The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-23 00:00:00

did not pay the money to Stockdale, but in that case the
hardship would be indicted by the Court of Queen's
Bench, and not by the House. The Hon and Learned
Sergeant had not replied to that part of the argument of
the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General for Ireland,
which went to show, that when an injunction had been
issued by the Court of Chancery, and it was disregarded,
it was invariably followed by an attachment against the
partyl offending, and against his attorney' also; and that
attachment was precisely analagous to a commit-
ment for contempt by that House. The Sheriffs
had said that they were sworn duly to serve and
execute the Queen's writs to there directed. Now,
the word serve being adopted from the Latin word " ser-
vire," to obey, and the French word "servir," it was evident
the proper interpretation of the oath was, that they should
duly obey and execute the writs. He, therefore, contended
that the Sheriffs in abstaining to levy, in consequence of
the intervention of the privilege, had obeyed the writ.
The motto of the family to which he had the honour to
belong—( Hear, hear)—was " servir le roi, le bon, la loi ;"
if " servir" in that case vacant to execute, the House
would easily perceive the awkard position of his family.
He contended that if the Judges bad been acquainted with
all the resolutions of that House, they would have con-
sidered for some time before giving their decision. As re-
garded the decision they had already pronounced, it was
evident they must be either right or wrong. One
or the other must yield; and be contended the High
Court of Parliament was superior to the " Aula Regia."
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the Motion
Against it 92

Majority
Thomas Burton Howard was then called in, and exa-
mined as follows :

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Were you the at-
torney in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard ?—I was.
Did you file the declaration?—l did.
Did you sue out the bill of inquiry of damages ?—I did.
Were you served with a copy of the resolutions of this
House ?—I was not. _ .

By Mr. GODSON—Was it you that took out the writ
in this case ?—No.

......._,.....
By Mr.„ Sergeant TALFOU RD—Were you aware of
the judgment in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard 2—l was.
Were you aware that the Attorney-General had argued
the case on the part of this House ?—I was.
By Mr. KELLY—Were yon aware that the Solicitor
of the Treasury had acted as solicitor in this case ?—I was.
Did you understand that the House of Commons had
charged the Solicitor of the Treasury with a breach of
privilege for appearing in the Court 7—l did not.
When did you first proceed against the Messrs. Han-
sard?—ln October last, when the declaration was filed.
Did you know, or had you any reason to suppose at the
time, that the ouse of Commons could interfere to stop
one of the Queen's subjects taking proceedings against
any officer of this House ?—I had not.
Do you believe the House of Commons had any such
powers ?--(Loud cries of " No, no," from many of the
Members.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged leave to ask
his Hon. Friend if he intended to persever in asking such
a question ?
Mr. KELLY said, if the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man meant only to ask him that question, he begged to
say be did, and, if necessary, would take the sense of the
House on it. And as to whether his question be either
just, proper, or Parliamentary, he would answer by say-
ing that he intended to maintain his right in putting the
question.
Sir E. SUGDEN hoped his Hon. and Learned Friend
would not persevere in putting that question, in the pre-
cise terms he had framed it. His Hon. Friend only meant
to a-,k what the witness's impression was upon the matter.
Mr. KELLY said he would be anxious to accede to
the suggestions of his Hen. Friend and the Hon. and
Learned Attorney-General, but he felt himself bound to
say distinctly that he would put that question.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he did not think it a
very advisable question, nor could it produce a very valuable
answer.

Sir R. INGLIS held that the object of the House was
not to elicit an opinion from the witness or party, but to
get at the state of facts—not what another body had a
right to do. He hoped the question would not be per-
severed in, because he was afraid that the answer might be
taken advantage of.

Sir R. PEEL thought the objection of the Attorney.
General a perfectly valid one.—( Cheers.) The question
put to the party was, what he held to be the privileges of
the House of Commons, not what be did when he was en-
gaged to go on with the cause. If any advantage was to
be taken of the witness, it would not be of the impression
under which he acted then, but of what was his impression
at the present moment, after he had become acquainted
with the resolutions of the House. He had put a similar
question to Mr. France, who at once objected to it, and he,
seeing the force of the objection, at once gave way.—
( Cheers.) Ile should hope it would not be asked of the
witness what his constructions of privilege were after the
deciiion of the House.

