Debates anti igtrofeebinns in Varliament.

• PRIVILEGE.

The Honse of Commons met at twelve o'clock on Saturday ; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL having moved the order of the day for the further consideration of Messrs. Hansards' petition, William Hemp, Bailiff to the Sheriffs of Middlesex, was called to the bar and examined. His statement disclosed no new fact of any importance. Mr. France, one of the Under-Sheriffs, was next brought before the House. He ex- plained the process under which the levy upon Messrs. Hansards' pro- perty was made, and said that he considered himself bound at all hazard 4‘ duly to return and truly serve " the Queen's writs—serve meaning to execute. Sometimes an injunction from the Court of Chancery pre- rented him from executing a writ : he considered the Court of Chan- cery superior to the Common Law Courts.

The Sheriffs were called in and asked whether they had any thing further to state to the House ; when Mr. Sheriff Evans said that his col- league and himself deeply deplored having incurred the displeasure of the House in the execution of their duty.

Sir ROBERT Iscirs moved that the Sheriffs, Under-Sheriffs, and Bailiff, be discharged from further attendance.

Lord Joris; Russsmo moved an amendment, that they be required to attend the House on Monday.

FM' Sir Robert Inglis's motion • 64

Against it 168 Majority 102 The amendment was then put as a substantive motion, and carried.

On Monday, Lord JOHN RussF.r.t, on moving the order of the day for the further consideration of Hansards' petition, said that, considering the very difficult situation in which the Sheriffs were placed, he should have some hesitAion in proposing at once to punish them, but none at all in ordering them to refund the money taken from Messrs. Hansards. Lord John dwelt on the necessity of making a stand for the privileges of the House ; and quoted a legal precedent to show that the Courts of Law had no right to interfere in a question of Parliamentary privilege—

A question had been raised, not with the printer of that Ilouse, but with a printer who had published, not as it was alleged unfairly, but voluntarily, the

Mouseof a Secret Committee of the House ; and he would read to the 'louse what upon that occasion Lord Kenyon stated to be his opinion of the proceedings, mid which could not be considered as a libel. One of the parties, who found that an imputation was cast upon his conduct as a loyal subject, applied for a criminal information against the publisher. Upon that occasion Lord Kenyon said, " This is an application for leave to tile a criminal informa- tion against the defendant for publishing a libel; so that the application sup- poses that this publication is at libel. This report was first made by a Com- mittee of the House of Commons, then approved by the House at large, and then communicated to the other House, and is now sub judice; and yet it is said that this is a libel on the prosecutor. It is impossible for us to admit that the proceedings of either House of Parliament is a libel." He said afterwards, " This is a proceeding by one branch of' the Legislature, and therefore we can- not inquire into it." Mr. Justice Grose and Mr. Justice Lawrence concurred in that opinion, for other reasons, with which he need not trouble the House. Thus the publication of their proceedings by another printer, and not by the printer of the House, was justified; and up to the late proceeding in the Court of Queen's Bench, this was the law of this country. There had been no reason to doubt that such was the declared law ; as law it had been adhered to ; and it bad not been contradicted up to the late proceeding by any other decision.

He felt that the House was in a difficult position, but was convinced that the safest course was to proceed resolutely in the defence of their privileges. If the House gave way here, they must be prepared to sur- render all their privileges to the discretion of the Courts of Law. He therefore moved, "That it appears to this House, that execution in the case of Stockdale versus Hansard has been levied to the amount of 6401., by the sale ofthe pro- perty of Messrs. Hansard, in contempt of the privileges of this House ; and that such money now remains in the hands of the Sheriff of Middlesex."

Mr. Furzuoy KELLY rose to move resolutions as an amendment on Lord John Russell's motion- " 1. That it appearing to this House that an action has been brought against James Hausard and others, for the publication by them, under an order of this House, of certain papers containing libelous 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. "2. That in case of any action or actions being hereafter brought for the publication of any papers under the order of this House, the Attorney-General be instructed to defend such action, and to report thereupon to the House." Mr. Kelly supported his motion in a long and learned speech. He discussed the claim of privilege ; maintaining, that although Parliament possessed, among other privileges, the right to publish any part or the whole of its proceedings, such right must be exercised within the limits of the common law. He contended for the right of the Judge to decide upon the law of Parliament, which was only part of the general law of the land. There was not the least danger of the Judges refusing to protect Members of Parliament in the exercise of their lawful privileges; but if the right of determining what was lawful or not were taken from the Judges, then, as Lord Denman had remarked, in order to possess any privilege the House had only to say that they possessed it. The lawful privileges of Parliament were safe in the hands of the Judges ; and Mr. Kelly recommended an appeal to the highest judicial tribunal in the country, the House of Lords—

Had the Courts of Law heretofore been slow to acknowledge the privileges of

the House of Commons? In every ease except that of Ashby versus White, from the earliest case after that down to the case of Burdett versus Abbott, the Cotirtg of Law had always upheld their privileges. That in one single case in the course'afostary the Courts of Law had decided contrary to what the Bowe of Commhsibelieved to be their privileges, was sus evidence of a syste- matic opposition ttistheir privileges. It was urged that the House of Commons aught not to procc4hy writ of error in a case affecting their privileges—that they ought not to submit their privileges to be decided upon by the House of Lords. This was equivalent to saying that the question should never be de. tided at ; for a declaratory act of Parliament was the alternative recom- mended. Such an act, however, must have the assent of the other House of Parliament. The House of Lords must declare it to be the law that the House of Commons possess the privileges which they now claim. What would this be but a submission to the House of Lords of the question, whether or no such privilege existed ? if there were a writ of error, the House of' Lords must de- clare the same thing, upon inquiry into this unfortunate judgment, of which the House of Commons seemed to think so much. Why should there he go great a fear of submitting this question to the House of Lords ? That was the highest tribunal of appeal in the country; and if they were content to tout matters relating to character, to property, to their liberties, and even to their lives, to the judgment of the House of Lords, why not trust them to decide upon their privileges ? If there was one question more than another on which an unfavourable judgment by the Lords was not to be dreaded, it was precisely this question of privilege ; because the House of Lords could not deny the pas vileges of the House of Commons without at the same time denying their own.

