The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

-ri,, Earl of WICKLOW fully participated in the
wiFincts of the Noble Marquis with regard to what might be
i'xi,erfai front the progress of these temperance societies.
lie had t. ken the pains to r:nd the addresses of Father
M4anditv on several occasions, and they breathed nothing
but a spirit of morality, good will, loyalty, and philan-
thropy.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the occasion to
w'aich .e had alluded, he understood that the greatest
ril4rin prevailed in consequence of its having been an-
rii,neeed that 200,000 persona would walk in procession
c4arylaz hsnners, upon one of which was " Strength in
oar u!aicsn." He regretted that the Lord Lieutenant had
taKsrter,d with respect to these processions.
Load KENYON presented a petition from John Joseph
Slockdee on the subject of a Bill which was before their
Lo-rdst111:1 that night. The petitioner prayed to bo heard
at the toar against the Bill. He begged to give notice
'• tlsot he 5h0:4,1,1 to-morrow move that, on the Bill going
into committee, the petitioner should bo heard at their
Lerlibps' bar.
L„,rd WYN FORD presented a petition from Thomas
1 Burton Howard, praying to be heard by Counsel against
Site Printed Papers Bill.
t The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a peti.
l tien *ern the guardians of the poor of St. Mary-le-bone,
- 4,,,ii aiwit the Corn-laws ; and from Saddleworth, to the
sac eNeot.
° The Duke of SUTHERLAND presented petitions
from Brora and other places in Sutherlandshire, praying
for a total repeal of the Corr,-laws.
The Bishop of EXETER said he had placed on their
Lordsllipe' table copies of the questions he proposed to put
to the Judges on the subject of the Clergy Reserves in
Coracle.
Lord LURGAN presented several petitions from
Presbyterian congregations in the north of Ireland, against
tthe intrusion of Ministers into the Church of Scotland ;
ofs-s a petition from two Police Commissioners of the
town of Belfast, stating that various municipal duties now
\
devolved upon them—that the Irish Corporation Bill pro-
uosed to transfer these duties to the Town Council, with-
out deuctually repealing the Acts under which the Police
Coransiesioners acted, and praying either that Belfast
tnigeit be exempted from the operation cf the Bill,
or that those Acts might be specifically re-
pealed. He recommended the petition to the
attention
of the Noble Marquis at the head of the Home Depart
meat, with a view to ascertain the opinion of the Law Ad-
-1 \-7ers of the Crown upon the subject.
PRINTED PAPERS BILI
in movingthe second
1 Tere LORD CHANCELLOR,
1 ceding of this Bill, did not think it necessaryask
their Lordships to express any opinion on the question f privilege which had been so much agitated elsewhere°•ahodf
I be l'oc'us called upon to do so, he should have felt tha't hai
' -situat.ion was one of peculiar difficulty. Not less diffi!
esltv would he have experienced had it been necessary for-
hirn-ta call upon their Lordships to express any opinion on
the deeislion of' the Court of Queen's Bench. The pre-
sent Bill left the question of privilege untouched ; and so
far from annulling the decision of the Court of Queen's

Bench, it proceeded to apply a remedy to the incon-
veniences which had been found to result from the state of
the law as laid down by that Court. He knew that the
advocates of privilege to its highest extent thought this
Bill something like an abandonment of that principle.
Such, however, was not his opinion, for he con-
tended that it left the question of privilege quite
untouched.—( Hear, hear.) Privilege might exist
to the fullest extent that it ever had done, but it might
be necessary to apply a more quiet and easy method
of vindicating that privilege. It was no reason, because
they applied a remedy for certain evils, that if that remedy
were not applied, privilege would cease to exist. The
question was not whether they possessed the right, but if some
more easy mode of vindicating that right could not be dis-
covered. Those who considered the privilege either did
not exist or ought not to be exercised, so far from finding
any objection, would find that the proposed measure en-
tirely met their views, because it gave a legal and Parlia-
mentary mode of doing that which they stated ought not to
be done by any other method. This Bill gave a legal
right of carrying into effect that right which all thougth
necessary to be exercised by both Houses of Parliament.
