The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-21 00:00:00

LVENING EDITION.

i riff, who had presented a petition in regular and decorous
terms, declaring that he would comply with the.orders of
the House, had been guilty of what he seemed to consider
a serious crime. The whole tenor*of the petition was
a sort of defiance of the House, and could not be considered
as a petition. •He should therefore oppose its reception.
Sir R. INGLIS said the only objection of the Noble.
Lord was, that the petition contained certain por-
I tions of Scripture, which might or might not apply
to the House—(Hear, hear, and ironical ebeers)—
and which the Gentlemen opposite seemed to consider ap-
plicable to themselves.—( Cheers and laughter.) The
petitioner virtually stated that he had been unjustly con-
fined—an expression as mild as could be expected from a
person incarcerated in Newgate. The Sheriff, if anybody,
was—appeared at least to be—directly referred to in the
inuendoes, he being accused of having acted unconstitution-
ally by the petitioner. If the House recollected what peti-
tions they had formerly received,:they would see that it could
not tend to conciliate the great body of their fellow subjects
if the motion should he rejected, and still more if the peti-
tion should be refused altogether. The House might
make some allowance for the angry feelings of a man who
considered himself unjustly imprisoned. He (Sir R.
Inglis) would not injure his case by referring to character.
—(Hear, hear.) With character he had nothing. to do.—
( Hear, hear.) He believed that a person -had been
imprisoned unjustly for having endeavoured, in due
course of law, to recover compensation for injury
—pronounced to be an injury by the highest civil and cri-
minal tribunal in the country, and in a judgment invoked
by that House itself. And he only asked for a" hearing at
their bar. Surely there were statements in the petition
which deserved attention; for instance, that Mr. Howard
had at first refused to act as the petitioner's attorney,
and had only yielded when reminded of his compulsory
duty so to do; but that of course now he could not be
expected to go on with the action. Would the Muse not
only refuse the prayer of the petition, but would it cvtua
refuse to allow that petition to lie on. the table? He (Sir
R. INGLIS) trusted that the Noble Lord would not con-
tinue his opposition, but if he did, he (Sir R. Inglis)
would certainly divide with the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Lord HOWICK thought that no man could doubt the
petition was an insult to the House, and that unless it
abandoned the practice it had hitherto follnwed on similar
occasions, it would say that the petition was one which
it could not receive. He would therefore move, as an
amendment to the motion, that the petition do lie on the
table—that it be rejected.
Sir G. STRICKL Np could not feel in the.present
instance that the House would be doing justice to the party
if it rejected the petition. No person could do-At that the
first part of the petition was properly worded, and it was
equally dear that'the prayer was in accordance with the
rules of the House, and the only ground on which it could
be looked upon as disrespectful was, that Mr. Stockdale
had had the bad taste to interlard it with quotations from
Scripture. He thought that the Hausa ought to look
with indulgence upon a person situated as Mr. Stockdale
was at present.
Mr. HUME had supported the Noble Lord throughout
the struggle for their privileges ; but as the Noble Lord
had brcught in a Bill which declared that the whole of
their proceedings were illegal—(No, no)—the Noble
Lord by his Bill, at all events, declared that they required
a new taw to uphold their privileges—that was declaring
that they had hitherto acted without any law.—( Laughter. )
He could not therefore object to any words in a petition
from one of the parties confined, which declared that con-
finement to be illegal, it having already been so declared
by the House. If the Noble Lord abandoned his prin-
ciples, he (Mr. H.) was determined to stick by his ; he
would therefore vote for the reception of the petition.
Mr. GREENE objected to the reception of the peti-
tion, on the ground that a most improper use had been
made of passages from the Scriptures. They were used
most irreverently, and on that ground alone he thought
the petition ought to be rejected
Sir E. SUGDEN wished that the Noble Lord had
not placed the House in such a difficulty by calling the at-
tention of the House so prominently to the wording of the
petition. Considering that Mr. Stockdale had been acting
according to the law as laid down by the Courts
of Law, some allowance ought to be made for

the feelings which must actuate him under his detention.