In Sir Francis Burdett's case, the Commons had succeeded in main. taining their privileges by taking the right course of ordering the At- torney-General to appear and plead before the House of Lords.

Lord ELIOT seconded Mr. Kelly's resolutions.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL followed in reply to Mr. Kelly. Ile urged the necessity of adopting Lord John Russell's motion, because the Court would probably next morning snake the rule absolute for compelling the Sheriffs to pay over the amount of the levy to Stockdale. If the House ordered the Sheriffs to refund to Hansards, they would furnish those functionaries with cause against the rule, and why it should he discharged. Sir John Campbell proceeded to argue. that the Bill of Rights secured to the House the privilege now denied to them. It de- clares that " nothing shall be questioned which is clone in Parliament,"— which means, said the Attorney-General, " by the authority of Parlia- ment." The Sheriffs were as much bound to obey an order of the High Court of Parliament as of the Court of Chancery ; and staying the exe- cution of a writ by order of Parliament would be no violation of their oaths. He cited a series of precedents to convince the House that actions had been stayed by order of Parliament in former times ; and while he admitted that the house might be in some difficulty, main- tained that the boldest course was the safest.

Sir Eowssin SUCHEN expressed his •astonishment that any lawyer should maintain the doctrine that whatever the House of Commons chose to assert should be the law of the country. He had no doubt that the Attorney-General's argument in court on the question of privilege, would go down to posterity as a monument of great legal industry and acquirement, but that learned person had failed to exhibit to the House the fruits of the like careful investigation. Indeed, his whole state- ment was full of hurry, confusion, and inaccuracy. Sir Edward Sugden entered into a very minute examination of the Attorney-General's precedents, with a view to show that they were either inapplicable, in- accurately quoted, or virtually set aside by subsequent decisions. As to the doctrine that the Bill of Rights secured every thing done by authority of Parliament front question, it was one which Sir John Campbell would never venture to broach in a court of law. The no- tion that the order of the House to the Sheriffs to refund the money to Hansard would be a sufficient cause against the rule in the Court of Queen's Bench, was absurd : the thing could not be done. ' Next day's proceedings would show that ; and the House would see what a broken reed it relied upon.

Lord Holum maintained, that without the power of publishing in- formation, it was impossible that the representative machine could be worked with advantage, and that if the House submitted to the Court in the present instance, " there was an end to every one of the privi- leges it possessed."

Sir Romer Noon reminded the House of the extremities to -which this quarrel might be carried—

He apprehended it to be possible that the Sheriffs might refuse obedience to the judgment of the House, and that they might be supported by the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the head of the criminal law of the country, and the conservator of the peace, had a right, he believed, to call upon all the Sheriffs throughout England to support him in the exercise of his office. If lie were wrong in. supposing that the power of the Chief Justice was coextensive with the kint.Tdom, it was coextensive with the county ; and he could call upon the Sheriff and his officers to protect the Court. Would the House send the Sergeant-at-Arms to seize the Chief Justice on the bench ? He observed the noble lord assented to this.

Lord J. RUSSELL—" I neither assent nor dissent."

Sir R. Isoms—That must take place if the House followed up its reso- lution. He took it for granted that the noble lord and honourable gentle- men opposite would not follow the Sergeant-at-Arms. But would the Judges be indifferent meanwhile? Might they not call upon the Sheriff to call out the pmse comitatus? He asked the noble lord whether he was pre- pared for a contest in the streets of London between the military authorities, which a colleague of the noble lord's might perhaps place at his disposal in aid of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the civil lower? He warned the noble lord of the necessity of pausing in his career. To advance further would be danger- ous to the authority and influence of the House of Commons, and destructive to the constitution of the empire.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it must be allowed, that if he adhered to his already-expressed opinion on the question before the House, his motive must be a conscientious one— There was no particular claim upon him, on the part of the present House of Commons, if lie looked to the mere merits of the existing institution, that should induce him to come forward in its defence. That House had reposed no confidence in him, and it therefore bad no claim upon him except that which was imposed by a conscientious sense of duty. It mere party considerations could influence him, he would have ranged himself with those with whom he had uniformly acted, rather than with a party with whom he had a temporary but very short agreement, and whom he should, with perfect cordiality, in the very next week prove to be utterly unworthy of his and the public confidence. (Opposition cheers.) He said, therefore, that if he did deviate from the course which the majority of his honourable friends were inclined to take, it could be from nothing but a sense of that duty which he owed to his country.

Sir Robert said the House should hear no legal technicalities from him ; nothing but what was expressed in the clearest, plainest terms, and without any thing of sophistry. If by practical arguments his doubts could be removed, his learned friends should have his vote.

