The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-21 00:00:00

EVENTING EDITiON

begged to a k the date of el note from the Portuguese meat had such a r.ae_asuhre ut.
in contemplation, but not for deny and reflise to the public eyery informati.otdion of
Minister to Lord Howard de Walden. any prolonged period ; e thought it probable that it the manner in which our proceedings are came o
had
Lord PALMERSTON, in answer, begged to state would be limited to a period of ten years' expiration. I. must say., w. ith regard. to this very question, that 1
that the note was wr:tten on the lath day of May, Mr. HERRIES begged to ask if there was any - been of opinion that it would be necessary to compel
1838. I the H0.i.,: would allow him, he would prilasuchainng,contemplation for the re-building of the Royal the City of LOndiin to biiild a neW pristin; but in that
o r whether
aile it would be hard to do so if the City of London
shortly exp.aM the affair. The history of the trans-
commencement of that work?
there was any prospect of as early
said," You are not able to give your proceedings to the
action would be folio'', at the conclusion of the despateh, . - - . • ' •••• she
Alderman WOOD stated that thee- -
dated Lisbonl,Msy 20, (58S. Lord Howard de Walden I. ....... were thirty-tux public—you are debarred by the law from given t 3
estimatesea
~e,
for the re- . before the COM- information on the sullied which we would re9uife.
,Do
nixed upon tee Portuguese Minister thss necessity of
.t,,..-asulding sent in
considerable delay with regard to every thattef et great public, import-
agorailating the Portuguese law rf!lating to tI!6 Slave I ml..ve, but in consequence of a
much ance—Se with regard to Canada, jar itfifttnee,
Trade with ours, therby 'making the Slave Trade arising from all those estimates havingamounted
uldnot be entered how could we legislate for Canada; if we could not
Piracy- The Pos'agucss Minister statsal that no Go- beyond the amount specified,
it
"There were six of give the public any information with regtird td its sittia-
, vortument in Portug:i' eould assent to that proposition. upon as soon as could be wished.
h regard tb our
Lord Howard de Wald best
co then stated that if the those plans selected as being the
Minister would write him an official note to that effect, of the best of those six be made it beat, and until a report tion ? This may be said still more wit
would be quite im- internal proceedings. The grounds I am advocating
it would be unnecessary to make any other declare- possible to say farther on the subject. were those) I imagine, on which this House went in
lion as to the course they intended to pursue with Mr. EMERSONTENNENT wished to gain some 1796, *hen proteedings were taken with regard to a
reference to the Poor-law Unions of Pritice of the eoiintry. These
the
tegarded
irespeet to the Slave Tradc.—(Hear, hear.) He information with
poorhouses were in course of a Report in a case in which the parties Wished for
had agreed to sign Cm:. -frosty sub spe rata, if the Ireland, and whether theo
Government should agree to the terms which had been
proposed, and if they should not, then the whole was to
be null and void ; and so far from there being any con-
cealment curbs part of Lord H. de Walden,er the Go- erection. He wislaad
Government intended
suppression ' of vagrancy ? learnP
whether her Majesty's secrecy, but they were ordered to be printed by the
tot bring forward any law for the Houser'
of Commons. A very important law was
CHANCELLOR of the framed with regard to the state of the country, as it
EXCHEQUER appeared from those proceedings, and therefore, whether
The .
said he was not prepared to give him any information this law was right or not, it being the opinion of the
vernment in this matter, that dispatch, which perhaps
the Right Hon. Baronet had not seen, was an inclosure upon the subject
i in the absence of the Secretary for Parliament of the day that such proceedings should be
to the one which the Right Hon. Bart. had read ; it Ireland. taken, it was thought right to give the public every
Sir DE LACY EVANS asked for information re- information on the subject, while duly tespeeting the
was to be found at page 191, and was to the following
effect •
.—That Lord Howard agreed in order to recon- carding the metropolitan improvements. constitutional law of the country. With regard to one
d JOHN RUSSELL said, Government would of theseproceedings action was commenced, not
Lord an
cite the objections made by Viscount Sr da Band
eira' en the part of the Portuguese Government to be certainly inclined to recommend the re-appointment against a printer authorised by the House, but against
the required declaration ot piracy, and addressed of the Committee to re-consider the subject. a printer who had chosen, of his own accord, to
a note to his Excellency, of which he enclosed a copy. STOCKDALE is. HANSARD. publish those proceedings, having voluntarily given
That copy was the
_. note which had been read by the Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the the public a copy of the matters taken before a Secret
Ds, regarding the case of Stockdale v. Hansard. Committee. It was on that octillion that Lord Kenyon
night Hon. Baronet the other evening. In reply to
The Order accordingly
that the
Viscount had promised to make such a decla-
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—l sidered libellous. One of the parties urged his claim as
ration as his Excellency should consider
difficultytantamount to
think it necessary to call the attention of this House a loyal subject to issue that publication. The public,
the one required to remove the only on the
to the former proceedings connected with this case, he said, were entitled to the information. Lord Kenyon
pert of her 111n)esty's Government to the acceptance..
this House
of the treaty. It appeared that Viscount Sada Bandeira
: and the position in which this House now stands. on that occasion said that the House of Commons
had, on the Itith or 19th—the day of the date of the You have the resolutions of this House before you, was privileged to publish the papers . it might think neces-
A A Walden that k
aote—stated to Lord Hower.. -e the ou-
s which I will read : sary. It was impossible for him to admit that the pro-
jections in the way ot making the required declaration 1. That it appearing to this House that an action has ceedings of either House of Parliament were a libel.—
been brought against James Hansard and others for the (Hear, hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
were insurmosnnable. On the 19th of May it had publication by them, under an order of this House, of cer- He said afterwards—" These are proceedings by
been stated, in a conference between Lord Howard tain papers containing libellous matter upon John Joseph one branch of the Legislature, and therefore they
de Wald'-n and Viscount Sada Bandeira, that the Stockdale, and that judgment has been
obtained, and exe- cannot be inquired into. These are proceed-
dißieultos his Excellency laboured under as to the cation issued, by due course of law, against the,said James
piracy article were instil-mountable. His Excellency Hansard and others, in such action, it is expedient that lags on the part of those who, by the Constitution,
steteill that no Member of the Government could the said James Hansard and others be indemnified against are the guardians of the liberties of the subject. We
venture to enter into any engagement for the pro- all coats and damages by them sustained in respect of such cannot say such proceedings are a libel, and therefore
be cl. h d " The th Judges
the defendant must isc arge . o er g
poect of such a law in the present state of action.
popular feeling in Portugal with regard to this 2. That in case of any action or actions being hereafter
concurred in opinion, on that occasion, with Lord
subject. There was on the one side active brought for the publication of papers under
the order of this Kenyon. were, say, j
(apposition ot, the part of those interested in upholding House, the Attorney-General be instructed to defend such sidering the publication
in question to have been for the
lave trade, and on the other, to which action, and to report thereon to the House. good of the country. There was no reason why we
this
alone the The Act which has been called in question is should question that the law was such as we imagined.
eremant could look for support, total indifference to
the subject. Under these circumstances Viscount Act done by the Messrs. Hansard strictly in We have found that the Judges
an. thought differently,
accordance with the resolutions of this House. and Ido not deny that they have thus placed us in a
Sada
makingßindeira considered the difficulties in the In 1it3,5 a Bill was proposed in the House of Lords situation of considerable difficulty. I do not wish to
wayable.of Lortl the required declaration insurmount- by the Duke of Richmond for the purpose of appoint- conceal from the House that I think the opposition we
Howard then said that he was not
, ing Inspectors of Prisons ; and, when in this House, it will have to meet with on a question of this nature is
authorisedbeing to sign the treaty without the declaration was proposed that an examination should be made of very different from what it would have been in other days.
he made,
rd but that it he would make a declaration the Prison of Newgate, which comes under the general At former periods, the question of freedom from arrest
(L 0 Howard de Walden) would sign the treaty Corporation:Act, it being in the opinion of this House for Members, and freedom of speech, were questions to
sue spe rats. Lord Howard de Walden said that al-
fusion hail been made by the Viscount Sada Bandeira no sufficient ground of exception. At the same time be contested for against the Courts of Law. In those
thequestion is possible that an Inspector of Prisons on times you had the Crown and the Courts of Law to
to hie departure from Lisbon in May, and he there- •• •
Newgate should have made report, that socontend with. A Sheriff then told you that a Member
fore enclosed a copy of a memorandum which he had excellentvisiting
th t ofd. r a
3v:omitted to Viscount Sada Bandeira before his depar- d
a s wast
h the leansys em
carrieddiscipline adopted, and soimprisoned, and that he should be bound to pay
premeso fre were the wasl
00 / if he dismissed him. Still the House proceeded
ture on this subject. This memorandum was not good was
keptpf on e
'contamination by association, on' the. universal sentiment that in eontending against
signed, because it had never been executed, as the prisonerstherom any
which
difficulties re.e t.the preliminarieshad
pee mg never been
. and such was strictness with
.. all
was
did not carry with
provision and the introduction of spirits or improper flees of the Crown. These Judges
overcome. 'lt had not been forwarded to Viscount Sa food, or books or newspapers was carried into effect, them that weight which Judges of the present day phooss-
d, Bant!eira at the time, but he had merely read it to it was considered that it would be competent in sess. In fact, since the time of the Revolution
co it has
to
'Viscount Sade Bandeira, and he agreed to take the any future Bill to have relied upon that Report as an ar- been the unceasing aim of the House of
he
subject into his consideration —as a preliminary pro- raja: n or
gument to have that prison made an exception, and make our Judges independent either of the
them
position previous to the signature of a treaty, which w
with
have it exempted from the inspection of pri- of the popular voice. You have invested
should be subject to amendment on being discussed.which must
ust
sons. It will at once be perceived how closely this a character of sacredness—with a security
The negociations were broken off, and the memorandum m t
Report is connected with the present proceedings, add to their weight in any contest, if contest there must
in consequence was not signed. In this memorandum It did so happenhappenßeport
to the distribution of the cells, the them. It is of the nature of all bodies of men,
feel authorised under his instructions to affix his signa- associations in that prison, and the introduction of news- may be that of this House, and perhaps
independence
is that of
ture to any treat. on the subject of the slave trade, which papers and books. From that statement a Report was the Bench of Judges, that having their
did not declare, us a principle, the making that trade ordered to be /minted by the House, and it was in conse- secured they should endeavour to infringe en the privi-
piracy.be Viscount Sada Bandeira, on the part of the quence of that printing that an action was brought by Mr• loges of others ; and the Courts of Law may now
Portuguese Government, stated that circumstances Stockdale against the Messrs. Hansard. I need not willing to assert their authority in opposition to ours.
alone prevented his acquiescence in such a stipulation— relate the history of those proceedings to the House. It I feel the difficulty of carrying on the contest—l feel
(Hear, hear)--- but he declared, on the part of was decidedly competent for this House to adopt any that in the course of it much inconvenience must arise,
the Queen of Portugal, that her Faithful Majesty line of conduct with reference to that case that they but in considering our present situation, and the posi-
was ready to acquiesce in any general measure pleased. They might have altogether abandoned their tion in which we stand, it appears certain that whatever
which might be adopted by the other European resolutions, but they determined to vindicate their pri- be those evils, and whatever that independence we may
Powers on this subject. Viscount Sada Bandeira and vileges. The Attorney-General instructed the Messrs. have given the Courts of Law, it should not be used
Lord Howard de Walden, having considered the Hansard not to take any notice of those proceedings against us. If we yield in this instance we shall not
