The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-11 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The report of the Committee of Supply was brought
up and agreed to.

CHINA.

Sir ROBERT PEEL having given notice that he
would this day move the production of the Order in
Council directing reprisals on vessels belonging to
China, the necessity for such motion was abrogated
by the return of the Paper itself, directing the
reprisals, and ordering a Commission for the in-
stitution of Courts' of Admiralty and Vice-Admi-
ralty. He begged to ask whether, as the commission
was not yet prepared, there would be any objection to
lay a copy of it on the table as soon as it was ready ?
Lord PALMERSTON replied in the affirmative.
Sir R. PEEL apprehended that the Order in Coun-
cil contained positive instructions to all her Majesty's
vessels of war to seize all vessels belonging to the Em-
peror of China or to his subjects, not only on the coasts
of China, but in all other parts of the world. Then,
in the event of seizures taking place, he begged leave
to ask what would be done with the property seized ?
He apprehended that the course would be to detain the
vessels and not proceed to adjudicate upon the property
in the Admiralty Courts, which adjudication would de-
pend upon ulterior events. The main question which
he wished to ask, was whether the order in Council
gave instructions to all her Majesty's vessels of war to
seize all vessels belonging to the Emperor of China in
whatever seas they might be found.
Lord PALMERSTON replied that the Order gave
full authority to any of her Majesty's ships of war that
might fall in with Chinese vessels to detain them. Of
course the Order in Council would apply practically
only to such of her Majesty's ships as were on the coasts
of China. Any vessels so detained would be
held in safe custody until the demands of
her Majesty's Government were satisfied. If those
demands were complied with, they would of course be
released ; but if the demands were refused, and the
vessels were condemned by the Courts of Admiralty or
Vice-Admiralty, the proceedings would he disposed of ac-
cording to the orders which the Commission might think
proper to issue.
Sir R. PEEL said the Noble Lord assumed that
the trade of China was carried on only on the coast of
China, and in ordinary circumstances that was perhaps
the case ; but under new circumstances exceptions
might occur. He now begged to ask if the usual pro-
clamation as to the distribution of prize money had
been issued.

Lard PAL NIERSTON said there had been no
such proclamation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there bad
not been a declaration of war, properly so called, but
only an attempt to obtain reparation.
Sir R. PEEL did not wish to go into the question
of war, which he had purposely avoided.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Honour-
able Baronet had asked him whether there was an in-
timation of bringing down a message from the Crown
respecting China. He (Lord John Russell) then
begged leave to reserve his answer, but he had no wish
to refuse information on the subject, and had to
observe that there might be news from China which
would make it incumbent to bring down a message,
but he wished it to be understood that as far as matters
had proceeded at present it was not intended to
advise the Crown to send down a message.
In answer to Sir R. PEEL,
Lord PALMERSTON intimated that the Corn•
mission would be produced as soon as it was prepared.

CALL OF

THE HOUSf:

Mr. GRATTAN intimated that on Monday he
should move a call of the House on Lord Stanley's Bill
for Irish Registration.

Sir R. PEEL and Lord J. RUSSELL expressed them-
selves to the effect that this did not rest with the dis-
cretion of individual Members, but an order of the
House must be obtained for the call—not like closing
the Galleries, which any Member could do at pleasure.
The House then adjourned at a quarter past Four.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 10.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before four o'clock.
The Duffryn and Llynoi Railway Company Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
The Maiden Newton Reads Bill was read a third time,
and passed.

Captain ALSAGER presented a petition for leave to
bring in a Bill to give additional powers to the Thames
Tunnel Company.
ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Mr. MAXWELL gave notice that on Monday next he
should move for a return of the number of Roman Catholic
Bishops or Priests receiving grants of public money in
the Colonies, the dates at which those grants commenced,
and the authority under which they were made.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on the motion of
the Hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Maxwell) he should
move that the return be extended to Protestants of all
denominations, and also a return of the relative numbers
of the members of the different Christian sects. The Hon.
and Learned Member also gave notice that it was his inten-
tion shortly after Easter to call the attention of the House
to the state of the landed proprietors in the East Indies.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice, that on Monday he
should move that the returns relating to Commissions
issued since 1838, and for which he had moved on the
27th of February last, be laid before the House forthwith.
He found that returns of a much more voluminous nature
which had been moved for since that period, had been laid
before the Home, and therefore he thought he was justified
in moving for them forthwith.
Sir F. TRENCH gave notice that on Monday he
should move fur an account of all goods imported for home
consumption in the three years ending 1829, and a similar
account for the three yearn ending 1840, distinguishing the
amount of duty paid, and whether by weight or by value.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Sir G. CLERK a new writ was or-
dered for the county of Elgin, in the room of the lion.
Col. E. \V. Grant, who had accepted the office of Steward
of the Chiltern linudreds.

Lord HOTHAM wished that the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny should explain the course he wished to take with
respect to a notice of his relating to Judges of the
Admiralty.
Mr. HUME said that he intended his motion should
only apply to future Judges.
Lord HOTH AM gave notice that in that case be should
take an early opportunity of moving that after the dissolu-
tion of the present Parliament no Judge of the Admi-
ralty should sit in the House.

Sir N. H. INGLIS wished to put a question to the
Right Honourable Member the Secretary to the
Admiralty, in reference to a lorgo iron steamer
which had lately been taken into her Majesty's dock-yard
of Portsmouth, and refitted there. There was a mystery
connected with her destination, and there was a strong
impression that it was an illicit one.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL said that it was true that a ves-
sel of the description which had been mentioned had been
ratted in the dockyard of Portsmouth, but he believed
there was nothing illicit in her destination.
Sir R. H. INGLIS—Is she not destined to be engaged
in the slave-trade or the opium-trade ?
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said he had no reason to
think so.

Mr. HUME saw a notice in the paper of to-day that
civil contingencies were to he moved for in Committee.
The papers relating to the subject had only been delivered
that afternoon—they had only been put into his hands
when leaving a Committee of that House, he therefore
trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not
press those votes under the circumstances.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
not, of cow se, under such circumstances, press these votes.

CANADA.
Mr. PA KINGTON said at present the second read-
ing of the Bill for uniting the two Canadas stood for a se-
cond reading on Monday next. Now, considering the
great importance of the debate which had occupied the
present week, the near approach of the holidays, and the
greatimportance of the subject itself, he begged to suggest
to the Noble Lord the propriety of postponing the further
progress of the Bill until after the Easter holidays.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that it was of
very great importance that the House of Commons should
either give their assent to the Bill or dissent from it, be-
fore the Easter holidays. Ho would therefore move it on
Monday next.—(Hear.)