" I maintain, in the first place, this position—that whatever privilege is

necessary for the proper and effectual discharge of the functions of the House of Commons, that privilege the Howse of Commons possesses. That is my hypothesis—that is my hypothetical position—that if a privilege be absolutely necessary for the proper performance of the duties of the House of Commons, of that privilege they are possessed. My second position, Sir, is this—and it IS in strict logical sequence—that this particular privilege of free publication,

i 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 exercise of that special privilege, unless we are enabled by our own declared power to vindicate it. Sir, I rejoice that an opportunity has been afforded for most maturely considering this question : I rejoice for the sake of proving that we are not influenced by factious motives—that

are sincerely desirous of opportunity for mature reflection, that this interval has been suffered to elapse. Sir, I have spent that interval, not in endeavour- ing to fortify and confirm my previous opinion by reading over the authorities of those who have struggled on behalf of the privileges of the House of Com- mons, but I have passed it in reading over those eminent judicial authorities which are in favour of the opposite position—I mean the judgments of those learned persona who decided the case in the Court of Queen's Bench ; and, Sir, I must say that I have retired from the careful perusal of those important documents with the full and perfect conviction that the powers and authorities claimed by the Judges, are inconsistent with the privileges of this House, and that the judgment ought not to have followed from their own position. I refer you to my Lord Denman's judgment itself for proof of that assertion ; for lie admits most clearly and distinctly the position for which I contend—that, it' this privilege be necessary for the proper performance of our functions, then we possess it. Lord Denman says, "nut Parliament enjoys privileges of the most important character, no person capable of the least reflection can doubt for a moment. Some are common to both Houses, some peculiar to each ; all are essential to the discharge of their functions. If they were not the fruit of deliberation in Aula Rep:, they rest on the stronger ground of a necessity, which became apparent at least as soon as the two Houses took their present position in the State.' He says further, "Phe Commons of England arc not invested with more of pourer and dignity by their legislative character, than by that which they bear as the grand inquest of the nation. All the privileges that can be required for the energetic discharge of the ditties inherent in that high trust, are conceded without a murmur or a doubt. We freely admit them in all their extent and variety.' lie likewise says, 'The poor of this privilege was grounded im three principles—necessity, prac- tice, universal acquiescence. If the necessity can he made out, no more need be said ; it is the llama: dim of every privi,sge of Parliament, and justifies all that it requires.'" Now, therefore, Sir li-obat anticipated no answer to his first position, because he hail the distinct adoth-sion of that which he must consider as a hostile and disinterested authority, that if the privilege he neces- sary, that House possessed it. Ile agreed with Lord Denman, that they could prove no prescription. But Lord Denman Imilm.elf had admitted, that on the very same ground on which they (+timed this privilege of free publication, rested also the privilege even of freedom of debate. Ile therefore said, that free discussion within those walls rested upon the acknowledged necessity of such a privilege, and upon nothing., else. He was not certain that if th,y were

compelled to abandon the privilege of free publication, they lout any security for the continuance of the privilege of free debate. Lord Denman also had said that the privilege of free debate had been denied wee Members began to speak their minds. Lord Denman says, "rhug the privilege of having their

debates unquestioned, though denied when the Members began to speak their minds in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and punished. in its exercise both by

that Princess and her two successors, was soon clearly perceived to be indis- pensable, and universally acknowledged.' Then he had no prescription to plead in favour of free debate : Queen Elizabeth had denied it, .iames had denied it, Charles had denied it ; but the privilege rested upon time saint indis- putable ground of necessity, acknowledged by the Judges to prove the existence of privilege. Now, there was no pourer possessed by the Court of Queen's

Bench in thisrespect that was not also possessed by every Manor Court, and

Borough Court, and Hundred Court : therefore it thilowed, that that privilege of free publication, if they were not able to maintain it themselves, was liable to be questioned not only by those high and eminent legal authorities, fur whom

lie had unfeignedly the highest respect, and concerning whom not one expres- sion of his should-be inconsistent with the most perfect reverence. His object

was to show that the privilege of free discussion rested upon the same founda- tion as that of free publication—namely, acknowledged necessity. He wished to show also that that privilege of free debate had been questioned not only by Sovereigns in the exercise of arbitrary and despotic powers, but also that the Court of King's Bench itself had in other times denied, not only the right of free publication, but also the right of free debate. They had no pre-

scription to rely upon for their privilege of free debate. He conld prove that was a period when the Judges had denied that the House of Commons bad the power of freedom of speech. The necessity of free publication to the full discharge of their Par- liamentary ditties, Sir Robert Peel thought could be demonstrated without difficulty— What was the nature and character of their ditties? what were the uni- versal doctrines held with respect to them ?—Not that they were bound impli- citly to obey the commands of their constituents ; but what constitutional writer had ever doubted that there ought to be a general sympathy between the constituent body and the representative? Could they hope that in these times the mere unexplained votes which they gave would meet with un- questioned acquiescence? was it not important that the public mind should be enlightened by their nets? What was the meaning of the right of peti- tioning? Was it meant that they who should have that right should be utterly ignorant of what they petitioned about was it right that they should have imposed on them the obligation of petitions coming from vast bodies of men in utter ignorance of the main facts about which they petitioned? 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 beariw, upon the House of Commons? Take the abolition of slavery : did they believe that slavery ever could have been abolished unless they had published to the world the evidence of the abuses and horrors of slavery ? He would ask them this question—did they think they ever would have persuaded the people of Eng- land to pay 20,000,0001. for the abolition of slavery, unless through their con- viction of the abuses of slavery and of the degradations to which it led, making it absolutely necessary to the honour of England to be abolished? Could this be an argument that they should have the right of imposing this tax on the people of England from their own conviction of the necessity of the abolition of slavery, but that they should be utterly unable to say to the people of Eng- land, whopaid the money, We will tell you the grounds upon which that act Was called fbr ? ' Could they have ventured to carry that act, unless they had had with them that degree of public opinion which could alone give it efficiency, and produce the impression they wished to make on tbreign countries? lie asked, did they think it possible that the slave-trade could have been abo- lished, considering the prejudice with which Mr. Wilberforce had to contend, Unless they had informed time public mind of the abuses of that trade? Evi- dence was taken on the slave-trade in the Privy Council : that was published to the world in the year 1788. Mr. Wilberforce brought forward the question in 1789, having to contend against delegates from Liver-

of African luxury, that it iv a- pr,e, „ s.•metinies carried out in order to f..re.. t m.• :•. dene: bow much they enjoyed thenisdv,s.