various inconveniences which must arise in consequence which were instituted against them. The result of those only give one privilege, but we shall be submitting to
of any delay in the signature of the treaty, agreed to proceedings is already before the House. It was con- all future Judges any privileges of ours which they may
affix their signatures to the treaty, sub spe rata, under sidered necessary for the vindication of our privileges to wish to destroy. As the House of Commons has such
a mutual pledge that, in the event of the treaty, as it take one important step in this transaction by punishing important functions—being part of the High Court of
then stood, not being accepted by the British Govern- one of the offending parties who were concerned in Parliament—being the grand Inquisitor of the nation,
menu, that the fact of any signatures having been at- bringing this action ; and this House have voted that bound to examine into all grievances, to impeach and
Cached to such treaty should be concealed, and the these proceedings against the Messrs. Hansard was a prosecute all offenders, to give those supplies which are
whole proceeding considered as null and void. No breach of the privileges of this House, and in conse- necessary to carry on, even for a single week, the Go-
date had been affixed to this memorandum, and it hail quence of which they have committed to the custody of the vernment of the country, to pass those measures of legis-
never been signed ; but it had been given by Lord Sergeant-at-arms Mr. Stockdale. The question now is, lation which the state of the country and the improve-
Howard de Walden to Viscount Sada Bandeira in the whether it may be necessary for this House to take fur- meat of the laws may from time to time:require=s g
require—fee ge
course of the csgociation, which had taken place to- thee proceedings against any of the other parties con- as Ido that we have all these high functions to die
wards the end of May. In the course of those nego- cerned. And let me here state the particular situation —feeling thatwe havegreatduties to which we are bound,
defiant' flesh difficulties had been started, and, in con- in which this House is now placed, in order to the yin- I think I should betray and desert my obligations if 1
sequence, this memorandum had never bees signed; dication of our own proceedings, and the exercise of recommended to the House of Commons to continue to
but it showed the conditions , which alone Lord the functions with regard to the Courts of Law. exercise its high functions, to maintain its place
the
in
sti
Howard de Walden had consented to sign a treaty Any Court of Law which finds its proceedings Legislature, and to held its ground among the con -
wiehout an express stipulation declaring that all trade obstructed has decidedly an opportunity of questioning tuent parts of this noble empire, and yet consent that
in slaves should be considered piracy. Viscount Sada those obstructions. We have heard from that clever their powers should be weakened and paralysed, or
Bandeira had stated the impossibility of signing the and,intailigent man, Mr. France, who holds the office finally, perhaps, destroyed, when any of the courts of
treat:- with the declaration required, and Lord Howard of Under-Sheriff, the course which the Court of Chan- justice may think fit to pronounce that those privileges,
de Walden had answered that he would sign the cery would pursue in such a case. The Court of Chan- which were once ours, should be reversed or overturned
treaty it' the Portuguese Government would make a cery would not commit any party who were under the by the decision of any body in the State. —(C"rs.)
fermi declaration, that although they were not jurisdiction of another tribunal, but they would proceed The Noble Lord concluded by moving the h
following
then prepared to declare the slave trade piracy, yet by an order for an injunction, and atop the plaintiff im- resolutions :--,
they would de so at some future time, either alone mediately from taking further steps. The Court of 4, That it appears to this House that an execution in
or in c,onjutietion with the other powers of Europe, Exchequer will protect their own officers, and support the case of Stockdale against Hansard, has been levied
and se far was there from being anything. like the jurisdiction they possess. With regard to the House to the amount of 6401., on the property of Messrs. Han-
deuble-dealing on the part of Lord Howard de Walden of Lords, in all the cases that have happened, it does sand, in contempt of the privileges of this House, and
that throughout the whole transaction the papers which appear, generally speaking, but with one or two exeep-
, that such money now remains in the hands of the She-
had already, been laid before Parliament, and those tion, that the plaintiff is stopped at once in his proceed- riffs of Middlesex."
which lied been subsequently received, and which would ings, and both the plaintiff and his attorney committed The Nosee LORD said, that if that resolution should
be laid on the table of the House with the next batch to prison by that House, in consequence of bringing be carried, he would then move the second resolution :
of papers, showed that nothing could be more fair or such action. But with respect to this case, during the ii That the said Sheriffs should be ordered to refund
straightforward than Lord Howard de Walden's con- prorogation of Parliament an action may proceed, and the said amount forthwith."
duct, or more conformable with the spirit of his instruc- may be afterwards carried on er not by the original parties.
tiers, although he bad, perhaps, taken upon himself to F. KELLY rose for the purpose of proposing
but the Sheriff and Under-Sheriff are then made to de- Mr. • an amendment to the motion of
go rather beyond them. He thought
it necessary tocertain resolutions as
ride themselves what conduct the shall pursue. The assure the House that it
state this in ja,tice to a most meritorious and zealous C
this.. y. .
question for House to consider is a most serious one, the Noble Lord. He could
to differ
servant of her Majesty. with sincere regret he felt himself obliged
namely, whether they shall take any steps against the was with .
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON had certainly made someon this question with many friends of his. It was ne-
on with re and to their interfering with the proceed-Strong observations upon the document, which most un- •cessary, however, to enter on the subject with a total
that have gl
d taken lace, and prevent the pay-ings a.rea y.
doubtedlv he ',mild not have done bed he been aware this Pof the of absence of party feeling, and of any prejudice on one
meat to the plaintiff in case
of any satisfactory explanation of the affair. He produced b hsale of the Messrs. Hansard's goods.
by the e
conli4sseo that although the Noble Lord bad entered Now it does appear to me that in considering this case to proceed on an occasion of this nature with too much
into a long explination, he (Mr. Sergeant Jack-deliberation, with too much care, or with too much
we must lay aside the degree and amount of blame or
son) (mist say that it. was not at all satisfactory of moral culpability,whichmay attach itself to the
caution. He was sure that even. the
Noble Lord would
to hos :Mad, see that, from whatever cause it may have arisen, this
what
Sheriffs. The question with regard to us is, in .
Si S. I•USIIINGTON rose to order. He thoughtence of the proceedings which have
manner the privileges of this House may be best pre- House,
lin consequence
the discussion, according to the rules of the Housewith regard to the several actions brought
House, served. Ido not mean to impute either to the Sheriffs taken Pee
waii total), irregular. A Member might put a ques-Stockdale,placed in a situation of great, of corn-
or to the Judges, or to any of the persons who acted by
-and is
difficulty. He should feel
tion in perfect regularity, but he must be content with by an order of a Court of Law, that they have unlaw- placated, unexampled
such answers as might he given him.—(Laughter.) If fully and intentionally done what was wrong in contra- himself exceedingly fortunateif
he could suggest to the
that rxns-,Cr Wa,; not satisfactory to his mind, he had vention to the privileges of this House. Ido not im- House any course which they could pursue on the oc-
au :triple . pport unity of bunging forward the clues- pute to them the blame of acting contrary to what they cation, and which, without compelling them to depart
tom again by notice ot oration, knew to be their duty. But lam now merely consi- from the dignity and just privileges of their body, would
The SPEAKER said there was no question but dering how your privileges are to be maintained.—
allow the law and the Constitution to be upheld. He
that the whole proceeding was irregular. It was (Cries of " Hear, hear.") The goods of a servant would state at once, and very briefly, the resolutions
perfectly regular for an Hon. Member to put a question of this House have been seized because, in obedience to which he would propose by way of amendment to the
motion of the Noble Lord. It was his intention to
end an answer to he elven to it. The Noble Lord,on rising, your orders, lie has printed and published papers which
clanncti the inat;gence of the House while ho made you considered essential for the public information. submit to the House two propositions. The first would
a ra'her more lengthy answer than the rules of the The question now is, whether, his goods having be, that, inasmuch as Hansard, the printers and the
had acted a
lbs t
intenti on,
House allowed him. He (the Speaker) understood that been thus seized, you will allow them to be
servants of the House,
strictly and lawfully, to obey the orders they
that indulgence had been given, or he would have handed over to the plaintiff in the case? It
all
s
had received from the House in printing the
f. It it his duty to have interrupted him. The Hon. my opinion that you should endeavour above i
which had led to the present proceedings,
mei Le •s.rited Gentleman was clearly irregular. things, to assert your privileges, and that you cannot papers
the House, and that it was expedient to in-
Sir ROBERT PEEL—His Learned Friend had allow this to be done.—(Hear, hear.) Much has been it became
to blame, and in
asked a plan qtiestion in ten plain words. The Noble said as to how far the Sheriffs are . .. demnify the Messrs. Hansard for all the costs which
they had incurred. He presumed that to that resolu-
which they
Lord had not been content to answer the question sire- what respect, under the circumstances in .
tion no objection would be made. The other resolution
ply
but had entered into a lengthened statement which, were placed, they ought to have acted. There. is no
was
that, in the event of any future actions being brought
to his mind, aas not at all satisfaetory. By the rules doubt but they must have been aware . .of the privileges .
against the printers or publishers of the House. by
of the House i tau qiiestiou was to be prejudged because of this House, and they have had notice in the case ;
reason of any publications made by its orders, it would
no answer was made to the Noble Lord. and yet, notwithstanding that notice, they did proceed
that the
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON would not have said ato give authority for the seizure of the goods of Messrs. be expedient Attorney-General should defend
word upon the subj,ct had he not been alluded to ha' Hansard, and for the sale of their goods. On the other such an action, and report the result to the House.
the Noble Lord. He would give the Noble Lord upon band, we should consider that a question of this n
snore have ture expected some opposition to this resolution from
those He
who took a different view from him of the
a fature occasion a
formal opportunity of expla- had not been raised for many years, though we.
nation ; that which he had received to-night was alto- merel exercised the uninterrupted practice of Puha- question. He felt it to be his duty to say, after what
y Noble Lord, andafter the motion
gether unsatisfactory to his mind.that, with had fallen from the
meat in the case. I can, however, conceive
which he had made, that resolutions more unwise, more
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Would the Noble Lord few decisions on the subject, and having a . Court .
._
..
have any objection to the production of the instrutions of Law im • on them certain du ,
tie% it was unjustifiable, more illegal, more unconstitutional—
posing (Cheers from the Opposition benches)—more impossible
eder which Lord Howard de Walden had acted. situation for them to pro-
a most embarrassing
to be obeyed without a total and direct violation of all
Lord PALIdERSTON had not the slightest eb- need in. While wishing to award a degree
moral and legal obligations on the parts of those to
r
i ration, and they would be presented with the oche, r of punishment in proportion to their guilt, I the efooure
ld
whom they were addressed, could not be brought for-
rapers. feel at a great loss to say what that punishment sh
now ward by
L ,
any legislative assembly even in the worst of
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged .to ask the Noble be. But that is not, in reality, the question Ihave
times. Before he came to the great question of privi-
ord whether the letter was written n consequence of to decide on. The question is, how I shall best aid in
lege, in which the present discussion had arisen, he
instructions from home, or did originate from Lord the maintenance of your privileges : and, if that is the
begged to ask the Noble Lord how he was to enforce
Walden. question, we can proceed no otherwise
than by prose-
' __obedience to the resolutions which he had proposed.
mid, the Is" was nes :- ' - - filling the Sheriffs
•,f Shr iffy who are sworn officers of

