The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-17 00:00:00

RURAL POLICE.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL, seeing the Hon. the
Under-Secretary of State in his place, begged to ask
him whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Ministers to bring in any Bill for amending the Con-
stabulary, or, as it was commonly called, the Rural
Police Bill.
Mr. P. MAULE said it was the intention of the
Government to introduce such a Bill.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL would earnestly request
that the Government would do so at the earliest possible
moment. The Bill was one of much importance, and,
last Session, was only one fortnight under the con-
sideration of the House, and at a time when many
Members were absent.

At half-past four o'clock Sir R. Peel entered the
House, and was followed shortly afterwards by Lord J.
Russell.

THE PENNY POSTAGE.

Mr. FITZROY KELLY begged to ask any Mem-
ber of the Government present, who was connected
with the Post-office, whether the present regulations, as
to the early closing of all the boxes for the reception of
letters, was intended to be permanent, or only of a
temporary and experimental nature ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said the regulation was only of
a temporary nature, and he supposed it would not be
necessary to carry it on for any length of time.
NAVAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION.

Lord GEORGE LENNOX begged to ask when
the Report of the Naval and Military Commission,
which had been appointed more than two years ago,
and which, if he was correctly informed, had closed its
labours at the termination of the last session of Parlia-
ment, would be laid upon the table of the House?
Lord J. RUSSELL did not believe that any Re-
port had been received from the Commission, but as
soon as it was received there could be no objection to
lay it on the table of the House. _ _ _

Lord GEORGE LENNOX understood the Com-
mission bad made a Report, and he was only anxious
to know the proper way of obtaining the Report of
that Commission. He could assure the Noble Lord
that it was most anxiously expected by all the service,
both naval, military, and the marines.

Mr. LABOUCHERE believed the matter stood
thus. The Commissioners had completed their labours,
but the Report had not yet been prepared. He be-
lieved, however, that one or two meetings would com-
plete it.—(Hear.)
CONVICTION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Sir E. WILMOT gave notie, that on that day
fortnight he would move for leave to bring in a Bill,
authorizing the summary conviction of juvenile offenders
before Magistrates.
GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
The HoN. BARONET then gave notice that he would
bring in a Bill to authorize the masters of Free Grammar
Schools to enlarge the foundations and extend the system
of education, under certain restrictions.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—MESSRS.
HANSARD.

Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to address the House,
and said—Sir, it is with great regret that it should be
my duty to interpose between your reading the
Speech which her Majesty delivered from the Throne,
especially on the present occasion, but it is a duty which
I cannot avoid, and which is incumbent on a Member
of this House, regardful of its rights and privileges.
Sir,!l have had placed in my hands a petition from Messrs.
Luke and James Hansard, styling themselves, and
properly, the printers to this Honourable House. It is
signed by the petitioners, and it contains matter of the
deepest importance to the power and privileges of this
House. I feel that so much depends upon the accurate
statement of what is contained in this petition, and
the various particular facts recited in it, that I
should best do my duty by requesting that the
petition should be read at the table without en-
tering into the details of the subject. Sir, the
petition relates to certain proceedings which have
taken place in consequence of a resolution passed by
this House in the month of August last, by which the
Messrs. Hansards were bound. Sir, it would appear
from the petition that certain goods belonging to the
Messrs. Hansards were seized, and their property taken
by certain persons in consequence of their obedience to the
orders of this House. I trust, therefore, that the House
will allow me to bring up the petition, that it may be
read by the Clerk at the table.
The petition was then brought up and read at length.
After which

Lord J. RUSSELL said, Sir, as this petition refers
to notices which it is irregular to take without produc-
tion, I conceive there can be no objection on the part of
the House to allow the petitioner to appear at the bar
with a copy of the notices, in order that the notices and
petition may be printed at the same time.

Mr. Hansard was then called to the Bar, and pro-
duced the notices referred to.

The SPEAKER then said—Are those the papers
connected with the petition that have been alluded to.
Mr. Hansard—They are.

The SPEAKER—DeIiver them in.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL again rose, and moved that
the petition be printed, and taken into consideration,
which was agreed to. _

The NOBLE LORD then proceeded to say—Sir, I
have a further motion to make, because I think it is en-
cumbent on this House to lose no time in coming to a
decision on this question. I need hardly allude to its
importance, because every Member must be con-
vinced of the deep importance of our privileges in
this case.—(Hear, hear.) I need only say, that
I think in whatever way the House may
choose to decide the question, they cannot leave it in
the position that it is in at present. It has been
stated as a fact which I believe is not denied, that
the goods of the Messrs. Hansards, to the value of
6901., have been seized, and that the proceeds of the
sale are in the hands of the Sheriff. Now, Sir,
I can conceive of many ways in which this House
may think it right to dispose of the question.
This House may proceed according to the ancient, and
as it is undoubtedly the course which it is right to pur-
sue, by commitment—and I think that course most
consistent with the dignity of this House. This House
may also direct the Messrs. Hansards to plead
to all future actions, and raise the question of privilege
before the Courts ; or the House may entirely abandon
their claims of privilege, and, conforming to the directions
of the Learned Judges, direct that the papers printed
by Messrs. Hansards be confined to the Members of that
House ; and there are various other proceedings
which it is unnecessary: to advert to except that the
question may bei
settled by Parliamentary enactment.
But, Sir, the position n which the question at present
stands is one which I think no body can wish it to
papers for general distribution—those papers
to continueprint in.—(Hear, hear.) We cannot continue
containing, as they necessarily must do (this House
being the grand inquest of the nation), matters of a
eliminatory nature, and without any answers being set
up to those accusations,
.and those accusations being
perhaps perfectly just, actions may be brought against
our printers and heavy damages recovered.—(Hear.)
I shall therelo7a proceed to move that certain parties
mentioned in the petition be summoned to our bar to-

morrow. It will then be competent for any Member to
ask such questions as he considers proper upon the con-
tents of the petition, and the House can take such farther
course as it may consider necessary. The persons I refer
to are—lst. John Joseph Stockdale, the plaintiff ; next,
Thomas Howard, his attorney; then the two Sheriffs,
the Under-Sheriff, and Air. Burchell,the Deputy Under-
Sheriff, who presided at the trial of the cause ; lastly,
the Bailiff, who acted in the case.—(A laugh.) Sir,
I therefore now move that John Joseph Stockdale be
summoned to attend at this bar to-morrow.

