The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-21 00:00:00

DIE SUN, _LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 2l, 1840

referring to strong cases, was rather too late—it was too lion. and Learned Member for Ripon. In 1722 a formal
late now to defend the commitment—it was too late after complaint was made in the House of Lords that in a Re-
the exercise of power to bring an authority to prove that port of the House of Commons, in which the evidence of a
you exercised it properly. Lastly, as to the case of Ashby witness was quoted, they had imputed to Lord Kinnoul
and White—out of the twelve Judges, five held that the and Lord Stafford, that they were aware of a contemplated
commitment was good, and 1I" the reverse. The case was invasion of this eimritry by the Pretender. A Committee
afterwards taken before the irlouse of Lords, and 15 out of was '24- Tainted to investigate that treasonable plot, and in
66 of their Lordships 112,-.1 voted that the action would lie the demition taken before that Committee was the
ttis House were those of the lime of charge that Lord Kinnoul and Lord Strafford had
Lords ; thos'.... privileges were formerly held jointly, and a guilty knowledge of the invasion.—( Hear.) What was
were only now held separately, as they formerly were to- the eourse those Noble Lords adopted ? They did not
getter ;so that either House must, mutatis mutaxdis, know move the printer of the Report should not be proceeded
the privileges of the other. Therefore what impropriety against; on the contrary, all they asked in the House of
was there in the House of Lords deciding the question of Lords was, that; the witness, who was stated to have
privilege ?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The given the evidence, might be brought to the bar of the
House of Commons, at the time they were considering House or Lords, and examined on the subject, in order to
Williams's case, dragged the ex-Judges Jones and Pem- ascertain if there was any real ground for the charge
berton to the bar for offences alleged to have been con- brought against them. They asked for an op-
mitted seven years before, on a judgment affirmed by the portunity of disproving the accusation by cross-
Learned Attorney-General to have been illegal, but which examining the witness. Considering what was in those
no other lawyer in Westminster Hall would venture so to days the manner of proceeding against the Press, he
characterize. The Learned Attorney-General's speech thought it was little likely the minority would have adopted
before the Court of Queen's Bench was a monument of that course if they had thought that the papers printed
legal industry and talent ; but he, on the present occasion, were not protected by the privilege of Parliament.—
had displayed only hurry and inaccuracy.—( Hear, hear, ( Hear, hear.) A long argument took place, and it was
and laughter.) As to the resolution now before the House, at last overruled by a majority, and twenty-four
he (Sir Edward) should vote against it with great confi- Peers signed a protest against it, as an act
deuce of being in the right. Did the Attorney-General of injustice to Lords Kinnoul and Strafford.
mean to affirm that the Court would consider it any Within a few days, however, an unfortunate printer of a
excuse for the Sheriffs not paying the money to newspaper mentioned the fact without any comment or ex-
Stockdale, that they had been ordered not to do se by that pression of opinion. What course was adopted towards
House ? If so, the Learned Gentleman was misleading that unfortunate printer, who was not privileged, for co-
the House. Hei ( Sir Edward) told the House not to pying the report? They immediately caused that printer
rely upon the Attorney-General's statement on this head: to be called to the bar. He absconded, and peti-
it was not—it never could be—law —( Cheers from the tioned, in the most humble manner,, stating that
Opposition.) The Court had already, upon solemn he meant no offence, and begged to be excused
argument, decided against the privilege. Could they be for the inadvertence he had committed. The House of
expected to alter their judgment, on an application made Lords rejected the petition. Another newspaper made a
at ',mother stage of the motion ?—( Hear, hear.) It was similar publication. The House of Lords proceeded
absurd to suppose this.—( Hear, hear.) Then, as to the against the printer and publisher of that newspaper, but the
conduct of the Sheriffs—if they should disobey the House, it name of the writer being given up, he was called to the
was a paltry threat which the Attorney- General had held out bar, and for the mere offence of copying that statement
against them.—( Cries of " corder,") If be had said from a published Report of a Committee of the House of
an) thing disrespectful to the House, or to the Attorney- Commons, he was committed for a month to custody, and was
General, he (Sir Edward Sugden) retracted it.._._(Hear, at last discharged on payment of the fees.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) But he meant to convey this, that it was not hear.) Such was the course the House of Lords adopted
worth while to threaten the Sheriffs with committal.-- with respect to a statement in an unprivileged paper, and
(Hear, hear.) They were told by the House that they yet the original of that very statement was contained in a
had power superior to the Courts. Well, if the Court paper written for that House and having on the title-page,
made them pay the money (as beyond all doubt they as might be seen in the printed report in the British
would), would not the Sheriffs justly petition tho House Museum, from which he had caused a copy to be made,
to repay the 6001. which they had thus been compelled to " published by order of the House."—(Loud cheers.)
pay in order to obey the Queen's Bench without disobeying It was impossible to make out a clearer case of
the House, and would the House be able to relieve their per_ acquiescence.—(Cheers.) The question, then, came to
sonal honour from the obligation, unless, indeed, they this :—Upon the clearest grounds of the necessity for the
meant the Sheriffs to pay it twice, or the At- exercise of their functions, and upon the undisputed ex-
berney-General to pay it.—(Loud laughter) Was ercise of that power for two hundred years, the House of
this not a farce ?—( Opposition cheers.) Sorry, indeed, Commons claimed the right of publishing those papers
would he (Sir Edward) be to find the Sheriffs commit- which they thought it important to give' to the world.
ted._(Cheers.) He trusted that the publication of the If they submitted to the judgment of the Court of
book complained of would be stopped..—(lronical cries of Queen's Bench, could they maintain by their own authority
" Hear, hear" from the Ministerial Benches)—or there any one privilege which they possessed ?—( Cheers.)
would be more actions.—( Hear.) At all events he hoped The House maintained the right of freedom of speech in
the House would well consider the course they now Parliament. Could they maintain any other possible pri-
adopted. vilege, except by the concurrence of the Courts of Law,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged, in esplana- if they yielded or faltered in this instance.-(Hear, hear.)
