The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 6. 1840.

where if he were punished erroneously, the error might
be corrected when discovered ? He then asked if he
had not demonstrated that capital punishment was not,
from the feelings of man, less certain to be inflicted than
any other, and whether they would not be content to
convict on ordinary evidence, without torturing their
minds to discover some flaw in it to save themselves from
the possibility of future remorse, which would attend an
erroneous judgment ? If this were true, he implored them
to adopt it, not merely for saving some lives which might
be sacrificed, but for the sake of protecting that defenceless
part of the community for whose protection he agreed
with his Noble Friend it was their bounden duty to
provide. He, therefore, moved as an amendment,
for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of capital
punishments.
Mr. EW ART said that provided the principle were
adopted by the House he was indifferent to the form in
which it was done, and he would, therefore, withdraw his
motion and allow the amendment to stand as one, which
was accordingly done.
Mr. GOULBURN said that, although by the
form of the motion now before the House they
had got rid of one objection stated by the Noble
Lord, he confessed the arguments of the Noble
Lord were so conclusive against the adoption
of the motion that he klt himself necessitated to vote
against it. In much that had fallen from the Right
Hon. Gentletnal he acquiesced ; but he did not agree
with him that the proposed alteration of the law was
likely to effect a reduction of the crime of murder. On
this question he confessed he entirely concurred with
the Noble Lord. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
told them that he agreed with the Noble Lord that
murder stood on a distinct footing from other crimes,
and that when a murder was committed there was not
that unwillingness on the mind of the jurors which ex-
isted in other cases, and told us his observations led him
to draw this conclusion, that in proportion to the
enormity of the offence was the readiness to convict ; but
the Right Hon. Gentleman appeared to him, having
stated broadly his principle, to use an argument imme-
diately by which it was contradicted. He had told them
immediately after the statement respecting the jurors
that the witness, the man who saw the life of an indivi-
dual barbarously taken away, came before them not
with horror at the crime committed, not with feeling
for the individual murdered and for his family, and the mi-
sery inflicted on them, but he came before the jurors look-
inn.' only at the punishment to be inflicted on the criminal,
and from horror of the punishment of death was un-
able to give his testimony. Why if the jurors were ac-
tuated by the atrocity of the crime to convict more
readily, he could not understand on what principle the
Right Hon. Gentleman supposed the witnesses other -
16se affected by it. The Right Honorable Gentleman
must be aware how necessary it was to be cautious in
making experiments affecting human life, which, if
they terminated unfavourably, would be prejudicial to it.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had long been a con-
sistent and able advocate of the diminution of punish-
ment, and he had listened to him attentively on the
present as on former occasions. He remembered an
argument used by the Right Hon. Gentleman against
the punishment of death for minor offences, and he
could not but think that argument against it in such
cases proved that in the case of murder it ought
to be enforced. Tne argument was, that it was an in-
ducement to commit murder, since there was no differ-
ence between its punishment and that of robbery.
But look how the argument applied in an opposite
direction, for a person committing robbery, and know-
ing that the punishment would be the same in both
cases, and knowing the danger of conviction, might
think that by the sacrifice of victim he might es-
cape the punishment altogether. He confessed he
thought this circumstance held out the strongest in-
ducement to commit murder. This measure destroyed
altogether the distinction between crimes, it took away
the natural feeling of mankind, inculcated by the highest
authority, that " whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
should his blood be shed." For these reasons, therefore,
he should support the Noble Lord, from a firm conviction
that removing the punishment of death from the crime of
murder would be attended with the greatest possible risk
of increasing the commission of that crime, and increasing
throughout the community a repetition of offences of
an aggravated character, which whatever might be the
effect of public executions, would have a greater ten-
dency to degrade and brutalise the mind than any other.
Mr. HOB HO USE said his Hon. Friend had entered
so fully and discussed this question so ably, that it was un-
necessary for him to make a lengthened comment upon
it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had occupied a good
deal of his speech in stating the inconsistencies of the
Hon. Gentleman, but was clearly guilty of inconsistency
himself. He agreed with his Honourable Friend, that
it was better to waive the religious view of this
questien, since it could not be properly intro-
duced into an assembly of that kind ; but he
wished to make one comment on a quotation of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, and to say, that it was per-
fectly impossible that the text " Whoso," &c. should be
taken literally, and applied to all times ; and he might
remind the Right Hon. Gentleman of the punishment in.
flicted on the first murderer, which he thought was a suffi-
cient answer to him. Another observation of the Right
Hon. Gentleman was, that the abolition of the punishment
of death would be an inducement to commit murder, but he
had yet to learn the proposition was open to that objection.
Were there not various gradations of imprisonment?
It seemed to him (Mr. Hobhouse) that the only pu-
nishment that did not admit of gradations of punishment
was the punishment of death.—(Cheers.) If they would
but study gradations of punishment as they ought to do,
they might certainly do away with the punishment of
death.—(Cheers.) He knew the unwillingness of the
House to listen to statistical details, and how unpalat-
able any reference to statistics always was to Hon.
Members, yet to answer the objections brought for-
ward in the speech of the Noble Lord, he felt himself
obliged to refer to figures. He held in his hand returns
relating to capital punishment in the three years ending
respectively in 1836 and in 1839. He found that in the
year 1834 in Stafford the number of commutations of the
punishment of death for murder amounted to one, and
of commitments for murder to six. In 1835 the num-
ber of commitments amounted to six. In 1835, at
Derby, sentence was commuted in one case, and the
number of commitments was two. The next year the
number of commitments also amounted to two ; thus
showing that the amount of crime had not increased in
consequence of the commutation of punishment, and
he found this was uniformly the case. He would now
allude to a paper to which he had before intended to re-
fer, and which referred only to the county of Middlesex,
as they had no similar returns from other counties. In
the twenty years ending in 1769, sixty-one persons had
been executed for the crime of murder, and in seven