Sir E. SUGDEN said he saw many difficulties in
the way of this proceeding.—( Hear, hear, from the
Opposition.) He entirely agreed that the question
could not remain as it was as present.—(Hear, hear.)
Nobody was more disposed than he was to vindicate
the just privileges of this House ; but he could not
disguise from himself that if the House had embarked
in this course they would have to go much further,
and perhaps to commit the Judges.—( Hear, hear.)
They were not then on the question of their personal
privileges, and, except in the way of illustration, that
question might be laid aside ; the question was, on the
right to authorize the publication generally, of those
papers they might choose to print, and to sell
those papers to whomsoever might choose to buy
them, whatever might be the contents. The
first question, what form the House adopted in
in cases where its privileges were affected, it was not
disputed, as he understood, by any body—(indeed the
Lord Chief Justice himself appeared rather to hold a
doubt on the question)—that upon the authorities that
House had the power of committing any person
for a breach ef its privileges. (Hear, hear.)
In the case of the Queen and Lord Shaftesbury, the
commitment was by the House of Lords, and the
Judges gave their opinions that the commitment was
not a good commitment on the face of it, but they re-
fused to examine the commitment. The House of
Lords ultimately rescinded their own resolution as to
that Noble Lord. He did not see any difficulty on
account of that, because the House had the power to
do so, and the very circumstance of its rescinding an
improper order showed to all, that if it made a
mistake and went wrong, it was willing, and had
the power to correct it. The next case was what
was called the Aylesbury case, and when the House
bore in mind the extraordinary circumstances of that
case, it would see how great the power was in regard to
commitments. In Ashby and White it was decided
that an action could be maintained against the return-
ing officer for rejecting a man's vote. That was con-
sidered by the House as a breach of its privileges. A
vote to that effect was passed, and the point was so
decided in the House of Lords as a Judicial Court.
Other persons brought similar actions, and among them
was a man of the name of Patey. That House com-
mitted Patey for a breach of its privileges for bringing
an action in a similar case, in which Ashby had
brought an action. Upon the commitment the
Habeas Corpus was sued out for Patey, and
the case came before the Court of Common
Pleas. Lord Chief Justice Holt was of opinion that
the commitment was bad and illegal, and ought
not to prevail. The other three Judges of
the Court were of quite the contrary opinion.
In this respect the House had exercised a power of
commitment, and it appeared from the statement of
Lord Cowper, and of all the other Judges in the case of
the House against Holt, that the House did possess this
power, and the result was to establish the power.of this
House to commit, for breach of privilege, beyond all
possibility of questioning from any other Court. It would
be said that this power would lead to abuse, but the same
might be said of every other Court in England ; and
Lord Chief Justice De Grey had decided that the
Courts would not decide on commitments in that House,
as there was no doubt that it possessed the power of
commitment for breaches of its privilege.—( Hear.)
They might take it, therefore, as settled that the House
possessed the power of commitment, and no man could
enter an action for damages on account of false imprison-
ment if that power were duly exercised—he said duly
exercised, because its officers, if they exceeded their
power in the commission of those acts were amenable at
common law, and it was not left to the House to decide
if those officers had exceeded their powers, or if they
were punishable for their misconduct. The law inquired
into the circumstances of the case, and if they had ex-
ceeded their responsibility in the eye of the law, no reso-
lution of that House could protect them. A resolution
of that House would be of no avail in a Court of Jus-
tice, except upon an action brought for excess of powers ,
by the officers. The Judges were sworn to act accord-
ing to law, and they were bound to inquire incidentally
into what the privileges of that House were, and to
decide according to their oaths and their conscience.
—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The authorities
on this subject were scanty. In one case an action was
brought on a double return against a returning officer,
and the Lord Chief Justice had decided that that
was a question of privilege, and that this House
was the judge of its own privileges.—(Cries of .' Hear."
In another case, Chief-Justice Ridgway laid it down
that no resolution of the House could bind the
Judges in an action upon a question of law.
The case of Ashby and White, the Aylesbury case, illus-
trated the situation in which the House was placed in a
most striking degree ; there there was an action brought
against the returningofficer in consequence of a difference
in the poll-books ; there it was said an action did not lie ;
but upon appeal to the House of Lords,notwithstanding a
resolution to the contrary of the House of Commons,
the House of Lords decided against the action, although
the House of Commons had previously decided that it
was a breach of privilege to bring it. The House of
Commons thought it was a breach of privilege to bring
that action. After that action had succeeded, the
House voted that it would be a breach of privi-
lege not to proceed with it. The House of Lords,
as a Court of Justice, heard that appeal, and de-
cided against the resolution of the House of
Commons. The House _of Commons never re-
scinded that decision. How then could they ask the
Court of Queen's Beach to attend as a Court of
Justice to their resolution, when a Court of Appeal
had decided against the resolution. If the Court below
refused to decide, or decided for the House
of Commons, there might be an appeal,
in which case the appeal would appear ridiculous. He
thought the House would find itself under the necessity
of admitting, that no resolution of that House could
bind a Court of Law. The Judges had in various cases
expressed their opinion against the power of that House
in cases of privilege. He would now call the attention of
the House to the point of publication which might prejudice
a third party. The question was not whether they
could print, but whether they could print and publish
papers reflecting on the character of an individual. The
authorities on that point lay in a small compass. It
had been decided that the Speaker was not liable for
what he did under the authority and direc-
tion of that House. There was one great case
which was an authority with them—he meant the case
of Horne Tooke, and Wright, the bookseller. In that
case there was a Report of a Secret Committee, and
the report was adopted by the whole House, and or-
dered to be printed for the use of its Members.
Wright, the bookseller, printed that Report.
There a criminal information was moved for against
the party, and in that case Lord Kenyon and the
other Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench held that
the Court could not grant the criminal information, and
in another instance Lord Ellenborough had said that
what was printed for the House and the Members was a
privileged communication, but he was not prepared
to say that that Court would justify the circulation of
that which was intended for the use of Members, and
which might, if published, prove injurious to several
parties. There were two other cases in which
actions had been brought against Members for libel
in publishing their own speeches ; and in those cases
it was held, that although the Members had the
undoubted right to deliver their speeches in that House,
they were subject to an action for libel if they pub-
lished them when they contained matter reflecting
seriously upon individuals. He had reflected deeply
upon this subject, and he was anxious with great sub-
mission, and with a sincere desire to assist the House,
to state the opinion he enterta;ned upon the subject.
His impression was that in a Court of Common Law
when a question was raised similar to the one that
had been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench in
this case, which involved the privileges of the House of
Commons, that there the Judges were bound to come
to the best conclusion th( y could upon the subject.
He was strongly impressed with the right of the Court
of Queen's Bench to decide this question. He con-
sidered they were bound to decide it one way or other.
The House could not bring the Sheriffs before the bar
and stop there.—( Hear, hear.) If the Sheriffs came
before the House they would be asked if they had the
money in hand? They would say they had. They
would then be told by the Speaker not to part with it .
but the Sheriffs would tell the House to its face that
the law would compel them in four days to do so, an
that they would obey the law. The House would
then be bound to vindicate its own privileges, and
to commit the Sheriffs. Was there any gentlemad
prepared to commit the Sheriffs?—(Hear, hear.) But
if the gentlemen did not pay the money, they would,
within four days, be committed by the Court of
Queen's Bench for not obeying their order.
What were those officers of justice to So ? They would
be sent to prison either by that House or by the Court
of Queen's Bench. Was that a situation in which
officers of justice ought to be placed? But they were
I placed in that situation in consequence of the acts of the
I Houseand itsown tardiness ; theyhad shrunk from exer
cising that power which they possessed, and would now
visit on the innocent officers of justice, who were
bound to obey the law, the consequences of their
own delay, and their own unwillingness to proceed.
They might commit Stockdale if they would, although
he thought it would be impossible to do so, because
Stockdale had beat them on the issue joined by them-
selves. It was well for them to say that they would not
follow him from the Queen's Bench to the Exchequer
Chamber, or from the Exchequer Chamber to the
House of Lords ; but suppose the decision hal
been the other way they would have been dragged
to the House of Lords in spite of themselves. The
House was in this difficulty ; if the House of Lords