tion, to say that the Hon. Member who had just sat With respect to the privilege of freedom of speech, he
down had marvellously misunderstood him, for what he could conceive an action brought against Mr. Hansard, for
said was, that the privilege of publishing such of its pro- reasons far stronger than those of Stockdale. It might
ceedings as it deemed necessary, had, for two centuries, be said truly that the case of the private injury of an in-
been acquiesced in—not the general privileges—which dividual, for slander by words spoken, had never been
had often been controverted.—(Hear, hear.) And as to brought before Courts of Justice.—( Cheers.) If an ac-
the Sheriffs—ha did not mean to pledge himself that the tion for slander, in such a case, had been commenced, and
Court would hold the order of the House as sufficient ex- it had gone on to the point of the present action,
cuse for non-payment of the money--( Ironical cheers would the House not think it right to inter-
from the Opposition)—but he sincerely believed that if the fere by its own authority, and protect its own
Court ruled according to law they would so consider it.-- Member from the consequences?—(Hear, hear.) Most
(Laughter from the same quarter, and cheers from the undoubtedly it would, and in what other manner, or by
Ministerialists. ) what other means, or by what other power had the privi.
Lord HO WICK apologized for interfering in a discus- loges of that House in all times been maintained and ad-
sion which had hitherto been almost confined to the pro- mitted ? In former times Courts of Law were against
fession, but which, he feared, had been too much en- them—they had both the Courts of Law and the Crown
tangled with legal subtleties—too much connected with to contend with, and yet against the Crown, and against
splitting hairs on judgments delivered in former times— the Courts of Law, that House, by its own uuthority, did
( Hear, hear)—and too little considered in connection with maintain and did establish those privileges which they
constitutional and national principles.--( Cheers.) He then enjoyed.—( Hear, hear.) Should they depart from
had observed that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who that practice—should they then, from considerations never
had just sat down had not clearly stated whether or not he istened to before, take a course by which they would
would consent to submit all the privileges of the House in impair the value of that sacred trust they had inherited and
an unqualified manner, to the judgment of the Courts ? give to their successors these privileges without the same secu-
Would he consent thus to submit all those clear and indispu- rity and assurance they possessed.—( Hear, hear. )herlitffws
if
sf
theyid
table privileges which the House possessed ?—( Hear.) the House would be compelled to
terleliThbeurse the S
Right Hon. Gentlema
Suppose the case of an action against the Speaker, and paid
or .
thatStockdale.
even He
thoughw the Sheriffs were to repay Mr.
upon execution a distress against the plate and furniture n
Mansard, after the notice they had received, he (Lord Howiek)
which he held as Speaker? Or suppose an action against
the Members for slanderous words in that House—didand cheers.)
eshfoauldhrecaoenhceeifvethtehirat
prinivilesgoead.liTH
ea. theyr,
hear, would be guilty
the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen mean to affirm that in
.
these cases the House had no means of asserting their that Rut
ii
tf
wast hey i
ix:e theiru se d
powertopuy
to over
protectthe mthoenmey. hen efehl tel
iconvinced
t
privileges but by submitting to the Courts ?—( Hear, hear.) that the Courts of Justice, in full consideration o!ostthiectrco:utrld-
It might be said that the Courts would never proceed con- stances of the case, and in their anxiety tot tothed do
Sheriffs.jce would
The
trary to the known and admitted privileges of Parliament. abstain frorrita.ny acto eosfe harshn
ess
cryl rest upon written law,
Certainly not, in reference to the present Judges, but then privileges of ha t
the House should suppose the possibility of future Judges
really
talso uponn the common law of the land. He, therefore,
see any other course it would be possible for them
being disposed to go beyond the limits of constitutional law could
—(" No, no," from the Opposition)—for in the present ,to adopt not
than that proposed by his Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.)
It had been asserted that every day they kept Mr. Stockdale in
case, the ground of the argument on the other side was, ;
that the House had transgressed those limits.—( Cheers
confinement, they gave him a claim for founding an action for
i false imprisonment, and he might recover large damages. One
from both sides.) The real question is, whether we do Hon and Learned Member stated that an action could be
possess the privilege, and if not, whether we are bound to brought by Mr. Stoekdale, and he might recover great damages;
maintain it, without trusting to the other authorities— that Hon. Gentleman might one day become a Judge, he
(Cheers)—without abandoning the rights which to us certainly had great talents to qualify him to fill that office ; but
have been transmitted from our ancestors, and which we if he should ever ascend the Bench, he certainly would be likely
are bound to transmit unimpaired to posterity.—( Cheer...) to carry the invasion of their privileges even further than Lord
It was observable that none of the Hon. and Learned Chief Justice Denman. Here was another proof of the extreme
Gentlemen on the other side had ventured to empress a danger and uncertainty
ofrtaint Law. placing their privileges at
to askatthedtihs-e
clear opinion in favour of the judgment of the Queen's ero toisoevchether those privileges belong
n
of- a Court beggede in a worddto them or not? If they
Bench. Indeed, the Learned Member for Ipswich had t
believed that they possessedthose privileges let them answer so at
gone so far as to say that he would not new discuss the
once, by boldly and unhesitatingly claiming that privilege in the
question whether the book in this case was or was not a libel. way their ancestors did before them.—(Hear.) The same
The necessity of the case was the whole argument in course they pursued that House 'should follow, and if they acted
favour of the power. The power was only used by the boldly and decidedly on that occasion they would succeed.—
House for the benefit of the public. The most important (Hear.) Let them at once establish the right they contend for;
papers which came before that House, and which it was but if they then gave way—if they faltered—if they flinched
necessary to publish, were generally the most criminatory. from their expressed opinions—there was an end to the privi-
In 1790 there was an inquiry before the whole House into leges of the House of Commons ; all their security, all their
Inaet dn .e d .
the nature of the Slave Trade. Mr. Wilberforce then rights and privileges would vanish before their eyes.
