that house for not being actuated by any impure or improper motives; and the judges also ought to have given them credit for this -that when there was a publication by their order, they had no other object in view than the public good. With regard to the order made by the house for the sale of its publications, although in a legal point of view it made no difference, yet it was a circumstance which led to very great misapprehensions; and, as he thought the powers and privileges of the house should be supported as much as possible by public opinion, he must say he should be glad were the resolution abandoned, and the order for sale rescinded. As to the resolution come to by the house in the case of Polack, he must say for himself that he was no party to that resolution; he was not able to attend at that time to his duty in parliament, and he could not bring himself to approve or confirm it, nor sanction any proceeding that was a necessary consequence of it. Nor was he able to vote for any of the committals which had taken place, for he thought that they were at tempting to enforce the privileges of the house in a manner that could not be maintained, and to assume powers which the constitution did not give them, and which he thought would be ineffectual.

No doubt it was true that this house was the exclusive judge of its own privileges. He did not deny it. No doubt the house was the exclusive judge of a breach of its own privileges, and had the power of committal; but then he did not think that if a servant of the house should be questioned for any act done under their orders, that they had a right to deprive

the courts of law of their jurisdiction over that servant. Occasions might occur in which questions could arise concerning their privileges, and which might become subject to the decisions of courts of justice. If they were, how were they to be decided? Like every other matter of law, the judges were to decide on them. If honestly and conscientiously their judgment was given against the privileges of the house, then they were not to set it aside by summary interference on their part, but they were to bring a writ of error. He asked his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, how could this case terminate, and to what end was it that he looked. Let them trace the matter further; civil actions were now pending; but why might there not be a criminal proceeding in consequence of all they were doing? Supposing a life to be lost in the execution of their orders, that their officer was killed, or that the officer killed another, what tribunal then would investigate that transaction? The house of commons, in such a case, would neither have the power to investigate nor punish. The case then must be tried before the ordinary tribunals. Could it then be said, after that, that the courts of law should have no jurisdiction over matters affecting the privileges of the house of commons. They were endeavouring to do that which was impracticable, and they were attempting to apply their powers to purposes for which they were not given nor intended, and for which they could not be effective. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded a most able and argumentative speech, by saying, that if this matter should be

pressed to a division, he should feel it his duty to vote for the immediate discharge of the sheriffs.

The solicitor-general followed and made a most vigorous speech against the motion for the release of the sheriffs. He said, that at the time when in the first instance he had sketched the draft of a report (in 1837) he sent it to his hon. and learned friend (sir W. Follett); he sent a copy also to the attorney-general, and a third copy to sir F. Pollock. Suggestions were made by each of his hon. and learned friends, and he had adopted them all. He could not but express his regret with respect to the course adopted by the house, that it had not now the sanction of his hon. and learned friend (sir W. Follett). He said, that the judgment of the court of Queen'sbench had been given in opposition to the whole stream of authority during a long course of time. Authorities were mis-stated, (no doubt, unintentionally), important points were passed over, and he would venture to say, that altogether it was as little warranted in its conclusion as any judgment that ever was pronounced.

The court of Queen's-bench said, that the privileges of the house extended to all that was essential to the due discharge of their functions; but who was to decide what was essential to that purpose? Which was the fittest tribunal to decide that question, the court of Queen's-bench or the house of commons? The house of commons existed because it had the power to defend itself from assault. The inability to attack it took away the desire to do so. To surrender that power would be to forfeit the means of doing its duty to the public. That power was

its privilege. Among the judges who held that the courts of law had no jurisdiction to judge of privilege were first, the twelve judges in Thorpe's case. It was laid down also by Coke, by Pemberton, by Jones, by Wright, by Foster, by De Grey, by Tenterden, by Mansfield, by Fortescue, by Erskine, by Kenyon, by Powell, by Gould. From each of these judges he could produce the distinct statement, that the house was the judge of its own privileges, and that the courts of law had no jurisdiction. His (the solicitor-general's) humble advice to the house would be this. Manifest to those who now treat you with contempt, what is the extent of your power till your privileges are vindicated. Do not discharge the sheriffs till they restore the money. He could propose no other limit to their imprisonment than that. "This," said the hon. and learned member in conclusion, "I am sure of, that you are now in the direct wellfounded course of precedent and parliamentary law. You may go out of it if you please. Your ancestors found it effectual: if it fail with you, it can only be because you will not follow their manly example."

The debate was afterwards adjourned.

On the next day, February 4, the deputy sergeant-at-arms stated, that Mr. Burton Howard could not be found.

Upon which lord John Russell said, that as there was sufficient in this case to show that Mr. Howard wished to evade the order of the house, he should move that Thomas Burton Howard be taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms and brought to the bar of the honse, and that Mr. Speaker

ingly.

