The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-14 00:00:00

mode of distributing them to the Members, by which they
were circulated throughout the country, and it seemed
to him, that the decision which had been come to on that occa-
sion, if carried to its full extent, would place them in a very
extraordinary position. Suppose an Hon. Member had
thought fit to lay upon the table of tisat. House articles of im-
peachment against some high officer my the Crown, whom he
thought was deserving of impeachment,• those papers might
be prosecuted as libellous by the person against whom they were
directed, and the jury acting upon the former finding that that
House had no privileges, might decide upon the merits of the
case, as to whether this person was or was not guilty of pub-
lishing a libel. He had only quoted that as an extreme case,
but it appeared to him that if the doctrine laid dawn in the
King's Bench prevailed, no sale of the votes and papers of that
House could take place. He knew not whether they should
refer the question to the Committee of Privileges, olmove
that a limited number of Members be appointed to inquire into
the facts which bore upon that question.
The SPEAKER hoped he would be excused for stating
shortly—not the opinions he entertained, but the position in
which he was placed, with the view of eliciting from the House
some directions for his own guidance. It was necessary that
some interference should take place in a question so generally
affecting the privileges of that House, and he had there-
fore procured the short-hand writer's notes, and it ap-
peared from the doctrine laid down on that trial, that a
direct interference had taken place with their privileges. He
had that morning been applied to, to know what number of
copies of the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire
into the state of the Church of Scotland would be printed,
and that had placed him in some difficulty. If ho directed
that a sufficient number only should be printed for the use of
the Members of that House, it would be obvious that many of
these copies would find their way throughout the country
—(Hear)—although the public officers might not be supplied,
and that required that the number printed should not be regu-
lated by, the exact number of Members of that House. It
was well known that in many cases the number of copies
printed was two, three, or more thousands; but be found that
the construction which the Chief-Justice was disposed to put
upon the privileges of that House was, that the print-
ing must be limited exclusively to the use of the Mem-
bers of that House. Now, if that decision was a good
one, it was a question whether the signing of such an order
by the Speaker did not subject him to a prosecution in a
Court of Law for the publication of what might be con-
sidered a libel ; while, on the other hand, if he refused, it
would subject him to the inconvenience and difficulty
of having repeated applications made to him which
it would be impossible for him to answer.—(Hear.)
By the decision of the Lord Chief Justice, if he were to sign
an order for the printing of more copies than were actually re-
quired for the service of the Members of the House, he would
be liable to an information by any party who might complain
of the subject matter. As he found now that he was respon-
sible for his conduct not only to that House but to the Courts
at Westminster Hall, he was most anxious to receive the in-
structions of the House.—( Cheers. )
Mr. C. W. WYNN said it was impossible not to agree
in what had fallen from the Noble Lord. The question was
one of very great importance. It went far beyond its imme-
diate object, and struck at the root of every privilege of the
House of Commons. The question was whether that House
was or was not amenable to the Court of King's Bench ;
whether its acts were to be judged by any other tribunal
whatever. He was greatly astonished that the case admitted
of any doubt—it was no new practice for the proceedings of
that House to be printed for circulation and sale—it had
been a continued practice for 150 years—the votes of that
House bad been ordered to be printed for circulation among
the people at large. The Speaker issued his order appointing
persons for the printing and sale of these votes. But not
only the votes had been printed, but information which
had been given at the bar of that House. He would
instance the case of Dangerfield in 1608, where the House
ordered the information to be printed for circulation for the
benefit of the person who gave the information. No notice
was taken of it at the time, but when Charles I. wished to go-
vern without Parliaments, about 5 or 6 years after, then an
information was filed against the Speaker for an alleged libel
contained in that information against the Duke of York. The
Speaker pleaded to the action, that he acted under the
order of the House, and that, therefore, he was not liable.
That plea was demurred to, and the demurrer being overruled,
judgment was given against him. Immediately upon this re-
solution the Judges taking cognizance of things cognizable
in that House, were expressly declared to be ille-
gal, and the House of Lords, upon a conference,
agreed in that decision. A similar judgment had been given
by the Court of King's Bench in the case of Mr. James
Docker, the Serjeant-at-arms, who put in a plea of the privi-
lege of the House that was overruled, and judgment W2S given
against him, which was declared by the House-to be illegal. It
appeared to him, therefore, that it was necessary that means
should be adopted for vindicating the character of
the House. As judgment had not been pronounced
it was not necessary that the usual course should be adopted
of ordering the record into the. House and taking it off the
file; but it was necessary that some resolution, expressive of
the determination of the House to assert its privileges, should
be adopted.
Mr. O'CONNEL L did not know whether this conversa-
tion ought to continue. He had no doubt of the course they
ought to pursue—he had not the smallest doubt that the de-
cision of the Learned Judge was wrong, supposing it to have
been judicially pronounced by that Learned Lord. It was
impossible to consider any publication of matter that came be-
fore that House a libel. That House was the representative,
or supposed to be the representative, of all the people of Eng-
land. Here were the people of England assembled, and all
the information they had a right to receive they were
bound to communicate to their constituents. As to the
case of the Church of Scotland Report, was there a single
_ _

