The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JAN. 21.
The Lon") CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack about Five o'Clock. _ _

Mr. Justice ERSKINE and Mr. Justice MAULE were
also on the Woolsack. _

NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.
The Bill for the Naturalization of his Serene High-
ness Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha was

.hen read a second time

It was then moved that the standing orders No. 26 and
155 be suspended, which, having been agreed to, it was
moved that the aforesaid Bill be read a third time ; and
it was passed accordingly.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
the county of Essex, against any further grant being
passed for the College of Maynooth, or at all events
until the charges which have been brought against it
be investigated. He begged also to present a petition
from Gloucestershire for the extension of Church in-

struction. He also presented a second petition from
some other parish to a similar effect.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition

from persons belonging to the Church of Scotland, com-
plaining of the suspension of seven Ministers of their
Church without any apparent cause, and contrary to
the wishes of the parishioners among whom they for a
long time resided, and by whom tney were universally
esteemed.

Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed in the opinions
expressed by his Noble Friend. He alluded with pain
to tran&ztions which had lately taken place, and
which were so discreditable to one part of the empire
Ile concurred with the Noble Duke in thinking that
measures should be taken for the quiet of that part of
the United Kingdom. But he begged leave to add,
distinctly and deliberately—and it was a matter in which,
he would venture to say, that there was not one of their
Lordships whatever sect he might belong to—whatever

church he might be in communion with, or whatever
political party he might adhere to, lie trusted there was
not one Member of the House who would differ with
him in what he was about to assert ; that, at all events,
until the Legislature interposed—a long as the law of
the land remained what it now was, there was but one
mode in which the Legislature and that House

could suffer quiet to be established, and there
was but one course which that House would
unanimously expect to find adopted in Scotland,
that of respectfully submitting to the decrees of those
Courts of Justice by which the law in question has
been unanimously, judicially, and deliberately intro-
duced.

The NoWLord said that be himself hore a

part in that judgment, and if he alone had pronounced
it, he would say a word in its favour. It was a una-
nimous, clear, and &liberate judgment of the House ;

and he had expressed his hope, -his confident expectation,
when that judgment was given, that it would
be respectfully submitted to by the Ministers
of a Christian Church, administering to the

spiritual comforts of the people, and superintending
their religious and moral instruction in Scotland. He
had entertained that hope from all his past experience
of the venerable judicature of the Scottish Church, but,
in that hope, he deeply grieved to say he had been en-
tirely disappointed. He felt another hope, however, in
which he took leave to express that he had neither yet
been disappointed, nor was be ever, be knew, to ex-
perience disappointment—he meant his confidence in
the steady and firm determination of the Courts of Law in
Scotland, and of the Supreme Court of Appeal which
he had now the honour of addressing to entorce obe-
dience to the law by every legitimate means.
Lord STRANGFORD begged to ask the Noble
Viscount whether there was any prospect of a temina-
tion of the unfortunate state of hostility in the river
La Plata. The Noble Viscount had given reason last
year to hope that it would be brought to a conclusion
by the amicable arrangements of her Majesty's Go-
verment.
Viscount MELBOURNE in answer, begged to sate
that he could not hold out any hope of a cessation of
hostilities.
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS.
Lord BROUGHAM on moving the second reading
of a Bill for the enfranchisement of copyhold tenements,
said that there had been three or four hundred divisions
of territory, in every one of which property was held by
a different law. It was certainly a most anomalous
thing, the wonder having existed, it should continue to
exist. There -was no general classification, no syste-
matic arrangement ; each territory—each township--
each hamlet, had its peculiar law. The admirable code
of laws instituted by Napoleon, which bed altered the
same state of things that had existed in France for
years, would, in his (Lord Brougham's) opinion tend
more to hand his name down to posterity than all his
achievments and feats in arms. He (Lord Brougham)
knew many cases in this country in which a house was
held under one law and the garden under an-
other—nay, even one part of a house
which it had been his lot to inhabit was held
under one law, and another part under another. That
he assured their Lordships was precisely exactly the
state of the law in this country, as far as regarded
freehold and copyhold property, up to the very
moment in which he was addressing their Lordships.
He bad stated to their Lordships, the last time he
brought the matter before them, the provisions of the
Bill. The provisions of this Bill were the same as
those of the Bill of last year. One great defect was the
want of reciprocity between the lord and the
tenant, and the only alteration that had been
made in the present Bill had been, that in-
stead of leaving it entirely to the option of the
landlord, so that all the tenants together could not en-
franchise without his consent ; seven or eight clauses
had been added, to the effect that in the event of a
large preponderance of the tenants of the manor requir-
ing the enfranchisement, the landlord should be bound,
with proper power of appeal, and proper protection, to
give his consent. He had stated last year that that ought
to be the frame of the Bill ; but upon that as
upon all the other provisions or the Bill, provided they
only agreed in the principle that it was fit to give
facilities for the removal of this opprobrium on our
law, ample opportunity would be afforded in the Com-
mittee above stairs, to which it was his intention to
move this Bill be referred, for discussing all the minor
principles, and certainly all and every one of the details.
He felt some reluctance in sending the Bill to a Com-
mittee up stairs, because both Houses were charged
with shifting from themselves the resposibility of legislat-
ing. He thought it should not be so, for all measures
should be introduced upon the responsibility of the
Government, or of an '?individual Member ; but as all
were agreed in the principle of the Bill, he thought its
details would be best settled in a Committee up stairs.
He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR entirely
concurred
in the measure then before their Lordships, and he
thought his Noble and Learned Friend was taking the
proper course in referring the Bill to a Committee up
stairs. As far as in his power he would give his atten-
tion to the details of the Bill when it was before the
Committee. He trusted his Noble and. Learned
but would give ample time for its provisions
Friend would not press the Bill hurriedly through the
;31111 until after the most
mcCuin:lxious not to
.roughout the
toCommittee,
become
c
mature delibneorwantio:
h
When do you propose the
move
LLordo
rdonLeßylstst Oe
DpU
tj; Ht
tAst ‘h:
e_
Committee ?
Lord BROUGHAM—On Thursday, and I take
that time, in order to get the names of Noble Lords
who will attend it.
The 13111 was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.—Adjourned to Thursday.

HOUSE OF CONIIIION,S, JAR. 21.
eexuptioonnsetso i
en cillui r r
thed
41
tut
etrititei
ocna uosfe
theof Sut ooeuksdeatleo
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
COSTS—STOCKDALE v. HANSARD,
and preaented a
'':ads hilia:savd.
returnlr, Hoit:nsArd appeared at the 131,r,
Mr. -KINKY 13p1C.ELEy gave notice, that it
q pet tiqn from Messrs. VlYson And Hall, reapeoting
th'e Bristol Building and and Improvement Bill,

1

Mr. FRENCH presented a petition from the Coun-
cil of the Medical Association of ITeland, praying the
House to take into their earnest c'rnsideration the sub-

'ect of Charities in Ireland.

Sir R. INGLIS presented several petitions from the
Counties of Wilts, Gloucester, rind Kent, in favour of
Church Extension.

Mr. JERVIS presented a pe, titian from the Corpo-
ration of Chester, for leave to b ring in a Bill for the
better paving, lighting, watching, a nd cleansing that city.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition
from the Corporation of MusselburiTh, for leave to bring
in a Bill for the improvement. of the harbour of
Fisherrow.

The Honourable FOX MAULE .said he had the
honour of presenting four petitions to tOat House, all
upon the same subject. The first was froot the parish
of Elgin, in the Royal Burgh of Elgin, and the others
were from the neighbouring parishes. They- prayed this
House to interfere against the intrusion of Ministers
into these parishes against the will and inclinatOn of the
inhabitants, and opposed to the constitutional ,(?;hurch
of Scotland. He fully concurred in the praye rs of
these petitions.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL the Com-
mittees on Standing Orders and_on Private Bills weN3
appointed.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Mona-
ghan against the continuance of Orange domination in '
Ireland—(Laughter from the Opposition)—and from
a Cotton Printer of Dublin, praying for an extension of
the copyright in cotton designs from three months to
twelve.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from
.he Clergy of Kent in favour of an increase of the means

of rcligiotis instruction.
PRIVILEGE—THE SHERIFFS OF LONDON.

Mr. F. KELLY said he had to present two peti-
tions from John Wheelton and William Evans, Esqrs.
Sheriffs of Middlesex, the prayer of which was the
same ; and the petitioners stated that " your Honour-
able House having resolved that the petitioners have
committed a breach of the privileges of this Honour-
able House, and ordered them to refund the money
levied on the goods of Messrs. Hansard, under a

fieri facias issuit:g from the Queen's Bench—and

apprehending that this Honourable House will

proceed to visit them with punishment if they
shall not refund that money, your petitioners
humbly assure your Hon. House that the; are deeply
sorry that they should have incurred the displeasure
of this Hon. House,' and they went on to state—
" They feel it their duty solemnly to assure your Hon.

House that throughout the case of Stockdale v. Han-
sard, your petitioners have acted with respect and obe-
dience to what they had been advised, and verily
believed it to be their duty to their Sovereign
.

and the Court of Queen's Beuch, whose officers

they were ; that your petitioners are sworn, among
other things, to duly rctuin and truly serve all the
Queen's writs, according to the best of their ability ;

and they verily, and irl their true judgment and con-
science, believe they are bound to " obey " (according
to the natural and ordinary interpretation of the oath,

as expounded by her 'Majesty's Judges) " the Queen's
writs, according to the law and practice of the
Courts from which such writs issue," and " according to

,he exigency of said writs ; and your petitioners believe

that if they fail so to obey the said writs they will act
in violation of the duty they owe to her Majesty the
Queen, and that they will be compelled, in due course
of law, to make good the sum which they are ordered
by this Honourable House to refund to Mess's.
Hansard ; and that if they refuse to make good
this sum, they will be liable to attachment and
imprisonment in one of her Majesty's gaols. And they
further assure the House that throughout the whole of
their proceedings they have endeavoured to give effect
to the law as delivered by the Judges of the Queen's
Bench ; and they pray that they may not be amerced

or imprisoned for having honestly endeavoured to dis-
charge the duty cast upon them by law, according to the
best of their judgment and ability, and according to what
they in their conscience believe to be the solemn obli-
gation of an oath." In conclusion, the Hon. and Learned
Member moved that the petition lie on the table.
_ .

NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.

Mr. Justice MAULE and Mr. Justice ERSKINE ap-
peared at the table with a Bill from the House of
Lords, for the naturalization of Prince Albert of Saxe-
Cobourg and Gotha, to which the concurrence of that
House was required.

On the trotion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the Bill was
read a first time. The Noble Lord then moved that
the Bill be read a second time.
Sir R. INGLIS said, perhaps the Noble Lord
would state, before the Bill was read a second time,
how far it was in exact conforniity with the Act of
Settlement, more especially with respect to the necessity
which it imposed that the consort of the Sovereign,
whether male or female, should be a Protestant—(Cries
of " Oh," and laughter from the Ministerial benches)
as by law established, and should receive the commu-
nion of the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of
the Church of England.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Bill he now proposed

. .
to read a second time did not at all affect or vary the
Act of Settlement, and he could assure the Right Hon.
Baronet that he would be as unwilling as any
Honourable Member of that House to _ propose

. .
any change or alteration in that Act.—(Cheers.)
The Act provided for the naturalization of Prince Al-
bert, and securing to him certain rights as a British
subject ; and he did not think any objection could be
made to his taking the same course then, as had been
taken in the case of Prince Leopold of Saxe Cobourg.
He did not propose to take the other stages of the Bill
till to-morrow. The Bill was then read a second time,
and ordered to be printed.
PRIVILEGE.—THE SHERIFFS.