TH SSTN. LONDON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 17,1840.

passed a resolution, they themselves in the last resort
could decide on that resolution ; but if this House passed
a resolution, and the Judges of the land over-ruled it,
they must go before the House of Lords they could not
help themselves. He would suggest to this House,
before taking any further steps, the propriety of having a
conference with the House of Lords, and of ascertain-
ing the opinion of the House of Lords upon that subject.
—( Hear, hear.) By so doing this House would be
submitting to no degradation. It would not be sub-
mitting the question of its privileges to the House
of Lords as a concurrent branch of the Legislature,
but it would, on a point of law, be taking the opinion
of the highest tribunal which the country recognized.
He certainly considered that as regarded this particular
paper the House possessed the right to publish it.
As regarded the sale of the proceedings that was
not essential to constitute it a publication. But no one
could read the judgments of the four Learned Judges
without being impressed with the opinion, that the cha-
racter of the publication had been materially affected
by the circumstance of these proceedings being sold in
the manner they had been. The House, in fact, were
now acting in the character of booksellers, and although
before the resolution authorising the sale of their pro-
' ceedings, such proceedings were procurable by
the public, yet the person wishing to pur-
chase them had to buy the whole set, and could
nat go as Stockdale in this instance had done,
and purchase merely the particular libel against
himself. Could any body doubt but that Stock-
dale had already purchased another copy of this
libel, and was ready with another action ? He would
therefore advise the House, as a measure of
prevention, to rescind the resolution authorising the
sale of its papers.
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped the Attorney-General
weuld be present to answer or to attempt to answer
the speech of his Right Hon. Friend. He had sum-
moned officers of the Court before this House. He
had not, however, answered the speech of his Right
Hon. Friend. He took the liberty of rising, because he
remembered that Sergeant Wilde had addressed the
House on this subject in a very memorable speech,
which he wished to allude to.—(Ministerial cheers.)
Hon. Gentlemen opposite might cheer, but everything
memorable is not necessaril:, good.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter from the Opposition benches.) Sergeant
Wilde stated that it was not a question so much of
law as of general constitutional principle. No one
could have argued more forcibly than his Right Hon.
Friend that it was the duty of the House to
examine the motion. He was surprised that
the Noble Lord had not added two words more
to the motion which he had before the House ;
he one was the names of the jurors who had
tgiven the verdict. The Noble Lord had not moved
that the jurors should appear before this bor.—
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord was content to
move for the appearance of the officers who
had acted on the occasion. He did not dare to move
for the twelve honest Jurors who had given the verdict.
Neither did he dare to move for the appearance
of the Lord Chief Justice of England. Might he
ask why he ventured to make such an assertion. It
was the duty of the Noble Lord to have pro-
cecded thus, and not merely to have summoned the
officers in Court. In any case those persons who are
the sworn officers of the country, without any interest
in the matter, would be sure to suffer. Those officers
might be punished by the House for a breach of
its privileges, or by the Court of Queen's
Bench, for a breach of their's. is the
Noble Lord aware—is not the Attorney-General
aware—that the right of the Sheriffs to execute their
writ is a right given by that law which is their common
master? The Sheriffs, the moment the writ was put
into their bands, were bound to obey it. Ministers, how-
ever, were content with one trial in the case, and he
asked the Attorney-General whether it was not in his
power to have moved for a new trial or for a writ of
error ? Why, be might have had the opinion of all the
Judges, or of the House of Lords, the highest tribunal
in the kingdom. His Right Hon. Friend would have
told the Attorney-General that if the case were re-
ferred to the fifteen Judges, he would not be in a
worse position than now, and he might have been in a
better one. Did the Attorney-General believe that the
fifteen Judges would have been against him ? If he did
believe it, it was the strongest proof that his position
was a bad one. But if, on the other hand, the
Attorney-General believed that the majority of
the Judges would be in his favour. he should
have referred the case to their decision.
If the matter was referred to the fifteen Judges the Attor-
ney-General could not be in a worse situation than he was
now, and if they had decided in his favour he would be in
a much better one. Did the Attorney-General suppose
that the fifteen Judges of England were against that
House? If he did, in what situation would he be placed ?
Why, that he bad advised the House to adopt a course that
was against the law of the land. Did the Attorney-Ge-
neral believe that the Judges were in his favour? If be
did, he was in no better condition tben, because the parties
had the privilege of going to the House of Lords. Why,
he would ask, was judgment in the present case to go by
default? The defendant by that admitted that there was
a ground of action; and now they turned round upon the
unfortunate Sheriff; who had only acted ministerially ac-
cording to the duty of his office in taking the proceedings
that he had done. For his own part be could not see any-
thing more shabby or unworthy of the House of Commons
than the adoption of such a course ; they were going against
the Sheriff, while the highest branch of the legal adminis-
tration of the country was left untouched, because the
truth was that the House of Commons dare not, attack
them. Why, he would ask, were the Sheriffs of London
and Middlesex to be called to the bar? He called upon
the House to pause one moment before it proceeded, if it
was prepared to do so, to the last extremity. There was
a time when a collision of that House with the other House
of Parliament would have been cheered, but that hour
was now gone by. But the Noble Lord, if he persisted
in the motion he had proposed for the adoption of the
House, mast not expect that the subject would drop with-
out that collision taking place. Could the House sum-
mon
the Lord Chief Justice to its bar ? Certainly not.
Was the Noble Lord prepared to move that the Speaker
should issue his writ to the Sergeant-at-Arms to seize
Lord Denman on the Bench ?—( Cheers.) It was in vain
to disguise from themselves that they were on the brink of
a precipice, and that if they advanced farther they would
only confer upon themselves greater degradation. He
trusted, therefore, they would well and seriously consider
not only the motion before them but the inconsistency of
adopting it. If any Honourable Member moved an amend-
ment to that motion he would gladly second it.