This motion was carried. On the 6th of February the sergeant-at-arms announced that Thomas Burton Howard was in custody. He was accordingly ordered to be brought to the bar, and having been examined, and having admitted that he acted as attorney for Stockdale, lord John Russell moved, that he (Burton) had been guilty of a high contempt of the privileges of that house. This motion was carried by a majority of 102.

And lord J. Russell then moved, that Mr. T. B. Howard should be committed to her majesty's gaol of Newgate. And that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.

Upon this the house again divided, and the motion was carried by a majority of 103.

The debate respecting printed papers was afterwards resumed on the 7th of February, when the same topics were again handled, and the same line of argument taken by the opposite parties respectively,

In the course of the discussion, sir F. Pollock said, that he had no hesitation in avowing at once, that in his judgment the house did possess perfectly the entire privilege on this question which it claimed. He thought they possessed it on the ground that it was essential to the due discharge of their duties. He admitted that the judgment of the court was not according to law; that was his opinion; but he did not think the committal of the officers the proper mode of correcting the error; it was a practice which not being addressed to the intellect and the understanding, belonged rather to a barbarous age than the present

the court of Queen's-bench, let them conduct it manfully, go direct to their object, or rather avail themselves at once of their acknowledged constitutional powercall for a conference with the other branch of the legislature; and finding that committals must fail, see what could be done to remedy the evil by act of parliament. They were now opposed in this collision by three-fourths if not nine tenths of the bar; they were opposed, he believed, very much throughout the country; but if they passed an act of parliament, declaring the law, every one of those parties would willingly obey it.

Lord John Russell, after expressing his determination to oppose the motion for setting the sheriffs at liberty, said, that amongst the various courses which had been suggested on this matter, was that of calling in the aid of legislation, to declare and establish the privilege of the house. His opinion was, that if such a declaratory law were to be obtained, it would be perfectly consistent with what had been done in former times; and if carefully framed, it might secure the necessary power of the house without injury to their privileges. A communication had been made to him by the lord chancellor, who, after looking calmly and dispassionately into the matter, expressed his opinion that the privileges of the house ought to be maintained; but that he did not think that it could be done in the present instance without a legislative measure. Upon the whole, he (lord John Russell) thought that the house should not go on with these commitments without first endeavouring to ap

ply a remedy to the existing difficulty.

Sir Robert Peel, in the course of his speech, said, that he believed they were now arrived at that point when her majesty's ministers must as an united government submit to the house some comprehensive course for extricating them from the difficulty. He would not object to a declaratory act which, if passed immediately would have the effect of stopping the action that had just been commenced; an enabling bill would admit that they had not the inherent power. The noble lord (lord J. Russell) was responsible for the peace of the country, and if the noble lord told them he hoped to pass a bill which should make their powers more complete, that course should meet with his (sir R. Peel's)

concurrence.

The house then divided, on the question that the sheriffs be discharged; which was negatived by a majority of 71; the ayes being 94, noes 165.

On the 12th of February, sir E. Knatchbull stated to the house, that the medical gentleman who attended on Mr. Sheriff Wheelton assured him (sir E. Knatchbull) that if Mr. Wheelton were kept longer in custody it would endanger his life. The medical attendant (Mr. Brookes) was then called in, and said, that it was his decided opinion, that Mr. Wheelton's life would be endangered if he continued longer in confinement. Accordingly, Mr. Sheriff Wheelton was ordered to be discharged without paying his fees.

On the 14th of February, Mr. Alderman Thompson moved, that Mr. Sheriff Evans be discharged from the custody of the sergeantat-arms, on the ground that his

health had materially suffered from the close confinement in which he was placed. This motion, however, was lost, by a majority of 73.

Subsequently on the 17th of February, lord John Russell informed the house that he had another petition to present from Messrs. Hansard, to the effect that a fifth action had been commenced against them by Stockdale for the same cause as before, and praying to be directed as to the course they should pursue. The noble lord then moved to the effect that Stockdale, by commencing this fresh action, had been guilty of a contempt of the house and of a breach of its privileges, and that the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and others who should aid in the prosecution of the said action would be guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a violation of its privileges, and would subject themselves to the severe censure and displeasure of the house.

The motion was carried by a majority of 71.

Afterwards Mr. James Hansard was called to the bar, and interrogated as to the fifth action which had been commenced against him. In answer to a question from Mr. Law, he said that he had some copies of the publication containing the alleged libel, but that it was considered out of print, as they had none but the reserved copies, it being the custom when the number of copies in hand was reduced to fifty, to stop the sale, and reserve those to be issued only on special orders.

During the discussion which ensued, colonel Sibthorp said that he had lately been down in the country, and at a public dinner at which he had been present, he