instances only had any commutation of punish.
ment taken place. In the thirty years ending 1830
eighteen persons bad been executed for the crime of
murder, and in seven cases commutation of punishment
had taken place ; consequently, during the first period
sixty-eight convictions had taken place, being rather
more than three a year ; and in the latter period
twenty-five convictions only had taken place, being
rather more than one a year. This proved most cor-
rectly that commutation of punishment did not lead to
increase of crime. He thought the time had now ar-
rived when they could safely do away with the punish-
ment of death, more especially when they considered
that the uniform result of their experience had been,
that crime had not increased in consequence of the
commutation of punishment. Let any man consider
what was the nature of the effect produced upon the spec-
tators by the infliction of the punishment of death. It
was not a feeling of horror. it was not a feeling of fear—
but by witnessing executions the multitude became har-
dened, and acquired a taste for blood.—( Cheers.) There
was a view which had not yet been taken on this subject,
which he was anxious to impress upon the House—it was
this—lf they did not punish murder capitally they would
show by their example the sacred estimation in which they
held human life.—( Cheers.) He knew the question was
much exhausted, and not one likely to stir up party con-
tentions, and for that reason he thought it likely to pro
duce a greater impression upon the nation at large. He
hoped they would not consider him pedantic if he re-
ferred to an example of antiquity, and when he reflected
on the wisdom which appeared in the passage he was
about to quote on this subject he felt it difficult to
believe that it was written two thousand years ago.
The Right Hon. Gentleman would recol'ect the example
in the history of Thucydides, of the punishment which it
was intended to inflict on the inhabitants of Mytilene.—
(Cries of " Oh, and cheers.") Gentlemen opposite
seemed disposed to disparage the lessons of antiquity—
(Cheers)—he had al►vays understood that a leading tenet
of Conservatism was a reverence for the wisdom of those
who had gone before us —( Cheers, and laughter.) It
had been proposed to inflict the punishment of death on
the inhabitants of Mytilene, and the Athenians, led away
by the passion of the moment, had been induced to ap-
prove the sentence; they, however, determined to recon-
sider the subject, and on that occasion two speeches were
made, one for, and the other against, capital punishment,
which were recorded by Thucydides, and from that against
the capital punishment, he was about to quote.—( Cries
of " in Greek," and laughter from the opposite benches.)
He was not about to quote it in Greek, as he did not ap-
prehene he should thereby derive any essential benefi►.
The passage was then quoted by the Hon. Gentleman, and
it was to the effect that the punishment of death was in-
effici, nt to repress crime, because, notwithstanding the
constant infliction of that punishment, crime st►ll con.
tinkled, and poverty added boldness to necessity, sufficient
to brave even death itself. He hoped that some Gen-
tleman opposite would dispose of that part of the argu-
ment. These were the grounds on which, he thought, the
House ought to consider the question—not whether mur-
der deserved the punishment of death, for, if asked that
question, he should say it did deserve it—but whether
death was the best punishment to prevent the commission
of crime. He believed that reason, experience, and the
lessons of history, were all in his favour ; and the present
time was most opportune, when the public had been used
to witness the spectacle of execution less frequently, to
advance one step fu•ther, and abolish the punishment of
death altogether.—( Cheers.)
Mr. PLUM PTRE, although he had voted with the
llon. Member, in 1837, for the abolition of capital punish-
ments in all cases except murder, could not support him
on the present occasion, as he thought that .‘ whose shed-
deth mates blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
Mr. MUNT Z had long been of the opinion of tl:e
talented author of 4‘ Paul Clifford," that the worst use you
could put a man to was to hang him.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Ile believed that the great feeling existing
against the punishment of death for murder being ab )-
lished, was owing to its being considered to be a divine

