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

_ .
The Al rORNEY-GENERAL desired him to

ook to a letter, dated August 29, 1839, and purpor
ins to he addressed by him (Stockdale) to the Messrs.
Hansard, and to say if it was written by him.
The letter spoke of the House of Commons as hay
ing evinced the moat " reckless audacity"—(Laughter:
—and tyranny, in endeavouring to prevent him from
bringing the actions which be was resolved nevertheless
to press.
Stockdale, having had the book containing the letter
handed to him, said, dryly, on receiving it, "Allow me
to observe, Mr. Attorney, that I have never seen
this book." The drollery of the style in which
this observation was delivered created roars of
laughter, in which Mr. Attorney, as Stockdale, with
judicial familiarity termed him, heartily joined. At
last Stockdale replied, that he had no doubt he had
written the letter. He was then asked by
Mr. LAW—At the time of writing that letter did
you not believe that as a British subject you had a right
to bring the actions ?—Stockdale—Most decidedly.
Stockdale having withdrawn,
Lord J. RUSSELL said—After what has been
stated by Mr. Stockdale, Sir, I have only to move, that
' for hating instituted these action, he has committed a
breech of the privileges of this House.
Sir E. KNATCH BULL wished to know the course
the Noble Lord ineant to pursue afterwards.
Lord J. RUSSELL sei:.i he meant to follow up this
resi,ution by one of puuishin-nt, and then proceed with
the oth. r eases.
( Mr. LA W said he did not consider that her Ma-
-1 jesty's Atterney-rjenerel had mule out a sufficient case
before this Court—( A laugh, and ironical cries of " Hear,
beer'')—!hi, tribunal, wiiich, if not possessing, the
form,, has alt the sW;stance of a Court. True, they had
extoi ted irons Stock dale that he had written a let-
ter—rerteinly written in the worst taste, and in
term:, which it i.vis impossible to justify ; but
substantially that letter only asserted that he con-
sidered he had, as a British subject, in common law,
right et !tcton rc.; tinst the Mrssrs. Hansard, which
that Hoes(' could net dem Ivo him of, and which he
'NW; prep:- e I to pro-s in a British Court of Justice.
And bong pre,,s,:d upon the question, most distinctly
declared Lis fi:-rn conviction to at by the laws of our
cool:Doi cowitry he was entitled to maintain the action
welch tr• bll 00:1)11;!!!CCfl to obtain redress for a gross
o•-• .s, -ire Wl, i': to he endured that the privileges
~,ii., ~.,
lof t lint. H ,114;,, tv:iich had ail-P.44 been submitted to the
dec.sien of. a Court of Justice, should not now he
contras cried as matters of fact by another Court. He
was unwilling that the Reuse shook! proceed with
r ,shness ter it the lleusc proceeded to determine the
motion of the Neble Lord that night, they would find
themselves in a position fr.-_.m which it would be difficult,
if not dangerous, to recede. He wished them
not te pr nears! to adjudicate upon the conduct of Mr.
Steckdal: ; it would he rather for the dignity of the
House that the matter should not be determined then
e tiller Ai r.n.,.t ive; y ~r nczatively, anti therefore he
would move as an amendment that Mr. Stockdale bw
now di,nib4r4ed from his attendance on the House.—
( A laugh.)
Sir H. ING (AS rose with much pleasure to second
the motion of his Honour ible Friend. In no Court of
Justice in Westminster Hall, or elsewhere, actuated
by the pore spirit of je,tiee, could those questions
which the H.iuse had leeiy heard, be put to a witness,
i far less to a part y—more especially the last questions,
' which distinctly lel the party to criminate himself.
That toter which had been read was ackn exlegedly
written by him, but. he had no hand in its publication
He :me'ored the tin-use to pause before they placed
themselves in such an awkward situation. Siipposing
the MOLl'lrl to he ,agreed to, w is the House prepared to
carr) it out in all its coeseeuences ? The House had
assarned to itself sovereign authority, and by that
sovereign authority they might imprison a fellow-subject
in their common gaol of' Newgate. This warrant, of
course, would be signed by the Speaker, Mr. Stockdale
would to-morrow move fir a writ of habeas corpus—
did they mean to say that the mere production of the
Speaker's warrant by the Sheriff would prevent
the Court from liberating the party ?—(Yes,
g)
• YMean to ti.stnlatticiipatt,e4s tilniat answer,
their but
power
tostodpi d they
e nac_
• tion for false imprisonment brought against their offi-
cer. He apprehended that they could not, and there-
fore they would have a new difficulty in their way next
week. Would the House follow up its resolution by
another resolution threatening any one with the ptinisl;.-
/rent for contempt who brought an aoti•n for false im-
prisonment under such circumstances? Was it possi-
ble that any one could for a moment contend that such
was the law of England. It it was the law, then let
pe
,op lo generally know the fact. He cordially con-
eurre i
d n the amendineet.
voted yesterday He hoped that those who
tor summoning the parties to the bar,

and who had lately seen the inquisitorial proceedings
which had taken place, wherein the party was obliged '
to convict himself, would reconsider the Matter; and
give such a vote that
right as Would relieve the House
froth the position to which they were hurrying, which
must end in confirmed degradation.
