The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-08 00:00:00

THE MONMOUTH PRISONERS.

Mr. HUME presented a petition front the work-
ing men of Marylebone, stating that they deeply
sympathised with those unfortnnata men, .John Frost,
Zephaniah Williams, and William Jones, hoping that
means might be taken to obtain them a free pardon, and
praying the House to interfere to obtain it.
CORN-LAWS.

Mr. DENISTOUN presented a petition from the
Royal Burgh of Arbroath, praying for a total repeal of
the Corn-laws.
Mr, BAINES presented a petition from a parish in
Suffolk, praying- for the abolition of Courts of Ecclesias-
tical Jurisdiction.

(Sir F. Trench entering the House, was received with
a little cheering and merriment, congratulatory of the
adoption of his favourite mode of lighting the !louse by
chandeliers of wax candles, the effect of which is very
superb, but at the same time very injurious to the eye-
sight, especially to those who (like usj sit on a level with,
ani not beneath, them.)

CORN-LAWS.
Lord MORPETH presented several petitions from
"..,.:,,kahire. in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
'..:ONVEYANCE OF MAILS TO THE WEST
INDIES.
Mr. HUME moved for returns of any agreement en-
tered into by the Government for the conveyance of the
mails to the West Indies and America._ Agreed to.
- Mr. BROTHERTON gave notice of a motion for an
Address to imr Majesty to bestow some mark of approba-
tion on a certain Captain cf a Merchant ship for his ser.
vices in savice human life from a wreck.
Mr. BARNABYpostponed his motion respecting Canal
and Railway Bills.
_ _

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
The SPEAKER said, that with tho permission of the
I-Liuse, he would proceed to swear the Gentlemen who
tr,re appointed to serve as Chairmen of Committees on
cc,ntrovected elections.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON rose to put a question to the
Noble Lord the secretary for Ireland, whom he then saw I
in his place.
The SPE AKER said that it would be inconvenient for
the Hon. Member to put his question at that moment.
lie then called Mr. Green, Mr. Miles, The O'Connor
Don, Mr. Ord, Mr. Sturt, and Mr. John Young, who
came to the Table, and took the oath as Chairmen of
Election Committees.

EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON wished to ask the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland, whether any change had taken
piece in the regulations of the Board of Education in Ire-
la-d, and if so, what that change was. He hoped the
Noble Lord would give him a distinct and satisfactory
an...ver, after which he should havo another question to
propose.
Lord MORPLTII said that be believed the only
change which had taken place was that recommended
in the Report in 1938, namely, that a certain time of the
hours of school education should be set apart for religious
:ruction.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged further to ask what
cloinge had been made in the queries circulated by the
Board, and also whether any alteration had been made
iri the regulation which required that applications
for aid should be concurred in by three Clergymen of
different persuasions.
Lard MORPETH was understood to say that certain
changes had been made in the query. It was not necessary
that applications shouli be signed by three Clergymen, but
it was understood that the Board would give preference to
those so signed.

.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON again begged to ask the Noble
Lord whether there had not recently been a conference
between a deputation from the Synod of Ulster and the
Commissioners of Education, and whether the result of
that conference had not been that the Synod had withdrawn
Heir propositions ?
Lord MO R PETH said it was quite 'true that since
'3 departure from Ireland echferences had taken place
'...:tsvecn the Commissioners of Education and a Deputa-