say when told that their songs wen.Wing m th

froeir motive land mind that while muchso, that one of time captains tlreatc.•. . •

came her sung was too painful for hi, 11...•" allegation.: of the middle passage; end it 1- •

o

• :,:e the elmege imm the public mind, and which eventiavery. . Could it be said that every slave-captain he: • e:•, 1. had a right at every quarter-sessions to bring

Could the house believe that but the pul i'-''!Illvat of the _Dike of York from the eommatel s. ,y ,..

acquiesce, in, had Parliament been nide • Warrssm Hastings would have been

the

• for the- removal of this ill•».trious :

ret.sons of this proceeding "---I woulti to the !;tt lure

the li•'m i hail =nilieient se.....:1■• ....r the r.... t. • • exer-

cise of a privil.Te t11•,(''...1..:2,•o. It w::Fi mi.:: vi IA: t■-•;•-.. ,J1 .

then it ..vas said mbat ■• G.

Linn (1;. 011.1-1 • !! • S.C., Bar hr was a.,.mming, the of a ptie'.1,.Le .c1-: 1;y atta,1...1 by a Court of Law i•uel: c d, r ire rim. Hon.,. to proceed to vindicate its privilege?

of the Court of Law; or, feeling the ..• rue,; they c 'ermine to oppose it ? if they t, could I:

any mode than that which they had in the pre3::mt They f!est of all presumed that the Court of haw ,..,-.4.1112 in .

therefor• they pleaded: subsequeetly, folding that t7 .' them, tl.my determined in the second instance not te . • end tbm.... m be Court was stillagitinst tiLan, the questim. tame] .• to acquiesce in a decision which would be fatal tt other judges had admitted ; or whether, in the last r2. . • forward and say, not that they would increase a p

sense be deemed unnecessary, butt that they wan' ! , t y us

marking their sense of a privilege which they wer,.. a : t • u, their own inherent right, and that Hier would not tail to e athod of defending and maintaining it. Por his own part, he thomtimt m1 the hatter was the only proper and becoming, course for the Dolts,. to Because. even if they should ultimately fail, and he coiled upon to other alter-

natives, they would then at least stand in this less humiliating its -ition—that they had not tamely submitted, nor lightly abandoned a privilege. m :deli they felt to he essential to the proper disc!,,age of their functions a:

holy. Nu : the duty of the Ilona: was to light the battle to tie: last ; and then, if they were ultimately- OV.:;..(rieC, they could appeal with good grace to the authority- of the State tor that permment protection wide', •he law as it now stood would not afford them. Ile could not conceive what other course the House could pursue in a case where one of its mulaulded pr:vileges Wag assailed.

He begged Members to put out of view the piestion of selling their papers. He entirely agreed with Lord Denmatm, that time act of selling did not alter the ease, and publication was vmnplete itith•:nt it. He could show that the collision would not be avoided by re,.elnding the resolution authorizing the sale of papers— The Judges admitted that they had the right of publication lbe the use of thdr own memb,.rs. Now, if that rnant err thi.mg at all, it meant Got 0. publi- cation made for their own use was a privileged publication. it c.-.old have 110 other meaning,. But were they to acquic,ee in the (:‘,1lStrIle.t:,V.. mulcimB the Judges had put upon the law ? If they did so, he thought they would at

once be involved in enormous difficulties. Take, again, the of the 20,000,000/. voted for the emancipation of the Negroes, and sun .sm this case. He, as a Member of the Ibmw: of Commons, was '4011 of all tin. papsrs relating to that matter. Ile had the despatch of Mr. Ilmr,iiisson reist;ng to the

cruelties practised upon female shines; he had all the evidence 11'41 oper- ated to remove from the public mind the prejudice: that hail pr.vh:;m.hy existed in favour of slavery ; he was in possession of all the filets ....1,4:11 had brought the House properly to appreciate the horrors of slavery, and deter,. iucd them to pass a law for its abolition. He had voted for the grant of 2....)0.1...00/., by which the emancipation of the slaves was accompanied. Tic ret.emed to his constituents, and was questioned by them as to the voting of so bu..a. a -.min of the public money. According to the construction put mque, ,h, law by the Judges in the present instance, he, under such circumstances, thotIgh he was permitted to possess the evid nee himself, would have no right to make it known to his constituents in order to justify- his vote, or to explain the grounds upon which he hail assented to so large an expenditure of the pel-Mie money. Questioned upon the hustings by his constituents—having the v..ltune of evi- dence in his hands—himself posses.sed of all the :has which imi.l.med ;Ion to regard the horrors of slavery as an intolerable evil, and a blot up... the ,...nour of the nation; still, according to the construction of' the Juds,es, le: is not at liberty to refer to one single page of the privileged volume, nor to :.,;duce from its contents one siugle fact to explain his vote, and satisfy the minds of los constituents. For it was expressly laid down, apparently by the concurrent authority of all the Judges of the court, that he, though possessed of these papers for his own use, 'vas not entitled to disclose one tittle of thew contents to any other person.

