The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-23 00:00:00

LONDON :
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1840.

The House of Lords did not meet yesterday.
i Among the petitioni presented to the Commons were
some for more Church and some for less Church, or
for the abolition of Church-rates.
Amongst the notices given was one by Sir M. WOOD,
of a motion, on the 27th instant, for a Committee to
: examine into the subject of Metropolitan Improve-
, talents ; and one by MACLEAN, to inquire this day
concerning the intentions of Government in relation to
China and the opium trade.
In answer to Colonel SIBTHORP, the CHANCELLOR
' of the EICHEQUER explained that a difference of be-
t tween .510,000/. and 490,0001., which the Gallant
' Colonel observed in the Civil List, arose from the re-
. eernmendation of the Committee on the Civil List not
having been entirely adopted.
1 in reply to Mr. CHRISTOPHER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL
„dated that he meant before Easter to bring in a Bill to
awend the Poor-law.
In ,answer to Mr. BAINES, Mr. LABOUCHERE stated
i that the Government would not object to Mr. BAINES
moving for a return of all the land sowed with wheat
i e.,st eutumn, and in the autumn of 1838.
in answer to Colonel CONoLLY, the CHANCELLOR
of the }...ICHEQUER, though professing a proper reluct-
ance to an,,wering questions which might derange trade,
1
4 stated that Ve was not prepared to introduce any Bill
4 this Session for the repeal of the drawback on Scotch
t
malt,
The privilege question was again taken up at an early
hour, and occupied the House through the whole evening.
Ou Lord J. B.usei:er, moving the Order of the Day
1 'or resuming the su,!ieet, Mr. T. Deecostim moved
(that a copy of the war :rant under which the Sheriffs
and Mr. STOCKDALE were eowmitted should be laid be-
fore the House. .
After a little unnecessary asperity on the part of
Sir E. Sue DEN, who attacked Lord J. RUSSELL for not
erunting the warrant before he had declined to do so,
*
' the motion and the amendment were, on the suggestion
oi. Lord JOHN, both withdrawn ; and Mr. DUNCOMBE
(
having made a substantive motion on the subject, the
warrants were ordered to be laid on the table.
1 in reply to Sir E. KNATCHBULL, Lord JOHN stated
that thenrieoeer,s would be kept where they are at pre-
sent as 104 as the application for a habeas was pending.
) 'f.ie Order 01-tle Vay was road, and Lord JOHN Rug-
se.r..L. moved that Mr. HowARD, Mr. STocxDALE'S at-
' torney, be called to the bar.
Sir E. SUGDEN moved as an amendment, that Mr.
1 HOWARD be called in and forthwith discharged. He at-
-4 tacked the ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S law, and complained
of the warrants not having on their face :be cause of com-
-1
mitment, which he said was done on purpose to keep
the Court ignorant of the cause, and prevent justice
being done. In reference to committing Mr. HOWARD,
S:r EDWARD SUGDEN inquired whether Lord JOHN
RUSSELL had heard the language of defiance which the
Counsel in the cause had yesterday used in the Court ?
Already the Sheriffs had received many visits of con-
, eloOnce and congratulation, and their imprisonment was
likely to be converted into a triumph.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the original
motion, and hoped that if the attorney were punished,
it would operate as a warning to other attorneys. He
contemplated the manifestation of feeling in the Court,
to which Sir E. Sugden,had alluded, with alarm ; for, if
all Westminster Hall were against them, and the House
of Commons had to trust to Westminster Hall, what
would become of their privileges ? He regretted the
edverse decision of the Judges, and insisted that their
decision ramie it more incumbent on the House to de-
, fend its privileges.
Mr. FREsHYIELD asked, as they were going to corn-
, nut Mr. S-rocicuaee's attorney, why they did not corn-
-1 mit the Judges ? Solicitors had a duty to perform to-
' , trds their clients, and they would feel themselves dis-
graced if they did not perform it.
Mr. Sergeant TALFoURD also spoke against. pr'.vi-
ii ,i.sges. He defended the Judges, and, though he corn-
eireented Sir R. PEEL for his eloquence, ventured to
'utpugn his arguments.
Sir ROBERT followed the Learned Serjeant, and
e ;,,, Ted that the arguments the Learned Gentleman had
I ..t„,:-,ed were founded on principles laid down by the
! jadges whom he admired and praised. Sir ROBERT
-e.tencli
,J, too, that all his arguments were founded on re-
:
ltitionss,edi
edopted by that House, which had the sup-
le
. I Olf e pfighxablest lawyers in it, and he ridiculed
,
ides,...o-If-tre; rd or dictum of a Judge was to
_,
evert:LA./040: tioned in the House, although it
The Right Hon. Baronet sue-
icarnid.irg-\ P rkiv
(ii,,,,:,- ofigir;.4l.7,rreit.' self from the attack of the
,!. i 1414.- - ;T:-•• i'''
it-,,:_.,_._,:i.i.L_L,:,::iy