ordinance, handed down to us from the Jewish dispensa-
tion ; and if that were the case, he would ask why they
did not, on the same authority, punish adultery with
death.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But they lived
now under a milder dispensation, and did not, or at
least ought not, to return evil for evil, unless great
public advantage could be shown to result from it. Was
the punishment of depth the most severe that could be in-
flicted upon man ? lie doubted it, when he looked to the
nnmerous instances of suicide. What induced persons
to c nimit suicide ? Why, the fear of life, not the fear of
death—they feared the punishment that might be Inflicted
on them by living—they dreaded anguish of mind and of
body, and sought a refuge for fife in death. It they
looked to the case of those unfortunate individuals who had
taken away the life of a fellow-creature, the whole of his
future life must he one continued state of punishment in
suffering the pains of Imprisonment or transportation, and
he would ask the House, unless great and undeniable ad-
vantage could be shown to result from the taking away
his life, not to take away from him that opportunity of re-
pentance of which all stood so much in need, but he more
peculiarly than his fellow-creatures.
Mr. FITZ ROY was in favour of the abolition of the
punishment of death in all cases except murder ; end, not-
,.vithetanding the arguments of the Hon. Member for
Rochester, and the Hon. Member who had just rat down,
he considered the divine command was imperative to in-
flict death upon the shedder of man's blood.
Mr. BR OTHE RTON would ask the lion. Member
who had last spoken if he were to carry out his principle
where it would end. He (Mr. Brotherton) hid risen for
the purpose of recording his sentiments in favour of
the abolition of capital punishment, as lie held it as a prin-
ciple that no mar, had a right in any case to take away the
life of his fellow man. Therefore, when he saw laws
enacted for the purpose of carryin_ into effect a punish-
ment so shocking to the feelings of society, he could not
help entering his protest against them as being in con-
tradiction to every principle of humanity and sound policy.
It had been shown that capital punishment did not prevent
crime, and that crime had not increased in consequence of
the mitigation of the severity of the law, and therefore he
believed that they were bound to show how sacred
they held human life in their estimation by not daring,
under any circumstances, to take it away. If the object
were to prevent crime, let them instruct the people in their
duty, and teach them the true principles o: religion, which
would ever be found in accordance with justice, humanity,
reason, and common sense. The law of God was simple;
it said plainly, " Thou shalt not kill," and until the clergy
and Bishops turned their attention to this subject, so as to
instruct the people according to right principles, they
would never produce that effect which they ought to pro-
duce. The Mosaic law had been quoted in support of this
vindictive and retaliatory punishment, but the same
law said, if an ox should gore a man or a woman, the owner
of the ox, should suffer death.---(Cries of " No, no,"
from the Opposition.) He said—Yes, yes—and he said
what was true; but that punishment in such a case might
be commuted by the owner being mulcted in a sum of
money, and that showed that the Scripture in this instance
did not bear the usual interpretation; and he stated, on
the authority of Mr. Bellamy, who had devoted fifty years
to the study of Hebrew, and from whom he had presented
a petition two years ago, on the subject of the new trans-
lation of the Scriptures, that that interpretation was not in
accordance with the original Hebrew. He therefore
thought they were called upon, by every principle of reli-
gion, of reason, of humanity, and of sound policy, to
abolish the punishment of death.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS was not one of those who
would, either in peace or in war, desire to take one hu-
man life unnecessarily. He believed, in former times, the
punishment of death had been carried to great excess,
but when he saw how the severity of the Criminal Code
had been mitigated, he thought it right to trust to that im-
proved state of the public feeling which showed that no-
thing of legislation on the subject was now necessary—
( Hear, hear, hear)— legislation which, if carried
into effect, would deprive the Crown of its
brightest jewel, the prerogative of mercy, and do
away with that wholesome fear which operated as a re-
straint on crime. It must be in the remembrance of most
present, that a woman was sentenced at the Old Bailey
Sessions to be burnt for the crime of coining., and although
she was dexterously strangled by the executioner previous
to the full sentence being carried into execution, yet as far
as the spectators were concerned the sentence might have
been said to be actually carried into effect, as the body was
burnt in their presence. He mentioned this to show how
publio feeling had advanced on this subject, and how
safely they might trust to that feeling without hav-
ing recourse to legislative measures.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The Honourable Member proceeded to say that the pro-
portion of crime to punishment had decreased within the
last 50 years, at the rate of tell to one, that was to say,
that where there were a hundred persons convicted in for-
mer times, there were ten executed, and there was but
one executed now, though the law continued to be the
same. That alteration was to be traced to nothing else
than a change in the feelings of the country. Ho was
therefore of opinion that all that Hon. Members could
desire to obtain by legislation had been already obtained by
the gradual progress of feelings of respect for human
life, and of a conviction of the inutility of capital pun-
ishments to effect the objects for which they
had been designed. He trusted that if the Hon. Member
for Wigan pressed his motion the House would not ac-
cede to it, because while he was convinced that it should
be the object of every man to save human life as much at
possible, he could find no state of society with a single
exception in which the pain of death had teen wholly abo-
lished. Not more than six capital punishments in the year