By the Bill before the House they were going to put an
end to the actions brought by Stockdale, and surely under
such circumstances the man might ask to be heard at the
bar against the Bill. lie begged that he should not bo
supposed to defend the tone and language of the petition,
which be disapproved of altogether—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—but considering the state of the Bill—
( Hear, hear)--he had (as we understood the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman) suggested that a petition should
be presented, but certainly not in any such terms as that
presented by the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. JAMES did not understand howany one could pre-
tend to doubt that it was the deliberate intention, of Stock--
dale to insult the House. The petition ought to be re-
jected.
Mr. DUNCOMBE, who spoke amidst cries of " Di-
vide, divide," said that he was willing to withdraw the
petition, in order that it should be amended, if the Noble
Lord '( Lord J. Russell) would consent to postpone the
Bill, to give him an opportunity of presenting a less ob-
jectionable petition.
Sir R. PEEL was always reluctant to reject a petition,
but when, as in this case, there was a deliberate intention
to insult the authority addressed by the petitioner, it was
the duty of that authority—not for its own sake, but for
the sake of the right of petition—to reject the offensive
address. The question was, whether the petition con-
tained a deliberate insult. He thought it did.—( Hear. )
The petitioner stated that he submitted an extract from a
volume published by himin 1834, which set forth that the
law-of England never-authorized or contemplated revenge,
and that when they were brought into operation for such
a purpose, they evinced weakness, or some baser motive.
When ho saw that passage, he could not far a moment

. - -
hesitate to say that the moire of the petitioner must have
been 'to offer an insult to the House. He thought the
introduction of quotations from Scripture was a bad prac-
tice, and that in the present case they were intended
as an insult. Whatever estimation he might hold the right
of petitioning in, yet he thought petitioners were bound to
use terms of courtesy and respect. In the present
case, the petitioner did not come forward at the earlier
stages of the Bill, but reserves himself to the last day,
and till almost the last moment of the last day. Now,
a large majority of the House had determined that they
were in possession of those privileges, and one of
the Under-Sheriffs having shown a disposition to defer to
that authority, those who differed from a majority claimed
credit for the Under. Sheriff for having manifested
a desire to comply with the wishes of that House.
Now in the present petition there was a charge against
that public officer of a desire to sell the adminis-
tration of justice.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He
did think that there were sufficient grounds for
deciding to reject the petition.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, and the numbers were--
Ayes 25
Noes

cause this Bill conceded to either House of Parliament
the power of pub:shing anything they might think'
proper, regardless of the law, and be thought be had a
r;ght to ask, if they gave their own printers this protection
from the consequences of what they might publish by order
of the House, that the same proteotion should be ex-
tended to those who in the exercise of their calling,
reprinted that which the House had directed its printers to
publish. The Hon. Baronet said he could not imagine
what objection would be made to the clause. He would
remind the House that last year an action had been
brought against the Times, for reprinting a report pub-
lished by the House, reflecting on a Mr. Polack.—
( Sir R. Peel here leant across, and whispered something to .j
the Hon. Bart.) He did not believe that in that case the Edi-
tor
had published any comments. Of this, however, he was
quite sure, that in the King v. Wright no comments had
been published.—(" Hear, hear," from the Attorney-
General.) On what ground unless indeed of jealousy of
their copyright--could the House abject to giving.other
printers the protection which they claimed for their -own—
a protection only in reprinting what their printer had pub-
lished—for the House could make what regulations they
pleaked against any comments? The Hein. Baronet con-
cluded by moving for leave to brim? up the clause:
The ATTORNE V-G ENERAI rejoiced to find that
the Hon. Baroaet had so completely changed his senti-
ments, that he now vvished to make the publication of the
proceedings of the House more extensive.—( Hear, hear.)