pool, who gave evidence in support of the slave-trade. Ile asked

for a Committee to remove the impression that the delegates had made. He would read to them the evidence which had been given to rebut it. :Mr. Norris, one of the Liverpool delegates, had given this account of the mith11.• pat,age- " The apartments of the slaves were fitted up for their accommodetion as much as circumstances would allow. The right ankle of one was connected by a small manacle to the left of another; and if they were turbulent, they were also confined by irons to their wrists. They had :everal meals a .1:y, of all the luxuries that Africa provided, with African sauce-, and another meal of pulse after breakfast they had water to wash themselves with, while their apartments were perfumed wide frankincense and lime-juice. Before diume.: they were amused ; singing and dancing were promoted, ;net games of cheese, were fur- nished them." Mr. Wilberforce felt what would be the effects of these false statements of the facts of the case, and Tilt that until the impre,ion made by these statements was removed, the continuance attic slave-trade wmdd be in- evitable, for it would be supported by public opinion. He invoked the assist- ance of the House of Commons first tr. remove the film from the pa ,;icy mind by hearing counter-evidence : and in that counter-examination it all..ard that the

meal of pulse of which Mr. Norris spoke was a meal of horse 1., T.71,. The song and the dance," said Mr. Norris, " are promotk .1." Air. W .rforee said "It would have been more heir if he had explained w.!.-it ,vay the:, were pro- moted. The truth was, that fOT 11L. -nice of excecise, Ini.tera■o, weetehes, loaded with chains and oppressed with disease, were to d: mice by the terror of time lash, and sometimes by the actual mo.. • -• of the u•itne was (mployed to davee the nu r ••:• 1 the womeo.' 'What, then, was themeaning of th, e rom..t. • • it might he said with respect to the Afri....in qaue..• ail the f. Imminent

,•

u.

11.• ,". • . tL Mr. Justice Littledale said-

" The privileges of Parliament appear to me to be confined to the walls of Parliament for what is necessary for the transaction of the business there ; to protect individual Members, so as that they may always be able to attend their duties ; and to punish persons who arc guilty of contempts to the House, or against the orders and proceedings or other matters relating to the House, or to individual Members in discharge of their duties to the House ; and to such other matters and things as are necessary to carry on their Parliamentary functions; and to print docummits for the use of the Members. But a pub- lication sent out to the world, though founded on and in pursuance of an order of the House, in my opinion becomes separated from the House : it is no longer any matter of the House, but of the agents they employ to distribute the papers : their agents are not the House, but in my opinion they are indi- viduals acting on their own responsibility, or other publishers of papers." What a mockery was this ! The Speaker, in the exercise of an admitted pri- vilege, ordered Mr. Hansard to do a certain act, which could only be done out of the walls of Parliament ; and the moment that Mr. Hansard set to work to execute that order, the privilege of the House was lost, and its agent liable to be punished by a court of law. If that were so—if that were the conflict in which they were next to be engaged—it was plain that they would very shortly be involved in a situation of as much difficulty as that in which they now stood. Was it fitting, then, that they should acquiesce in the construction which the Judges had put upon the law ? Mr. Justice Patteson went, he thought, one step further either than Lord Denman or Mr. Justice Littledale. Mr. Justice Patteson said, " It is said, that it papers, however defamatory, must needs be printed for the use of the Members—as it is plain they must, and the point is not disputed—their further circulation cannot be avoided; for what is to be done with the copies upon a dissolution of Parliament, or upon the death or retirement of a 3fember ? The answer is obvious : the copy of such defamatory matter ought to be destroyed, as it can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was intended; or at all events it must not be communicated to others." Now, he would take the case of the last Speaker of the House, Lord Dun- fermline, who had probably retired {Vial a large mass of Parliamentary papers. If Lord Dunfermline made use of any of these papers, he would be liable to an - action of libel. Lord Dunfermline's papers—the papers which had accumu- lated on his hands whilst he was S1eker of the House of Commons—were now no longer privileged; they lost their character of privilege as soon as the noble lord ceased to be a Member of the House of Commons. And Lord Dunferm- line would be responsible, not only to the Court of Queen's Bench, but to any Court of Quarter-sessions in the kingdom, if he presumed to make use of any of those papers. Suppose, again, that a Member of the House should die pos- sessed of a great number of these papers. Suppose, for instance, that he should leave behind him the whole of the Parliamentary papers upon the sub- ject of the foreign slave-trade. Those papers were full of libels upon indi- viduals—libels upon persons in this country, libels upon foreigners. Now, if after the death of ill,: Mugger these papers should obtain any kind of circula- tion, or should simply pas from the deceased Member's library into the posses- sion of any other person not a Member of the House, he apprehended that, according to the construction put upon the law by the Judges, any ffireigner whose conduct was reflected upon in any part of these la ,era would have a right to bring an action of libel and to recover damages. What was to be- come of the bookseller who should happen to sell any of he papers? The moment that the Member died, the papers ceased to be privileged: who then would dare to touch them ? No man could presume to do so; no man could take them to himself; or at all events no man could undertake to sell them without rendering himself liable to an action. Mr. Justice Patteson further said, "Whether any indi%idual 3.1C111!.Qr might or might not be justified in commen'eating to some persons out of the house defamatory matter printed for the use of the house, I. cannot pretend to say. Probably, upon any such question arising, the decision will he with a jury." Therefore Sir Robert Peel contended, that if the House were to acquiesce in the decision of the Court, that the publication for the use of Members was privileged, but that the use of the publication by Members for the hiffirmation of their constituents sub- jected them to an action of libel, —if the House acquiesced in that decision, he maintained that the functions of the ',louse of Connnons, as a branch of the Legislature, would be paralyzed; they would at once become unfitted fbr the due discharge of their duties as the Representatives of the People and the framers of laws, unless indeed they were to act upon ignorant first ibspressions, instead of upon those sound opinions Irhich resulted from inquiry and the dis- semination of correct iet4mation.

