The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-07 00:00:00

arguments brought forward in defence of the House might
lead to some inconvenience, and that monstrous cases
might be supposed, which would follow from the doctrine of
privilege, but that was true of every institution in the
eonntry. A Judge for instance, might condemn a
man who had been acquitted by the Jury, or be
might send a man to prison for a contempt of Court
purely because he did not like his appearance. No one,
however, apprehended any danger from this extreme
supposition. The Members of the House were at present
much less independent than the Judges ) The
Members of the House were elected for seven years only,
while the Judges held their situations for life
There was an appeal every seven years against
Members of Parliament, but there was no appeal
to a superior tribunal against the Judges. The House
end the Legislature alone could control and check the
Judges; but the people could control Parliament. They
had to meet public opinion in the shape in which it was
most efficacious, that is of a total exclusion from the House.
There was little danger, therefore, of their abusing their
privileges, sad he believed that they should be themselses
the sole judges of them. Those privileges were now, for
the first time, qualified by the diseases of parties impri..
soned. They had still, at all events, the power of
vindicating their privileges by imprisonment, and
the duration of that imprisonment might continue
while Parliament was sitting ; or, if they thought
it necessary, they might extend it still further.
The method of punishment had protected their privileges
hitherto. It had also been found efficacious by the Courts
of Law and Equity. The Courts of Equity indeed had
no other mode of vindicating their privileges, and its
efficacy hitherto had been found complete ; and had
they any right to ask for anything fnrther, and submit
to the other House and the Crown for additional powers to
enable them to exercise them ? The House could not have
that right until they had tried all the means they were
acquainted with. His first objection to that Bill was that
it was introduced before they had tried the efficacy of the
extent of their privileges. The Sheriff was discharged
at once, not on bail as was proposed by the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman, then on the paper. They had committed
that fault. The other Sheriff was still in custody, but the
sub- Sheriffs had acted in this transaction, and were guilty
of violation of their privileges. They had acted with too great
leniency in the case of one Sheriff, and the sub-Sheriffs.
In former periods that House had not stopped at the mere
instruments—the ministerial officers, and he did arraign
those who brought in this Bill, for not having the
resolution, he would call it the political courage—fur not
having proceeded against their superiors. Why should
not the Counsel be called to account as well as the Attor-
ney, and the Judges as well as the Sheriffs ? He
said, "Be just and fear not ; do not ask the
assistance of the other House until you have
tried this." They talked of respect for the Judges, what
respect had they earned in this case ? There was this
remarkable fact—they were treated, not their persons
but their arguments, with sovereign contempt; not a single
lawyer would assert the Judges were right.—( Loud
cheering ) This was an important fact, whether they
were for or against the privilege no lawyer asserted the
judgment of the Court of Queen's Bencn was right in this
case. Even the Right Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber for Ripon, the first great authority in the law,
it was no improper compliment, for the Right Hon.
Gentleman well deserved it.--( Hear, hear.) If ever
there was a lawyer who knew the entire law, he (Sir E.
Sugden ) knew it—( Hear) —and yet he had taken a course
opposed to the House. His judgment, however, did not
go with the Court of Queen's Bench ; on the contrary, he
had emphatically condemned the decision of the Judges.
Let no one, therefore, talk to him (Mr. O'C.) about the
respect that was due to the Court of Queen's Bench,
which trampled upon the most valuable privileges of
the House—that of giving instruction to the people
as to crime. Did not the House bring a Judge to
its bar on a former occasion ? Was not Sir Jonah
Barrington, the Judge of the Admiralty in Ireland
brought before the House? And did they not publish a report
that that Judge had put the money of the suitors in his
pocket, and spent it ? If it would be possible to suppose for
a moment Sir J. Barrington at the head of the Queen's
Bench, instead of Lord Denman, and that in that Court
lie did the same as he had done in the Admiralty, appro-
priating to his own use the money of the suitors—if the
persons could be changed—and the House were to state
.he fact, and to order the printer to publish the report
--on that instant the Judge of the Court of Queen's
Bench, if that Court was right in its decision, would have
the right, and would be bound immediately to attach and
to send to gaol any printer who would publish the facts by
order of the House. He would have the right (the rest
of the Courts concurring with him in the principle) to
send the individual to gaol, and he would be bound to do
it. But if he did not do it in that way, an indictment might
be brought against the printer, before Lord Denman him-
self, and no evidence of the truth could be gone into. He
would admit, for argument sake, that the praise of the
Judge was deserved, but bad Judges and bad theme might
come again, and the law says, that the Judges are
responsible only to Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) If a
Judge committed a judicial murder, he could not