had of late taken place, but he thought that the total re-
moval of such a punishment might be attended with the
most injurious consequences. The authority of Scripture
had been appealed to in their discussions, and though he
was unwilling to enter into such a subject, he should say
at least that there were instances of punishment by death
in the Bible, and that such instances should for ever save
from any censure those who should inflict that punish-
ment.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he would not detain the
House many minutes. The Hon. Baronet who had just
sat down had paid himself the great compliment of saying
that he was not one who would unnecessarily put any man
to death.—( Laughter. ) What the Hon. Baronet should
have demonstrated was that there was any necessity for
putting a man to death for the crime of murder. The
Hon. Baronet, and those who had supported the same
views he had put forward, had not done that ; but they had
done the reverse, because they had admitted, that as far as
proofs went, every mitigation of punishment in the laws
had been followed by a diminution of crime.—( Hear,
hear.) That was a consolatory fact at 'all events.
They could judge of this question by no other means than
by directing their attention to what had already happened,
and they were justified in hoping that that would happen
again. Now what was it that had already occurred ?
Why in every country where punishments had been miti-
gated, crimes had diminished also, and that was true of
every crime, even of murder. It was therefore proved
that wherever punishments were diminished they
softened the ferocity of men—they ameliorated the
human mind, and by the example which they showed of a
respect for life, even in its worst forms, they inspired
others with the same respect. It had been said, how-
ever, that this might not be the case hereafter. The
matter then stood thus : the House had facts on the one
side, and perhapses on the other.—(Hear, hear.)
He was sure that the House would not be at a loss
as to how they should decide under such circumstances.
He was sorry to have beard theological discussions intro-
duced on the occasion; he did not think that was the
place for such allusions. He should say, however, that
the texts which had been cited had not been fairly inter-
preted. Those texts should not be applied too literally.
At all events they were no longer living under the Jewish
dispensation. They were living under another and a more
beneficent one—under a dispensation of charity, and which
discountenanced revenge. The question was manifestly
making great progress in the House, and when Sir Sa-
muel Rornilly had first submitted it to their consideration,
he could hardly find a single supporter. He should urge, as
an objection to the present system, the innocent were often
punished undeservedly; and the punishment of death carried
with it this injustice--that whenever an innocent man was
so punished there were no means left of repairing the
grievous wrong.—( Hear, hear.) He remembered a case
in Limerick, which the present Judge Burton had tried,
in which a prisoner had been sentenced to death. He
( Mr. O'Connell) had been the man's counsel on the occa-
sion, and he had solicited from the Judge a respite of a
week. The respite had been granted, and before the
end of the week it had been found that the man was as in-
nocent as the Judge himself.--( Hear, hear.) There was
again a case, which many Members of the House might
remember, that of three gypsies in Monmouth, who had
been found guilty of robbery, and who had been
transported to New South Wales. It had after-
wards, however, been found that those persons had
been innocent, and they
were accordingly brought back.
If, however, they had been condemned to death, and had
injury. done t-) them could
suffered their sentence, the
repeat, that the
never have been re-called. would
ds
ex-
periment of mitigating
they should be suc-
ceeded,dieepl-
and he thought thpahutnnv,tbeevya.,could safely follow u )
that experiment now. If,
pointed in their expectations of a continuation of similar
results, and if the experiment should. toad, they could
again have recourse to legislation, and a,ain repeal the
new Statute. He would conclude by conjuring them, in
the name of justice and humanity, to allow the motion
to pas., and to let the Bill, at all events, be brought be-
fore the House.
Mr. JONES rose amidst cries of " Divide, divide."
lie should object to the motion, because he really be-
lieved that in many cases there would be a great
difficulty in devising a secondary punishment, if the
punishment of death were abolished altogether. He be-
lieved, too, that the abolition of that punishment would
encourage a spirit of retaliation and revenge, because if
death were not inflicted in cases of murder, the relations of
the murdered parties would be apt to take the law into
their own bands. Ile would wish, however, that sentence
of death should be pronounced in cases of murder only,
and if the Hon. Member for Wigan were to limit his motion
in conformity with that view of the question, he should
give it his support.
Lord WORSLEY resisted the motion. He would,
however, offer a suggestion to her Majesty's Government.
If the motion then before the House were lost, he would
advise the Government to bring in a Bill to alter that port
of the statutes which related to the punishment of treason,
and he believed that such a measure would meet with the
approbation of the country.
Mr. EW ART said he had only a few observations, in
reply to the arguments used against the motion, to address
to the House. In answer to an assertion from the lien.
Member for Carmarthenshire, he should say there was but
little danger that the motion could lead to the creation of
a spirit of retaliation and revenge. It appeared, fern
Returns made to the House, that 29 persons,found guilty
of murder, had lately been pardoned, and that had not fed
in any instance to such consequences as the lion. Member
seemed to apprehend. He should also observe that any
Han. Member who might vote for his motion might after-
wards have an opportunity of making such alterations in it
as they might think fit ; and he therefore hoped that those
Hon. Members who were in part favourable to its objects
would in the present stage give it their F..!ppnrt.