Learned Sergeant, and again contended in strong lan-
guage for the necessity of upholding the privileges of
the House.

Mr. DARBY, one of Sir ROBERT'S staunchest followers
on ordinary occasions, also attacked his great leader,
and quoting HANSARD of June 17, 1839, showed that
the Right Hon. Baronet was at that period adverse to
attacking any of the inferior officers of justice.
Sir ROBERT, in reply to his officious follower, rather
gloried in a change of opinion founded on fuller informa-
tion, and professed that he was not to be fright-
ened by the ghost of his former self, conjured up
from HANSARD, from what be conceived now to be
right. It is a sagacious remark of Mr. JEFFERSON,
that rival orators are never good friends, and it looks
rather inauspicious for the Tories to find Mr. DARBY
entering the field against Sir ROBERT PEEL.
Some other Tories took the opportunity of breaking
a lance with their great leader, and even the expectant
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. Sergeant JACKSON,
with the greatest and most humble deference, contro-
verted the opinions of the Right Hon. Member for
Tamworth. After a legal pleading for privilege
by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL for Ireland, and a prosy
oration by Sir CHARLES GREY, but whether pro or
con. it is difficult to say, the House divided, and Lord
JOHN RUSSELL'S motion was carried by 210 to 92.
Mr. HOWARD was then called in, and examined at
some considerable length. He admitted being concerned
for Mr. STOCKDALE in all the three actions, but ex-
pressed great and honest regret if he had offended the
House. After a rather long examination of Mr.
HOWARD,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that he be dis-
charged ; and stated that, as this was the last motion
he should make on the subject, he meant hereafter
to move for a Committee of Privileges to prosecute the
inquiry.
__

Viscount HOWICK, who has always been a great
stickler for privilege, as if he were nothing without it,
expressed his deep regret at the motion to discharge Mr.
HOWARD. A long and irregular debate, not unmixed
with personalities, followed, in which the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL moved as an amendment to the motion of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that Mr. HOWARD be called in,
reprimanded, and discharged. Lord J. RUSSELL ex-
pressed his approbation of this amendment, which was
carried, after a division, by 178 to 68.
Mr. HOWARD was accordingly called in and
reprimanded by the SPEAKER, whose reprimand was
ordered to be entered on the journals in a dignified
and proper manner.
The question of a provision for Prince ALBERT was,
after a short conversation, postponed till Monday. The
Estimates to be laid before the House on Friday.
The Bill authorizing a Naturalization Bill for Prince
Albert, went through a Committee, and the House ad-
journed at twenty minutes before Two o'clock.