The question was whether the state of the law as at present
an
expounded—and which he admitted without expressing y
it was not
opinion—whether, under existing circumstances,
necessary that some remedy should be applied. He would
not occupy their time by arguing that which he believed
no one would deny—•that the Houses of Parliament could
not exercise their duties without the power of printing and
publishing. A great part of the difficulty in
this case had arisen from not considering
the legal meaning of the word publishing ; in
common parlance the meaning of that word was sufficiently
well understood ; but with regard to the publication of a
libel, legally speaking, it was almost impossible to print
without publishing—the very communication of it to any
gentleman who was not a privileged person was a publi•
cation. The House of Commons had for the last two cen-
turies been in the habit of printing and selling its papers,
not, perhaps, in the same manner as now, but during the
whole of that period they had been in the habit of ordering
the publication and sale of certain papers, and whether
that sale was for the benefit of an individual officer of the
House, or of any fund, in point of law it made no differ-
ence whatever. They would find from a Report of a
Committee of the House of Commons, that the order of
1835 with regard to the signing of papers by that House
had occasiened rather a diminution than an increase of
circulation ; but if it were right that the Houses of Parlia-
ment should possess the power of publication, unless they
were to be prohibited from printing at all, then the extent
to which that power should be carried must be confided
to the House itself—if the power of expounding
the extent to which that power might be car-
ried was intrusted elsewhere, great inconveniences
and disputes must necessarily arise. He would suppose one
case : suppose the House of Commons found it necessary
to exhibit articles of impeachment against any public offi-
cer, it would be impossible for the House of Commons to
carry on tho necessary proceedings without printing and
publishing in the legal acceptation of the word. What
would be the consequence ? Why, that the individual
against whom the articles were exhibited would have no-
thing to do but to bring his action against the officer of
the House of Commons, who must either abstain from
appearing, and let judgment go by default, or plead a jut-
tification, and bring the question to trial, and when their
Lordships came to the investigation, they would do it with
the verdict of the Jury on the subject already recorded.
It was necessary to apply some remedy to this evil ; they
might be told that in a case ot that sort it would be obvious
that the right would be conceded at once ; but who were
to be the judges? Were the Houses of Parliament to de-
legate to the Courts of Law the power of judging of the
expediency of any political measure ? It was obvious that
the Houses of Parliament could not delegate to any other
body the power of judging of their privileges. He was
asking no more than what was conceded to tribunals of in-
finitely less importance ; if this power were submitted to
the judgment of other people, it might be law, but it would
no longer be privilege. This was the case with the juris-
diction of all other Courtshaving power of noticing contempt,
and in all those cases the Court itself was the sole judge of
the circumstances. The Court which he had the honour
en preside over, might be called the of licinum of libel.
There were upwards of 9,000 bills filed every year, and
one half of them contained libellous matter which would
oe actionable unless proved ; it often happened that liti-
uants in the Court of Chancery did not confine themselves
to the matter in contest, but often exhibited their fiery
spleen and malice by stating that which was highly impro-
per to be stated ; but no other Court had any right to in-
terfere—the Court itself on complaint being made, caused
the matter to be investigated of its own authority, and if
necessary, made compensation to the party aggrieved by
ordering the matter to be expunged from the record. Corn-
mittals for contempt were the necessary power of all
Courts—it might be abused r,o doubt, but no other Court
had any right to interfere ; the parties committed might
sue out their habeas corpus, and be brought before the
highest tribunal of that nature in the kingdom, yet, if it
were a committal for contempt, the Court would not in-
terfere. The Court of Chancery sometimes found it
necessary to employ agents, and it it permitted a suitor to
appeal to any other jurisdiction to complain of the officer
of the Court, it could not perform its functions, an l
therefore it will not permit him to do so, bat
will order an inquiry to he made into the circumstances,
and if it shall be thereupon deemed right, will order emu-
pensatien to the injured party, and punishment to the
accused. These were instances in which, it being con-
ceded that a jurisdiction existed, it followed the exercise ot
that jurisdiction must be left to the Court or Assembly
which possessed it. It was thus indispinsebly necessary,
not only from the nature of things, but by the analogy .of
WI those other cases which might be brought to illustrate the
same principle, for if the Honeys of Parliament pesses,ied
the power of whiting and publishing at all they must ex-
ercise their discretie:i what forms should be adopted in the
exercise of that right. Now the decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench, which he dii nor mean to impugn,etated that
it was the right and power of the two Houses of Parliament
to do what they thought expedient with regard to papers
under their control, heti' decided that the party against
whom an action was brought for libel was not protected
by showing the libel eith which lie was charged, and for
which damages weve sought, was republished by older of
the House of Commons. The same question would
arise on any publication by order of that House
If their Lordships ordered a paper to be printed end pub.