The [louse then divided, when the numbers were—
For the Bill OO
Against it
Majority
PRIVILEGE.
Sir E. SUGDEN then rose, and after pzesenting a
petition for the discharge of the prisoners in custody of the
House, proceeded to say that in bringing forward his
motion for a Committee to inquire into the practicability
of some means for preventing the publication, by order of
the [louse, of libellous matter, he had intended to give
a succinct view of the course formerly adopted as
to the publication of their proceedings and the course
recently adopted ; but the Noble Lord had—by the
amendment of which be bad given notice, for a Bill to af-
ford summary protection to persons engaged in the publi-
cation of Parliamentary Papers,—taken him greatly at a
disadvantage, because Members would naturally he
anxious to see what the measure of the Noble Lord would

be.—( Hear, hear.) If the object of the Noble Lord was
only to protect individuals, to facilitate necessary legisla-
tion, he would not find in him (Sir Edward) an opposc..r.
But if !he Noble Lord meant to givo to the House greater
lower, leaving the resolutions of 1837, claiming the sole

right of dceiding,, on their privileges, untouched, he should
strenuously oppose the measure. For the present, how-
ever, he .ould withdraw his motion, leaving the Noble
Lord to bring forward his own proposition.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, with the permission of the

House be would now state the nature of .the proposition he

meant to have moved as an amendment, and the propriety
of which what had fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman

had tended to convince him still furth'er. He would take

this opportunity of saying that he did not think any re-
striction should be put upon the right of publication by
that House, whatever might he the determination of the
House respecting the mode of publication.—( Hear, hear.)
But he had no hesitation in saying, if it could be shown
that the mode of publication which had been adopted of
late years, had led to the publication of libellous papers,
any means within the Hou,e itself of preventing such
publication, as much as possible, should receive his best
attention.--( Hear, hear.) At the same time, he knew
not a moro difficult subject to be undertaken, because
there were many publications containing reports of pro
ceedings, which, although not intended to affect indi-
viduals, yet incidentally brought in the names of indi-
viduals, but were afterwards the foundation of most useful
Bills, applying general remedies called for by particular

cases of abuse.—( Hear, hear, hear.) As to the present
position of the House, whatever might be the power
and privileges of the House, it was desirable that
they should have some more efficient mode of exercising
those powers and privileges than they possessed at present.
His opinion was, that these powers were very large, and if
used to their utmost extent, was commensurate to the ne-

cossary object. But the mode in which they were exer-
cised was liable to great objection in its practical opera-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) Take the case of an action com-
menced during the recess, and being undefended, the
damages assessed—true, on the house assembling, they
might assert their privileges, but they would be too late to
stop the action—( Hear, hear)—and could only punish
executive officers.—( Hear, hear.) And even in respect
to cases occurring during the sitting of the House,
the privilege could not be maintained without repeated
discussions, and consequent waste of the public time.
If the House had to deal with persons bona fide desirous of
vindicating their character, they would find no difficulty in
inducing submission to their authority, for such persons
would cheerfully avail themselves o f the redress the House
would willingly afford to them when they showed them-
selves to have been injured. But the parties with whom
they had to deal were such as having no character to lose,
like Mr. Stockdale, wished to make a profit and a trade of
vexatiously entering into contests with that House. And
would it not be highly prejudicial that the public time
should be occupied in repeated discussions about individuals?
Then there were ether and greater evils—for instance,
the probability of coming, more directly than the House had
hitherto done, into collision with the Judges of the land.
—( Hear, hear.) This was a great evil, because consi-
dering, as be did, the judgment of the Queen's
Bench utterly erroneous, be felt the importance of pre-
serving alike for the House of Commons and the Judges
public respect and regard—(Hear, hear)—which would
be destroyed or endangered, if these two parties were to
come directly into collision—one part of the community
being ranged on the side of that House, and the other
part arrayed on the side of the Judges.—( Hear, hear.)
He thought, therefore, that the House ought to come to
some enactment in which the other branches of the Legis-

lature might concur, for preventing the recurrence of those
inconveniences. He admitted, at the same time, that any
legislation upon the subject might give force to the
objection that the privileges of the House would be ren-
dered questionable by any reference of them to the other
branches of the Legislature. But he remembered that at
all periods in the history of the constitution of this
country, whenever there was any great difficulty in the
interpretation of the privileges of the House, the other
branches of the Legislature had been called upon to
soave that difficulty. —( Hear, hear.) Although he was
aware that the constitution of the country was very rude
in its formation, he was still convinced that it was very

. ,
wise in the distribution of powers to the several branches;

and when a difficulty like that which at present embarrassed
the House arose, it could be remedied enly by a measure

in which the other branches coneurrel.-I(Haar, hear.)

