The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-18 00:00:00

11164, 44A11)
/-1/ • • ?!
ffk,?

6.4„,
bcf
• to should commit these persons in close custody, and
I.VIN na person should be allowed to speak to them.
Mr. LAN% said that he was disappointed in hearing the
sentence of the Noble Lerd. He thought he was about
to renew the peire forte et dire. The Noble Lord's ap-
petite for punishment must be of an unbounded stomach,
if he wished to go further. Did it become the dignity of
the House to act with intemperance and irritation cha-
racteristic of an individual's stormy passions—( Hear,
hear)—considering the proceedings were in vindication of
a power which many believed to be unfounded, and which
had already been, and was now, vindicated by the con-
tinual retentian of the imprison( d moiety of the Sheriffs of
Middlesex?—( Hear, and a laugh.) If the House was dis-
posed to stamp its proceedings with the character of re-
veoge—not of a just vindication of its privileges—it would
take the course suggested by the Noble Lord.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he certainly hoped the House
would proceed with calmness, of which, by the bye, the
Learned Recorder had given somewhat a bad specimen.
—( Hear, hear, and loud laughter.) The Noble Lord bed
not suggested anything revengeful.—( Hear, hear.)
Whether the Noble Lord's proposition was prudent or not
he would give no opinion, as it was not now before them ;
hut this ho would say, that it was their duty to take every
step necessary to support the privilege contended for.—
( Hear, hear, bear.) If this person, Stockdale, persisted
in bringing forward his action, the House should prevent
him by withdrawing him from his attorney, unless there
was no other and better course to pursue. But he thought
there was. Mr. Howard could•not be carrying these actions
on by himself, being in prison ; they were carried on by a
clerk of his named Pearce. Now why should the She-
riffs have been punished for what, after all, was but a mis-
taken sense of duty ; and this clerk be allowed to treat the
privilege of the House with deliberate Ind wilful contempt!?
Sir E. SUGDEN said he wished to ask the Noble Lord
whether or not the words in the first Resolution were in-
tended to include the Jury. The Noble Lord said, No ;
and the Noble Lord would now see the effect of refusing to
give the Gentlemen who voted in the minority on this ques-
tion the slightest intimation of the course he intended to
pursue. He now came with his Resolution drawn, which
was read from the chair, and they were compelled to ascer-
tain the meaning of those complicated terms from a single
reading. He believed that in the 'Words "other persons"
were included the Juries. but trio Noble Lord prevented
him from having the means of forming an opinion, and he
was called upon to vote for a Resolution the terms of which
be could not understand. He congratulated the Noble
Lord ( Howick) upon his proposition. A resolution based
upon it would be an appropiiate following up of the met-
- sures pursued. The Hon. Member for Dublin said they
should pursue every course which would enable them to
carry their point. To he sure Cromwell's Parliament was
of the same opinion, and inflicted torture to secure their
privileges. They dared not do this in the present day,
tut he saw Hon. Gentlemen who wore prepared to do all
they could do—they only wanted the power—(llcar,
bear)—and therefore the Noble Lord proposed solitary
confinement. The Noble Lord would not believe that
the great body of the people were against him, and the
House had loudly cheered when the petition from Leicester
was presented. A strong feeling was excited in the
country on the subject, whit h he thought should induce
the Noble Lord to pause in the course he was par suing.
Mr. INGHAM thought the House should not adopt the
proposition of the Noble Lord, otherwise it would be in-
valved in another contest.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had been accused by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon with not
listening to the voice of reason, because he had not adopted
the suggestion which had come from the other side of the
House. In the course that he had adopted he had acted
upon the highest authority, and with a desire to preserve
the privileges of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.)
With regard to a want of courtesy on his part, or not
having stated what his resolutions were, he thought he
might return that charge upon the Hon. Members opposite,
who had said that those who were only anxious to pre-
serve the privileges of the House of Commons had acted
with tyranny.—( Hear, bear.) And as to the proposition of
his Noble Friend the Member for Northumberland ho
thought no very fair construction had been put upon it by
Members on the other side of the House.—( dear, hear.)
His Noble Friend's object was to show that by severity
of punishment they might deter others from acting as
Mr. Howard had done.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
He was of the opinion of the Hon. and learned Member
for Dublin, that any servants or clerks of Mr. Howard's
who should be employed on such occasions, were fairly
liable to the displeasure of the House; and that an
intimation to them to that effect would be better than if
it were addressed to Mr. Howard. Ile should refer
to the main object of those proceedings ; the main
object they had in view, was to maintain the power
of publication for useful purposes—the object they
bad in view, was to maintain the power of ordering the
, publication of that information which should be useful to
the country and the Constitution, and which would be
published not for private objects, nor for the gratification
of private malignity, but for the purpose of giving infor-
mation which might be useful to the country in general,
and which might improve our leg'slation and our govern-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) Their right to that power had
been diiputed, but he had an authority which he found in
the newspapers of the day, but which had a high name
affixed to it—it was an opinion of Lord Denman, in a case
of Lord Beresford against Easthope and Black, and which
be wished to refer to. Lord Denman is reported to have
said, that " No question had been made at the bar, and
that none could now be made any where, that free discus-
sion ought to be encouraged ; and that the facts in which
all were concerned should be communicated to all." An
account, for instance, of the proceedings of that day
would he held by all Courts not to be actionable, though it
might reflect severely on the character of individuals. It
should appear to be a bona fide report of the proceedings
which had taken place. That principle was founded on
the advantages the public derived from the publication of
such proceedings—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear,")—and,
from the importance and interest which belonged to them.
