The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-14 00:00:00

cause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged to ob-
serve, although it was not his intention to support any
part ~f the Bill—(Laughter, and hear, hear)—that this
amendment appeared to go very much beyond the ob-
ject which the Noble Lord stated when he introduced
his Bill. The Bill; as he understood, was framed only
to meet a particular evil. That evil was, that persons
meting under the authorityof the House might have action-
brought against them during the recess, and be put to
ineonvedience and loss before the House could meet.

In order to meet that special case the present Bill was
brought forward, and the machinery of the Bill was
ealculate4 only to carry that object into effect. In
"Jews of actions brought against the servant of either
House, for any publication made by order of the House,
the certificate of the Speaker of either House of Par-

ant or of the Clerk of the House of Commons,

that such publication had been made in obedience
to the orders of the House, was sufficient
to put a stop to such action. In granting these certifi-
cates the officers of the House were exercising little
than merely ministerial functions ; but if they
rent in any respect beyond that, they would be called
tpat to discharge duties which he did not think that
13 ouse would choose to impose upon them. It. might be
pw.sible that persons republishing these reports might
Au so in such a manner as to show that they were ac-
tatted by express malice ; while with regard to the of-
Niers of the House, acting under the orders of the
Reuse. no malice could be predicated of them, but the
mu:lent they went beyond those officers they might he
under their protection persons and publications
rtlaiez circumstances plainly showed were actuated by
grallu.c. The proposal of his Right Hon. and Learned
Tlric43,l was not within the scope and original object of
the and called for a more wide and extended consi-
-11.,4•2tien. He would therefore submit that they would
uct ezpetiite the object of this Bill by suffering these
lat`tx-mtisni to be made ; if tbat object were, as he sup-
-oscti, to the defence of the servants of that
cus Ter publishing matter in obedience to the orders
• of that House.

9ir EDWARD SUGDEN would grant that it
itx(l4l4 'De necessary to have other machinery if
amlndistect were carried. The object he
Mil in view was merely to correct the principle.
1.12 r (mid, therefore, without pressing it to a division,
h:s amendment put, and he hoped the Noble
Lord would consider whether a Bill could not be
"I"e<mght to effort that proper object. The Richt
lion. Member concluded by moving that the same pro-
tectina should he given to other parties as the officers of
....be House.

The amendment was then put and negatived with-
o;:.t a ditis'on.
Sr R. H. INGLIS moved that the retrospective
word. the elan oe shou!.l be left nut.
Mr. I-1 CI E opposed the amendment. No objec-
tion hAd beun unite on the other side of the House to
the Hoise raeiut B,h, which was also retrospective,
and hr (Mr. Hume) could not now coincide with the
Eon. 131-onet.
Kr R. INGLIS said that the retrospective clause
in the Hum-raeing Bill did not affect the interests of'
inditAmtk, which ecad not be said of the present BR
St:an4ers were ordered to nithdr3w, and the Com-
-,n4t f:•3 when therm appeared—
For lir! amenOment

Agsnast
Majlrity against the amendment... —1.70
c..d: ;uhoission into the gall,ry, we found Mr.
PECBEATON on his legs, moving. the adduion of
Four.: u,-ords to the clause, which he dol not press, at the
soZT."--'iov of the Solicitor-General.
WILLIA M FOLLETT objected to the am-
the tort's referring to the parties to be pro-
tacte,t the
Toe EOL IC ITO GENERAL proposed a further
amend:cent to rerneo) the objection ahudod to.
Lord STANLEY considered that the words as they
stood lvpsared sufficient to 'protect ;Inv person.
After a few words from Sir W. FOLLETT, the
S'o'icitur-Getvirars amendment was agreed to.
Mr. G BORN E, in a further part of the clause,
olidsztAzil to the words " Houses of Parliament," and
taid ..,u'ess he heard good reasons for their being re-
-..tin,•4 he should move their omission, for the purpose of
ftet,-r:;4-14 the a oAls •• Commons House of Parlument."
not see why that House shou!d give a protec-
tr, the Lords which, for aught he knew, they might
• t..st be iniilmed to give to thee,.
BERT PEEL thought it perfectly correct