Lord ELIOT, before the House divided, thought it
necessary they should know on what ground they were
going t punish Mr. Stockdale. If it was for the
11 letter which had been read, and which *as most dis=
graceful and deserving of punishment, be would wil;
lingly vote for the motion ; but if, on the other hand,
they were going to punish him for seeking his remedy
for a grievance in a Court of Law, he would, consist-
ently with the other votes he had given upon the ques-
tion, vote for the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said Mr. Stock-
dale was not to be punished on the ground of his having
used bad language, but because of his having delibe-
rately brought an action against their servant, against
the privileges of the House, and for treating that as a
libel which had been published by the House of Com-
mons. The Hon. and Learned Member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge said that the case against Mr.
I Stockdale was a very meagre one. Surely he was un-
acquainted with the whole facts of the case. The Hon.
and Lenrned Gentleman then recapitulated the whole
facts of the case from the commencement of the action
up to the present time, and contended that Mr. Stock-
dale had violated two resolutions of the House, and so
long as they stood upon the Journals the House could
not agree with the amendment.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that, as the case then before
the House would form a precedent, it was extremely
necessary that there should be no misunderstanding
upon any point, and he thought it would be better that
the offence for which Mr. Stockdale was to be punished
should be recited in the resolution. He certainly could
not vote for the committal of Mr. Stockdale for having
written the letter.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had intended to move
the resolution nearly in the terms suggested by the
Right Hen. Baronet, but the Attorney=General re-
marked to him that as the privileges of the House
would, most likely, soon be questioned in another
place, and as the action and the proceedings upon it
would form matter of argument connected with their
privileges, it was necessary that they should proceed
with exceeding caution. That also was the opinion of
his Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, who thought
it was highly necessary to be very cautious in making
any omission whatever, and he (Lord J, Russell) was
the more inclined to follow that advice in con-
sequence of what had fallen from the Right
Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Inglis)
who appeared inclined to go much further than even
the Judges, for he said that although the House might
have the power to prevent, still they had no power to
interfere, in order to prevent an action for false impri-
sonment against their servant. He saw in every step
they took that there was more and more inclination
upon the part of the Members of that House to make
a stand against their privileges, and, therefore, he
thought they should be extestdingly cautious in what
they admitted.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE agreed with his Noble Friend
(Lord Eliot) for he thought great doubt would rest in
the minds of the public of the propriety of their pro-
ceedings, unless the alleged offence was recited in the
resolution. Were they already shrinking from the reso-
lutions they had so hastily adopted ?—(Hear, hear.)
That was what their present conduct amounted to ;
and unless, they recited—unless they gave an exact de-
scription of the offence in the resolution, the public
would say they had sent Stockdale and the Sheriffs,
who, be it remembered, were elected by the public voice
—they would say that they were smuggling them into
Newgato. Many Members last night had voted in the
majority under the idea that the parties were to be
called to the Bar to account for their conduct only,which,
in the case of the Sheriffs, would be doing only an act of
justice. They would state that they were not the real
offenders—that they had acted under the orders of the
Court of Queen's Bench, the Judges of which had said
that no subject of the Queen should meet with ag-
gression and be denied redress. Lord Denman in-
vited all who were aggrieved to come to him and
they should receive redress. That was the position in
which they stood, and he wanted to know how they
would proceed when the Sheriffs stated at the bar that
in all they had done, they acted under the authority of
Lord Denman. The House had made a precedent
last Session. In the Metropolitan Police Bill while
regulating public-houses, they had declared that no child
under sixteen years of age, should be served with spiri-
tuous liquors. In awarding punishment for an offence
against that law, they did not punish the child, but the
punishment was awarded to the person giving him the
ardent spirits. Why not apply that precedent to the
present case ? The Sheriffs had nothing to do with
the matter, it was the Judges of the Queen's Bench.
Would the House proceed to punish them ? He differed
from many of his friends, but he differed conscientiously ;
he might be in error, probably he was so, but if so,
he was countenanced in his error by many eminent
1 Members of that House ; many great authorities in
the law ; and, more than all, public opinion was cer-
tainly with him.—(" No, no.") That remained to be
proved ; but he trusted that before they sent any one
into confinement, they would state on the face of the
record the offence which the party had committed.