Yesterday, in the Court of Queen's Bench, the
Judges sitting in Banco decided, without one
dissentient voice, and without much hesitation, to
make the rule absolute which calls on the Sheriffs
of London to pay over to Mr. STOCKDALE the
damages levied in his cause. The LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE regretted extremely the painful situation
in which the Sheriffs were placed, but he declared
that the Court had no discretion, no liberty, and
was bound to insist on the Sheriffs doing their duty
to the Court.
Now, let the reader look at the situation in
which the Sheriffs are placed by the decisions of
these adverse authorities. The House of Com-
mons actually commits them for not paying the
money back to Messrs. HANSARD—the Court of
Queen's Bench will commit them, or attach their
goods, unless they pay the money over to Mr.
STOCKDALE. Thus the authorities which should
guide the actions of men, and see justice done to
all her MAJESTY'S subjects, impose on indivi-
duals a contradictory and an impossible duty, and
punish them because they cannot overcome im-
possibilities and reconcile contradictions.
All parties have agreed that the conduct of the
Sheriffs throughout the business has been most
praiseworthy. They have done their duty with the
utmost circumspection. Lord DENMAN yesterday,
it is true, stated that they ought to have returned
the money as soon as they received it; so that their
having retained it, in order to give the House of
Commons time to take steps in the matter, which
was done with the best intentions, has operated to
their disadvantage, and enabled the House of
Commons more easily to get hold of them. With
this single exception, which ought to have pre-
vented the House from profiting by a deference to
its wishes, the conduct of the Sheriffs has been
throughout equally legal, correct, and gentlemanly.
Thus, for fulfilling an onerous public duty in
an exemplary manner, these two estimable gen-
tlemen are placed in custody, and are visited with
the censure and anger both of the Queen's Bench
and the House of Commons. Under any circum-
stances they would have good reason to complain
of such injustice ; but when the injury is inflicted
by one body which claims the reverence of the com-
munity for so regulating all things that no such in-
jury shall accrue to any one—much less be inflicted
by itself—and by another body, which claims the
public respect for taking care that all such injuries
are redressed, the evil seems to us quite intolerable.
Every man may make the case of the Sheriffs his
own, and think it his duty to join in any and all
measures which have for their object to do justice
to these injured gentlemen, and bring into subjec-
tion to reason both the Court and the House of
Commons. Throughout the whole proceedings,
from the first publication of the libel on STOCK-
DALE to the last decree of the Court of Queen's
Bench, we can find nothing in them which for cruel
injustice equals the treatment which the two She-
riffs have received.

Of the so-called protecting bodies which by their
rigid adherence to antiquated precedents have com-
bined to bring about this cruel result, we have no
hesitation in saying that the House of Commons is
the most culpable. The Judges are in a manner
bound to follow old rules ; it is the business of the
House of Commons to alter them or make new
ores. It is bound to make rules to prevent the
clashing of inferior authorities, and the conflict of
one jurisdiction with another. The Judges can be
compelled to do as the Legislature orders them, and
where it gives no orders, they walk by the maxims
and decisions of former Judges. They perhaps
could not do otherwise than hold the Sheriffs
to their duty, though we will not assert this
positively, for of the law and the Judges, it
may with confidence be said that wherever
there is a will there is a way ; but the House not only
could do otherwise it is bound at least to pro-
pose measures—whether the other branches of the
Legislature assent to them or not—by which such
injustice as it and the Queen's Bench between them
have committed with regard to the Sheriffs may be
avoided. Mr. STOCKDALE was justified in ap-
pealing to the law against the House of Commons,
because it is its duty not to leave the law in any
uncertainty, and the Sheriffs, and all concerned in
administering the law, are bound to administer it as
they find it. The House of Commons, therefore,
is morally responsible for its being incongruous,
impracticable, contradictory, and unjust.
We would not say so much on this question if it
were a touchstone of party, but party has nothing
to do with it ; and we condemn the proceedings
because the House of Commons never yet came
out of such conflicts with honour. In this case we
are afraid that it has allowed itself to be guided
too much by legal opinions, and too little by large
considerations of prudence and expediency. In
one point we are quite sure it is wrong. It is
continually said that the House of Commons is no
judge of law. Over and over again we have heard
Ministers and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL decline
to give a construction to a statute, because that is
the especial duty of the Judges. But in this case
coursemany oaf the argumentsdoptedbythe urged
com in favour
mons,and of the
particularly
the arguments used by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
rested on the assumption that the Judges had
not laid down the law correctly, and that the
House of Commons was a better judge of the law
than the Court of Queen's Bench. Let the House,
said the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,in substance, more
than once, adopt the course I recommend, and the
Court of Queen's Bench will review and alter its
decision. On that ground theha Sheriffsd
levied
were t
o Messrsordered
to repay the money they
HANSARD, and on that ground the House of
Commons has advanced till it has reached the edge
of a precipice. In our opinion this affords a com-
plete proof that the House of Commons has done
wrong, because it has usurped a duty which it very
frequently declares to be wholly beyond its
competence. The hope that the Judges
would review their decision and alter their law
is, by the decision of yesterday, proved to be
fallacious. The House will, however, we are
afraid, be obstinate in pursuing a wrong course,
more worthy of legal practitioners contending for
a victory by means of the fictions and technicalities
of law, than of liberal-minded statesmen, bound to
consider for the public welfare. If such should
be its resolve, no man can foretell what will be

