The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-07 00:00:00

Mr. •HUME begged to ask whether the situation of
Chief Justice of Upper Canada was vacant, because he
understood the Chief Justice had not been, for the last year
and a half, in that country. From the situation in which
the province of Upper Canada at present was, it seemed
to him important that the Chief Justice should be there,
or, if he was not wanting, the office should be abolished, to
save the salary.—( A laugh.)
Lord J. RUSSELL (who spoke in a very low tone of
voice) was understood to say that he had received an inti-
matioa from the Chief Justice that he would return to Ca-
nada on the Ist of March. He (Lord J. Russell) had
represented to the Chief Justice that it was very de-
sirable that he should proceed to Canada with as
little delay as possible ; but in consequence of a
death in his family he was unwilling to leave this country
until early in April, when it was his intention to proceed
to Upper Canada.
Mr. HUME—Can the Noble Lord inform the House
whether the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended in Lower
Canada ?

-----
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said an ordinance had

been passed for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, under
the Government of Sir John Colborne. He believed that
Act had been since renewed, but it was not likely to con-
tinue very long in force.
CHINA.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, not seeing the Noble Lord
at the head of the Foreign Department, or any
Hon. Member connected with the Admiralty, in his place,
begged to ask the Noble Lord, the Secretory for the
Colonies, a question relative to the Chinese papers
vAltich were laid on the table at a late hour last

night. He did not find in those papers any lie•
count of some most important transactions men-
tioned in the last accounts received in England,
viz., that a remonstrance had been made on the part of
certain American merchants against the blockade of the
port of Canton, and also an action, said to have taken place
between certain Chinese vessels of war and some of her
Nlajesty's fleet. IL wished to know whether her Majesty's
Government were in possession of any information Trith
respect to the blockade or the action to which he alluded;
and if so, whether it was their intention to lay it upon the
ulble ?

Lcrd J. RUSSELL—No official account has been re

ceived of the naval action, or of the transaction to which

the Right Hon. Gentleman alludes. Private letters
have reached this country from Captain Elliott and Captain
Smith, but when official accounts are received there will
be no objection to lay them before the House.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—I have been informed
there is a letter addressed by Captain Elliott to the late
Admiral Maitland, giving an account of the blockade,
and that that letter was transmitted by the late Admiral
Maitland to the Admiralty. Surely that is an official com-
munication to the Government—( Hear).—and I presume
her Majesty's Government would not object to lay that do-
cument before the House.—(llear, from the Opposition.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—There arc letters of that kind,
but they are not letters that contain any narrative of the
transaction ; and certainly, speaking from memory, I do not
think they are letters that could be laid before the House;
however, I will not give a positive answer without referring
to the letters themselves.
EXCHEQUER BILLS.

Mr. GOULBURN begged to ask the Secretary for the
Treasury, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
present, whethcr it was true that the interest on Exchequer
Bills had boen raised from lid. to 21-d. ? There was such
a report afloat, and he thought it was important that the
country should know whether there was any truth in it
Mr. E. J. STANLEY had seen such a statement in
print, and he presumed it was correct.
ADJOURNED DEBATE—PRINTED PAPERS.
The Order of the Day having been read for resuming
the Adjourned Debate on Printed Papers,
Mr. O'CONNELL rose and said he did not know

or not.

whether he ought to trespass on the attention of the
House upon a subject that had been so frequently
discussed, and his only excuse for doing so was that
it had assumed a new shape at the present
moment. This was the first time the attention of the
House had been called to the mode of entertaining
the subject by Bill. As he thought that method
was highly derogatory to the honour and dignity, and
he might even say safety of the House, he begged leave to
enter his solemn protest against it. What they had con-
tended for was the right of letting the public know the
grounds of their legislation—they had claimed nothing for
themselves individually—the entire struggle had been for
the people.—( Hear.) It ought to be a popular struggle.
He saw with regret persons who had been once contending
for the importance of unfettered and uarestraincd publica-
tion, now taking part against the House of Commons,
clearly from not perceiving that the struggle was for that
very principle which they had formerly advocated—( Hear,
hear)—a principle which had been called into practice for
more than two hundred years—the principle, that is, of pri.
vileged publication by that House of defamatory matter,
and this had for so long a period been carried on not
only with impunity, but unassailed, and acquiesced in by
public, who had seen the necessity of information being
diffused on important subjects by that House. And during
that period, though doubtless many hundreds and thousands
of persons had been affected, accusations being properly
published against them of crimes, misdemeanonrs, and
offences of different kinds, Stockdale was the only
person who had brought in question the privilege in a
Court of Law. It was the almost universal opinion of
that House, by men of all parties, by the leaders both of
dtheinitdaededic,alblytemfoormsteorsf
(wilyW'
tihg sscarcely
o nasne r vexception)
d, bayn
those who objected to the course pursued by the House,
that the privilege of publicpatuibolnicmudsutteyx._ist(, hhear,te
11-ilteaurse)
itaslmost exclusively to the mode
could not
tdioisneshawrgeree
The objections
in which the House had vindicated that privilege
The Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to say, that it
had been stated that they were inflicting punishment for
punishment's sake, on the Sheriff— it had been stated
that that officer had been innocent of every crime, and yet
that lie was suffering for the exercise of this authority. It
had been said that that was unjust, but they had not done
so for the mere purpose of punishing the Sheriff.
They entertained no feeling of vengeance against
those gentlemen, but they stood in the way of
the privileges of the House—they had prevented those pri_