Mr. KELLY then moved that the petition of the
Sheriffs be taken into consideration.
Lord J. RUSSELL would merely, for the sake of
convenience, suggest that if the!e were any notices of
motion or form of business, they should be allowed

precedence.
Mr. KELLY said his object was that the petition
should be taken into consideration by the House after
all the other preliminary business had been gone through.
Mr. SLANE Y gave notice that on that day fort-
night he would move for a Committee to inquire into
the causes of the discontent existing amongst a large
portion of the population in many of the manufacturing
districts, with a view to remove the evils and remedy
the complaints, so as to strengthen the affection of the
people to the institutions of the country. And in the
absence of his Hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich
(Mr. Barneby), he had to state that that Hon. Mem-
ber would on the same day move for leave to bring in a
Bill to amend the laws regulating the sale of beer.
Mr. HERRIES gave notice, that on this day fort-
night he would move for certain returns relative to the
state of the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. F. FRENCH gave notice, that on the 31st of
January he would move that an humble Address be
presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to
appoint a Medical Commissioner or Board, for the pur-
pose of improving the medical profession in Ireland.
Mr. MACKINNON gave notice, that on the
of January he would move for leave to bring in a Bill
to improve the law relative to turnpike trusts.
On the motion of Mr. BAINES, a return of the wool
imported into England in the year 1839 was ordered.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of all the sums paid
out of the Consolidated Fund to the several branches
of the Royal Family in the years 1838 and 1839 ;
also for an account of all the sums paid, during the
same period, towards her Majesty's Civil List.
Sir R. INGLIS said, in order to make that re-
turn complete, it ought to contain the whole amount
which her Majesty would have received, provided she
had not been advised to give up her hereditary
revenues. He believed that it would turn
out, that, had such not been the cases the
sum received would have been much larger,
Lord J. RUSSELL would only sttemt to the Right
Hon. Baronet that it was unusual tq argue on a motion
for such a return. There c...auhl be no objection to the
production of both accounts.
Sir R. INGLIS said, that all he desired was that
they should avoid the inconvenience of a double return,
and that one paper should contain the whole instead of two.
Mr. HU NIE said, that the only difference between
the return he had moved for, and that desired by the Hon.
Baronet, was, that the return moved for would show the
actual amount of the money received, while the one which
the Hon. Baronet wanted, would only show an imaginary
amount. He would take this opportunity of giving
notice that if to-morrow the proposition of making an
annual allowance to Prince Albert of 50,000/. enould
be persisted in, he should take the sense ';:t the House
on reducing it to 21,000/.—(Hcar., Lev, from Colonel
Sibthorp)—so as to place the allnwance on an equality
with that of the other 11/0)Alors of the Royal Family.
StIE.IFFS' PETITION.

L.9,7c1 AHON hoped that the Hon. Member for
Ipswich would allow him to suggest, that as many Mem-
bers had entere,.l i'ne House since he bad given an ac-
count. the statements contained in the petition of Mr.
Sheriff Evans, it would be as well if it were read at
length.
The petition having been read by the Clerk at the
table,
Mr. KELLY said he rose for the purpose of pro-
posing that the petition which had just been read sLould
be forthwith taken into the consideration of the House,
and if be felt persuaded that the Nobl. Lord would
not object to this motion, if the Noble Lord considered
that the petition impe;Atiyly called upon the Members
of that Notre forthwith to coliside7 its prayer before the
adjourned motion should be taken into consideration, then
he should limit his observations to offering his thanks to
the Noble Lor: for what ho had done, although he should
consider that by acting in that manner the Noble Lord
bad only done an act of justice. But if the Noble
Lord should object to taking this petition forthwith
into consideration—if he should call upon this House
to amerce a subject of this realm in his moneys—
if he should call upon this House to imprison
a subject of this realm, who was at the same
time a public officer. on account of that which
ho had done in the execktti,op of i•public us

,-,rw.rgr•r"

du tics, and which was not of his own seeking, but
.eh had been cast upon him—if he should say that
the petition should not be taken into consideration
until the House bad actually decided on the petition
by committing the petitioner to gaol, then he should
feel bound to enter more at length into the subject.
He understood that the Noble Lord objected to his
major,. He thought it, therefore, his duty to inform
the House how the petitioner stood in relation to
that Honourable House and to the Court of Queen's
Bench. At the time that Parliament was
prorogued, when that House had no means whatever
of interference, an action was brought by Mr. Stock-
dale, who, to whatever observations he might have ren-
dered himself liable by Members of that House, had
not, be apprehended, forfeited his rights as a subject of
this realm.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Stockdele had com-
menced an action by due course of law against certain
persons of the name of Hansard,
reflectingupon nn
for the
h;
publi-
cation of a defamatory libel
with the action the Sheriffs bad nothing to do ; and he

proceeded as every action must proceed, while this free
country continues to be governed by law, according to
the due course of law, and the practice of the Courts.
L the course of the action a writ was delivered

to the Sheriffs of Middlesex, requiring them
to impound a Jury, to assess damages against
Messrs. Hansard in favour of Stockdale ; that writ
was executed, the damages were assessed by a Jury of
the country, and ultimately judgment was obtained ; by
course of law execution was i:,sued upon that action ;
Ole writ of execution was delivered to the Sheriffs
of Middlesex, and it became their duty, un-
less that writ were superseded by course
yf law, to execute it. In the execution of that writ
they seizt'd certain property belonging to Messrs. Han-
sard, and that property was sold, the money produced
by the sale. was paid into the hands of the Sheriffs.
They, still acting according to law and the practice of the
Courts, retained that money until compelled to make a
return to the Court of Queen's Bench. They returned
that they had levied money according to the writ, and laid
it before the Coutt for the Court to dispose of ac-
cording to law. In the mean time certain proceedings
took place in that House, but also in the
mean time Mr. Stockdale obtained a rule from
the Court of Queen's Bench, calling upon the Sheriffs
why they should not forthwith pay this money over to
him, the plaintiff, which had been recovered by due
course of law. And now he came to what was the
present situation of the Sheriffs and of the action, and
the state of the circumstances under which the
House felt themselves called upon to proceed,
and under which the Sheriffs had appealed
to the honourable feeling of that House as to the course
the House would pursue upon that petition. The rule
stated to have been obtained by the plaintiff was resisted
by the then Sheriffs, and he prayed the attention of the
House to the mode in which the Sheriffs felt it their duty
to resist that rule. If the House thought for one moment
the Sheriffs had at any time disregarded their
orders or privileges ; nay, even the notices of
persons professing themselves to be the Solicitors
of the House, be trusted the statements he should
make would exonerate the Sheriffs from that
suspicion, and it would appear that they had done
their duty, and showed due respect to the House and
to the Court. The Sheriffs had placed on affidavit,
and brought under the consideration of the Court of
Queen's Bench, every resolution of the House
affecting the question—every notice that had
been given on the part of the House, or the
servants of the House, which could lead the
Court to believe the House possessed the privilege
contended for, and therefore the Sheriffs were jus-.
tified in refusing payment of the money.—(Hear.)
All these matters were brought before the Court of
Queen's Bench. Within those few days certain reso-
lutions were adopted by that House, and it was ultie
mately determined that the Sheriffs had been guilty of
a breach of privilege of that House.— Hear, hear.)
That House then ordered the Sheriffs to pay
over the money which they held to the Messrs.
Hansard ; and it was further stated by his Learned
Friend the Attorney-General, that such would be a suf-
ficient defence for the Sheriffs to make in a Court of
Law against any action which the plaintiff Mr. Stock-
. . . . .

dale might bring ; and that in such case sufficient cause
might be alleged, so as by the law of the land
to bind the Court of Queen's Bench to admit
that answer to be sufficient, and consequently that
Court would be obliged to discharge the Sheriffs from
all responsibility. He begged to inform that Houso
that the Sheriffs had taken that advice of the Learned

Gentleman, and have acted on his suggestion, and they
have since done all that, under the ciroumstances, they
could have done. All those proceedings which have oc-
curred in that House for the four last days the Sheriffs have
thought proper to have brought under the attention of
the Court of Queen's Bench, and they have been pre-
pared with the opinion of the Learned Attorney-Ge-
neral to answer any charges that might be brought
against them in the Court of Queen's Bench. They
have thus done all that was in their poV er
to do, and they were anxious to adopt that enrse in
consequence of the proceedings which had V.,oca adopted
last night, when that House had t..eught proper to
move a resolution to the effect of liav;.ag those Sheriffs
committed for a contempt towa.lCts that House, and
being guilty of a breacb, of their privilege. He
begged to state, on the authority of those Sheriffs
who bad dune him the honour of requesting
him to present this petition to that House, in which
they stated that they had used every exertion
during that day to 'nave brought these several resolu-
tion:, passed by that House before the Court of Queen's
Bench, as eavised by his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Attorney-General, for the consideration of that. Court;
they anxiously endeavoured to have the motion heard that
day. Were the desire of the Sheriffs granted, the Court
would, to-morrow, have an opportunity of declaring
whether they should obey the resolution of the House ;
and it the Attorney-General were right, the Court would
hold that they should obey that order. Now an applica-
tion had been made this morning to the Bail Court,before
Mr. Justice Patteson, to hear this case, but the Judge
was from other business unable to hear it. On com-
munication, however, with the full Court, they stated
that, considering the case of such great public import-
ance, they would be willing to bear it to-morrow
morning, even to the displacing of the regular busi-
ness of the suitors. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
All, therefore, that he (Mr. Kelly) had to urge on the
present occasion was, whether it could be considered
right, or constitutional, or humane, or just, to send two
innocent and honourable gentlemen to prison to-night,
when to-morrow they would have the distinct judgment of
the law, which they, in common with all other of
her Majesty's subjects, were bound to obey ? Sure 4
the House would never act in such a manner,—(J-ear.)
That was the present position of the ease. Wherever
it was possible to delay, consistently with the discharge
of their very responsible duty, the Sheriffs had done so.
They had done that down to the present moment,
and to-morrow morning the question would be deter-
mined whether they were to obey the tyrannical law or
decision of that House without being able to obtain the
advice of competent Counsel. All he had to request was
that time might ho allowed the Sheriffs to consider
which of the several courses open to them, they had
best pursue. If the House should postpone their
decision till to-morrow morning, no injury could accrue.
The only difference would be that the Sheriffs would
have time to obtain the advice of the Courts of Law,
as to the course it would be most advisable fog them to
pursue. But if the House should determine to com-
mit them that eveninsr, in what pv.;ition would the
Sheriffs be place,r? They would, be committed to
prison, beta' .se they had paid over the money which
had been recovered by a so'oject of the realm, in due
course of law. Perhaps before sunset to-morrow, the
Sheriffs would be ordered by the Court of Queen's
bench to pay over the money to the plaintiff in the
case, and by reason of their refusing to do so, they would
be liable to a further imprisonment by attachment,
or they would be liable to an action at the suit of
Stockdale, who had recovered the money. Suppose the
Sheriffs yielded obedience to the orders of that House,
still they conceived the House competent, which he,
(Mr. Kelly) denied it to be, to declare and expound
the law of the land, what would be the consequr.:nco ?
Within 48 hours afterwar,',3 the Court of Queen's
Bench might decide that the payment by them of the
money to the order of the House of Commons was no
answer in pent of law to the claim of Mr. Stockdale,
and they would have to pay the money over again. If
they disobeyed that order of the Court they would be
committed by a writ of attachment to some of her Ma-
jesty's goals, and what power had that House to de-
liver them from custody? If they ordered their Ser-
geant and other officers to go to the prison and libe-
rate the Sheriffs, and the gaoler was sufficiently re-
spectful to them to do so, he would be liable to impri-
sonment, and another attachment might issue against
the Sheriffs. Mr. Stockdale might bring an action against
the Sheriff's, and no power they possessed could prevent
his recovering the money. He presumed the House
would in such cases defend the Sheriffs which could
heriffs
tto action..—(Hear, hear.)
W
only be done by the Attorney-General appear-
iagere tandh pleading
e
Sheriffs
allow the t men :v q suffer judgment by default, and
House to be recovered ; or would the
'order the Attorney-General to defend them,
thus compromise the integrity of their own privi-
lege, by submitting to the lodgment of the Court of
Law ? The Attorney-General should state distinctly
what course he recommended. If the advice of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, had
been taken, the course of the House would at least
have been consistent.—(Hear, hear.) Whereas it had
now been rash, tremulous, hesitating, and not at all
calculated to raise the dignity of the House,—( Hear,
hear.) Surely the House had already sufficiently vin-
dicated the privilege, by committing the person who
had brought the action—(Hear, hear)—and would they
be able to reconcile it vl their consciences totki
commit these two innocent gentlemen without
any necessity fear t at all —(Hear, hear, hear.)
—to commit them, too, unheard—and without any op-
ortunity of having the judgment of the Court, whose
sworn officers they were —( Hear, hear.) The Learned
Gentleman was about to finish by moving that the
)e ti Lion be considektA 194

.t .