brought forward a variety of witnesses in order to
show the iniquity of that trade. Every page of evidence ItZeoxGePLlxalPis__The Hon. Member for Northum-
given before that Committee afforded ample ground for berMLSI aiorrnr. ddßFOE.sal3l(LidEitilLthTTLatYal no gentleman at that side of the House had
legal proceedings, had it not been protected by the rivi_
p expressed any opinion in favour of the Judges. He (Sir R.
loges of the House. One case in particular was that of a Inglis) was one who, though unworthy, would hazard that
master of a slaver, who was proved to have treated one of opinion, but the question was not whether they (the Judges)
his crew with the utmost barbarity. It was proved that had acted right or wrong,l but whether the
that
were
Co
turithaaedteed o
ot
or
-m-
-the man was labouring under a disease incident to the cli- mitied a breach of privilege in the m
mate ; that he was unable to work ; yet he was treated as wards that House, and whether their interferencea
never should have heard it questioned rightby that
a skulker, and used with such barbarity as to cause death. wrong, they
sbeeeerneta in
Secretary
their itrhe favcooulrontes H, e
whetherwished
theis w asrepared to follow up step by step the consequences of
resolution.P The alteration was yet possible. The Ser-
Was not such a state
a oment as that a libel under the present
ask
ke
theif
law ? There was no reason why an action or an indict- to
menu would not have laid had itbeen preferred, unless it H
had been protected by the privilege. But would thi
s Noblev e rLdoi crtd the had
eeant-at-Arms might go to the Queen's Bench, and attempt
the object have been answered had there been no pub- to seize the Judges on the Bench. The Sergeant
lication ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) What object would at-Arms would be unsupported by the body of the Mem-
hare been answered had Mr. Wilberforce kept the evi.. bens of that House, but he supposed the Treasiiry
deuce in his own possession to protect himself from pos- Bench would be induced
indifferentto follow him
.there.—(Laughter. )
Bible prosecution. At that time the Slave-trade was
treated in a very different manner from what it was in the? Would they not call on the She-
Would the Judgesofthe House
to any violent proceedings
roinffthteo
partraise a posse comitatus ? They had now a locus
present day. It was then the policy of the nation not to
put an end to that inhuman traffic, but to secure to this eneitentiw, and how long it might continue no one could tell.
PHe would warn them that they were in a critical position—to
country the largest possible advantages of the bloody
trade. The nation was relieved from the sin and
advance further would be dangerous to them, and destructive,
perhaps, to the Constitution. It was probable, however, that
crime of that inhuman traffic —by what other the House, by persevering in its present coucse, would merely
means than by the publication of the evidence ? levy a fine on the Sheriffs of 6401., and that because they had
and what was true of the Slave Trade was true with discharged their duty. The Attorney-General had laboured
respect to every other abuse that existed. All abuses throughout a long speech to make an identity between a decree
were supported by the rich and powerful classes. They from the Court of Chancery and an order of that_
House. He
were anxious to maintain them, and there were no other said, that because an order from the Court of Chancery to the
means of remedying them but by acting upon the repro- Sheriffs superseded a previous one from the Court of Queen's
sentatives of the people through their constituents, and Bench,
they
circumstances,
equallyances an order from Parliament. The
ceedings, even if they were eliminatory. If there were feel themselves bound to obey' un-
,
that could alone be done by the publication of their pro-
der the same cimiumst
cases, were, however, in his opinion, very different. The
Court of Chancery and the Court of Queen's Bench both de-
complaints, there' must be some means of investigation. rived their authority from the Queen, and acted under the
They were all aware that there had been great ex- Crown. An order from the House of Commons is but the
citement in the country of late years respecting the opinion of a majority of individuals, and that majority might
Poor-laws, and that a Committee had sat to investigate be composed of nothing more than a single individual. Would
charges that were preferred by Mr. Walter, then Member the decisions of majorities thus composed, he (Sir R. Inglis)
for Berkshire, and the Hon. Member for Oldham ( Mr. would ask, ever carry the weight of decisions of a Court of law ?
Fielders). Those charges were of the most criminatory He should grieve to see the
hdaeyhslvdhedneaCosoiuhredts ofanLdawhewtohunlidl be
t
nature ; but would the public have been satisfied without subjectauthoritynettomerel
having seen the evidence upon the points ? The charges
and that,the dangersy regardingwich he solemnly believed can scarcely be
were disproved, but the parties had their remedy, not by
overrated in the present state of the country—dangers which
action, but by their vindication going forth to the world
would be immeasurably increased by any discredit thrown in
along with the accusation. He felt that so much might the Ceurts of Law, which would weaken their authority at a
be said on the point of publication that he would not trust time when it was most essential to the interests of the coon-
himself to enter further into it. The necessity of pub- try that it should be unimpaired. He, therefore, earnestly
lication was admitted by Mr. Justice Littledale implored Hon. Members to pause, in their present career. Did
in the recent case. He quoted Lord Ellenborough, to the they suppose, that
_inbthislasteorizeJues would not nttolr.
effect that the House of Commons must be armed with attended in trmmph
ofy hundreds
authority to exercise their functions, whatever that mightthousands the middle classes gentry,
l thcountryy? He
sandstvas naot• addressing himself to the fears of the House, but to
be.—( Cheers.) And Lord Denman, on the same occa-
sion, said that if the necessity eilited, no more need be their cool reason. He asked them, were they prepared for
said, for all privilege rested upon necessity. Upon those such a state of things as that he had described? They
should be prepared for this, that if the parties who were now
opinions, he did not see how any doubt could rest upon the in attendance refused to obey their mandate they would, in such
point. Even putting the case of necessity out of view, a case, be supported by the Courts of Law, sworn officers as
he thought it was incontrovertibly supported by the fact, they were. A dreadful collision would then be the conse-
that for two hundred years, with the single exception quence, and that collision would necessareily
wishedins•olyea akadeirwecitf
of Dangerfield's case, the privilege had been uncon- appeal to physical force.—(Cheers.)fa.s 11
tested—( Hear, hear)—and although the Honourable the Noble Lord was prepared revil• such asth these?
that if he Member for Ipswich said the year 1641 was .a bad year, Sir R. PELL.