lished (the legal consequences would be the same whether
it was voted or not) and an action were brought against
their Lordship;' oilier, who would be neccasarilt hm-
pleyed, ho would call for the exercise of the privileges
of the House for his protection. Now as the law stood,
it was decided that the officer could not protect himself by
showing that he acted under the direction of their Lord-
ships. Now that was showing they could not exerciae
this privilege ; fur if were done it must be done by some
agent ; leaving the question in this singular predicament,
that it was the acknotsledeed right of the House to adopt
what course it pleased within the walls of the House, but it
it were necessary in any case to exercise the power of
publication, the law must necessarily be such as to protect
the necessary agents in that duty, and that was all the Bill
proposed. A very obvious mode of remedying those incon-
veniences was by doing that which was decided not to
he malting the authority of the Houses of Parliament
the just itication of the alleged libel which mielit
he carried into effect in various ways —( Eleer.) (Toe
Noble and Learned Lord gave one or tee examples, and
proceeded.) There were two other modes suggested, but
so much alike they might be considered as forming one
proposition, namely, the enacting that a certificate on the
authority of the House of Commons, that the paper in re-
spect of which the ection had been brought had been or-
dered to be published by the direction of the House, beinge
brought to the Court, should be considered as staying the
proceedings, and the Court prevented further inquiry on
being satisfied of the facts alleged in the certificate. This
to a certain extent would bring the authorities into the Led-
lision it was so desirable to avoid. This Bill proposed
something not quite the same, but much connected with it.
It did not leave the Court to make an order staying pro-
ceedings, but directed the certificate to be brought to the
office of the Court, and thus delivered the Court from en-
tering at all upon the proceedings, by which it was sug-
gested the objects would be attained. He was not aware
of any possible objection to the remedy proposed. It could
not be considered at all disrespectful to the country, and
be thought their Lordshipa would be of opinion that in
making provision for the future, it would be necessary to
guard against the possibility of that collision taking place,
which could do no good, and which it was the object of
their Lordships to avoid. Those were the objects of the
Bill so far as related to prospective proceedings, but it also
proposed to stay all actions which hail been brought under
the circumstances with which the Bill originated. He ap-
prehended their Lordships would have no difficulty in ac-
ceding to that part of the Bill, because those actions pro-
ceeded in violation of the orders of the House of Com-
mons—in violation of that which, if their Lordships acceded to
the Bill, they would be of opinion ought to be the rights and
privileges of that House. It had also one further object. In
consequence of the conduct of the attorney who continued to
act after the issuing of the order of the House, another action,
had accrued, though of a different kind. He understood. a pe-
tition had been presented, praying that that, individual might be
heard at their Lordships' bar, which, as it would be matter for
consideration when their Lordships went into Committee on the
Bill, he would not now enter upon. If he were asking their
Lordshies to adopt a new plan of action, to enable the House to
do that which they had not done before, it would be matter for
serious consideration whether or not they would make an altera-
tion in the practice. But when he was asking their Lordships
centuries, he
in thought their
How
wtheiirt
wLaosrdsthhi
to do what the House of Commons had done for at least two
been that the
or public opinion was in two cen-
turieswi_
.ou. , injured,
wthoousled see little
f complaint must either bare
Houses of Parliament, se
ing it. He did not think sit
parties did not consider themselves
to deter individuals
favoura of the power exercised by the
from question-
that had been done whic
come to any determination
them to give their assent tot
necessary to ask their Lordships to
uponi it: his object was to show
further than simply to propose to
etlylawere asked to do. In asking
Bill, he did not carry them
exer-
cise of their duty,. the officers of that
raovrd antdheof
stheceoontdherreHadoiunsge of
Parliament. them to protect, in the
Parliament. He therefore
dII.DENAI AN said he was very anxious tiottake the earliest
hethhyouagme„
theLoßri
their Lordships
owpopuolrdt uhne istty
consult
stating
thethpeuhlic reasonsinterests
to the mo-
ribdlsehifposr, tion of his Noble and Learned Friend. It was impossible
any one to have brought this measure before thieTrls..itla.s
notice in a more moderate or appropriate tone than
and Learned Friend nad done. At the same time he thought,Noble
on this discussien, the nature and tone of those dis-
cussions, cuesions, which for the last four months had occupied the- '
public mind, made it not unnatural in him to offer a few
observations on the state of this question, he trusted for the pur-
pose of refuting misconceptions which had generally prevailed,
to rescue persons who had but done their duty from undeserved
censure, and to state the true grounds and principedles on which
such a Bill as the present ought ever to be adopt by either
Ho House of Parliament. He would proceed at once to state the
tares on which so much mise.onception had prevailed. An actirn
was brought three years ago beiore a Special Jury, but that
was not the first proceeding of importance in
the day before that trial was to take place the
House of Com-
monste cause. On
Hh
entertained a motion, and entered into a long debate;