He (the Attorney-General) hoped that all stamped news
papers would republish their Report. It would be highly
beneficial that they should do so, and he hoped that that
republication would not be confined merely to the stamped
press, but that in various other shapes (he of course did
not refer to the upstart-tried or illegal press) their reports
would be given terabe public. He felt it to be his duty
to oppose the clause which the Hon. Baronet had moved
for leave to bring up. The Bill would have no chance of
passing into a law, if such a clause were introduced. He
begged to remind the Hon. Baronet that they were not
then reviewing the law of libel, but he hoped the time
would soon come when that law would be reviewed, and
discussed, and altered—( Heat )—when truth should not be
deemed to be a libel, and wh n it would be a sugeient
defence to any proceedings, to say. that the allegations
contained in the libel were true.--(Hear, hear.) In the
present case they were providing a particular remedy for
a particular grievance, and the observations of-the Hon.
Baronet did not apply. In the case a Polack v. Lawson,
•, the actim teas not tor publishing reports, but for pub
liahing extracts and comments'upon thein.74 Hear, hear.'
But he believed that when this Bill passed into a law, no
newspaper would be • placed under any apprehension of
proceedings, either civil or criminal, for republishing the,
reports of the proceedings of either Reuse of Parliament.
Ho thought it much better that the Bill should be con-
fined to its criginal object, and that they should not ex
tend the remedy beyond this grievance.—( Hear, bear.)
Sir E. SU.SaDEN said the clause that be had intro-
duced, but subsequently withdrew, was calculated not only
to meet the mischief which the clause of the Hon. Baro
net was pointed et, but would hare protected the persona
to whom their printer might make sub-sales, and also
those publishers who might republish iheir reports in the
shape of books. It very seldom answered the purpose of
the press to copy the whole of their reports. The objoct
was ro give faithful extracts, or a condensed review, or
such passages as were deserving of public attention; and
he thought that all such things should be protected. He
lad withdrawn his clause because he felt that the machin
cry of the Bill would not work out that object, and for that
reason he would advise hia Hon. Friend not to press his
clause. He was in favour of the principle, but he thought
it ought to be carried out in a different way, and if a sepa
rate Bill were brought in for that purpose, he should vote
for it. lie knew that newspapers would not incur much
risk by making bona fide extracts from their reports, and
be believed that bona fide extracts would be found tdbe
already warranted by the rules of law. He thought it
would be an inconvenience to introduce that particular
clause into the Bill, and be therefore hoped his Hob.
Friend would withdraw it, because it would give him (Sir
E. Sugden) occasion to vote against it, which he
would feet bound to do if pressed to a division.
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS, the clause was

negatived without a division.
Sir E. SUGDEN then moved the omission of the se-
cond clause of the Act. pursuant to the motion he had
given. The matter hr.d been so fully discussed on a former
evening that he felt it was unnecessary tor him to detain
the House with any observations in support of the motion.
The SPEAKER suggested that the object of the
Right Han. Gentleman would be better answered by
moving the omission of that part of the preamble which
related to the 2d Clause.
Sir E. SUGDEN acquiesced.
The question having teen put,
Lssrd J. RUSSELL said that, as the Hon. Gentleman
had truly observed, the subject having been so fully discussed
on a former occasion, he thought it unnecessary to make
any observation in support of the motion, and for that
reason it was altogether unnecessary for him (Lord John
Russell) to make any statement in opposition to it,—
( Hear, hear.) He had stated the other night the grounds
on which he thought it reasonable the clause should be
allowed to stand part of the Bill. It did not refer to the
general question, but to the numerous actions brought in
the course of the present Session; and it did appear to
him that when they were legislating upon the subject, it
would be as well to put an end to all the quettions that had
arisen upon it.
Lord HO WICK objected to the clause in its present
shape, because Le thought it ought to go much fur.
thee, and if they were to protect their servants,
in enforcing their authority, the clause ought not merely
to extend to the actions which had been brought by Stock.
dale. or Pearse, or Howard, but to any future actions
which they might bring for what they deemed to be a tres-
pass. Unless, therefore, the clause was altered, he should
vote in favour of the motion of the Right Hon. and

Learned Member for Ripon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it would be
much better that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
It would put an end to all disputes and controversies that
had taken place down to the very day the Bill received the
Royal assent.
