The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-08 00:00:00

THE SITN, LONDON, SATURDAY FEBRUARY

said, at that time the House of Commons alarmed at ellen
a decision caene to resolutions that any one interfering with
or challenging their privileges by assisting Ashby in his
action, were guilty of a high contempt ef the H ,use. The
House of Lords had their attention drawn to these rmiolu-
tions, and the Lords drew up a Rapist showieg a case
wherein the House of Commons itself appeeleet tea then
in support of their privileges, and they came to counter
resolutions, sey ireg, thst those of the Commons were set-
ting all law at defiance, aid putting the H .u•e of Coal-
mons above all other bra- cues of the Legislature. The
Solicitor-General said the [louse had always been sue.
cessful, was that so? On the contrary, Ashby continued
his action—he recovered damages, and other five actions
were immediaiely commenced by the same attorney. The
House ot. Lords again csme to reselutions, ;yid gave
their protection to all counsel meg:red in Ines.,
actions—was hat being euccessful ?—( Hear ) Gee
was constitutional, the other unconstitutiemil ; one legal,
and the other illegal. They resolved that by those resolu-
tions the House of Commons had assumed a new privilege
to which they were not entitled ; thereupon a cord eenee
was held, and after that the House of Con mons resolvsd
that no commoner committed by the Hoene of Comieoe;
ought to be made to appear to any writ of habeas.—that the
Sergeant-at-Arms be ordered to refuse to make any return
to any writ of habeas, and that the House would protect
him in his refusal, and that the resolutions be communi-
cated to the Lord Keeper. That was going further then
the Attorney-General. In the case of Lord Shaftesbury,
the Lords had permitted him to be brought before the
Court, and the House of Lords had rescinded the resolu-
tions. What was the result of the Aylesbury cases The
Parliament was prorogued ; the plaintiffs in all those cases
pocketed the damages. That case was the law of this
country, and must remain so until it was reversed. There
fore the Solicitor-General was not correct in stating that
success had always attended this H use. In the case of
Burdett and Abbott they had been successful because they
had gone into the Courts. The Noble Lord would go to
law when the Court was with him, but net when they were
against him.—( Hear, hear.) There had been plenty of
prudence in the present case. It was prudent to keep
out of the warrant the cause of the commitment, but it was
not fair or just. Yen suffered your prisoners and your Ser-
geant to go without protection to the Court, and you were
strong in the justice of the Court. Stockdale would most
likely bring an action against the Sergeant for false imprison-
ment ; and they would prudently plead, because they knew
the Court would be with them ; but in any case in which
they thought the Court would he against them, they would
not plead. He could nit doubt but what took place in
this House impeded the course of the Courts of Law ;
and ho would ask if thee- proceedings were likely to in-
crease the respect for the law and the Judges in the dis-
turbed districts ? What could they think when they heard
the Attorney-General deriding the authority of the Judges?
The result of his Learned Friend's argument was to per-
severe, and that the Queen's Bench would not outrage the
law by sending Sheriff after Sheriff to prison for obe.
dience to the orders of the House. The Court must do
it ; they were bound to do it. He believed the House
ought to have the rights demanded, but they must be se-
cured to them by some other means ; and he implored of
them, out of respect to the peace of the country, and to
the Judges, to release the Sheriffs. He would receive it
as a boon from the Noble Lord. He would ask the Noble
Lord to grant this, that the festive board of the city of
London, on the occasion of her Majesty's marriage, might
not be ungraced by the presence of the Sheriffs.
The LORD ADVOCATE !aid, that notwithstanding
the forebodings of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, they stood in a stronger position than they had done.
Ile was glad to hear that his Hon. and Learned Friend
the Member for Exeter was of opinion that the judgment
of tire Queen's Bench was wrong ; and, in consequence, he
had advised the House to go again to the Queen's Bench,
and remove the decision by writ of error when their privilege
would undoubtedly be effirmed, He trusted the House would
not pursue this course. The privilege was undoubtedly
theirs, and they ought to maintain it. The Right lion.
Gentleman admitted that if they had stated in the warrant
the particular case of contempt, that he would have held,
in that case, that the privilege was so clearly theirs that
if the cause had been expressed the prisoners must have
been remanded. He thought they had gained a great deal
in gaining that admission. That privilege had been as-
serted over and over again, during the cote, se of the pre-
sent session, by the committal of Stockdale, of the Sheriffs,
and of Stockdale's attorney, and therefore they were en-
titled to assume that they possessed that privilege.
It had always been held that each House possessed all
those rights and privileges necess try to the energetic dis-
charge of their duties, and he would contend this House
could never discharge its duties usefully, if it had not the
power of communicating to the country at large those
papers on which it founded its legislative enact-
ments. There was another point on which the light
privileges, and this point was
Hon. Gentlemen had said nothing, of the right of that
House to adjudication as a Court of Parliament and ori-
roewsonlution of 1837. He thought
gnoint4al
it impossible for the House to abandon, a point so import.
b juanr
di sodni
ec
dt i obny o nt b iet s
ant as that it was the exclusive judge of its own privileges.