THE BUDGET.
Mr. HERRIES begged to ask the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could yet name
the day when he would submit his financial statement to
the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER bad
intended to name the day before the holidays, but found
that he would not be prepared to do so until the Monday
after the holidays.
Mr. H. VERNON begged to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether the return of the Post Revenue
for the last quarter included the payment made by the
public offices, or the charges attendant upon the production
of the stamps?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the return certainly included the payments made by the
public offices, but the charges had not yet been ascertained,
and therefore could not be charged against the receipts.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ORNAMENTS.
Mr. SOMERSET MAXWELL said it had been very
generally stated in the London Journals, that a Treasury
order had been issued :o the Board of Customs, directing
that all pictures, plate, and ornaments, for the unge
of Roman Catholic places of worship should be
exempted from the usual duty. lie wished to ask the

Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether any order to that effect had been issued.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no
such order whatever had been issued.—( Hear, hear.) The
case he apprehended stood thus. There had been a very
old practice at the Treasury that the vestments which were
used by the Roman Catholic priests in religious ceremo-
nies, and which they imported, should be exempted from
the heavy duty charged upon such articles. That old
order had probably given rise to that new suspicion.—
(Cheers and laughter.) There had been always an order
also with regard to other articles used in public worship,
whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, for instance,
where it was any remarkable specimen of art,
such as an old painted window, it had been, although
there had been no general order, the practice of the
Treasury to admit these articles free of duty.—( Hear. )
NEW ZEALAND.
In answer to Lord ING E STR lE,
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Report of the New Zea-
land Commission would be laid upon the table before the
Easter holidays. _

REPRISALS ON CHINA.
Sir IL PEEL begged to ask the Noble Lord
the Secretary of the Colonies whether there was any
foundation for the report which was very generally circu-
lated, that an Order in Council bad been issued for re-
prisals, in respect of China?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there had been an Older
in Council for reprisals.—( Loud cheers from the Opposi-
tion benches, followed by cheers from the Ministerial side.)
Sir R. PEEL begged to ask, whether it was intended
to make any formal communication on the subject to Par-
liament ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said, not at present.
Sir R. PEE L. Is it intended to issue letters of marque ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was not prepared to answer the
question at that moment —(Cries of .‘ There ought to be
notice of the question," followed by cheers from the Op-
position benches.)
Sir R. PEEL wished to know what was the date of the
Order in Council.

Lord J. RUSSELL said it was last Friday.—(Oppo-
sition cheering.)

IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
cashire to bring on the Registration Bill on the 6th May.
The reason of his asking the question was, that there
was a report in existence, that it was his intention to with-
draw the Bill.

Lord STANLEY said, that although the Hon. Member
had last year abandoned a similar Bill, he had, no inten-
tion to follow his example—(Cheers)—and he bad only
now earnestly to request the attendance of Members on
the 6th of May.—( Hear, bear.)
Mr. H. GRATTAN gave notice of his intention to
move a call of the House on that day.—(Great cheering )
The Exchequer Bills (Public Works) 13111 was read a
third time and passed.
LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the House resolve
itself into a Committee on Lord Seaton's Annuity Bill.
Mr. HUME had given notice that he should in Com-
mittee on the Bill move to limit the grant of 2,0001.
a-year to the life of Lord Seaton, excluding his two suc-
cessors. Since the time he had given that notice
he had taken upon himself the trouble of looking
aro the important services which had been stated
in the Bill as having been performed by Lord Sea-
ton ; and be felt bound, after that search, to say hat he
could not discover one act of Lord Seaton's that deserved
the reward proposed to be given him. His (Mr.
Hume's) wish was, if it was consistent with
the forms of the House, to refer the Bill to a Committee
up stairs. He was prepared to show that Lord Seaton, in
the situation in which he was placed, had violated the ex-
isting laws and constitution of Canada. There were no

acts of Sir John Colborne's which appeared t him (Mr.
Hume) to warrant such a signal mark of liberality on the
part of the people of It9gland ; on the contrary, he thought
there were many acts of that officer which deserved the re-
probation of that House and the country. He would read
one public despatch which appeared in the Parliamentary
Papers before the House, as a sample and pattern of the
manner in which Sir John Colborne conducted the public
business of the country. Greater atrocities and cruelties
had never been !perpetrated ; and instead of going into
Committee upon this Bill, the House ought to call upon
her Majesty's Government to prove, before a Select Com-
mittee, the important services of Sir John Celborne which
called for such a mark of public gratitude. Sir John
Colborne did not check, control, or punish those who were
guilty of such violent and atrocious acts, even after the
cessation of the unfortunate rebellion or outbreak in a nor.
tion of Lower Canada. He would refer to one letter of
Mujor-Goleral Sir John Macdonald, dated the 11th No-
vember 1838, in which that officer stated that he had dis-
persed the rebels, and had destroyed the houses of two
notorious rebels who had been engaged in the rebellion of
the preceding winter, by causing them to be burned; and
that at Le Grand he had caused the house of a notorious
rebel named Bell, a blacksmith, who bad made pikes for
the rebels the preceding winter, to be destroyed ; that he
had made prisoners of several leaders of minor note, and
had caused their houses to be destroyed. Now, Sir John
Colborne had not given sly order for the discontinuance
of these abominable acts, nor had he brought to trial any of
the persons guilty of this atrocious conduct. Sir 3. Colborne
had stated in his despatch that the rebels bad disbanded
at L'Acadie and Beauharnois, and had released their
prisoners; that many houses had been burned there, but
only those in which arms were found for the purposes of
rebellion, and that none had suffered but those engaged in
actual rebellion. Now, this despatch was at direct vari-
ance with the letter of Sir John Macdonald. Both state-
ments could not be correct, and he thought that such a
discrepancy called for an inquiry on the part of the House.
Either Sir John Macdonald was in error in stating that he
had destroyed the houses of persons engaged in rebellion
during the preceding winter, or Sir John Colborne was in
error in saying that none had been damaged but of those who
were then in arms—both could not be correct. On many
occasions the Duke of Wellington had punished parties
acting tender him, for having exceeded their orders, and for
having been guilty of such excesses as those to which be
was then alluding. If the documents be required were
furnished to the House, he thought he would be able to
show that Sir John Colborne, so far as the interests of
humanity were concerned in discharging his duties as Com-
mander-in-Chief, not only deserved no reward, but should
be censured for the course he pursued. With regard to
the civil conduct of Sir J. Colborne, he (Mr. Hume)
believed there was no parallel to be found for it in any of
the colonies of the British empire. All ho asked was that
Parliament should be just, and if severity was to have been
exercised in Canada, be thought it would be admitted
that unnecessary rigour should not have been resorted to.
Then courts-martial had . been held during the sittings of
the ordinary tribunals, and in those courts-martial an or-
dinance had been issued, having an ex post facto operation.
and ordering the burning or destruction of the houses of
those who had previously been engaged in rebellion,
at a time when no law of Canada allowed such
destruction of their property ; just as though, if
there happened another outbreak in Monmouth this
year, the troops were to proceed to ravage the property of
all those concerned in the last outbreak. What he com-
plained of was, that Sir J. Colborne, by the orders he
issued, had called upon these men to appear and answer
for the offences for which her Majesty's Secretary of State
for the Colonies had declared there was a complete
amnesty. Lord Durham had declared in his proclamation
issued after the receipt of Lord Glenelg's despatch, that
there should be a complete amnesty of all those indi-
viduals. One of them came back after the amnesty had
been published, believing himself, under Lord Durham's
proclamation, to he safe. Now, Sir J. Colborne had
ordered that individual to be seized by a body of horse and
sent beyond the frontier, contrary to the declaration of her
Majesty's Government. If such proceedings, so con-
trery to the usual stream of justice in this country bad
taken place, and if such atrocities had been perpetrated,
which he alleged the public documents would prove, he
would ask whether Sir John Colborne was a per-
son who ought to be allowed to receive 150,000/.,
or even 1,0001., of the public money P He could
further show that the Ilabeas Corpus Act had been sus-
pended in a most unwarranted manner. A question was
referred to two of the Judges as to how far the Imperial
Act of last session altered the law, and how far Sir John
Colborne had the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus
Act; and Sir John Colborne actually suspended those two
Judges because they ventured, in the execution of their
duty, to give an honest opinion in favour of the liberty of
the subject. He (Mr. Hume) would move next Tuesday
for a copy of all the correspondence that had taken place
on that subject. It was a daugerous principle which had
been introduced of late years of rewarding persons for the
exercise of their ordinary duties, and he thought the House
ought not to sanction the irregularities of which Sir John ,
Colborne had been guilty. He would therefore move by
way of amendment that the Bill now under consideration
should be referred to a Select Committee up stairs, for the
purpose of ascertaining how far the conduct of Sir John
Colborne was deserving of the pension proposed to be
granted to him.
The SPEAKER thought the amendment proposed by
the Hon. Gentleman was not according to the rules of the
House. The first part of the motion, to refer the Bill to
a Select Committee, would be perfectly regular.
Mr. HUME would then move to refer the Bill to a Select
Committee. He had merely added the latter part of the
motion in order that Hon. Gentlemen might be aware of
his object in referring the Bill to a Select Committee up
stairs.
The SPEAKER said the first part of the motion was
perfectly regular.
The question having been put,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman
had chosen that opportunity for the purpose of renewing
a question which had already been decided by a great ma-
jority of the House.—( Cheers.) The proper time to
have brought this motion forward was when the subject
was first brought under the consideration of "the House,
which the Hon. Gentleman had done, and the result had
been that his views were departed from by a great majority of
the House'—(Cheers)—now he came forward with a o-
tion of a most irregular nature, to which the Speaker had
properly objected, and which, if correct, represented Lord
Seaton as not' only unworthy of the favour of the Crown,
but as deserving to be dismissed from the military service'
altogether.
Mr. HUME—Certainly.
Lord J. RUSSELL—No doubt the Hon. Gentleman
thought so, but the House had decided that Lord Seaton
was worthy of the greatest praise. He would not then go
into the various details of the conduct of Lord Seaton in
Canada. But when the Right Hon. Genticinsn had re-
ferred to the conduct of the Duke of Wellington
in restraining the excesses of his army, he should
not forget that it was a thing generally all:wed
that no Commander was ever more strict than Lord Sea
ton in dealing with the excesses of those under him.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member should have yielded to
the authority of the Duke of Wellington himself, who had
merits no one
capacity
borne his testimony not only to the courage but of
Lord Seaton _(Hear, hear)—with 7hose cr
could be better acquainted than the Noble Duke in ques-
tion. It was certainly true that the principles of a free
constitution could not be maintained in Canada while a
civil war raged there. With respect to the excesses of the

