The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-18 00:00:00

MR. THOROGOOD.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice of his intention,
on Thursday, the 30th of the present month, to call
the attention of the House to the petition of •John
Thorogood.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on Tuesday
next, he should move for returns of the electors in each
locality in Ireland who had the right of voting ; and
also the number of the inhabitants of each district. It
had also been his intention to have moved for leave to
introduce a Bill with respect to the importation of
Foreign Flour into Ireland ; but he was glad,
from the statement of the Right Hon. President
of the Board of Trade to find that that measure was in
more able hands.—(Hear.) He begged, however, to
impress upon the Right Bon. Gentlemen the necessity
of the immediate introduction of the measure, as at the
present moment the people of Dublin were in a very
unfavourable position.

Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL gave notice of
his intention on Tuesday next to move for leave to
bring in a Bill to amend the Act for the Commuta-
tion of Tithes.
THE ARMY IN INDIA.

Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE gave notice, that on
Tuesday next he should move the thanks of the House
to the army serving in India.
THE GERMANIC LEAGUE.
Mr. BAINES begged to ask whether it was the
intention of the Government to lay before Parliament
the report made by Doctor Bowing with respect to
the petition of the Germanic League, and when it was
likely that report would be laid upon the table of the
House.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the question had better
have been addressed to his Noble Friend the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, as it was to hi; depart-
ment the report had been made. At the same time
he belieVed that there would be no objection to lay
the report on the table of the House, and he should
take care that no time should be lost in doing so.
In answer to.a question from Mr. EWARI,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Government
of that country was engaged in drawing up the articles
of a commercial treaty with the Neapolitan Govern-
ment, which he trusted would soon be brought to a
satisfactory conclusion.—(Hear.) If that took place
undoubtedly the repeal of the differential duties on
Neapo:ital oil would form one of the conditions of the
treaty.' They would also endeavour to do away with
the monopoly in Sicily, to which the Hon. Member
alluded.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON gave notice that in a day
or two he would ask the Noble Lord, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, the precise date of the note
addressed by Lord Howard de Walden to Sa Bee-
diera. The note was marked private and confideutial,
and was only dated Saturday night.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS.
I Mr. B. DISRAELI begged to ask the Noble Lord,
Ithe Member for Stroud, whether it was his intention to
give those explanations usual upon the re-construction

of a new Cabinet, as the present
.one had been desig-
nated by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer.—(A laugh,)
Lord J. RUSSELL rose, amidst iotiti cries of " No,
no." He said he was not as ate that his It ght Hon.
Friend bad made any such statement.—(Laughter.)
Mr. D'ISRAELI said the statement was made by
the Right Hon. Gentleman at Portsmouth.—(Cries of
" Oh, oh," and laughter.)
Mr. FINCH moved that a return be laid upon the
table of the names of the Barristers appointed to re-
vise the registration lists for 1835,
,36, 37, 38, and 39 ;
the number of days employed by them in the various
districts ; also the expenses incurred by them respec-
tively in those years.
Mr. HUME thought that was the proper time to
ask the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Dc-
partment—(A laugh)---the Noble Lord below him,
whether it as the intention of the Government to in-
troduce any Bill during the present Session to alter and
amend the system of legislation. It was now two
years since a Bill had passed that House for that pur-
pose,
but it had been thrown out in another. It
was time that something was done on the subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was the inten-
tion of the Government to introduce such a Bill at an
early period. The subject was now under consideration.
The returns were then ordered.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the reading of tie
Sessional orders. When the order for the preven-
tion of the interference of Peers at elections was being
read,
Mr. HUME s.dd that it was ridiculous to allow
such an order to remain, as it was well known to every-
body that Peers still openly interfere.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the resolution
was entered into with regard to open interference in the
early part of the last century, in consequence of the
gross interference of Peers. He conceived that the
Hon. Gentleman referred to that part of the resolution
as to Peers concerning themselves in elections for Mem-
bers of Parliament, but he (Lord J. Russell) believed
that Peers did not, at the present day, at all
events, openly or personally interfere.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Lord John) could not see why if a Peer should,
for instance, he seen openly canvassing votes in a
borough, it should not be deemed a flagrant violation of
this reolution, and as such visited severely.—(Hear.)