/ The SPEAKER intimating that such a motion
- - -I
would be irregular and unnecessary,
Mr. KELLY said he ,would then move that the
Sheriffs be called to the bar, and discharged forth-
with.—(Opposition cheers.)
i Sir ROBERT INGLIS then rose, and said that
the House were now going to commit the mere minis-
ters and executors of the law ; it was his advice that
they should take the beast of the forest—that they
should beard the lion in his den—(Great laughter)---In
stead of attacking the insignificant animals of the field.
It had been stated, in answer to a question put
on Saturday last, that the Court of Queen's Bench I
had direct cognizance of the .prders of that House,
that had been stated by Mr. France on Saturday, and
I
. he now asked why they were visiting with condign pu-
nishment the ministers and executors of the law ? From
experience in that House, nobody had a higher opinion
of the qualities of his Noble Friend the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, but lie (Sir R. Inglis) must say
that he was surprised at the manner in which the present
business had been conducted, and the manner in which
they. had been involved in difficulties greater and greater.
He implored the House again to consider the subject
before they came to an irrevocable decision. He con-
fessed that for years past he had never taken so painful
and deep au interest in any subject that had come be-
fore that House. His Right Hon. Friend (Sir R.
Peel) had contended last night that their very existence
was at an end if they did not offer resistance on the
present occasion. Now he (Sir R. Inglis) contended
that the very existence of the law and equity of the
land was at stake. They had had 24 hours for recon-
sidering their position, and they had heard the prayer
of the petition enforced by the able and eloquent speech
of his lion. and Learned Friend the Member for Ips-
wich ; he therefore now trusted that the House would
consider it its interest and duty in granting to the She-
riffs at their bar the indulgence which they asked. If
in 24 hours the Court of Queen's Bench should consi-
der the orders of that House to be equivalent to the
law of the land, they (the House) would have gained all
their object ; but if not, the House would only be in tho
same position as at present, if the argument on the
other side was good for anything.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished he
could
see any reason in the petition for acceding ".0 the mo-
tion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, flowever the
petitioners may have broken the pri'dileges of that
House, their demeanour has been
c
(Hear, hear.) But when he, r'aest respectful.—
am e to the petition
itself, lie found that they still, notwithstanding the re-
solutions passed by the Efeouse, and communicated to
them by the Speaker, they still persisted in justifying
their conduct. He could riot, therefore, say that the
petition afforded any ground for desisting from the
course he proposed last night. But if he considered the
speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ipswich,
he found yet lees reason for so desisting. The whole,
tenor of that speech was, " There is a superior autee.
,rity to you---( Hear, hear, from the Opposition
is aCourt above you which may be so kind and
graicious _the
se
s
to allow to the House of Commons some P" Opposition"
order some
privilege—(lrouicaleheers from the 111;:hiSterialists.) This
Court may decide indeed that, you 'nave none ; but you
must wait in patient
'expectatie,„
cheers.) The Sheriffs, it r'
--(Hear, hear, and
a:nvda sthsaatideomuursttissutbhmeistuptoretinhe
ithe
Court of Queen's Bencle,
authority forsooth, n the country.--(Hear, hear.)
Great-lawyers in former days, Lord Coke, for instance,
had bestowed great, er perhaps, extravagant eulogier, on )
trig omnipotence of Parliament ; but now it wies said I
that the Queen's Bench alone was to decide on the I
power of Parliament,—(Hear, hear.; Suppose, on the
debate on Tie,!eday next, a question raised as to the 1
arrest of ik Member, a matter, by the by, of the grett-
est Interest to Gentlemen on both sides--(Laughter)— '
he owned he should not be surprised_ to hear it Mid by
some Honourable Member that, the House must
abide by the decision of the. Queen's Bench—(Hear,
hear.)—and that Court ro'.ght perhaps graciously fix
a day for hearing the case, and might then determine
that the Commons of Euglaod actually had privilege
from arrest.—(Hear, hear.) On points of law l'ae
(Lord J. Russell) would not attempt to decide, But
this was not a were question of dry law, but a great
consetutional principle—(Cheers)—and he must say
that the repro.Aches of the Learned Gentleman tallied
ill with his advice—his whole speech accused the Go-
vernment of delay, of irresolution, and declared that i
wouldJhey
,(uHuevL.ra.ehdooonraeun .utrege)sdsoc,
itoLintianiiHoneeunp:egedih.
coincide
drsiri
niinu.)llrgt_oserAtsnd,
ebtipowdeeittnfiimototnishorthosehone;aaurtuwet,ths:aticehtkshocoaaQridLi,
uttiiv;toseihgeercbdegiir reconsideration,tyr:lsexel
awsapßhettaanedusnytr—escheoil
hnseantpgy.e;—e. (cbotpuau.Hnatsoude
.Hfeast
atiewatiaehanar)y.ies-,1
,The esti„tiro,:,:ser;e
but
tid
they
yy
servethat thtel;ye
hwaderebefso
statedvvreora to
stayed t..'ne execution of writs on injunctions from the
Ciraicellor, and further, in case the Board of Green
r,
seloth prohibited them serving writs in the Palace, they
would not serve them.--(Hear, hear.) Tell him not
then of an oath which was good only against the House
of Commons, and which, against the Chancellor, or
against the Board of Green Cloth, was wholly power-
less.—(Loud cheers.) He (Lord J. Russell) observed
with great concern the disposition, on the other side, to
strain the meaning of an oath—to pervert its meaning
from the bona fide intention of its framers, and give it 1
an interpretation conform:1111e with pre-conceived orrsi..
nions.—( Hear, hear.) The Sheriffs were bound, do,abt
less, to do their di.lty according to their sense of the
oath.—(Opposition cheers.) But then the real
meaning of the oath was to be determined frora what
was really the law on the subject ; and it d,Lpended as
much on what was the law of Parham,-
ait as on the-
law laid down by the Queen's Benci:„_(Hear, hely'. I
hear.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir R, Inglis) had taunted
the Ministerial Members with not having the courage
to proceed against the Judges. It might be sufficient
reply to that taunt to say tl'hat when Lord Denman
r p oceed ed to attach the Speaker, it would be time -
enough to call the Judges to their bar.--(Hear, hear, !
hear.) But it might further be answered that the
course which he (Lora J. Russell) proposed was anala-
gous to the course constantly pursued by other Courts
in preventing inferior Courts from proceeding with ,
cases not within their jurisdiction.—(Hear, hear.)
For these reasons, the Noble Lord said, be felt bound
to conclude by miming as an amendment, the order of
the day for tire adjourned debate on Messrs. Hansard's
petition.—.(Cheers.)
Mr. ATTWOOD said he thought the advice to
that douse to pause was good ; and that the House; was
indebted to the Sheriffs for giving it 0, fair opportv.nity of
so pausing.—( Hear, hear.) He considered it. neither
necessary nor just to vest the Ti ouse with the. power of
publishing libels. He way astonished that, the House
should be ready to interfere in the regeilar functions
of officers as ancient, and as important as any in the
kingdom—to atte-,apt to prevent the regular course of
justice—and eater into a contest in which they must
have array:tt against them all who wished well to the
laws ao.-:, constitution of the empire. And sorry be
was to find that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
fo'.. Tam worth should have lent the great weight of his '
character to a proceeding which bore the impress of re-
, volutionary tendency.—(Hear, hear.)
' Col. CONOLLY said he felt it his duty publicly to
wash his hands of the whole proceeding, which he con-
sidered fraught with danger and injustice. He believed
the House to be in a ‘! false position' from having over-
strained its privilege in publishing Its papers to the
world, and he also believed that this was pi!blicopi-
nion.—( A cry of " Divide" from the Conservative
side.)
Mr. DARBY denied that those opposed to this pro-
ceeding had, as the Noble Lord had insinuated, ever
said that there was no such thing as Law of Parini
ment ; on the contrary, the Judges of the Queen's
Bench themselves had distinctly admitted that they
were bound by it. He denied the position dins Right
Hon. Friend thr, Member for Tamwortb that the power
of publishing tlese papers was necessary for the proper I,
exercise of t'ne functions of the House. This was not a
privilege, 'out was, as Mr. Sergeant Wilde :lad express:l
admitted it to be, a power. Now, as ol:t power must be
defined, and as this power was undened and irrespon-
sible, the Court of Queen's Bet4ti had determined that
its exercise could not be adamitted. The Attorney-
General had admitted tirdt if any absurd or outra-
geous case of the exercise of privilege should ',
occur, the Courts of Law would be justified in •
tertering, and what he contended was, that this
was just such a case. The abolition of the skae-trade
had been brought about by the speeches of. Mr. Wil-
berforce, and not by the circulation of the printed blue
books of the Hnuse ; and as at that time the safe of
papers was met allowed, it could be no argument in the
present ca ;e. The Noble Lord had thrown some ridi-
cule on one of the Judges for sta.ting, when pressed,
that ret the decease of a Member. all his Parliamentary
pa pers,they •t contained libellous matter, must be de-
uroyed. That, however, was the law ; and if ridicule
attached anywhere it was. to the House, for suffering
the law of libel to remain in that state, and not to the
Judge, who had merely expounded it, and who was
bound to give an op',nion on any matters that might be
brought before hi ;u. He much doubted the policy of
allowing the tale of papers without great restriction,
and denied that any necessity for so doing had beer;
proved, lie would ask the Noble Lord if, in the P.ivent
of committing the Sheriffs, he had provided for exe-
cution of their important duties during the trine of their ,
incarceration,? The Noble Lord must alone be respon-
sible for these proceedings, which had been begun in
indiscretion, carried on with pusillaninsi.',y, and would
end in defeat.
Mr. JOHN JONES considered that Mr. Stock-
dale's name had been unnes,:arily introduced into the
Report in question, and, the House had no right to
calumniate an individual., and then deny him his remedy.
He gave great credit 'to the Sheriffs. for the manner is
which they had conducted themselves throughout these
proceedings, and. Stockdale, having been committed, be
could not understand why the Noble Lord should Fe
' -
ceed against the%n unless he were prepared to proceed
against the .
adcesalso.
Loril
fEIGNMOUTH could not bear to hear the
ose
uf~aaerited taunts which had been cast upon th
_3l
twenty
views of the
who supported the vie

ithis occasion. His Honourable and Gallant Friend
had imputed meancss and dagardly conduct to
1 the majority. Had he read the names of that majority ?
Did he mean to impute meanne.7s and dastardly con-
Iduct to the Noble Lord opposite, to the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tarnworth, and to the many

