The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-28 00:00:00

rant of Babylon, or, in more recent times, to the con-
duct of Hampden, both of whom had undergone im-
prisonment rather than consent to tyranny. To
deny them the character of magnanimity was
strange and extraordinary. It was true that the
sufferings of the Sheriffs had not bee❑ as great as
many had expected, yet their credit was not on that
account the less. They had taken their stand
on the principle of distinguishing between legislative
and executive functions, which had always been insisted
on as a main point in the constitution of the country.
What was the use of laws if one branch of the Le-
gislature could, by an ex post Jade law, set aside all
the laws of the country? It had been said that the
privilege of the House of Commons had been shown
by the Act that had passed. Surely the passing of the
Act was a direct admission that they did not possess the
privilege. They were obliged to go to the house of
Lords to affirm and make it law. The great merit of
tiro Sheriffs was, that they acted according to the
known laws of the country. If they had been
great officers of State all the aristocracy would have
taken their part. Was this Court to feel less sympathy
for them because they were men who had realised an
independence by the humble pursuits of trade ? When
officers of their rank discharged their duties in such a
manner as to redound, not only to their own credit, but
to the credit of those who elected them, it behoved
their fellow-citizens to mark their sense of such con-
duct. Whenever the House of Commons happened to
be wrong, and took up a wrong principle, they endea-
voured to get out of it by tyranny and meanness. What
could be more mean than examining into the bodily infir-
mities of the Sheriffs—comparing them to criminals, and
requesting them to express contrition ? Nothing could
be more disgraceful and disgusting than such con-
duct. It. was the same mental torture that was prac-
tised towards the great Galileo. The House of Com-
mons, it seemed, were so lost to every sense of moral
rectitude as to expect gentlemen, who acknowledged
they acted from a sense of duty, to go down on their
knees and express contrition. The model of their pro-
ceedings had been the infamous House of Commons in
the reign of Queen Anne. On looking at the history
of Parliament in the time of Ashby a. White, it would
be found that the great Whigs of the Revolution, to
which we owed our liberties, opposed and reprobated
this claim on the part of the House of Commons.
Those who now called themselves Whigs, had been de-
parting from the principles of their predecessors. The
Sheriffs had been more magnanimous than their ad-
visers. He only wished that Mr. Under-Sheriff Francis
had acted in a manner equally honourable.
Mr. STEVENS said that the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down had endeavoured to direct the attention of
the Court of Common Council to the public as a mark
to be pointed out, and had said that there was a change
of opinion on the part of those who were the firmest ad-
vocates of the rights of the people. A book of an infamous
description was found in one of the gaols of the city ; the
Committee thought fit to notice that the morality of the
prisons was not attended to. This notice became the sub-
ject matter of an action for libel. The House of Commons
put in a plea and were defeated, and the Sheriffs had
consequently to execute the writ. The Sheriffs might
have taken the money and paid it over to Mr. Stock-
dale, but they did not. They waited for the opinion of
the House of Commons, and they disregarded it. He
contended that the House of Commons ought to have
this privilege, because they were the representatives of
the people, and it was privilege for the benefit of the
people. If this resolution should be carried, it
would prove that a majority of the Court did
not act in unison with the opinion of their
constituents.—(" No, no.") He did not believe that a
meeting of any ward would sanction such a resolution ;
they were putting their hands into the City purse ; they
were using the cash of their fellow-citizens. It would
be more honourable in those who approved of the
conduct of the Sheriffs to put their hands in their
own pockets : if they had had a meeting of their
own friends, it would have been unanimous, and would
have been much more satisfactory. He now found the
advocates of public liberty standing in the foremost
ranks of Toryism—he now found that this Court was
to become a mere asylum for Toryism—a Court
which had hitherto supported the principles of public
liberty. Although he entertained the opinion which
he had expressed,:he could not help bearing his testimony
that the Sheriffs were highly respectable individuals.
Mr. W. JONES said it had been observed that they
were acting in opposition to the sense of their consti-
tuents. Did his Honourable Friend forget the meeting
of the inhabitants of the Ward of Bishopsgate. He
advocated the majesty of the law against oppression of
any kind. The conduct of the House of Commons to-
wards the Sheriffs was like the conduct pursued towards
the Jews at Damascus. The poor Jews were bastinadoed
till they consented to admit that they had committed
murder, and so the Sheriffs were incarcerated
until they should consent to say they were wrong. He
admired the magnanimity of the Sheriffs in having suf-
fered as they had. They had settled the question of
privilege, by compelling the House of Commons to
acknowledge themselves in the wrong—(Cries of
" No, no")—by passing an Act by which, for the
future, no such injustice could be committed. They
had also been the cause of the Legislature passing an
Act giving the Judge the power of certifying against
costs, in any case of libel where the Jury were obliged,
against their conscience, to give a verdict for the plain-
tiff. The Court was only carrying into effect this prog-
nostication of Lord John Russell, who said that the
House of Commons was only laying the foundation for
the presentation of a piece of plate.
Mr. W. PRITCHARD regretted that he could not
give an unqualified assent to either of the propositions
before the Court. There was one sentiment in which
all were agreed, and that was in deploring that, in a
question of right between two august public bodies,
each of them entitled to the respect of the public, the
Sheriffs, as executive officers merely, should have been
called upon to decide between the two at the risk of
personal suffering, if they obeyed either in opposition to
the other. Happily they were now relieved from that
difficulty, and the question, as between the two
bodies, had been set at rest, in what manner
it was unnecessary now to speak of, and he,