-:-.,--,--
itroops, Lord Seaton himself bad given an answer ta:sUch
charges in a document in which he stated that the ibsults
of the expedition were certainly most deplorable, but that
1 they were in every instance to be traced to the auth-orn of"
the disturbances in which they had originated. Was
the Honourable Ge. tleman ignorant of the barba-
rities which had been perpetrated on those inhabi-
tants of Canada whose only crime was their loyalty ?
Were all the sympathies of the House to be shown to those
who had commenced the insurrection ? For his part he
could not think so. He believed that the disorders which
had been committed in Canada were for the most part com-
mitted by persons who, in the fury of civil war, had had re-
course to violence against those who had been guilty of the
same violence towards them. But that war was an inevi-
table portion of the calamities of civil war, and he would
place the responsibility of such proceedings on those who
had excited the insurrection—(Hear)—he should say that
most I njustifiable insurrection commenced without any
reasonable cause, and which could not lead to any good.
He could not, therefore, trace the misfortunes in question
to a Commander who was known to be as distinguished
for his humanity as for his capacity and military skill.
Is'ehaetroenwwasa
so othernmeoreparticularly
p oi withnt
connected,which andt he c h
ht
a.
that
e r of
wasth
Lorde
treatment of the prisoners. Now, on the whole, he (Lord
J. Russell) said that. never were prisoners taken in rebel-
lion treated with more lenity than these men.—(Hear,
hear.) Lord Seaton had never executed any but at the
earnest entreaty of the Executive Council, and many owed
their lives to his humanity.—(Hear, hear.) It was un-
necessary to defend Lord Seaton from the charge of hav-
ing suspended constitutional Government, under which,
for the last three years, Lower Canada could not be go-
verned. His Lordship had only, under the authority of
Parliament, acted as he was bound to do towards the
leaders of a wanton and sanguinary rebellion.
Mr. VERNON remarked that the Hon. Member him-
selt bad given a notice for giving Lord Seaton a pension
only for his life—( Hear, hear)—though he has been long
cognizant of all the facts he had now stated.—( Hear. )
Mr. GILLON agreed with the Hon. Member for Kin
kenny, that the House had been taken by surprise. He
did not think it was too much to ask of the House to
pause before granting so large an amount of pensions.
They had not heard any statement of the services
for which that large grant was to be given.—( Hear,
hear.) At all events, there were conflicting statements
as was shown by the public documents to which his Hon.
Friend had referred ; and he thought time should be given
to contradict them if they were erroneous ; before they
voted away the public money they should be satisfied of
the truth of the statement by which the grant was made.
Sir R. INGLIS had hoped, for the credit of the
Haute and the country, that there would not have been
another Member to support the views of the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny. He complained of the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny having put a notice on the paper for limiting
the pensions of 2,0001 a year to Lord Seaton's life, and
then bringing forward vite a different motion. Ide hoped
the Hon. Member would not be suffered to withdraw it, in
order that the House might ascertain whether there were
one, two, three, or four. I believe that would be the
utmost who would uphold the doctrines put forth by the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny. The Noble Lord had done
justice to himself, to the country, and to Lord Seaton, in
the statement he had made ; and he hoped that a large
msjori , 'tv of the House would record their concurrence in
his statement.

Mr. V. SMITH observed that the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny's was a strange motion, it being for an inquiry
into the conduct of Lord Seaton after the House bad, by
a large majority, agreed to give him 2,000/. a year for his
nublic services.

-Mr. HUME explained that when he gave notice of his
motion he did not know that he should find the facts in
the official documents b^forc the House, although he was
perfectly aware of them himself.
Mr. E WART thought his Hon. Friend could not, with
any regularity, submit such a motion to the House.
After a few words from Mr. GO UL BUR N, strangers
were ordered to withdraw.
Oa a division the numbers were—
For the Bill
Against it 8
Majority
The Bill then went into Committee.

Mr. J. HUM E rose to object to the blank being filled
up with any sum, for he would oppose any pension at all
without inquiry. He again charged Lord Seaton with
want of humanity, and with having outraged public justice.
He characterized this proceeding as a public robbery till
all these charges had been 'disproved. He should say
•‘ Nay" to the vote of 2,0001., but would not trouble the
House to divide again on it.

Col. SIBTIIO-RP said he really could not compre-
hend %%bat the for. Member was at.—( A laugh.)
The blank was filled up with 2,0001., against a loud
" No" of Mr. Hume.