Nor was that course without precedent. In the com-
mencement of the reign of James 1., when the Warden of
the Fleet was unwilling to liberate a Member of the house
who was in his custody, although the House interposed its
authority, it as not thought inconsistent with its duties to
consent to an Act of Parliament which allowed the Sheriffs
to revive the custody of Members of the House after the
prorogations, and to continue the confinement during
such times as the attendance of the Members was
not required in the House. After the Revolution
the House thought it necessary to concur in an Act of
Parliament to declare that no Member of that House
should be liable to any action at law, for anything done in
the discharge of his duties as a Member.—( Hear, hear.)
In like manner, when it was considered an inconvenience
to the Members of the House of Commons, that the ser-
vants of Members should be arrested during the sittings of
the House, the Act of the 11th of George 111. was
passed to prevent the inconvenience. He thought, there-
fore, that an Act could be passed without derogating from
the privileges of the House. At the game time he ad-
mitted the force of the objection, that in resorting to
legislation, the House submitted its privileges to
some sort of restriction. He thought the objec-
tion might have some foundation. It might be Si)
but it was not likely that any question of privilege could
arise so difficult as this one respecting publication. It
was not likely that the House would be brought into col-
lision with the Courts of Law upon any other question
so often as they must be upon this question of publication,
if the law was allowed to remain as it was. In this case,
there was great popular misapprehension that this House
would declare anything to be privileged which was incon-
sistent with law. and set aside the authority of the Courts,
and the right of the other branches of the Legislature.
It had been said, most extravagantly, by a person
pleading before Lord Denman, that if the House
of Commons proceeded in its present course it might
order any man to be taken into the lobby and hanged there
by the Sergeant-at- Arins.—( Hear, and a laugh.) With-
out going to the extent of that argument, he thought it
was necessary, for the due exercise of the powers belong-
ing to that House, that it should be the sole judges of its
own privileges, without reference even to co-ordinate or
saperior bodies. If he were asked what check and limit
there should be to that paver, his answer was, the same
check and limit that there wes to the preroga-
tive of the Crown and to the privileges of the House
of Lords and the Court of Chancery. The real
question was whether the house of Commons or the Court
of Queen's Bench was the proper judge of what was ne-
cessary to the exercise of the functions of the House of
Commons. It was reasonable to suppose that the House
might be better acquainted than the Court of Queen's
Bench could he with the matters which celled for the exercise
of its power, and with the best mode of their administration.
It seemed to hi n, therefore, that whatever they did they
could not relax the power they possessed of declaring
what was necessary to the due performance of their duties ;
and he thought, placed as it was in a body, elected as the
Members of that House were, it was not likely that any
extraordinary tyranny would he exercised. He now came
to state what was the nature of the measure he proposed.
He did not, of course, after whet he had stated, propose
to place any restraint on the power of publication that at
present existed, or limit the privileges of the House : on
the contrary, lie thought it accessary to preserve and save
all the privileges the House at present pos-
sessed; and they were, therefore, in no manner
affected or altered by that Bill ; but what he proposed was,
that publication should be authorized by either House of
Parliament upon the certificate, either of the Lord Chan-
celloror the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Speaker
of that House, and that upon the production of such certi-
ficate tile proceedings of any Court of Law should be
stayed. With regard to the mcde in which that was to be
accomplished he should probably be leading Hon. Mem-
bers into error if he was to state the course proposed by
the Bill. What, therefore, he should now propose would
be to bring in the Bill, have it printed, in order to give
11.mourable Members an opportunity of seeing and
considering its provisions.—( Hear, hear.) Thu ob-
ject of the measure, undoubtedly, was to give at once
a remedy in Courts of Law ; when publications authorised
by either house of Parliament were called into question,
it would therefore be a remedy, not only ivith respect to
actions brought during the time Parliament was sitting,
but those brought during the recess. He did not by this
Bill propose any limit to the right of publication, but lie
was ready, if any plan could be shown by which greater
security could be given to individuals, to listen to any
suggestion ; but at all events he thought that the authority
should be kept within. the House itself. There ought to
be nothing to restrain them from printing that information
which they considered necessary. He would not say a
word now as to the question so often urged on that
House, that it ought to have the power of pub-
lication, and that it could not beneficially exereis,!
its functions without it. He had therefore only now toast:
leave to bring in the Bill, hoping that it might be the
means of putting an end to the evils which were complained
of. He thought the House was fairly entitled, after what
had passed, to ask the House of Lords to concur with theist
in some measure of this nature. He thought the the
House of Lords must feel as they did, that the continuance
of this conflict must be injurious to themselves and
to
their
countryat
own I apregbei
publication
attliiee
Iyl
it mustwas feel
desirable a
th withat
there regard
be some legislative remedy. It was
to be recollected that with regard to the publication, that
e rthe shouldto
the whole cause of action arose from a Committee of the
House of Lords having taken certain evidence before it, w ith
regard to New Zealand. The House in adopting that course
could have no other desire than that of giving to the people of
the country information, as to whether that country was fit to
be made a colony of, and in that evidence so gives, it was stid
that there were circumstances stated which were of it
libellous tendency towards Mr. Stockdale. With regard
to the statements of the Hon. Gentleman as to the print.
ing of papers, the Committee on printing would, he had
no doubt, lay before the House the whole circumstances
connected with its printing and publication, and the House.
would then see that the practice adopted at the present

moment afforded far greater checks against libellous publi-
cations than had been afforded in former times. He

thought it wzs most desirable to lay before the House
what those checks were—the manner in which those

various publicatiuEs were examined and corrected
before they were ordered for printing, and then it
would be for Honourable Members to state in

what manner those checks could be improved. The
Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in the

