The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-01-21 00:00:00

WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN MINISTERS.

Sir J. Y. BULLER gave notice that on Tuesday, the 28th
inst., he would move a resolution declaring the want of con-
fidence on the part of the house in the present administration.
(Loud cheers.)

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.-STOCKDALE V. HANSARD.

Lord J. RUSSELL felt great regret that it should be his
duty to interpose between the Speaker reading her Majesty's
Speech and the house taking it into consideration, but in the
discharge of his duty as a Cabinet minister, and a member
of that house, lie could not avoid it. A petition from Messrs.
Hansards had been placed in his hands, which was of so im-
portant a character that, without at present going into other
details, he should at once move that it be read.

• The petition from Messrs. Hansards, setting forth the whole
of the proceedings in the action brought by Mr. Stockdale
against Messrs. Hansards for libel, was then read at length
by the clerk ; and, on the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
Mr. James Luke Hansard was called to the bar, and deli-
vered in certain papers connected with the proceedings.
Lord J. RUSSELL then said it was incumbent on the house
not to lose any time in coming to a decision on the impor-
tant question, the importance of which every member must
be aware of. In whatever way the house treated the ques-
tion, one thing was • uite Blear, that the house could:npt re-_
main in its present position. They might proceed.in various
ways; but the course which he apprehended would be the
beSt was, that which had been taken on former occasions
with great effect, viz. the committal of the parties who bad
invaded the privileges of the house. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord, after some further observations, moved that to-
morrow the following persons be summoned to appear at the
bar of the house :—Mr. John Joseph Stockdale—(hear,
hear)—Mr. J. Burton Hayward, his attorney ; W. Evans,
Esq., and J. Wheelton, Esq., Sheriffs of London and Mid-
dlesex (hear) ; Mr. T. Clarkson, and Mr. Burchell, Under
Sheriffs (hear); and Mr. Kemp, the bailiff, who executed the
writ of execution against the goods of Messrs. Hansards.
Sir E. SUGDEN admitted the importance of the question,
and the propriety of coming to a speedy decision on it ; but
he could not concur in the course recommended by Lord J.
Russell. Seeing the difficulties that had arisen by the house
becoming booksellers, he recommended the rescinding of the
resolution on the subject of the sale of Parliamentary papers.
Sir R. INGLIS concurred in this recommendation, in con-
sequence of the difficulties that surrounded their attempts to
carry it into effect.
Mr. CRESSWELL said he could not abstain from saying a
few words as to his reason for resisting the motion of the
noble lord. If he understood the ground taken by the noble
lord, for calling before the house the officers who were con-
cerned in executing the commands of the lawful office to
which they belonged, it was this—that the judges had no ju-
risdiction, and that therefore they could not lawfully have
given judgment in the case; and if so, that there was no law
to justify the sheriff in the course he had pursued. In his
opinion, if they took any step at all it ought to be that of
Calling to the bar of the house the judge under whose orders
the sheriff
the
certainly acted. The hon. member for Edinburgh
was under a mistake when he said that they could not call
upon
judge because he had not received a notice of the
proceedings
i\o,
of
wthsauteliikov,u,saes,
not o r resolutionsitthseheixtealcatiopnossiotrionof t
heiti
this case.
mat-
ter, for the sheriff had actually prayed for time to be ex-
tended to him under the circumstances, and it had been
rtghme judgment upon
refused by the judge. Therefore, the act had been the act
of
astlicee. ljudge,aen
juddhgee
sh, therefore, proceededwe
had to
re give
ealljyud
the
concerned in the present case, and it would be the more
manly course to call upon them, and not upon the officer,
who merely executed their commands. But let them just
see how that house could then call upon either the judges or
the sheriff; or any other officers concerned in this transaction.
They had had the statement that Hansard had been served
with a notice of the original action ; and on that occasion
considerable blame had been cast upon Mr. Justice Littledale
for not having Itllowed the defendant to plead the privilege
of that house. Now upon that occasion none of the hon.
gentlemen on the opposite side, neither the Attorney-General
nor Mr. Serjeant Wilde, *nor any of the others who had

since made the discovery, had suggested that the Court
of Queen's Bench had no power to entertain the question,
not oue had then asserted that the judge had not power to
try the issue before him. - Well, then, they had gone to
trial—they had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
—they had in a manner admitted the power of the judge;
but then, when they found that the opinion of the judge.
was against them, they had found out, "for the first time,
that the court had no jurisdiction. (Hear.) Was that a
way, he (Mr. Cresswell) would ask, to elevate the authority
of the House of Commons in this country ? Why it was
just like a party consenting to submit a case to arbitration,
and then, upon discovering that the award would be unfa-
vourable, refusing to abide by it. (Hear.) He would say,
..if there was a fault at all in this matter, it was the fault of