Mr. HUME then objected to the pension extending to
Lord Seaton's two next heirs male.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN also objected to three lives. Still he
did not think that the pension should be limited to the life
of Lord Seaton, now at an advanced age. Undoubtedly
Lord Seaton bad rendered great services to the country—...
his energy and firmness had saved Canada. He should, on
the whole, suggest that the grant be to his Lordship and
his next male heir.

Mr. WALLACE would support his friend the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny, wishing that peerages should bo
granted for life only.
Mr. GILLON rejoiced that his Hon. Friend had op-
posed this long pension.

Colonel SIBTHORP said the Hon. Member who had
last spoken had proposed 6,0001. a year additional to the
Duke of Sussex—that was his economy.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, considering all the hard-
Win and dangers which Lord Seaton bad endured, he
thought that it would be a poor reward to give the pension
for less than three lives.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected
that so bad all the pensions of the Peninsular heroes—
Lord 13crcsfr,rd, Lord Combermere, &c., &c. been
granted.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. A G L lONBY said these precedents generally went
to a greater extent than in this case, and the pensions
were given for the heirs of the grantees for ever. Lord
Combcrmerc's was the first case in which the pension had
been granted for three lives only. For his own part, he
had rather that a larger sum should have been given to
Lord Seaton, than burthening the country with payments
to his heirs.

The Committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the Clause as it stood

For Mr. flume's proposition
Majority —26
The House then resumed.
REPRISALS ON CHINA.

Lord J. RUSSELL wished to explain the statement he
had made at a 'previous period of the evening, respecting
reprisals on China, as he believed that statement had been
misunderstood. The object of the Order in Council was
not to authorize letters of marque, by which privateers
could seize on Chinese vessels, but to establish a Court
which would have power to condemn vessels seized by her
Majesty's ships of war.
Lord STANLEY wished to ask the Noble Lord the
date of the Order.

Lord J. RUSSELL—It was Friday last.
Mr. HUME asked if there would be any objection to
lay a copy of the Order in Council on the table of the

Lord J. RUSSELL said that a copy of the order
would be laid before the House on Monday next.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

It was moved that a sum not exceeding 60,0001. should
be granted for Civil Contingencies.—Agreed to.
It was then moved that a sum not exceeding 20,530,0001.
should be granted for the payment of outstanding Ex-
chequer Bills.
Mr. HUME wished to know at what period it was in.
tended to make those claims payable?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did
'tat intend to make any alteration in the period at which
they had hitherto been payable.
The other Orders of tae Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half.past Seven o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS APRIL 10.
%
Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock. .
Lord STRAFFORD presented several petitions rgainst
the repeal of the Corn-laws.

The Earl of CAMPERDOWN presented petitions
from Auchterarder and other places against the intrusion
of Ministers.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented petitions from
Qucensferry, Linlithgow, and other places, also against the
intrusion of Ministers.

The Earl of ABERDEEN presented several similar
petitions from places in Scotland.

The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition
from Nova Scotia, against the Clergy Reserves (Canada)
Bill.

The Earl of FALMOUTH presented two petitions
from places in East Cornwall, against any interference
with the existing Ccrn-laws.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented petitions
from Winchester and other places, in favour of Church
Extension.L and against the Clergy Reserves (Canada)
Bill.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented a petition
from the Borough of Clones, in the county of Monaghan,
against the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. As so much
stress had been laid upon the progress of Temperance in
Ireland, he wished to show something of the objects and
progress of teetotalism in Dublin. At a recent meeting
to that city, a priest named Father Maguire said, " He
would tell that high-born, bilious sprig of the House of:
Derby."—( Laughter.) That was no laughing matter to
him ( Lord Westmeath) to hear the Noble Lord spoken of
in such terms by any man, much less by a minister of re.
ligion.—( Hear.) He (Father Maguire) would tell the
high-born, bilious sprig of the House of Derby that in three
months he would have two millions of temperance men
who would sound the tocsin of Repeal, and effect the li-
berty of eight millions of people, by driving both Whigs
and Tories out of office —a consummation not very de-
' s irable to the Noble Viscount opposite. Father Maguire
wot ton to say that the Tories would not dare to send
Stanley amongst them ; they might as well think of getting
Castlereagh out of his difficulties—( Laughter)—and ex-
pect that the black gentleman would take the celestial
keys out of the hands of the Prince of the Apostles."—
(A laugh.) Noble Lords opposite laugh at this. But he
could see nothing in it to laugh at. If the Irish Municipal
Reform Bill were passed, the effect would be to give the
municipal government of Dublin up to men, who would
use such language and express such sentiments in their
Courts of Common Council. He also said that if the
El use presumed to give the Bill a third reading he would
place himself at the head of 3,000,000 teetotallers to
resist its imposition on the Irish nation. He (the
Marquis of Westmeath) hoped that during the recess the
Noble Viscount would seriously consider what the bearings
of this Municipal Corporations Bill were. He believed it
would accomplish no one purpose of municipal good for the
inhabitants of that city, but that its effssets would be to
confiscate a revenue which would shortly increase to
40, or even 60,000/., and give it to the agitators of
Iteland ; and, he asked, what use would be made of it?
lie wished to know whether the Noble Viscount would
have any objection to lay on the table, in order that it
might bo printed, the evidence delivered on the subject

EVENING EDITION.