tion from the Synod of Ulster, and that en one
occasion a Confer nee had been held in +he pre-
sence of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and
there was every reason to hope that the result of
these conferences would be the establishment of a perfectly
g,oed understanding between the Board of Education and
the Synod of Ulster. He did not apprehend that this good
understanding would arise in consequence of a de.p-irturc
by either side from the principles which had been on,
Itid down, but it would arise from the removal of misap-
prehensions which had previously existed.
fir.
:could Sergeant
have a e
y JACKSONobjection askedoerdapi_f
he u
plication of the synod of Ulster and the answer thereto.
t. o lay on the
the Noble
table
Lord MORPET II said he would not object to laying
those documents on the table.
Slr FREDERICK TRENCH gave notice that at
the next meeting., of the House. he should put a question
to the. Charcellor of the Exchequer relative to the
builclinu of a bridge over the Shannon at Athlone.
Mr. GOUL BURN wished to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer a question referring to the transmission or
the Bills of that House through the Post-office. Ile
wished to know whether any arraogernent had been made
for the transmission of the Votes and Bills of that House
through the Pcst-c,ffice free of postage
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
take that opportunity of stating to the House the course
which he thought it would be most convenient to pursue.
He had received within the last few days a resolution of
the Printing Committee, stating their opinion as to what
arrangement would be best with regard to the transmis-
sion of the papers of that House through the Post-office.
They stated it was their opinion that the Bills and Votes
should pass free. Sa strong was his objection to
opening a door for the renewal of franking, that he
hoped tine House would not grant that point. He thought the
following arrangem nt would meet the views of all parties.
If the House were of opinion that that cl.ss of its orocee
l-
ing should pass free of postage, he hoped the same course
would be pursued with regard to their Votes and
Bills, as to the letters of public officers. They would
be charged with postage at the Post-office, against
the House, and the sum could be liquidated by the
House, that would produce the same effect as it
they were free of postage, while, on the other hand, it
would not open the door to the system of franking, which,
as a public officer, he conceivedto be one of the greatest
abuses that could exist.—(Cheers.) If he understood
that this would meet the views of the House he would
make arrangements accordingly.
Mr. GOL:LB URN said that, as far as he understood,
what bad fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman would
entirely meet his views, that the Bills and Votes of the
House should be transmitted by Members and returned to
Members, and that the House should be charged with
postage.
Mr. C. BULLER wished to know whether it was the
intention of her Mjesty's Government to bring in any
Bill in the course of the present Session to alter the con-
stitution of the Privy Council.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that his Noble Friend the
Lord Chancellor had under his c,nsideration a scheme
for the better administration of justice in the Courts of
Equity, and that scheme would likewise embrace the Privy
Council.

Mr. DIVETT wished to know whether it was the in-
tention of the Noble Lord the Member for Hertford to pro-
ceed on Wednesday with the Bill that stood for a second
reading on that day ?
Lord MAHON could not at the present moment answer
that question,
IMPORTATION OF FLOUR INTO IRELAND.
Mr. E. TENNEN T wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to proceed
to-night with the Bill that stood in the Orders of the Day
for a second reading ? The question of privilege would
take precedence, and such being the case he was afraid that
it could not be brouc•iit on till a late hour.
Mr. L ABOUC H E RE said it was his intention to bring
on the question to-night if he could do so at a reasonable
hour. He was most anxious that the question should
be discus.ed, and the Bill forwarded a stage. The
Bill was one of an important description, and was
not one of details, so that it could not become a subject
of much discussion. He was therefore determined on
bringing on the Bill that night, if he should find it con-
venient. _ _

Mr. F. SHAW thought that there was little chance of
the Bill being fully discussed if brougnt on that evening.
Mr. L A BOUCHERE said he had no objection to put
off the Bill, were it not for his anxiety to remove the
misapprehensions which existed on the subject.
Sergeant JACKSON wished to know if the Right
Hon. the President of the Board of Trade were aware that
gentlemen were at present on their way from Ireland to
this country for the purpoFe of affording instruction to
Irish Members on this subject.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE said that he was not aware of
that fact.