.thought it would be conceded,
ad-
for precedents, still, in candour, he ought to have told hered to the opinion he had formerly given, or rather if he per-
the House, that in the reign of Charles 11., the privileges sisted in that course which he had till now followed, he could
have no motive whatever for doing so but a conscien-
of the House of Commons were retained inviolate. Ever
liens one.-(Cheers.) No particular blame could be attributed
since the Revolution they had maintained the power of
publishing what papers they thought necessary. The Hon. to him one part of the present House of Commons, if he
looked only to the character of our existing institutions, and not
and Learned ember for Ripon ( Sir E. Sugden) had to the opinions of a party. That body had reposed no particu-
said the power of publishing was a new power. Now, in lar confidence in him, and, therefore, had no claim on any ex-
point of fact, it was not for a long period after they had traordinary effort on his part to allow himself to be misled from
begun to print, that they printed in any other manner what he msideredtobe
hi n h
his duty.
wouldy. If
notm now ereparty eersidrearad.
than by publication, and defraying the expense of that couldtionsas he
have
influenced
had done, from those with whom haveheuaneFfate
ormly
Members looked back to all the important Par-
printing by publication.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If Hon. himself,
acted, rather than bring on himself temporary, but short-lived,
ularit with oth. din erfet.cordia with
liamentary papers and votes printed up to nearly
Gentlemenoppositeers on lastHe had
a cte p
week, and if he had not donelity so he
the time of the American war they would find them uni-
would be for ever perfectly unworthy of public confidence.—
formly published by order of the House, and the price at
(Loud cheers.) He said, therefore, that if he did not
which these papers were published and printed on them, deviate from the course which the majority of his Honour-
--( Hear, hear.) The practice was discontinued when the able Friends were inclined to take, nothing but a sense
papers became voluminous. The sum received from their of duty could have induced him to act as he was doing.
sale ceased to cover the expense, and the Speakers pre- In the last Session of Parliament,. in a case analogous to the
Polamckightwhaeroisebferom a
decessor finding it a losing concern transferred it to the present, with all their experleneseof the past—with all the
Treasury--( Loud laughter)—and from that period the cx- forewarnings ofh the
memorable
eueenacsee
ofwhich
penses have been defrayed by a vote of the House of Corn- collision—int e
that
hie
theemmeaent to bring an action against the Messrs.gave
mons like the rest of the public service. It hay-
nlloailie- rd, the House resolved by the greatest majority he ever
ing been the practice for so long a period to publish papers
rememberedsa in that Parliament—by a majority of 106 to 4--
of a criminatory tendency, was it true that the acquiescence
by majority of 21 to I—they deliberately resolved that the
in that publication could be accounted for by the Messrs. Hansard should not plead, but that they should con-
weakness of those who might have thought them. shier Polack guilty of a breach of privilege if he persevered
selves justified in complaining of those publications, with his action.—(Loud cheers.) He was .trot- acting
and who if the publications had not been therefore duly in conformity with his Own opinion, but,
privileged would have founded proceedings upon them ? what he had a right to presume was the almost unanimous
Far otherwise ; for in the case he had mentioned of the slave- opinion of the House of Commons. lle would, in the plainest
trade, that very particular fact with regard to the alleged and simplest manner, give them the.grounds upon which his
cruel treatment of a seaman on board a ship, was afterwards opinions were formed, and he would_ invite. the. House to their
positively denied at the bar of that House by thesqar for the ' '
consideration.—( Hear, hear.) s
„site maintained, then, the
individual accused, who was named Clement Noble. the functions of the house
according could not, therefore, be said he felt his guilt, effectual discharge of ...ouse
to the
said supposition of Lord Denman. position, that whatever was rex- - y proper and
of Commons, that privilege the House possessed.
according
Still less could it be he was a weak and powerless in- His second position was, that in strict logical reasoning, that
particular privilege of free publication which was not liable to
dividual. On the contrary, it was known that he was
question in Courts of Law, was absolutely necessary:for the
supported by a very powerful body of m„. But looking proper discharge of their functions: His third posi-
acquiescence of all parties in the
further back there was a case still stronger, and clearly teio,n
owas thattha the • had no security for.. the proper t
essential privilege unless they were exer-
provingenin-
that the general a
in the o
publication of papers of c.riminat"Y nature of that kind potent, by their own deliberate power, to vindicate those
opportunity which
was not to be accounted for in the manner supposed by the 1 privileges.—( Cheers. ) He rejoiced

had been afforded them of considering that question
more minutely than they could have done on Saturday last.
He had spent that interval in reading the opinion of judicial
authorities—of the Judges who had delivered judgment in the
case of Stockdale against Hansard, and he had retired from
that perusal with a perfect conviction that the position main-
tained by the Judges was inconsistent with the privileges of the
House of Commons--nay more, that the judgment ought not
to have followed from their own positions.--( Cheers.) Now,
in the first place, if a certain privilege was necessary for the
peeper discharge of their functions, had the House of Commons
that privilege ? He referred to the authority of Lord Denman
on that point--and he offered his opinion in proof of it
—for Lord Denman admitted it most fully. The Right
Hon. Baronet here read an extract from the judgment of Lord
Denman, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of Stock-
dale and Hansard, in which, after referring to the privileges
of the House of Commons, he observed, " if the necessity be
made cut, it sanctions every privilege, and justifies every step."
—(Loud cheers.) He could anticipate no answer to that, be-
cause they Lad a distinct admission from one whom he must
consider a hostile, and therefore a perfectly disinterested wit-
ness—they had an ample admission from him, of the princi-
ple which he (Sir R. Peel) maintained. He thought the ad-
mission was important in that respect. He agreed with the
Noble Lord, that they could not prove long prescription,
but it was of immense importance, that necessity alone with-
out long prescriptive right, should give them the privilege.—
( Hear, hear. )• He agreed also with the Noble Lord that
their security for the privilege of free debate rested on its ac-
knowledged necessity and nothing less, and he was not certain
if they were obliged to abandon the privilege of free publica-
tion that they would have any security for the privilege of free
debate. Lord Denman said that the privilege of having their
debates, unquestioned, although denied when the Members
began to speak their minds by Queen Elizabeth—(Hear,
hear, and cheers)—and punished for its exercise by that
Princess and her two successors, was soon perceived to be in-
dispensable, and was universally acknowledged. It would be
seen, then, that they had no prescription to plead for the free-
dom of debate. Elizabeth denied it, James denied it, and
Charles denied it to them • but it was granted on account of
some general conviction that it was indispensable, and it came
to be universally acknowled. By whom—who was the Judge
of the necessity—who was the judge of the necessity for the
existence of that privilege ?—( Long continued cheering.)