Lord PALMERSTOi. .., . letter . Jot
conformity with the instructions from the House Go-
,' vernment.
i Mr. G. PALMER wished to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether any arrangements were in pro-
grets for increasing the number of places for the deli-
very of letters by what were called cross-posts, in con-
tot mity wish they promise of his predecessor.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
scarcely understood the question.—( A laugh.) 01
course a gradual extension of places for the delivery of
letters wi,s being made, but that was a subject for the
consideration of the Post-ofliee authorities. He was
not aware that the subject had been under the
11 censideration of either himself or his predecessor.
1 Mr. GISBORNE begged leave to ask the Member
1 for Devonshire, whether he intended to make the mo-
-1 lion he had given notice of for the 28th of this month, in
tile simple words of such motion, or whether he in-
terid.d to extend that nonce, in which case it would be
very satisfactory for the House to be at once made
aware of the exact form in which be meant to put it?
Sir J. Y. BULLER said he was not prepared to
give an exact answer to the question, but he thought
he might say it would be in strict accordance with the
motion he had given, although it might 110 t be in the
precise words.
Mr. C. BULLER asked the Noble Lord (John
Russell) whether Government had it in contemplation
to briug, forward any Bill with isii:renee to the Colo-
' 'pits of. Van Dierueri's Land ?
iLord J. RUSSELL stated in reply, that Govern-