179

asst the flons, of Lords should be included in t!-.e
b-et.:visc if they alopted the practice of selling
r-;theati ,its they would he sulj,,,ct to the same
414iik;tioit as that. House had laboured ur.der.
II M.-. A RCOU Wl' VERNON male a few oh-
-1 st,rvatrflos which were tit the gallery.
rtir. t-t-IS BO RNE did not press his amendment.
;Av.! J. RUSSELL rnovA the insertion of words to
(cL rt entire cessation of proceedings in any case
tie Speaker's certificate was filed: and notice in
wets:2l4 of that fact having been served upon or at the
Itsr4t ttef the plaintiff or his solicitor.
Altar a few words from Sir W. FOLL6TT and the
4>kAt,...vvort-GE,T.K4I., the words were inserted.
Attu:. !,ereral other verbal amendments, thd clause
was ordered to stand pat', of the Bill.
t O el ,nse 3, being proposed,
• air E. SUGDEN rose to move that it be ex-

punged. Ile had been in 'tepee that the Noble Lord
would have withdrawn it, as it did not form any part
et thy. original trill. Some weeks ago he had asked
the Noble Lord whether any actions had been brought
ng.:iast the Sergeant or his Deputy. and the :tamer
eras tlist he was not then prepared to answer the
question ; and it was not until that Bill had been in-
-1 treduoad that they had had any intimation of the ac-
: tient; et al,. He could not consent to the clause, which
troold put an end to the actions against the officers of
the House on this plain ground. Ntl man would or
tesuld;detibt the vedelity of the Speaker's warrant, and
it might he legally executed ; but the officer might exer-
rise it with undue violence, and if so, he must be liable
its damages. In former times, under the Convention
Parliament, an officer of the House in the service of a
warrant extorted 30/.—ot course he knew nothing of
what hail been done in this case—the House knew
nothing of it—their officer might have misconducted
; ls'neself, and tf so then the plaintiff had a right to re-
; <over, and the officer must pay the damages. He
ei ought th clause was contrary to the law, and against
•the aciund, at principles of the Constitution. He tlaerc-
:, lore moved that the clause he omitted.
i Lord I. RUSSELL said if the action had not been
1 c n-.e.ited wall the question of their publications he
I should act have thought it advisable to introduce an
Act of Per:iiiment on the suhject. It appeared to him,
Ihowever, ti,qt they were all one and the same transac-
• tion, and a part of the series of vexatious actions that
had been taken, and he thought it was expedient to put
an end to them in as summary a way as possible. If
the:: did not do so they might depend upon it that
time v:hiJh had be-yn commenced would not be the
i 43t. Id: believed the fact was, with respect to Mr.
Steckdale, and Mr. Howard, and the whole of that
s.,stel persons, that they had received no damage or iniury
whatev,r, and that the whole object these persons had
. in view wits the attahl.nent of notoriety.—(Hear, hear.)
He trusted, therefore, the Committee would permit the
elatise to stand.
iiir R. PEEL did not think any particular injustice
i weals', be done by putting a stop to the act on to which
the clause referred ; and he thought a great public ad-
.
eutage would be gained h) doing so. But
what he
fearefearedwas, that they might be prejudicing thprivi-
; loges of the House by the introduction of a clause so
' 4rarned. It appeared to him that a Court of Law
would frinsider the warrant of the Speaker of the
House of Commons a sufficient justification of the pro-
Nadine of the Sergeant•at-Arms, unless an improper
i degree of violence had been resorted to. It was not
impaiale he doubted the abstract justice of the clause, '
lint that ho doubted the expediency of legislating to
... tt t aFt e
d
ett eet toione
any objection
bthejneStinenrgetann
it.t in
He
this particular
betweenease,
kilo pressent time and the third reading of the Bill the
Vaestim would be maturely considered.
Sir IfDWARD SUGDEN said he would adopt
the suggoslion of the Right Hon Baronet, and withdraw
; Ma moton for the present, but he should certainly bring
t
- it forward on the third reading of the Bill.
After . few words from Mr. JONES,
1 The SO4ICITOR-GENERAL saw no objection
to their putrng a stop to the action then pending, by
tile elate' before them. It was to be presumed, as in
the cases of Stockdale and Hansard, that the Sergeant-
at-Argis had in the execution of the warrant merely
&Dellis duty. If there bad been any excess of autho-
rity or uanecessary violence, Mr. Howard had the op-
, 7ortunity of bringing that before the House.' If they
. did-not ~ow show a determination to put a stop to the
i notion of Howard, they would be involved in a sries of
vexations proceedings similar to the present. He was
entillfied that the introduction of the clause would not
in any way damage the privileges of the House, and
l should therefore support it.
Mr. GOIJLBURN apprehended that when the Bill
cent before the House of Lords, if the present clause
was permitted to remain, Mr. Howard would present a
• ! tition setting forth in an aggravated form the griev-
to
-"warrant, and praying to be heard by counsel
,V:.l.'apit. Now he did not know the precise forms of
r':i':' .41 se of Lords in such a case, or whether an indi-