This was a question if the law of Parliament was part of
the law of the land, just as the law administered in the
Courts of Equity and the Court of Admiralty was part of
the law of the land ; but it was a most fallacious argument
that, because it was part of the law of the land, it was sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice. It was
part of the law of the land only in an enlarged eignification,
and in certain cases no doubt the Court of Queen's Bench
might, and indeed would be bound to take cognizance of
it; but another point was, that the Courts of Law could
not know as well as the House what was necessary for the
proper discharge of its duties. They might speculate omit
it, and there might be individuals more learned in the
law of Parliament than many Members sitting in that
House, but that was not the question. Look to the
danger which would arise were this the case, and see
if any man could for a moment acknowledge that he was
willing to put in jeopardy the power of the House, and to
surrender its privileges by permitting the Courts of Law
to adjudicate upon them, for by so doing they might be
drawn on to appeal to the blouse of Lords, and thus to
put their privileges in the power of what might be a rival ;
and mark this, although with respect to many privileges,
both Houses might wish to have them in common, yet the
House of Commons, having different duties to perform,
might require powers different to the House of Lords,
and he knew nothing that illustrated this more than this
question of publication. There was one very common case
too, which occurred every year at the commencement of
the Session—the declaration of the House that it was a
breach of its privileges for Peers to ioterfere in the
election of its Members ; but the House of Peers had never
held that this was a breach of the privileges of Parlia-
ment. lie did not say that there might not be cases in
which the question of the privileges of the House might
not be incidentally raised in the Courts of Law, and in
which the Courts, in order to expedite their own jurisdic-
tion, might be under the necessity, to a certain extent, of
inquiring what was the law of vParliament, but then it
must state the law of Parliament from Parliament itself,
and administer the law as it received it from Parliament.
not set up as such its own decision, founded on imperfect in-
formation. This was a case not left ir, ambiguity ; it was
not a point on which Parliament had given no decision ; it
bad not only declared what it held to be the law of privi-
lege, but in this very case of Stockdale and Hansard it
had adjudicated and determined, in the most solemn man-
ner, that the publication of its proceedings was one of its
privileges, and that to interfere with it was a breach of them.
Now with respect to the Sheriffs, the language which had
been held in that House and out of doors was that the
House was doing injustice to the Sheriffs. He wished the
House and the country to consider to whom this char.-, of
tyranny and oppression properly applie 1. He did' no
hesitate to say, he thought, that• when this matter wa-
considered, the House would be freed from all charge o
oppression, and that charge would be apphed to the Court,
of Law, for if the Sheriffs found that the p ison narnee
in the writ was privileged by the law of Parliament, and
stated this to the Court, it had no right to compel them ti,
execute it, for it had been decided in the else of Kensingt
Palace., that it was a good excuse for a Sheriff not to exe-
cute a writ that it was against privileged goods or a privi-
leged person. Could the Courts, therefore, say the I
would not take this answer, when, if the House forb.:e
them to execute it, the Courts of Law had no rich
to dispute that order of the House ? .dust not, he riskei .
protection and responsibility go together ? Who were the
sheriffs ?—not the officers of the House of Commons.
The House owed them inn protection, for they were the
officers of toe Courts of Law, and were efficers cotitlec!
to protection, for they did not serve by choice, but by elec-
tion, and were bound to serve, and he did not undergone'
how the Courts of Law could separate responsibility front
protection. It was his most confident opinion, that wee,
such a question as this raised in Scotland, and the officers
of the Courts there were prevented executing a writ under
such circumstances, the Courts would not compel them to
do so. So far as he was able to consider the
matter, he
thought the oppression of the
Sheriffs rested not with the
House, who were
only vindicatinge their privileges, but
with the Courts of Lave--( Hear, hear.) They had been
told of the monstrous conduct of the Sheriffs, but the
House must look to its own interests as well as their's.
in not paying over the money,
and he thought the Sheriffs, 1
for they not only did
were guilty of an act of contumacy,
but Navin;the •
not obey the order of the . House, .
contumaciously disobeyed it.—( Hear.)
of doing so, had contum _
thef course they h
They had been blamed extremely or.
without expressing the
taken in giving a general warrant,
cause of the contempt. They had been blamed,
and he
thought very strangely blamed, by
the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Ripon, who admitted that if the
particular cause of contempt had been expressed, the
Court of Queen's Bench would have equally remanded the
prisoners, and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman said that
that House had been guilty of great injustice, in not ex-
pressing the cause of contempt. It had been also urged
that they were guilty of inconsistency, in submitting some
of their privileges to the decision of a Court of Law, while.
with regard to others, they allowed of no interference
But what inconsistency was there ir, that ? Some of their
privileges had been admitted and recognized for a long
period by the Courts of Law, as, for instance, personal
freedom from arrest; and therefore, in such cases, they
went into a Court of Law and pleaded that as their de-
fence. Why did they do so ? Because they knew that the
Courts of Law had already recognize I that privilege, and
that it formed a valid defence. It had been said that th.
powers of that House were imperfect. That was admitted
on all hands, because they had not the power of the House
of Lords, or the Court of Chancery, of perpetual impri-
sonment. But because their powers were imperfect, were
they not to exercise them, as the only means of meintain-
ing the most valuable privileges they possessed ?-4 Cheers.)
Strong persons might use their strength with mo !oration,
but persons who were weak, or whose powers were
imperfect must admit of no evasion of the in, otherwise
they would run the risk of forfeiting them altowether.