euting this case still further, and by ca. ig
before the bar of this House, not only in consequence
of what they have hitherto done, but in order that the
sums taken from an officer of this House may be re-
funded to him.—(Hear, hear.) I own I can see
no other way in which you can proceed on
this subject. I cannot conceive that it would be
dignified in this House, to give an order and to require
your Speaker in the Chair to sign such an order,
directing certain persons to print and publish docu-
ments for your use, and that when the person came
afterwards to complain to you of the consequences of
his obedience to your injunctions you should say,
" We are not able to maintain that order, and you will
obtain no redress, because the House of Commons is
unable to maintain the power it has claimed of publish-
ing its proceedings." If you find that you have no such
power, you had better then rescind all such orders.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") You had better confine
yourselves within the strict limits which the Judges
of the Court of Queen's Bench have laid down for
you.—(Hear, hear.) You should, in that case, print
your papers for the use only of the 658 Members of
the House, and free Mr. Hansard from the danger of
any future trials in consequence of his acting in obedi-
ence to your orders. I do not know who will think of
proposing that mode of proceeding ; and I have heard
it generally admitted in the House, that it is for the
public advantage—for the advantage of the
kingdom at large, that our proceedings should not be
confined to ourselves.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot con-
ceive that it would be right, in any view of this case, to

They had a cue of
the land, who are servants of her Majesty, bound to
yield obedience to her writ, that writ being delivered
to them by a Court of Law—those Sheriffs are now
called before the House, after having received the
Queen's writ, and after all the usual forms of law had
been gone through in Westminster Hall.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.)
They were called on to yield obedience to that writ—
they would have violated their oaths had they failed to
do so, and they would have rendered themselves liable
immediately and without redress, without appeal or de-
fence, to be committed to prison ; and now this House,
not the entire Legislature, but one branch of the Le-
gislature—(Cheers from the Opposition benches)—
having no power to make laws or to absolve the subject
from obedience to them—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—by
a single and unexpected resolution, commanded the
Sheriffs to violate the law--to rescind the law—and to
place themselves in a situation in which they
would be imprisoned without redress, and that, too,
where the parties have no other grounds to proceed on,
than what he (Mr. Kelly) would show it was impos-
sible, by the law of Parliament which is but part of
the law of the land, for one moment to maintain. This
was the general nature of the resolutions which had
been proposed. The House could not be called on to
execute those resolutions unless the Noble Lord and
those who acted with him could convince the House
that, by this means, the former orders of the House
could be maintained not only according to those orders,

THE SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1840.

but aCcording to the general laws and constitution of
the country. He would no* at once call the atten-
tion of the house to the first of those three resolutions
of 1837, in which the course now proposed to be car-
ried into effect was first pointed out. The purport of
that resolution Wart, that the right to print their
proceedings was an essential part Of their privileges.
If the House would, instead of resting this matter on
the questionable ground of privilege, rest it upon that
of public utility, they would proceed much more use-
Hit its their deliberations, and their discussions would
be rittielt Meek likely to command public respect. It
was, he Contended, of the tamest importance that the
proeeedings of that House should be communicated to
the public; Mid if the measures now contemplated with
reference to this filtrate'r streeeeded, he should regret to
find any of those with whOtti he *as accustomed to act,
had been the meani of inflicting so great an injury
epon the public.--(Heat', aii:.l cheers.) But while
he adtilifted the utility of publishing the nroceedings of
that House ; he Aid riot agree with those way advo-
cated an indiscriminate publication of all the docu-
ments which might come before them. The House of
Commons, as well as the House of Peers, had certainly
the power of publication—a power to which they had
given the distinctive name and character of privilege.
It was a privilege, however, not without its limits—it
had its boundaries prescribed by law—it was a privilege
as long as its exercise did not interfere with the rights
of her Majesty's subjects ; but he denied that that
House had a right to publish papers defamatory of
and injurious to the subjects of this realm. He would
not say that circumstances might not arise to justify a
departure from the usual course of proceeding in a case
like the present, but the great point of danger in the
present case eras, that that House had placed itself in a
state of conflict with the law, and the moment it as-
sumed to itself a power in opposition to the recognised
law of the land, that moment there was an end to the
corporate functions of the three united branches of the
Legislature, with the independence of which such a
usurpation of power was wholly inconsistent. He was
not aware that such a power ever belonged to or was ever
claimed by that House except in one single instance,
he alluded to Dangerfield's Narrative. He maintained
that House could not make new privileges for itself, and
if, therefore, it attempted to do so by its decisions on
this question it would establish for itself a privilege
which could not be recognised by Parliament. It had
ceased to be a question that no resolution could be
found bearing any such interpretation, and the power it
now asserted for itself rested on what was called Parlia-
mentary usage, originating, it appeared to him, upon re-
flection, at a most inauspicious period, for a less auspi-
cious one could not be chosen. It was in the time
of the Long Parliament, in 1641 ; in that very
year the same Parliament, forgetting the privilege of the
other House, passed a resolution to deprive the
Bishops of their seats ; and in the same year the Earl
of Stafford was executed. To that year might the first
assertion of that species of privilege be traced ; and
from that year it had prevailed down to the present
time. But the question was, was it lawful? The only
plausible argument which be had heard advanced in
favour of it, was, that for a century at least the pro-
ceedings of that House had been published, and yet no
action had been brought for libel. He was not sur-
prised that now an individual should be found to
strive against the power of that House. He
could easily suppose parties smarting under
provocation ; and instances where individuals, suf-
fering from the consequences of publishing
the proceedings of that House, and who would doubt-
less be anxious to seek redress. They had, indeed,
only to look to the past for many eases which were ac-
tionable, but none were brought till now. No doubt
could be entertained but that even printers of news-
papers, publishing reports of debates in that House,
if they contained anything defamatory, ware liable yet
there never was but one instance in which such an
action was brought. There was a case much animad-
verted upon and much discussed ; he alluded to Sir
William Williams' case, who was prosecuted. The pub-
lication in question was called Dangerfield's Narrative.
The statements contained in it were made public, and
being highly defamatory of the Duke of York, an action
was brought against Sir William Williams, the Speaker,
for authorizing the publication, and 10,0001. damages
awarded, but the action was overruled by that House,
and he thought rightly and lawfully, for he maintained
that every act performed by the Speaker was per.
formed in obedience to the commands of that
House. Yes ; he admitted that decision was in ac-
cordance with law.—(Here some Member asked
" What law?") He (Mr. Kelly) would tell him what
law—it was the law of England—(Hear, hear, and
loud cheers)—which ever respected, and ever upheld
the privileges of that House. They were part and
parcel of the law of Parliament, and the law of Parlia-
ment was part and parcel of the law of the land.—
(Cheers.) No Member of that House was punishable
in Common Law for anything done in that House, and
could only be punished by the House itself. It was
a very different thing to say that every other
man %%as not punishable for what he might do.
Dangerfield's, he considered a most unworthy and dan-
gerous proceeding. In the case of Topham the Judges
were summoned to the bar—a Bill was brought in
making the Attorney-General liable to pay the penalty.
but which was subsequently thrown out. Dangerfield had
been prosecuted in respect to the libel, and yet the judg-
ment was never challenged or impeached. He (Mr.
Kelly) held it impossible for Members to exercise
their legislative functions if they were liable
to have actions brought for what they said.
Then, as to the second resolution, he (Mr. Kelly) main-
tained that it could not be supported but with the
annihilation of all the Courts of Justice in the country.
This resolution was to the effect that, by the law of Par-
liament, that House was the sole and exclusive judge of
its own privileges, and that it was a high breach of its
privileges to bring any question of its privileges before
any other Court. Now, first, as to the word " exclu-
sive." What was implied in that ? That no Court of
Justice could enter upon the consideration of any pri-
vilege of that House. That was the view argued for
by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, who con-
tended that the Courts of Law had no mode whatever of
arriving at any knowledge of the law of Parliament—
the lex parliamenteri. To a doctrine so alarming—so
y e)
nwmoaunl :I owphpoo ssea i
dt h, e , , hi
fi g ht
he set
Aa utttho or
nr ietyy.,
Gt
ehnaet roa fl
utterly subversive of all the Courts of Law—he (Mr.l
FLOKrdelp
was right, the Court would have nothing to do but to
declare privilege whatever was claimed as such. Now,
he (Lord Denman) considered that, whenever any of
his fellow-subjects demanded justice in his Court, he
could not have any option as to withholding redress "
—(Opposition cheers)—" and that, therefore, when in
any case that came before him, the law of Parlia-
mentary privilege was concerned, he was bound to
examine into, and decide upon it."—(Hear, hear.)
Now, in all the discussions on this question, he (Mr.
F. Kelly) had heard no answer to this. The Judges
had been sworn to administer the law according to
the best of their judgment, so that when questions
were raised before them relative to privilege, or to any
other subject—they must decide those questions. When
the question was whether the House of Commons justly
claimed any privilege, were the Judges to abandon the
Court—to abdicate their functions ? The moment the
name of the House was uttered, were they to decline
entering into the question—to declare that they had no
power ? Certainly not.—(Opposition cheers.) There
could be no question, that whether it was a perogative
of the Queen, or a privilege of the House of Commons,
which came before the Court, the Court was equally
bound to discuss and decide.—(Hear, hear.) The law
of privilege was part of the law of Parliament, which
was part of the law of England ; and this the Judges
were bound by their oaths to administer in every point,
to the best of their abilities and judgment.—(Hear,
hear.) There were often mixed questions before the
Courts of Law, involving questions of law with which
they were not customarily cognizant. Take this case : an
action to fulfil a contract for purchase of land, the
defence being a defect of equitable title ; thus the
Court of Law must incidentally decide that equitable
question. So of questions involving Scotch or Ecclesias-
tical law. And was this novel doctrine ? On the contrary,
in every case where the privilege of Parliament came
C
before tig. Courts of Law, they had decided it ; as in
that of rosby, where the question was, if the House
could commit its Members. Did the Court of Com-
mon Pleas decline the point ? No. They heard the
arguments, and decided the case.--( Hear, hear.) Sup-
pose a Member committed to the Tower, the day of
the prorogation of Parliament—suppose him committed
on the warrant of a Secretary of State, for alleged
slanderous words of the Queen or her Ministers—what
would be the advice of the Attorney-General, if ap-
plied to by such a Member ? Why, to apply for his
habeas corpus, unquestionably. But, on the Attorney-
General's doctrine in this case of Stockdale, if the
Court could not at all decide cases in which privilege
was involved, the Court could not liberate the Member,
who would thus be confined all the recess. Was it not
the more reasonable doctrine, that the Court would
enter on the question and liberate the prisoner, on the
ground of his clear undoubted privilege, not to be liable
out of the House for what he, uttered in it? —( Hear,
hear.) So, in Burdett v. Abbott, Lord Ellenborough
clearly heldthat the Court coulddeterminc on cases which
involved privilege, and they did. But, then, in that and
most other cases, they upheld the privilege. Was it, then,
argued that only where they did support the privilege
they would interfere in it, and that if they decided
against the privilege, then they acted improperly ? Truly
however enormous, this was the only reasonable expo-
sition of that second resolution. Was it to be said
that if the Courts should be allowed to decide in this
case, they would go on gradually depriving the House
of all its privileges one after the other ? When they
looked back on the legal history of this counts.), and on
the decisions to which Courts of Law had come, did
they really entertain the opinion that the Courts of
Law would not maintain their privileges ? Why, dur-
ing the last century, since the case of Ashby and White,
in every single case in which the question of privilege
had been raised in any Court of Law—from the ear-
liest cases down to that of Burdett and Abbott,
the Court had upheld their privileges ; they had found
that even to the dissatisfaction of many members

