The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-06-25 00:00:00

We care not to expedite the end, and shorten the
just torment. Let it burn on, a beacon-flame, and be
for ever branded in black characters upon the darkest
page of History. Hereafter we shall discuss some of
the unenviable peculiarities which beset Lord Mel-
bourne's elevation. There is amusement and instruc-
tion enough in this matter for many an essay ; but,
like the boys and the frogs, in iEsop's fable, what is
good sport for a stout Conservative, is very poor fun
indeed for Melbourne and his motley men.

The proceedings of the House of Commons in the
late question of their privileges are deserving of deep
and serious reflection. When, on the debate upon
the Ballot last Tuesday evening, an honourable Mem-
ber gave utterance to the words that " the worst of
despotisms was that which worked with the machinery
of Freedom," the sentiment was vociferously and emu-
lously cheered by both sides of the House. It would
have been well if the Commons of England had at
that moment considered how far their late conduct
entitled them to applaud so just and generous an ex-
pression. We would speak on this subject with un-
feigned respect for the motives and intentions of those
who have most prominently stood forward on a late
occasion as the champions of privilege. These mo-
tives and intentions, it is impossible, in the case of all
those who spoke and voted on the question, to miscon-
strue. When we see some of the most illustrious
names in Parliament—to which we are wont to look
up with reverence, as the wise and fearless asserters
of the genuine principles of Constitutional law—united
with those whose characters and principles afford us
no guarantee for their honesty or truth, we may well
pause and repress the indignation we feel at what we
cannot but consider a strange and portentous anomaly.
If such men as Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Mr.
Williams Wynne, and Sir William Follett, enlightened
statesmen and constitutional lawyers, lend the high
sanction of their approval to acts which we consider
tyrannous and oppressive, we are almost tempted to
stifle our convictions, and withdraw ourselves from
what may seem to be a vain and hopeless opposition.
But we have a duty to perform towards our fellow-
countrymen which may not be neglected. The press
of England may not, without abandoning its high
office, be silent when, in proportion to the weight of
the authority arrayed in support of dangerous preten-
sions, the difficulty of combatting and defeating them
is increased. If the House of Commons, the legiti-
mate depository of Freedom, and chosen temple of
popular rights, assumes an attitude which menaces
the liberty of the subject, then we must no longer be
deceived or blinded by a name however specious, but
boldly unmask the sophistries by which such conduct
is attempted to be vindicated, and point out to our
countrymen the danger of allowing them to be esta-
blished. But " quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?" Who
is to control the voice of the people of England speak-
ing through their representatives ? We answer, that
in this case they do not speak the sense of the people
of England—that the sympathies of the mighty multi-
tude, which has delegated to them the sacred trust of
legislation, in this instance are not with them ; and
that Public Opinion must control them, if they arro-
gate to themselves novel and unconstitutional powers.
There are occasions when the Crown ought to be
watched with less suspicious jealousy than the Parlia-
ment, and when each of us may say with Junius,
" As I would have resisted prerogative in the last cen-
tury, so I will resist privilege in this."

How stand the facts ? The House of Commons
has been engaged in an impotent contest with the
Judges of the land. " Bella yeri placuit nullos habi-
tura triUmphos." Out of the House there was hardly
one single person, competent to understand the ques-
tion, whose heart did not echo back the generous and
noble sentiments of the Chief Justice of England.
This it was which checked the anger and paralysed
the arm of the offended Parliament. From long habit
—from old associations—from that esprit de corps
which operates so strongly in influencing the human
mind, many Members of the House of Commons,
whose conduct on all other occasions springs from a
liberal and enlightened policy, could only see in the
late struggle an attempt to curtail what they believed
to be their inherent and necessary privileges, and over-
looked the grievous injustice with which they sought
to bear down the Law, and deprive an individual, who
was aggrieved by their attack, of the shield of its pro-
tection. We may, indeed, lament that such a battle
was fought by such 'a champion, but this only tests
the strength and justice of the cause ; and, while we
refuse our sympathies to the man who is known only
as the low pander to Vice, we may congratulate our-
selves that we live under a system of laws so righte-
ously administered, that neither favour, nor fear, nor
hate sways for one moment the breasts of those who
occupy the Judgment-seat.
That every Court of competent jurisdiction should
have certain privileges attached to it, is undeniably
true. 'Without this its functions could not be carried
on, and it would sink into insignificance. Amongst
these the power of committing for contempt is one of
the most necessary. Neither ought one Court to in-
terfere with another in the assertion of its known and
undoubted privileges. This would introduce the evil
of clashing jurisdictions, and exhibit the unseemly
spectacle of two Courts, of concurrent powers and
authority, refusing to each other the means of en-
forcing their respective decrees. But the privileges
claimed must be such as are requisite for the due
performance of the functions of the Court. Beyond
this it can make no claim; for no necessity demands,
and reason denounces it. If for one moment we admit
that a Court of Law can go beyond this limit, no mat-
ter in how trifling a degree, then we recognise the
existence of an arbitrary and irresponsible tribunal,
since the times of the Star Chamber unknown in this
free land, and whose motto in reality would be that of
autocratic tyranny :
" Sic volo, sic jubeo ; stet pro ratione voluntas."
The whole question lies in a narrow compass. Was
the privilege, so recently claimed and still asserted by
the House of Commons, essential to the due perform-
ance of its legitimate functions ? Is it right and equi-
table that that House should enjoy what Mr. Justice
Coleridge aptly called "A MONOPOLY OF SLANDER"?
If so, then, while we mourn over so fatal a necessity,
we will not murmur against its exercise, and acquiesce
in an anomaly which infuses its bitter into the cup of
Freedom. But happily no such a necessity does exist,
and it is a confusion of thought upon this point which
has precipitated the House of Commons upon what
we cannot but think its ill-advised and erroneous
course. And it may well seem strange, that one of
the two Houses of Parliament should assert that the
publication and sale of Reports drawn up by its Com-
mittees are essential to the due exercise of its functions,
while at the same time it denounces as a breach of
privilege the publication of the Speeches of its Mem-
bers ; and, in theory at least, by one of its standing
orders, expressly forbids the presence of strangers at
its debates. There is not an Editor of a newspaper in
this kingdom who might not at any moment be sum-
moned to the bar of the House of Commons, and re-
primanded and imprisoned, for informing the Consti-
tuencies of the Empire of the mode in which their
Representatives had discharged the trust committed to
them in Parliament. In theory at least, the sittings of
that House are as secret, and the spoken sentiments of
its Members as unknown, as those of the Council of
Ten were at Venice, or of the dark conclave of the
Inquisition in Spain. It is admitted by all—and by
Lord Denman expressly in his late admirable judg-
ment—that the printing Reports for the private use of
Members of Parliament, the circulation being confined
to them, cannot render the House amenable for a libel.
And the reason for this is plain. Such a limited dis-
triimtion is necessary for the due information of the
Members, in order that they may exercise their proper
functions of legislation ; but this is no more a publi-
cation, in point of principle, than what takes place in
every instance of what is familiarly known to lawyers
as a privileged communication. But it is said that
placing these printed papers in the hands of six hun-
dred gentlemen, who, when the Session of Parliament
is over, are scattered over all parts of the kingdom,
is equivalent to exposing them to sale, and publishing
them in every shop in the country. This we wholly
deny in fact, and in theory the proposition is untena-
ble. Such an argument would be scattered to the
winds in a Court of Law, for there it would be pre-
sumed that the use made of them was strictly for pri-
vate information, in order more effectually to attain
certain public ends, But precedents can be found
which appear to justify 41c14 A course, To be Sure