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

of tlie Noble Lord the Member fur '—eindon, and th,
Sight Honourable Baronet at the head of her a jest> 'e
ttovernmest: -In usentiening their eamee, he would v, n-
tUre to appeal to the noble stand wieh they leol • tie
taken defence of the privileges oft he IL ,use—(ll • a --
"PO he Would take it that their names would be a
gUarantee that they would not recommend any eempro-
se of the privileges of the Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
• With respect to another class of opponents, and lie re
tes't'ed more especially to the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), he would ask
litet Right HOn. Gentleman here ceuld he maintain
"Ist 'the coarse which was proposedevas incotisistet-t
with the principles which he (Sir R. Thetis) professed?
Ther Right Hon. Baronet was an advocate for the Nude,
lily of the law,-but surely he was not an advocate for
thes infallibility of any particular Court.— (11, ar, hear.)
, • .
But he (the Solicitor-General) could net think
how it was possible to say that the authority ef the
a.ly would be impaired by an appeal in this esse to a
higher tribunal. Such were the oppenents win• joined
to resist that middle course, which he (the Soli
ellortGeneral) was row going to receitnineed. The
that
was most important, aial tt usi ed
that the House would listen to the few oltservittions
Which he had to make. Ile must asstait e dist in a
platten of such importance as this ev,ry Member as
acquainted with the facts out of which this
question arose. He took it for granted that every
Member had read the report of the Committe .
ill which the details of those occurrences were fully
stated. He trusted that without repeating those derails
he might be allowed to trespass on the House with a few
lords in. reference to the more prominent circurn
stances. He thought it ' was a mistake to suppose
that the question of privilege was at all involve d
lu the present part of the case ; which had,
however, -arisen out of the exercise of a power
Which was inherent in the H. use, and which was
essential to - -the maintenance of its privileges.
Ile meant the powei of requiring and of compelling the
attendance of all persons at the bar of the House, fur the
Purpose of examination. Now, that the house had a
right to institute an inquiry into all matters of
pnbli
interest there could be no doubt whatever, and that this
Power was necessary to the ex, rcise of that
right, .was clearly unquestionable, because, as it an-
Peered to him, if they deprived the House of the tneans
dept compelling parties to appear before it, they actually
therefore the House need not be surprised te find that
this right was recognised and ecktioaledged in the
cOurts of law. It was on the exercise= of this undoebted
right that the present question originally arose.
•!t would be recollected that ceret:n inquiries
took place on a question instituted by Stock-
dale against Hansard, and Mr. Howard was ordered to
• attend at the bar of the Hoese for the purpeses of in -
qUiry. He did appear at the bar—he ad-
tnitted the fact that was charged against him.
he submitted himself entirely to the Heuse
after some explanation, he was discharged
tlnavery short time afterwards he repeated the effsnee
by
Commencing a fresh action in the name of air 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 he endeavoured to evade the
service of that House, end there was equells little d opts
that he was perfectly aware of the feet of di erder
being issued, and, even i. that way, he was d, cideilly
Why of contempt of the authority of. that. Heusi, The
House then should have adjuidg, d him of coat- ml t.
and if they had proceeded in th,t course, 111,, tower in
the country could have questioned the met. But they
Chose to proceed in a milder and n 1 ire favourable mantle.,
and acting upon a precedent in 1731. they, directed that
;eir. Howard should be sent for to the bar of the House
11.1• the custody of the Sergeant-ar-Arms, t` tit
Speaker's warrant sheul I be is tied eetii est
,him - The Speaker's warrant was issued, eni
l
, directed to be served. To any person endowed with
.commis sense and pewers of reason. there. eetill he no
'doubt
at all that the warrant was perfeetle stood. The
Mouse had decided that the Se t • at- Arms ,dhitill
take Mr. Howard into custody. arid he- was semi that..
raY man, not illumined with any km •wiedee of the
w, and applying comm. ti sense to Cie c
could not entertain tile isligh,e-t deith• *:,Siss' (IS th
foree of the warrant which the Serjesni rved
namely, the taking -of the retry- in euestirin Int • ens
tidy, and bringing him to the bar et the Home's t
lir. Howard - being informed of the desire or the
flóuse he accompanied the St-at. Arms to •
oar, Where, failing i 0 give stitisfactien ftr the her. itch
Privilege he had committed, it was ,;real hy
• the House that he wss guilty 'of etceeinly
and committed to Nee gate. Three yeas after.
- 1843, the year when Mr. lloweret wits
. committed being 1840, Mr. Howard
_comineric .d his
• • present action aeaiust the officer of that Ile;use.. Th.
• Idug time-he had allowed pi elapse between the pia iuittal
and instituting proceedings, showed at lese:t that hit
seese of the injury done him was not very great. .On the
; action being commenced, a cometunicatien was made to.
the House of the fact. After a lug &hetes
tlonourable Members came to a resoleti the'
the Sergeant should appear and defend the ae.