which appeared before the whole population of the metropolis
early next morning, on some preliminary proceedings in the
course of that action, upon an order made by the House of
Commons, and upon which the House debated, whether or not

it would interfere. Now, he stated in the outset of this case a
strong conviction that if anything of that were to be permitted
there would be an end of the boasted independence of
their tribunals, whether by King's letters, as heretofore,
or by any resolution of either House of Parliament, or other
great authority in the State ; if interference were permitted
with the proceedings of the Courts of Justice, all respect would
be divested from them. That trial came on, an individual pre-
ferred a complaint for libel against the officers of the House of
Commons, who were defended by the most able Counsel, and
had several defences open to them, and among others, whether
in fact the publication was a libel. He (Lord Denman) had
great doubts whether it was a libel, and he expressed those
doubts strongly, but the Learned Attorney-General thought
fit to give up that ground, and then the question was whether
or not the justification of its truth offered, was or was not made
out to the satisfaction of a Jury, under the charge which he
felt it his duty to lay before them, not concealing his opinion
that the justification of truth was made out. The Attorney-
General put forth another defence upon certain resolutions of
the House of Commons in 1835 and 1836 ; by the former they
resolved to make all their publications assessable to all man-
kind at the lowest price ; and by the second, they defined the
terms on which the sale should take place under the authority
of the House of Commons, and this was the first difference,
of which he was aware, between his Noble and Learned
Friend and himself. When his Noble and Learned Friend
said nothing was done different from what had been done for
two centuries, he (Lord Denman) took the liberty of saying
on the contrary it was entirely novel and unprecedented, and,
therefore, it struck him that the only mode by which a justifica-
tion of the libel could be made was by stating the House of Com-
mons had the power of calling by the name of privilege what-
ever they chose to call by that name, and the more so from the
preliminary discussion in the House of Commons to which he
had referred. He felt it, therefore, necessary, on the part of
English nation, to say, "I do not admit that to be privilege,
and will not give it the name of law."—(Hear, hear.) He
might have expressed this too warmly, but he felt that if he had
delayed expressing this opinion, he should have been delaying
to do his duty. Was he right in so deciding? Why, a Commit-
tee of the House of Commons met to consider the question,
framed a most learned Report, entered into a full dis-
cussion of authorities on every side, and came to
the conclusion. After first stating the necessity for publica-
tion, it asserts that by the law and privilege of Parliament that
House had the sole jurisdiction to determine upon the existence
and extent of its privileges, and that the institution and prose-
cution of any action, suit, or other proceeding for the purpose
of bringing them into discussion was a breach of such privilege,
and rendered all persons concerned therein amenable to their
highest displeasure, and, therefore, for any Court to presume to
determine in matters of privilege was contrary to the law of Par-
liament,andabreachandcontemptoftheprivilegesofParliament ;
so that the justification of publishing a particular document was
that they had a right to sell any document they printed, because
they had a right to do what they pleased. "My Lords," said
the Noble and Learned Lord, " I take it this is not the law of
England, and I wish those gentlemen, who I am sure believed
the existence of the privilege they asserted, had refrained from
using words of menace towards the tribunals of the country
which cannot have the slightest effect upon the decisions
to which they come, (and which I am satisfied the
the House of Commons would deeply deplore, if they could
so), or induce them to state an opinion contrary to ,
that which they believe to be right."—(Hear, hear. )
A second action was commenced, and then upon that action
instead of justifying the truth, the sword of truth was thrown
away and the sword of power was resorted to. He was bound
in the first instance to give his opinion of the law, and himself
and the other Judges were bound to give their opinions when
the question was raised upon the demurrer, and he felt bound
therefore, with some indignation, to repel the notion that the
Judges were volunteers in the contest. They had no choice of
acting, their duty required them to pronounce their judgment
Ile would not enter particularly into the discussion of the mean•
ing of the resolution ; but it seemed to him if that was the law
of the land they had been mistaken for years and centuries in
supp sing.that they were living in a free country.—( Hear,
hear.) Because it was saying that if such a thing was law
they would abrogate it. He believed that the House had never
attempted such an exercise of power, and, in the case of Ashby
and White, one of their Lordships had distinctly stated that
neither House had the power to create privileges/inconsistent
with that law. Now he would like I o know at what period in
the Constitution either House had the power of asserting what
its privileges were. In the time of James the First it did not
exist, for in that reign a person of the name of Floyd, for some
light words which he made use of with respect to the Elector
Palatine, and the electors, was adjudged to imprisonment, the
pillory, and confiscation of his estates, and there the Lords
said it was no business of the House of Commons
and would not allow them to carry their sentence into effect.