Bill.
Sir E. SUG DEN was not satisfied with the explana-
tion of the Noble Lord or the guards which he intended to
throw over the publication of that House. The Noble
Lord had stated that the Committee on Printed Papers
would report facts which the House were already in uos-
ses,,ion of, but the Noble Lird had not stated that the
Committee were prepared to propose any measure that
would secure individuals from a'tacks on their character.
He thought that he should be able satisfactorily to show
to the House that the sale of the prit.ted papers of the
House was to save expense, without refer:nee to the cha-
racter of the publication. lie agreed with the Noble
Lord that the House ought to continue within its own power
the publication of its proceedings, but what he wished was
that that publication should be placed within proper limits
before greater powers were asked for. The Noble Lord
said that all he asked was that the House should be the

judge of its own privileges as far as it was necessary to
enable it to carry on the business of the country. Now, in
the resolution of 1537, he found no such stipulation. That

resolution said, in so many words that the House had the
sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon its privi-
leges, and the institution of any action bringing those pri-
sileges into question, was a high contempt of the privilege- s
of the House, would subject the party to its just displea-
sure, and the punishment consequent thereon. There was
therefore no qualification, and it was of that particular
resolution that the people of England were justly afraid.
C►rcumstances might arise in which the very liberties of
the country might be put in peril by the assertion of rights
like those. It never was the law of the land that the

House should claim such privilege, and he would venture
to say that that resolution would never make it so.
The Noble Lord had founded himself on that resolution,

although he endeavoured to explain it away. He wet

as anxious as any man to support the privileges of
the House, but he thought they had already
been carried to too great an extent.—( Hear, hear.)
His objection to the Bill was, that it would give a great
power to the House before it was provided that those salu-
tary measures should be taken which were contemplated by
the motion he had put on the paper, and which were neces-
sary in order to satiafy the minds of the public. He would
not oppose the Bill if the Noble Lord would provide those
necessary guards to which he had referred. He was afraid
that the Noble Lord had no such intention, because he

might use the expression he had stifled his motion in its
birth. He would feel it his duty to oppose the Bill unless
be got some assurance of that kind.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose with great pain
to oppose the motion of the Noble Lord.—(Loud cheers
and laughter.) All the inclinations of his mind, of course,
would lead him to support the Noble Lord, connected as he
was with the Government, but he considered that his duty

as a Member of Parliament was paramount to any duty
that be owed to the Government as its officer.—( Hear,

hear, and cheers.) He knew that the Government took
the course proposed by the Noble Lord after the most
careful consideration, but he conceived that they were
mistaken in the course they had taken on this subject, as
he thought that the proposed Bill would lead the House
into new difficulties, and would inflict a deep wound upon
their privileges.—(Hear.) After mature consideration
he could not entertain any other opinion than that
the resolutions of 1837 were well founded upon Parlia-
mentary law, and that they were supported by the Con-
stitutional writers of the very highest authority during the
last century, and that, maintained in their integrity, they
were essential for the due discharge of the functions of

that House, and he would say that in their terms they did
not go one iota beyond the necessity of the case. In
looking at this, Hon. Members must look at what gave
rise to them, and they would be found just in principle, and
in strict conformity with Parliamentary law, which was the
law of the land. He would look at the Bill proposed,

and see whether it was calculated to relieve the 'House o

its difficulties, and see whether it was not a greater risk
and infinitely beyond any advantaage that could arise from
it. He believed that the effect upon the public interests
would be deep, permanent, and most injurious. After long
and mature deliberation, he had had the strongest opinion
that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, was
wrong and unfounded, and he earnestly wished that the
House would neither confirm nor sanction that judg_

merit. The Court had decided that the privileges of
that House could not be pleaded in bar to any action. The
Bill proposed by the Noble Lord had for one of its ob-
jects summarily to stop any proceedings in any action
brought against an officer of the House for publication.
By this they then admitted that the privileges of the
House were no bar to that action. Were they prepared
to admit that the Court ass right ?—( Hear, hear.) While
. .

that judgment stood, any legislation, not condemning it,
lcd to the inference that the House could not set up its
privileges as a bar, but wanted some legislative aid to
render its privileges effectual.—( Cheers.) The proposed
Bill, by its enactments, affect the privileges of the
House ; but legislation of any kind, while that judgment
stood—legislation, without expressing the slightest dissent
from that judgment, must !ead to this—that no lawyer,
at a future day, would look back to what
had then trilten place, without saying that they
had legislated, became they could not maintain their
privileges. Many Members were not aware of the nume-
rous privileges which had been concedsd to them for the
public benefit. Many most important Acts had been car-
' ried by very small ni,joritiev. The Act of Settlement
itself was carried by a majority of one. How important
would it ha that a few Members horn either party could be
snmmoned down, upon subpoena, to Devon or to Cornwall ?
How would that affect a division in an important
case ?—(Loud cheers.) Members were exempt from
being called to serve upon Juries.—( Hear.) Pass the
Bill, and how long might that privilege remain ? They
were not liable to serve the office of Sheriff; there was an