For these reasons, lie trusted the House would not liberete
the Sheriffs, who had been guilty of contumacy, but that
they would persevere in the course they had hitherto pur-
sued. Ile begged to apologize for having detained the
House so long; but he felt it his duty to state the grounds
on which he trusted the House would persevere in its
present course until it had obtained •he utmost satisfaction
fur tile breath of its privileges that had been committed.—

6ir s•,,i, r .L,!•.1 dluiio3 that
h.n.l been inatic to him the o:in.-r night. Ly the Hon C .ni-
tieman, the Solicitor- Gneral, he hoped he should be cx.
cued for trespassing for a few minutes ti,on their atten-
tion. He should state briefly the opinion he had come to
,iftfx the most mature ,nd anxious d,litieratir,n, and
actuated by the most sincere sense of the duty he owed to
iii.nself and ta that •ott shou!d
the calm, and temprrat-, and in licious. of argunnent
which had been adopted by the Lora-Advocate who had
jut sat down.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He should, before
he went further, state openly and fairly that in his opi-
nion undoubtedly the House possessed the privilege in
question—( Ministerial cheers)—and that opinion he would
not be induced to state by any man, it it was not his honest
col:viction ; an! he thought they pos-eased t'eat nrivdcg,
on the grs,umi that it was essential to the due performance
of their functions. He was surprised, he must say, to find
that the Courts of Law did nut concede to the House the
privilege in question, on the ground of antiquity alone, for
they had possessed it for a very long series of years. He
renwrobered a case• in the Old Bailey where an order
was made that the pr,,ceedings should net be made public
while the trials were pending. A person at a consider-
able distance published the proceedings, certainly not ob-
structing the coursA of justice in any way, and the Judge,
without the intervention of a Jur), fined the man 500/.
( Cheers ) Now, what authority had the Court for that
proceeding ?_( Hear, heir.) They asserted it as their
privilege, and that was tutu to be a sufficient ground for
the course they had adopted.—( Cheers.) He thought
chat was a sufficient explanation of privilege as it re-
garded that House, the proceedings of which were much
more liable to obstruction from the course recently adopted
by the Courts of Law. He confessed he did not quite
participate in the strong expressions he had heard used
towards the minority of that House on the present ques-
tion, because he gave every Hon. Member credit for vot-

ing conscientiously and honestly on the question. It
appeared to him that it was not a digoified course of that
House to commit wretched plaintiffs and Sheriffs' officers
when they ought to have contended with the higher par-
ties. They might have the question before a Court of
Error, arid from thence to tile House of Lords, and
they would then be in a condition to say to the
other House of Parliament, that the Commoners of Eng-
land would not allow their privileges to be questioned.—
(Cheers.) That course he admitted was liable to objec-
tion, it might perhaps be atteaded with danger—(Cheers)
—still it appeared to him to be the only course which,
under the circumstances, the House could have taken.
They ought then to declare, by an Act of Parliament,
that this privilege was essential to the exercise of its fund
tions, and the House of Lords could not refuse to pass
such an Act.—( Hear, hear.) The House would find it
self as powerful in legislating on that subject, as it would
in committing Sheriffs, and Bailiffs, and Tipstaffs.—
( Hear, hear.) The House had itself brought the ques-
tion before the Court of Queen's Bench, and had
called on that Court for its judgment, which judgment
having been so pronounced became the law of the land.
If the Judges had committed an error, as he believed they
had, the committal of their officers to prison was not the best
way to enlighten them. The Lard-Advocate who had just
addressed the House said that protection and responsibility
should go together. But whilst the House held the Sheriffs
responsible, in what way did it render them protection?
He admitted that they were riot solely the officers of the
Queen's Bench, and that they were equally responsible to
the Court of Chancery and to that House. But they
could not go back to the Judges, and tell them their deci-
sion was not law. He admitted that it was not law ; but
the practice of teaching law by commitment belonged
to a barbarous age. He believed that the Sheriffs had
given to the House every assistance that they could.
He did not attach much importance to the oath, for the
obligation would have been satisfoctory if they had obeyed
the order of the House —(Cheers.) But they might
have released themselves from every responsibility weekc
before the House met. If they had suffered an attach-
ment to go against them, Steckdale would have receives
the money, and how could that House afterwards protect
them. The Solicitor-General had said that the Court of
Chancery had maintained its privileges by sending plait -
tiffs and parties to prison, instead of earning into collision
with the Judties of the Law Courts; but surely his Hon.
and Learned Friend would not say that such power couli
be maintained in these enlightened times ? No oni
could doubt that the decision of the Judges seat
giveni according to the best of their judgment.—
( Hear, hear.) The House had decided according to the
leist of its judgment, and he believed that the House we,
right, and that the judges were wrong. He deprecated
a humiliating warfare with the inferior officers of th,
Courts, when it became the dignity of the House to entct
at once into the contest with the higher parties. Thi
House ought to hold a conference with the House e,
Lords, and to see what could be &me towards enlighten
ing the Judges by an Act of Parliament. That would no•
be a novel expedient—it would net be the first time thet
a declaratory Act was passed to correct an error as to what
was the law. He thought that the Sheriffs had not car-
ried their assistance to the fullest extent, but they ha,'
shown every willingness to assist the House, and the
had remained long enough in the custody of the Sergeant.
—( Hear, hear.) Having the fullest confidence in the
judgment of the House, he respectfully submitted thou
opinions to its consideration, and if he failed in convincing
it of the correctness of his own views, he would rest satis-
fied that his judgment was in error.