He might be told that this was all declamation, that it was only
fancying what might arise, and that the Representatives of the
people would never use the power given them. Now with re-
spect to that, what took place in the time of Charles the Se-
cond--more enlightened times than thosehe had before refer-
red to? Why, in that reign certain subjects of the Crown, who
thought it would not be convenient for Parliament to meet at a
certain time, petitioned the Crown not to call Parliament tone-
then so soon ; and what was the result ? Why, as soon as the
House met, they said the petition was a breach of their pri-
vileges, and that for that the petitioners should be sent to
gaol. In consequence of the adoption of that course, one of
the King's subjects was arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms,
and was not only imprisoned, but a sum ot 30/. was extorted
from him. An action was brought to recover damages for
the imprisonment and the extortion of money, and two of the
Judges who tried that action were brought to the Bar, and
called upin to an: wer fur awarding damages. In 1701, a pe-
tition was presented from the Grand Ju.y of the County of
Kent, requesting the House of Commons to aid more in the
war. and the petitioners in that case were sent to gaol as guilty
of a breach of privilege. 'The persons who presented that were
De Foe and Lord Somers, who wrote works against the right
of the House of Commons, or that House, to take
such a s-ep. In short, in every instance where they
had taken place the outcry against it was universal.
In favour of the existence of privileges it was said that they
were given to Parliament for the purpose of its checking the
power of the Sovereign. But supposing the Crown and the
lion's of Commons to be contending against great rights,
surely the Courts ought to have the power to interfere. In
thy: case of Sir F. Burdett in 1.310, Lt ,n 1 Erskine' Sir Samuel
and Mr. Brougham took a most decided part against
the notion that privilege superseded law ; and 110 person could
attribute to those Noble Lords anything but a desire for the
aights and liberties of the people.—( Hear, hear.) Feeling the
osibility of the judgment he had given, he consulted his
Friend Lord Brougham upon it, and he was most happy
that that \oble Lord had told him that the doctrines lie
id down were necessary, and the language he had used
—sing them down most proper. The large power of de-
claring- their privileges was not asked by the present 13111, and
he hail therefore the satisfaction of thinking that the present
ifieuse of Commons di4 not put their case on that ground.
The present Bill was confined to the applica'ion of remedies to
a small part of the inconvenience that now existed. Those
who argued this ease in the House of Commons had put the
matter upon a different ground to that upon which it was put
in the Court of Queen's Bench. Tire assertion made in the
House of Commons was that the measure was necessary, inas-
much as Macy could rot legislate without it. Now he had tried
tt ith great care to discover why it wits that the House of Commons
rho • id possess the privilege of printing and seliing its proceeding s,
hut he could not discover it, the reasons giv n for it could not
be borne out for a moment. It was said that. the House was
leraild to put the people in possession of the grounds upon
which they acted. That might be all very well, but was it
to be dene by ex par to statements, injurious to individuals, cir-
culated be the highest authority ? They said that they must
sat isfe heir constituents; but was that. to be done by publishing
libels, or Isy the premature circulation of evidence tak, n ex
parte ? Tb y were told of the high duties they had to execute,
and that was urged as a ground why they, and they alone, were
to be Ow judges of their own privileges, and were alone com-
pet, lit to say what they would publish, and what not. In the
reign if Charles 11., an individual named Dangertield laid
upon the table of the House statements traducing a most
worthy individual, and the House sold it for the benefit of the
intens '., tint that was no ground' for adopting sotch a course
Now it had happened to himself when in office, that
oers hot teen written to him relative to the removal of a
rnagistra is in the principality of Wales, and what course did he
adopt 00 that occasion He slid not circulate the letters he
had received, but called upon the person accused in them to
defend himself against the charge, and that he considered was
the proper coarse to take. The practice of indiscriminate sale
would be pr.tluetive of the wof st effects, and as an instance of
that, he might state that in 1836, after the resolution had beets
adopted, a petition was presented against the present Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, one of the most
excellent and honourable men that ever sat on the bench,
reating him as the most corrupt and ignorant offender that had
ever disgraced the seat of justice, and if indiscriminate sale
had taken place that petition containing such assertions
would have been made public. (Hear, hear, hear.)
