The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-27 00:00:00

of the Noble Lord the Member for London alit", the'
Right Honourable Baronet at the head orhataMajesty's7
Goverement. In mentioning their Eames-a-he would ven-
ture to appeal to the noble stand which ;the/ had always'
taken in defence of the privileges of the lloute—<Hear)-••
and he would take it that their narties would be a
guarantee that they would not recommend any compro-
mise of the privileges of the Commons.--allear, bear.)
With respect to another class of opponents, and he re-
ferred more especially to the Right Hon.ll9entlaman
the Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), he 'would ask
that Right Hon. Gentleman how could be maintain
inconsistent
with that the course which was proposed was') with the principles which he (Sir R. IngLts
The Right Hon. Baronet was an advocate for the autho-
rity of the law, but surely he was not an advocate for
the infallibility of any particular Court.--CRear, hear.)
But he (the Solicitor-General) could not think
how it was possible to say that the authority of the
law would be impaired by an appeal in this case to a
higher tribunal. Such were the opponents who joined
to resist that middle course, which he (the Soli-
citor-General) was tow going to ,recommend. The
case was most important, and he trusted
that the House would listen to the few observations
which he had to make. He must assume that in a
matter of such importance as this every Member was
acquainted with the facts out of which this
question arose. He took it for granted that every
Member had read the report of the Committee,
in which the details of those occurrences were fully
stated. He trusted that without repeating those details
he might be allowed to trespass on the House with a few
words in reference to the more prominent circum-
stances. He thought it was a mistake to suppose
that the question of privilege was at all involvtd
in the present part of the case ; which had,
however, arisen out of the exercise of a power
which was inherent in the House, and which was
essential to the maintenance of its privileges.
He meant the power of requiring and of compelling the
attendance of all persons at the bar of the House, for the
purpose of examination. Now, that the House had a
right to institute an inquiry into ail matters of public
interest there could be no doubt whatever, and that this
power was necessary to the exercise of that
right, was clearly unquestionable, because, as it ap-
peared to him, if they deprived the House of the means
of compelling parties to appear before it, they actually
deprived them of the right of compelling them, and
therefore the House need not be surprised to find that
this right was recognised and 'acknowledged in the
courts of law. It was on the exercise of this undoubted
right that the present question originally arose.
It would be recollected that certain inquiries
took place on a question instituted by Stock-
dale against Hansard, and Mr. Howard was ordered to
attend at the bar of the House for the purposes of in-
quiry. He did appear at the bar—he ad-
mitted the fact that was charged against him,
he submitted himself entirely to the House,
and, after some explanation, he was discharged.
In a very short time afterwards he repeated the offence
by commencing a fresh action in the name of Mr. Stock-
dale. It was not expected that the House would submit
to be trifled with in this manner ; and, therefore, it was
again necessary that Mr. Howard should attend at the bar.
There could be no doubt that ho endeavoured to evade the
service of that House, and there was equally little doubt
that he was perfectly aware of the fact of the order
being issued, and, even in that way, he was decidedly
guilty of contempt of the authority of that House. The
House then should have adjudged him guilty of contempt,
and if they had proceeded in that course, no power in
the country could have. questioned the act. But they
chose to proceed in a milder and more favourable manner,
and acting upon a precedent in 1731, they directed that
Mr. Howard should be sent for to the bar of the House
in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and that
the Speaker's warrant should be issued against
him. The Speaker's warrant was issued, and
directed to be served. To any person endowed with
common sense and powers of reason, there could be no
doubt at all that the warrant was perfectly good. The
House had decided that the Sergeant-at-Arms should
take Mr. Howard into custody, and he was sure that
any man, not illumined with any knowledge of the
law, and applying common sense to the subject,
could not entertain the slightest doubt as to the
force of the warrant which the Serjeant had served,
namely, the taking of the party in question into cus-
tody, and bringing him to the bar of the House. On
Mr. Howard being informed of the desire of the
House, he accompanied the Sergeant-at-Arms to the
bar, where, failing to give satisfaction for the breach of
privilege he had committed, it was agreed by
the House that he was guilty of contempt,
and committed to Newgate. Three years after,
in 1843, the year when Mr. Howard was
committed being 1840, Mr. Howard commenced his
present action against the officer of that House, a The
long time he had allowed to elapse between the committal
and instituting proceedings, showed at least that his
sense of the injury done him was not very great. On the
action being commenced, a communication was made to
the House of the fact. After a long debate,
Honourable Members came to a resolution that
the Sergeant should appear and defend the ac-
tion, and that the Attorney-General should
conduct the defence. The terms of the resolution did
not instruct the Attorney-General to appear on behalf
of the authority of the House, but simply to defend the
action. He (the Solicitor-General) was disposed to agree
with the report of the Committee. In the resolution of
1843 there was no intention of defending the rights and
privileges of the House in a court of law—the impres-
sion being, that if the question of the legality of
the Speaker's warrant were argued before the courts of
law, they w ould decide in its favour. This view of the
matter was in agreement with what had been decided in
the first action of Stockdale against Hansard, in 1837.
