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

TEE, SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 1840.

With reference to rescinding the decision of the Judges, he
would ask how was that to be obtained? Would the House
go to the Exchequer Chamber? \Vith regard to the '
case of Mr. Howard, the Court of Queen's Bench bad
recognised the right of the House to commit, and if he
were to bring his action for false imprisonment, the Court
of Queen's Bench would scout it. What, he would ask,
was there in this measure that savoured of degrada-
tion ? The House of Lords had an equal interest in this
measure, and he saw no reason to look for any factious
feeling in that assembly against them; but if such a
spirit should be exhibited, he would be willing to act with
others to the fullest extent necessary for the vindication of
their privileges ; and when he saw the perpetual attempts
at raising discussions on this subject out of doors,
he considered that they ought at least to adopt
the course proposed, as likely to allay that irritation.
He did not think this Bill would add at all to the force
of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, but that
it was a moderate measure likely to appease these irrita-
tions and do away with these difficulties, and he consi-
dered that any gentleman who had voted for the committal
of any of the persons now in custody might vote in favour
of this measure without the least inconsistency.—( Cheers. )
Mr. HOPE could not agree that the question of sale
was the main question of this case—it was the question
of publication. Ha could assure the House that he had
never heard, until he heard from the Noble Lord, that
those who swelled the minority had been actuated by a
desire of elevating the character of the old House of
Commons at the expense of the new—and for himself he
denied being actuated by any such motives.
Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON would vote in fa-
vour of the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord, and he did
not consider that in so doing he was guilty of the slightest
inconsistency. He considered the present measure a most
momentous one, as it was the first time the House had
ever resorted to legislative measures for the vindication of
its privileges. He had, therefore, considered well the
course he was about to adopt—be knew he was about
to make a precedent, and therefore he had well
weighed the consequences likely to ensue before he
came to a decision. The question divided itself into two
parts; in the first place they should consider what would
be the probable consequences that would ensue in the event
of the Bill passing ; and, in the second place, what might
be the possible effects if it should fail. It was essential
that these two parts of the question should not be confused
together, and addressing his utmost attention to this sub-
ject, not shutting his eyes to the dangers that might occur
as a consequence of legislating on this subject; but at the
same time weighing well the almost certain consequences
that must arise if the question were permitted to remain in
its present state, he felt bound to give his vote in support
of the Bill of the Noble Lord. At the same time he could
not consent to put the introduction of this Bill on the
principle advanced by his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Exeter. If his Hon. and Learned Friend
carried out his principles, they would go to the extent of
the destruction of all the rights of that House, and
in case the Bill were rejected, would tend to fetter still fur-
ther their proceedings. He had said that he acknowledged
their right to this privilege, and that it ought to be
maintained, but he had also said that he would advise bins
to submit that right to the judgment of the Courts of Com-
mon Law, and finally, if necessary, to the decision of the
House of Lords. He utterly dissented from that doctrine,
and if it were acknowledged by the House it would not
only strike at the root of that privilege, but at that of
every other privilege which they might hereafter have to
assert ; aed for the future, if this doctrine were once ad-
mitted, no more committals for contempt—no more vin-
dication of their privileges, by committing those who were
guilty of a breach of those privileges to the custody of the
Sergeant—their business would be to go to the Courts of
Law, and seek redress there. He (Sir S. Lushington)
would at once repudiate such a doctrine, and while his
Hon. and Learned Friend told them to go to the Courts of
Law, he would contend simply that the House of Com-
mons was the sole judge of its own rights. Neither could
he accede to the argument that they had tried the whole
effect of their power in vindication of their privileges. He
believed if that power had been exerted to its fullest
extent it would have attained its object.—( Cheers.)
But he believed that if it were to be exerted to its full ex •
tent, it would produce consequences at the contemplation
of which he shuddered. Put it to him that it was utterly
impossible to maintain the privileges of the House of Com-
mons without a collision with the Court of Queen's Bench,
and he should feel it to be his duty not to shrink from that
collision, be the consequences Is hat they might.---( Cheers. )
But he felt it equally his duty, if any means existed of
evading that conflict, to endeavour, if he could possibly, to
find some remedy which should at the same time maintain
the privileges of that House, and avoid those consequences
from the contemplation of which all sober-minded men
must shrink. Their power of commitment had not been
carried to nearly its full extent. He would advise them
riot to recede one iota from anything necessary to main.
tain their power-4 Hear, hear)—to confess no weakness,
to g:ye up no atom of their authority. It was possible if this
Bill were rejected that they might be called upon to exert
it to the fullest extent. Let them look to what would be
the case in the event of the Bill passing. His Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, had said that it
would not relieve them from their difficulties ; he ( Sir S.
Lushington), on the contrary, contended that it would re-
lieve them from all their difficulties incidental to the pre.
sent question. It might not perhaps relieve them from
other difficrilties, but why, because it would not relieve them
from °thee:difficulties, should they refuse the relief which
it offerodlhem from their present ones? It had been said
that it wold affirm the judgment of the Court of Qat:en',
Bench. AO was sure that no such consequences could
ensue ties passing this Bill ; he would not allude to the
centre:Arne:es of leaving that judgment unreversed, because
whether the Bill passed or not that judgment would
remain as it was ; but by passing the
Bill they wcuid nullify the consequences of
that judgment. But suppose that they tailed in car-
rying that Bill—suppose it should be rejected by the
House of Lords—would they not be enabled to g.,
to the country, and say that they had exhausted all reason-
able means of avoiding the conflict—that they had been
disappointed in receiving that aid 'rem the House of
Lords which they had a right to expect ? If they then re-
sorted to extreme measures, the public would say that trae
"lse necessity of the cave—that the House
ha)clyrieclddetdhe to public
blie opinion, and had sought, by a legj-
latiVe measure, to avoid going too far—that they had beet:
defeated ; and the question would then be, should the
people of this country be shut out for ever from obtaining
information from that House; and in that case public
',pinion would go with them, and uphold them in the
contest.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply, stated that he could
not altogether pass over two or three arguments which had
been made use of in this discussion, and which appeared
to have produced considerable eff2et—first, as to the argu-
ment of his lion. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-
General that, by the introduction and passim). of this Bill,
they would be confirming the judgment of mthe Court of
Queen's Bench, which had been so often called in ques-
tion, and which the Members of that House and of the
learned profession, were almost unanimous in censuring.
/le did not think that argument well founded, for, be it
observed, that although it had been stated, by way of in-
ference, that such would be the effect of the Bill, it had
not bzen stated, nor could it be, that there was any other
plain or direct way before them by which that
judgment could be reversed, or its consequences annulled.
But the argument itself rested merely on the inference
that might be drawn from the Bill, and there was
nothing in it which went in the least to confirm
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Bi:l
maintained in the preamble, and throughout its parts, that
they should have the power of directing their own publica-
tions, and that those publications could not be questions in
any Court of Law. There was, therefore, nothing in its
practical or general provision, that couht coin-
cide with the judgment that had been given. But it
was merely inferred, that because that judgmant
had been lett on record—because in legislating on the
matter they did not immediately interfere with the judg-
ment of the Court, it was therefore said that they were
not opposed to it. He did not find that opinion at ali con-
firmed by what had occurred in other cases of privilege.
One would suppose, from the statements of the Solicitor-
General, and those of the Noble Lord the Member for
Northumberland, that in all cases of privilege, their privi-