theAttorney-General. _The
.ouestion had. been solely, raised
by the Attorney-General himself. He " (Mr. Creswell)
Should-say that if Lord Denman had', nuclei theseiciredin-.
stances, acted in any other manner than that in which' he
had, he would have shrunk from the performance of his duty
—he would not have discharged the functions of his post
had he refrained from giving his opinion in a case submitted
to him. There 'were two questions arising on the present
matter. One was, whether the -publication was true or net,
and another, whether it could be made the subject matter of
an action. It might have been'quite right for the Attorney-
General to have-said that the publication had not taken place
with any malicious intention, and that, therefore, it was not
libellous ; that it had been published on a lawful occasion.
He might have acted so ; not indeed because such might have
been the privilege of the house, but because it was the law of
the land. (Hear.) If a person was aware of a friend of his
being about to take into confidential employment an indi-
vidual of whose probity he entertained a doubt, and wrote to
his friend a statement to that effect, even though he could
not prove it, it was not likely a jury would give any damages
in an action for libel. And again, a similar position might hold
good in case the Secretary of State was about appointing any
person of seditious or turbulent character to the rank of ma-
gistrate in the country, and any person who was aware of
the fact apprising him of it to prevent such an appointment.
(Hear and laughter.) But the Attorney-General had asserted
that because the House of. Commons ordered the publication
of the matter in question, it was perfectly legal ' • now that
was a position from which he (Mr. C.) dissented. (Hear.)
He denied that proposition:; and this was also the opinion
which Lord Denman had expressed, and at which the House
of Commons had taken offence, and which called forth the
passing of certain resolutions which he (Mr. C.) did not re-
gret that he had not been in that house to sign • but which
he would not, had he even been then there. Then another
action had been brought by Stockdale, and although they
had asserted that any judge who was to'entertain a case
.of a
similar kind would be guilty of contempt, yet the house had
made an order- that the Attorney-General should plead for
Hansard ; but they had not denied the jurisdiction of the
court ; on the contrary; they had thrown themselves upon
its judgment. Then, however,
,they said they did not give
the court leave to' decide aptiast• thera. They asked for its
opinion, but asserted that it should not be unfavourable to
themselves. They, could not possibly, however, have the
contempt more
:complete than it was under those circum-
stances, and therefore if they did anything they should have
the judges before them. Then there had been smother action,
and they had .desired Hansard not to plead any excuse what-
ever, but to admit that the publication was true:- Nothing,
then, remained to be done but to inquire into th&amount of
damages to be awarded as a recomperice to the person against
whom the libel had been published. Then, indeed, an order
had been made by the House of Commons to stop the pro-
ceedings ; but he would say there had been no precedent
upon an occasion where it could be shown that such had
ever been done. But what would be the consequence now ?
They might send for the sheriff, and tell. him they would
commit him to Newgate if he levied such an execution, or
handed over such and such moneys to such and such parties,
and then the judges would send him to Newgate Vile did not.
So that the poor sheriff was in a position somewhat similar
to that of the unfortunate flying fish—turn which way lie
might he had a hard lot to encounter—(laughter). These
were briefly the grounds upon which he (Mr. C.) would re-
sist the present motion. There had been no instance in
which Parliament had. interrupted the course of any action
in any court of justice, if lie excepted perhaps only one
which had occurred in the other lainsev-- This had been a
case where an offieer, belonging to the hoiise had been en-
trusted with an umbrella to take care of, and it had been
mislaid. Now this- had been a case which had occurred
within the precincts of the house itself. An action had been
taken against the officer in the Court of Requests, and the
house had sent for the judge and the party concerned. The
latter had finally agreed to forego his action and judgment
upon payment of the sum of 7s. 6d., and if that important—
(laughter);--case was relied upon in the present instance, he
.would .put it as a set off against the £lOO, which had been paid
by them to Stockdale. After having submitted to the juris-
diction of the court in two cases arising out of this transac-
tion, he contended for it that it was then too late for them to
call upon any of the parties to that action. If they called
upon any one, he conceived the more manly and straightfor-
ward course for them to pursue would be to call upon the
judges, and not upon the officer, who was sworn to do the
duty he undertook. •
• Sir ROBERT PEEL took a short retrospect of the facts, and
then enlarged upon the unreasonableness of leaving the officer
of the house exposed to actions for obeying its orders. He
thought the privilege an essential one, of publishing not only
for the use of the members, but for the use of their constitu-
ents. There might be occasion, for instance, to address the,
'crown for the removal of a judge on the ground of miscon-
duct.- Surely the people ought -to be made. acquainted with
that ground. It was true that the jurisdiction of the house
-was inieifect—that it ceased with the session. Was not its
cessation:with the.session a tolerably strong proof that it
was intended only to obviate obstructions ? But, as at pre-
sent advised, he was ready to take the course-'proposed by
Lurd-John Russell.
Mr. KELLY opposed the assertion of privilege, but wished
to secure indemnity to the printer. If the law.cfficers were
sincere in alleging that the Queen'i Bench ha.d.decided error
neously, they might try the question, by a Ayrit, of _error.
Lord J. RUSSELL cited from Lord Dent,--an's jhdginent
in "Stockdale Haniarcr. seine comments oriforiner da
.c.itsifins, which tended t.? show that the opinions even of the)
jittlgeA have not always' been uniform, and 'sometimes
.hrivirbeen' give under the excitement of the time: r If this
action were tolerated, questions might lie raised on the ad-
mission of strangers during any discussions Which invehted
.iiighitations on individuals, as in the Duke of York's caie.
The:House of Lords had asserted theprivilege, and so should
the nouse of Coinmons.
After extended diseussion;•the house divided oh the motion
of ordering the parties to the bar. The members were—for
the motion, 286, against, it 167—majority in favour of the
motion'll9.
• • The house then proceeded. at nearly ten o'clock, to con-
sider the address on her 'Majesty's; speech :—Mri CavENnisx
moving, and Sir W. Somerville -seconding the address.
Sir R. INGLis, complained of the omission of the assurance
that Prince Albert was a `` Protestant," and thought that
the word ought to be introduced.
There was not, however, , any opposition to the address ;•
on the contrary, after some Observations from Sir R. PEEL,
and explanations from Lords PA LMERSTON and J. RUSSELL,
the nietien was carried, and the ,house adjourned at half-past
eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS—FRIDAY.
The House of Lords met at one o'clock, and having been
informed that her'Majesty would receive the address on the
royal speech at two o'clock, their lordships adjourned the
house until Monday, and •the peers in attendance proceeded
in procession to preSent it.