Oa the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
it was then resolved that the House, on its rising, should
adjourn till Tuesday.
PRIVILEGE—(ADJOURNED DEBATE.)
Sir M. WOOD said that before the Adjourned
Debate on the Privilege Question came on, he had a peti-
tion to present for the liberation of the Sheriffs, signed at a
meeting at the Common Hall by the Lord Mayor, Common
Councilmen, and the Livery of the City of London on that
day. They had met in the afternoon to consider
the subject. They had come to resolutions of an important
description, and the meeting was a numerous one, while
those resolutions had been passed almost without a dis-
sentient. The I-lon. Member concluded by moving that
the petition should be brought up.
The petition was then read at length, it pre) ed the dis-
, charge of the Sheriffs.
Mr. BL ACK STONE presented a similar petition from
the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Wallingford—
; ( Ironical cheers from Mr. O'Connell and other Liberal
Members)—agreed to without a disentient voice. He
moved that it be read, which having been done.
Sir E. SUGDEN said that the question was one of
, the deepest importance as involving the privileges of the
House and the liberty of the subject. He should endea-
, your, in the course of his observations, to avoid saying
any thing that might give pain to any individual, and give
rise to any feelings of discontent on the part of the mino-
rity of the House agaiost the majority.--( Hear.) Before
he went into the general merits of the subject, he would
beg to observe, as some misrepresentation had gone abroad
with respect to his own opinions on the subject, that with
every deference to the Judges of the Court of Queen's
Bench, he thought their judgment was wrong on that parti-
cular point.—( Hear, hear.) It had always been his opinion
that the publications in question were privileged, and that
the decision of the Judges ought to have been otherwise.
He would be most ready to support any measure in order
to give the House power, if it had it not, to publish its
proceedings; but before doing so, he must have some pre-
liminary settlement. First of all, he could not allow the
sale of this publication, and they must take particular care
that, in whatever they did publish, they did not wan-
tonly and carelessly inflct injury upon any indivi.
dual. He did not call upon the majority of the
House to give up their expressed opinions, though
he called upeen them to release the Sheriffs. He
thought he could show the House that the time had arrived
when those gentlemen ought to be discharged. It was a
mere que;tion of time, for the time must arrive when
they would be discharged. If the House did not the
law would ; so therefore the whole question resolve)
itself into a mere question of time, and what Hon. Mem-
bers had to ask themselves at this time was, had that time
arrived? After calling the attention of the House to the
whole proceedings and the various actions, he said in what
situation were the Sheriffs placed ? In the first action the
decision of the Court against the House was left un-
touched—in the second action the decision of the four
Judges was left untouched, and tl e dem lees and costs wet-
paid. To the third action no Me, ce was made, Now the
House could not support itself on no defence; for all the
authorities, legal and constitutional, held that the plea of
privilege must be raised, if only to show that the officer or
the person claiming the privilege of the Huse had not
I abused the privilege. No lawyer can contradict that.
Now the House having in the two first actions submitted to
the judgment of the Ceurt, and having to the third action
made no defence, heavy damages were recovered. Why.
if the House would not maintain its own privileges, could
they expect the Sheriffs to maintain them ?—( Hear.
hear.) Ought they to make the poor Sheriffs the scape-
goat of their neglect, like the whipping boy, whee
vas thrashed for his rich patron's faults ?—( Laughter. )
The House had not the courage to attack the Judges. The
House had made an order that the Sheriffs should pay tin
money to Messrs. Hansard. Why the Lord Chief Justice
had truly declared that the money as justly belonged to
Mr. Stockdale, the plaintiff, as the estates of
any gentleman in that House to their owner.
No man could deny that in point of law. It was on that
ground he should move that the resolution of the House, '
ordering the Sheriffs to repay to Messrs. Hansard the money
levied on them, should be rescinded. The order was illegal.
That House had no power to impose a fine upon any of the
Queen's subjects. No man in that House could deny that
proposition, and what the House could not do directly, it
could not do indirectly, and ordering the Sheriffs to repa)
to the Messrs. Hansard the money that belonged to Mr.
Stockdale, was indirectly lining them. If they had paid
the money according to that order, the House had no
power to indemnify them. For his part, he had cautiously
abstained from holding the slightest communication with
the Sherifls, directly or indirectly, and he was only dis-
charging a public duty in the part he took on this occa-
sion. But he understood thatk the Sheriffs had actually
paid the money to Mr. Stoc dale, amid that person now
had it in his pockets. He (Sir E Sugden) thought it
would be a great deal better for the Sheriffs themselves,
paid to Mr. Stockdale jnnir.a'
and for the House of
convenience to which the Sheriffs if the money bad been
of their not havingmonths
done ago.,el„ 0
ellldo However, ear ,
lessonth ei itio-
had been put in conse-
quenceother men, that it is always theh best way to take
inestaeraam
ought
u decidedght
to hcaovuers course.—(
paid( Haetar.onhcCea,r,
uots fThehav e Sheriffsknown
t
eahtsedCourt of
endeavour-
ing to conciliate that House, when the
that they would be compelled) toHeoLreyp
thath he
Queen's Bench.—( Hear, hear_
had had no communication with the Sheriffs, but
be-
lieved that they had brought themselves into theiaryptreoesde,
predicament by putting off the payment from d
in the hope of conciliating the House. There could be
y
no doubt, that in obeying the order of the House,
and paying the money to the Messrs. Hansard, the
Sheriffs would be 6001. out of pockets. If this were se,
they were evidently imposing a fine upon these gentle-
MQII for merely acting constitutionally ; and,
on that
ground alone, these gentlemen were entitled to their dis_
charge. But there were many other grounds on which
he would address the House as reasons for the release of
these gentlemen. Those who held that they ought never
rvooct
ce
efdo
irn tghse
werei r discharge;
illegal,
thoseo
t b e
wohmom
ti
itltocigd,h wt o u
tlitt of
would of course vote for their discharge; but those who
committed,
theseeo u r
3 e p
held a contrary opinion might be moved by other con-
siderations, to which he wished to draw the attention of the
House. In he first place, that difficulty had arisen which
1 he had unders•ood some Hon. Members who voted
for the commitment to be desirous should arise, and by
which the House were placed in this situation. He under-