The ATTORNEY-GENEEtsIL trusted that he
might be excused for not taking part in the debate at
an earlier hour, as the fact was that be was within
an hour of his return from the discharge of important
duties elsewhere, which for the last three weeks had ab-
sorbed the whole of his attention. Those duties he had
performed to the best of his abilities, and he must
confess that he was entirely ignorant of what had been
done respecting the case of Stockdale and Hansard, until
he entered that House ; but be had not the slightest he-
sitation in saying upon being made acquainted with what
had taken place, that he entirely approved of the motion
of his Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colo-
nies. He thought that the usefulness of the House of Com-
mons would be at an end, and that its Members would be
guilty of treason—( Cries of " Oh,") if they abandoned their
privileges, and succumbed on the present occasion, and
did not follow the precedent set them by those who for-
merly represented the people of England, and defended
their rights. The Hon. Member for Oxford complained
of the motion of the Noble Lord, as did the Hon. Member
for Cambridge ; but neither of them had ventured to sug-
gest the adoption of a course that was better calculated to
effect the object they had in view. He admitted that
there was great difficulty in the question, but no Hon.
Member had suggested a course that was likely to do
good. Would the House allow a fourth action to be
brought by Mr. Stockdale, or would they allow any other
,person to bring an action against an officer of the House
for what had been done in obedience to its orders ? Mr.
Hansard was the officer of that House. —( Cries of " No.")
He was the printer of the House—he had acted under its
orders, and an action had been brought against him for that
which he had done in pursuance of those orders.
Were they to allow the damages to be levied on the goods
of Mr. Hansard for what he had done in pursuance of the
resolutions of the House? Were the damages that bad
been awarded against him to be paid out of his own pocket?
Or was the House prepared;to say that it should be included
in the Estimates and come out of the revenue of the coun-
try ? ,If the House did that, it would not only give up the
particular privilege, but every privilege which bad been
deemed essential to the performance of their functions. By
adonting such a course the House would subject the whole
of its privileges not only to the jurisdiction of the Court of
Queen's Bench but every other inferior tribunal in the
country—similar actions would be brought against the
officers
inferior
r ior
Court of Requests, in the
County Courts of the Kingdom.
—( Hear, hear.) The House would act upon this princi-
ple—that if an action was brought against an officer of the
of
Courts, ur the
ts , andHu
b
House, and he pleaded to it, it would then be competent
for any Court in the country to ride over the whole of the
privileges of the House. If an action was brought
against a messenger of the House for entering a person's
obstee in r
dwelling in order to obtain the attendance of a wit-
ness, he might, if the House gave up its privileges,
be indicted for an assault. But then it had been said that
in this case of Stockdale v. Hansard, although the Court had
decided against the right of the House of Commons in the pre-
sent instance, yet that it respected its other privileges.
Supposing that it had done so, what assurance had he for
the length of time that it would respect them ? That
House, he considered, was the best judge of its own
privileges, the Judges seemed to think that they were
not ; and therefore it was necessary that some conclusion
should be come to, and something should be done; and,
in his opinion, nothing was more calculated to assert their
rights and privileges than the motion of his Noble Friend,
the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He had been in
Lopes that in the present occasion it would have been
thought reasonable to have avoided the general question.
The motion now before the House was, that Mr. Stock-
dale and the Sheriff should attend at the bar, and if the
latter did attend, it did not follow as a matter
of course that he should be committed. The course
most usually adopted was, and it was the best course to
assert the privileges of the House when they had been vio-
lated by an officer of the law, to commit that officer, but
it did not follow, as a matter of necessity, that he would
be committed. Under what circumstances was the Sheriff
called upon to attend ? Why, Mr. Hansard, in conse-
quonce of a resolution of the House, had not appeared to
an action that bad been brought against him, and the result
was, that his goods had been seized to the extent of six
hundred pounds by the Sheriff. Ought not, therefore, the

Sheriff to attend at the bar ? because if he did so, he
might justify the seizure he had made, though he (the
Attorney-General) doubted extremely whether he would
do so, looking at the fact, that after repeated notice to
the contrary, he had ventured to proceed against an offi-
cer of that House, and to sell his goods. Under these cir-
cumstances, he could not see how the House could come
to any other decision than that he should be committed to
Newgate for a gross contempt of the privileges of the
House. The Hon. Member for Oxford had said that
if the House committed the Sheriff, why should they
not seize the Judges ?—( Hear, hear.) In the present
' hastance the Judges had little or nothing to do with the
matter—they were not to be complained of. The She-
riff,[
' and he alone, was the party blameable. Looking,
therefore, at the whole, he could not see why the Sheriff
and !Ir. Stockdale should not be called to the bar. It
was his impression that that would be the host course to
adopt : but if any Hon. Member could suggest a better
mode let the House adopt it, if it thought proper; but if
no better mode could be suggested, then he called upon
Hon. Members fearlessly to assent to the motion of his
Noble Friend. What was the course pursued by the
House of Lords in the case of Bell v. Plass ? In that case,
in the year 1827 an action had been brought by Mr. Bell
against Mr. Plass, who was one of the door-keepers of
the House of Lords, because he had taken an umbrella
from him according to the rules of the House. In that
action, which was brought in the Court of Requests,the Court
after hearing the case, awarded damages, and Mr. Bell
proceeded to levy execution, in order to obtain the fruits
of his verdict ; and in that case the House of Lords inter-
posed, and summoned the party to the bar, together with
the Judge and Officer of the Court ; and it was only upon
the promise of Mr. Bell, that he would not proceed fur-
ther in the execution of the judgment, that the House did
not commit him. He had been in hopes that the conflict
which had taken place with the Judges and that House
would have been avoided. He considered that the House
had acted with great forbearance—they had done their ut-
most to avoid the evil—it had now, however, come upon
them, and they must determine whether the House of Com-
mons or the Courts of Law were to have the superiority—
and whether all their privileges were to be at the
beck of every Judge in the land, high or low.
An application had .been made to the Court of
Queen's Bench on behalf of Mr. Stockdale for a
rule calling on him to show cause why he should not
pay over to him the amount he had recovered from Messrs.
Hansard in consequence of the execution. He appre-
hended that it would be a sufficient answer on the part of
the Sheriff in asking for the rule to be discharged, if the
Sheriff was to say that he had been ordered by the House
of Commons to return it to Mr. Hansard. It had been
said that the House of Commons had taken upon itself to
overrule the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.
That was true ; but it was equally true that the Court of
Queen's Bench had taken upon itself to overrule a re-
solution of the House of Commons. He agreed that the
resolution of the House was not taken notice of by the
Court of Common Law ; but he apprehended, that when
such a resolution was brought judicially before a Court of
Law, the Judges would be bound to take judicial notice
of it. For these reasons, he trusted that the House
would pursue the course which was proposed by his Noble
Friend.—( Hear, hear.)