\ honourable men who had voted in that majority ?
When the passion of the moment should have sub-
sided, he would sit down and repent, in sackcloth and
ashes, for what he had Said. Hon. and Learned
i Members, who supported the Courts of Lee, seemed
to have forgotten their character as Legislators
for the purpose of acting merely as advocates. The
priuileges of that House ought to be defended, as
well as those of the Courts of Law : and this
view of the case seemed to be entirely lost
sight of by those Honourable and Learned Gentlemen.
It was well known that the House of Lords had impr:-
soned one of the Members of that House. It was well
tknown that contest after contest had taken place be-
tween the two Houses, and yet they had been told by
1
Hon. Members that their privileges were safe in the
hands of the House of Lords. Others contended that
they should submit their privileges to the exclusive con-
trol of the Courts of Law. No one could entertain a
higher respect for these Courts than himself ; but if
they looked at the decisions of the four Judges in the case
then under their consideration, if they read them, as
men of common sense, as representatives of a free peo-
ple, they must at once pronounce them most absurd and
unconstitutional. He defied any man of common
sense, acuteness, or judgment, to gather anything of
sound constitutional law from them.—(Hear, hear.)
I He had never until that night fully understood the in-
fluence of legal habits and long legal practice upon the
senatorial powers of that House. Hon. and Learned
Members appeared to be trammelled among the snares
and pitfalls of the law instead of legislating for their
country as men of common sense, having a due regard
for the interest of their constituents. The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had struck at the
root of the Lord Chief Justice's argument, when he
showed that necessity would justify a privilege, and
that it was upon necessity the privileges of freedom of
speech, freedom from arrest, and others had been founded.
But it was needless for him to recapitulate the argu-
ments of the Right Hon. Bar net, and he feared it
might be said of him, as was said by Fox of a young
-eeaker who was attempting to defend the speech of
.' Er. Erskine, " the ,Right Hon. Gentleman has followed
the steps of his Right Hon. Leader, weakening his ar-
guments as he went along."—( Hear, hear.) In a few
' weeks, or perhaps in a few days , they might be called
to the bar of public opinion. They might be upon
the hustings before their constituents.—( Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) He (Lord Teignmouth) had the honour
of representing, and, as pleased God, he hoped to do for
many years, a numerous and powerful constituency—
a motley constituency possessing every variety of opinion.
—(A laugh.) And, on the day of election, if there
was one vote more than another on which he prided 1
himself—if there was one vote more than another on
which he should be ready to stake his existence as a
senator, he would say, not as the result of any mo-
mentary enthusiasm, that it was his having humbly but
perseveringly endeavoured to uphold the privileges of
Parliament, and consequently of his constituents.--
(Cheers.) If the Noble Lord (J. Russell) would allow
him to offer him a few words of advice : He was no
political admirer of his, but he had observed him for two
Sessions, under circumstances of great political ember-,
rassment, bearing himself gallantly, patiently, and
honourably.—(Ministerial cheers.) He was speaking
of his conduct within the House, where he had not a
more sworn and resolute opponent of his measures, or
one who more heartily wished him out of office than
himself.—(Laughter and cheers.) He would say to
the Noble Lord, however, as regarded the present
question—
" Tune cede malis, sed contra audentior ite."
—(Cheers.) Let him go on still with his gallant pha-
lanx, despising clamour, and having public opinion on his
side ; and when some future historian came to tread in his
steps, to write the constitutional history of that country, 1
1 when the deeds which the Noble Lord had perpetrated
' would damn him in his (Lord Teignmouth's) estima-
tion--(much laughter)—or sink into oblivion, and be
only remembered with abhorrence—the Noble Lord
would be remembered and admired by every lover of
his country's liberties, as the upholder and the defender
of their Parliamentary privileges, and as one who had
boldly, and zealously, and nobly maintained those privi-
leges against the encroachments of Courts of Law,
and the taunts and reproaches, and, he grieved to say
it with respect to his own side of the House, the in-
sults of his opponents.—(Much cheering.)
Mr. FRESHFIELD denied that the indiscriminate
publication of these papers was necessary for the exer-
cise of the functions of the House. He never felt more
confidence in his life in pronouncing an opinion upon
any subject than he did upon the present occasion,
when he assured the House that they were proceeding
in error. He called upon them, ere it was too late, to
retrace their steps, and they would find that such a
course would tend more than the one they were now
pursuing to the honour of the House and the interests
of the public.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said that he would merely have given
his vote on this occasion did he not consider himself
deeply implicated in the question, as having been the
person who recommended to the House the resolution of
printing its,papers ; and having heard from Hon. Mem-
bers on the other side that by that means alone the
action they were discussing had been brought for-
ward. The Honourable Member for Sussex bad

) said that but for these resolutions the— dispute
which the House is now engaged in would never
1 have taken place. He now felt himself called on to
discuss for a moment the question. The Lord Chief
Justice at first stated from the Bench that it was be-
' cause the papers were sold that he granted the rule.
But when he found that the entire bar at Westminster
Hall was opposed to him on these grounds, he modified
that opinion. Mr. Hume proceeded to say, that if any
thing was ever calculated to deserve the best efforts of
, the House ot Commons, it was their right to distribute the
evidence taken before them, and place before the people
that information which would throw any light on public
questions, end which would expose the abuses of our
institutions, or point out the means of ameliorating
them. He did not know any means by which these
ends.could be better obtained than by giving publicity
to . what happened within their walls. This was
more useful—he should say ten times more useful—
than all the speeches made in the House.
Could any man deny this, who looked to the
proceedings which daily took place before them ?
The House was scarcely ever prepared to en-
ter into any reforms or alterations, or innovations
without inquiry. That inquiry could not take place
effectively if confined to themselves. He showed that
before the resolution he had proposed on that subject
was passed. many matters of moment were lost to the
public. He hoped the House would never listen to
any proposal for rescinding that resolution, and for con-
signing to the vaults of the Messrs. Hansard the impor-
tant documents which might proceed from the Commons
England. He would ju,t iwntion that, previous to the
l resolution he was alluding to, by which Parliathentary
papers were ordered to be made public, there were two
million two hundred thousand papers in the warehouse
of the Messrs. Hansard, which had never seen the light.
He. hoped, that after the exper ence they had had of
giving public,ty to their, proceedings, nothing would now
icduce them to abandon it. So anxious was he to preserve,
lay every means, their pririleges,that if it were in the powcr
of the House, he would summon the Judges them-
selves, who were the principal parties in the transaction

_ .
to,appear before them. IL understood, however, that
as far as regarded. Lard Chief Justice Denman, there
Nuttld have been ,a techn:cal objection to their proce,!d-
ing in that way ; but this could not be said of Justice
Littledale, and he was sorry that that learned fun -
tianuY bail not been summoned to their bar. Such
APal(lhavgken..ttnn course which he (Mar. Hume) would
have recommeaste4L,At: present,however, h e thought that
the nowt had no other ehoice to follow than to adopt the
r:so'ution of the Noble Lord. He admitted that he
actO with great reluctance against the Sheriffs,' and he
would state-that,. as Lai- as their evidence enabled him
to f.,rryi any opinion, they had acted with temper and
moderation.—( The Hon. Gentleman here cited a de-
cis on of Lord Ellenborough, which he thought was fa-
vourable to the view which the House had taken of the
question,) Lord Ellenborough had said, speaking of
tha privileges of the House of Commons, that if there
was no decision at all on the subject, the thing was too
clear for argument. _

Mr. L NW asked what was the privilege of which
Lord Ellenborough was then speaking?
Mr. HUME said it was the power possessed by the
House of publishing the papers it might think necessary,
the very power now in question. He (Mr. Hume) un-
derstood the Learned Recorder for London to have
said that the powers of the House were to be regulated
by the Courts of Law.—(" No, no," from Mr. Law.)
He (Mr. Hume) thought the Hon. and Learned :;en-
tleman's opinion came to that—as he proposed that the
Howe of Commons should bow to a decision of the
Courco! Queen's Bench in one instance, and as he did I
not mike any distinction between that case and others.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he had
hitherto supported, and that he should continue to sup-
port. the course which the House had entered on.
Mr. LAW said that, considering the ground taken
on one or two occasions by the Hon. Member for Kul-
' kenny, he could not refrain from offering a few observa-
tions on the petition which had been presented by the
Sheriffs. That petition stated that those Gentlemen
had, in the proceeding which gave rise to the present
discussions, acted to the best of their ability, con-
sistently with their conscience, and in accordance with
the oath they had taken. Now no one could have sup-
posed that, in a Court assumiog, to itself a regard for
the rights and obligations of conscience, the discharge
by those gentlemen of the obligations of a sacred duty,
would be condemned in the strongest terms which
could possibly be applied to the circumstances of the
case. Those gentlemen had not instituted or prose
cuted any
action for libel, they had merely executed
a writ which was in accordance with the office which
they held, and yet it was against them that her Ma-