111

}_
~
~i

1..~

'i'!..... ~~~

~~
Fig

1 1

M
t. of the municipal condition of the Dublin Corpo- um same position as they would have been if the thirty
ration ? This was but reasonab'e. He should like days did not expire in the holidays?
to know why the Corporation of London had not Lord MELBOURNE was understood to decline giving
\
I been so dealt with ? he would tell the Government why - any such pledge. *frai We
llt was because they dared not do it. Teat city had too The Archbishop of CANTERBURY explained briefly,
-many Members who knew their duty to allow the Goverr.w. and in a tone nearly inaudible in the gallery. He said be
merit to attempt it. Could they prove the present BM was desirous of hearing the opinion of the highest legal
Ilto be innocuous or honest, he would support it ; bit authority in the House before he resolved on wit :drawing
believing it to be neither, he wauld oppose it to his latest his motion;
tltviat% The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no
• Lord IL LENBOR.OUGH addressed a few words to doubt that if, in any part of the Bill, the Colonial Logic-
Lord Melbourne, which were inaudible in the gallery, after lature had exceeded their authority, the Crown could not
which give its assent to the Bill at all.
Lord MELBOURNE said he would postpone the The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said it was out
second reading of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill of no disrespect to the Noble Viscount that he had asked
until Monday, the 4th of Mae,
CLERGY RESERVES, for the opinion of the Noble and Learned
certain t Lord, but,
placed in his situation, it was his duty to be hat
Lord MELBOURNE, continuing to speak, said he by no act of his should the Church suffer. After all that
understood what was said in the other House to have been had passed, he felt bound to consent to the general wish
1 that her Majesty's Ministers would not advise her of the House, and withdraw the motion.--( Hear )
1 Majetsty to give her Royal assent to the Bill passed The Bishop of LONDON said, in yielding their ven-
tby the Legislature of Upper Canada, until a tage ground, for it was most likely that the House would
I' period had elapsed after the vacation, equal to the length lave acceded to the motion of the Most Rev. Prelate, they
of the vacation, or perhaps a longer period.
what the Noble Viscount had said, that he would advise tt'aebarldey if possible, and without too great a sacrifi:e of the in-
ssthsoowfnthaen question peace-
Lord E LLENBORO UGH said it did not follow, from
Church.
Eger to settle the
1 Eger Majesty to acquiesce in the prayer of the address. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, when the Rev.
.; What he desired to obtain, was a pledge that the Govern- Prelates receded front their position—(" No, no," from
resent would in no case advise the Crown to give the Royal he Bishops)—when they receded from the principle that
assent to the measure, if the House should address the the whole of the endowments were for the Church of Eng-
' Crown against it, without such time having elapsed as and, he must be permitted to state, that in expressing their
weeld give the HMSO time for consideration. eadiness to assist in the settlement of the question with a
Lord MELBOURNE did not know how he could !tie regard to the safety and peace of Canada, and also
pledge himself to advise the Crown on a matter which had with a due regard to the interests of the Church of
not taken place. He did not think it consistent now to England, he could not help expressing his deep conviction
enter on the subject. It was hardly within his province or ::bat in no instance had the Most Reverend Prelate ever
power to do it; but, at the same time, their Lordship, better consulted the interests of the Church than in not
i, weight safely rely upon the effect of the address. pressing his motion on Monday. It was only by a temperate
Lord ELLENBOR OUG El said, for his own part he consideration cf that great question, laying claim to
I was satisfied, from what had fallen from the Noble Vis- nothing that was exclusive, but well weighing all the
count, his strong conviction was the answer of the Judges .rguments advanced, they could bring about a settlement
on at least one of the questions, would be that the measure if the question so essential, not only to the preserve-
t. eas invalid, Under these circumstances, he was most •ion of Canada itself, but also to the well-being of the
I.' anxious to prevent unnecessary discussion on the question. Estabihhed Church in that country. Ile did not think
He thought nothing could be so injurious, than that Noble the Government was called upon to give an opinion or a
(La=ds and Right Reverend Prelates should be compelled -sledge on the subject; hr would state for himself and his
to commit themselves by extreme opinions on a question, Noble Friends that they would give to every suggestion
which he was convinced would not bear carrying extreme heir respectful attention, at the same time he must ex-
opinions into practice.—(Hear, hear.) If he might yen- tress his dissent from the remarks that had been made on
ture to express an opinion, or rather, he would say, to he conduct of the Governor-General of Canada ;be did
addreas his prayer to the Right Rev. Prelate, on the part sot believe that he was actuated by any other feeling than
of the Canadians, he would entreat him, under the cir- hat of regard to the Church in the measure which he had
cumstances, not to press his motion on Monday next. erought forward—that measure had not been dictated by
Ii Lord MELBOURNE said he apprehended there could tim, but had been dictated to him by the circumstances
be no doubt as to what the opinion of the Judges would in which he found Canada situated. and he had no alterna-
khe Ofi the Bth sod 9th of Geo. 4, and that the Commis- dye but to bring the question to a conclusion in a manner
stoners of Canada had exceeded their power. They had that appeared to him the most likely to merit the approval
the opinion of the law officers of the Crown to that effect, if that rising and important province.
aft] his Noble Friend had given notice in the other House, The Bishop of LLANDAFF denied that the Church
to go to the Legislature for powers to carry the measure had waived its right. •
into effect. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said he should some place in Lincolnshire against the Bill, exempting
• be happy to postpone his motion, and by that means waive union workhouses from the payment of rates ; also, various
discussion on the subject, if he could have the assurance petitions against any alteration in the Cmn-laws.
of the Noble Viscount that after the thirty days bad Lord DUNCAN NON moved for various returns con-
elapsed, he would consider an address of that House as (meted with the Colonies.
fulfilling the same power it would have, if their Lord- The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented several
ships had wished it, within thirty days. He could not petitions praying for Church Extension (Canada.)
understand why the Noble Lord should place the House REPRISALS UPON CHINA.
ia that position, and why he should make any reservation The Earl of ABERDEEN had been informed that
upon that Bill. He was fully desirous of preventing un- letters of marque and reprisal had been issued against
- ; necessary discussion on a subject on which the minds and China, and he wished to ask the Noble Viscount if such
passions of the Canadians had been so much engaged. was the fact—at what time the orders were issued—and if
There was a desire on their part to extend the powers of it was the intention of the Noble Viscount to bring down
the Church to the fullest extent—(llear, hear, from the any message from her Majesty on the subject to that
Doke of Wellington)—but with a view to put an end to House?
. all dissensions, to make certain reasonable concessions with Viscount MELBOURNE said it was not true that
regard to the property, provided always the Church letters of marque had been issued, an Order in Council
should be recognized as the Established Church of the had been issued authorising reprisals. They had sent out
Colonies, and secured in the possession of its power. an expedition to demand reparation for the injuries inflicted