Nobody, on the other hand, could publish, on his own ac-
count, any reflection on the private character of indi-
viduals, without being able to substantiate the state-
ments ho had made.—(Loud cries of " Hear, bear.")
Now that was precisely what he (Lord John Russell) was
contending for. The quotation he had given was, accord-
ing to the Newspapers, part of a judgment delivered by
Lord Denman no longer ago than Saturday last. What
the House of Commons had to complain of was the
Courts of • Law took it for granted that the House of
Commons had been engaged in a series of libels for the
sake of publishing libellous matter. The House of Com-
mons had no interest but to make public certain proceedings
of theirs. They had no animosity against individuals to
gratify—thsy bad no desire to make a gain or profit by
the sale of such publications. They had merely contended
that the House of Commons should be allowed to publish its
proceedings, and that what they thought to he a privileged
publication should be' held to be so by the Courts of Law.
The charge brought against them was the same as if they
should say that the Courts of Law had made statements
reflecting on individuals, and that slander against private
persons should not issue from the Bench. The Judges,
in the course of their duties, are often obliged to say
that, which reflects mast severely on the cha-
racter of individuals, and they now actcd as if they
should say--.. True it is that continually happens, but it is
done in the course of our judicial duties, but it is not
done for the sake of reflecting en any individual, or for the
purpose of injuring private character, and we therefore think
that the Judges arc commendable for pursuing the course
they have taken." The House of Commons said that the
same respect ought to be paid by the Judges to one of the
high Courts of the land—to the House of Commons of the
empire—and that they ought not to have taken it for granted
- —they ought not to have wantonly believed that it could
have been the object of the House of Commons to publish
private libels.--( Hear, hear.) He had said this because
Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite had again raised the
question; and it appeared to him that the opinion which
had been delivered by Lord Denman was applicable to
the present case. But there was another thing which he
observed Right Honourable Gentlemen opposite talk
of—they had talked of the enormities committed
in former times by Houses of Commons, and the extreme
lengths to which they had gone, and of the sort of tyranny
which had been often exercised by the House. He could
not bear those statements made with respect to their ances-
tors in the House of Commons without stating his opinion
as being generally in favour of the course the House of
Commons had taken on the occasions referred to. The
contest in these times was whether liberty of speech should
be punished or not, and Members of the House of Com-
mons had in the times referred to of James the First, it
being sought after in the House of Commons itself by
Charles the Second, for the purpose of doing away with
freedom of debate. At that time the House of Commons
had gone to greater lengths than it,had ever done before.
He alluded to the time of Charles ll.' when it had been
the object of the Crown to suppress freedom of speech.
He believed the Speaker Williams, and those who had
acted with him on that occasion, deserved the gratitude of
the country--( Hear, hear)—for the stand they had made
in exercising their authority. The contest had not then
been carried on against individuals, but it was a contest for
liberty against slavery, acd he wits surprised that those men
should now be stigmatized for the course they had followed,
as if the present House of Comm should deny the services
of men who had obtained for thethteicnans. privilege of speaking
their minds, and of exercising
the: rights they possessed as
people of England.--
the free representatives of the
( Hear.) He had thought it ndeheressary to say thus much
because, although they lived in n•heizidt tismuechs, and though
he did not apprehend that they
contend against, yet if they tried in that d Wegues er s to
depreciate former Houses of Commons, or to c
on those who 'had contended for their
days, he knew not what new authority they
might other
whether it might he some tribunal
up, or •
oligarchy
set
privileges in
a slur
er oligarchy
which they might inflict on the nation ; but he was sure
they would destroy all the value and dignity of the House
of Commons, and with it the best interests of the country.
Sir E. SUGDEN here made some observations which
did not reach us.
Lord ELIOT said .he did not think that the corn.
merit of the Noble Lord on the opinion delivered by Lord
Justice Denman, was applicable in the present instance,
inasmuch as they had allowed judgment to go by default,
and the Court might otherwise have held the publication
not to have been libellous. He concurred in the senti-
ments expressed by the Noble Lord with regard to the
proceedings of the Parliament of Charles the First, and
be felt some little vanity from the circumstance of an an.