The same learned authority said that any power which the
Court of
of Quarter Sessions, and every borough Court, and every Court
Queen's Bench possessed, was possessed by every Court
that could entertain an action for libel, might bring their privi-
ieges into question: Then it naturally followed that the privi-
lege was liable to be questioned, not only by those high and
eminent legal characters, with regard to whom not one word of
disrespect should fall from him, but he wanted to show that the
privilege of free discussion rested upon the same ground as the
privilege of free üblication, viz. clear and acknowledged ne-
cessity.—(Hear. He wanted to show that not merely had
that privilege been questioned by a Sovereign on the throne,
who, actuated by arbitrary principles might be tempted to
interfere with the freedom of debate, but he wanted
to show that the judicial authorities of that very
Court of Queen's Bench, had, in other times, absolutely denied
to them, not the right of free publication, but the right of free
dabate.—( Hear, hear.) They had no prescription for free
debate, and he would prove to them that there was a period
when the Judges denied that the House of Commons had the
privilege of free debate. He felt that freedom of debate was not
secured to them by prescription, for it had not been invariably
acquiesced in. It had not been acknowledged by the Judges of
Charles 1., therefore it was not secured to them by Courts of
Law, but it was secured to them by the necessity of the case.
On the first point of his argument, he trusted ho need urge
nothing further.—(Cheers.) Secondly, was the privilege
necessary for them, or was it not—that was the point on which
they must stand or fall—was it necessary for what Lord Den-
man called the energetic discharge of their duties ? How
could they hope that their commands would meet with that
universal obedience to which they were entitled unless they
were supported by public sythpathy ? How could they hope,
more especially in times like the present, that their
dictates would meet with general acquiescence unless the reasons
of them were known 7—( Cheers.) Was it not of the utmost
importance that the public mind should be enlightened respect-
ing their actions ?—( Cheers.) What was the right of petition?
Surely it was not intended that petitions should be presented
by persons who were to be kept in ignorance of the subject on
which they were petitioning ? What great legislative act had
received the sanction of Parliament within the last fifty years
that was not owing to the force of public opinion acting on the
HooSe of Commons ? Let them take the Abolition of Slavery.
Did they believe that slavery would ever have been abolished if
the public mind had not been enlightened as to the abominations
of slavery by the publication of papers by that House ? or did
they believe that had It not been for those publications they
could ever have persuaded the people of England to
pay twenty millions willingly rather than sanction the
pollution of slavery? Would the people have willingly
acquiesced at a time of great financial embarrassment,
in the imposition of a pecuniary burden of twenty millions
if they had contented themselves with saying to them, we re-
commend you to make this payment of twenty millions, but we
are unable to state to you freely the grounds on which we ad-
vise you to make this sacrifice? Did they;believe that this
sacrifice would have been made, and the immense impression
produced by it on foreign nations, be produced, if the people had
believed the statement at that time so industriously circulated,
that the condition of the slave was superior to that of the
labourer in this country.?—( Cheers.) Did the House believe
that the abolition of the slave trade would ever have been carried
in the teeth of all the prejudices with which Mr. Wilberforce
had to contend, had it not been for the information published
by order of the House ? Evidence on the question of the
slave trade had been taken before the Privy Council, and pub-
lished in 1788. Mr. Wilberforce brought forward the ques-
tien of the abolition in 1789, and he raised a doubt as
to the truth of that evidence, and asked for a Com-
mittee, and obtained it, with a view to remove from
the public mind the feeling—if he might be allowed the ex-
pression—cast on it by the evidence as to the agreeable voyage
of the middle passage. Mr. Norris, one of the delegates from
Liverpool, had before the Privy Council stated that the apart-
ments of the slaves were fitted up as agreeably as the circum-
stances would permit--that they were, to be sure, secured by a
slight ring rivetted round the ancle, and in some cases by
another round the wrist, by which they were fastened together ;
that for their diet they had, in addition to all the most luxurious
productions of their own country, served up to them, with the
richest African sauces, a plentiful meal, daily, of wholesome
English pulse ; that after breakfast they were supplied with
water to wash themselves, and their apartments were perfumed
with frankincense and lime-juice;-and that before dinner they
were amused after the manner of their country, Land the song
and the dance prevailed. Mr. Wilberforce said that this was
a false statement of the facts of the case, and he felt that if the •
impression produced on the public mind by these
statements were suffered to' continue, the continuance of the
Slave Trade was inevitable. He therefore invoked the assist=
ante of the House to remove this film from the public mind.
Evidence in contradiction to these statements was published,
from which it appeared that the meal of pulse was a meal of
horse- beans ; and the song and dance prevailing, when explained,
was found-to mean that for the sake of exercise, the unfortunate,
wretches were compelled, under terror of the lash, to dance a
s
certain time on the deck ; and one witness who was examined,
that it was his duty to dance the men, whilst another
man danced the women. The songs were songs of lamenta-
tion at being compelled to leave their native country, and were
most frequently accompanied by tears ; and one captain, more
tender-hearted perhaps than his fellows, had threatened
a woman with a flogging, because her melancholy songs affected
his spirits. With respect to the food served op with African
sauces, it was found that an instrument was sometimes carried
out for the purpose of forcing food down the throats of the slaves.