Mr. O'CONNELL said no person need make ans
, excuse for addressing the House on such a subject. Hs
could not but congratulate the House on the entire ab
sense from party spirit which had marked those discus-
' sions.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that public opinion
was divided, and parties differed as to the direction of it
' No doubt many persons differed from the House in thei,
judgment on this question, and hence it was the duty of
' the House to endeavour to settle and satisfy the public
mind upon it. Great professions had been made bs
souse Gentlemen of attachment to public liberty. Non
he believed no person made stronger professions, at al'
events, of attachment to public liberty than he did, bu
still he would not court popularity, to the sacrifice of prin-
ciple.—( Hear, hear.) And if he believed that the public
had fallen into error on any subject he would not, for few
of offending the public, give in to their error.—( Hear
hear.) Nor could he in the present instance consent to ad-
mit that the public were right and the House wrong. It was
gratifying to reflect that by the highest possible authorities
in that House the privilege now claimed was admitted.—
( Cheers.) These propositions had been admitted by the first
legal authorities on the opposite as well as on this side of
the House. First, that the privilege of publishing matte,
which might be defamatory, without incurring the penal-
ties of legal libel, resided in that House ; secondly, that
this privilege was essential to the due discharge of its
functions. Or, rather, the first would necessarily follow
out of the second. And, thirdly, that this House, like
every othcrsuperior Court, was the only judge of its own
privilege. Who could doubt these propositions after
the able, the lucid, the unanswered speech of the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)? Even the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman ( Sir E. Sugden), the Member for
Ripon, assented to them, and agreed that in this particu-
lar case the judgment of the Queen's Bench had been
erroneous. Well then, on this general admission of the
privilege, was it to be abandoned?—( Hear, hear.) Who
would counsel that course ? What course then should be
taken fur its support? Legislation had been suggested.
It was said that by pleading to the action the House had
estopped itself from further proceeding in the maintenance
of the privilege. Now, he denied that the House
was, or that it could be, in such a position.—( Hear, hear.)
The House were trustees for futurity.—( Hear, hear.)
rhey would not, if they could, give away the privileges
of their posterity.—( Hear, hear ) These privileges were
Let personal to themselves—they were vested in thaf
House fur the public benefit—they could never be surren-
lored —( Hear, hear.) Certainly his opinion was that bs
hey bad created some embarrassment. But this
iiiliculty would easily be removed, unless they now corn
inenced a faltering course. The subject had been to,,
long clogged with petty details—let the House now
firmly proceed on principle.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Learned Recorder of London had been very active in
opposition to the privilege, and had treated with great
;corn the idea of maintaining it. This scorn came witl,
lad grace from that personage, seeing that he well knew
hot if, in trials at law, que,tions of the privileges of the
'sty came into dispute, certificates from him on behalf
the Corporations were held conclusive. There could be
)ow no doubt that the Queen's B:neh were wrong in their
udgment. The question now was, how the House should
.roceed.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) His
coswer was a very obvious one—in the same manner es It
courts whose privileges were infringed, by attachment and
imprisonment of the person.—( Hear, bear.) That was
the course which had always been pursued by the Court
Chancery, by the Court of Queen's Bench, by the
Court of Exchequer ; the Court of Chancery had by this
.neans alone maintained its power of injunction over the
proceedings of the Conrts of Law, in opposition to
the stern resistance of Lord Cuke, who had gone
so far as to permit indictments against Counsel and one or
two Masters and other officers of Chancery, for being con-
eernel in an injunction to stay execution, and on this
power of attachment the House need only rely to succeed.
He (Mr. O'Connell) felt confident that they were now on
the point of success. They had got the Sheriffs, and
could keep them till the middle of September—( Ironical
cheers continued)—was that nothing? It was one thing
to " have a giant's strength," and another thing
'to use it like a giant."—( Hear, hear.) Yes—but Gen-
tlemen opposite one moment ridiculed the power of the
House as a mere nullity, and, the next, assailed it with
indignation as cruelty and tyranny.—( Hear, hear.) He
mks now showing that this power was not to be despised.
—( Hear, hear.) It could hold the Sherif& till September ;
and snore than that, the House could address her Ma-
jesty not to prorogue, but to adjourn.—( Ironical cheers
from the Opposition.) Would her Majesty be advised
to resist the almost unanimous address of all parties in
that House ?—(Hear, hear.) The question of imprison-
ment, let it be recollected, was always oae of time—
( Hear, hear.) Now, as to the point (which he admitted
was quite a distinct one) whether the Sheriffs should be
kept in custody. He felt it a painful question. The She-
riffs had incurred no moral guilt, but they bad displayed a
continuous contempt of that House. And, in his
nuinion, the House could not shrink from keeping
them longer in enstody.—( Hear.) He could not help
observing, that as to their oath, which had been so much
talked of, if it was to be literally construed, the terms
being "to execute all the Queen's writs," hoe happened
it that the Sheriffs never executed a single writ—but left
the oath to be obeyed by others—(" Oh, oh," from the
Opposition)—by others :ho might be either honest and
intelligent—honest, and not intelligent—or knaves—
( Loud laughter.) Somebody in another place—( Re.
C.rring, we believe, to Lord Brougb im)—harl advised
the Sheriffs to withdraw tneir authority from their
Under-Sheriffs, and thus embarrass the admini-
tration of justice. Now, it happened that the Coroner,
in such case, would have to execute the writs. Did the
Noble Lord who had given such grave advice know this ?
