The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-08 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

leges they might possess had been already amply vilv.li-
caled—( Cheers)—but in the exercise of the power of in-
flicting punishment—(Cheers)—had declared his intention
of voting for the prolonging the imprisonment of these
gentlemen.—( Cheers.) He would say that not only was
his conclusion unsupported by his arguments, bat that
it was contradicted by them.—( Opposition cheers.)
It was with great regret that he had heard
his Hon. and Learned Friend thu Solicitor-General,
state that he should be prepared to advise the House to
petition the Crown to prolong the punishment of these in-
dividuals, by abstaining ftom the exercise of the preroga
tire of pe.orogation. He regretted the Noble Lord had
not had the firmness to abide by the opinions which he had
himsen pronounced respecting these gentlemen, and reject
the advice of the Solicitor- General..—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Ile would not trespass further on the tame of the House,
t/:an to state respecting this privilege which was claimed
as the origin of this power of commitment, that be should
deeply lament to see the day when the House should for-
bear to publish for the information of the people of this
country, all papers that were necessary for their informa-
tion or instruction. But if, in the course of communicating
that information, injury should be inflicted on any individual,
he thought the country ought not to object to pay that in-
dividual any compensation that might be due to him in con-
sequence, and he did not think the country would object to
pay it. He trusted sincerely that the Noble Lord would,
on consideration, be inclined to discharge the Sheriffs.—
( Cries of " Question.")
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said be did not think tha
Learned Gentleman had duly appreciated the victory
which had been gained by the opponents of privilege. It

. „
was a victory over that, in support of which the Solicitor-
General talked about proroguing Parliament—( Laughter)
—and the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) had de-
clared, that rather than so render, he would abdicate his
functions—( Hear, hear)—namely, the Resolution of 1837,
which, in an unqualified manner, declared any interference
with their privileges was a high contempt.—( Hear, hear.)
Why, now, it seemed that a Declaratory Act was to be re-
sorted to.—( Hear, hear.) That was the whole
question. (Cries of " No, no.") The question
was, whether the House should, by its own
authority publish what papers it pleased. There were two
modes of attaining that object—fair and foul. The House
tried might—but fearing that it would be defeated,
now had recourse to the constitutional course.—( Oh, oh.)
IN ere the Sheriffs to remain in custody, and have the
Chief Magistrate of the first city in the empire congratu-
lating them upon their martyrdom ?—( Laughter.) The
liberty of the subject had gained a noble victory.—(Oh,
oh.) As to preserving the dignity of the House, he be-
lieved it would fall lower and lower, every day, every hour
the Sheriffs were kept in custody.
Sir MATTHEW WOOD complained of the manner
in which some Hon. Members had spoken of the conduct of
the Sheriffs, particularly his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Dublin, who had alluded most particularly to
the manner in which they had conducted themselves
throughout the whole of that distressing scene, and who'
had spoken.of them as having taken upon themselves the
office from choice. The Sheriffs had been charged
with endeavouring to resist that charge, and to run counter
to it. He (Sir M. Wood) denied that. An attachment
had been sued out against them by the assignees of Mr.
Stockdale, and had been served upon them that morning,
and they had been obliged to pay the money. They had
made an apology to that House, and what did the House
want more ?—(Cheers. ) Were they to be kept back on
Monday next, when the whole country was in a state of
joy and pleasure ?—(Laughter and cheers.) Ile knew
not what the feelings were of Hon. Members on his side
of the House who call themselves great lovers of liberty—
(Opposition ebeers)—when they reflected that two inno-
cent men, and as respectable as any in the City of
London, were kept in a state of confinement.—( Hear.)