Mr. HUME still considered it useless Wand absurd to
have a resolution on the order book, which it was known
was utterly inoperative. He should, therefore, negative it.
The SPEAKER—WiII the Hon. Member divide.
Mr, H U ME—Decidedly.—( Laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
Fur the :esolution
Against it 23
Majority
On the next resolution being read from the Chair,
which stated that it was a gross breach of privilege for
any Peer of England or IrelankP to interfere in the
election of any Member of that House,
Mr. HUME said that he was sorry to find that they
had been dividing on the wrong question.—(Loud
laughter.) The present was the resolution on which he
had meaut to divide. He had stdtcd to the House last
Session, when he was only in a minority of eighteen
on this question, that it was his intention to divide this
Session ; yet he was quite satisfied, from the majority which
had just been announced, that the.more prudent course
for him would be to reserve his opposition to the next
Session.

Sir R. INGLIS said that although the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny did not understand the question
on which he had been voting, he (Sir R. Inglis) and
those who voted with him perfecitly understood what
they were about.
Mr. E\VART moved as an amendment that after
the words •` Peer of England or Ireland"
the words, "or his agents," be inserted. Thus making
it equally illegal for the agent of s:Peer to concern him-
self in an election, as for a Peer himself to do so.—
(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not agree to that, as
it would be carrying the resolution far beyond its original
intention.

Mr. E\VART thought the suggestion by no means
unconstitutional or unreasonable ; but he felt it would
no use to divide the House if the Noble Lord op-
posed it.
Mr. Ewart's amendment was then put, and
negatived without a division ; ,add the original resolu-
tion passed.
EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.
On the Order being read which authorises the Ser-
geant-at-Arms to exclude strangers from the House
when divisions were about to take,place,
Mr. HUME said he wished to know whether it
might be deemed necessary to continue this Order or
not. He wished to know whether it might be possible
to frame the Order so as to render the withdrawal of
strangers unnecessary. .4
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the only ques-
tion, as he conceived, was whether the House should
have the power of excluding strangers if it should think
proper. There might be cases in which they might
find it expedient to carry on their proceedings in the
absence of other parties. The question was whether,
by rescinding the order, the House would not de-
prive itself of a power which it might afterwards
he found advisable to exercise. He should say that re-
pealing the order which placed it-Jin their power to ex-
clude strangers might be attended with very injurious
consequences.
Mr. HUME said that he complained principally of
the loss of time in clearing the galleries.
The other Sessional Orders relative to private busi-
ness were then agreed to.
STOCKDALE v. HANSARD.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the
Day for taking into consideration the case of Stockdale
v. Hansard,
Mr. BROTHERTON hadAgiven notice of a mo-
tion for closing the debate at twelve o'clock at night,
and hoped he would be allowed to bring it forward.
The SPEAKER said that Orders of the Day had
precedence of notices of motions, and therefore the
Hon. Member must take ...;ther opportunity of
bringing the question forward.

SMALL DEBTS.
Captain PECHELL begged to ask the Noble Lord
(J. Russell) whether he would permit Bills for the re-
covery of small debts to be brought forward, or whether
it was the intention of the Government to include them
in a general County Court Bill?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was the intention of the
Government to bring in a Bill for the establishment of
County Courts, but he could not state at whnt period.
THE HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS begged to ask the Under
Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it
was likely the Second Report of the Hand-loom Weavers
Commission would be laid upon the table?
Mr. FOX MAU LE presumed the Hon. Member,
by the Second Report, meant a continuation of the Re-
port of last Session ?
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS—Yes.
Mr. FOX MAULE said that was quite ready, and
would be laid upon the table immediately, but in order
that there might be no mistake he wished to state that
that was not the General Report of the Commissioners,
which would not be ready till after Easter.
THE PENNY POSTAGE.

Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to know from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was likely
that stamped covers would be introduced, or
if any precise period could be named. He also
wished to know whether it was in contemplation to make
any partial experiment in the first instance (for he pre-
sumed the general measure was fully determined upon),
but in the event of any delay whether the issue of stamped
covers for the use of the metropolitan district would be
tried in the -first instance, and whether it was antici-
pated that on the introduction of stamped covers they
would receive their letters as formerly at an early pe-
riod of the day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
with re. ~rd to the first question asked by the Right
llon. [Coronet, as to when he should be able to intro-
duce stamped covers into operation, he begged to say
that he could not fix any time when the ar-
rangements would be fully completed. The delay
had not arisen from the circumstance that he could
not introduce a system of stamp covers with the greatest
facility, but upon the best consideration that could be
given,
it appeared of importanee that such stamp covers
should be introduced as would best prevent forgery.
That was a crime, he was very happy to say,
was fast leaving this country, but still it was
necessary to guard against it. To do this it was ne-
cessary to combine as many checks as possible against
the imitation of the stamp. Experiments had been
made on the subject, and it was found that it could be
easily accomplished on a small scale, but when it applied
to millions it was found extremely difficult to secure the
working of the whole of the thehinery. Those expe-
riments were still going on, and he was in hopes that the
business would be completed in about six weeks. With
respect to the other question as to whether it was his
intention to adopt the system of stamped covers
in the London districts, previously to making a
it in the country, he begged to say, though he did not
pledge himself to this, that he thought it was probable
that for a short time, in order to bring the officers of the
Post-office into the operation, that they might in-
troduce it first for a week, or so in the London
districts. With regard to the time of delivery, to
which the Right Hon. Baronet had adverted, by tnerely
using the force at the Post-office, the delivery of letters
might be hastened, but it was doubted whether that
experiment would answer ; the increase and decrease of
letters, varied materially, but be was in hopes that, in a
short time, with a small increase of the force of the
Post-office, they would be enabled to effect the delivery
of the letters as early as they had formerly been delivered.
Mr. GOULBURN wished- to ask a question of
the Chancellor of the ExcheqiiCi, as to whether it was
in the contemplation of the. Government to make ar-
rangements for facilitating the transmission of Bills of
that House to different parts of the country. At pre-
sent the expense was id. per sheet, which, he consi-
dered, was rather an impediment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
it was a question for the House to deal with, as it. was

one regarding. their own proceedings. After full con-
ideration it seemed best to him to place it on as low a
rate as possible, and not to give special exemption to
particular classes of communications.—(Hear, hear.) If
it were the general opinion of that House that either
that or any other privilege should be given to their
conitnunications, and not to the communications of
the departinents of the 9overnment, he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequet)was prepared to yield to that opinion.
In answer to a question of M.r..E. TENNENT,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQER said
he vas prepared to move for the usual quarterly re-
turn of the stamps issued to Newspapers.
Mr. HUME asked whether it was the intention of the
Government to institute an inquiry as to the Bank and
currency.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he meant to move for a Committee to inquire into the
subject.

PRIVILEGES.
Loi d J. RUSSELL then moved that the Order
for considering the petition of the Messrs. Hansard
should be read. which being done, on the motion of the
Noble Lord, John Joseph Stockdale was ordered to
apperr• . . .

During the time the Sergeant at Arms was inquiring
whether Stockdale was present,
Sir It. INGLIS asked if the motion bad not been,
that the Sheriff of Middlesex should att9nd, and whe-
ther the House would now alter the order of their ap-
pearance, or whether all should not appear together ?
(A laugh.) Had not the motion that Stockdale appear
bet n withdrawn ?—(No, no.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it would be perfectly
in the power of the House to call for the parties in any
order.—(Hear, hear.) And unquestionably nothing
had passed to imply the withdrawal of the motion for
the appearance of Stockdale, though the division had
been itgrced to be taken on another, and the Hon. Ba-
ronet was not acting with his usual candour in taking
advantage of this concession of his, and making it a
reason for opposing the motion that John Joseph Stock-
dale be now called to the bar.
Sir R. INGLIS was perfectly unconscious of any
such arrangement having been entered into, and was
quite as much opposed to the motion for calling John
Joseph Stockdale to the bar as he was to the motion
for calling the Sheriff> to the bar, and on every occa-
sion, when either of :hose motions had been propostad,