Member from Scotland who would not feel it his duty to com-
municate that report as early as he possibly could ? Every one
of his constituents was interested in it, and he would not do his
duty if he did not communicate it to them either in writing or
verbally. A libel might be just as much a verbal as a written
one. That House could never perform its functions if it were
considered a libel to give the facts that came before them to
the public at large. He regretted exceedingly that the
Learned Judge had taken such a view of the subject.
It might be said that they committed an injury in pub-
lishing what it was a crime to publish. If they did an
injury in the exercise of their necessary privileges, they were
bound to compensate for it. But they were not to construe
strictly the meaning of the word injury, when they had a pub-
lic duty to perform. According to the present law of libel,
truth was no defence. If Mr. Hansard had been indicted for
libel, that -House, according to the judgment of the Learned
Lord, could not protect him. He hoped that immediate steps
would be taken to set the matter right, and that it should be
distinctly known, that all matters that came before the House
,pight be communicated with perfect safety.
/qr. DANIEL WHITTLE HARVEY did not under-
tand the Lord Chief Justice to have stated the House had
not the privilege of publishing its proceedings in as many
copies as it thought fit ; but the question was whether
the house, being an integral part of the Constitution,
through which laws were made, had a right to reserve to itself
the right of violating the laws it so made.—( Hear, hear. )
The very circumstance of this judicial opinion might lead to
the consideration of the question of what was libel. Happy
and valuable would be the determination upon such a ques-
tion, for at present nothing could be inure unsettled—nothing
bearing less the stamp and impress of sound sense, than
that which constituted the law of libel.—( Hear, hear.)
He would presume that the law of libel would be
definite and intelligible, and the question then would
. be, whether the House should reserve to itself the exclusive
right of violating that very law which it ought to be the first
to uphold. If it were to do so, the character of every man in
the country would be at the mercy of the House of Commons.
This was a most important subject • at the same time he could
not believe those who were the law makers, exercising the
highest prerogatives, should be allowed to violate those laws.
Mr. O'CONNELL explained. The Member for South-
wark was quite mistaken on the subject. The question was,
whether or not such a law as that referred to by him was in
existence? There was no statute regulating the law of libel;
it was the common law of the land. _ _ _

_ .....
Mr. C. BULLER wished the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Home Department would state what course he was dis-
posed to pursue on the subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he would state what he
intended to propose to-morrow evening.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Mr. WASON asked a question respecting the Bill intro-
duced by the Member of Liskeard, on the subject of contro-
verted elections ; but there being loud calls to proceed with
the subject of the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill, no answer
was returned.
STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.

Captain CIIET NV YND moved that a new writ should
issue for Stafford, in the room of Sir H. Goodricke, who had
some time since vacated his scat for that borough.
Mr. DIVETT, before proceeding to state the course which
he meant to follow, would trouble the House while ho gave a
short history of the transactions with reference to the borough
of Stafford. It would be recollected that some years ago, in
consequence of the notoriously corrupt practices in this place,
a Committee was appointed to make inquiry into the circnm-
stances. The Chairman of that Committee was the Hon.
Member for Buckingham, and after a patient investiga-
tion, they came to the resolution that the whole
system was one of systematic corruption; that it appeared
from the evidence taken before them, that a case of open and
undisguised corruption had been made out as existing in the
borough of Stafford, and that it should cease to return Mem-
bers to Parliament. The Chairman was requested to bring
in a Bill to disfranchise the borough. In consequence of the
late period of the session the Bill was not proceeded with, but
in the following one it passed that House, and was sent up to
the House of Lords, who, he supposed, could not find time to
consider it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Bill was carried a
second time, almost without opposition, in that House,
but it was again consigned to oblivion in that place where so
many other good measures met with the same fate. A third
time it was sent up by the House of Commons, and then a