licitors, and they did, what he confessed it appeared to him, the house was on the same principle called upon to do-they committed the counsel also. Now what was the result of that proceeding? The house of lords committed in their turn the officers of the house of commons. This proceeding was followed by a prorogation of parliament, and what was the result of that prorogation? Every one of those individuals who had been committed by the house of commons was that very moment discharged, and the consequence was, that every one of the plaintiffs recovered the damages which he had obtained in the action at law. The hon. and learned member then proceeded to contend, that it was essential that the debates which took place within the walls of the house should be published, as that the reports of the committees should be-and yet it was admitted, that the former would be a breach of privilege. Privileges were intended to be means of defence, and not instruments of tyranny. He earnestly implored them not to enter now into a conflict in the assertion of a privilege which had not been asserted for 130 years. He urged upon the house the necessity of settling the question, and establishing the law by the concurrent determination of parliament, they would then have satisfaction among the people on this subject-and no difficulty or opposition on the part of the courts of law. That course they would be obliged to take at last, and he therefore put it to them whether it would not be more manly to do so at once, than to go on in the present unworthy conflict, in which, whether they were worsted or vic

torious, they could gain nothing but discredit.

After the discussion had been carried on by Sir C. Grey, Sir E. B. Sugden, and Mr. Wakley.

Lord John Russell proposed to withdraw the resolution he had moved, and now move one to the effect, "That Stockdale had brought an action against Messrs. Hansard for publishing by the direction of the house, evidence that was taken before a committee of the house " This, however, was opposed by Mr. Law, on the ground that there was an amendment to the original motion. In the course of the debate which ensued, Sir R. Inglis, who followed Mr. O'Connell, made use of the following words, "But was it for the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), who had so traduced the women of England"

Mr. O'Connell: That is lse. Sir R. Inglis appealed to the speaker.

After having been called upon by the speaker,

Mr. O'Connell said, he would at once withdraw the expression he had used, and he called upon the hon. baronet opposite to do the same.

Sir R. Inglis begged to ask whether the hon. and learned gentleman denied that he had even in his place in parliament traduced the women of England.

Mr. O'Connell said, he could not hesitate one moment in assuring the hon. baronet, and the house; that such a charge was totally false.

The house afterwards divided on the original question, which was carried by a majority of 149: the numbers being, Ayes 249; Noes 100.

Lord John Russell then moved, that John Joseph Stockdale, for the said breach of privilege, be committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms; and that the speaker do issue his warrant for the committal.

This gave rise to a short discussion, but the motion was carried by a majority of 104.

On the next day, January the 18th, the order of he day being read for the further consideration of the petition of Messrs. Hansard,

William Hemp, the bailiff to the sheriffs, was called in and shortly examined, when

Lord John Russell moved, that William Evans and John Wheelton, esqs., the sheriff of the county of Middlesex be called in.

The sheriffs were accordingly called to the bar of the house, and interrogated by the attorney-general. In the course of the examination they admitted that the money awarded for damages and costs, had been levied, and was then in their possession and control, being in the hands of the under sheriffs, Messrs. Burchell and France.

Sir Robert Inglis afterwards moved, that the sheriffs, under sheriff, and bailiff, be discharged from further attendance on the house.

Lord John Russell moved, as an amendment, that they be ordered to attend on Monday next, which was carried by a majority of 102.

Accordingly, on Monday, January the 20th, Lord John Russell said, that it now became his duty to state the precise course, which he considered should be taken in the present stage of these proceedings. He then at considerable length went into the whole ques. VOL. LXXXII.