leges had been maintained, without obtaining any assist-
ance from the other House of Parliament, and by means
of the sole power of commitment which was vested in the
House with the unanimous consent of the Courts of Law.

But was that really the case ? Now the highest, perhaps,
of nil their privileges—namely, the liberty of speech
within their walls, had been confirmed by legislation. Sri
John Elticit had made a speech in Parliament perfectly
jestifiable in itself, relating to the state of the
country and the arbitrary power of the Crown ; and had, for
that speech, been summoned before a legal tribunal, and
was sentenced to a fine of 2,0001. Of course ho did not
wish to allude to that case as if a similar one could occur
in the present times. After the Restoration it had been
thought necessary that some proceedings should be taken
with regard to that judgment, and that proceeding was not
one of commitment, but a resolution of the two Houses of
Parliament condemning the judgment, and a writ of error
was afterwards brought to the House of Lords by which
it was reversed. Would any man say that the privilege
of speech was injured by that proceeding, or that it was
in anyway weakened or impaired by that decision of the
House of Lords in the reign of Charles the Second ?
No, certainly ; for they still enjoyed that privilege. They
enjoyed it by various Acts of Parliament, as well as from
the judgment of the Lords. They enjoyed it by the Bill
of Rights likewise, and yet no one would contend that it
was not one of their privileges, and that it was not as full,
entire, and complete in its present shape, as if there never
had been such decision on it by the House of Lords.
There was another privilege of the House—namely, that
what had been done by the Speaker should not be called
into question elsewliere, and that privilege had not been
wea,tened by a judgment in the Court of Law. A judg-
ment had been delivered on that subject, and a Bill had
been introduced into the House of Commons to re-
verse that judgment. That Bill had failed, and
had
Jdtud hgaets whoh had pronounced the decision
yet that was exactly the history of the case of the
ve r
ai
" King V. Williams," That judgment, however,
was not good now, and they bad that on the autho-
rity
of the
bd Pattesonin the case of Stockdale. Lord Denman had said that " if
that judgment were not bad in law it would on other
grounds be worthy of the severest censure." Mr. Justice
" he agreed that the case was not
to be relied on," and in addition that it could have no
authority as a solemn judgment of a Court." They had,
therefore, instances in which attacks had been made by
Parliament to confirm their privileges by legislation, and
}et in which those privileges remained unimpaired. Might
he not therefore be justified in saying that if an Act of
Parliament were passed in the present case it would only
afford them greater facilities in the use of their privileges ?
and even though they should fail in passing such an Act
those privileges would yet stand upon the same basis
on which they now stood.. Ho believed that the
whole of the arguments of the Solicitor-General
and of the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland,
rested on this, that by introducing a Bill they would con-
sent to legislate on their privileges, and those privileges
wenld impaired n-ors?r. IT,.
fur -, Lust uc did net see, in anyLiliil6, :1 • '