In support of the doctrine, which lie held to be correct, that the House of Commons was the judge of its own privilege, Sir Robert Peel referred to the Attorney-General's speech, and to the decisions of several Judges—Wright, Dennison, Gould, Blackstone, and De Grey ; though Holt's opinion had been at variance with these. Fortified by these authorities, he could not relinquish a privilege which he verily be- lieved to be essential to the discharge of his duties as a Member of Parliament. But, said Sir Robert in conclusion- " I do not conceal from myself the fact that we have great difficulties to con- tend with. Thus with pain I come to the determination of entering into a contest with the Courts of Law. You may toll me that there are processes by which the payment of the money may be ultimately enforced in the courts. I admit the strength of the reasouiug, and the withal ity conveyed by the experience of those who urge such a view ; but this I say, with a perfectly safe conscience, that every instrument which the ordinary principles of the constitution sanc- tions, an overpowering sense of duty urges me to use, before I seek Ibr the solu- tion of our pres,nt didicult los in the surrender of our privileges. Au attempt to remedy this evil by lesielstion inay be, made only when the other means

within our are exhau.4ed. 1 have heard it said that the House of Com- mons has not tiro. th i ubhi mind that it once had, and that we

look in vain for the s■ apathy id' the politic in our attempt to vindicate our privileges. That may be so. The pa diction so confidently made, that the great measure for altering the constitution of this House would conciliate public opinion, may be unfounded. 1 was no party to that change. I confess I expected its fidlore. It may be that we are inferior to the great men who have sat within thew :falls itt firmer periods. (Loud pipositiGa chars, att• swercd by ii•oiliod chr,i'a.) But, I say, if by our inf;:riority and degeneracy we have pr‘ jiolleed the character of the House, and diminished its inthience with the public, we ouplit not to make that a reason tbr depriving it of that essential power which inheres in so noble an institution. Whatever may be our inferiority, ire should feel we are but the tenants of a day—the fleeting occupants of the nolile fabric ; and the very circumstances of our tenure limn inn additional re10:im silty with a kind of filial reverence we should prevent, it' we can, a permanent injury from faking the place of a temporary decay. But I say more, that no public o; ,j eau be gained by the mutilatiou of our privileges. If you can once show a claims in the building, and can say, There once stood the [louse of Commons,' depend upon it the void will be filled by a combination of turbid elements, acknowledging no respect for au- thority, observing no reverence har prescription, usurping the powers of the other branches of the Legislature, and defending the possession of those powers by means worthy of such usurpers. Sir, I sli.:11 conclude my vindicaitun for having so !wig occupied the time of the R,,a,e, liy a simple speech delivered by Mr.Crew e et au early period of our When the liberties of the House of Con..nons were threatened, Mr. Crewe, in encouraging the House to pre- serve its privileges, said in simple but emphatic language, ' I would not have spoken about our privileges, if the thing questioned were only matter of form, and not of matter; but this is of that importance to us, that if we should yield our liberties to be but of grace, these walls that have known the holding of them these many years would blush; and therefore we cannot, in duty to our country, but stand upon it, that our liberties and privileges are our uts• doubted birthright and iuheritance.'" (Loud cheers.) The House divided—

For Lord John Russell's motion 205 For Mr. Kelly's amendment 90 Majority 115 Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved- " That the said Sheriffs be ordered to refund the said amount forthwith to Messrs Hansard."

Captain BOLDER° presented a petition from Stockdale, praying to be heard at the bar ; and he moved accordingly, as an amendment to Lord John Russell's motion, "That John Joseph Stockdale be called to the bar of this House."

At Lord MAHON'S request, Captain BOLDERO withdrew his amend- ment; and the House divided on Lord John Russell's motion—

For it 197

Against it 85

Majority 112 On Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S motion, the Sheriffs of Middlesex were called to the bar.

The SPEAKER communicated to the Sheriffs the resolutions which the House had adopted, and said that the House was ready to hear any thing they had to offer. The Sheriffs bowed, retired a few paces, bowed again, but did not utter a word.

The SPEAKER said, " You may withdraw." The Sheriffs withdrew, amidst immense cheering from the Oppo- sition benches.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved,

"That William Evans, Esquire, and John Whcelton, Esquire, Sheriff of Middlesex, having been guilty of a contempt• and breach of the privileges of this House, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms atteuding this House; and that Mr. Speaker do 185110 his warrant accordingly."

This motion was met by motions for adjournment ; and it was finally agreed that the Sheriffs, Mr. France, Under-Sheriff, and Mr Thomas Burton Howard, Stockdale's attorney, should be ordered to attend the House next day.

On Tuesday, Mr. FITZROY KELLY presented petitions from the Sheriffs of Middlesex, expressing regret that they should have incurred the displeasure of the House, and stating their conscientious belief that their entire conduct had been in conformity with "their duty to their Sovereign and the Court of Queen's Bench, whose officers they were." Mr. Kelly delivered a long speech in defence of the Sheriffs. He pro- tested against the injustice of .punishing them, without trial in a court of law, for the conscientious performance of duties they had sworn to discharge. lie represented also the difficult position in which the House would find itself, should the Court of Queen's Bench order the Sheriffs to pay the money to Stockdale. He concluded with a motion that the Sheriff's. be " brought to the bar and discharged."