There was another case which originated in their Lordships
House—the case of Polack. Why, because a man was a wit-
ness before a Committee of either House, was he to IRS made a
butt for any and every one to fire at with impunity—was
another to come forward and say that that man was not to be
believed on his oath—that slander was to be circulated through-
out the country at three halfpence a sheet, and yet he was to be
left without a remedy? The Report upon Petitions and public
officers showed the perfect impotence of the House to protect
individuals, or apply any remedy for injury. Supposing that
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong, he
was satisfied that there never was a Giurt more ready and
stilling to butt to the judgment of env Court by which their
judgment had been considered. It haci been said the Judges in
the case .of Stoekdale acted as arbitrators. He denied that.
They aated as Judges, bound by their oaths to decide on all the
cases that came before them according to the best of their
judgment. His attention had lately been called to a return
which had been moved for in the other House—a return of all
the judgments of the Queen's Bench taken into a Court of
Error, and the number which had been reversed, he supposed
for the purpose of showing that the Judges of that Court were
not infallible. They laid no claim to that, and had not the
case,
ha.salioenth:::lasery-t
slightest objection to the return. It was made; and it
appeared to show that, in a period of five years,
twenty judgments had been appealed against, ten of which had
been reversed. Of course there were many judgments which,
from their nature, could not be appealed against, but it ought
to be known to them and to the public, that during that period
upwards of 6,000 judgments had been given, and if out of those
only ten had been reverses!, that showed no mean proportion,
to the whole. But when it was stated that out of twenty ap-
peals one-half had been reversed, surely that also showed that
the Court of Error to which those appeals had been made were
not influenced by anything but duty, and, when they saw occa-
sion, had not refused to do their duty by reversing the judg-
ments. That being so, he would ask why those perties, de-
fendants in those cases, had not carried the judgment of the
Queen's Bench into the Court of Error ?—(Hear, hear.) Sup-
pose the judgment of the Queen's Bench had been the other
way—that the Court had given judgment for Hansard, and
that Stockdale had appealed to a Court of Error—would
Commons, in such a
fered in any manner to stop such appeal ?—(Hear.
the House of
Judging from f;rofomr
inwtautrdtehteja hadca
se dt ohne elloonu
sf
eo former er oLordsc
have given up.on
Court, and he waes
iopte:foefctthlyeirsuprreivitlhegate
or
rhaotf Htohuesire would not
judicially under their notice,
they That judgment still remained,
supposing the judgment.otoifcteh,ebQu e ewno'
us
lßd e nhcahv he a dr
ebveeerns
ebdr
iotuhg had
they found it to be err f
and not being appealed rdom it became authority, and all the
right to resort to anti act uponH it.
avi
gthen went to the Sheriff, and
upon the re 'vilege point, the case
sis.ihbej e
judgment
gomf
uhuetr
011f1 atjhees ter 0
the damages were as-
the real nature of the case,
huart ha
sessed at 100/. Another action was brought for
there no Counsel appearing for the defendant in order to state
eared for the defen-
again went to the Sheriff, no Counsel app
He did not wish
dant and the damages were assessed at 6001. •
the same cause ; no plea was put in to that action it
Stockdale for seeking redress for injury in a Court of Law.
to say one word with respect to the proceedings taken ag_anist
Not one word with respect to the proceedings against the at-
torney for acting professionally according to the instructions
of his client, nor with respect to the proceedings taken against
the attorney's clerk, for obeying the instructions of his master
na
dd erregcoeni
—( Hear, hear)—but he wanted to say one word on the subject
of the Sheriff, because, if the House were called upon ever to
give the slightest sanction to the punishment which they had
undergone, that
ploiuusteiff,csomuluduneeyv—erthaegyree
wereto as just TheinueSh theheriff
wtruasstmeheseou h
ftehraetemeiolnedeythaesrtehnetstiiltiffwaosf
hisa dutynyofththeigrivLeoridtshiluips.
mediately over to the plaintiff, and the Court on being applied
to, was bound to give the plaintiff the money, and if the