tion, vindicating the claim of the house of commons to the privilege, which was the subject of dispute, and said that it appeared to him, that in considering this case, they must throw out of view altogether the peculiar degree and amount of blame or moral culpability with regard to the sheriffs. He did not mean to impute moral blame to them in having acted contrary to their duty. But what they (the house of commons) had to consider was, in what manner their privileges were to be maintained. The noble Lord dwelt on the importance of the privilege in question, and the necessity of letting the public know on what the proceedings of the house were founded, and quoted the opinion of lord Kenyon, where an application had been made for leave to file a criminal information against a printer for voluntarily publishing the proceedings of a secret committee of the house, on the ground that it was libellous. Lord Kenyon said, "It is impossible for us to admit, that the proceedings of either house of parliament are a libel;" and afterwards, “ This is a proceeding by one branch of the legislature, and therefore we cannot inquire into it." He (Lord John Russell) contended, that there had been up to the recent decision no reason to doubt that such was the declared law, as law it had been adhered to, and it had not been contradicted up to the late proceeding by any other decision. The noble lord concluded by moving, that it appeared to the house that an execution in the cause of Stockdale v. Hansard had been levied to the amount of 6401., by the sale of the property of Messrs. Hansard, in contempt of the privileges of that house; and that

[D]

such money then remained in the hands of the sheriff of Middlesex; and if that resolution should be carried, he should move further, "that the said sheriff be ordered to refund the said amount forthwith to Messrs. Hansard."

Mr. F. Kelly rose for the purpose of proposing certain resolutions by way of amendment to the motion of the noble lord, and after opposing at considerable length the view taken by lord John Russell, and insisting that the judges of the court of Queen's Bench were compelled to entertain the question, whether the house was entitled to this privilege or not; and pointing out the evil results which would follow if it persisted in its resolutions, the hon. and learned member concluded by moving, by way of amendment, the following resolution:

"That it appearing to this house, that an action has been brought against James Hansard and others, for the publication by them under an order of this house, of certain papers containing libellous matter upon John Joseph Stockdale, and that judgment has been obtained and execution issued by due course of law against the said James Hansard and others, in such action, it is expedient that the said James Hansard and others, be indemnified against all costs and damages by them sustained in respect of such action."

The attorney-general said, that there was now no room for delay or postponement, because he knew that a motion would be made at the sitting of the court of Queen's Bench the next day, to make the rule absolute to compel the sheriff of Middlesex to pay the money to Mr. Stockdale. With regard to the privilege claimed, he said that

that privilege rested on the foundation of necessity, of exercise, of acquiescence, and of authority. Since the year 1641, there had been a uniform acquiescence in this privilege. As to the question of that house being the judges of their own privileges, he would not occupy their time further than to state, that the judges from the earliest times down to lord Tenterden, had held, that the houses of parliament were the judges of their own privileges. Among the great names by whom this doctrine had been laid down, were lord Coke, Mr. Justice Blackstone, chief Justice De Grey, Mr. Justice Powys, Mr. Justice Powell, lord Camden, and lord chief baron Comyn. The hon. and learned member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden), on a former evening, had cited a number of cases, in which the judges had asserted their right to inquire into the privileges of parliament. If the hon. and learned member would examine those authorities, he would find that they referred to one of two alternatives, either where a question of privilege arose incidentally, and where the judges of course must decide upon it, just as they would decide upon the law of France or Scotland, or Holland; or to cases (which could not decently be put), where a house of parliament clearly travelling beyond its jurisdiction, should make an order so monstrous, illegal and preposterous that no attention ought to be paid to it. In all times to come, they would have no means of vindicating their privileges if they allowed them to be violated in the present instance. He rejoiced that they were not engaged in the struggle for any individual privileges of the members; but

they were engaged in a struggle for the public. In truth the action was directed against their proceedings; it was an unlawful proceeding from the first; it was void, unconstitutional, and contrary to law; and they were actually conforming to and vindicating the law when they interfered to prevent the verdict being carried into effect. This was an action and proceeding which should never have been commenced, and therefore the sheriff would only do right to obey the order of the house. If the sheriff received a writ to seize the goods of any one, he was bound to obey it; but he might subsequently receive an order from the lord chancellor, the vice-chancellor, or the Court of Exchequer, directing him not to do so. If he obeyed the latter, was he to be considered guilty of perjury? Certainly not; because he obeyed the law which superseded the former writ. Was it, he would ask, to be suffered, that the court of Queen's Bench should make an order to the sheriff to pay the money over, or in case of a refusal issue an attachment? He entirely concurred in the eulogium passed upon the sheriff's by the right hon. baronet, the member for Tamworth; and he thought, that as individuals, they had acted fairly and honestly, and were most anxious for the discharge of their duty. He did not complain of the conduct, they had hitherto pursued; but if they refused to obey the order of the house, and insisted on pursuing the contrary course, and paying the money to Mr. Stockdale, he should not hesitate as to the line to be taken; and although it would be with great pain and reluctance, still he felt that there would be no other