Sir. DA RBY said the clause did not provide for any
action that might be brought after the passing of the Bill.
If they went to stop those actions in general, they ought
to introduce a clause of the same nature as the first clause,
and put an end to them altogether. Let them not take a
middle course, and stop existing actions, without venturing
to stop actions that might be brought after the Bill bad re-
ceived the Royal assent.
Mr. GORING thought the Bill would be altogether a
nullity, for sooner or later the House must appoint a Com..
mittee to supervise all that was ordered to be printed ; it
would then be a nonentity. He was opposed to it alto-
gether, but particularly to the clause in question. How•
ever, he cared little for it, as he was convinced that the
Bill could never pass in another House.
Sir R. PEEL said the speech of the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down ought to have been made when the
general question of the Privileges of the House were under
discussion ; the Bill bad been read a third time, and the

Majority
The petition was therefore rejected. second clause. His opinion was that the privileges of the
PRINTED PAPERS BILL. House remained intact—the Bill would only prove a nets
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of legislative security, which could bo much more easily got
the Printed Papers Bill, when at than by using their own power. No doubt their privi-
Sir ROBERT HARRY INGLIS proposed to insert leges were great, and the powers of the House extensive,
the following -clause:a-. And be it further enacted, that it but the Bill provided a simple and more effectual remedy
shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, who than putting those powers in operation. If the officer of
hereafter shall be a defendant or defendants in any civil or the House used unnecessary violence, or committed untie-
criminal proceeding, commenced or prosecuted for the cessary wrong in executing the warrant of the Speaker,
publication of any such report, paper, votes, or proceed- of course the party sustaining that wrong had a right to
ings, in any newspaper published according to the direc- reparation ; whether in a Court of Law or otherwise, it
lion of an Act passed in the seventh year of the reign of was not necessary then to determine. Although he was
his late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter 76, afraid that they would weaken their privileges by passing
intituled, An Act to reduce the duties on newspapers, the clause, still, upon the recommendation of the Learned
and to amend the laws relating to the duties on news- Attorney-General, be was disposed to vote for it, although
papers and advertisements, to apply as aforesaid for a cer- with considerable doubt.
tificate, stating that the report, paper, votes, er proceedings, Sir R. ING LIS strongly objected to the clause, because
forming the ground of such civil or criminal proceeding, any warrant issued by any Court, however legally issued,
was published by order or under the authority of the House might be abused in its execution, for which there ought to
of Lords, or of the House of Commons (as the case may be and was redress to be obtained in a Court of Law.
be), and which certificate is hereby authorized to be The question was not as to tlie legality of the warrant of
granted upon such application, and, having obtained the the Speaker, but whether there was undue violence used
same, to' apply to any Judge of her Majestv's Superior in its execution. He would vote with his Right Honour-
Courts of Common Law at chambers or elsewhere, upon able and Learned Friend.
an affidavit verifying such certificate; and further do- Mr. T. HOBHOUSE was altogether oppposeed to the
posing, that such publicatiou in such newspaper was a true Bill. He thought it was a deviation from sound sense and
transcript or copy of such report, paper, votes, or pro- principle, but still be was anxious to make it as reasonable
ceedings, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for as possible, and he would, therefore, help es much as was
such Judge, upon due summons and notice, to stay such in his power to reject the clause in question.
civil or criminal proceeding upon such terms as to such Strangers were then ordcrcd to withdraw.
Judge shall seem fit.'" The Hon. Member said the Bill was The House divided, when the numbers were—
proposed to be read a third time on these grounds : —that it For the chose llO
was essential to the due discharge of their legislative funct ions Against it
that publicity should be given to their proceedings. How, Majority
he would ask, could they consistently refuse that protec- On the question that the Bill do pass,
tion which they gave to their own publishers to those Mr. HUME said that he must enter his protest against
parties who might print the evidence taken before the the whole proceedings.