the legal profession, the Judges had gone as far as ever
the law would enable them, to uphold and defend their
privileges ; and what reason had they to apprehend, be-
cause in this single case—single during a whole century,
in which the people had been agitated with political
questions—what reason had they to apprehend that
there was some systematic usurpation contemplated by
the: Judges, by which their whole privileges would be
sacrificed ? It had also been observed, wen they had
been urged to try the validity of this judgment, and
bring a writ of error, that it was not right to commit
their privileges to the consideration of the House of
Lords. He begged their consideration for a few mi-
nutes to the real meaning of those who objected to a
writ of error or any other proceeding. It was
equivalent to saying, " You will—you never
can extricate yourselves from the present diffi-
culty." He had heard it suggested by some Ho-
nourable Member, why not attempt a declaratory Act
of Parliament ? and if they did so, to that proceeding
they must obtain the assent of the other House of Par-
liament, which would be declaring it to be the law that
the ti" ;.!ise of Commons possessed the privileges they
„„htime,;,
.so that in making a declaratory Act of
Parliament, they 1,,,;:21d submit the question to the
House of Lords. If, therg:?e, they thought the House
of Lords would agree to a declaratory Act, it would be
at
pri-
because in their opinion the House
p,;,!tsessed th
it, then
vilege. If the law was that they possessej
upon a writ of error the House of Lords would ti:cree
the same thing. Instead of a declaratory Act, there-
fore,
if they were desirous the House of Lords should
decree they did possess that privilege, they could be
induced so to do, by proceeding legally, fairly, and '
constitutionally. It was said the Court of Queen's
Bench acted on erroneous views of the law upon the
question ; if so, let the House bring a writ of error, and
appeal from their judgment to the House of Lords, and if
the House of Commons, was right in supposing
those: were their privileges, they were equally the
same privileges on which the House of Lords must act
in passing a declaratory Bill, and so must, upon
this principle, decree the judgment to be erroneous, and
reverse it. When he heard some alarm expressed of
submitting their privileges, be deemed it to be chimeri-
cal. No Hon. Member was ignorant that the House of
Lords was the highest Court of appeal in all civil and
criminal judicature known to the law of this king-
dom. If, then, they trusted the House of Lords, as a court
of appeal in all matters relating to their property, their
liberties, and their lives, why hesitate to trust them
on this question of their privileges. He must say it
appeared to him that, if there was one question more
than another on which an unfavourable view was
least to be dreaded, it was this very question ; for it
was not to be forgotten that if they removed this
cause, by a writ of error, to the House of Lords,
where the question would directly arise whether it was
their privilege to publish all their papers, the House
of Lords would not deny this to be the privi-
lege of the House of Commons, without at the
same time denying that they possess it them-
selves. What reason had they, then, to apprehend
their privileges would be treated lightly by submitting
them to the House of Lords ? They must be aware
the House of Lords had a claim to legal jurisdiction
as a Court of Appeal, if either party in a cause desired
to carry it there ; and if so, why should they object
to submit their privileges to the House of Lords, which
was not only the proper tribunal constituted to deter-
mine according to law, but had a common interest
with themselves. But if the House of Commons were
determined, while professing the judgment of the
Queen's Bench to be wrong, to forbear putting that opinion
to the test by appealing to a higher tribunal—if the
House resolved to persevere in the course it had begun,
he prayed its attention to the certain consequences. Let
them take the case of Stockdale first. Was it be-
lieved, was there any Hon. Member who could believe
that Stockdale was dragged an unwilling prisoner to
their bar—that he came not only willingly, but they
must have even despaired of bringing him before them,
and continuing this unseemly contest ; if he had been
desirous of eluding their pursuit, he need not come at
all ; but he came at the first summons, and with greater
courage than they had themselves—(Hear, hear)—he
addressed them in language which, though apparently
very submissive, plainly indicated that he despised their
threats, and defied their power. And why ? because he
knew that upon the rashness of the course pursued he was
building up his own fortune. He had already, in con-
sequence of the House instructing the Attorney-Ge-
neral not to defend the second action, recovered seven
hundred pounds in the shape of damages, not against
Messrs. Hansard, but against the House of Commons,
because the House of Commons was his real antago-
nist. Did they suppose he would stop where he was ?
The House had said they would defend no future
action, and that it was in its own power to maintain its
own privileges ; that if one presumed to commence an
action questioning these privileges, they would punish
that person and all who assisted him ; but the action
itself should be undefended. Were they aware of the
consequences which must take place whenever a proro-
gation or a dissolution occurred ? Stockdale might
afterwards commence an action for trespass and false
imprisonment, and every day that he remained in cus-
tody was a day gained to him—every day he remained
in their power would only swell the sum against them
at last. In what position was the Sergeant at Arms
placed? He would bring his action, not against the Ser-
geant at Arms, not against the Speaker of the House
of Commons, but against an individual named Sir W.
Gossett ; there would be nothing on the record that the
Act was done in the exercise of their privilege. They
would suffer judgment by default afterwards ; it must
again proceed to judgment—the case would come before
a Jury, who would be told that he had been oppressed,
imprisoned, and ruined in this contest with the House
of Commons. Did they suppose the Jury would be
scrupulous upon the amount of damages ?—( Hear,
hear.) And then what would that House do when
damages were so recovered ? what course would they
pursue ? He would still defy them ; they might impri-
son his person for contempt, but they could not take
the money out of his pocket, and put it into that of
the Sergeant at Arms. He would ask some Hon.
Members on the other side if, in their zealous assertion
of the principle of power, they thought this course
would be of advantage to the public, who would
be made victims to the amount of the sums
recovered in the many actions that would be
brought against them ? Had not the public a right to say
" We, the people, have confidence in the law—we know
that the law will be administered to you and us ; why,
then, raise this question about privileges which you
claim, not for our benefit, because they tend only to
our injury ?"--(Hear, hear,) The publicwould have a
right to call the House to account for the expense in
which they were involved, as well as for the discredit
and degradation the House would bring upon itself.—
(Hear, hear.) They had entered into this contest—
they had brought forward a man from the most un-
fathomable obscurity, one who defied them, one they
could not injure, and one who would enrich himself at
their expense. And, then, what was the next case ?
The people would look at the case of the Sheriffs, if not
of Stockdale, and deem the resolution unconstitutional
when they saw the House stop an action because they
said it involved their privileges. What justification had
they to interpose with the Sheriffs ? They were
in that situation wherein as officers of her Ma-
jesty they had duties to perform duties which
they had sworn to perform—duties forced upon
them, since they acted only in obedience to the
writs issued to them. They had in this cause had
various writs issued—they had faithfully and without
any disrespect to the House, endeavoured to execute
those writs, for which they were liable to fine ; and
which had they not obeyed they would have been liable
to the same fine : and now for the first time in history
the House declared, that by the mere arbitrary power
they possessed they would put their hands into the
pockets of the Sheriffs, and compel them to pay it over
to their order. He said that in the most tyrannical
times, in 1641, in the very worst period of the Long Par-
liament, they would scarcely find an instance of more
arbitrary power than this, that in an action begun
by one of her Majesty's subjects, to which no
defence was made, the House of Commons should
interpose, and cause the Sheriffs to disobey the writ,
and take the money from their hands, for which they
were accountable to the Court and to the plaintiff—
taking it from them by the strong arm of arbitrary
power, and leaving them to take the consequences.—
( Hear, hear.) Why, it was observed by the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that their conduct was not
merely free from blame, but (he believed he added)
commendable. If it was so, was it anything more than
an usurpation—was it anything more than an act of
arbitrary power—to take out of their hands a sum of
money which the Attorney-General would tell them,
and they knew, they would be compelled to pay
into the Court of Queen's Bench ? Were they
to be the losers of it, and obey the order of the
House, and pay the money to Messrs. Hansard,
when they would be called to pay the same sum
into the Court of Queen's Bench? Was it to be said
seriously that those gentlemen, whose conduct was ad-
mitted to be free from blame or suspicion, were to pay
the sum of 6901., because they presumed to do their
duty ? Had the House endeavoured to select an Act
to bring reproach upon the House from the whole
country they could not have selected one more calcu-
lated to effect that object. It was not his intention to
trespass longer on the attention of the House--(Hear,
hear)—but he entreated the House to consider that the
cause in which they were about to interfere was not
merely a regular proceeding of a Court of Justice, but
that they were about to take money out of the pocket of
a subject without any Parliamentary authority to do so.
He therefore entreated the House to pause on these
resolutions of the Noble Lord, and to look well before
by assenting to them they brought disgrace and degra-
dation on the country.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman then moved as an amendment his
resolutions (which appear in the early part of his speech).
Lord ELIOT said he was very anxious to say a
few words on the course he deemed it their duty to
pursue. It was his serious opinion that this was not
only an important question, but that it ought to be care.
fully kept from party feeling. He thought some lion.
Members had not so considered it, but he should

