parliament. In his opinion the decision of
the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench,
in Stockdale v. Hansard was totally contrary to law,
and instead of this being a usurpation of privilege on
the part of the House of Commons, it was a flagrant
usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the Co•ert of
Queen's Bench.—(Cheers.) As to the question of
pleading, it was a mere fallacy to suppose that when
the authority of any body was pleaded, that authority
was subjected to the tribunal before whom such authority
was pleaded. If so, pleading the authority of an Act of
Parliament in justification would render the Court of
Queen's Bench judges of the power of the Houses of
Parliament to make laws. What then was to be done?
He certainly should not advise the issuing a writ of
error, that would be their voluntary act, and if judg-
ment were given against them it would be impossible
to resist it. A declaratory Act would be inexpedient.
The law was clear already, and though such an Act
might pass this House, he was not certain of its
fate elsewhere ; and another objection would be, how
could they say the judgment would be illegal if they
acquiesced in it. An enabling Act would be still more
objectionable, as it would be acquiescing in the deci-
sion in the humblest manner, and acknowledging that
they had no privileges but what the Court of Queen's
Bench chose to allow—that that Court was the judge of
all their privileges. The present Judges were disposed
to allow that the House possessed some privileges, but
he could not be certain that their successors would
allow them any, for their predecessors had always said
that they had no knowledge of the Law of Parliament,
and that the Houses of Parliament were judges of their
own privilege. An enabling Act was therefore inexpe-
dient. The Right Hon. Baronet said, in the next case
commit the plaintiff—but what were to become of the
damages ? He presumed Mr. Hansard was not to pay
the damages out of his own pocket. Most probably
they would appear in the Miscellaneous Estimates,
and be voted by the House of Commons.
Having acted in this manner in this case, how
could the Right Honourable Baronet commit the
plaintiff in the next similar case ? But committing the
plaintiff would not stop the action—there would be the
same judgment, and the same assessment of damages.—
He felt that all these courses were inexpedient, and
that the course suggested by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Newark was full of difficulties, and he
would not adopt it if any other course could be pointed
out. The plan of the Right Hon. Baronet would be
only deferring the evil day. Some difficulty might arise
to the Sheriff of Middlesex, but he would not be in the
disagreable situation that had been pointed out. The
Court of Queen's Bench, in this instance, had been is-
suing an illegal order, and if so they were only calling
on the Sheriff not to execute an order contrary to the
law of the land. He had the greatest respect for the
Court of Queen's Bench, and the greatest personal
regard for the Judges, but he would contend that in this
instance the crisis had not been brought on by the
conduct of the House ; but now all their privileges
were in danger—either the Parliament or the Courts of
Law must be paramount in this country, and the Courts
have said that they are paramount. The case was sur-
rounded with difficulties, but he believed the least dif-
ficult course to be pursued was to resist the execution
of the writ.—(Cheers.) He believed public opinion
would be with them—(Cheers)—because this was not
a privilege for themselves as Members, but a privilege
for the benefit of their constituents, in order that they
might be enabled to know on what grounds they le-
gislated ; and he thought that when the people saw
that 658 copies might, according to the opinion of the
Court of Queen'sßench be printed,they would know that
all the injury that could be done to any man's character
by the circulation of libels on him, would be done by
suffering 658 copies to be printed.—( Hear, hear,hear.)
But who was the hero of this application ?
Who was tie upholder of the rights of the people ?
Why the publisher of the " Memoirs of Harriet Wil-
son," who, when sued for the printing, had pleaded his
own infamy, and had said that the book was of so in-
famous a nature that the contract for printing it was
void as an immoral contract. The very publication in
question had been made the subject of an action for
libel by Stockdale, justification had been pleaded, the
book had been handed to the Jury for inspection, who,
on looking at the plates, had found a verdict for the
defendants, thus stamping it as an obscene publication.
Now was the time to assert their privileges or they
would be for ever gone. He had been most anxious to
avoid extremities, but he could find no other mode so
unobjectionable as that pointed out by his Hon. and
Learned Friend, and therefore he should support his
proposition.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. PEMBERTON had understood his Hon. and
Learned Friend to say previously that whatever mode
they might adept it would be impossible, having sub-
mitted the matter to the arbitration of the Judges,
and taken the chance of a decision in their favour.
now to turn round and impugn that decision.
He was ready to concur in any measure that would give
the House the power which it did not now possess, of
protecting persons who acted under its authority ; but
he was not prepared to sanction the resistance of the
law. He thought the House could not in common jus-
tice or decency interfere at the present moment to re-
strain the execution of the writ. The House had vir-
tually decided as to the legality of the proceedings inas-
much as it had called upon the Attorney- General to
defend it. One of the very foundations of the argument
that had been urged in that House, was founded upon a
mistake in the important point of the date of these c3le-
brated resolutions. In the printed document on their table,
they were stated to be 30th May, 1836, but it turned
out that they were passed the 30th May, 1837. The
plaintiff had stated that the plea was not sufficient in
law, while the defendant insisted that it was, and they
both joined issue upon that point, and went before the
Judges for their decision. Now, where was the con-
tempt in that ? Was it in the Judges having pro-
nounced a decision upon the case ? No ; the House
had courted and invited that decision, and having
been foiled and defeated in the result they had antici-
pated, like a disappointed gamester, they now turned
round, and refused to acknowledge the authority of the
Court to which they had appealed. The Hon. and
Learned Member here referred to the resolutions of
1837, which declared that any party calling that House
to account, or bringing anything done by it for discus-
sion before any other tribunal, was guilty of a contempt
of the House, and was liable to be punished. Now
lie would appeal to his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Attorney-General, or to any Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber of that House, to say whether that position could
be for a single moment maintained in law ?—(Hear,
hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend said the judg-
ment of the Queen's Bench was illegal—if so, why did
they not at once reverse it? Would they commit the