stood that they had voted fur the committal of the Sheriff-,
in order to see what step the Cut of Queen s Bench 1
would take. That step had been taken, and an attach-
ment had been issued, directed to the Coroner by the
Court of Queen's Bench against the Sheriffs, demanding
payment of that money. Now, that money must be paid
under that attachment, and consequently this difficulty
had arisen._( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell- ) 'Abe
Hon. Member for Dublin seemed to think there would be
no difficulty at all, but the fact was that in that case the
Coroner would have walked into Newerate by order of the
Court of Queen's Bench, and the-Hovse would have
found that they would have been as powerless to release
the Coroner as the Queen's Bench was to release the
Sheriffs. He knew that the proceedings of that House
had engaged the attention of foreign juries, and what
would they say if they were told that after having sub-
mitted to the judgment of the Queen's Bench, and ac-
quiesced in it, by paying the damages, that when another
action was brought of the same nature to which
no defence had been made, and after the officer
had made a levy in consequence of the order of the Court
who had said they would commit him to prison, if they
did not make that levy, that the House had committed him
to prison because he had done so, how ceuld they make
foreigners understand this ? Why they did not under-
stand it themselves.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.)
You would defy any body to understand it—it was only an •J
act of injustice that they were committing.--( Hear, hear,
from Mr O'Connell.) The Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin seemed to like that expression, but he was mis-
taken if ha thought he had intended to use it offensively.
Nobody knew the grounds upon which that House was
acting. When they issued a warrant for the apprehension
of the Sheriff's, they kept entirely out of view all statement
of the offence with which they stood charged.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) He was surprised to hear the Honour-
able and Learned Attorney-General state, that the
Sheriffs ought to pay the money according to the order of
that House, and that the Court of Queen's Bench should
consider that a sufficient justification. He (Sir E. Sug-
den) had taken the liberty of dissenting from the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, and the next day proved that
he was right, and that the Attorney-General was wrong.
He did not deny the authority of that House, to issue a
general warrant. of commitment, but he doubted very much
whether they could maintain it. When the case came for
argument before the Queen's Bench, the Judges in observ-
ing- upon the warrant, said it was utterly impossible for
them to decide whether the House of Commons had pro-
perly exercised its functions, no ground for the commit-
ment having been stated in face of the warrant. He be-
lieved that opinion was largely entertained out of doors.
The object he bad in view was to show that the warrant
had been so drawn as to take from the Sheriffs the secu-
rity it professed to give them, namely, a paper to show
that they had obeyed that House, and therefore they
could not obey the order of the Judges. It had been
said that the Sheriffs were without excuse, because it was
the law of the country that if an officer was ordered to do
one thing by one Court, and then desired not to do so by
a Superior, there was no necessity to obey the first order.
Anything more grossly wrong in point of law had never
been stated. He considered that the case had now come
to that point when if it was thought proper to adopt reme-
dial measures they might be pursued. There was another
ground which appeared to him conclusive in favour of the
Sheriffs. Ile begged the particular attention of the House
to that subject. It was this, that they had put the
Sheriffs into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
because they had obeyed an order of the Court of Queen's
Bench, and that they were determined to continue to obey
t. That was the simple ground on which they had pro
ceeded. Now, since the Sheriffs had been in custody,
they had themselves, in a more solemn manner, obeyed