Did the House believe that these abominations would ever
have been brought to light if the captain of every slave-ship
had possessed the right of dragging the printer of the House
into any Court of Quarter Sessions in which he might think
fit to bring an action against him for libel? Then, again, with
respect to the abuses in India. Did they believe that Warren
Hastings would ever have been impeached, or those monstrous
abuses remedied, if every man in authority,whose abuses had been
detected, had possessed the right of bringing actions against the
printer of the House for the publication of libels? And ob-
serve the position in which they were placed. Persons in
authority had as much right to commence actions as other sub-
jects, and the Court could recognize no distitiction in their
cases on account of their responsibility. Did the House believe
that any abuse of Indian authority, or of any Governor of
distant provinces, could ever be brought to light, if this power
of commencing actions were acquiesced in?—( Cheers.) There
was the case of the Duke of York.—( Cheers.) Did the
House imagine that the army and the people of this
country would have acquiesced in the temporaray re-
moval of a favourite Commander-in-Chief, if they
had contented themselves with saying we have safis•
fled ourselves from the examination of evidence that such
a removal is absolutely necessary, but we are afraid to tell you
the grounds upon which we recommend it ? The freedom of
publication was as necessary for the due performance of their
duties as the freedom of debate, and whether he leoked to the
proper exercise of their legislative functions or to the exposure
of official abuses, they would be utterly incompetent to the
adequate discharge of their duties unless they were enabled at
their own discretion to enlighten the public mind,
In 1628, the Court of King's Bench and the Star Chamber
determined that they were perfectly competent to take cogn-
zance after the prorogation of Parliament, of speeches de-
livered during the Session, and had imposed fines of 2,0001.
and of 3,0001. on Members, whose only offence had been in
speaking too freely of the conduct of Ministers of State. In
1640, the House of Commons had remonstrated against this
power ; and, in 1667, the House of Lord.; and the House of
Commons, not,by legislative enactment, but by resolution, tiad
declared these decisions rcirthe'Coeirtiiinegai.- The' resolution
stated that this jiidgivient ' the 'Court of 'Eteneh; in the
sth Charles, imposing fines on Messrs. Denzil, Hol-
lis, Elliott, and Valentine, was illegal. . Those Mem-
bers had relied on an Act passed in the reign of Henry
VIII., commonly called the Act relating to Richard Stroud.
Thus lie (Sir Robert Peel) came to the conclusion, that this
privilege was necessary. The tkird proposition was, that it
could not be secured, unless the House was the sole judge of
for the use of the Members. But on
its nature and extent. Now, the Judges themselves admitted
the right of publication ,
) Supose the
e the J
Judges were to attack it. Suppose
hthe
veheaatrleast the udges were to hold
that there was no necessity topu papers to the absent
to
Members—hole was the House
failed,s_ proceed ?—( Hear, hear. )
Were they to plead? they
exhaust should they submit?—
(what security did
failed, they
trheesty!
Hear)—or would they not every:method of defence ?
and then, if they
d done their duty satisfac-
tion of reflecting that they had done would—(
11
e ahr
that they ; that they had not
tamely surrendered their rig iey had struggled to
that
the last for their privileges-- they had lost them through
• •and legal difficulties alone..,_(
legal technicalities ear, and
cheers.) The Judges, admitting
publication foisthe.use of Members, still fettered that privilege
s (Hear hear-2 Th
so that it was useless.—k e question of sale
Lor
was entirely out of the question. Denman said the plain-
of action
tiff acquired no. additional right by the sale.---( Hear,
abolishing the might, by
hear.) The House sale, remove any
nc, from it
unfavourable impression
_acruisiti „
(Loud ;but it would not
thereby lessen the difficulty.—(Loud
of Y. the— cries Of " Hear,
hear.' ) For the usell embers alone, said
papers may be published. Take
the Judges, these
Robert) was questioned as to the
vote he gave on that subject. He would not divulge the evi-
dence on which he had given the_vote.--( Hear, hear.) Mr.
A
Justice Littledale, indeed, said a Member might communicate
any matter that was not crinsinatory,—( Loud laughter. )
Why that was not the whole question.—(Hear, hear.) It
struggling for, to
was not a privilege worthtransmit what was
not criminatory.—
(Hear, hear.)
s, There would otherwise be
no impeachment of 'any public officer.—(Hear, hear.) Just
remark the glaring inconsistency. Ile (Sir Robert) might,
as a Member of that House, address her Majesty to remove a
Judge, but lie could not, according to the doctrine of the Judges,
communicate any of the information on which he had come to
that conclusion.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Was it for a mo-
ment to be supposed that he was to be at liberty to vote for
the removal of a popular .fudge, but at the same time he was
to be prevented from informing the public of the grounds on
which he gave such a vote, because if he did so he would ren-
der himself liable to an action for libel ? Mr. Justice Littledale
said all defamatory matter must be kept, within the walls of
Parliament, otherwise the moment it went beyond them, it be-
came a libel. Was the authority of the House and the
Speaker thus to be set at naught ? Ile went on to say
that no agent of the House was privileged, and they must
all act upon their -own responsibility. Let them
acquiesce in the present decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench, and they would soon be in as great difficulties as before.
Mr. Justice Patteson went a step further, He said if a Mem-

ber ceased to be a Member, or if a Member died, all his Par-
liamentary papers must be destroyed.—( A laugh.) He would
take the case of Lord Dunfermline, the late Speaker. No
doubt he had a large quantity of Parliamentary papers,
but having ceased to be a Member of that House
he must cease to use the papers—he must be careful that no one
should see them—he must destroy them, or he would be liable
to actions for libel.—(Laughter.) He would be liable to be
drawn not only into the Court of Queen's Bench, but into any
Court of Quarter Sessions in the country. He would for a
moment allude to the papers which were printed often on
the motion of hi* Right Hen. Friend ( Sir R. Inglis)
relating to the Foreign Slave Trade.—(Laughter, and
cheers.) Why every one of them teemed with libels
and what L-if the House acquiesced in the present decision—
what was to prevent the foreigner from inundating the Court of
Queen's Bench with actions for libel ? Let the House ac-
quiesce in the judgment, and then any communication made
by a Member would render him liable to an action for libel, and
the functions of the House of Commons be set at naught. The
privilege was absolutely necessary for the proper exercise of
their functions, and then even upon the Authority of Lord
Denman himself, he had made out a case. The Right Hon.