be tried in any of the Courts ; they could be tried
only by Parliament, they were responsible to the
House, and it was attempted to make the House responsi-
ble to them. It was said that House had violated the law, but
its privileges were the law of the land, which the Judges
had to expound and the Courts to administer. Some of
those privileges were of personal advantage to the Mem-
bers and others to the public alone. It was fortunate that
it was one of the latter privileges that was involved in the
present question. That was the common law of the land ;
the common law of the land gave to every body unques-
tionably all those rights and privileges which were neces-
sary fer the adequate discharge of all those duties the exe-
cution of which the common law imposed on them. The
common law imposed upon that House the duty
of legislation, and, therefore, the common law
gave them every privilege which was necessary
for them adequately and efficiently to discharge those
legislatorial duties which were imposed upon them. If
that were the case, if their right to the possession of this
privilege were clear, if the mode of vindicating that privi-
lege were clear, why ought they not to depend upon that
mode, or why should they put their privileges in peril f.,v
the present Bill ? He wou*.d now shortly address himself
to the argument which had been brought forward last
evening by the Noble Lord opposite in his able, eloquent,
and argumentative speech on this subject. The Noble
Lord was combating the argument of the lion. and Learned
Solicitor-General as to the Bill, leaving untouched the
judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Noble
Lord was not a professional lawyer, and, therefore, per-
haps, he had fallen into this mistake, that any recital in
the Bill could not be a confirmation of the judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench. The Noble Lord should
recollect that in this country there was no code to refer to
to state what was the law. The landmarks of the law
in this country were in the decisions of the Courts; they
had no code like the French, to the respective articles o
of which they could refer to ascertain what was the
actual law. To ascertain what was the law in
this country, reference must be had to the books of deci-
sions, and to the judgments of the Courts ; whenever a
judgment was acquiesced in, it was considered as a decla-
ration of the law, and any railing at it by pet sore not au-
thorized to reverse it was idle and useless. Nay,
it might, perhaps, be considered as adding force
to the authority of the decision because it would
be said why did they not take the regular method to obtain
a reversal of that decision, if they knew it to be wrong ?
So the Noble Lord was mistaken on this point. It was
always considered that by not overruling a decision, it was
acquiesced in; the authority of it, unless overruled, re-
mained, and ensuing Judges would no longer feel them-
selves at liberty to call that judgment in question, or to
hear arguments against it, however absurd it might be.
He would appeal to that judgment, and say the question
had already been decided. But perhaps he might be told
that by this Bill they would obtain a recognition of their
authority, and if it passed the House of L srds they would
obtain a remedy for the evil. Why should they make the
House of Lords the judges of their privileges ? If it
should pass the House of Lords—who was prepared to
say it would pass the House of Lords ?—( Cheers)—who was
prepared to say they would give them this law ?—(Cpheeersros.n),
Their privileges bad already been sharply and bitterly at.
tacked in that House by an able but not very wise
who perhaps was now devoting his leisure time to the get-
ting-up of epigrammatic points for the purpose of inflaming
the minds of those who might be disposed to dispute their
privileges. They were disputed by two classes, by the
friends of those who exaggerated the merits of the here-
ditary branch of the Legislature, and they were assailed
by those who undervalued that House—the Chartists on
the one hand, and the Ultra-Tories on the other—and am
those the House, unless it was careful, might create an
an
opposition to their privileges which they would not easily
meet. Why did not the House try all the powers it at
present possessed to protect its privileges before it asked
for the assistance of the Lords, which it virtually would
do by the present Bill. The Bill gave the House
no certain remedy, and, in the mind of the public,
if the Bill were passed, it would carry with it an air of
vacillation on the part of the House, and give an oppor-
tunity to those who were inclined to do it to ransack and
vilify the privileges. He thanked the House for having
listened to him, and he begged, in conclusion, to enter
his protest against this mode of proceeding. He must re-
mind the House that they were battling against that
which was condemned on every side of the House—the
erroneous judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. In
conclusion he thought that the House ought not to sub-
mit without first exhausting all means in its power to sup-
port les privileges before it resorted for support to others.
Sir W. FOLLETT then rose to address the House.
The Hon. and Learned Member who Lad just sat down
had stated his opposition to the introduction of this Bill,
but lie had not stated what he considered ought to be the
means adopted by the House for enforcing its powers, but
the Honourable Member had distinctly called upon
the House to summon the Judges of the Court of
Queen's Bench to the bar, for giving a judgment against
the privileges of the House. He had stated distinctly
that unless they did that they would not effectually vindi-
cete the privileges of that House. He would now call the