j: sty's Ministers had passed the two resolutions upon
which S 3 much discussion had been spent, and which
had already occupied so touch of the time and atten-
tion of that House. Did it occur to that Hon e to
c wider that in 99 out of every 100 of such cases those
resolutions were disregarded, and that under the same
sanction by which those resolutions had been re.,) riled
the most eg,regious absurdities had been printed, and
sent forth to the public, without ever having been
previously read or remarked upon? Were Messrs.
Hansard obliged to print the proceedings of that
House, or did they act at their own option, receiving
only the reward which the price of their labour pro-
cured ? and were they under those circumstances to be
clothed with the sanction and authority of that House,
end taus communicated to the public at large. He
maintained that it was the duty of that House, before
they made it a crime to publish what was untrue, to
know what it did publish ; for if they published what
was wrong, there was no means of reaching
any Member within the walls of that House.
He would put it to the House on the general principle
whether the privilege if publishing libellous matter
should be permitted, without giving the party affected
by such publication an opportunity of obtaining redress ?
If, for instance, they desired the publication of documents
for their own use, and those documents should after-
wards appear before the whole country, would they
then set up their justification of privilege ?
That could not avail in the present instance.
for he would venture to say, with reference to the
volume which formed the foundation of their present
proceedings, a majority of the Members of that House
were cognisant of its contents.—(Hear, hear.) He
objected to the proposition by which it was laid
down that Parliament had the exclusive right of de-
termining what action was or was not a breach of
privilege ; and a hatever might be the' foundation of
that now asserted it must be supported by some better
authority than a mere Ministerial majority—(Loud
cheers,) supported, he regretted to say, by a small
fraction on the Conservative side of the House.—
(Hear, hear.) He was satisfied that their present
assertion of privilege was not in conformity with law,
and that, whatever success might attend their assump-
tion of a privilege now for the first time set up, expe-
rience would show that not from themselves, but from
the people, did those privileges emanate, and ought
to be held and exercised but for their pro-
tection—( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers)—while in this
instance they had turned the arms obtained from the
people, against the people themselves—( Hear, hear)—
and they were living in times when their hasty decision
might teach them a lesson.—(Hear, hear.) He main-
tained that the priyilege contended for was not the law
of Parliament, much less the law of the land ; a doc-
trine most ably laid down and supported by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Ripon, and which, in point of
law, had never yet been answered.—(Hear.) He ad-
mitted that he (Mr. Law) had departed a little from
the question of the petition—(Laughter)—but not from
the subject rnatter before the House, and he would ttell
the Learned Solicitor and Attorney-Generals who had
'displayed such great ability in this debate not what he
bad heard out of doors, but had been expressed within
the walls of Westminster, that the opinions laid down
by them were not in consonance with truth and justice,
and that the steps taken by that House were in oppo-
sition to the law of the land, as laid down by the most
eminent law authorities of the Courts that in the worst
of times would hold even the balance of justice be.
tween man and man. He would implore the House
before they resorted to the desperate step which to-
morrow's reports might publish to the world, to reflect
well on the important duty the House had to discharge
before they committed individuals who had been guilty
of no dereliction of duty, who in personal cour-
tesy had done all they could to satisfy that House,
and who in doing what they had done, had only
acted in obedience to an authority to which
they felt bound to submit. But if, in yin
dication of their privileges, the House felt it ne-
cessary to commit the Sheriffs, he hoped they would
have the manliness to record the reasons by which they
meant to justify that proceeding. The Honourable
and Learned Member begged, in conclusion, to remind
the House that the Sheriffs were constituted to the
important offices which they held, by no less than nine
thousand citizens of London, who would not be
indifferent spectators of what was now passing.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He would therefore return
to his subject—(Laughter)—notwithstanding the disa-
greeable interruptions which had occurred. He would
bee- to remind the House that the office filled by the
Sheriffs was no lets created by the election of the citi-
zens of London, but an office delegated by the voice of
the people, constituting a solemn compact between those
raised to that position and the Sovereign of the realm,
and sworn to perform their functions as well on the part
of that people as on the part of that Sovereign.—
, (Hear, hear.) He submitted to that House whether,
after having pronounced those gentlemen perfectly inno-
cent of any moral offence—after their general conduct
had been so highly extolled—he submitted whether it
would be just or equitable to punish them ; for
what ? For not violating their oaths, which, if they
bad been guilty of doing, would, in his opinion,
render them unfit to hold the high office they now
fill, and quite unworthy of the trust they received from
their constituents. This House, on Saturday last, had
committed the originator of this action to the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, and he (Mr. Law) then begged
to ask what did they further seek to do? He submit-
ted to those around him if it was not an exertion to ex-
tract a SUM of money from the pockets of the Sheriffs
by the most dishonest coercion ; for they said if that
money was not immediately handed to the defendant
Hansard, they would find them guilty of a breach of
privilege ; but if they (the Sheriffs) assisted them to
rob the plaintiff of his just claims, that House would be
against them.—(Hear.)
Mr. EARLE next rose and said he threw himself
upon the indulgence of that House while he begged to
make a few observations upon the question before
them. He begged leave to state the grounds upon
which he thought it right to vote for the motion of the
Noble Lord. In his (Mr. E.'s) opinion the Honourable
Gentleman who had just sat down, had discussed a
question that ought not then have been discussed at
all. He agreed, however, with him that that House
was then sitting as a Court of Parliament, adjudging in
the matter of the Messrs. Hansard as to whether they
were called upon to protect him in his rights while
acting as a servant of this House, alai in obedience to
its orders. His Learned Friend who had preceded
him had argued against the resolutions passed in that
House in the month of May, 1837, and that the print-
ing whatsoever they pleased was a great evil and should
not be continued. The publication of Hansard was
adjudged by a Jury sworn to try the record to be per-
fectly true so far as the charge related to Mr. Stock-
dale. Mr. Hansard was occupied in printing what he
thought he had a right to do, and, in his (Mr. Earle's)
opinion, a man was perfectly justified in printing every-
thing that. he could establish to be true.—(Murmurs.)
They were endeavouring to protect the servant of
the House of Commons in an act perfectly
lawful as far as the Common Law was concerned,
It was well known that Mr. Stockdale was a person
who dealt in libels of the most disgusting description.
The question, he (Mr. Earle) considered, was confined
in much narrower space than what the gentlemen who
argued on the other side would wish them to believe. A
great part of the debate was occupied in establishing
the fact of its being absolutely necessary to have
published whatever the House of Commons thought
advisable, and many of the Members who
had preceded him had, in the most eloquent and
unanswerable manner, proved that it was of the utmost
import ince to that House that their rights amid privileges
should b,.! protected. He would not attcrnp to weaken
those arguments by going over the same ground. It
public opinion be kept in a healthful state, it is absolutely
necessary and conducive to the general interests of the
country that it should obtain the utnaost circulation possi-
ble ; but if' the public mind became diseased by bigotry,in-
tolerance, or prejudice, it was calculated to poison the
eery fountains of justice, and lead but to anarchy and
contusion.—(Hear, hear.) It was an undoubted pri-
vilege of that House, and vitally necessary, that they
should give every info7mation concerning its proceedings.
to the community at large—the right of proceeding in
that course had always been nobly defended by the
House of Commons, which also possessed the power of
adjudiet ting on those privileges, whether they arose;
from the direct act of the particular party, or by the in-
direct act of that party resorting to illegal measures,
The great contest of those who opposed the motion of
the Noble Lord and those who supported him was.
, ,
whether that House had the power of judging of,, what
their privileges were, or whether they ,were,,, bound
to appeal to, or take the advice from, another
quarter. If they looked at the history of the„ House
of Commons, they would see whether,. that privilege
rt
a tbeo %till: e I.
,or;,d'
existed or not. Before he would consider:..the evils that
rightswould
andarise
prigin
:l
e g allowinges,
hea,.nvyouoltdiles eitfinpeointthroirr
their consideretion : how any such rights ;:ele
the Judges.--(Laughter.) He begged r'ia e a vestedr
n in
back to the tone when the House of COO-mons fli.ttslesten
parated from the other branch of the, legislation, in the
I reign of Henry the Third.—(Hear, bear.) Before
they allowed any matters regarding their privileges to be
questioned by the Judges; they assembled and con-
, tended for their rights to hold and adjudicate upon
their own privileges. Such privileges they considered
most essential to the due performance of their func-
tions.—( Hear, hear.) It was contended by the Mem-
bers on the other side of that House whether the
privileges really existed or not, and that the Judges
before whom it was . brought were the most corn-
petent umpires. He (Mr. Earle) appealed to the time
of George 111., when the Judges were removeable at
any moment. It might be in the recollection of every
Hon. Gentle Man in that House, that there were then
on the Bench' characters who were remarkable not
merely for 1116 grossest servility, but stained with a
guilt of a much deeper dye. He need scarcely say he
alluded to Jeffreys—a name known in all history for
the infamy of his judicial conduct. Unquestionably,
from such quarters,a decision of those rights upon which
the interests of the people depend would not be calcu-

lated to render their proceedings actuated by the best
and most equitable motives.—(Cheers.) It was not,
therefore, probable that the privileges of the House of
Commons could take-their rise from such a source.
Although that remfatk might not then be applicable,
they were bound.to'consider the possibility of having at
a future time Judges on the bench of that description.
—( Hear.) Under the reign in which they at present
lived, there was; it was true, no danger of such
appointments being made, but the Sovereign of the
country might alter.— (Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.) But, supposing a man to be on the Throne of
England, whose mind was debased by the most into-
lerant bigotry—(Cheers)—and his conduct influenced
by the most despotic and tyrannical motives—(Cheers)—
would not such a man be anxious to find out convenient
instruments to carry his vile and infamous views iuto
effect ? Human nature might be altered from what
it was, then would not such individuals be
pretty arbitrators in defining the privileges
of that House, and, of course, upon whom the liber-
ties of this country would depend ?—(Great cheering.)
In contending that the privileges of that House be left
to the decision of the Courts of Law, it appeared that
it was possible such a state of things as he described
might exist. This House, then, was mot pe-
remptorily called upon to contend for their own rights, pri-
vileges,and prerogatives, as their functions depended upon
the maintenance of such claims. He would ask how
it was possible that that House could know whether
the arbitrators of their privileges would decide in
their favour or otherwise, if they yielded them to the
powers of the Court of Queen's Bench ? It Stock-
dale should bring his action for false imprisonment,
Chief Justice Denman had stated the right of ques-
tioning the opinions of the other Judges. The free-
dom of speech was the very essence of
their privileges. In the time of Charles the First
it was decided that the control of :their own privi-
leges lay in their own hands, and any observations
made by Members of that House were exempted
from any inquiry after the Session was over " Se-
cundum more Parliamentorium." The Learned At-
torney-General, for his powerful exertions to support
the privileges of that House, had been attacked
in the grossest and most abusive manner,
but he (Mr. Earle) thought he was entitled
to the thanks of the country for the manner in which
he acted. In the time of Richard 11. the question was
put—" What did a Member deserve, who, instead of
discussirea the subject before the House, brought for-
ward other motions, calculated to reflect on the charac-
ter of other individuals ?" The answer then given
was—" That such Members deserved to be put to
death."—(Hear.) The Judges' names were given in
history. Was it not possible to have such another ex
ample if that House submitted to the judgment of the
Courts of Law ? He did not mean to say that it was
likely that any case of that extent could occur, but if
they had even a bad King to rule over them they might
find Judges closely resembling those of Richard the
Second.—(Cries of " No, no.") If any Member de-
parts from his trust, or surrenders his privileges, they
would be gone for ever from them to another tribunal
to decide on them. It was, therefore, of the greatest im-
portance to maintain the right of deciding for themselves.
It appeared to him that the power of the House to
vindicate its own privileges, was also most important to
be maintained. In case of the breach of the privileges
of the House, by the direct act. of any party, it was
the usage of Parliament to vindicate those privileges,
and of course a privilege must be vindicated by the
party possessing it ; but if he was obliged to go to
another power he was at its mercy ; but to a breach of
privilege by an indirect course of attack on the privi-
leges of the people, by means of the law, he begged
more particularly to call the attention of the House.
It did not `aPpear. tit-•-tiim Honourable Members were
aware of the extent-they were running to by contending
in the manner they had done,: that if any roan chose
to question at law the privileges of the House, he had
a right to do it, and they were bound to go into a Court
of Law and answer him there, and take the judgment
of any tribunal the party chose to drag them to.—
(Hear, hear.) He begged the House to look at
the consequences of this. He would not now
consider the case of Mr. Stockdale ; but would
ask the House to consider, supposing it had been in the
exercise of an unquestionable right at Common Law
—he said Common Law because they argued falsely in
treating the law of Parliament as such—(Hear, hear)
if that principle were established, let them look further
at the consequences, and although aware that he was
speaking rather technically, it was important for the
House to know the consequences of the step taken.
The point for consideration was whether the privileges
Parliament claimed were law. It was now half the
question what was the power of the law. Take
it that a Member had made a statement in
the House respecting the misconduct of some
public functionary, charging him with gross delinquency,
and the person so charged brought aa action for slander
against him—had the House the right to say that their
privilege of uttering what they pleased was not to be
worked out in a Court of Law, to restrain the proceed-
ings, and to say that if the party obtained judgment
against them they would send him to prison and all who
assisted him ; or must the Speaker go into Court and
meet him there ? If he must, this justification must
be pleaded, that the Members had spoken the slander
in his place in the House, then the party would have
the right to deny that justification, and the Member
would be called upon to prove that he did so speak it.
Probably Hon. Members thought nothing was more
easy. He took it the party came, which advised and
had got an examined copy of the return. It was unlaw-
fully stated in the House, that by the privilege of the
House of Commons, it had the sole right of deciding
who should sit in it, and the point must be decided by
bringing the electors into Court, and supposing the
majority should say," we voted against you, you are not
our Member ;" and perhaps some question arose
respecting bribery, were Hon. Members prepared to
say that any person who complained of such an act
done in Parliament had not the right to moot it in a
Court of Law, and that it was not liable to be there
examined ? He wouldtake the liberty of putting another
case: supposing any Member when coming into the House,
for some cause, was assaulted by a person in the lobby,
this was undoubtedly a breach of privilege. The
Member would probably come into the House and
state what happened. The man, he presumed, would
be immediately committed by the Speaker, and taken
to prison. Now lied that man a right to contest, in any
way the law permitted, the validity of that commitment
—had he the right to bring his action against
ail Members who voted for his commitment ?
If the House met him in a Court of Law, he (Mr.
Earle) would defy any Member to point out to them
any other mode than that of going to a special pleader
and to trial ; and if he deemed the Jury were preju-
diced against him, he would htive the right to bri.
his action in any county he might choose—nay; the
same man might go before the Grand Jury 'tit the
Quarter Sessions, and indict the Speaker and eters
such Member for assault.—(Hear.) And in cases
of excitement—he put an extreme case—if they were
bound to go into a Court such as that of the Old Bailey,
mid liable to be harassed in the manner he had men-
tioned, surely it 'was essential to the performance of
the functions that such a wrong doer ought not to have