infinite variety of offices and duties from which they were
exempted by Parliamentary privilege, not for the Mem-
ber's benefit, but that the public business might be pro-
ceeded with. They had the right to call for persons,
papers, and records. Suppose a witness refused to answer
a question, to produce a paper, or to attend—all these
questions might give rise to discussions in a Court of Law,
and the Judge there would have to decide upon the relevancy
of the papers, and to decide as to the power of the House
to call for the witness. For ages Parliament had bean
deemed paramount, and that had been conceded by the
highest ornaments of the bench, but had now been denied
by the Court of Queen's Bench. Let :hem pasA the Bill
and change their position, and their privileges would not
remain with them. The judgment of the Court displaced
the constitution of the Holm. According to that judg-
ment that House had no longer a cc-ordinate jurisdiction
with the House of Lords.—( Loud cheers.) That balance
and constitutional check, which had been the pride and

glory of those who had investigated the Constitution o,
England, was gone. The House might have every one
of its privileges dragged before and decided upon by the
House of Lords. Where would their privileges be then ?
—( Loud cheers.) With the House of Commons subordi-
nate to the House of Lordi the Constitution would lose
one of its best safeguards. They were going to do by the
Bill proposed by the Noble Lord, what tacitly sanctioned
that judgment which displaced them from their position,
which dishonoured them, took from them that respect which
gave force to their acts, and which placed their privileges
under the control of the lowest Court in the kingdom; He
knew very well that there would he great difficulty in pas-
sing a Bill condemning that judgment, and that was one
reason why he would not legislate.—( Loud cheers.) Ho
earnestly wished to see an end put to the difficulties they
were in-2nd that by Act of Parliament—but that was no
reason why they should take a Bill that was more pregnant
with mischief to the dignity and character of the
House. —( Hear, hear, hear.) He thought they
were doing great evil in bringing in such Bills. He did
not believe that it would pass even in its present shape.—
(Cheers.) lie believed that it would undergo alterations,
such, that even the Noble Le.rd would not be able to ac-
cept it.--( Hear, hear.) Before he would consent to send
up a Bill which must give rise Co discussions not calculated
to increase the dignity of the House—(Cheers)—he would
like to know what was likely to be the end of i'. He did
not think it would tend to relieve them from their difficul-
ties, but would iner,age them.—( Cheers.) Suppose the
Bill to have passed in the shape acceptable to toe Noble
Lord. It would at once be said that they bad been obliged
to resort to legislation for other powers than those they pos-
sesved, in order to maintain their privilege. His Right Hon.
Friend ( Sir E. Sugden) had spoken with his usual caution
of the actions which had been hi ought against the House.
In the course of 200 years they had entered into inquiries
of the most dist casing nature, having examined into the
abuses of the South Sea Company—of slavery and the
slave trade—having taken much evidence of a highly cri-
minatory nature, all published with a view to legislation ;
surely something might be said of the care of the House,
when during the whole of that time the only individual
who had complained was John Joseph Stockdale.
He could not help thinking that that was pretty good
evidence that there had not been so much slander pub-
lished as some Hon. Members would lead them to believe.
Three of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench had
said that that which was necessary to the func-
tions of the House of Commons was a part cf
its privileges, while in the same breath they were
told that they were to be the sole judges of what
was necessary to the proper discharge of the functions of
the House. In the course of the last five years there had
been twenty writs of error brought against judgments of
the Court of Queen's Bench, and ten of the unanimous
judgments of that Court had been reversed. What ground
b
had they, therefore, for expecting anything(liear
reertaiAnitry
in a legal contest with that Court?--
Howard had brought an action against the' Searg.e)ant.t.-
Arms—would their Bill stop that action? He did not think
it would, and all the diffienlties they had now to contend
rith would be continued under another form.—( Hear,
hear.) In truth they would not get anything by their Bill.
and he could not help thinking thrit Mr. Hausard's would
not be the only action. They would eventually have to
come to the determination to support and maintain their
own privileges.—(Cheers.) The question was whether,
row that they were involved in this difficulty—having ne
reason to expect the attack made upon them by the Chief
Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench—they would get
out of it by the independent exercise of their owa privi-
leges and prerogatives. The true character of the contest
was to render that House subservient to the inferior tribu-
nals of the country. He trusted they would never submit
to that, for the efficient existence of the House of Com-
mons was, in his opinion, never more veriouely threatened
than at the present moment.—(Cheers.)On the ground
that they could not relieve themselves from any of these
difficulties by legislation, he anught it inexpedient to
agree to the proposition of the Noble Lord.
Lord STANLEY, in the course oft
he pro meted dis-
cussions that had taken place on the prsent question, bad
never felt himself jiestitied in trespassing even for a single
moment on their PA...WIWI. He had been a silent but not
inattentive observer of their proceedings. 11, shoal
however now st.tte as shortly and as plainly as be could
his reasons far giving his vote in favour of the pr ,position