Unless he stipulated this, he should be charged with a upon our commerce by the Chinese, and if that reparation
dereliction of his most sacred duties. He shetild also, if were refused, then the expedition was to proceed to acts
any such plan were adopted, stipulate that the portion of of reprisal against the Chinese trade. It would be neces-
the property assigned to the Church should be inviolable, sary to institute Courts for the adjudication of ships and
and not subject to the fluctuations which arose from the property taken in consequence of these hostilities, if
political sentiments of the Government, or the tern- they should, unhappily, become necessary. And to pro-
, pommy ascendancy of political parties in the vide for this the Order in Council had been prepared. It
legi:iir.tivo assemblies, but that the tenure on which was not intended to issue letters of marque.
the Church held her property should be such Lord COLCHESTER had understood that the steam-
at would save her from the coeflicting claims of other re- ship Nemesis, bearing a letter of marque against the
lhesieus communities. On these terms he would consent to Chinese, had sailed from Portsmouth.
place a considerable portion of the reserves at the dis. Viscount MELBOURNE—The Nemesis is the pro•
posal of her Majesty's Government, but he felt assured perty of the East India Company, and has proceeded to
this could never be done by legislation in the Colonies. India.
Among the various discussions in the Colonial Assemblies Lord COLCHESTER had understood the vessel was
he could discover but one point in which all opinions con- the property of private individuals.
curred—a consciousness of their ewes want of authority to Viscount MELBOURNE—No, no.
settle the question, and in deferring it for the final de- PRINTED PAPERS BILL.
cision of the Imperial Parliament. He was aware he On the Order of the Day for the receiving the Report
should be told the Bill had passed the Legislature, but on the Printed Papers Bill being read,
had it not done so at the suggestion, or rather dictation, Lord DENMAN said this Bill had been introduced by
of the Governor-General ? The circumstances under the House of Commons to remove a pressing inconveni-
i which that measure came before that House reduced their mace, and he believed that no Bill had ever been introduced
Lordships to the inconvenient alternative either of rejecting in which their Lordships had a greater desire to acquiesce.
the measure or totally adopting it. In the Bill before them —Hear, hear.) The cause which had rendered the in-
he found many defects ; but his object at present was not troduction of this Bill necessary was matter of public
to arraign that Bill, nor to press the rights of the Church notoriety. An individual had brought a series of actions
with regard to her property, but that she should not be de- against the printers of the Howe of Commons for libel,
graded from her position as the Established Church and more were threatened for the same publication. In
ma all parts of the empire, without the interference the first he had been defeated, as a justification had been
of political feelings or molestation front the claims pleaded. Those actions were frivolous, and on some of them
of other sects. lie intended to lay before her Ma- he had recovered an amount of damages infinitely exceeding
i jetty's Ministem a plan which he had prepared, to obviate any injurybecouldhavesuffered,andnotwithstandingtheable
the objections to the present measure ; but if Ministers arguments of the Learned Counsel last evening, he did not 1
would not listen to his very reasonable proposition, he think he had urged anything to induce their Lordships to
would come with increased confidence to advise their Lord- refuse their consent to that part of the Bill which went to
ships to reject the Bill. But that repetition would by no prevent the continuance of these proceedings. His Noble
means imply the rejection of measures for the contentment and Learned Friend, in introducing this Bill, had stated
of all parties.—( Hear, hear.) At present he had no alter- that it left the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench un-
nwtiec but to ask leave to postpone his motion to Monday. touched, and admitted its correctness. Gentlemen who
ti The Duke of WELLINGTON said that of course it had addressed the House yesterday had said that they had
it was for the Most Rev. Prelate to put off his motion, if taken a contrary view, and he Would confess that if he en-
he thought proper, but it was for their Lordships to con- tered into a consideration of what was the intention of the
I slider that the thirty days allowed by the Act of Parliament House of Commons, in sending_ up that Bill, he thought
vortiuld terminate in twenty-one days; and the Most the argument of the Learned Gentleman was more in ac-
Rev. Prelate, by putting off his motion, would not stand cordance with the character of the Bill than that of his
its the same situation as by bringing it on to-night. Noble and Learned Friend; but he would say, that it was
llt was his sincere wish that something of the kind pro- quite immaterial to inquire what were the motives or rea-
posed by the Most Rev. Prelate should be adopted, and he sons actuating those who introduced the Bill—it would be
would recommend him to keep the matter as much as pos- unworthy himself and unworthy of their Lordships to ask
Bible in his own hands. He put it to the generosity of the any questions but these :—Was this a case calling for re-
Noble Viscount, as he decided upon limiting the House to medy by Act of Parliament, and did the present Bill pro-
twenty-one days instead of thirty, that he should give their vide that remedy ? They found a great public evil, and
Lordships fair play and allow them time to consider the they were actuated but by one wish, viz., effectually to re-
Bill before they were called on to give their decision. medy it. But when he looked at the provisions of the
Viscount MELBOURNE did not see how he could Bill, he saw much to complain of, because it introduced a
agree to that which was asked of him. Of course after method of paralyzing the proceedings of the Courts of
the thirty days had expired, an address from that House Justice to which they ought not to be exposed. If the de-
would have no more effect than any address upon any cision of the Court of Queen's Bench had been set aside
other subject by his agreeing to the request, it would then there might have been some grounds for distrust ; but
\
be laying the Royal prerogative at the feet of Parliament in he felt that they ought not to submit to the imputation
such amanner as had never been done since the time of the cast upon them by this method, by which it
Long Parliament. When the Noble Duke said that it was was sought to nullify their proceedings merely by
owing to him that the House had not time to consider the a correspondence between an officer of either
subject, he could not understand him. The Bill was laid House of Parliament, and an officer of the Court of
upon the table of the house as soon as it arrived in this Queen's Bench. The only proper method of proceeding
country, and, according to the forms required by the Act of was by communicating to the Court itself. Let them be
Pertiamere. the thirty days must count from the day that informed that what had been done bad been done by the
1 it „as so laid upon the table. authority of Parliament, and let them give the Court
`t Tle Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble Vis- credit for doing its duty and enforcing the law. He would,
, cent might have delayed laying the Bill upon the table therefore, take the liberty of proposing, that instead of the
of the House until after the holidays, as the time allowed certificate proposed by the Bill in every particular ease
for discussion was not thirty days, but only twenty-one; that every publication by either House of Parliament should
~ lie thought the House had a claim upon the Noble Viscount bear on the face of it the authority by which it was issued,
° for
deify. in the same way as was pursued in the publication of an
The &sari of WINCHIL SEW thought the House ought Act of Parliament. There might be garbled extracts of
to recollect the manner in which the last Address of the papers published. This certificate, moreover, was to be