Mr. C LIE SSWE L L considered the question to be per-
fectly irrelevant, and trusted his Hon. and Learned Friend
would not persevere in it.
Mr. KELLY hoped he would not be out of order if be
submitted some observations in answer to his lion. Friends
on his side of the House, for whom he had every respect.
He felt it hit duty to put the question—( Cries of " Spoke,
spoke.")
Mr. HECTOR said the Hon. Member had spoken two
or three times on the same subject, and he submitted that
he had no right to speak again on the same subject.
The SPEAKER.—The Hon. and Learned Member is
quite in order.
Mr. KELLY had very great reluctance to detain the
House, and would not do so had he not a firm conviction
that he was right. What he wanted to know was whether
the witness knew from his own conscientious conviction
whether he now conscientiously believed that the House
had the power to stop him from proceeding in any action
that might be brought wherein he might be called to assist.
When the Sheriffs were recalled, it appeared from ques-
tions put to them that they would not have been punished
had they paid over the money to Hansard—the former breach
of privilege would have been passed over had they acknow-
ledged the power of the House. If the witness were to say
now that he thought the House had the power to atop him in
proceeding, then probably, following the same precedent,
it would not proceed to punish him, therefore he thought
the question material. If he answered that he held the
same opinion as he did when he brought the action, then
he (:Mr. Kelly) admitted he would be guilty of great dis-
respect to the majority of the House—but if, on the other.
hand, he declared that, notwithstanding the resolutions of
the House, he acted according to the duty cast uponhim
by law, and, bona fide, according to his understanding of
the law, still he hoped the House would not proceed to
punish him.
The gallery was ordered to be cleared for a division, bnt
none took place.
Mr. Howard was then re-called, and in answer to ques-
tions from Mr. Kelly and the Attorney-General, stated
that he had been for twenty years an attorney, and never
knew of the House of Commons interfering in an action
brought by him before. That he had never seen the
notices served upon Stockdale. He had commenced the
action in October, and had received the notices of the
House after he had filed his declaration.

Sir E. SUG D EN—Have you any explanation to give ?
—I humbly conceive that I was only doing my duty to
Mr. Stockdale, and that if I had discontinued it he would
have brought an action against me,. If I have been mis-
taken as to the manner in which I have been compelled to
proceed, and if I leave incurred the displeasure of the
House ,I deeply and honestly regret it.
Mr. W. AT T W 00D—Have you given your answers
under the impression that by refusing to answer you sub-
ject yourself to a committal for contempt ?—Most cer-
tainly. The witness, in answer to further questions,
stated that he was employed in the first action, when Mr.
Stockdale recovered 1001. damages. He was also con-
cerned in the action in which the publication was found to
be an obscene libel. Stockdale prosecuted that action in
person, and in that trial a verdict was given in the mate-
rial issue, without any medical gentleman being called.
Ile (Mr. Howard) had never seen the book, but he had
heard it was of a scientific character. When the last action
was brought he fully expected that the Messrs. Hansard
would have pleaded the same thing on which they had
been previously successful.—(Hear, hear.) If, on the
contrary, they had pleaded the order of that Hon. house
he certainly should have taken very considerable advice,
indeed all he could have procured, before he proceeded
further in the action, lest he should incur the displeasure
of that House.

By Mr. O'CONNELL—I was the attorney on the
record in the first action. Stockdale then sued inform
pauperia, and defended himself. I did not see the book
then, although it was shown to the jury, for I was not in
Court at the time. I was appointed the attorney, by or-
der of a Learned Judge. I consented to act before the
order was obtained, it being certified that Stockdale had
a good cause of action. I asked Mr. Stockdale to show
me the book:

---- ---- -----
Mr. L &NV objected to the last question, and it was
withdrawn.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought thaw ought not to in-
quire into what had occurred between attorney and client.
By Mr. I'. HOBHOUSE—I was not aware before I
commenced the action of any particular privilege of the
House of Commons. I never received any notice of them.
Sir R. PEEL-- Have you any further statement to make
to the House?—lf I could in stronger language apologise
for any displeasure I may have justly incurred hare, I would
do so.

The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said that, understanding the
gentleman was desirous of making the most unqualified
apology if he had done anything to incur the displeasure of
the House, he wished that he should now be recalled, and
asked if he was desirous of making such submission to the
House, for having been engaged in opposition to the privi-
leges of that House, and in support of Mr. Stockdale.—
( Loud cries of " Adjourn," and calls for Lord J. Russeli.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he found himself in some dif-
ficulty after hearing the examination, as to the answers
which Mr. Howard had given to particular questions; he
therefore wished that the examination should be now read
by the Shorthand-writer.
The Shorthand-writer then read his notes of the exami-
nation of Mr. Howard.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the question then be-
fore them was, would it be consistent with the maintenance
of their privileges to take the same course with Mr.
Howard as they had with Mr. Stockdale. The conduct of
Mr. Howard at the bar had been so exemplary, and his
apology and regret had been so amply expressed, that he
( Lord John Russell) thought it was unnecessary to pro-
cued any further, and he should therefore move
that he should be discharged. He knew many instances
in which tile course now proposed had been adopted.
There was an instance in 1775, in which a newspaper
proprietor, who had misrepresented a Member's speech,
was dealt with in the manner now proposed. On the
whole, he thought that, basing committed the plain-
tiff in the case, and the Sheriffs who had seized
the goods of the servant of that House, the House
would be satisfied that there had been a sufficient
vindication of their privileges.—( Loud cheers.) As