course open to them than to proceed against them. The hon. and learned gentleman then cited a number of authorities to show that the practice of the house of lords, as well as that of the house of commons, justified the course which the house was now called upon to adopt. In conclusion, he called upon the house to do its duty. The house might be in some difficulty; but he believed, that the boldest course on this occasion would prove the safest. It was only from timidity and vacillation, that any real danger would result. Let the house be firm; let it be consistent; let it act with vigour at the same time that it acted with moderation; and he had no doubt that the issue would be successful, and that their privileges would be preserved, and be handed down to the latest posterity.

Sir Edward Sugden followed, and in the course of his speech said, that he must express his astonishment at the proposition, that whatever the house of commons chose to assert was to be taken as the law of the country. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that the resolutions of the house were supported by necessity, acquiescence, and authority. The necessity he took for granted, and the acquiescence he proved by stating, that no attempt had ever been made to impugn the jurisdiction now claimed since the time of Mr. Speaker Williams. But how did this statement accord with the facts of "Burdett v. Abbott?" He understood the hon. and learned attorney-general to lay it down, that what was done by either house of parliament could give no right of action; that was simply claiming on behalf of the houses of

parliament a despotic power. Sir E. Sugden then commented upon the cases cited by the attorney-general, in order to show that they did not warrant the conclusions attempted to be drawn from them. He said, that he should vote against the resolutions with the most perfect confidence. If, as he understood, his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, meant to tell them that the house ordering the sheriff to pay this money to Messrs. Hansard would be a good defence in the court of Queen's Bench, he must say he should be more surprised at this announce ment, than at any thing else in the course of his speech. The position of his hon. and learned friend was absurd; it was not law. He hoped means would be taken to stop the further sale of this work. If not, they might depend upon it there would be more actions. It was not yet too late; he again implored them to pause before they took another step in this

inatter.

Sir Robert Peel said, that he would in the plainest and simplest manner, in the plainest and simplest terms, for the sake of giving them every advantage and defence against sophistry, state the grounds of the opinion he had come to. Sir (continued the right hon. baronet), I maintain in the first instance this position, that whatever privilege is necessary for the proper and effectual discharge of the functions of the house of commons, that privilege the house of commons possesses. My second position, Sir, is this, and it is in strict logical sequence, that this particular privilege of free publication not liable to be questioned in any court of law, is absolutely necessary. That is my second

position. My third position is this. We have no security for the proper and effectual discharge of that special privilege, unless we are enabled by our own declared power to vindicate it. The right hon. baronet then proceeded to show that their privilege of free debate had been questioned in former times, not only by the crown, but also by the court of Queen's Bench. Charles the 1st expressly denied the privilege to exist. Then was the privilege of free publication necessary? Was it necessary for what lord Denman called the "energetic" discharge of their duties? Could they hope, that in these times the mere unexplained notes which they gave would meet with unquestioned acquiescence. What great legislative act that had been passed by parliament for the last fifty years had not been passed mainly from the influence of public opinion bearing upon the house of commons? Take the abolition of the slavery. Did they believe, that slavery ever would have been abolished, unless they had published to the world the evidence of the abuses and horrors of slavery? Would they have succeeded in persuading the people of England to pay twenty millions of money for the abolition of slavery, unless they had imbued the public mind with the deep and perfect conviction that a moral stigma and degradation would attach to the nation, unless it were put an end to. After instancing other cases where he contended the publication of evidence was indispensable, the right hon. baronet. said, that he came to the conclusion, that the privilege of free publication was necessary for "the energetic discharge of their duties." He now came to the third point,