EVENING EDITION.

not follow the example of those Hon. Gentlemen. No
man was more anxious to maintain the just and necessary
privileges of the House, but he remembered those privi-
leges were held on trust, and must be clearly es-
tablished to be just and necessary. If he might ex-
press a doubt, he should say the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who had just spoken, had laid down, rather
broadly, the law of Parliamentary privilege, in stating
that no Member was liable to any other jurisdiction for
any crime committed within the walls of Parliament.
He should not suppose that if any Hon. Member had

was not only entitled to-morrow morning to get his 6001.
but he would lay it down that every Court of Law in
England was to judge of their privileges. If they adopted
the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend, they i

stabbed another he was liable to that House, but to
another tribunal ; but whether so or not he would not

then stop to inquire, but he conceived in order to assert
and maintain privileges they should be just and necessary.
How stomithe case of their pretensions ? He asked whe-

would come to the conclusion in all time to come, whoever
chose to attack their privileges might go into a Court
of Common Law, and that no attempt should be made
on their part to vindicate their privileges. Was there
no difficulty in that? Were they always to thrust
themselves before the Courts of Law ?—( Hear, hear.)
Their ancestors thought otherwise, for they took the
law into their own hands, and decided upon their own
privileges. He was rejoiced to think that they were
not engaged in any struggle by which the Members of
that House themselves might be' individually benefited,
but that it was a struggle entirely and exclusively for
the public. Let them now consider whether the pro-
posal of his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colo-
nies was not one which would be attended with less
danger, and one which they ought to follow. What
was that proposal? That the Sheriffs should pay back
the money to Hansard, and that if they refused they
should be subjected to the displeasure of that House.
Where was the objection to that proceeding ?
His Hon. and Learned Friend said that it was contrary
to law—that an action had been brought and judgment
obtained, and therefore that it was contrary to law to
deprive the plaintiff of the fruits of his judgment. If it
had deen proved that the action had been properly com-
menced, and that Stockdale was entitled to obtain da-