Sir Ronmrr INOLIS seconded the motion, Lord JOHN RUSSELL could see no reason why the House should stop short in its proceedings against the Sheriffs. Ile did not attach much weight to the plea that they were bound by their oaths to disobey the order of the House of Commons-

" The Sheriffs, in their petition, state that they have swore that they will duly return, serve, and execute all the Queen's writs sent to them.' rhis is

very true ; but we have had it stated in evidence at the brie of the House, that on an injunction from the Court of Chancery being served on them, the She- riffs could not proceed to execute the Queen's writ from any other court : the

order of the Court of Chancery would stand in the way of the execution of any such writ. We know, too, that if the Board of Green Cloth forbid the execu- tion of a writ within the preeinets of a royal palace, the Sheriffs are prohibited. Therefore, don't tell me that an oath which is not observed when it collies in contact with the Court of Chancery, and which is not observed when it conies in contact with the Board of Green Cloth—that an oath which is gout! for no- thing as against the Court of Chancery or Board of Green Cloth, becomes . stringent and binding and paramount on the conscience when it comes in con- tact with the House of Commons ; and that the Sheriffs in that case, and in that case only, are bound to execute the Writ." With respect to the collision with the Court of Queen's Bench, he could not but hope that, upon reconsideration, the Judges would set aside the former decision, and act upon the wiser and better opinion of Lord Kenyon. He moved that the House resume the debate upon the motion for committing the Sheriffs to the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms.

Mr. MATTHIAS ATWOOD, Colonel COKOLLY, Mr. Danny, and Mr. Fit ESIIFIELD opposed Lord John Russell's amendment ; Lord 'FEIGN.. ruouTH and Mr. HUME supported it.

Mr. Law said, that if the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench were illegal, it ought to have been appealed against, not submitted to ; but if it were legal, they ought not to punish the Sheriffs for obeying a legal j udgmen t— Ile would recommend to the House, tender as they were supposed to be of their representative character anti the rights of their constituents, to consider that the Sheriffs recently at the bar were elected to that important office by no less a number than 9,000 citizens of London. He asked whether officers so elected and authorized, who were sworn on the part of the public as well as on that of the Sovereign to execute truly anti indifferently their public trust, and who appeared, built by their examination at the bar of the House and by their own petition, to have pursued a course which had been lauded and ex- tolled—he submitted whether these officers ought to be committed to the cus- tody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, because they had not violated their oaths, and had not proved themselves unworthy of the confidence reposed in them? Ott Saturday last nothing was said against the Sheriffs. Why, then, should the house change its course ; and, for the dirty purposes of extracting money froth their pockets by means of duress and the influence of tiair, say, " We have altered our °pillion' and we find you guilty of a breach of privilege; but, never-

theless, if will assist us to rob the plaintiff in the action at law, we will

liberate you?" Mr. ERLE referred to the monstrous decisions of the Judges in the reign of Charles the First, to show the danger of intrusting the Judges with power to decide upon questions of privilege.

Mr. DISRAELI cited the conduct of the House of Commons at the same period of English history, as proof of their readiness to abuse their powers— The House of Commons, in the very age which the honourable and learned gentleman fixed on to decide this question, as far as the Judges were concerned, m that very age of Charles the First, the House of Commons appointed a Committee to sequestrate, according to their arbitrary decision, the estates of the gentlemen of England; and the members of that Committee purchased at a price fixed by themselves the lands which they had sequestrated. This was one of the privileges of the House of ComMons in the age of Charles the First—the age fixed on by the honourable an learned gentleman. Again, in that same age the House of Commons had declared that any definition of the Trinity which did not agree with the opinion of the majority, was a breach of privilege. Let the House remember, too, that in the same age of Charles the First, the House of Commons called a fanatical Quaker to the bar of the House, and, because he entertained some opinions respecting some of the most abstruse mysteries of the truth of revelation, which did not accord with the opinions of the majority, they ordered him to be branded with a hot iron. He was then allowed to retire, and afterwards ordered hack to the bar; and then, because he persisted in the unfortunate mistake which the majority did not sanction, the House ordered his tongue to be cut out. This was another pri- vilege of the House of Cotnmons in the age which the honourable and learned gentleman took as the basis of his argument. Let gentlemen remember, that the same House, in the plenitude of its power, after it bad by an exercise of its privilege sent eight Bishops to the Tower in one morning, when it met for the transaction of business and found it had nothing to do, but that a con- siderable sum had been paid into the Exchequer, voted that this sum should be distributed among the Members of the House. This was another of the privileges of the House of Commons in the age of Charles the First, so quoted by the honourable and learned gentleman.

He was not sure that such things might not be done again. The present House could not boast any great superiority over that which acted in the manner described— He could not find in the present House any quality which could make him for a moment suppose it superior to that age which produced Hampden, Crom- well, both the Vanes, St. John, and Selden ; nor could he discover any gro tad for believing that in wisdom or eloquence the Parliament of 1640 was inferior to that of 1840. But be believed that there was much more similarity between them in the grasping and ambitious spirit by which they were actuated. Ile therefore should resist their assumption of a privilege beyond all law. Ile had no wish to see a revival of the times of extravagant privilege; and as fair as his weak voice could prevail, he should prevent it. Ile had no wish to have his property sequestrated or his person tortured, or to see a bold usurper walking up to the table of the House and ordering them to " take away that bauble." (Opposition cheers.) Sir FRANCIS BURDETT could not refrain from giving an opinion upon the question before the House, though certainly not anxious

" Minim antigun se inchalere ludo."