Lord M A HON thought that no Member ought to vote
for this motion unless he was prepared to submit to the
consequences of it. The present motion ought to be fol-
lowed up, if it was a right one, with a motion summoning
the Judges to the bar. He called upon the Noble Lord
and the Attorney-General to reflect on the final issue of this
measure before they adopted the step that was now proposed.
It was no light thing to to tell the people that their re-
presentatives would set them the example of resisting the
administration of the law. Could the Attorney-General
doubt that there would be found out of doors thousands,
and tens of thousands, of the people, ready to follow that
example ? and if they were prepared to stand by their re-
solution of May, 1837—if they were prepared to say that
the Members of that House were the sole judges of their
own privileges—that those privileges depended on the will
of a majority necessarily fluctuating, which might be on
the one side of the House to-day, and on the other to-
morrow—was the resolution of a fluctuating majority of
this sort to overbear the authority of the Judges ? If
such were the case, what security would they have that
these same principles would not be applied out of doors
to the support of any doctrines which might be in accord-
ance with the wishes or desires of the physical majority of
the people Cheers.) The Attorney-General said that
if they did not act up to this resolution, they would be al-
most guilty of treason. He should have thought that the
recent important :trials in which the Attorney-Gene-
ral had been engaged, might have prevented this asser-
tion. The Attorney-General had also told them, that if
they rejected this motion, they must be content
to renounce henceforth all their privileges, he could not
doubt the attention of the Attorney- General had been paid
to the remarks of the Judges, and if so, he must have
found them containing many distinct recognitions of the
existence of the privileges of this House. The Attorney-
General had spoken as if all their privileges were attacked ;
but‘every one of the Judges had guarded himself against
this construction of the Attorney-General's. (The Noble
Lord here read extracts from the judgments delivered by
Lord Denman. Mr. Justice Littledale, and Mr. Justice
Patteson, all recognizing the existence of many and valu-
able privileges as belonging to the House of Commons)—
and yet, in the teeth of these passages did the Attorney-
General assert that there was an end of every privilege if
they now submitted to the Judges. Like those high au-
thorities he also admitted the existence and value of the
privileges of that House. He admitted the value of free-
dom of speech, of personal immunity from arrest, and
of that privilege which secured individual Members
from obstructions or intimidations in the discharge of their
public duty ; he also recognised their right to publish and
circulate to every Member of their body any document con-
ducive to the public interest, but he must protest against
the assumption. that this ancient and valuable privilege
bore any resemblance to that which had been assumed
within the last five years, a right to distribute for sale to
any person who chose to become a purchaser, any state-
ment that they might think fit to order for publication.
He would maintain that they could not possibly maintain
their privilege intact unless they renounced the exer-
cise of it in the present instance; and he regretted to say
that on this point it was his misfortune to be at issue with
many whose opinions he revered. They should re,
collect that this was only the; commencement ; he
had resisted this motion, not so much on account of
itself as because they would be bound to follow it up,
and they could not enter on this course of contention with
the Judges unless public opinion were on their side, and
he would maintain that pnblic opinion, so far as it had
been expressed, was decidedly against the assumption of
this privilege. Wherever it was mentioned in public it
was uniformly mentioned in terms of reprehension ; the most
influential portion of the press had declared against it—the
voice of the most distinguished public men had declared
against it—and he would ask if on the one hand
the public snpport was essential to the success
of their cause, and if, on the other hand, public opinion
had stigmatised the course they were pursuing as the
legalizing an iniquitous attempt to open a shop for the
sale of libels, was it wise to continue these proceedings?
Allusion had been made to the speech of Mr. Sergeant
Wild, in the conclusion of that speech, the Learned Ser-
geant had expressed his belief that these privileges were
just, and that the House ought to maintain them, but they
could only be maintained by the almost unanimity of the
House, and the support of the people out of doors, and if
they could not be maintained in this manner it was better
that they should die a natural death than that the House
should: enter upon an ineffectual struggle in support of
them ; on that speech he took his stand, and he called
upon the House, in the words of Sergeant Wilde, to let
this privilege die a natural death if they were not sup-
ported by the feelings of the people out of doors.—( Hear,
hear, and cheers.) If the House desired to stand
high in the estimation of the country there was
no point on which they should proceed more warily than
this one of privilege. Were Honourable Members aware
of the monstrous extent to which in former periods these
privileges bad been carried, an extent which be was cer-
tain no person now living could be found to justify ? He
would relate a few instances from the Journals of the
House. On the 20th of March, 1539, they would find
that on a complaint of Lord Galway, that several persons
bad entered his warren and killed his rabbits; the House
decided that this was a gross breach of privilege. In 1629
occurred the case of Admiral Willoughby ; in 1640 Lord
Barrymore complained that certain persons had entered
his park and pulled down his fences ; this also was voted
a breach of privilege. In 1648 Sir Robert Grosvenor
complained that certain persons had entered his lead
mines and stolen property therefrom ; the House decided
that those persons had committed a gross breach of privi-
lege.—( Loud cries of " Order, order !" " Bar, bar 1" in
consequence of the noise occasioned by the crowd of
Members at the bar, which frequently rendered the
Noble Lord inaudible.) On the 22d of January, 1729,
Henry Lord Viscount Palmerston stated that a cita-
tion from Doctor's Commons had been served on one
of his menial servants. This complaint had been referred
to a Committee of Privilege, who were inclined to consi-
der it as a breach of privilege, but on the 11th of Febru-
ary, the Committee reported that the authorities of Doc•
tors' Commons had rendered their submission, and the
case was pursued no further. It might be said that these
were mere personal grievances, but was the House aware
of a resolution for the maintenance of another privilege
which still remained unrescinded? On the 13th of April,
1736, it was re..olved that it was a high indignity and a
notorious breach of privilege for any news-writer to give
any account or report of any proceedings or debates in
that House, and that any person offending in this respect,
should be proceeded against with the greatest severity ?
—( Hear, hear.) This order still continued unre-
scinded. Would any Hon. Member contend that it woula
be right to proceed to the enforcement of it, ?
He was willing to admit that in former times these privi-
leges were useful and necessary to protect the Members of
the House from the unconstitutional interference of the
Crown; they were the scaffolding, by the assistance of
which the fabric of constitutional government had been
built up, but which were become, some of them, useless,
and some of them obstructive, now that the fabric was
finished. Under the Tudors and Stuarts it was necessary
that this House should be possessed of every privilege in
order to protect itself against the power of the Crown.
Elizabeth had treated the Members of that House as a mas-
ter would treat a menial, and even such a man as Lord
Bacon had been obliged to beg pardon on his knees for
having given his opinion on an affair ofstate. In the time
of James the First, any individual could be sent to the Co-
lonies on the ground that the Crown required his services
there, and this had been made use of' as a means of intimi-
dating Members from the performance of their duties. If
privileges were required now it was not as a protection
from the encroachments of the Crown, but to enable them
to do that which no man nor any body of men had any right
to. do, to set themselves above the law of the land.
It was remarkable that as these privileges had
become useless for their constitutional purpose, so had
they had become a subject of complaint. Blackstone men-
tions 1679 as the time when the Commons bad attained
security against any aggressions on the part of the Crown,
' and in 1680 Bishop Burnett complained of the extent to
which certain of their privileges had been carried The
last few days had brought to light a most remarkable au-