this power. If it was said the Attorney-General had
power to stop any prosecution, he asked was the power
of the House to depend upon the discretion of tbe At-
torney. General for the time bring ? and if Stockdale—
he put that case—could get a bill found against the
Hon. Member in the chair, by the grand jury of the
county, he knew of no way of getting rid of it at Common
Law but by giving bail at the sessions, and saying—" I
am Speaker of the House of Commons, and com-
mitted that man in the execution of my duty," and it
would be sail that is a question to go to the
Jury who might he violently prejudiced, they would have
the right to decide thereon. Now, on every one of those
libels for which Stockdale brought his action, he might
indict the Speaker by whose authority they were published
(and it was not improbable he would adopt that mode),
and there would be no defence. He prayed, therefore,
Hon.. Members who said they were bound to meet in a
Ceuri of Law any complaint against the House of Com-
mons, to say if they were prepared to go this length, or adopt
a .course that would prevent them from being so harassed ?
What had been said about the hardship to the Sheriffs in
the present case ? Much bad been said about preventing
the Judges from giving answers to questions put to them;
the Houe would perceive the judgment of the Court
could do no harm unless carried into execution. The
party was not incommoded until the Sheriff came to
execute the writ. It was known that in the case of a writ
against the person of any Member, the Sheriff would for-
bear to execute it, on account of his privilege as a Mem-
ber, and the Court would hold that by the Common Law he
had undoubtedly this privilege. Much bad been also said
about Stockdale having recovered judgment, and it was
stated that judgment by default, was an admission that
many bad been committed, but Hon. Members had omitted
to state a material exception to that rule. It was tree if
wrong admitted the wrong, without meaning to withdraw
from the jurisdiction of the Court. This was a known
rule of 1 ie, but he could refer the House to a case in
which he was himself cone,-rn-d in whit h Judges said that
it was eke;, if the. defend.int had omitted to give his answer,
intending to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court,
this was no evidence of wrong. —( Hear, hear, hear.)
And, therefore, would it be contended that if the
House withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Courts, it
was beggi ,g the question to say
.that they admitted. the
perpetualT heherfri
occurrence s ee
Pc auut sien oaf apna
painful
lo ns
taugaatiinosnt, t
bh
ue t So hn ee r lofffs
in the office, to be put between contending parties, and
they were bound to make their election, and if they decided
wrong, they did it at their peril.—% Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved there was not a Member who voted with the Noblo
Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, who would not
lament anything harsh that might be done to the Sheriffs,
but if it was a question deeply concerning ages yet to
come, he thought it should not be affected by any personal
feeling towards those gentlemen.—( Hear, hear.) Much
had been said about the popularity of this measure ;
he believed no Hon. Member would say this subject
should affect himself. The house was part of the nation,
and they need not fear the House of Commons would be
injured by unpopularity ; and if the House maintained the
rights of the people, it must be supported by the voice of
the people. He asked the Right Honourable Baronet
( Sir R. Inglis) who repeatedly menaced them with violence,
if they persevered, whether it was not their duty as in-

dependent representives of the House of Commons to I
defend this most invaluable privilege ? This was his con-
scientious opinion, to state which he bad felt it to be his
duty to trespass upon the attention of the House.
Lord TEIG NM 0 UT [I explained.
Mr. D'ISRAEL I took the opportunity of expressing
the reason for which he gave his vote. The lion. and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. Earle) had referred to the con-
duct of the Judges, from the time of Charles the First.
It would have been but fair if he had also referred to the
conduct of the House of Commons, He need not re-
fer to instmices familiar to the House. Let them
not forget that the House of Commons, in that favoured
age to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded,
had appointed a Committee to confiscate, by their arbi-
trary decision, the estates of the gentlemen of England ;
and that members of that Committee purchased those
estates at a price fixed by themselves. That was the pri-
vilege of that House in the age of Charles the
First. Let them remember that the House of Corn-
mons, in that same age, declared that any
definition of the Trinity contrary to the opinion of the
majority, was a breach cf privilege, and that a fanatic
quaker, for entertaining his own religious opinion, was by
their order branded with a hot iron, and, still persisting in
his contumacy, had his tongue cut out. Let them re-
member that the same House of Commons had
sent eight of the Judges to prison one morning for
breach of privilege, and shortly after meeting for transac-
tion of business, and finding nothing to do, but a conside-
rable sum of money in the Exchequer, voted it should be
divided among the Members of the House. But the
Honourable Gentleman said human nature was always
the same ; they had had a Jeffreys and a Scroggs
upon the Bench—( Hear, hear)—and would they trust
Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Pave on? Let him
consider the Judges were now independent of the
Crown. The House of Commons was as powerful
now as it had ever been, not less independent,
and for its ambition he would himself answer.
Although a Layman, he differed with tho Learned Gem_
tleman—(oll, oh, and laughter)—he differed with the
Hon. Gentleman on a point of law, and he was supported
by the words of a Lord Chancellor. The Learned Gen-
tleman quoting an argument that had fallen from the No-
b'e Lord, the Member for Stroud, for what office the No-
ble Lord filled he ( Mr. D'l. ) did not know.—( Laughter. )
But it was not his fault that he was kept in ignorance ;
that Noble Lord had laid it down that that House was the
sole and only judge of its own privileges. Now, he held
in his hand a book, to which he was astouished that the
Learned Attorney-General, in that sp'.endid and learned
oration which he had addressed to the Bench in another
place, had not alluded, nor had any one of the Learned
Gentlemen opposite referred to the passage, was a
very long one, and he was sorry teat he had not
weight enough in the Hou e to entitle him to read it all—
it was the fourth book of the rebellion, and it would well
repay a perusal from Gentlemen on either side. In it
Lord Clarendon ridiculed the idea that the House of
Commons alone was the judge of its own privileges, other
than those privileges which were recognised by law. The
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had met
the question in a very bold manner, and he had at once
placed it on the plea of necessity. But what did that
prove ? It did not prove that the law was different than
it was formerly—it merely proved that it might be expe-
dient to alter the law. If that resolution were passed,
what became of the privileges of the other two branches
of the Legislature. But he would at once tell the Minis-
try, that if they would dare to put their reasons on
the face of the committal, he would vote with
them.—( Hear, hear.) He knew they would not—he
knew they dared not, because it was only by omitting them
that they stopped the power of the Courts. In his mind,
and it was the general opinion out of doors, the resolutions
if carried would have the effect of suspending the Habeas
Corpus Act—( Cries of " Oh, oh")—and then what would
become of the liberties of the people ? It was a question
which would not have excited the public mind in any way
had it not been that the people felt their liberties were
deeply involved in it. All sides agreed that the case had
been blundered in from first to last. Only fancy the man-
ner in which the men who were now sending Sheriffs to
their cells and bullying the Judges on the bench had ma-
naged their case. The Hon. and Learned Attorney-Ge-
neral had so managed, or rather mismanaged, his case as
absolutely to have created a feeling in favour of Stock .
dale. Stockdale should have been as nothing—he should
have been allowed to remain as a scarecrow, or a man of
straw. But the Attorney-General had, by inquiring into his
life, given him a notoriety far above his deserts. Not con-
tented with that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
got up as if he had been addressing 500,000 fighting men
laugh)—and by his questioning obliged Stockdale to
admit that he had been convicted of publishing obscene
books. Before entering into that subject it would have
been well for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to have
consulted the journals of that House, for then they would
have found that a man who had been convicted of a false,
foul, scandalous, and obscene libel—a man whom twelve
of his countrymen had convicted of a crime, he would call
it—was subsequently returned to that Houae as a Member
for a metropolitan county. Nay, not only so, he not only
entered into hostilities with the House of Commons, but
he beat them, and compelled them to erase from their jour.
nals that very resolution by which they bad expelled him.
The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had a horror
of erasing resolutions of 1836 and 1837 from their Journals.
By so doing they would stultify themselves he said. He
wished' the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been with
them on his side of the House when the Appropriation
principle was thrown overboard—(A laugh)—for he be-
lieved that the Hon. and Le,:rned Gentleman was one of
those who stultified themselves by throwing that principle
overboard. The parties were as nearly equally balanced
in 1640 as they were in 1840. The remonstrance,
Lord Clarendon said, was carried by nine voices, and lie
added, by the cavaliers who absented themselves. He
trusted that would be a lesson to Gentlemen on his side
the House upoe an occasion that would soon present itself
—(Loud laughter)—and he saw nothing in the present
House of Commons which would induce him to trust it
more than the Parliament of former times. He admitted
the law of Parliament was supreme, but there was a vast
distinction between the law of Parliament and the law of
the House of Commons, and he for one would lift up his
voice, weak though it was, against the latter overruling
the former, well knowing what would be the result. He
would oppose such an attempt on the part of the House of
Commons, as be neither wished his property to be segues-
trated—( Laughter) his person tortured, nor a held
usurper walking up to the table of the House, and ordering
that bauble (poin.ing to the Mace) to be removed.
Mr. CeessweLn and Mr. EARLS severally explained
upon a point of law.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT would not at that late
hour of the night detain the House long, but he was un-
willing to give a silent vote upon a question of such para-
mount importance. He thought that the great preponde-
rance of the common sense of the debate was against the
resolutions—nor did he yet think that the safety and
liberty of the people of England were so entirely at the
mercy of a resolution of the House of Commons. Nor
did he ever hope to see a vote of that House overrule the
law of the land, which had been made so by an agreement
of the two Houses of the Legislature, sanctioned by the
Crown. Such a principle would be so subversive of all
principles of justice, and of the English Constitution;
that he could not allow it to go to a vote without
expressing his strong sense of the impropriety of
the course which the House was pursuing.—( Hear.)
It reminded him of the words of Macbeth before he
had murdered Duncan ;

