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

by so much: bu t had ',they: prevented the plaintiff from
getting the fruits of his action, or from bringing other ac-
tions, had it then been effectual ? But it was.said that it
would prevent the other Sheriff from pursuing the same
course. Let him try that by the present case. Suppose
the present Sheriff were to do as his Under-Sheriff said
he would do in the petition presented by him to the HONE.,
that he would pay every possible respect to the resolutions
of the House ? He made application to the Court of
Queen's Bench, and filed the resolutions as a return to the
writ. They very well knew what the Judges would do--
they would hold such return a mere nullity, and order it to
betaken off the file. The Sheriff would be ordered to re.
turn the writ, and he would come 4o the House and
say he had brought the resolutions of the House under
the judicial knowledge of the Judges, but they had
ordered him to return the writ, and he must do so under
pain of an attachment. What would the House then do ?
Would they again take the Sheriff; into the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms, or would they take the advice of the
Hun. and Learned Member for Dublin, and summon the
Judges to the bar—( Hear)—and tell them that it was them
that ought to be punished, and not the Sheriff ? The
House must now come to the decision of that question—
they could not avoid it. The Judges bad had judicial
knowledge of the resolutions of the House, but they would
order them to be taken off the file. He would not appeal
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, for his mind
was made up, but he would ask Hon. Memb.:•rs were they
prepared to summon to the bar of the House the Judges of
a Court of Law, not for malversation, not for peculation,
as was referred to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
of an Irish Judge, not for any misbehaviour or misconduct, 1
but because they—men of learning, of character, and of j
honour—had conscientiously given a judgment according
to the best of their understanding of the law ?—( Hear.)
Were they prepared to summon them to the bar of a popu-
-lir assembly, and to permit Member after Member
to ask them the grounds of their solemn decision.—
( Hear, hear.) Was the House prepared to take such a
step ? He could well understand that in other times the
Judges had been summoned to the bar of that House ; but
470 S there no difference between these times and the pee-
sent ?—( Hear, hear.) Even if they summoned the Judges
their power would be ineffectual unless it were backed by
the public voice. In the times to which the Hon.
and
Learned Member referred the House of Commons was
struggling for the liberties of the people against the power
of the Crown and the influence of the Court. It was that
which made the House popular and obtained for it the Rup-
pert of the people. What was then the position of the
Judges? They were wholly dependent on the will of the
Crown, and were chosen not so frequently for their kern-
ing as for their subserviency ; and in that struggle it was
admitted that the Judges were in the wrong. Wes that
tt;c case now ?—( Hear, hear.) He admitted that there
in that country a want of respect to the constituted
authorities, but in times of trouble and popular commotion
the Judges of the land had always been respected. They
were not now dependent on the Crown—on the contrary
they were perfectly independent of them and the people,
and they sat for the purpose of administering justice, as he
believed, in the most honest and conscientious and
upright manner, and he was satisfied that if they
were to interfere with the proper administration of
justice on their part, and call one of them to the bar of
that House, it would be the last time the House would
exercise that privilege.—( Hear and cheers.) The Hon.
and Learned Member said the Judges were responsible
to that House—what did the Hon. and Learned
Member mean, or' in what we were they responsible?
—( Hear, hear,) It was quite true that either Houre of
Parliament might present an address to the Crown for
the removal of a Judge ; so far they might be considered
responsible, but iu no other way. True, they might be
impeached for misconduct, but be had yet to learn that
they were responsible in any other way to that House. If
they were to undertake the course recommended by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, they Ehouid after
hiving brought the Judge before them keep them in Cus-
tody till they should think their privileges had been tuft-
ciently vindicated. They should keep the Judge in custody I
till he should retract the judgment ho had given. Was
that course possible ? Thet,howevir, would be the con-
sequence of following the proceeding recommended by
the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. He did not
think that the House could in that way carry into effect
its privileges, or that they should thus interfere with the
administration of justice,esnd an order frem one of the Courts
of Law. Ho did nut think that privilege was the proper word
on the occasion, and he would call it a right—(Hear)but if the protector; of that right of publication thought
that it was essential to the House, could they believe that
it was not in their power to protect it !I.y any other course
than that advised by the Hen, and ,Lear.led Member for
Dublin? If that were to be the case, could there be any
stronger argument that the Bill of the Noble" Lord, or
some other Bill, which would confirm their rights, was
essential to the settlement and determination of the ques-
tion ?—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the suggestions' of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin could not rec-
tify this position, and that some Bill similar to that of the
Noble Lord should of necessity be introduced. With re-
spect to that Bill he did not wish to give any opinion re-
garding its details, as he was only acquainted with them
through a general statement of the Noble Lord. He did
not wish to give any opinion on the subject, because be
thought that very much depended on the language and
the framing of that Bill; but he could not perceive why
the strongest advocates of their privileges, on looking at
the Bill of the Noble Lord—he did not conceive that those
advocates had any right to complain of it, or to say that
the power of the House would be injured by its introduction..
If he had rightly understood the Noble Lord, he thought
that that Bill was applicable to the line of argument
adopted by his Right Hon. Friend sear him (Sir Edward
Sugden) as well as to the opinion put forth by the lion.
and Learned Member for Dublin. The Bill of the Noble
Lord was confined to the power of publication. It left
entirely untouched every other power, right, or privilege
of the House.—(Hear, hear, from Lord J. Russell.) The
Noble Lord cheered as if the enactment of a measure re-
specting the publication of papers would affect other pri-
vileges. He (Sir William Follett) wished to know bow
it could affect them. They were here advocrting the
right of publication. They found that they could not now
defend that power. Was it, therefore, inconsistent with
the rights of the House, if they could get by an Act of the
Legislature additional powers and security, to accept of
them? The Bill of the Noble Lord would enable any
printer or publisher of publications of the House, acting
under the immediate order of the House, to resist any
action brought against him, whether that action were in-
stituted while the House was sitting, or during the recess.
In what way would they find the privilege of the House
not effectual to secure the power they thought essential ?
How could they give additional security to effect it ?
By this Bill they had the power exactly as it was
now—the power of declaring a breach of privilege—
the power of committment for that offence, and
that return the Judges would declare to be suffi-
cient—they bad all their other privileges. Of course,
no one supposed the Bill—confined entirely to that power
(Cheers)—which he agreed with his Hon. Friend,
who appeared by his cheer to think should not be
called a privilege—could be a remedy for ether evils. Is
fact they could not effectually support the constitutional
power of publication without additional means, and, there-
fore, there could be no objection to the Bill. But the
Right Hon. Member for Ripon opposed this Bill, because
he said they had no right to make any enactment for the „
purpose of defending those publications, while they left -
untouched the two latter resolutions of IM7, and unal-
tered that of 1831 i. Now he said to his Right Hon.
Friend, as to the Noble Lord, that the resolutions of 1837
were in no degree sanctioned by this Bill. They stood
by their own merit, by the law and privilege of Parlia
talent ; and if well founded, on that law and privilege
would be supported—if not, this Bill gave them no addi-
tional support whatever, it had no reference to them.
'Then with regard to another argument of his Right Hon.