the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now,
he asked if it was p-ssible for them to go into a Court of
Justice when it suited their own convenience, and to punish
a publee officer for acknowledging the authority of the
sante Court? Were they to punish the Sheriffs for obey-
ing a Court which they themselves had obeyed ? They
were now making history, and their proceedings would
he handed to posterity, when thousands would calmly
consider the steps they were taking; and what would
be the impression of after ages, when they should learn
that a House of Commons had punished in others an
obedience to those very Judges whose jurisdiction
they had acknowledged themselves ?—(licer, hear. )
I- was said that if the House were obeyed by the Sheri ffs
it would protect thew. How ? By sending the Sergeant
after the tipstaff, who attempted to arrest the Sheriffs,
or, if the Coroner were attached for refusing to arrest
them, sending the Coroner to take the tipstaff instead of
alloµing the tipstaff to take the Coroner.—(A laugh. )
But how would that act? Why the tipstaff would be.
waiting at the Coroner's door, and would lodge him in
Newgate long before complaint could be made to that
House. It might be said the House could release the
Coroner fir the Sheriffs. That was absurd.—(" Oh, oh,"
from Mr. O'Connell and others.) The House could not
do it but byforce.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.)
Yes ; hut how would that be accomplished ? On one occa-
sion in ancient times, some Members were actually
selected to storm Newgate for a similar object. But the
Speaker happened to mention an "action on the case,"
and this frightened them from the insane project. Besides,
suppose the Sheriffs were let out one day, they would be
taken the next. The Noble Lord (John Russell)
should not be actuated on this question by any irri-
tation of feeling produced by any language which might
have been used in the City petition or others.
He could not help thinking that the petition which he had
presented from the bar of England, signed by 508 barris-
ters, embracing men of all political opinions, and which
would have been signed by a great many more had it not
been so moderately framed, and the petition from the
Common Hall to-day, were ample grounds why the Sheriffs
ought to he discharged. The question was, if the time
had not arrived for the release of the Sheriffs, when would
that time arrive ?—( Hear, hear. ) The Sheriffs had
already paid the money to Mr. Stockdale ; the order of
that House had stated that they should pay the some sum
to Messrs. Hansard, and was not that imposing a fine?
He had no hesitation in saying that it was
allegal. The
Solicitor-General had carried the matter so far, that he in
timated it would be proper to pray the Crown not to pro-
rogue the Parliament, but to adjourn from time to time.
Worse advice was never given—anything more untenable
in the face of that House and the country he had never
heard, and he deeply regretted that his lion, and Learned
Friend, in his first speech, on taking his seat as Solicitor-
General, should have delivered such doctrines, and
in a tone which ill became an officer of the
Crown, who might have to prosecute the parties.
There should be mcJeration, temper, and forbearance in
official men.—( Laughter.) He understood that laugh;
it meant, of course, that there should not be—that the So-
licitor-General had it not—that there was no mildness or
tamper in his oration ; he must say he never heard a speech
with greater regret than that. What did he tell the
House? He said, " Act on your power; don't appeal to
the Courts of Law." And then he falls into the incon-
sistency of saying, that they must address the Crown for
a force, instead of acting on their own power. What if
the Queen should deliver such an answer as a former Queen
did to the House of a Commons on a similar occasion,
when they wished to prevent a writ of error, after the
House could proceed no further, and it was supposed the
writ would he issued ? The House of Commons ad-
dressed the Crown, and told the Queen that they had
passscd her Supplies and Money Bills, and, therefore,
hoped she would do them justice, and deny the writ
of error. He wculd read to them Queen Anne's re-
ply, from which they might form a notion of what