" He's here in double trust,
First as my Sovereign—then, as my guest,
I should against the murderer bar the door,
Not bear the knife myself."
The people of England might reply to this, but it was the
sole duty—the paramount duty of the House of Com-
mons to administer impartial justice and individual liberty
to every English subject. When the Commons interfered
with the officers, in his (Sir F. Burdett's) opinion that
was a proceeding incompatible with its dignity, and with
its exercise of powers. If that House chose to assert its
privileges let it manfully assert them—let it assert them
in a way in which they had been frequently and success-
fully asserted, and let it assert them in the same manner
as when he once had the honour of a contest with that
House, and in which they were manifestly wrong, and
had not the least foundation to stand on. Why did he (Sir
F. Burdett) then resist the Speaker's warrant ?—why did
he declared that it was no warrant, and why did he stand
a siege of the whole House ? Why, because be would not
submit to the illegality and tyranny of a House of Com-
mons, and because he was sure there was no legal instru-
ment by which the order that had been issued could be
enforce How had the privileges of Parliament arisen ?
It was not at such a very great distance of time—it was
only since the time of the civil war, when privileges were
introduced and made a wall against prerogative. Till
that time, privileges enabled Members to do their duty to
the public with security to their persons and property.
The privilege then was that the Crown should be
restrained from attempting and assuming to itself
that which the House now assumed to itself. It was that
which produced the civil war—it was that which subverted
the Constitution, brought a King to the scaffold, and intro-
duced those privileges which have since become so neces-
sary to the public welfare. The great cause of the dis-
turbanco in the reign of Charles the First was, whether he
should have the power to commit—the question now was
whether the House should have the same power, ?—( Hear,
hear.) Why, the Hoe. and Learned Attorney-General
had stated the most strange position be had ever hoard.
It was that the Bill of Rights gave this power, whereas it
only referred to the freedom of Members of Parliament.
" And now (said the Hon. Baronet suddenly) what is all
this about ?"—( Shouts of laughter, and " 'Hear, hear,"
from the Ministerial benches.) The dignity of the House
was concerned, it was said, but he (Sir Francis) would
say, " that it was good to have a giant's stre,ngth, but. t it
a gi
was tyrannous to use it like the," Liberator,"
This privilege, forsooth, was supported by
.—(Che )
—a man who for so many years had followed the maxim
" Put money in my curse."—( Cheers from the Opposi-
tion, and cries of " Order" from the Ministerial benches.)
What he ( Sir Francis Burdett) said was, let their privi-
leges be defined, and let them be made law, but do not let
any men build up privileges for
themselves.—(Cheers.
Where was the indignity, he asked, in that definition of the
privileges for them ? They would
be in a situation to
assert them more manfully and boldly.—(Cheers.) He
(Sir Francis) remembered the expression that was current
in the Revolution among Danton and Robespierre—that
expression was the motto of the former celebrated revo-
lutionist—it was " L'audace encore, toujours l'audace."
But this was not the doctrine for a British Attorney-Ge-
neral, for such language had never been heard from the
Learned Attorney-General opposite.—(A laugh.) The
Noble Lord opposite had been pleased to state that was
law which was delivered from the Treasury Bench, or in
fact from the majority of the House of Commons;
he (Sir Francis), however, would rather take the
law from the Queen's Bench,__( Hear, and loud cheers.)
The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had at Edin-
burgh congratulated the country on its tranquillity, when
in fact, it was upon a slumbering volcano, which had since
broken out with a violence far beyond that of those tern-
poray disturbances which used to be made a standing
Whig argument against the
Wellington-Peel Govern_ !

ment.—( Opposition cheers, and cries of " Question'
from the iVlinlsterialists.) The Ministry had, under pre-
tence of maintaining the dignity of the House, and sup-
porting its privileges—when, in fact, both were never in a
worse position ; they had got to what in America was called
"point no point," that is, a situation in which the further
they approached, the more were they removed from their
object.--( Hear, hear.) The whole ques'ion might be
summed up in the emphatic words of Cicero—" Privile-
giunz perm:. iosum ; quod hoc minusjerre possit." Nothing
could be mord usurped, nothing more pernicious, nothing
more unbearable, than this privilege. What were they
now called on to do? To crush the innocent—to punish
men for doing what their duty compelled them to do, in a
strictly Ministerial capacity.—(Opposition cheers.) And
this was supported by the " Agitator" forsooth—it might
be Irish justice—it was not English justice.—(Question.)
But what did that person know of justice ?—( Question,
and Hear, hear.) What did it matter, whether the per-
son bringing the action in this case was the most " unac-
countable vagabond "—( Laughter)—the more unworthy
he was; the greater honour to the justice of the laws which
protected him. Stockdale had dared to appeal to law.
Why the Attorney-General, particeps criminis, had like-
wise appealed to the law. And truly, there was
nothing in that course at all compromising the dignity of
the House. Privilege, under proper limitations, ought to
be supported, but not that tyranny which only assumed the
name.—( Cheers. )
Mr. O'CONNELL said, to borrow a phrase from the
Hon. Baronet, he could not help asking " What is ell this
about?"—(Laughter, and cheers.) The Hon. Baronet
had been going about—and about—and about everything,
but had touched little indeed.—(Cheers.) As to his
parenthetical attack upon himself, he (Mr. O'Connell)
could forgive him. To be sure he once had been afflicted
with the praise of :he erratic Baronet—(Laughter)—that,
he trusted, he would never again be troubled with. He
could forgive anything but the Hon. Baronet's praise.—
(Cheers, and laughter.) Now tie Hon. Baronet had
made a long tirade about tyranny and resolutions, and
so on. Why, the Honourable Baronet was in an
awkard position—the very " point-no-point" of which he
accused the Ministers—( Laughter)—for on the Ist August,
1839, the Hon. Baronet supported this Resolution in
Polack's case—" That to bring any action for the publica-
tion of papers ordered to be published by this House is a
breach of privilege."—(Loud cheering.) And the Hon.
Baronet had made a short speech on that occasion—a very
unusual thing, by-the-bye, with the Hon. Baronet—
(Laughter)—and what was still more remarkable, it was a
rational speech.—(Laughter, and cries of " Order" from
the Opposition.) The Hon. Baronet said—" The
House ought to possess every privilege necessary for its
proceedings.—( Cheering from both sides of the House.)
The privileges of the House were not intended to be used
as powers of oppression against other persons."—(Cheers
from the Opposition benches.) Were Hon. Gentlemen
opposite surprised at a little inconsistency in the Hon.
Baronet ?—(Cheers, and laughter from the Ministerial
benches.)—" But should be used as a protection for
the House against the exorbitant power of the
Crown, and to secure the exercise of free discussion
and the agitation of Parliament."--( Hear.) The agitation
of Parliament, whatever that might mean, was a phrase
of the Hon. Baronet's own.—(The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then continued the quotation.) "It cer-
tainly was never intended that these privileges should be
used for the private purposes of Members ; and the privi-
vilege of exemption of arrest from the payment of their
debts, was undoubtedly a privilege of this nature. But,"
and he begged Hon. Gentlemen opposite for a while to
lend him their ears—(Loud laughter)—" he considered
the House to have all powers necessary for the welfare of
the public, and therefore he should not oppose this reso-
lution."--(Cheers and laughter.) Hon. Members had in-
terrupted him; ho would, however, now proceed to finish his
quotation from the speech of the Hon. Baronet. " Which
he thought natural and consistent with a proper respect for
the liberty of the subject."—( Immense cheering.) He
would now make his bow to the Hon. Baronet until his
next wheel about.----( Loud cheering.) • -
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT was not answerable for
the reports of the Hon. and Learned Member, nor did he
feel himself bound by the quotation of words without the
context—( Laughter)—but he really could see no incon-
sistency at all in it.—( Roars. of laughter.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and tho
House divided, when the numbers were—
For Mr. Kelly's motion
Against it ...

Majority -111
The resolution of Lord John Russell for taking the
Sheriffs into custody, was then put from the Chair.

Mr. H. KEMBLE feared that the most serious con-
sequences would result from the course they were pur-
suing, and that the privileges of the House would be most
materially injured. One very important feature had been
almost wholly forgotten in the course of the debate, viz.,
that in the action that was brought against the House in
1838, the Attorney-General had been ordered to defend it.
They were about to commit to prison men who were de-
servedly popular—who were the first men in the county,
and who held office, not from the Crown, but from the
people ; and they were about to send them to prison,
when it had been admitted, on all hands, that their conduct
bad been most honourable—when they had manifested no
disposition to act contemptuously towards the House, but,
on the contrary, had done everything in their power to
support the privileges of that House. The House having
on a former occasion sanctioned the payment of damages
in an action brought against it, it would be an act of the
most flagrant injustice if, with that example before their
eyes, the Sheriffs should be committed to prison. If the
House did that, it would damage itself with the country.
There was a strong feeling on the part of the country that
they were advancing pretensions injurious to the liberty of
the subject. Whatever feelings might be entertained with
respect to the privileges of that House, he had seen enough
in the examinations that had taken place upon that floor
—( Opposition cheers)—to believe that the privileges
which they arbitrarily possessed themselves of were
arbitrarily exercised. (Renewed cheering.) He
had seen, when the witness —or whatever he was
—for they did not know what to call him—he had
seen, when that party endeavoured to protect him-
self from the consequences of answering certain questions,
he was told that they were not to be bound by the techi-
calities of a Court of Law. He trusted that these techni-
calities, as they were called, which were the great protec-
tion of the liberty of the subject, would be long preserved
to them.—( Hear, hear ) When he looked at recent
events—when he considered that men who had been
found with arms in their hands, waging war against their
Queen, had been allowed a copy of the indictment, had
exercised the privilege of challenging the Jury, and when
on the other hand he saw a man brought to the bar and
questioned in a way which no Court of Justice would have
suffered—when he found that his accuser was his judge,
and not only his judge, but his gaoler—when he found
that instead of committing him to one of the Queen's
gaols, which was under the superintendence of the magis-
uates, they had committed him to what he understood
from the papers on the table was called the cell of the
House of Commons—he could not sufficiently express his
indignation at the whole of their proceedings, and lie
should give his most decided opposition to the motion of
the Noble Lord.
Mr. GODSON said he was not about to trouble the
House at any length on a subject so much debated, but to
draw the attention of Hon. Members to the present con.
duct of those whom they had condemned, and whom they
were about to punish. With respect to the decision of the
House, he bowed to the decision of the majority, as he
was bound to do ; but still, whatever might be his opinion
of their privileges, he was convinced that so long as the
law made libel an indictable offence, they could no more
legalize it than they could other crimes. In his
judgment, they had no more right to violate the
law than the lowest subject in her Majesty's dominions.
He would now ask them to attend for one single mo-
ment, to the personal conduct of the two gentlemen whom
they were about to commit. On Saturday 'night the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had
told the House that the conduct of the Sheriffs had been
most honourable. All gentlemen on the other side of
the House, whether Reformers, Whigs, Radicals, or
Chartists, had proclaimed, bad agreed in that opinion.
The Noble Lord who had conducted the prose-
cution, with the assistance of the Attorney-General,
seeing that the feeling of the House was so strongly
in favour of the Sheriffs, had taken time to consider what
they should do in consequence of the supposed breach of
privilege which had been committed. They had found
that they could not punish the Sheriffs for acting as ho-
nourable men, and therefore a new mode of proceeding was
invented ; and the Sheriffs were entrapped into a new
breach of privilege. It was plain that it was not for the
first charge against them, but for the second that they were
about to be committed. Up to Saturday the conduct of
the Sheriffs, in the opinion of the House, had been most
honourable---they had delsyed as much as possible execu-
tion of the writ they were charged with—they had given
the House every opportunity that could be afforded of its
privileges, and were they now, he would ask, to be pu-
nished for having thus acted in a manner so blameless?
The House had unanimously applauded their conduct,
and should not now show itself too ready to treat them
with severity. The present Parliament might not, for a
long time, be dissolved, and the motion of the Noble
Lord would, perhaps, condemn the Sheriffs to eight
or nine months' imprisonment, while it was ad-
mitted that their conduct was honourable, just,
and proper. Could the House think that this was a due
exercise of their power, or that it was tempering justice
with mercy ? It could not be supposed that those Gen-
tlemen, when once committed, would come forward and
beg of the House to release them. If they should be com-
mitted to-night the consequence would be that to-morrow
the rule might be argued, and in all probability the
Court of Queen's Bench, seeing the second resolution of the
House, might refuse to make the rule absolute.
He asked of the House to delay its proceedings, and it
might thus be enabled to give those men an opportunity of
avoiding unmerited punishment—time should be given,
and the matter might come less embarrassed before them
again. He wished briefly to trace the consequence which
would follow if the rule was made absolute that the She-
riffs sho-uld pay over the money. They would not pay it till
an attachment was directed againt them. That attachment
would be directed to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, as
Coroner for the County of Middlesex. He (Mr. Godson)
supposed, from the opinions that Hon. Gentleman had ex-
pressed, that he would refuse, in that case, to attach the
Sheriffs • he would then refuse to obey an order of the
Court of Queen's Bench. If the lion. Gentleman
should be then taken into custody, as he would be,
the privileges of the House would be violated in
the person of one of its Members. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury would then appeal to that
Hour, complaining that he had been taken into custody,
and calling to be released. He warned the House against
these embarrassments, and he would conclude by moving
that the debate h. adjourned to that day week.
Sir E. SUGDEN hoped that his Hon. Friend would
see the necessity of withdrawing his motion. Every possible
opportunity for consideratiou had been given the House, and
it had shown great patience in investigating the matter.
A time should come, in any case, when the wishes of the
majority of the House should be oarried into effect ; and
he hoped that his Hon. Friend would enable the House,
at once, to come to a decision.