i T 7 rase had been received, and the manner in which nn accompanied hy an affidavit. Now, how could the officer
1 Address after the holidays might be treated. If the Noble act on that affidavit unless the Court had come to ajudgmvnt
t Viscount would not give an assurance that the thirty days on it? That affidavit might be answered—one party might
Icould extend °vet the holidays, he would impress upon allege the certificate to be a forgery, and elm could decide
the Most Rev. Prelate to proceed with his motion on on such a question but the Court? So that after all the Court
1 Monday. might he called on to decide whether the ground shown
Tho Earl of RIPON wished to call tha attention of was sufficient to put an end to the action. In this clause
tho House to the position in which they would be pleased there was no notice to the plaintiff any more than to the
supposing the Judges of the land were to confirm the opi- Court. It was true the plaintiff was to have forty eight
1 ision given by the Law Officers of the Crown, that the Le- hours' notice of the delivery of the certificate, but no cert,
gislature of Upper Canada had not the power to pass such sequeuces followed if the notice were not given. Was the
i
a law. If that opinion were confirmed, then the Govern- defendant to go on without giving the plaintiff - •
—.ice,
meet would have no power to advise the Crown to give the and if, when the case came on for trial, d A „ .
me umenuants
Reyal Assent to the Bill. It, therefore, could never be- contended they had given such Tied
, worse law without the express sanction of 811 Act of the denied it—who was to deei''
1
Impel-41 Legislature. It hat been said that notice had first place, it oceurg • „ice, and the plaintiffs
_ee it hut the Court ? In the
I been given in another place of an intention to bring in a ing the pubr . -,tl to him that a certificate accompany.
Lill, for the express puspose of making that Bill a iaiv, the - . wicatton would he the best mode of relieving
eerties whom it was withed to relieve, and the Courts
by virtue of the paver; inherent ie the Imperial Leelaa.
ture. It was impossible for the Government, how of Justice ought to be trusted to carry into operation the
1
t mush any individual might distrust their assurane •da.er Act of Parliament. In the second place, he wished to
ae, to tee- 'submit to their Lordships another proposition on this sub-
!sent them from having abundant opporturd . of • ‘ '
slug this measure. They would not ""CS di pus- jest, as he thought that authorised copies of there pub-
-stendon than they were now, alt)•.,,,igh" stand in a worse s:- licationa we.c eq'ially entitled to protection with the peta-
1, Prelate might not bring for (ISO Right Reverend lications themselves.—( Hear, hear.) Not one person in
it iruptessible for tl,l,e,eNele wvard his motion. Ile thought a thousand read the reports themselves,—(ilear, bear.)
neount to give a more de-
-1 %Let pleige than
i The Aretabdshop.oti It evas their circulation through the Newspapers
which gave them their %fettle, and he thought that such
s whether it Way gi • C4AdIeo'9I.e.ERBURY wished to istiow publications were equally entitled to protection. In the
\ upon. the opinion the intention of the Noble Lord to act third • • h ward to abstracts or extracts of interest-
-1 by the Crown Lawyers ?
) Viscount MELlace, with re.,
ine passaxges, he thought that, in such case the plaintiffs
I the Government toB act tutpNogn c opinion, and they hal i
slut it.was the intention oF should have permission to sue, but the question would go
1 already acted upon it,
ite
aho Archbishop of CANTERBURY felt 1 lished with a malicious intention; and if it was decided
to the Jury whether such extracts were bona fide or pub,
d. that he that they were bona fide, then the defendants would it
I could not withdraw a notitm of the present Ist
I in no way connected with party, and he considner—cdth7ss equally entitled to protection. With regard to costs, he
iself to be under the most sacred obligations of dui. to thought the parties bringing these attiont were not entitled
g bring the subject forward. The measure involved
:1 interest of religion not only: in Canada, but in every ps The Noble Lord
the; to costs, because these actions Were broug.ht against the
provisions of the Acts of Parliament.
I where. the British dominions extended—as long -a 'l.l„t.
. mthoriattobleamlleostther s
tillileltnbepreoapaorsseedetchirietis
sapmeccenhd.ments, which he had mentioned
! },Ad a voice to raise en behalf of the Established -Church
, he would do so. he LORD CHANCELLOR said he apprehended
i Lord WYNFORD observed that if the Right Rev anxiousthis was a Bill which their Lordships
• I at-
Prelate made a motion and succeeded, there would be sit terations, b to assent to without any essential .
end to that Bill. If the motion did not come on, then they must be
ecaaurse in consequence of what had taken place
the question would be open to discussion. Ile hoped, be of very aoubilaurie that any important alterations nnuld
ac
therefore, the Right Rev. Prelate would withdraw his !lament. The amendmentsceptance in the other House of Par-
proposed by his Noble and
motion. Learned Friend he was sorry were • to say likely to lead to
The Bishop of LONDON believed that as the Act consegitences their L
ordships 'would muchli ' regret. l
now stood, her Majesty could not legally give her Royel would first call attention to the alteration
w proposed in the
Assent to it in order to make it law. Why could not the first section. Their Lordship;
question be settled by bringing in a Bill here instead id. had brought a third action, whichiire aware Mr. Stockdale
sending one backward and forward between Canada awl which was the only one the Bill was
still
pending, and
this country? Why riot at• t sh • • . broughtafter he had I
once
..proposed to deal with. It
enter into negodation• was ebeen made acquainted • h
(as they they, the B. hconceived
a re-
is ops, were niiiint, to do in the most solution of tins House of Commons, that the
amicable manner) to set nhi this '
e Bill, which was - • in itsi If bringing that action he was acting in violationY
invalid, and bring in a Bills of their pri-
Ile not call attention
ties, and maintain the rights
would conciliate all p,-. yileges. need L to the circumstances
Lord FiLLENBORISUtdts cudld tllgnity of the Wtate ? of this action, as their Lordships must be familiar with them
had passed, as the Bill thought that Maer whet and were aware that two or more persons were still in cuss'
the Royal Assent, the mweasst li legal, and could not reecho tody. Now the alteration proposed by his Noble and
draw his notice of motion. Reverend Prelate might with- Learned Friend regarded that action. Ile proposed, in-
the manner in whialt addresses ) laletssitiiseamn,,, stead of the action beim: put an end to—a course of pre_
times been received by her asieels of
that House hid seam' eeiqiing nh;cli lie (tlic Lor,l Chineellor)
• thought null.
be satisfied with what had fallen from
Ministers, lie sioel,l Lordships would see it would be impossible the Howse of
The
most inconvenient manner itr'sronili the
Noblei Viseount. Commons could assent to—he ( Lord Denman) proposed,
be brought before the House wag wthaitclinthes"
proposed to introduce it. The Bill for eet coille instead of putting an end to that action at once, that the
ti which Ministers Judges should stay proceedings on such terms as they
two provinces would shortly be before their iseeoungi%ni of the should think just and reasonable, so that the officer of the
in that Bel, as was the case in the Acts ofrtesdo-P„s'uand House of Commons would not be relieved from the action
Scotland and Ireiand, provision might be dentm - "'" brought against hint, nor the public from the inconvenience
or he Judges should
einus instructien re"- resulting from it, but on such terms as t
Lord FALMOUTH asked, were their Lordships direct, thus submittingquestion to the Judges. Now
the .
d l
understand the Noiiio V,count (Melbourne) to pied,t,oe
who‘ was the party entitled to t his extraordinary in u
bring;
?
Was it Mr. Howard, who had thought proper to bring. a
Hill,eir, as far as he could, to place their Lordships inCommons? Miss
third action, in dcfi ince of the House of a