If so, his recommendation was absurd, and if not, why he
could not he a very " Learned" Lnrl w
—(l.l,'nrey.)_lnd
the Learned Lord forgot, too, that the Sher:ffs would th, n
be ruined by actions from pe sons whose wry s th,y
not executed. What sagacious advice this was therefore

No xit was worthy oark it. the See, „see , er. te
inderse on writs delivered to their lisil:ffe " 'fake care not
to execute tile writ ce Amtjeasaiota or theis servants, or
other privileged p..r.sons."—( Heer, ) What became
of their oath then ?—( ) Why were the Sheriffs in
their present position, then ? Because the Q Bench
had pronounced 'Nhat the I. gal author ties of all side;,: de
elated t judy. moot —( lier, ) he Seerdr;
eeturearily assitueel air iefice.—(Ne. ) lis was sue he
had heard of their canvassing for the office.—( Yea, yes.)
Supposing their deputies made mistakes in the execution
of writs, they, the Sheriff's, would be answerable. They
took the office with all those risks and responsibilities.—
( Hear, hear.) But if the Sheriff; had to the writ in this
case returned nulla bona, the Court would have held the
justification, complete. —(" Oh, oh," from the Oppesi-
`ion.) He gould give authority for so saying :
House of --- v. Mills, 10th Edit, ash =re
to a writ the Sheriff returned nulla bona, be-
rause the good were in a palace, and there
fore privileged.—(Sir E. Sugden—" The privilege
was there tteti.") No. the t,ct went to the Jury on
evidence.—( Sir E. Sugden—" Yes, but there was no
doubt about it")—and so in the present case. That was
his (Mr. O'Connell's) argument, that there was no doubt,
or ought to be no doubt, on the privilege. It had been
acid that the Sheriffs had now paid the money over to
slr. Stoekdale. Well, if they had obeyed this House, they
ahould have been, and doubtless would have been protected.
If the Sheriffs had paid the money to Hansard, would not
the House protect them against the Court of Queen's
Bench, and, by liberating any parties whom that Court
'night imprison if the contest were continued, was not
that the course they would ultimately have to take?—
( Hear, hear.) Suppose the Court of Queen's Bench
sad put under arrest a Member of the House, what remedy
.could they then have ? Would they not be bound to
'ommit the Judge who had issued the decree, if that
Judge should stand in the way of the Commons of Eng-
land? They should either do so, or surrender their
rights and privileges—they might shrink from doing
their duty they might reverence the Judges more
than the rights of the people, but if they had any re-
spect for those rights, it would be their duty
in such a case to commit the Judge. If a contest arose,
he would still rather follow that course than refuse to
give every remedy which the laws and usages of Parlia-
ment might offer against any one who should interfere
eith an officer of the House. The Sheriffs, however, had
not placed themselves under the protection of the House ;
they bad, on the contrary, set it at defiance, and they
would suffer an imprisonment of many months if they per-
sisted in disobeying an order of the Commons of Eng.
land. The proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Huntingdon to terminate the difficulties of their pre-
sent position by legislation, appeared to him (Mr. O'Con-
iiell) not to be replete with that Leained Gentleman's
usual good sense. How were they to proceed by
legislation ?—( Hear.) If it were to be by a decla-
ratory act, that act might be annulled by a
decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.—(Hear.)
Again the House of Lords might refuse to pass the
Bill which they should propose. If they thought they
lad the right on their side it would be pusillanimous not
o assert it, and while they compassiouated the individual:
who were the objects of their coercion, they should either
continue to coerce them, or abandon their privileges.
Mr. F. SHAW was ready to admit much of what had
been asserted by the Honourable Member who had just
sat down. lie admitted the importance—the necessity
—and the existence of the privilege of publishing its
eroceedings claimed by the House of Commons. But
that which he protested against was the monstrous as-
sumption that they could annul at pleasure the es-
tablished laws and usages of the land.__( Hear.)
Fie admitted in common, he believed, with
the highest law authorities on both sides of the House,
shat the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had been
trroneous. But was it hecause the Court of Queen's
Bench had come to an erroneous judgment that they were
to commit another error. They had first directed that the
luestion of their privilege should be pleaded before the
e:ourt, and by the proceedings they had afterwards
adopted they had been led into great embarrassments. lie
.vas convinced that no Court whatever could decide on the
privileges of the House. But what had they done ? They
ad left those privileges to the judgment of the Court of
'queen's Bench, thereby virtually saying " if you decide
for us—if your judgment is in our favour, we can
avail ourselves of it, and respect your,authority ;
tut if your judgment is egainst us we will disrespect it,
ind we will commit every officer who obeys your order."
?.very lawyer should say that there was neither law nor
'itatice, nor reason, in such a course as that (Hear, hear.)
They were contending with the Court, and they afterwards
seized on an officer of that Court. In that also he thought
'lacy were wrong. The Court of Queen's Bench had pro-
eounced an erroneous decision, aid they pursued the ser-
'ants of that Court. The contest, however, was not one
eetween the House of Commons and the Sheriffs of Mid-
ilesex. The public knew that well, and they therefore
,lid, if the House had the courage and manliness of which
it boasts so loudly, why do they not grapple at once
with the Court, and not with those officers who were
wound to obey its order.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He would ask every Hon. Member in the House if he
did not respect and honour the Sheriffs for what they had
suffered, for nothing but the discharge of their duty.