the termination of this dispute. It would be far
better for the House to relinquiit the quarrel, and
set itself diligently to work to remedy the numerous
evils which, with the power of the purse in its
hands, are within its competence.

We are glad to see that there are at last
some symptoms of life in the London Dis-
senters. Our advertising columns of Saturday
contained a Resolution passed at a late
meeting of the Deputies appointed by the Dis-
senting congregations in and about London, to pro-
tect their civil rights, in which the evils and abuses
of the Ecclesiastical Courts, exemplified in the im-
prisonment of JOHN THOROGOOD, are deplored
and condemned, while the noble conduct of that
martyr for conscience sake is hailed with cordial
approval. The Deputies further express their trust
that " the severe inflictions on him, and his dis-
interested sacrifices, will properly affect the
Legislature, the Government, and the peo-
ple, and so promote that early abrogation
of Church-rates, and of the Ecclesiastical Courts,
which every friend to peace and freedom must de-
sire." Petitions to both Houses of Parliament
were also adopted, and a Committee appointed to
employ all lawful means for attaining the object of
the resolution.

These proceedings of the Dissenting Deputies
will meet with the hearty approbation of every
right-thinking person in the kingdom, to whatever
sect or denomination he may belong. The Depu-
ties have done their duty ; it remains for the con-
gre{ations whom they represent to do theirs. The
Deputies are the guardians of the civil rights of
their constituents, but is there no religious interest
at stake in the imprisonment of JOHN THOROGOOD,
and in the abominations of the Ecclesiastical Courts?
The question. in fact, is almost entirely one of religi-
ous liberty, and, as such, ought to come home to the
consciences of all who value their Christian freedom.
It is not a question the consideration of which one
man may content himself with deputing to another.
Every man must act for himself—every man is
bound to show that he feels a personal interest in it.
We, therefore, hope that a petition will be sent to
the Legislature from every separate congregation
of Dissenters within the London district—and not
from these alone, but from every congregation in
the kingdom. This is, in fact, a duty which the
Dissenters owe to the Government as well as to
themselves. Lord MELBOURNE has intimated
his intention of bringing in a Bill for abrogating
the civil jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts;
but unless the Dissenters bestir themselves,
and show by their meetings and pe-
titions that they really feel the pressure of
the grievance of which they complain, what can
Lord MELBOURNE or any one else do for them ?
The very first question that Sir ROBERT PEEL
will ask Lord JOHN RUSSELL, when he moves
for leave to bring in the Bill, will be, " What
proof have you to give us that this alteration of
our ancient laws is called for ? who complains ?
where are your petitions ?" We think we see the
smile that mantle on the countenance of the
Right Hon. Baronet when he is informed that
there is one petition from JOHN THOROGOOD,
and another from the Deputies of the Congrega-
tions of the Three Denominations I What, by the
by, are the Ministers of the Denominations about ?
Why do they not meet and express their opinions
on this questions, so important to the Dissenting
interest ? The day has been when Redcross-street
would have sent forth a loud note for a less cause
than this. Is " The Body" asleep, or has it lost
its vigour along with its Unitarianism ?