Baronet referred to several other authorities. Justified by
such authorities, he said, he could not consent to resign these
privileges which he thought they did possess, and which he
considered to be essentially necessary for the due performance
of their functions. They said the Speaker was free from accu-
sation, but how if those who acted under his orders, were to be
dragged into Court upon every publication ? Did they
not interfere with the functions of the Speaker, when
they pounced upon those who were acting under his orders ?
He (Sir R. Peel) said that every instrument that persecution
could invent should be employed before he ( Sir Robt. Peel)
would abandon the privileges of that House.—( Cheers.) He
had heard with much pain that the House of Commons had
net that influence on the public mind it once possessed. A
great alteration in the Constitution hati certainly been made
to which he had not been a party, but which he had long
ago suspected. It might be that they were inferior
to the great men that had once sat within those walls.--
(Ironical cheers.) But he would be allowed to say that if infe-
riority and degeneracy had been produced in the character of
the House of Commons, they ought not to make that a reason
for departing frora one of their noblest privileges. —( Cheers. )
Whatever inferiority there might be, they were but the tenants
of a fleeting hour—the temporary occupants of a noble fabric,
which they were bound to hand down entire as they
received it, and with filial reverence to guard it
from decay.—( Tremendous cheers.) But it had been said
that no public object Gould be gained by a violation of the
Constitution—true ; but he would first exhaust all the armoury
of constitutional weans—(Renewed cheers)—and if ever:the
House of Commons should, by the destruction of its privileges,
be annihilated—if ever the chasm should be shown where
once stood the House of Commons—depend upon it there
would rush in and fill up the void a thousand
fierce and turbid elements—by those who acknowledged no re-
spect for authority, and were bound by no regard for right—
usurping powers to which they have no title, and defending the
possession by all the means that usurper, ever resorted to.—
( Tremendous cheers.) He would conclude by a simple sen-
tence of a senator of old, who thus emphatically spoke—" If the
question were one of form merely it would be less important,
but the privileges are so paramount, that if we should yield,
the very walls that held them would blush to see a degenerate
posterity thus tamely surrender their liberties and rights."—
( The Right Hon. Bart. sat down amidst tremendous cheering.,
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Motion 205
For the Amendment
Majority for the Motion —ll5

- -
On re-entering the Gallery, we found
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving that the Sheriffs be called
in, and ordered to return the amount in their hands forthwith
to Messrs. Hansard.

Captain BOLDERO having presented a petition from Mr.
Stockdale, did not think he would discharge his duty as a Mem-
ber cf that House unless he asked that the prayer of the peti-
tion be complied with, and he would therefore move as an
amendment, that Mr. Stockdale be at once brought to the bar
of that House, so that the opportunity which he sought might
be afforded him of vindicating himself.
An Horr. MEMBER on one of the Conservative benches
having seconded the amendment,
Mr. WAKLEY would seriously ask the Hon. and Gallant
Captain, who really meant that Mr. Stockdale should be heard
in explanation, whether he thought he was serving the cause of
that person by moving and dividing the House upon a motion
that he should be called to the bar at that hour in the morning,
when in all probability Mr. Stockdale was in bed ?—( Great
laughter.) He earnestly entreated the Hon. and Gallant
Captain not to persist in his motion, because, if he did, it
was quite clear Mr. Stockdale would be prevented from ob-
taining that opportunity of defending his conduct which he
was quite sure the House would at a more fitting hour be
willing to grant.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord MAHON hoped the Gallant Captain would not persist
in his amendment. Those who were in the minority on the
last division were most anxions to meet the Government pro-
position with a direct negative, and would vote with the great-
est confidence that the public feeling would support them.—
(Hear, hear.) Even rf vanquished in the House the popular
voice of England would be raised in their favour.--( Hear,
hear.) He therefore hoped the Gallant Captain would not
press his motion.
__

Captain BOLDERO had not the slightest wish to put tke
House to inconvenience, and hoped the House would agree
he had merely done his duty.
Amendment withdrawn.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided on the second resolution, when the numbers were—
For the resolution 197
Against it
Majority ..... —ll2
On our return to the gallery, we found
Lord JOHN RUSSELL on his legs, moving that the Sheriffs
be called to the bar, and that the Speaker be requested
to communicate to them the resolutions of the House.

Mr. KELLY wished to know whether the Sheriffs were to
be called on to pay the money at any particular time, or whether
time would be afforded them to take the opinion of Counsel in
the difficulties of the position in which they were placed. He
hoped they would not be called upon at once to declare their as-
sent or dissent.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought the better course would be to
have the Sheriffs called to the bar, in the first instance, and
have the resolutions read to them.
After a few words from Mr. LAW,
The Sheriffs were called in, and the resolutions of the
House read to them by the Speaker, who also informed them
that the House would hear anything they had to' say.—( The
Sheriffs bowed and retired amidst the most deafening Tory
cheers. )
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and was met by loud cries
of " adjourn" and cheering. He said the House had hut one
course to pursue.—(Loud cries of " Adjourn.") The Sheriffs,
in proceeding to levy upon the goods of the Messrs. Hansard
knowing them to be the officers of that House, and in defiance,
of the resolutions which . had been officially, communicated to
them, might justifiably have been at once ordered into the cus.
tod3r of the Sergeant at Arms. By the course which the House
had taken they had had an opportunity of fully considering the
matter, and all doubts must have been removed from their
minds as to the authenticity of the resolutions which
had been served upon them by the Solicitor of Messrs. Hansard.