Ha would ask them if there were any men of spirit and
.onstitutional feeling among them, who, if the Sheriffs
sad taken a different course, would not have considered
diem unworthy of their high station, and wanting in that
udependence which he hoped would ever characterize the
functionaries of this country. It would, he thought, go
forth to the world, and he thought .the fact would enlist
'he sympathies of every one in favour of the Sheriffs—it
could go forth that it had come from her Majesty's Soli-
citor-General and from the Hon. Member for Dublin,
.hat the Queen should be asked to adjourn the House,
and not to prorogue it, in order that they might
keep the Sheriff; for a longer time than they otherwise
could do in custody. He believed, however, that in the
struggle which was impending, the Judges of the land
could have the popular feeling with them, and that they
.could ultimately prevail against the despotism of privi-
lege. prerogative, and power
RHigehsthoHuoldn. Isay,raiewndo,rdthaes
so the course adopted by his
Vernber for Tamworth, on the present question. He
should say, that while he acknowledged that Right Hon.
Gentleman as his leader in the House, and while he had
the most entire confidence in his prudence, integrity, and
talent, he could never think of putting his vote in Ne,s
keeping in a question of that nature. He thought thait
sy moderation on the part of all the persons concerned d
that matter, their difficulties might be terminated, an, that they could yet uphold the supremacy of the law, and the character and honour of the country.
Mr. WYNNE felt bound to say a few words upon this
question. He considered the privileges of that House
vere not of such a nature as that they could enforce them
sr not, at their discretion. Those privileges had been
committed to their charge by their ancestors, for the be-
eefit of the people, and theS were bound to preserve them
as they had received them, and to hand them down to pos-
-erity unimpaired. If, however, some of the privileges of
the House, which were necessary in former times to the
due discharge of their duties, were now no longer neces
rary, let them be given up. The House had already shown
.ts willingness to do so during the late reign, by
thgiving up the privilege which it possessed of protecting
e land of Members and their servants. There could be
eo doubt that the present privilege was essential to the
due discharge of the duties of Honourable Members,
'ant whether that privilege had been exercised pro-
vidently and discreetly in the present case remained
to be decided. —( Hear, hear.) The law of Parliament,
was to be looked fur in the practices of Parliament,
and he could not but think, even if the House had exer-
eaerl its authority properly, that the Sheriffs had under-
eerie sufficient punishment to satisfy the privileges of the
House. With respect to the statements that had been made
relative to having either a declaratory or an enabling act,
stating what the privileges of the House were, he
must declare that he should prefer a declaratory
Act to originate in another place under the sanction of the
first Law Officer of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) Admit-
.ing that this privilege was essential to the House, and that
:t had been thwarted by the Sheriffs, still he thought that
hey would not descend from the high ground they had
eiken by releasing the Sheriffs.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the immediate ques-
!ion before the House was whether the Sheriffs should be
discharged or not, and that motion was supported upon two
grounds. The first was that the House had no such privi-
--ge as was claimed in the present instance, and that it
had done wrong in committing the Sheriffe, and that it could
not too early repair the error which it had fallen into.
That view of the question was supported by a petition
to that House from the Lord Mayor and Common Council
of the City of London, who, in their petiti3n, state that
the course which has been adopted was an infringement of
the privileges of the Crown and of the subjects of this
country. Upon that ground, no reasons having been
stated to induce the House to retreat from its former
course, he thought there was no reason for complying with
the motion:that was now made. Another ground had been
put forward by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite—he alluded
more particularly to the Hon. and Learned Members
for Exeter and Huntingdon, who in the course of
this debate had given their opinions. As be un-
derstood them they claimed the privilege to the
fullest extent, but those Hon. and Learned Members, con
cetving that this was not the proper way in which the pri-
vilege was to be asserted, advised the House to refrain
from the course of committal, and at once to discharge the
Sheriffs. He (Lord John) felt a very obvious and inse-
parable objection to taking that course, because, whatever
those Hon. and Learned Gentlemen had suggested with
regard to the course by which they could maintain this
privilege in future, they had not pointed out any course by
which is abandoning the position which the House had at
present taken they could immediately assert and :taint-tin
ti-.se privileges. (Great cheering.) ui
Was not
undervaluing their suggestions, but in pursuing them the might entirely fail in obtaining any remedy, and then, hay-
ing) parted with the power of commitment, which was
the undoubted power of that House, and a power by which
the privilege had been asserted in former times,
and by
which they could now assert it, they mightnd they
had no alternative, and might utterly fail in the means of
maintaining that privilege which they themselves asserted
was indispensable to the clue exercise of the functions; of
that House.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, he did not think
the House could entertain any Crowe as to the decision to
which it would come.--( Cheers.) But there were greater
questions involved in this debate, and it was impossible for
him not to advert to mane questions that had been started,
and likewise to the notions that appeared to be prevalent
out of doors—not representing public opinion, as he thought,
for he would not admit that public opinion was against the
House on this subject__( Cheers) —but opinions prevalent
among those who, as he thought, took an erroneous view of
this subject out of doors. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman to whom he had alluded, and the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the Member for Ripon, asserted as
strongly as the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, as strongly
as the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for
I-eland, the necessity of 'he power whi..ll w
&aimed, They ass, reed that in their ol)inim-1 ibis;
t the Court of Law was e:r.r:e.,us
—(Hear, hear.) Now, was not that an importan

7-1 TT "4" "k"-^, "•••
771 if N r 4Th -‘,:r

~I::i i i

' ••• ' / Toe judgment of the
o
Csist of Law •ti+ tee ,‘ -. length of saving thee the
esolutioe sa that house t till lately, had not been
questioned, that the fl eas the sole judges of its pri-
vileges, tt, ,sitseti. 'SC ill punt was that for
tof he du., • e : es. Atteerling to the (;.:suit
Qtes• . Ca. t•-• s. - se. aubeeetien by the House
„ , ;., t. : eet heleng to the House of
Comeroas to circulate, , distribute, and publish its pro•
ceedine s, because that was no part of the power which be-
longedh to the House. That was the opinion of the
Judges, if they were allowed to be the judges of their pri-
vileges, but it was against the opinion of every Member in
that House who had formed an opinion upon the
subject, who all declared that the possession
of Chet power was necessary, and that the functions of the
Hews • could not be duly performed without it. Where
then ought the power of judging of their privileges to be
placed—in the Courts of Law or in the House of Commons?