The Protestant Association has cast another fire-
brand among the people in the shape of an Ad-
dress to the Electors of Great Britain and Ireland,
imploring them at the next election to return
" God-fearing men to Parliament"—viz., haters
of Papists and Popery, for in this, according to the
Association, consists the essence of God-fearing
Protestantism. To hate Popery is to love God,
and vice versa. This is the doctrine of the Pro-
testant Association, and to this monstrous doc-
trine the people of England are expected to
subscribe in the nineteenth century I Of course the
grants for education in Ireland, and for the sup-
port of the College of Maynooth, are not
passed over in silence. In the education of the
people of Ireland, according to the National System,
the Protestant Association have discovered that
" GOD is dishonoured." While the maintenance
of Maynooth is denounced as equivalent to the
dissemination of the baneful principles of Popery
throughout Ireland. The hostility of the associa-
tion to Popery is manifested at a rather unfortu-
nate period. We have not learned that the Roman
Catholic priesthood of Ireland have shown any
want of loyalty to their Sovereign at any of the
recent public meetings in that country. There
were no Popish priests, we believe, among the
treasonable wassailers at Canterbury, when the
youthful Sovereign of these realms was foully and
traitorously aspersed by an ex-tea-dealer, amidst
the rapturous applause of a whole pack of tithe-
fed, Protestant-professing parsons. It was not a
Popish but a Protestant priest who coupled our
beloved QUEEN'S name with that of JEZEBEL. The
head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland'
has not, that we heard of, shown his sympathy with
the sentiments of the spouters of treason and se-
dition—with the vile slanderers of the person of
our Most Gracious Sovereign, by promoting a
reverend countenancer of such treason to a more
lucrative living in that Church. The BRAD-
SHAWITES are staunch Protestants, and like
their founder enjoy the additional advantage of
having had grandfathers—grocers, of course. But
while we more admile the zeal than approve of the
discretion of the Protestant Association, we deem
it of importance just to hint to them that we should
feel obliged by their solution of some difficulties
started by their Address.
1. If the religious convictions of men are to be
respected, and, if acting according to the dictates
of such convictions, we refuse a grant to the Col-
lege of Maynooth,—upon what principle of justice
shall we presume to tax the Catholics with the
maintenance of Protestant foundations, for the in-
culcation and dissemination of Protestant princi-
ples ?

2. We admit in the fullest sense the right, the
duty of inculcating Protestantism by all who pro-
fess it, but we want to know at whose expense ?
At the expense of the believer or the unbeliever ?
And would the duty be less acceptable to Gov, if
unaccompanied by the robbery, and consequent fur-
ther alienation, of Papists, in particular ?
3. The Association ridicule the mummeries
of the Mass. In what part of the New Testa-
ment are crosiers, mitres, and lawn sleeves re-
commended as the appropriate ornaments of
Protestant Bishops ? Simple as is the Church of
England Service, have the Members of the Asso-
ciation taken the trouble to inquire what are. and
have been the opinions of the ablest divines of the
Church of Scotland respecting it ? Have they not
denounced it as a mummery ? What have they
gained, or rather how much have they not lost, in
their contests with the Dissenters, by making the
Bible the criterion of what is and is not religious
mummery ? What is the Protestant Association
but an assemblage of mummers in the name of
religion ?
4. We have not been able to trace any con-
nection between the appointment of four Popish
Privy Councillors, and the riots at Monmouth. Will
the Protestant Association be good enough to en-
lighten us upon this very important point ? Is
there any chance of its being proved that JOHN
FROST and ZEPHANIAH WILLIAMS were Jesuits
in disguise ? If no papers have been found, might
not recourse be easily had to the Exeter Hall
precedent of Parson M‘GHEE, and the forged
Papal Bull ?

We have letters and papers from Madrid of the 14th
inst. The purblind dotards, who constitute the ghost
of the Castilian nobility, had held a meeting, gravely to
deliberate whether it would comport with their dignity
to address the Duchess of VICTORIA in the seconper-
son, as they were in the habit of doing each other.
Several grandees spoke against it, alleging that the
DucitEss did not belong to the hereditary aristocracy !
What better proof need be offered of the necessity of a
popular revolution ? These old drivellers hesitate to
admit as one of their coterie the wife of the man to
whom they owe the presence of their heads on their
shoulders!

Madrid was tranquil. From the theatre of war no
accounts were received of any moment. The instant
the weather would permit, the Christinos were prepared
to lay siege to Segura. Some skirmishes had taken
place, but the results were unimportant. The Five
per Cents. continued firm at 28i for cash.

There is very little news of any interest in the French
Journals of Monday. Great distress prevailed in the