Sir R. PEEL could assure the House he meant to vote
precisely as he did before. If the House of Commons was not
possessed of the privilege of free publication ; or if it were to
hold it liable to be questioned by a Court of Law, not only
would he retire from the performance of his public duty as a
Member of Parliament, but he thought the House of Com-
mons would pursue a much more fitting course by closing its
doors, than by continuing with maimed and mutilated powers,
to hold out the semblance of a free popular assembly ,vith-
out the power of discharging any one of its functions.—
( Loud cheers.) The question was, in his opinion, brought to
the right issue of whether the House of Commons would
have the power of publishing defamatory matter
without questions.—( Hear.) He (Sir Robert Peel)
maintained that the House ought to have that power. The de-
bate had been attended with one advantage, that no Hon.
Member had got up, either on that or on the previous occasion,
to contend that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench
was good, or could be maintained. He had it on the authority
of the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals of the present Govern-
ment—of the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals of the last Go-
vernment—of his Right Hon. Friend, who formerly filled the
office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland—he had it on the authority
of his Honourable Friend the Member for Bandon—of his
Right Honourable Friend the Recorder of Dublin, him-
self acting in a judicial capacity—some questioning the
proceedings of the House in subsequent stages, but ,
all admitting that the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench could not be maintained. (Loud cheers.) His
Hon. and Learned Friend, one of the chief advocates for the
Queen's Bench, had declared that the House of Commons could
not maintain that privilege, or if they exercised the privilege of
publication, and published a libel, in that case the public oeght
to provide compensation. That was his Hon. and Learned
Friend's qualification, but he maintained that he should be
obliged to maintain the position that the Ministt rs of the Crown,
who were concerned in the frauds of the South Sea scheme,
and which frauds were exposed by Parliament, had a right to
claim compensation from the public —(Loud cheers.) How
could his Hon. and Learned friend shrink from that position ?
If a man were libelled by these publications, he would have a
right to maintain an action, whether he acted in a private ca-
pacity or as a public officer, and every Minister of the Crown and
public offi,:er condemned by inquiry before the House of Com-
mons would have a right to demand compensation for the libel.
That was the only vindication he had heard of the judgment of
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. if that judg-
ment were erroneous, was it surprising that they should resort
to measures which, under other circumstances, might
partake of harshness and severity ? He contended that
the House of Commons had acted throughout with
the greatest moderation.—(Loud cheers ) The question
now before them was, were those privileges indispensible, and
ought they to maintain them ? 'Why, even before the argu-
ments had terminated in the Court of Queen's Bench, the
Lord Chief Justice, by an interlocutory remark, had denied
the right of the House of Commons to free publication.
He declared with sincerity that if the judgment of the House
could be maintained on these grounds, he would not give ten
Years' purchase for the privileges of the House.—( Cheers. )
He declared that he thought the privilege of publication might
be defended on stronger grounds than the freedom of debate.
On what grounds did the one rest that the other did not ? It
might be urged there were reasons for free publication of pa-
pers which did not apply to the freedom of debate ; it might be
said that the one was the act of the House of Commons, in
whom there could be no presumption of malice, but an indivi-
dual Member might make use of the privilege of
freedom of debate to gratify private spleen, for the
purpose of injuring an individual. Should they then
go to the Courts of Law to maintain the freedom of de-
bate ? Did they say they could submit that with perfect con-
fidence to the Courts ? So he had thought in the case of pub-
lication. On what ground could they defend freedom of de-
bate ? Upon statute ? He thought a good argument, might
be used to show that it was not upon Statute, for the Speaker,
at the commencement of the Session, prayed the Crown,
among other things, for freedom of debate. Surely the House
would not do this if they had this privilege by Statute. A re-
solution of the House could not contravene the general law of
the land. In MIS, it was solemnly decided by the Court of
Queen'sßench " that the Judges are judges of the lives and lands
of Members of Parliament, and, therefore, of their privileges,
and that no outrages were ever made against Great Mi-
nisters of State in Pasliament that had not been punished."