Mr. GODSON said that after what had fallen from his
Right Hon. Friend, he would not persevere with his
amendment.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when on the
motion of Lord J. RUSSELL (that the Sheriffs be com-
mitted) there appeared—

For the motion 195
Against it 94
Majority . . .. —lol
Lord J. RUSSELL then stated that in the course of
these proceedings, he (Lord J. Russell) had been called
the prosecutor in the case. He would merely observe in
reference to that remark, that he had been requested to
present Messrs. Hansard's petition with which of course
he considered it his duty to comply. That was all he had
to do with the prosecution.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the order
of the House requiring the attendance of the Under-
Sheriffs at the Bar, be discharged, which was agreed to.
His Lordship then moved that Thomas Howard, Stock-
dale's attorney, be called to the bar.
Mr. Howard then appeared at the bar.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Were you attorney
in the action of Stockdale v. Hansard ?

Mr. LAW moved that the question be not put.—
(Cheers.) It was a step antecedent to punishment, and
if the House wished to keep up even a semblance of jus-
tice they would not at so late an hour commence a
new case of such a nature. It was then twelve
o'clock. Members had been detained in the House
until half-past three o'clock in the morning. They
were fatigued with the argument which had been ad-
dressed to them, and it was a most unseasonable hour to
proceed. They had imprisoned the plaintiff—they were
about to imprison the attorney. In fact, looking at the
state of proceedings in the case they were about to snatch
a judgment in the absence of the party and his legal ad-
viser. If the question were persisted in he would persist
in motions for adjournment.—(Cheers.)
Sir E. SUDGEN was entirely against punishing the
attorney ; they had not ventured to call the Counsel
in the cause to the bar--( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers)—
arid he was just as much guilty of a breach of
privilege as any one.
Mr. BL E WITT rose to order amidst much confusion,
which was for a moment put an end to by
The SPEAKER saying the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman was quite in order.
Sir E. SUGDEN was about observing that the House
dared not call the Counsel to the bar.

Mr. BLE WITT again rose to order, and the confusion
was renewed.

The SPEAKER said if an Hon. Member persisted in
interrupting another Hon. Member when he was quite in
order, he must say he was acting against the rules of the
House.—( Cheers. )
Mr. BLE WITT begged pardon if he had been dis-
orderly, but he thought he had been quite in order.—
( Cries of " Chair, chair," and laughter, amid which the
Hon. Member sat down.)
Sir E. SUGDEN then resumed. It was very desir-
able that the House should then separate.—(Cheers.)
He was altogether against punishing the attorney—they
had not called the Counsel to the bar, and they dared not
do so.—(Cheers.) Mr. Burchell and Mr. France had
been a long time in attendance and apparent peril : the
latter had been called, but the former had not been called
to the bar ' - and why ? Because he acted as a Judge, and
they dared not.—( Cheers. )
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to order. That was not the
question that they were now discussing.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN then said, that there
never was anything more relevant, because the ques-
tion was, whether the witness was to be examined or
not.—(Cries of " No, no," from the Ministerial side of
the House.) If he (Sir E. Sugden) were opposed,
he would persist in adjournment to the latest hour in
the morning. Was not the vengeance of the House satisfied?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL now rose to order amidst
immense cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.
lie thought the best method that could be adopted w.s
never' to allude to any expressions that had fallen re-
proachful to the Government. But after the House had
come to a vote, impelled by a conscientious sense of duty,
he asked, was it not disrespectful to the House for any
Hon. Member to ask whether the vengeance of the House
were satisfied ?—(Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.)
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN again rose, and said that
in proceedings like the present many Hon. Gentlemen
were hurried into expressions which at their cooller mo-
ments they regretted. In his opinion it was not worthy
of the House to pursue the attorney of the plaintiff'.
Were not their privileges satisfied by what had
already been done ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir E. Sugden)
could tell them that the universal voice of Westminster
Hall was against them.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," front the
Ministerial side of the House.) And if they now seized
the plaintiff's attorney, they would turn round and seize a
judgment. He therefore trusted the Noble Lord would
not object to the motion then under discussion. The
Right Hon. Baronet then concluded by stating that it was
his intention, at a proper opportunity, to move that the
Sheriffs be discharged.
Mr. GODSON reminded the Government that Baron
Smith had been accused of trying prisoners after twelve
at night.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. O'CONNELL thought this somewhat irrelevant—
( Hear, and laughter.) The only question was whether
the particular query objected to should be put, and he saw
nothing in it differing from the ordinary practice.—( Hear. )
Lord J. RUSSELL said if any number, however small,
of Hon. Members, thought the time too late—( Hear,
hear)—he bad no objection to postpone further proceed-
ings.—( Hear, hear.) But as to the general question of
the committals, he must say he considered them the
only means the House possessed of vindicating their pri-
vileges.—( Hear, hear. )

Sir E. KNATCHBULL put it to the Noble Lord if
the question could be considered decent under all the cir-
cumstances.

Lord J. RUSSELL understood the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman to say that he should persist in his opposition, if
the question were brought forward this evening.
Sir E. SUGDEN would resort to every means in his
power to oppose the motion for the commitment of the at-
torney, whenever it should be brought forward.
Lord J. RUSSELL would not enter into such a con-
test at that hour of the night.
Mr. DARBY would assist in any opposition to the mo.
tion of commitment.

Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would persist in
his motion, as otherwise men of straw might be set up to
oppose the privileges of the House, which would not be the
case if the attorney were rendered responsible.
Str R. INGLIS thought that to be consistent in their
misdeeds they should commit every person who had taken
a part in these transactions.—( Hear, hear.) He would
assist by every means in his power in defeating
what ho considered the injustice of the House. Why had
they not had the courage to visit the Counsel in the
case with their—he supposed he must not call it vengeance
—as well as the attorney ? Whatever might be the consea
quences, they must be visited upon the heads of her Ma-
jesty's Government; but he trusted the House would not
lend itself to any similar proceedings.
Mr. WAKL EY thought it was to be regretted that, in a
solemn case like the presnit , one side of the House should be
constantly imputing improper motives to the other. He was
surprised to hear such expressions as vengeance, and that
the Hon. Baronet should impute deliberate injustice to
those who differed from him. He himself thought that
Hon. Members opposite believed. they were acting consist-
ently with what they deemed their duty to the country. He
could not but recollect that when a motion was made in
that House at the close of the Session, the object of
which was to effect the delivery of Thorogood, who had
been incarcerated from January to July for contempt of
the Ecclesiastial Court, because he had a conscientious
scruple against appearing to a citation of that Court for
the non-payment of five shillings Church-rates, the
Hon. Baronet was the party who opposed that motion,
who divided the House against it, and who persisted in his
opposition to the last, and yet he would ail who on
that side of the House had accused the Hon. Baronet of
deliberate injustice, or being actuated by motives of ven-
geance, in the course which he had thought it right to pur-
sue. —( Cheers. )
After a few words from Lord ELIOT and Mr. FRENCH,
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that Mr. B. Howard do
attend to-morrow.

Mr. KELLY could not assent to the motion, and should
take every step the rules of the House would allow him to
oppose what seemed to him the punishment of parties
merely from arbitrary caprice.—( Cries of " Order.")

The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member must be aware
that such language was unparliamentary.
Mr. KELLY said no Member of the House was more
unwilling to attribute arbitrary caprice to the Noble Lord
than himself, and begged to withdraw the expression.
He should, however, give the motion for bringing that
party to the bar, or committing him to custody, every
opposition in his power.
Mr. LAW moved as an amendment to the Noble
Lord's motion that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. E LLIS said the Noble Lord had given them no
precedent for the course he was nnw pursuing.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the plaintiff and attorney in
an action bad been committed by the House of Lordp,.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment ..
For Lord John Russell's motion ll3
Majority in favour of the Ministry ----74
It was then ordered that Mr. James Burton Howard
should attend at the bar of the House on the following
evening.

Mr;LABOUCHERE then moved that a Committee
be appointed to inquire into the subject of Railways.
Mr. PLUMPT RE suggested the propriety of such
Committee being instructed to consider the propriety of
having them stopped from going on the Lard's day.
Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that he could not say
whether that point formed part of the Committee on the
subject the last Session, but he merely wished to have
that Committee revived this Session.

Mr. WARBURTON stated that if such a subject as
that were to be considered, he would a:so hope that turn-
pikes and public roads be closed on the Lord's day.
Mr. PRINGLE stated that they only required the pub-
lic traffic by the public railways to be stopped on the Sab-
bath day.
Mr. HUME objected to such a motion being made,
without ample notice be given.
Committee appointed
Mr. FINCH gave notice he would move the addition of
Mr. Emerson Tennent's name to the Committee.
COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.
Mr. E. TENNENT brought in his Bill for enlarging
the copyright of designs for cotton printing, from three to
twelve months.
Mr. LABOUC HE RE hoped the second stage of the
Bill would be deterred for some time, in order to give the
trede an opportunity of becoming acquainted wi h its
provisions.

The LORD-ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to amend the taw of heriots in Scotland.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved for a return of the number
of electors and the number of inhabitants in the different
electoral districts in Ireland.—Agreed to.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to amend the law relating to the commutation of
tithes.

On the 17th inst. BIRTHS.
, at Stoughton Lodge Bedfordshire, the
lady of John Edward Venables Vernon, Of Clontarf Castle,
Dublin, Esq., of a son.
On the 16th inst. at Hellens, Much Marcie, Herefordshire,
the lady of Robert Duffield Cooke, Esq., of a son and daughter.
On the 18th inst., at Westall House, Cheltenham, the lady
of Dr. Swiney, of a son.
On the 18th inst., Mrs. J. E. Fox, of Finsbury circus, of a
son, who survived only a few hours.
On the 18th inst., at Potterne, Wilts, the lady of the Rev.
Joseph Medlicott, of a son.
On the 19th inst., in Albany-street, Regent's-park, Mrs.
William Grimble, of a son.