Mr. PEMBERTON then rose to address the
House, but was totally inaudible in consequence of the
noise occasioned by the Members leaving the House.
We understood him to say, that in the present state of
affairs and of public opinion, he did not think that
it was proper or wise to advance a claim of privilege
which had not been insisted upon for one hundred
and thirty years, and against which there had been re-
peated decisions at law. He could not conceal from
himself the difficultieswith which this case was surrounded,
and this conviction he still entertained, notwithstanding he
had given it his best and most candid consideration. It was
most important to consider the precise question which they
wore called upon to decide. The Hon. Member then
enumerated the principal facts of the case, and said be
would earnestly entreat the House to consider whether
there was any foundation for the course which they were
now called upon to adopt, An action had been brought
against Mr. Hansard, for the publication of certain pro-
ceedings of that House.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Mr.
Hansard admitted both the publication and the libel
by allowing judgment to 4-0 by default.—( Hear. )
What good could result from the continued discussion of
a subject with which he was convinced the House had no
power to deal, unless it assumed a power which it could
not maintain, of controlling the Courts of Law? Whether
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench were right
or wrong, the question they were called upon to consider
was, whether that House had jurisdiction to deal with that
Court; he considered such interference was most per-
nicious—and be called upon it to pause in its present
career, unless, indeed, it felt a perfect assurance of its
power properly and fully to deal with the matter now
under its consideration, which, he again repeated, it had
not, however much the decision of the Queen's Bench
might affect its privileges. Case after case had occurred
before, yet the House had never interfered, though it
had now decided that the privileges of that House were
superior to the decision of the Courts of Law.
Why was not this privilege alleged before ?
Why, was it not alleged in 1823, when an action for a
publication of precisely the same nature was brought?
The Hon. and Learned, Member thin referred to several
ca.es, amongst others that of Ashby and White, in 1703 ;
from that period down to 1837, the House of Commons
had never once attempted to vindicate that privilege. He
would entreat Hon. Members to pause before they gave
their vote upon this occasion—there was danger in perse-
vering with it--and consequences which no man could fore-
see. He sincerely believed that House had taken an er-
roneous view of the decision of the Queen's Bench—a
decision which he believed to be the very essence
of law. In the case of Ashby and White the guilty
party had been committed. Did Ashby's committal
prevail ? Did it strike terror into other parties, or
prevent them following the example which the House
intended to discourage ? No ! it had a contrary
effect, it created fourteen other different actions, and in
every instance the parties were committed. and so would
be the result in the present case. What had been the re-
sult of those actions? The House of Commons had passed
a resolution to the effect that any party bringing an action
affecting the privileges of that House would be held
guilty of a gross violation of its privileges. He thought
that resolution had never been brought before the Lords.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the caso of
Ashby and White had been brought before the Lords in
arrest of
,judgment, therefore they could not look beyond
the record.
Mr. PEMBERTON said, whichever way it was it did
not affect his argument. This was not a question for the
House of Commons, but for the Lords; and he implored
the House to consider what was the decision of the. Lords
in March, 1774, in declaring Ashby not guilty in prose-
cuting an action in due course of law, and recovering
.damages, though held by that House to be a violation of
its privileges. He was unwilling to interfere with the
feelings of the House on this subject, but what was the re-
solution which the House had passed but an attempt
to deter parties from bringing actions it was exer-
cising an arbitrary power, and was an improper
interference with the law of the land, with which it was in
diametrical opposition, and of what value was the decision
of that House, except it was in accordance with the law ?
The Law Courts had power to decide questions affecting
the Crown ; and would it be contended that the privileges
of that House were greater than those of the Crown 7
He would ask, why, if the attorney was to be dragged to.
the bar of the House, the Counsel were not to be dragged-
there also, and he would say, but not in any spirit ofbra-
vado, that the Counsel were, to the number of 300, if ne-
cessary, to be dragged to the bar of that House ; and
if they were to commit one half of the bar, that would not
prevent the other half from doing their duty. What bad
been the result of the case of Ashby and White, and of the
conflict between the House of Lords and the House of
Commons consequent thereon. The House of Commons
had committed Ashby and his Attorney and his Counsel.
The House of Lords committed the officers of the House
of Commons, and with such violence was this contest con.
ducted, that a prorogation of Parliament became necessary,
and the result of that prorogation was that every individual
committed by the House of Commons was set at libe.rty at
the close of the Session ; but such was not the case with the
parties committed by the Court of Queen's Bench; every
one 0± the plaintiffs recovered damages in the actions they
had brought, and every individual committed by the House
of Commons was discharged, and. this must be the result
of the present proceedings. Did. the House of Commons,
when they met after the prorogation, recommence their pro.