Then here was judicial authority that freedom of speech in Par-
liament should not be pushed beyond certain limits. And sup-
pose it should be contended that the grant of freedom of debate
depended en the provision that all the proceedings were secret
—might not a more plausible argument be used for denying
the freedom of debate in the presence of strangers and the
public, since any individual Member might abuse it for the pur-
pose of malignity, than could be urged against a public act of
the House of Commons, against whom no malice could
be presumed ? And supposing that privilege were opposed
on that ground, should they submit the question to the
decision of the Courts of Law ? If so, should they not hold
their privilege of freedom of debate at the mercy of the Courts?
Now, if they had been wrong in committing the plaintiff, the
attorney, and the Sheriffs, it was not the Judges who were to
be judges of their privileges. The House did not hold them at
the mercy of the Judges; if they did so, they would also hold
them at the mercy of any Court who might choose to question
them. The Bil' of Rights said, proceedings in the House
could not be questioned, but the Judges maintained that al-
though proceedings in Parliament could not be questioned, vet
if they made such an order as that certain documents should Ise
published for public information the printer, who acted by
the authority of the House had no other protection than
any other publisher in London. Mr. Justice Littledale
had said that the privileges of the House might be subject to
the jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions or the County Courts,
and the other Judges concurred. Now, were they right in
saying that? The power of the Court of Queen's Bench was
shared by every Inferior Court in the kingdom. It was in
vain to say the persons who presided at these Courts were not
so learned as the Court of Queen's Bench. If the law had
made them Judges of their privileges, they had equally the
power to decide upon them ; then the next step would be, that
the House of Commons would hold these privileges sub-
ject to their baing questioned by every inferior Court.
But supposing that the inferior Courts, having less claims to a
character for learning, took upon themselves to judge of the
privileges of that House, how were they to be dealt with?
The House could only take measures against the ministerial
officers.—(Hear, hear.) It could no more decide against
them than against the Court of Queen's Bench. It could
only proceed again. t them as it had proceeded against the
Sheriffs. The humble situation of an officer of the Court
would not give him an exemption.—( Hear, hear.) The
House would have no alternative but to submit its privileges to
the judgment of every inferior Court in the kingdom. He
would ask any man, whether the House of Commons could
exist if the inferior Courts were to have the power of deciding
upon its privileges ?—( Hear)—if the exercise of those pri-
vileges were to be dependent, not merely upon the superior
Courts of Law, but upon the Quarter Sessions,
and every other infei ior tribunal, in the country?
He had, up to this point, considered only the interference of
the Courts of Law in civil proceeinngs. How would it be, if
the question of privilege were brought before a Criminal
Court ?—( Hear, hear.) \Peat would it be, if the obedience of
a servant of the House tr., the orders of the House were made
the subject of an indittment ? In a civil case a writ of error
might be brought, and the matter, as had been suggested,
might be carried before the House of Lords. But in a crimi-
nal case, what could the House do ?—( Heat . ) He felt for the
hardship of the Sheriffs' position ; and nothing but the para-
mount importance of the question of privilege would induce
him to resist a motion for their liberation. But he felt that if
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in this es.se
should stand unaltered, the Constitution of England avould
have received an irreparable injury.---( Hear, hear, He did
not overlook this peculiar difficulty of the case, tisat the House
had committed to prison men who were not g'7.'t.ity of any moral
offence,._( Hear, hear.) But they wer'..i instruments, how-
ever unwilling, of a violation of the privileges of the House.
• Messrs. Hansard had only done wtiat they were ordered by the
House of Commons to do, and what they had the experience
of two hundred years to warrant them in doing. The Court
of Queen's Bench said to them :—" We cannot enter the walls
of the House of Commons,t: Lmouosktidneg taio all the you a s the m ini s .
terial officers of that House." circumstances
n
of the case, he did
regret the course which the House had
taken. If that course were zeow to be departed from, the pri-
vileges of the House would
,;:,nhetehn
dtimes the jeopardy in
which they were now placed.
r (public proof that they had the pyowear ,thatcoamllmezntsA,given
ques-
tion certainly arose as to whether they had the power to pre-