He theught that few would doubt that the House of
Commons, with respect to a point of this kind, was the
best judge ; and that, if it transferred to Courts of Law
the power of saying what it might or might not possess, the
House would be in danger of losing its most valuable pri-
vilege.—( Cheers.) The doctrine that he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) and those who agreed with him, advanced, was no
other than the doctrine rnsintsined by Lord Coke, Sir
Mathew Hsle, and Sir William Blackstone, at different
periods of our history, but all great ornaments of the law in
the times in which they live. Then coming to the opinion
that it was essential the House should be the sole judge
of its privileges, there was the further question remaining,
which bed been argued with so much ingenuity—whether
they could maintain those privileges by the course they
were then pursuing ? There certainly did arise the great
difficulty on this point to which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had alluded, viz., that if the Court of Law was not
informed it was a question cf privilege, it might be well
argued that the Court of Law could not know whether
Messrs. Hansard were persons authorized by that House.
Then, if the other course was taken, they would un-
doubtedly render th e m is] ves liable to the impu-
tation of apparently submitting to a Court of Law—( Hear).—
without being ready to bow to its decision. He (Lord J.
Russell) had always thought that the doctrine held by
Mr. Ponsonby, at the time of the case of Burdett and
Abbot, was both constitutional and practicable; and he was
sorry to find that it was an opinion which, at this time, no
party seeeaed inclined to follow. Mr. Ponsonby hnld
highly the privileges of that House, and objected to taking
no notice of the parties in the action. (The Noble Lord
here read an extract front Mr. Ponsonby's speech, in
which he stated that, reverting to the ancient rule of prac-
tice, it was invariably the custom of the House to commit
any person who made himself the instrument of calling
into question their privileges, and that he thought the
solicitor who served the notice of action on the Speaker
ought to be committed ; yet he thought the Speaker
ought to appear, and put in his plea to the action, as such
course was open to him without any apprehension of sur-
rendering his privilege.) It appeared to him (Lord J.
Russell) that there was sound reason for what was stated
by Mr. Ponsonby, and he, having been a lawyer, who bad
practised in Courts of Law, and who had held the office
of Lot ci Chancellor in Ireland, was an authority entitled
to considerable weight. Therefore he (Lord J. Russell)
did not see the inconsistency of at once committing the
plaintiff and his advisers who took part in the action, and
at the same time pleading in a Court of Law, that what had
been done was by the authority of the House of Com-
mons. Although that was his opinion, yet he would not
wish to persist in that opinion if any course was suggested
that would meet with more approval. The Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, proposed another
course in a motion that stood upon the books for that night,
viz., that without involving the question of privilege;
Messrs. Hansard should be at liberty to plead to the
action brought against them by Mr. Stockdale, as they
should be advanced. If they took that course they would
be bringing into a Court of Law some of the highest quo-
' tions which concerned the interests of this country. He
would take the case which in 1805 occupied so much public
attention, viz., the. Tenth Report,—suppose a party had
brought an action against the printer, they would have a
decision on the question whether tha persons mentioned in
that report had been guilty of certain crimes and misde-
meanors against the public, while the House was consider-
ing whether, by persecution or impeachment, those alleged,
offences ought to be punished.—( Hear, hear.) It would
be impossible for the House to direct their printer to take
such a course. He believed the commitment of the plaintiff
and the attorney, and the refusing to plead in a Court of
Law, would be sufficient to prevent them from bringing
an action. The course they had been pursuing certainly
had this disadvantage, that it placed persons in the situation
of the Sheriffs, in what must be allowed to be a very ern'
barrassing position, whether they obey the orders of the
House or the directions of the Courts of Law. Hie
thought the Sheriffs would have been perfectly justified:
and would have been more in the right, if they had obeyed
the orders of that flouse.—(Hear)—and looked to the
protection of that House.—( Cheers.) But at the seine
time he admitted that men honestly following their own
judgm nt might think it was more consistent with their
duty to take that course which they had taken.--
It was a public disadvantage that they. should be obliged to
prosecute over and over again, but the House was
quite justified ha doing it—just as the Court o',
Queen's Bosch and the Court of Chancery would issue an
attachment against persons not because they had com-
mitted any moral crime, but because they were impeding
the functions of the Court.—( Hear, hear.) But then,
going farther, there was that course which his Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Soliciter- General, had pointed cut'
and by which, ass he (Lord J. Russell) thought, they might
effectually assert their privilege. He had stated at the
commencement of these discussins, that with reg
fe ard to
the power of the House of Commoons, he did not el the
least doubt; but there were other qutstions which it behoved
the House to look at, whether they could maintain the
privileges that were essential, and maintain powers that
were necessary, without bringing into collision a House
of Parliament and the Judges. and without
bringing into dispute, and in some respects into disregard'
persons to whom every authority and every respect ought
to be paid.—( Hear, hear.) If they could avoid any breach
of the peace; or any collieioa in the course of these van'
actions, it was their duty anxiously to seek for, and tO
adopt that course. —(Cheers.) Among the courses sug:i
Bested, one was legislation, and a declaratory law had
been proposed. His (Lord John Rnssell's) opinion rrial
that, if such declaratory law could be maintained, it woe'
be perfectly consistent with what had been done
in former
times; and if carefully framed, it might secure to the
House the possession of that necessary power, without
injuring their powers. It had been suggested that tbo
Lord Chancellor might introduce a measure on tee
subject. It was the opinion of the Lord Chan-
cellor,
before that suggestion was made by the
Right Han. Gentleman opposite, looking at the matte',
calmly, that it was necessary to maintain the privilege;
but his Lordship did not think the present contest could
well close without some legislative measure.—( "ear;
hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) had asked his opinion a
to the various courses that might be pursued, and his
Lordship pointed out the objections which existed to them'
and likewise the objections to a Declaratory Act, but he
stated that on the whole he thought a Declaratory Act the
preferable course.—( Cheers.) He was not entitled to sag
that his Noble Friend had so far made up his mind, or bad_
so far framed the provisions of the Bill that he Wir,
ready to introduce it.--(Loud cries of " Hoar, hear.")