ther they would inflict a greater amount of injury on
an individual than the community would derive good from
it ? It must be remembered, this was not a grave and
deliberate Parliamentary proceeding, for in Stockdale's
case it would not be sufficent that there had been found in
Ne w gate an obscenebook ; he considered caution should be
exercised in the publication of mat ter considered libellous,
but if it were necessary that all their papers should be
laid before the public, he thought it fair the commu-
nity should pay for it, for he conceived the House
could never do a wrong without there being a remedy.
He admitted that every individual should be allowed to
vindicate his character against aspersions brought
against him. He believed the course the Noble Lord
proposed would involve them in great difficulty, which
every hour would become greater. He had therefore
great pleasure in seconding the amendment.
On the question being put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not
rise to follow his Learned Friend the Member for
rnswich, in the very elaborate legal arguments he had
broc,ght before the House. He had two strong
reasonsfor avoiding that course. The first was that
his Hon„,:able and Learned Friend had net moved to
rescind the res,'lution of May, 1837, and the second, which
was a very powet.ful one, and which he would wish to im-
press upon the House, was that there was now no room for
delay, for from informatol cm which he could rely heknew
that a motion would be math: at the sitting of the Court to-
morrow morning to make the rule absolute to compel
the Sheriffs of Middlesex to pay th.l money to Stockdale.
So that the House must that night nme to a resolution.
night come
—(Hear, hear.) He hoped they would that
e Sheriffs
shoo
to a resolution which would be obeyed by
Middlesex, and give them ample cause tot.
bew
against the rule, upon which the rule woe, .
discharged.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") With .re.
gard to the resolutions of his Learned Friend, he thou&
they had met with strong support in that House ;
they had passed unanimously, and no motion was made
to rescind them, and it was but lately that they were
considered as the foundation of any proceedings to
which the House might resort. As to the question of
the privilege of publishing whatever they conceived ne-
cessary for the public to know, he trusted there were
not many Members who entertained any serious doubt
—(Hear.) That privilege rested on the foundation of
necessity, of exercise, of acquiescence, and of authority.
It was allowed on all hands that that House could not
properly perform its functions unless it was at liberty to
publish all that it was necessary the public should be
informed on. For two centuries back they had enjoyed
that privilege ; and it was unnecessary to go beyond the
time of Richard the First, or to the origin of legal me-
mory before printing was known. Down to the present
period these proceedings had been maintained, and if
there was any additional mode by which information
could be communicated to the public, he contended that
that should be adopted by the House of Commons,and
it would rest upon the principles on which the House
of Commons had always acted. Had there not, he
would ask, been uniform acquiescence, with the excep-
tion of the indictment against the Speaker of the House
of Commons, Sir Wm. Williams, in 1641 ? No at-
tempt had been made to interfere from that period, by
civil or criminal proceeding, with any officer or Member
of the House, for anything done in pursuance of the
orders of the House of Commons. In the case of the
King v. Williams, an information was laid by the At-
torney-General, which was now generally allowed to be
illegal and unconstitutional.—( Hear, bear.) Since that
time the practice of publishing had been held to be legal,
and no action had been brought or prosecution instituted
for so doing. There had been since that time various
persons like Mr. Stockdale, who, if they had met
with any encouragement, and thought that an action
might be maintained, most undoubtedly could have
prosecuted them ; but until Mr. Stockdale, in the
present time, prosecuted the printer of the House of
Commons for what he had done in pursuance of its
orders, the House would observe that no attempt had
ever been made to impugn what was done under the
authority of that House. Well, then, as an authority
had been quoted against him on the other side, he
would remind the House of the Bill of Rights itself,
which in the most express terms said—" No one is to
be questioned for what is done in Parliament ;" which
meant by the authority of Parliament.—(Cries of
" Ohl" from the Opposition benches.) He believed
that construction could not be questioned by any law-
yer on the other side of the House. It was clearly
the intention of the Legislature or Parliament, by
which that enactment was made, that the Speaker
should be exempted from any indictment or action,
and that nothing which was done under the authority
of Parliament should be the foundation of an indict-
ment or action against the clerks at the table—against
the sergeant-at-arms, or against the printer. It was quite
clear, therefore, that those who framed that Act of
Parliament were of opinion that what was done by
authority of either House of Parliament was to be con-
sidered, so far as the Courts of Law ware concerned, as
that which could afford no opportunity of bringing any
action, prosecution, or indictment.—(Hear, hear.) Well,
then, he bad only to remind the House of what was
laid down in the case of the King v. Wright, where all
the Judges, with one voice, not only declared that no
action could be brought against the printer for printing
anything by authority of that House, but that that which
the House had authorised might be republished and
could never be considered a libel. His Hon. and
Learned Friend opposite had referred to the case of the
King v. Dangerfield, but he (the Attorney-General)
would say that that had not the smallest bearing on
the case now under consideration.—(Hear, hear.)
There was not the slightest trace by which it could
be shown that the indictment of Dangerfield was for
what he had done by authority of the House of Com-
mons. He hadlooked with the greatest anxiety and care
over all the reports of the proceedings, and he would
venture to say that there was not the slightest reason
to suppose that in the indictment against Dangerfield
there was anything to show that he had been proceeded
against for what he had done by the authority of that
House, or that he ever set up the authority of that
House as a defence to the prosecution. For anything
that appeared it might have been an indictment for
something that he had done before he had presented
that Narrative before the bar of the House. There
was, therefore, no authority for supporting the doctrine
which his Noble and Learned Friend had maintained,
and they had necessity, exercise, and acquiescence, and
all the decisions that had ever taken place, in their
favour.—(Cheers.) With respect to the point of the
House being a judge of its own privileges he might oc-
cupy their time for many hours in referring to decisions
from the earliest times down to Lord Tenterden, in
which the Courts of Law and Equity had determined
over and over again that the Houses of Parliament
were the proper Judges of their own privileges.—
(Hear, hear.) Not only had he resolutions of both
Houses on that subject, but he had these resolutions
confirmed and acquiesced in by all the Courts of 'West-
minster Hall. He might refer to one or two names of
Judges by whom that doctrine had been laid down.
First, there was Lord Coke, Blackstone, Powis, Justice
Powell, Lordeamden, and Lord Chief Baron Comyn.
Sir E. SUGDEN—What does Lord Camden say ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The only in-
stance of the kind which came before his Lordship was
that in which it was argued that the House of Commons
had power to commit without examining upon oath, and
in that case he said" the rights of that Assembly are ori-
ginal and self created—they are paramount to our juris-
diction, and above the reach of prohibition, injunction, or
error."(—Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Thenit
was said, what are the Judges to do ? Upon a former
night the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Member for Ripon had cited an authority to show that
they had a right to inquire into the privileges of Parlia-
ment. With great submission he thought that :the
Right Hon. Gentleman had fallen into a mistakelas
to what was laid down as there decided, because if
he examined into other authorities, he would
find that that referred to one of the cases,
first—where the question arose incidentally, and
in that case of necessity the Judges must decide it,
just as they would have to decide upon a point in the
law of France or of Scotland, if it came incidentally
before them. Secondly, where the Court entertained an
opinion that the other House had clearly travelled be-
yond its jurisdiction, by asserting something which was
monstrous, illegal, or preposterous—for example ; to
take an extreme case where the House of Commons
might order a man to be put to death for any supposed
offence. It would require very little pains or time to
determine that that was illegal—that in that instance
they had travelled entirely beyond their jurisdiction,
and therefore the Judges might inquire into it. But
had it ever been said that in the present instance the
House had travelled beyond its jurisdiction? He ap-
pealed to the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, or
the Hon. and Learned Members for Huntingdon or
Liverpool, or any other great lawyer on the Opposition
side, and he believed they would admit that the House
of Commons had acted strictly within its jurisdiction in
the present case, and, therefore, no Court of Law had
authority to inquire into its exercise. All of them must
admit that the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, was
contrary to law. They were now to consider what was
to be done in the present position of afairs.—( Hear,
hear.) He admitted that the question was fraught
with great difficulties, but these difficulties were not all
on one side. They were involved in still greater diffi-
culties if they receded from their present position. Ac-
cording to the doctrine laid down by his Hon. and
Learned Friend who had last spoken, Mr. Stockdale

mages, they would be guilty of a most monstrous injus-
tice in preventing him from reaping the fruits of his
verdict ; but—and he addressed himself to that portion
of the House who were of opinion that the action was
commenced contrary to their privileges—that the judg-
ment had been illegally obtained—that it was a nullity
and contrary to law ; and he contended that they would
be acting in accordance with the law when they set that
judgment aside. He thought the house was entitled
to call upon the Sheriffs to pay back the money,
and that they would incur no responsibility
by obeying the orders of the House. They were told that
the Sheriffs were sworn to execute all the Queen's

writs ; the oath they had taken was relied on, and it
was argued that they would be guilty of perjury if they
did not execute the writ of fieri facies, and pay the
money over to Stockdale. He, the Attorney-General,
contended that the Sheriffs were bound to obey the
law, and if the law was to obey the mandate of the
House of Commons, that then they would act according
to the law and their own conscience. If it was part o€