he had said no.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thought before he
was brought to the bar of that House it would
be advisable to :.s7ertain in what character he was to
appear, whether as fl/1 :.:7-sed person or as a witness.
Mr. KELLY thought the übore correct course would
be to begin by calling witnesses to suhstantiate
the allegations in the petition of the Messrs. Han-
sard. At present a petition had been presented
to the House, but they had no means of knowing
whether the statements contained in that petition were
well-founded or not. He apprehended that before
any subject of these realms could be placed in the
situation of a party accused it was necessary that evi-
dence should be given of the commission of the offence

of which he was accused.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in the
first place Messrs. Hansard had been called, and proved
every statement oftheir allegation ; and stcondly, he would
remind his Hon. and Learned Friend that they were not
now in the Court of Queen's Bench, and he would re-
mind some other Hon. Members that they were not bound
by the technical rules of the Courts of Law, but were
to decide according to the well-established and an-

cierit privileges of Parliament.
The Sergeant, in reply to an inquiry from the
Speaker, then announced that John .Tuseph Stockdal©
was in attendance.
The SPEAKER then put the question, that Jo
Joseph Stockdale En called in, which was.carried in
the affirmative.
Mr. Stockdale having appeared at the Bar, was cxa

mined by the SPEAKER.
What is your name ?—John Joseph Stockdale.
What is your occupation ?—Author, printer, and,
publisher.
By the ATTORNEY•GENERAL—Are you the plaintiff t
in an action Stockdale v. Hansard and others ?.--L am. s
Was that action commenced in August last ?--I
not quite certain ; but from the manner -in which the
question has been asked, I have no doubt it was.
Was that action commenced for a publicistion that
was ordered by the House of Commons to Y.Siti know-
ledge Did you send any person to proclire -e-tcp'sl`Of
?—Certainly.
publication ?—I did, Sir.
For the purpose of bringing an. action won ?
onuotsebndountod—prtohcautre that
Most certainly.
mitWthhoamt Idiadmy Ith. °tie
• nYo'?"-rirrlhililtr:
answer that question.
Sir H. INGLIS moved that the party do withdraW.
Mr. Stockdale having retired the Hon. Bart. said it
was perfectly clear that the object of the. question
was not to criminate or to exculpate the party at the
Bar. If it had any meaning at all its object was to cri-
minate some other party.
The ATTO U.N El-GENERAL most distinctly and
emphatically denied that he had any int,ntion of the
kind imputed to him by the Right Hon. Baronet. It
was most necessary that the House should know in
what way the action had been conducted. It
might, as he believed that it would, turn out to be
that Mr. Stockdale sent his own son for the publica-
tion in question. Now he thought it was material for 1
the consideration of the House—it was necessary that
the House should know in what manner that publica-
tion had been kept until it was ready to be produced in
the case, for they were now to determine whether
Mr. Stockdale had received any injury, and sought
bona fide to recover damages for that injury. ' If such
objections were to be taken to the questions proposed
it would be most embarrassing, and it was for the House
to determine whether they would prevail, and so render
that proceeding abortive which had been approved of
by a large majority of the House, even although it was
disapproved of by some most. respectable Members.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL did not attach so much
importance to the objection as his Right Hon. Friend ;
but he was most surprised at the course taken by the
Attorney-General. Such a high officer should not
charge any Member of that House, more especidly his
Right Hon. Friend, with taking any steps to render
abortive any proceeding ordered by that House. He
considered it of the utmost importance that this House
should consider most seriously the mode they ought to
pursue in this case. The Attorney-General had advised
the Government to act in this case as they had done.
He did not conceive that the question put to Mr.
Stockdale could be important to the true bearing of
this case.
Lord HOWICK said he thought it most proper
that the question should be put ; but, at the same
time, he did not himself see the actual benefit
to be derived. He would, therefore, most respectfully
suggest to the Attorney-General not to require an
answer to such a question.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL was sorry that
any objection should be made to his inquiry, but
he thought the answer to it would have a most
material bearing on the subject, viz., whether a
breach of privilege had been committed or not.
But if it be the opinion of that House that the ques-
tion put would be immaterial, or had no effect in elicit-
ing anything bearing upon the case, he would not per-
sist in it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the objection came first
from Mr. Stockdale himself, and he could not see why
Mr. Stockdale should object to it, unless there was
a regular concoction, on this occasion, to set this
House at defiance. It was necessary, in cases of this
kind, to get at the truth by every means possible.
—(Hear.) He did not, however, mean to assert that
Mr. Stockdale had any idea of setting this House at
defiance, but if there were nothing in the question, he did
not see any legitimate reason fur refusing to answer it.
Mr. Stockdale was again called to the bar, and ques-
tioned by the Attorney-General.
ATTORNEY-GENERA I.—Whom did you em-
ploy to procure a copy of the publication ?—My second
son.