It would readily be admitted, that no more strenuous defender
of the privileges of Parliament could be found than his Noble
Friend Lord Campbell ; and it was the opinion of that high
authority, that pleading the privileges of Parliament would be
a distinct answer to the action. The course thus recommended
being fully concurred in by the legal advisers of the Crown, was
adopted in the defence of their officer, but in the result they
were disappointed. The Court, though aware of the contempt
committed by Howard, though informed that the defendant
acted solely on the specific orders of the House, and that those
orders were founded on its privileges, the Court of Queen's
Bench entertained the question, and asserted the invalidity of
the plea. He did not think it would be becoming in him to take
advantage of his position on the present occasion, to canvass, or to
criticise, or to question the propriety of that j.iddment.
He would refer the House to the report of the Court, in
which it would find conflicting and contradictory reasons upon
which the judgment of the majority was founded—( Hear,
hear)—and he might be allowed to make this remark, that if he
could be permitted to select from the discordant reasons of the
judges different parts of their judgments, and apply them to the
consideration of the validity of the warrant, he was of opinion
that he would have a large party in favour of his view. He
should also express his regret that one of the learned judges
thought proper most unnecessarily, as it appeared to him (the
Solicitor-General), to question one of the most undoubted, as
well as one of the most necessary privileges of this House. He
regretted that the learned judge had expressed his opinion in
such a manner, which, considering that it was a written judg-
meat and after six months' deliberation, was scarcely, he thought,
to be excused. He was very much afraid that the doctrines
which he maintained, and which were necessary for the decision
of the case, had led very much to the embarrassment and diffi-
culty of coming to any conclusion as to the course which it would
be proper for the House to adopt on the present occasion.
Having brought the House to the point when a divided judg-
ment had been given by the Court of Queen's Bench, it only
being the decision of the majority, he was now anxious to draw
the attention of the House to the consideration of the course
which it would be desirable for them to adopt. Now, with
regard to the class of opponents to whom be had already al-
luded—namely, those who were the most strenuous asserters of
the privileges of the House—men for whom he entertained the
highest respect, he would venture to suggest to them that, in
that particular case, there was no possibility of their carrying
their principles into action. He thought the proceedings which
occurred a few nights ago in that House, had placed them in
such a position as to render it quite impracticable for them to
adopt any of those measures which were recommended to them,
at that time, by thee Hinotite recollectionGentlema Gentleman fortbAeleHumnbesretbn ikt t
lonce
trose. It would be
Commporithteee
ttho woughh
hictotnhti
the question
e29th
of
ietts ia referredy,
which
th
they
in
di
rceated their opinion that a writ of error should be brought
on the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench,
and that it was unnecessary, in their opinion, to interpose
to
writ
of inquiry, obtained the verdict of a jury for 2001.
damages. It was considered desirable, when that report was
laid on the table of the House, that no discussion should take
place until the House had been informed of the reasons which
had influenced the determination of the Committee. He
therefore moved that the consideration of that report should
be deferred until a future day, that day being beyond the
period at which it was competent for the plaintiff to-levy his
damages. The lion. Member for Montrose moved on that
night "that the House, adverting to the resolution herein..
before passed, resolve that they will deem all persons guilty
of a breach of the privileges of this House who shall levy an
execution on the judgment obtained in the case ' Howard v.
Gosset,' referred to in the report." On that motion the
Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland moved that the debate
be adjourned until the report had been taken into considers..
tion. Now, it was perfectly well known to the House,
that during the interval the plaintiff would have an
opportunity of obtaining the amount of his damages.
'flie House should then have taken advantage of that oppor-
tunity, but having allowed it to pass they could not now
resume the position whfeh they then abandoned. The difficulty
of coming to a proper conclusion was mainly owing to the cir-
cumstance that there were still three actions pending, in all of
which the House had given permission to the defendant to ap-
pear and plead. One of these actions was laid at 100,000/.
And why was this ? They had, in the first instance, asked Mr.
Howard to appear at the bar, he was imprisoned for contempt and
he afterwards brought an action, and was awarded the sum of
2001., which, fortunately for the public, was all that was under
the declaration. He considered the course he had recom-
mended the best to adopt in meeting the great difficulty in.
volved in the present question. He knew that at the best
they had but a choice of evils. He did not know what course
he would have advised under the circumstances, had the pre-
sent action not been originated, and had the subject been first
mooted in that House before the present action was brought.
He had merely opened the case with the view of inducing others
in that House, who had more weight and experience than him-
self, to give their opinion as to the wisest course to pursue.
He would conclude by moving that a writ of error be brought
against the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in the
case of " Howard v. Gossett."
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought down several Bills, which
were ordered to be laid on the table.
CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS.
A messenger from the Lords requested a conference with the
Commons on the Railway Clauses (Scotland) Consolidated
Bill. The Commons consented, and a deputation was ap-
pointed for the purpose, when the messenger left the House._
The deputation then returned from the conference with the
Lords,
the
ee
amendmentsmessenger reporting
th e
Railwaythat their ei Lordshipsrirns
eConsolidationrt on.
(Scot-
land) e re-
ferrednt
land) Bill, and assigned the reasons for their
The debate on the question of '• Privilege" was then re-
sumed.pursued by the
Mr. H UME
House;
.nottheunpdreorpsetransdub
subject
fcnorudrsiseenastsinpnresewnut
thatlast the evening
thatn oef tshpeEadAjoKuErußedidnet'ibmatnet.e—d (Cries
.of. " No, no.")
Solicitor-
General had shaped the question of privilege to a specific mo-
tion for discussion on this night.
Mr. HUME was at a loss to discover
_why the ordinary