" the good laws of the realm" that the House of Com-
mons had privileges, and that the Sheriffs were bound
to obey them, they would be acting in accordance with
them, and with the letter and spirit of their oath, in re-
paying
the money to the Messrs. Hansard. In the
warrants ued to the Sheriffs, there was a caution to
them not to execute any writ upon persons who
had privilege. Was not their officer a privi-
leged person, by order of the House of Commons ?
He contended that he was a privileged person as much
as an Ambassador, or atiy other privileged person.
Hon. Members on the other side of the House appeared
to hope that they would be disappointed.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") But did they wish that House to be
brought down to the le,. el of Pie- Poudre Courts ?
(Hear, hear.) Where the Sheriffs acted in a bona fide
and reasonable manner, he was satisfied the Court of
Queen's Bench would not do anything in so odious and
arbitrary a manner as to send these gentlemen, for
obeying the order of the House of Commons, to prison.
He concurred in the character which had been given to
the Sheriffs by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth. He thought that they had behaved
fairly and honourably, and as might be expected from
officers doing their duty.—(Hear, hear.) They were
now engaged in a vital struggle. They were compelled
to take the present steps or submit to be for ever stripped
of all the privileges which they enjoyed, and which were
essential to the performance of their duty. Unless they
proceeded against the ministerial officers, whom he con-
tended had violated the law, they must give up those
privileges which had been handed down to them from
their ancestors. If the Sheriffs refused to obey the order
of that House, and insisted on paying the money over to
Stockdale, then he thought they would have violated the
privileges of that House ; and although it would be with
the greatest reluctance and pain that he should do so, he
thought no course would be left them but to pro-
ceed against the Sheriffs.—(Hear, hear.) He ought to
have stated, when he expressed a hope that the Court of
Queen's Bench would not deal with severity with the
Sheriffs, if they obeyed the order of that House, that he
trusted they would act according to the precedent
which had been set in the case of Miles and Windsor
In that instance a writ of fieri facies was issued against
a resident in Kensington Palace, and the Sheriff re-
fused to execute it. In that case, Lord Ellen-
borough laid it down that the Sheriff was not
called upon to expose himself to the risk of a
prosecution from the Board of Green Cloth,
for invading one of the Royal Palaces, and that
he was justified in his refusal. He trusted on the
authority of that case, that if the Court of Queen's
Bench should see that the Sheriffs had acted bona fide
in obedience to the mandate of the House of Commons,
they would not proceed with severity against those
officers, who were not officers of that Court, but who
were bound to obey the law. He had collected a num-
ber
of precedents, which, with the leave of the Houses
even at the risk of appearing tedious, he would pro- '
ceed to detail, and which showed that both the House
of Lords, and the House of Commons, had frequently
acted upon the principle now laid down as the founda-
tion of the present proceedings. His Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Ripon had stated that the
House of Lords would not interfere with an action, but
would suffer every case to proceed regularly, according
to the forms of the Courts of Law ; and he had quoted.
the resolution of 1704, in the case of Ashby and White,
Now he would quote various cases, to show that the
House of Lords had constantly interfered with the pro-
ceedings of Courts of Law in vindication of the privi-
leges. There was the ease of Parks in 158.5, in which
the Lords had ordered thiat the Marshal of the
.Queen's
Bench should stand discharged from any action that
might be brought against hio fot the liberation of a
debtor in consequence of their orders. In this case the
Lords did not say, according to ttie doctrine laid dawn
by his Hon. and Learned Friend, that the Attorney-
General should appear in Court, and should put in
the plea of privilege, but they issued an injunction
against the bringing of ally action at all. Again, in
1625, the Viscountess Purbeck complained of an arrest.
On that occasion the party arresting, and the boiliff exe-
cuting the writ were ordered to appear at the bar of
the House of Peers, and the plaintiff was committed to
prison. In 1695 occurred Sir John Butler's case. Sir
John Butler and Mr. Clayton were, by order of the
House of Lords, attached for indicting the Sergeant at
Arms, for an action done in obedience to the Orders
of the House. According to the Honourable and
Learned Member for Ipswich, this was an exceedingly
improper proceeding. They ought to have pleaded to
the indictment, but they did no such thing ; they in-
terfered in a summary manner, and sent to gaol the
persons offending. In Keys' case, the House of Lords
had ordered their Gentleman Usher to bring before
them a person who had been committed by the Barons
of the Exchequer ; and having heard the Barons of
the Exchequer and the party, had ordered him to be
set at liberty, and had also ordered that no further
action should be brought but what had already taken
place. In Cogan's case, a servant of the Queen had
been arrested by the Under-Sheriff of Surrey ; the
House, after debate, ordered that the Sheriff should
attend at the bar, that the prisoner should be discharged
out of custody, and that the Warden of the Fleet
should be free from molestation on account of Cogan's
discharge. In Digger's case an action had been brought
for false imprisonment against a Justice of the Peace,
who, in obedience to the orders of the House, had com-
mitted a person to prison. In that, the attorney bring-
ing the action, and the plaintiff, were both committed to
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman having cited some more cases
he should conclude this part of his argument by citing
the case of Bell and Glasse ; that case had been surf
posed to be a casein which an action had been brag"'
dstfegwmtJaoose
nhrt
recover
onav Belltneh dr a
the
washrt
eoh process
value
for taking away an umbrella from the House, but it was
not so ; it was an action to recover the value of the
um-
brellaiptsiois;:neutdmosfba;:cseatitlink7sn—etgnFh.eexr
eerAdceeuctrtoiti
evohkener,
esaGduniidjatusoi
of Lords interfered. They ordered Bell to the bar, and
would have committed him to Newgate had he not
made the most humble submission andpromised not to
proceed any further. This occurred inplBo7 and-thus
it was found from the earliest time down
to 1827 that
the. Houso of Lords was constantly interfering to assert
ls.nuo said
:tu' ssOefe
their privileges, and putting a stop to actions in Courts
of Law. Now, what had the House of Commons done
in similar cases ? There was Burrowes's case in
1543, in the time of Henry the Eighth'
Burrowes had been elected Member for the
Borough of Kingston ; he had been arrested in the CitY
of London and carried to the Compter. The Sergean",
at Arms had been sent to liberate him, and this wilts
ther principle on which the House had always acted.
Thu Sergeant at Arms, on his arrival at the Compter'
was assaulted by the City officers, and his mace broke°'
The Sheriffs arrived and took part with their bailigs,
and the Sergeant at Arms'returned without Burrrowe9'
On complaint being made, the House again ordered the
Sergeant at Arms to go to the Compter to liberate the
prisoner. Having obtained more support he liberate
the prisoner ; the Sheriffs and all the officers concerned
were summoned to the bar. The Sheriffs were CO°1;
mated to the Tower, and the other officers to different
prisons, and all were retained in custody until they peti-
tioned the House and apologised for their condue"
This was an instance of the House of Commons assert-
ing its own authority, and not having recourse ,t°
Courts of Law. In 1604 Sir Thomas Shirley, `",..°
had been recently elected a Member of the lieu
was arrested by the Sergeant at Mace and et
mitted to the custody of the Warden of t""
Fleet. Upon this the House issued a ward-
rant of Habeas Corpus. The Warder appearl
at the bar, and refused to give up his prisoner. •",
was. ordered to be conimitted to the Tower ; and, p°
refusal, he was committed to the dungeon of Little-ens