What did you do when it was procured ?—I kept it
in my possession.
Has it ever been out of your poss ssion from that
time to this?—No, I believe not.
Whom did you employ as your attorney ?—I re-
spectfully submit whether that may not be an improper
question for me to answer ; of course, however, 1 can
have no objection to give his name. He is here iu at-

tendance.
Name him, if you please ?—Thomas Burton Howard.
Have you brought a former action against Mr. Han-
sard ?—I have.
When was the first action brought ?—I think it was
brought in 1837 or 1836. lam not quite certain. ,
Was it for a publication that took place by order of
this House ?—Yes, it was.
Was there a justification pleaded?—There was.
There was, with a plea of Not Guilty ?—I believe so.
On that occasion did not the Jury find that it was
an obscene publication ?—They did, in part ; but I
believe I am right in informing the House that the book
itself could not have been put in but by my own special
permission.
Was not the verdict of the Jury in favour of the
defendant on the issue that the publication was an ob-
scene one ?—Certainly not of the twelve Jurors, I believe.
Do you mean to say that my Lord Chief Justice
Denman allowed a verdict to which certain members of
the Jury dissented ?—Yes, and it was partly on that I
moved far a new trial, having observed that two of the
Jurors gave their consent only sub silcntio.
In that case you recovered no damages ?—No, nor
did I receive any costs, which I believe I ant entitled tc.
Did you sue in that case in fiwina pavcris ?---I did,
and with no shame to myself.
Was the nett action commenced for the publication
of an obscene book?—lt was.
How did you procure the first copy on which you
brought the first action ?—By purchase from Mr. Han-
sard.

By your son ?—By my son.
Did you procure the copy,on which you brought the
ec on ti action likewise tbrough your son ?-1

.:I'I4:\ING EDITION

----
Have you kept !hat copy in your poeenitii
believe so ;I am not aware itS being out of my
hands.
Did you desire. !Asks? son to go for it, saying it was for
the rmtrpos brioging an action ?—Most certainly.
Tiva was the same pubiic.&on ter which you brought
the second at:tiot, ?—lt was.
In that se. nod action I believe there was no justifi-
cation as to whether it was an oh,oene publication ?
I do not think there was.
In the s con i action you executed a writ of ins airy
before the Sher if ?.--1

_ .
VV
Did you ,how the book to the Jary ?—No, because
the case ba..ing been tllrough ddault, I had no occasion
to shox the. biok. .