thority on this subject, he meant that of the great Lord
Chatham. In the last volume of his papers recently pub-
lished, under the date of the 9th of May, 1770, it was re-
-1 ited that at a meeting of the Members then in opposition,
General Cavendish had said, " I do, from my soul, detest
and abhor, as unconstitutional and illegal, the abominable
doctrine that a resolution of the House of Commons can
make, alter, or abrogate the law of the land.." In this
opinion General Cavendish was supported by Burke, by
Grenville, and by Sir George Savile, and these opinions
were approved of by the illustrious Lord Chatham in his
retirement at Hayes. Encouraged by the authority of
these eminent men he would take his stand upon this point
and declare his abhorrence and detestation of the uncon-
stitutional and illegal doctrine, that a resolution of
that House could make, alter, or abrogate any
thing in the law of the land.—( Hear and cheers.)
With respect to the present privilege—that of publics_
tion—it seemed to him that there had been a good deal
of fallacy advanced, he would not say this evening, but
Noble
Lord, in former evenings, particularly by the
Lord, the Member for Stroud. The Noble Lord had
talked largely of our Constitution, and of our venerable
privileges. Now, what they were at present discussing,
waa founded on a resolution of the House, which was
passed on the 13th of August, 1835, which ordered that
the publications of the House should be given not only for
Members, but also be given for sale. It is perfectly
true, as his Right Hon. Friend, the Member for Ripon,
had said, that there is a difference between the publica-
tion and the sale—that is true, in point of law, but he
could not help thinking that it was the sale alone which
produced all the animosity, and all the injury and incon-
venience which have followed the resolution of the House.
He subscribed to the opinion of his Right Hon. Fri: nd,
the Member for Ripon, that their present embarrassments
have grown out of that resolution, and, he would say, that
that they should now either rescind it, or take sthee effective
steps for preventing the publication of anything injurious to
the characters of others, on the part of the House. He re-
membered that his Noble Friend, the Member for Northum-
berland, stated on a former occasion, that he took care that
some parts of evidence taken before him in a Committee
should be expunged, in order to leave no room afterwards
for litigation. He (Lord Mahon) thought that the papers
published by the House required some superintendence.
They published in each Session more than it would be pos-
sible for the Members to read. Could it be said that their
enormous piles of books should be given to the world under
those circumstances ? He was of opinion, a•id it was not
an opinion which be had formed without careful perusal,
that many of these publications might bo dispensed with.
It is said that Members are bound by their duty to their
constituents to afford them every information in all the
steps which they may take. This was, he thought, the ar-
gument likely to make most impression on the House. It was
certainly, desirable that Members should afford every pos-
sible information to their constituents. There was, how-
ever, a case in point on this subject, to which he thought
the House was not sufficiently attentive—he meant the
case of Select Committees. Select Committees might be
said to bear the same relation to the whole House that
the House itself does to those it represents. Now, in Se-
lect Committees, every publication may be revised or al-
tered previous to its appearing before the House. Why
should they not, however, apply the same principle to the
public which their Special Committees applied to them ?
But it might be said that they are bound to give the House
fully the evidence taken before them. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Northumberland has himself told you, in reply to
this, that he found it necessary to expunge part of evidence
taken before him, in order to avoid injury to certain indi-
viduals. Either the course of his Honourable Friend,
the Member for Northumberland, was not consti-
tutional, or else, in case it should be thought
fit, a Special Committee: can expunge part of
evidence taken before them, and, by a parity of
reasoning, the whole House could do so too. On these
grounds he entertained serious doubts whether the resolu-
tion he referred to was really warranted. His present argu-
ment was that if he thought it advisable to protect their
printer, they should do so by Act of Parliament; they
should do so in a constitutional manner, and not by inviting
subordinate officers to violate their sworn duties, or by
punishing them for their discharge of those same duties. If
an act of the kind was brought forward, he would give it
his support; to any measure, on the contrary, that might
attempt to vindicate their authority by mere force, by
attempting to set privileges above the law, he would give
his most decided opposition ; and he trusted the House
would never be a party to such a proceeding; he trusted
the House would not consent to any such resolution. The
Attorney-General had said that though they summoned
those gentlemen, it did not follow that they would
adopt any harsh measures towards them.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Lord Mahon) said that this was but the first
step in a course, the results of which no one could forsee.
This was but the first act against the independence of the
Judges—this was an act which be would never believe that
the House would be a party to. Ho wished the House to
stand high in the estimation of the public, and he thought
it would degrade its character by abusing its privileges on
the present occasion. If there was a feeling which marked
the present time more strongly than any other, it is that
any man or body of men should not set themselves above
the law. Let the House beware how they opposed them-
selves to this feeling—let them beware how they forfeited
the character of this House for fighting, on all occasions,
the battles of liberty. Let it not be said that, after the
Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus—that after unjust power
had been overthrown—that, after privileges without law
had been expelled from the castles of the feudal Barons,
they had found a refnge within the walls of the Reformed
House of Commons.—( Heat, hear.) He considered that
any such attempt would be dangerous ; and, much
as he regretted to differ from some friends of his, he
felt himself bound to follow the dictates of his own
conscience, and to vote against this first attempt to make
the House of Commons a new and worse sort of Star-
Chamber.