All doubt was now removed ; and as the Sheriffs had not ex-
pressed their readiness to comply with the order which the
House had signified to them he had nothing to do but to move
that the Sheriffs, having committed a breach of the privileges
of this House, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms. - -

Mr. LAW said he was surprised to hear that the Noble
Lord had expected the Sheriffs to comply at once
with what he considered to be the most unlawful
order ever issued.—( Opposition cheers.) Surely they never
would be weak and wicked enough to do so.--( Cheers.) Her
Majesty's Ministers had prevailed by numbers.—(lronical
cheers from the Ministerial benches.) They, with the Attor-
ney-General, sworn to obey the law, had endeavoured to in-
duce other officers, sworn to obey the law, to disregard their
oaths.—(No, no, and Opposition cheers.) The advice which
he gave to them was, to avoid the advice of falsehood.—
( Cheers from the Opposition.)
Sir H. INGLIS said the Sheriffs were hound to obey their
oaths, which were to execute the Queen's writs ; and it would
be perjury to act in contrariety.—( Oh, oh ! from the Ministe-
rial benches; cheers from the Opposition.)
Sir E. KNATCHB ULL then rose and said, he begged to
ask a question of the Noble Lord opposite. The proposition
before the House was for the commitment of the Sheriffs. He
did not doubt that in the warrant the Noble Lord would be
called on to sign, his Lordship would take care not to insert
the cause. He wished then to ask the Noble Lord what the
cause was, whether it vi as in consequence of the breach of pri-
vilege, or on the last resolution that had been communicated to
them.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought he had already suffi-
ciently explained the grounds of the proposed resolution. He
had stated that the Sheriffs had been guilty of a breach of pri-
vilege in seizing the goods, and he was anxious, if possible, to
avoid extremities, and give the Sheriffs every opportunity of
setting themselves right with the House. He (Lord John
Russell) had heard some declamation about breaking
of oaths, now the Sheriffs were sworn to obey the
law, and the only question, therefore, was, what was law.—.
(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The law officers
of the Crown who might be considered to know something of
law, held that the Sheriffs would have answered their oaths
and executed their writ if they had made a special return of
privilege.—(Cheers.) The question was not whether they
were called on to disobey the law and violate their oaths, but
whtther thy, law,,a,nd their oaths did not require that they should
Pursue a different course of conduct. He owned he should not
entertain such a favourable opinion of them if he were to take
their characters from the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if,
when-they came to the bar, instead of saying as they had said,
that they were sorry they had offended the House, - they
had set themselves up against the House of Commons
as a usurped authority, he should be more disposed to
feel harshly towards them than he did at present.
awl he still hoped that when they had time for further reflec-
tion they would feel disposed to payobedience to the resolutions
of the House; he certainly hoped they would not take the Hon.
and Learned Recorder for their counsel.—( Cheers. )
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON moved that the House do
now adjourn ; he was anxious to afford the Mouse
time for reflection, which would probably induce them
to desist from the steps which they were about to take.
and which he considered mist harsh and unjustifiable to the
respectable men who had just left the bsr—(Cneers)—and to-
tally unbecoming the Commons of England. Was it becom-
ing in the House to assail them, and to pass over those who
had set them in motion ? Why was the officer who had con-
fessed that he was the person who had actually seized the goods
of Messrs. Hansard passed ever ? Because he was merely
acting in a ministerial capacity. And would the House be
guilty of the gross injustice of punishing the Sheriffs, who
were also acting in merely a ministerial capacity ? The Noble
Lord had stated, upon the authority of the Attorney
and Solicitor Generals, that the Sheriffs might have
avoided being implicated, by making a special return.
With very great respect to those gentlemen, he should entirely
dissent from them. He was perfectly satisfied on the law of
this case, that no such return could be made which would be
allowed by the Court of Queen's Bench. The Noble Lord the
Member for Northumberland, had said that no Member on this
side of the House had attempted to show that the Judges of
the Court of Queen's Bench had taken a correct view of the
law ; and it was said that the opinion of the bar was against
them. Now he ( Ser„gt. Jackson)believed that it was the opinion
of every nineteen out of twenty professional gentlemen in the
Court of Queen's Bench that the conduct of the Judges was
perfectly lawful. He could also state from his own knowledge,
if it was a thing that could have any weight, that the lawyers
on the other side of the Channel were almost, all of the same
opinion. The Court of Queen's Bench was o. opinionth
that
papers published were an unjustifiable libel on Mr. Stockdale.
The lion. and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving
the House should then adjourn till to-morrow (this day), when
they met again they would be better able to deliberate on a
proceeding which involved, in his mind, a gross injustice.
Mr. H. B. BARING seconded the amendment, lie de_
precated the system of vicarious punishment by which it WIS
attempted to coerce the Sheriffs.
Upon the amendment of adfournment moved by Sergeant
Jackson, a division took place, when the numbers were—
Aye 5............. . ..................... 86
N0e5............... 189
Majority in favour of Lord John's Resolution —lO3
Alderman WOOD moved that the Sheriffs he allowed until
the House meets this evening to give in their answers.
Mr. HUME saw no objection to this motion, if in the in-

' crime there were no fears of the Sheriffs being obliged to pay
over the money.
Lord HOW ICK thought it a most strange proceeding after
the House had declared them to be guilty of contempt to give
them a certain time to declare whether they were guilty or not.
He believed the invariable rule was, that a party having been
adjudged guilty of contempt he was committed, and that on
that party's submission by petition, and declaring his readiness
to make what amends he could for his offence, the House
would grant him such indulgence as it thought 'fit.—( Hear,
hear.) The course, therefore, recommended by the Hon.
Baronet was entirely irregular,: and would lower the dignity of
that House.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir E.. Knatchbull, Sir E. Sugden,
and Sir T. D. Ackland in, support of the amendment, and the
Attorney-General against it,
Mr. 6ISBORNE believed that every Hon. Gentleman on
that side of the House was willing to respond to the sentiments
of the last speaker, could they have security they would
net thereby endanger their situation. Was the Honourable
Alderman who made the motion prepared to say the Sheriffs
would be in the same situation at four o'clock as at the present
moment—if net it was not fair to argue on the merits of the
case.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, and it was understood that the Sheriffs were
ordered to attend at the sitting of the House (this day).
PRINCE ALBERT.
In answer to Colonel SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that it was his intention to pro-
pose a sum of 50,0001. as the annuity to Prince Albert.
The House adjourned at Throe o'Clock.