Queen Victoria would say, it this address were to be pre-
sented to her—" Her Majesty is much troubled to find that
the House of Commons are of opinion that granting a writ
of error would be against their privileges, of which she is
-s tender as of her own prerogative, and therefore the
House of Commons may depend that her Majesty will not
do any thing to give them just cause of complaint. But
this matter relating to the course of judicial proceedings
being of the highest importance, her Majesty thinks it ne-
cessary to weigh and consider very carefully what is proper
for her to do in a thing of so great consequence." And
what was the result ? The House of Commons were so
displeased that they sent no answer to that address. But
the House of Lords sent a contrary address, drawn up by
Lord Somers, and in the answer to that address her Ma-
jesty said she should have granted the writ desired
in this address, but finding an absolute necessity for
putting an end to the Session, she was certain
no further proceedings could be taken on the subject;"
and the Lords thanked her Majesty for her gracious
answer, Respecting the conduct of the Sheriffs, he wished
!o say a word, to show what different vie—s were enter-
tained. The Lord Chief Justice, on a late occasion, had
expressed his approbation of it, and, therefore, did tint
view it in the same light as the Solicitor-General. The
Solicitor-General said it was an insult to the House to
mention the oaths which the Sheriffs had taken. He
should have thought no person would have given so strong
an opinion, but he was free to confess, that if the Heusi,'
had the power it had assumed, to obey their orders would
not have been in the Sheriff, a breach of their oaths. But
the Courts of Law said the House had not this power, and
how then were the Sheriffs to decide ? They must obey
the Courts of Law if they were right, and not the
House of Commons if they were wrong.—( Hear, hear.)
The deliberate opinion of the Superior Court had been
given upon the case, and it was against the case set up by
the House. The question was not whether the Sheriff;
would break their oaths by obeying the House, but did they
think so. For all these reasons, he hoped the House would
come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when it
was proper these Gentlemen should be released. He
could assure the Houao that the more time that was lost
the case would become more difficult, and he had shown
that I-lon. Members who held their original opinion might
now vote for the discharge of the Sheriffs. The Solicitor-
General said he was quite prepared to support the resolu-
tions of 1837, but there was not another constitutional au-
thority in the country who held the same opinion. If they
were to be adhered to there was an end to the liberties of
the country. They might punish the officers as they had
done before ; and that as Sir Thomas More said once,
" That was revenge—that was a sweet hit, and that was
some satisfaction."—( A laugh.) The Attorney-General
had given them up when he had advised the House to ap-
pear to the second action. His Hon. and Learned Friend
(the Solicitor-General) asked them to oppose the Courts
of Law, oppose the House of Lords as a Judicial Tribunal,
and ho promised success. Ho ( Sir E. Sugden) would
show that upon all former occasions, when the House set
up such privileges, they had always been obliged to give
way ; and, if he made that clear to the House, then he
thought he would have made out a case for the discharge
of these Gentlemen. These resolutions were annulled the
moment the Attorney-General went into Court. The
Court decided against them—why then not go to the
House of Lords,- which House would have decided the
question judicially, and there could be no fear of a wrong
decision for the privileges of both Houses were equal?
They were trusted with deciding on all questions of pro-
perty-,nay. even upon life and death. Why, then, not
take this question for the decision; if they decided against
the privilege, they nave up so much of their 014 n privilege,
therefore there could be no fear of a wrong decision. After
going at great length into the case of Ashby v. White,
wher.in the House of Lords decided that they had a right
to question the privileges of the House of collllllolls, he