Mr. CRESSWELL did not intend to enter then, at
any great length into the general question. He could
not, however, avoid saying a word or two on the grounds
which induced him to resist the motion of the Noble Lord
He hoped he understood the grounds on which the Noble
Lord opposed the order which had been regularly given
to the Sheriffs, who had been charged with its execution.
If he did rightly understand these grounds, they are
that the Judges had no jurisdiction, and, consequently,
that the Sheriff could not execute their order. He could
not but agree with the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member
for Oxford, that if any persons were to be brought before
the House, it should be the Judges; and the Attorney-
General is under a mistake when he thinks that you can-
not attack the Judge, because he had not a sufficient no-
tice of the petition. It is stated, however, that the Judge's
order reached the Sheriff to retain the writ, and therefore
the Judges must have have had notice on the subject. The
Jury, which had indicated its opinion pretty strongly, did so
by the advice of the Judges ; and the Judges afterwards pro-
ceeded to give judgment, and they have therefore adopted
the proceedings. He therefore called on the Attorney-Ge-
neral to say why he shrunk from bringing before
the House the parties from whom the order issued. Let
us sec on what grounds the House proceeds to call on any
officer concerned in the transaction. He had not the
honour of sitting in the House during the former debate
on the question. He remembered, however, that con-
siderable blame was attached, at the time, to Mr. Justice
Littledale, for not allowing the defendant to escape the
sentence pronounced against him. Where was the At-
torney-General then—where was Mr. Sergeant Wilde,
who has since discovered that he was under a mistake at
the time? You went to trial—you submitted to it—you
considered then that the Judges had the power they have
exercised; and it is not till after you find their epinions
are against you, that you complain of them. Is that the
mode, he would ask, by which the House of Commons
was to elevate itself in the opinion of the country ? You
first admit that the Judges had the power, and then, when
the award is against you, you turn round and refuse to sub-
mit to it. He could not but regret that the Attorneys
General should have brought so grave a charge as he had
done against Chief Justice Littledale, by stating that it is
his fault if the present difficulties of the House have taken
place. He (Mr. Cresswell) said that the fault, if there
was any, was on the part of the Attorney-General him-
self. There were two things to be tried in the case—the
first was, whether the publication was true or not, and that
question was found for the defendant. There was another
question, whether, under the general issue, the matter
could be made a subject of action. It would be quite
enough for the Attorney-General to contend that
the publication was made on a lawful occasion,
and that, therefore, it was no libel ; and, he
should say, that the publication of the proceedings
were put on these grounds,.was not libellous, and that the
publication was made on a lawful occasion, it being for the
benefit of Parliament. There is not merely a solitary in-
stance. There are abundance of instances in which you
may publish defamatory matter, and in which you arc justi-
fied in doing so. Suppose you are aware that a friend of
your's, a merchant, was about to take a person into his em-
ployment as a confidential clerk, and that you had reason
to believe that person to be a swindler, you might write to
your friend in such a case, and though your statements
were not true they would not be libellous, if you could be
supposed to have acted from fair and honourable motives.
Suppose, again, you knew a person who
had been guilty of
libel, or exciting disturbances in the country, and that you
had reason to think that one of her Majesty's Secretaries
of State was about to make him a Magistrate—(A laugh
on the Opposition benches)—you would be right in addres-
sing the Secretary, and cautioning him against putting such
a person in the commission of the peace. But the Attor-
ney-General insists that, before the House of Commons
ordered the publication to be made, it was legal.
Now, I defy the Attorney-General to prove that
whatever the House chooses to do is therefore
legal. The Attorney-General afterwards made a -
pro-
posal, which Lord Denman repudiated. The House took
offence at what passed—resolutions were agreed to, which
he would only say he had not signed, as he had
not an
opportune), at the time of doing so—when the House gave
Mr. Stockdale the means of becoming a martyr, he
was
too good a judge not to see the advantages of it. The
House made an order that the Attorney-General should
plead for Mr. Hansard on the occasion. The House did
not then deny that the Court had jurisdiction, but the
Attorney-General appeared in order to say in a few words
that the House came to justify what it had done. But
.then it was said that the House did not give leave to de-
cide against them.—( Hear, hear, from the Attorney-
General.) The Attorney-General says " Hear;" it
would appear that the Hon. Gentleman allowed the juris-
eietion of the Court, but gave leave only to decide for
hint. He would seem to have said, "If your opinion
ie against us, still decide for us."—( Hear, hear, arid
laughter.) Were the Judges not to decide at all,
or were they not to decide according to their consciences ?
But it is said that if the House pleads an Act of Par-
liament, it does not give leave to judge of it. You should,
however, allow the Judges to decide according to their con-
sciences. The Court gave judgment against the House.
The Judges pronounced against the House. Why did not
the House send for them. It would seem to have thought
it more convenient to go before a Jury. The House con-
vinced Mr. e,tockdale that the character of a martyr was
a good one, for it paid the damages. The declaration
charged Mr. Hansard with
.libel, and you, by not saving
anything in answer, admitted it to be true.—('. No," from
Lord John Russell.) Ife end,r.itet-ni. the Noble Lord to

EVENING EDITIOI4-.