therefore, concurred in deprecating, with pre-
ceding speakers, all arguments tending to re-
vive the controversy that had terminated, though
some had, in their subsequent remarks, been led into
the very error they condemned. He agreed in the
wish to express sympathy with the Sheriffs, in the incon-
venience they had sustained, but not in the terms of
the resolution, which lauded them for it, as the sup-
porters of one opinion, involving as that did, however
indirectly, a condemnation of the view taken by the
House of Commons. He was also opposed to the pre-
vious question, as negativing too completely the senti-
ments generally entertained towards the Sheriffs. He
should, therefore, wait until one of the propositions was
negatived ; and, on the other being put as the original
question, propose an amendment calculated to meet

that which he believed to be the more general feeling'
of the Court. If his amendment should be carried,
he would not object to the vote of the plate, but not if
it should be awarded under a resolution lauding the
Sheriffs at the expense of the House of Commons,
and expressing an opinion on the question of privilege
now set at rest, savouring too much of party feeling,
and not in accordance, as he believed, with the general
sentiment of the community. Mr. Pritchard concluded
by reading the amendment he intended Lo propose, and
which was to the following effect :
" That this Court, sincerely sympathising with the
Sheriffs in their protracted imprisonment, under an
order of the Hon. the House of Commons, made during
the dependence of the late question as to the privileges
of that Hon. House, desires to express its deep regret.
for the sufferings to which they have been exposed, and
its respect for their high and honourable character, and

"or their conscientious discharge, at all times, of the du.

tics of their distinguished offices."
Mr. ANDERSON said that the Sheriffs wanted not the
sympathy of the court. His opinion was that whenever
a fitting testimonial was voted, that testimonial ought to
be in the Court as an example to others. He would
much prefer that the busts of the Sheriffs should be
placed up in the Court.—(No, no.) He would allow
that the House of Commons was right and that the
Sheriffs were wrong—they had been wrong in discharg-
ing their duty as public men, believing in their con-
sciences that they were bound by their oaths to adminis-
ter the law, and obey that law in preference to obey-
ing the House of Commons. He supported the resolu-
tion, and when they came to the second part, lie
should take the sense of the Court upon it.
Mr. R. L. JONES was in favour of having a tablet
in Guildhall, under the bust of \Vilks. He was sure

that the Court would to-day exhibit the same feeling of
sympathy for the Sheriffs that they had exhibited on
every former occasion. As to the motio❑ being de-
layed, it had been no longer in abeyance than the cir-
cumstances of the case would allow.