Arc there any plat;-',,b,_!longing to that ‘,noli.?—There
are.

ad ycu sh7r- any of Close plates to the Jury ?—No ;
it was the lius;oess 0.11-e.! other party to show any thing
that might be necessary.
\Vas t bore any request ma(c,e. In any Court that the
book shou.d be produced':—There was ; Mr. Han-
sard's solicitor produced, I believe, the book in Court,
which I. (1,1 not know at first, having afterwards found
it in the glace where 1 ',vas standing.
\Vas that the Same bcok which the Jury had found
obscene on the first trial ?-1 do not. know ; it was, ge-
nerally, speasKing the: same. _ _

. _
It was either tiro same or another edition of the same
k ? —Tlrit I. cannot exactly tell.
The t6.rce copies were purchased by your son?—Yes.
Had you at that time receired, in the second ac:ion,
1001, for the injury tlune to your character ?—Certainly
not at that time, hut alterwardr. Allow me to say, that
instead of 100/. I should have received 8,0001., but for
the omission of putting. to the Jury what was the sum
of damangcs.—(A lauffh.)
It was it Special Jury ?—Yes.
\Vas not the issue tried whether the publication was
obscene or not ?____That I don't know ; out I know that
the Lord MAyo- and Aldermen stated that the hook
was professional and not obscene, or that the plates
were ohscene.
Was this a copy of another edition ?—I have dis-
covered fac-simi,es printed in my name. Pirates
printed fac-similes of the work, but they did not con-
tain the whole.
Was not the work a tid to he edited by Dr. Bayley
—lt was written by a Mr. Roberton, a pupil of Dr.
Bavtey and Sir It. Croft.
Don't you know that a letter was written by the
Doctor, de avant{ that he ever wrote it? —That I know.
\Vas .iot that letter introduced in another edition to
give: zest and currency ?—I know that Dr. Bayley
of cr the work was in his possession, requested that it
mivot be deilicAted to him under ail circumstances.

Do you mean to say that that letter of Dr. Bayley
requesting the dedication. was after his express repro-
be•iou or the work ?—Nn, it was before that time.
That was done many yr.:ars after--a great many years—
not less then eight, or ten.

A;:ow me to n.sk whether yo.: attended the inquiry
on the third action ?—I did.

Was tl..e book produced on that occasion ?—I don't
know it was not produced by me.
Were the pktes produced ?—I discovered that
while I was addressing the Jury they had been ex-
and were going the round of the table.
By whom produced ?—Not by me.
You very pro-erly, I dare say, thought it your in-
terest to prevent the Jury from seeing them ?—I told
them 1 had no copy, anti I gave them my reason.
You told me that You knew from the beginning that
the report was published by the order of the House ?
I was aware of it only through the Messrs. Hansard.
Did you bring the action to contest the right of the
Houle ?--Isubmit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a ques-
tion for me to answer. I trust I shall be protected.
I am willing to answer any thing reasonable.
The Attomey-General withdrew the question.
Had you any notices of certain resolutions passed
by this House, asserting their privileges, served on you ?
believe I had two or three days before the close
of last Session from Mr. Parkes, I think ; but I be-
lieved, from my own reasoning, usd from com-
munications with many great statesmen of the last
age, that the House it of no such privilege.—( Laughter.)
Did you bring the action after receiving those
notices did. .

Lord JOHN RUSSELL —H ive you them here ?
No, Sir.
Mr. 0/CONNELL.--Now, have you any objection,
as ,1 matter of fact, to admit that you brought the action
to try the question of privilege ?—Stockdale—l trust I
shall be protected. Am Ito commit mvsulf

Mr. O'CONNELL again rose and said he really
thought the question was proper.—(Cries of " Order"
and" Withdraw.")
Stockdale having withdrawn,
Sir R. PEEL said he really considered there was no
necessity for the question, seeing that, in a letter,
Stockdale had distinctly defied the House.--( Hear.)
Mr. LAW said he should object to the question.
Mr. O'CONNELL withdrew it as unnecessary ;
he had nut before heard of the letter referred to.

Mr. LAW hoped that Stocktiale might be permitted
to offer any expianations ; it might appear that he had
written the lett'tr under a conscientious conviction that
he bad, as a British subject, a right to bring the action.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the proviso
of the Learnftti Recorder was quite superfluous, as any
party brought to that bar would of course bL allowed
to make any explanations in his power.
Stockdalc havin, been re-called to the bar,