! tell hint lie was wrong on the point, but he would certainly
s.y that the defetelaet did not plead, but admitted the
charge to be true ; and he was sure the Attorney-General
si °slid be with him on that point. (—A laugh.) Where there
is a judgment of the Court, no other Court has any right
to inquire into its adjudication. He denied their right to in.
quire into the judgment of the Court whether they may
question the justice of such judgment or not. If they were
disposed to act properly, send for the Sheriff, and show him
that he is guilty of contempt of Court. They are under
no re,ponsibility to anything in existence, save that rem
sponsibility which they owed to the country for their mis-
deeds. It has been asserted in this case of Stockdale and
Hansard that Parliament can claim a new privilege; how
were :hey to ascertain whether this privilege was new or
old ? There can be no doubt that this House entertained
questions of privilege connected with the Courts of Law,
but this is net a case of that description, as this is one that
arises from the judgment of the Curt. It is far too late
for this House io interfere. If the House called upon any
one to answer for their conduct, let them call upon those
who issued the order, and nut upon those who were com-
pelled to obey the law
Sir R. I'E E L thought it was most important that the
House should understand the position in which it was
placed. It was important that they should exactly under-
stand what was the course they themselves had taken upon
the question. In the year 1837, a Committee was ap-
pointed comprising, among its Members, men who were
the most eminent legal authorities ie that House, which
contained the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-
bridge,
e the Right Hun. the Attorney. General, Mr. Ser-
geant Wilde, the lion. Member for Huntingdon, the Attor-
n eri d
cetera' of the late Government, the Solicitor- General ;
and that Committee, with no exception, came to the unani-
mous resolution that the House of Commons had the privi-
lege of publication, and that the H ,use was the sole judge of
its own privileges.—( Hear, bear.) On the Report heinc,
made, the House of Commons, as a body, affirmed the
resolution. When the second action was brought by
Mr. Stockdale, very much to his regret, an appearance
was entered by Mr. Hansard. He thought that it would
have been better for the House of Commons to assume the
vindication of its own privileges, and not permit them to
be adjudicated up.ei elsew re —( Cheers.) He admitted
that the question was exceedingly difficult, but he had on
a former occasion predicted the consequences that were
likely to ensue. Mr. Stockdale was successful in that
second action, and a question then arose whether, as
the House had pleaded to the action, they could pre-
vent the execution of the writ ?—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He (Sir R. Peel) had certainly then contended that
having once pleaded—having submitted to the jurisdiction
of the Court of Queen's Bench, there was something in-
consistent and unjustifiable in their interfering, and the
Noble Lord (J. Russell) and himself had great difficulty
in inculcating forbearance on the House on that occasion.
Notwithstanding that, those who took an active part in
the discussion of the question pointed out that such was
the resolution of a large majority of that House. On the
latter occasion there was only a majority of 22-188 to 166.
After hearing the speech of Sergeant Wilde, be with great
difficulty persuaded the House not to proceed with its
threatened opposition.—( Hear.) In the course of
the last Session, the damages having been paid, he
would not say with the consent but without the opposition
of that House, in the course of last Session, after all that
had passed, and the repeated discussions that had taken
place on the great principle of the question, after hav-
ing fully p edicted the consequences that would arise,
they had received notice from a certain attorney, on be-
half of a person named Polack, that he intended to bring
an action against Mr. Hansard for the publication of a
libel. It was necessary to determine what course the
House of Commons should pursue; and the Noble Lord
proposed two resolutions, to the effect, that the Messrs.
Hansards printing and publishing the Report and
Minutes of Evidence on the present state of
New Zealand, which had been transmitted to
that House by the House of Lords on the 7th of
August. 1835, had acted in obedience to the orders
of that House, and that to bring, or assent to the bringing
of any action a gainst them for such publication, was a
breech of the privileges of that House. The Noble Lord
also proposed a tesolution that the Messrs. Hansards be
directed not to answer the letter of Mr. Shaw, mentioned
in his petition, and to take no steps towards defending tho
action.—( Hear, bear.) These two resolutions were car-
ried with the full knowledge of all the parties concerned,
by a majority of 106 to 4. After the termination of the
Session, Mr. Stockdale being aware, as they all were, of
the imperfection and hollowness of their case, brought a
third action against the Messrs. Hansards for the publica-
tion of the very libel which was the subject of the two
previous actions. The Messrs. Hansards, it appeared, did not
rely on what the House had done in the case of Mr. Polack,
although the principle then laid down was precisely the
same ; but they apply for advice to the highest authority
of the House of Commons, viz., the Speaker, and asked
his advice; and the Speaker, concluding the House meant
to abide by that principle—( Loud cheers)—which had been
laid down in the case of Mr. Polack, and carried by a ma-
jority of 106 to 4—( Hear, hear)—naturally and justly
advised Messrs. Hansards not to make any appearance.
And the Messrs. Hansards acted on that advice, and their
officer bad been subjected to a penalty of 6001. for acting
under the authority of the Speaker, who himself was acting
intermediately, but as it appeared to him (Sir R. Peel)
under the immediate :authority of the House of Commons.
He would therefore beg of the House to consider the posi-
tion in which it was placed.—( Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion now was, what course should they take, and he could
only regret that all the legal difficulties which were inter-
posed in the case had not been fully and deliberately con-
sidered in the first instance. What course were they to
pursue? What had been suggested to them ? Should
they abandon the privilege altoeetter ? Because if
they permitted the Sheriff to pay Mr. Stockdale the da-
mages which the Jury had awarded him; what was the
next step ? Of course they would not prevent him in-
stituting a fourth action. They must at once admit that
their officer, Mr. Hansard, was liable to an action in any
Court of Law, civil or criminal, for performing , his duty.
--(Cheers from the Ministerial benches. l He appre-
-1 hended that was their only course, unless they would be
prepared to take some further step. The question was, ad
they really any privileges, and were they the judges of
what they were ? His Noble Friend had stated that in
former times their privileges had been greatly abtied, but
these times had long since passed away. His Noble Friend
admitted that -they had some privileges; be .thought they
had the privilege of publishing papers for the use of the
Members of that House. 'Well, that was a greet conces-
sion to make. He admitted, also, that they had the pri-
vilege of publishing them for the use of Parliament. Who
was to be the judge of the proper exercise of that pri-
vilege ? lie presumed that if it was a privilege available
to the House of Commons, the House of Com.
mons must be the judge of the right of ex-
ercising it. What avail would the right of
publishing these papers for the use of their own
Members be unless they were the exclusive judges
of it ?—( Hear, hear.) But suppose the Court of
Queen's Bench decided that they had improperly exer-
cised that privilege, what course were they to take when
their exclusive jurisdiction is questioned ? Suppose they
agreed with his Noble Friend in his condemnation of
these resolutions as being utterly condemned and ab-
horred—as being impious and heretical —( Much laughter)
—and that all parties should utterly protest against the
doctrine that the resolutions of that House could be opposed
to the laws, their position would be equally unsatisfactory.
—( Hear, hear.) Suppose, on the other hand, the Court
of Queen's Bench bad disregarded their resolution, and
gave damages against their officer, how were they to deal
with that Court except with the Sheriff as their minis-
terial officer? His Noble Friend had observed that they
had added to the privilege of publication the power of
sale. Now he ( Sir R. Peel) thought the power of sale
had created prejudice in the public mind against them,
and it appeared to him that the public recognised a dis-
tinction between publication for the use of the House and
publication for general sale. But that was a question of
policy, and did not enter into that particular question,
because the Court of Queen's Bench had determined
that in the legal consideration of the question the power
of sale had nothing to do with it. It might perhaps be
advisable to return to the order of things as the existed
seven or eight years ago, but if they did so to-morrow it
it would not assist them in the Conrt of Queen's Bench.
He presumed that when that Court had decided the ques-
tion, upon the strict principles of law, the question of sale
had been dismissed altogether from its consideration.
Therefore, if to-morrow they abolished the power of sale,
they should have no security that the Court of Queen's
Bench would not question their right to publish papers for
the use cf their Members. There was an inquiry into the
state r
oegula
fgaotns. An inquiry w
liodiscipline,and
itwasas
made
proposedint
o the
abuses
t o introduceases
which existed, end as an instance of these, it was stated
that the prisoners were in possession of publications which,
professing to be medical, were in point of fact, obscene,
and calculated to contaminate their minds. It was neces-
sary to establish the truth of that statement, in order to
vindicate the new regulation. His Noble Friend
said that might have been made knows. for their
own use, but he ( Sir R. Peel) would ask, how was it pos-
sible to confine it? How were they to prevent a Member
communicating important facts of that nature to his con-
stituents ; and it was useless to determine that they might
publish for their own use, unless they themselves were to
be the judges of the exercise of that privilege. If he felt
that they had hastily and inadvertently committed them-
selves to these proceedings, he should certainly think the
wisest course would be (however painful the alternative)
to withdraw from publication ; but he believed that that
privilege of publication was essential to the due discharge
of their functions.—( Loud cheers.) He could not con-
ceive how they could act as a House of Commons unless
they had the power of publishing, not merely for their
own use, but for the information of the public, that which
they thought necessary. They had the power of address-
ing the Crown for the removal of a Judge. Was it likely
that they could remove a Judge on the allegation of his
want of legal information, or integrity, or impartiality,
without satisfying the public mind that the grounds
for such an Address were well founded?—(Hear,
hear, hear.) And that could only bo done by the
publication of the evidence upon which it rested. There-
fore, with respect to these acts of legislation, that the
public mind should be informed as well as their own,
he contended that the privilege of free publication was
essential to the performance of their functions. Now, it
had been admitted by the Judges that whatever was ne-
cessary for the proper performance of their functions was
possessed by the House of Commons. He for one be-
lieved that that privilege was essentially necessary.—
( Hear, hear.) The House should recollect that Mr.
Stockdale at the termination of the Session instituted his
action, and without any power of interferencet on their
part had proceeded with it. The truth was, that the be-
lief of the House hitherto had been that the 'Courts of
Law would assist them. His Hon. Friend near him said,
" Why don't you proceed to commit the Judge ?" He (Sir
R. Peel) was not prepared to do so. He knew very little
of those technical matters of detail, but he understood
that it was the opinion of high professional authorities that
the proper course was to follow the analogy of the Courts
of Law, and take the ministerial authorities of the Court-
! With regard to the present question they were rysw to 0"-
sider what was best to be done. and it was the -Woe ite.s.
cessary that some arrangements should be corns' to, because