I'II"~"

he a party to whom costs should be awarded? He could
only assimilate this by saying it was similar to the
case of a Court of Equity, when a party brought an ac-
tion in defiance of en injunction ; but his Noble and
Learned Friend would say they bad a right to grant the
injunction, but that was the question. If a party did so,
so far from having his costs, ho was committed to the
Fleet, and not permitted to leave it till he had paid the
costs occasioned by his contempt. Did any one suppose
that the plaintiff in the ease stated was an object of com-
passion, or entitled to costs? But not only were the
Judges to hare the power of awarding costs, the words
were " costs or otherwise." He would ask, whether any
thing could be imagined more certain to effect the reverse
of that desirable object they were scekiug to obtain, and
whether if this amendment were carried, the House of
Commons would not be compelled to do that which they
did not desire to do, as evinced by their sending up the Bill ?
On this first amendment he trusted their Lordships would
be of opinion that it would entirely defeat the object of
the Bill, and, instead of removing the difficulties, would
aggravate them. What he had said related to the case of
Stockdale. He would postpone remarking upon Howard's
for the present.
Lord WYNFORD supported the amendment, and
argued that the cases of Ashby and White, and Burdett
and Abbot, laid down the law, which bad never been re-
scinded, that every man might obtain redress for injury
received from the officers of Parliament. He maintained
Parliament had no privileges that were not recognized by
the law of the land, or had not been publicly recognized
by long-established usage, or were just and reasonable ;
and that it was the duty of the Courts of Justice to de-
clare its authority, and to give redress to any party who
sought redress for an injury sustained from any officer of
the House of Commons.
Lord A BINGER said it was wise and prudent of the
House to accept the Bill as a Bill of a peace, in the sense
in which his Noble and Learned Friend accepted it. It
struck him, however, that his Noble and Learned Friend
on the Woolsack was right as to the effect of the amend-
ment upon the pending actions of Stockdale and others.
He did not think it right that the House of Commons
should be exposed to the mortification of one of its ser-
vants being taken in an action of the nature of those out
of which this Bill had arisen. He thought it would be
better so to frame the Bill as to stop the action of Stock-
dale • but that of Howard stood upon other grounds. He
would have proposed one single clause, only providing
that the defendant in all actions for libel, founded on the
publication of Parliamentary Papers, should be entitled to
a verdict, with costs. He considered the machinery devised
by the Bill inconvenient anomalies and unconstitutional.
Lord DENMAN said that he had no objection to the
stopping of Stockdale's action, but the clause, as it
stood in the Bill, extended to other actions. He would
not, on the part of the Queen's Bench, acquiesce in the as-
sumption that an order of the House of Commons, or of the
House of Lords, was sufficient to prevent any man from
bringing his action before the Courts of Law, if he thought
he had good grounds of action.
The LORD CHANCELLOR supported the original
clauses. From what he knew of the history of the case,
he thought that there had been no intention on the part
of the framers of the Act, to show jealousy of the Judges,
or to give them offence.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was understood to sup-
port the amendments.
Lord LANGDALE supported the Bill in its original
state. It was not necessary that the Bill should be the
best possible, for if their Lordships showed now a con-
ciliatory spirit, and a disposition to assist the House of
Commons out of its difficulties, they might with a better
grace at a future time pass a Bill to remedy the defects of
the present measure. He did not think that there was any
disposition in the House of Commons to give offence to
the Court of Queen's Bench.
Lord DENMAN would offer the Bill, in its present
state, his most strenuous opposition. To stop the action
of Mr. Howard, against an officer for an outrage com-
mitted in an excess of his authority, would be the most
gross injustice, and of the worst example. Feeling it his
duty to oppose that part of the Bill, no power on earth
would prevent him from doing so. He did not trouble
himself about the personal disrespect, but it was im.
possible to have read the debates in another place
without perceiving that there existed somewhere a
disposition to do something that might be disagreeable to
the Court of Queen's Bench. The Noble and Learned
Lord then read a clause which be proposed to insert in
the beginning of the Bill, to the effect that " all actions
against printers and publishers for libels contained in pub-
lications printed by order of the House of Commons shall
be, and the same are, hereby stayed."
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the amend-
ment was not sufficiently defined.
After a few words from Lord WYNFORD,
The Earl of WINCHIL SEA felt deeply indebted to
the Noble and Learned Lord for the stand he had made
for vindicating the character of the Court of Queen's
Bench. He cordially supported the amendments proposed
by the Noble Lord, and his only wish was that they had
gone further.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it would meet
the object the Noble Lord had in view, if the first clause,
as to the printing, was left as it now stood, and the provi-
sion proposed by the Noble Lord should be inserted in
the 2d clause. He alluded to the producing to the Court
the certificate of the Speaker of either House of Parlia-
ment, that the paper had been printed under his authority.
That would relieve all objections, and preserve the ma-
chinery of the first clause.
Lord DENMAN agreed to the proposition and with-
drew his amendment. .
Lord \V YNFORD proposed an amendment to the effect
of preventing the sale of the papers by the House of
Commons.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH felt bound to oppose the
amendments of the Noble and Learned Lord In his opi-
nion they ought to pass the measure as nearly as possible
in the shape in which it had been sent to them by the
House of Commons, but he must say that at the same
time they gave themselves this new protection they
ought to take care that it was not abused.—( Hear.)
What, he would ask, would be the consequence of the
Noble Lord's amendment ? why, that House would have to
go to the House of Commons and say they would pass the
Bill if they would rescind one of their resolutions.—
( Hear.) He trusted therefore that their Lordships would
not adopt the amendment, for in his opinion if they did it
would be far better that they should throw out the Bill
altogether than add to the collision already existing be-
tween the House of Commons and the Courts, the collision
between that House and the House of Commons.—( Hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he thought
that they ought to put both Houses on the same
footing by indemnifying the publication. The cause
of all the mischief had been the resolutions of the
House of Commons of 1835, SanetiOttliig the vale of
their publications, vvhieh Might contain libels on her
Majesty's subjects, making the House of Commons the
only authorised libellers in the kingdom.—(Hear, bear.)
It was impossible the House could pass that Bill without
adopting some measure to prevent a repetitiOtt of the evil,
and to prevent the Mete ef Gtirliilbon3 being the only
authorised libellers throughout the country.
The Marl of WICKLOW agreed that the removal of
all the evils might be effected by preVerititlitthb tale tic the
Papers—but there would be gibat diftculty in adopting
that course. He thought the toss to the public would be
infinitely greater by adopting the proposal of the Noble
and Learned Lord, than it weeld leheing the circum-
stances as they, at Nrl3 chi ekieted. The House of Com-
mons, haei% uescended from the high position they at first
tee t, and having sent up this Bill to them be should be
very sorry to see it rejected,
Lord MONTE AU L Itiolight the question of sale
was utterly Itethilitial, although the Votes of the House
Of Colnmons had been constantly sold since the year
1688, with the exception of a slight Intdrrptitidh lb 1717.
The extension of thee tests A-Alk ils.'d'alinended out the evi.
deuce ef' tlkt distinguished Officers of the House of
Columbus by the 'Committee of 1635, end hed been since
adopted. He vv4l kilt their liordstilpi the ree-
cessity of th.e Wei eldtltZe of Parliament, in their delibera-
tiohet Abstaining from interfering with the privileges of
either. Their Lordships were called upon now either to
leave glee taw in its present state, which they would do if
they agreed to the Bill as lent up from the Commons, or
to pass the Bill with a eutidition calling upoil the Heine of
Commons to abandon the regulations and resolutions with
respect to the publication and sale of their proceedings,
which they had adopted on the evidence of Lord Col-
chester and the evidence of Lord Canterbury.—( Hear,
hear.) The House of Coalitions took greater care with
a view of preventing the printing or circulation
of an imprpper priptir than the House of Lords did.
The Noble Duke had feterred to the Very important into
rests that were at stake. He would say do not let these im-
portant interests be compromised. lie thought the amend-
ments would be fatal to the peintiple of the Bill, and he
would say; that if the Bill were a bad title let them at
once reject it, but if they wished to allay the troubled
waters, and put an end to the,differenees and contentions
that had taken place elsewhere, let them not introduce
amendments which they must know in their hearts and
I minds were I:ialetslated to deeticer Its ahead)* ecimptetely.
Viscount 111gLBOU1tNE would not enter into the
question of whether the right of publishing and selling
papers by the House df COlthmritt3 was proper or expe-
dient or not, but it appeared to billi tittite Blear that if
the amendments were assented to, the object contemplated
by the Bill would be entirely put an end to. The amend-
ments went to censure the House of Commons, and to
call upon them to freeikd Its resolutiofi of sale, and he
fee- title eduld not consent to such a proposition, inasmuch
as it was calculated to destroy one of the most important
and valuable functions of the House.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The libel certainly could not be considered a very grievous
one, for it merely btattti that Mr. Stockdale was A publisher
of loose and immoral works. There was another case,
that of a very respectable gentleman .who had given evi-
dence before the New Zealand Committee, but with the
exceptionanyof t
ihnecsoentvee-
no i
ecna
cs e he
es
havingb el I e
av er
ids e there
from
the n o in-
stance
exer-
cise of that privilege.
Lord COLC HE ST E R supported the amendments, al-
though be should regret any collision between that House
and the House of Commons.
Lord ASHBURTON should like to know what incon-
venienceiiseferoen before Parliamentaryindividualsmoarkin
co
liablenmitflort e
ansy,
lihe l s
evidence
or in petitions presented to either Howe, more especially
if the party were allowed to plead the truth in justification.
Lord LANGD A L E said the privilege asserted by the
House of Commons was based upon the necessity of ob-
taining every possible information for the purposes of legis-
lation. The question was, whether when it was necessary for
the public benefit that publication should take place, and
that by some insavr.t tenon something affecting the
private character of an individual took place, the servant=
of the House should be made amen:lWe to the Courts of
Justice. Ile apprehended that as they were merely
obeying the orders el the House they ought not to be
punished, but at the same time he thought it unfair that
the subject should be left without a remedy. Now there
being a direct order of the house of Commons to sell
these publications, they could not agree to the motion
without passing a censure upon the House of Commons,
which he feared would lead to a collision with that Howe,
and be should therefore oppose the motion.
The Marquis of BUTE did not think that the with-