House? Their object could not be a dread of monopoly, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN would not oppose the
or a jealousy of the publicity which might be given to passing of the Bill, trusting that the Noble Lord would
their proceedings by the Times and Morning Post. He consider how their publications might be so controlled as
did not believe, cn the other hand, that they were actuated to prevent the publication of libels upon individuals. •
by the more worthy motive of making those publishers The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, with every
responsible for what they might print at their own risk. positron to control their publications, they would not cramp
If they granted protection to Messrs. Hansard,. how or in any way curtail their right of publishing what they
could they refuse it to those who carried out the views of thought proper. He did not believe that any material la-
the House by giving their proceedings. an
by
sira
owncir- jury had hitherto been done to private character.
culation ten times greater than that The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the objections be
ngedicedlid trot complain originally entertained to the measure continued as strong ai
Peliishers? The parties who peri:w House
of the present law, but they asked the . not to put ever.
ehich would inevitably be the •
them in a worse position, Mr WARBURTON would not be a party to any com
case if the present Bill were passed;.if it passed, they
promise of their right of publication.
would be exposed to the whole vengeance of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested a change
injured parties, because they would net be enabled to have in the title of the Bill, in order "to give protection to
vengeance upon the printers and publishers of the House. persons employed in the execution of certain warrants
He Confined his motion to giving protection to those psi.- granted by the Speaker of the House of Commons during
ties who rigidly obeyed the late law respecting newspapers the present Session."
—he wanted the protection of the law only for 'those per- The Bill was then passed.
sons who obeyed the law, and under the law alluded to In answer to a question from an Hon. Member on the
paid a large tax to the revenue of the country. If any 0 position side of the House,
newspaper violated the law by non-payment of the Stam pMe MORE °TERRA LL stated that it was in con.
duty, such paper would not be included in the protection
he temptationeclito increase the means of communication with
afforded by the clause which he proposed to brin. !Mediterranean by-means of Government steamers.
trusted it would not be raised as an objection to the clause ROYALthe
MILITARY ACADEMY AT WOOL-
that it would be imposing an act of tooljgreat condescension WICII.
on the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker of the House of Captain BOLDER° then rose to call the attention of
Commons to call upon them to issue their certificate u on the House to the state of 'discipline of the Royal Military
the prayer of parties claiming the protection of the claupse, Academy at Woolwich. It had been stated, in a highly
because the whole gist of the clause was to rotect artier respectable journal devoted to the naval and military see-
.' .
v:ho had been guilty of no possible demerit except of Phaving %tee, that the Government was making that establishment
done that, without the authority of the House specifically subservient to electioneering purposes ; bat the.object.he
requiring them to do so, which some one else had done by had in view was to call the attention of the House to the
the authority of the House ; and he considered they were i state of discipline of that academy. It appeared, that
entitled to the protection they sought, because they fulfilled I during the last nine or tea months, it had been found
the declared intentions of the House by giving increased I requisite to remove sixteen or seventeen cadets, although,
publicity to their publications. He could see many red- lin his experience, it would have required as many years to
sons against the 11111, but few or none against this clause, have removed that number. Ile therefore felt anxious to
if the Bill should pass. lie was willing to admit that ascertain why it had been, thought necessary to discharge
the promoters of the 'Bill had made great concessions lso many li, so short a period. He was aware that some
—they had conceded in fact, although not specifically the f had beeneemoved for idleness and want of ability, but the
whole point at issue, as their object was to obtain that by larger portion had been removed by the decision of a corn.
an Act of the Legislature which they bad all along mittce for some breach of military discipline. There
contended, the House was competent to obtain by its were various shades of punishments, and removal was
own privileges, but which they admitted, by bringing for- one of those resorted to while the ,boys were
ward
.this Bill, their privileges were not competent to idle or a little vicious, but expulsion was attended with
effect. But Hon. Members who acted with him, and yet many disastrous consequences, because the result 'weathnt
supported the Bill, bad also made great concessions, ht. they wore debarred from entering the Bost India-Cala