If, however, they should not agree to that course, they
might pursue the course recommended by the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had last spoken, and a Bill of that nature,
might be introduced into that House_( Hear, hear)—and
he thought such a course ought to be pursued before they
came to any ultimate decision on the subject.—(Hear'
hear.) Such a course was not without precedent—he, le
one, did not believe that their privileges were of so refined
and aerial a nature as to resolve themselves into thirsal`,
if they were once discussed. In a former instance, such
remedy was adopted. In the first year of the reign e_
James I. this course had been adopted with respect to tbu
personal privilege of Members of freedom from arrest'
Sir Thomas Shirley had been taken prisoner for debt by
the Warden of the Fleet, and so fearful was he of renderie
himself liable to arrest for the debts of Sir T. Shirley, that;
;as had be stated in a former debate, he had refused to
up his prisoner in obedience to the orders of the House,uet;
he had b:en committed to the dungeon of Little gas'
The House of Commons felt the difficulty of his positil
and yet they were determined to retain their privilege
freedoin from arrest, and they consequently passed an en-
actment that no Sheriff or Bailiff, from whose custody
prisoner should be taken by the privileges of the Houser
should be liable to any action for the discharge of suet t
prisoner. Thus while they showed their determination net
to allow their privileges to be brought in question, Yet...
finding the Warden of the Flee: in a position of great di
timeeudl tyy
foras ts ol thethat
stlaatwe ,of theth Housegsby of
declaring Commons
the
thecthuet
orSnPh
ocr privilege
iffies
theirga en
d(barßd
er:rissl
Iff:
yus
Friend the So'icito G •
. r- enetal had admitted that the shoe'
tion of the Sheriffs was one ofand be
tfiroona
enactment.an liability
tty
Histt ho e
arrestH sameon .atefniofxmodri useLttnhefdeernaecaerce:ri neeoeed°
embarrassment, thought that in the Act of Parliament they might toa;-r
provision to avoid such a state of things occurringAi'a
the future. It was almost unanimously conceded
ece
that the Houses of Parliament seossessed the power of t" -r
publication of their proceedi g and which the Courts et
Law had denied ; and he felt if that was the case, tbto.
while they vindicated their privileges they ought Iwt.,; put the public peace to hazard.—( Cheers.) As this pri:;
ciple was almost universally conceded he felt that the!
ought to be some precise manner of notifying this to tn'
Courts of Law, and no doubt if that
could be donein
the judgment which had been recently given 0
the Court of Queen's Bench, and which
now admitted to be erroneous, would not lead to 1,1t"o
further proceedings. He thought the House ought now
go on in this course of commitment, without eudeavourihe
tto discover some other remedy.—( Cheers, ) But at
ior
same time he would say that it was a power essential
the House to possess, and that, in the case of Burdert doe
Abbott, and also in the second action in this case, 'to
House had lost authority by not having had recourse. 4,
that method ; but they must have recourse to commitmeißi,
if there were no other method of vindicating their Prvo,
leges. It was the ancient established method of doing
di-
But while the House adopted every method for the vin
cation of its privileges, it had an important duty to Ice
form, in doing everything in its power for the mainteneko
Cheers.) He had ta sal
of the peace of the country.—(
this opportunity of stating his oVations on the gelled question, but still he was decidedly against this In° :id
for liberating the Sheriffs from custody, for which ho weile
not exercise this power in a vindictive manner. t
thought it absolutely necessary to preserve it, because
itis
was the only power they possessed for preserving the P
vileges of that. Honse.—( Cheers )
Mr. F. KELLY thanked the Noble Lord for the calm
temperate, and, in most respects, just observations
he had just offered to the House ; but he was unspoakr.aord
disappointed in the conclusions to which the Noble ""'bc-ea
had come. He had admitted that the Sheriffs had tit
exposed to a situation of
great embarrassment, and that
had been titgl suit for them to determine whet course
ought to lase pursued, nod Set the Noble Lord, not
vindication of the privileges of the House, for any