Zion, gad that the Atterney-Gen ral should
et)nduct the defence. The term. f the reiolutlon did
•‘, not instruct the Attorney-General to appear on behalf
Of the authority of the House, but simply to d. fend dee
. action. He (the Solicitor-General) was disposed to egret-
With the report of the Committee. In the resolution iif
1843 there was no intention of defending the righ's asd
privileges of the House in a court of law—the impre--
.% men being, that if the question of the leg lite r f
the Speaker's wsrrant were argued-belore the cony; ~.
law, they would d.cide in its favour. This titer re the
Matter was in agreement with wh a had been decide d
in
the first action of Stockelale ag,inst llttns trd: it, 18,17
It would readily be admitted, that no more strenuous defender
tf the privileees.of Parl.ament cou'd be found than his N0,,1e
Lord Campbell ; and it was the opinion of that high
Mithority, that pleading the privileges of Parliament would be
answer to the action. Ihe course thus 'reCo,,tnended
,ILeing fully concurred in by the legal advisers 4 the Crown. was
.goopted in the defenee of their officer, but. in the result they
were disappointed. The Court, though aware of contempt
• Committed by Howard. thongh informed that the defeneiaot
acted solely on the specific order. of the Howe, and that these
orders were founded on its privileges, the Court of Queen's
end) entertained the question, and asirtetl the invalidity of
the plea. All this had happened previous to March, 1841, and
, therefore the House was in full possession of the circumstances
when it subsequently passed its vote in defence of its privileges,
and enjoined its officer accordingly. But the deaarrer,entered
• to the plea admitted that the con net of the defendant had been
authorised, nay,.required by the vote of Parliamena and that all
•• 214 proceedings were in deference to and support of its privileges.
• that was the state of the question upon which the argument
tas to take place, and that argument occurred in the month of
"ovem, er last. He might here express his opinion of the
great misfortune that it was to the House that it happened by
'tridental circumstances that it became his duty to argue the
rue, and no one could feel more .deeply than tie did the irre-
Pitiable loss which at present was impending on the House. He
kas sure, however, of this, that if any one had taken the
trouble to look at the arguments which he addressed to the
Court on that occasion, they would do him this ju -ace, that
nothing whisk he said had any tendency whatever to surreniter
'the privileges or compromise the dignities of the Ho use. The
jades appeared to have entertained very considerabl doubt as
eth declaim' for it was delayed for the period of six months;
it Was delivered on the 15th of May, and he must s,y that it
folirely disappointed his expectations. He did not think •hat
it would be becoming in him to take advantage of the positiou
to which he stood on the preseeit occasion, to canvass. or to
criticise, or to question the propriety of that judgment.
He would refer the House to the report of .he Curt, in
which it would find conflicting arid contrad ctor} reasons upon
which the judgment of the majority was tounded—( Hear,
hear)—and he might b' allowed to make this remark, that if he
could be permitted to select from the discei dant reasons of the
'lodges different parts of their judgments, awl apply them to the
consideration of the validity of the warrant, he was of evident
that he would have a large iiarty in favour of his view. He
Should also express his regret teat oe,e /if the le.ireo d judges
thought proper most unnecessarily, as it appeai el to him (the
Sulantor-General), to que.stion one of the must un atubted,
ss
Well as one of the most necessary privileges of u hi- House. He
regretted that the learned judge had exptessed his opinion in
such a manner, which, considering ;hat it was a written judg.
seem and after six months' deliberat um, was scarcely, he thought,
to be excused. He was very much afra d that the doci ines
Which he maintained, and which were necessary for the decision
• of the cue, had led very much to the embarrassment and &Ili-
. tatty of coming to any conclusion as t o the course which it would
11r proper for the House to adopt on the present occasion.
Having brought the House to the point when a divided jeidg-
tient 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 ce•urse
which it would be des'rable 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 stren a
uous sserters of
the privileges of the House—men for Whom he entities. ned the
highest respect, he would venture to sugg'est to them that, in
that particular ease, 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
'Wept any of those measures which were recommended to them,
.. at that time, by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Mon-
trose, It would be in the recollection of the House that the
• Committee to which this question was refereed made a short
report, he thought on the 29th of May, in which they indi-
cated 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 prevent the levy of the money. the plaintiffs avng, by
la
e_Writ of inquiry, obtained the verdict of a jui
y or 200
4arnages. It was considered desirable, when that report was
laid on the table of the House,that no di.cussion should take
- place .until the House had been informt d of the r?asons which
bad influenced the determination of the Committee. the
' 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
qaages. The Hon. Member tor Montrose moved on that
"that the House, adverting to the resolution herein...l
belore passed, resolve that they will deem all persons guilty 1,
of a breach of the privileges of this House who shall levy an
execution on the judgment obtained in the case ' Howard V.
- Gusset,' referred to in the report." On that :notion the
Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland moved that the debate
be adjourned until the report had been taken into considera-
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.
The House should then have taken advantage of that oppor-
tunity, but - having allowed it to pass they could not now
resume the position which they then abandoned. The House
adjourned the motion of the Hon. Gentleman to the day on
which the report was to be taken into consideration, and in the
intermediate time, as was ant ciliated by the House, the plaintiff
levied and seized for the amount of his damages and amts. Now
the would venture to ask those Hon. Members who were pro.
eeeding ith this strong elan for the assertion of privilege what
course in that direction could possibly be adepted under the
existing circumstances of this case? They had gone into a
court of law with the plaintiff, they had allowed their sergeant
to appear and plead, they had sent their counsel before the
C,ourt--they bad an unfortunate judgment. They might even
then, if they thought advisable, have interrupted further
proceedings—prevented the levy according to that judgment.
They had the quest:on distinctly brought before them by the
rootion of the Honourable Member for Montrose.
bad refused to- entertain that motion, but postpeen. d the
Matter to a future day ; and he nould now ask what
Purpose those who proposed to act so strongly could
accomplish by it ? They had, be repeated, eompletely
Precluded themselves from the edoptiou of such ►-dowse, The