It did seem to him, that the personal safety and the liberty of every one in the country was laid so entirely at the surrey of the House of Commons by these resolutions, if they were in fact to ride over the laws of the hand, and if the House of Commons had the modesty to pretend not to be bound by the laws which they themselves passed in conjunction with the House of Peers and with the sanction of the Crown—if a simple resolution of the House of Com- mons (and, be it observed, that too an ex post facto declaration) should lie allowed to prevail over the common and the statute law alike—it did seem to him that this so entirely subverted all the principles of justice and of the English constitution, that he could not let the occasion pass without making one appeal to the good sense of the country at large. lie said the country at large, for lie was not ashamed to declare procure oil minium. Most extra- ordinary it was that the House of Commons should time have a right of' ex- ercising a power far beyond that of sic vale sic jaw°, by means of a declara- tion after the fact contained in a resolution which assigns that for a crime which was not so before it passed. If. that were to be suffered in this Reformed House of Commons—if that could be done now, then he said the people in this country were in a fir worse situation under the present than under the old system of representation. In no Unreffirmed Parliament in which he had had the honour of a seat had resolutions so hostile to the public liberties as those of the noble lord ever been passed. When Duncan was murdered under the roof of Macbeth, the latter says-

" iu double trust :

First as I am his kinsman mid his sub!eet- Str.mg h,.tli at oust the Ikea; then as his bust, Who should against his mw.terer shut the dour, Nut bear the knife myself."

With reaped to the liberties of the country, the House stood in such a posi- tion ; and the people of England might well say that the !louse, who,e para- mount duty it was to watch over their liberties, had abandoned the trilq, and by their assumption of privilege were doing their utmost to destroy the freedom of Englishmen.

There was a growing spirit of insubordination abroad— He remembered very well in his young days, when lie wo: a boy, that two or three constables were quite sufficient to disperse a huge ass,oublage, such was the reverence for the law among the people : but all that was changed now. There was another description of feeling abroad than in his early days, and there was another description of patriotism. The highest patriotism now-a-days consisted in stirring up the greatest possible number of people to violence, and keeping itself' out of the action of recoil—out of danger. The most meritorious service to the State seemed to him to consist of the seeds ()felon commotion as thickly and as widely as possible in Englan'd and Ireland—iu exciting the people of both countries as much as might he against the lawful authorities, against peace and order. It might he called emancipation, or liberation, or any other name; but in every shape it was the same, and under every appellation ; and its unvarying motto was, " Put money in thy pocket." (A laugh, anti Cr!( " (2,tes!imt !" "Dirldr!" " Order !") The learned Agitator for Ireland might have determined, at the head of his live hundred thousand fighting, men, to put down puldie opitibm in England; but he would find the law paramount to all his efforts in this country. But what was it all about ?

Mr. O'CONNELL said he was tempted to take a phrase which Sir Francis Burdett had used, " What is all this about?" Sir Francis had gone round awl about, and touched every thing, but done nothing. As for the parenthetical attack upon himself, he forgave it upon one con- dition- Once he had the misfortune of an infliction of the honourable baronet's praise : if he never inflicted it on him again, he would fingive him—his cen- sure was fir more desirable. But to return to the question. It seemed to him that, as fist as his attack on the tyranny of the resolution was concerned, the honourable baronet was in a very awkward predicament; that was, he was in Thomas Burton Howard was calle-I to the liar. He was asked by the ATTORNET-CENERAL if lie had been concerned in the action of Stockdale vcrsus Hansards ?

Mr. LAW objected to that questim ; and declarod his determination to stop the progress of these proceediag; by repeat,d motions for ad- journment.

A long altercation occurred, and the House was for some time very disorderly. A motion for adjournment was negatived, by a vote of 113 to 39 ; but Lord Join,: Ri-ssm.r. then gave way, and the debate was adjourned to the day following.

On Wednesday, Lord Joust Briasiern, having moved the order of the day " for the further consideration" of 3Iessrs. IlinNards' petition, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE asked, whether Lord .1 din had any objec- tion to produce copies of the warrant tueler which. the Sheriffs and Stockdale had been co:omitted ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the motion Wile unusual, and he must take time to consider of it.

Mr. DuNcomuE then moved, as an amendment, for copies of the war- rant,—protesting against the punishment of any person for offences which were not described on the flee of the warrant.

Mr. Sergeant TATA:010RP, Sir EDwa o KNaTctlner.1., and Sir EDWARD SI'tic,EN supported the motion ; and after comae conversation. Lord JOHN Ttursdr..1„ at the suggestion of the SPEAKER, acceded to it ; and the copies were ordered.

Lord JOHN Rossi:id. then moved that Thomas Burton Howard be called to the bar. Sir Eowdun Six:DEN moved to amend the molar by adding the words--" fur the purpose of being forthwith. di-charged from further attendance on the llouse." He considy red that unondli hail been done in the way of example, and that without inc-onsietiney the' attorney might be discharged, since they had not proceeded against the Under- Sheriff and Bailiff who had made the levy.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL wished to deter other at:or:des front bringing similar actions. They would stultify their own proceedings if they were now to falter— this right honourahle frivol aeon: ,1 to think that the Ilouse ought to place confidence in the Courts of 1.;:w ; but he had no hesitation in declaring in his place that he had not any confidence in thcm. They had ch.cided against the Home oo one point of privile:a. contrary to tilt...pillion of the Member for Ripon himself; for he had said 11,..,t the o1. Soa.lolale complained

was not an illegal publicat hut, and 1 ,r the Court of t? was wrong

in saying so. He hail the opinion of alnto:t every bt,,y,r th;s point, even of that of Mr. Kelly, His learn, 1 Amok his Lea,: at I ; bat lie would again say, that on the ground -mated i.e had no conn.ii in- in the decision of the Judges of the (,/IICCII'S On tlie pint ; 11.:■1 was the reason why he had advised the onlissIon at.y cause of counn.f,eviit in the warrant. Mr. FRESH ELI) Said, tint I :Monies W on 1 Ind be deterred from doing their duty .1iy any punishment the 1 louse could inflict.— hatever the Rome might do, no man in England us .'1114 Ct't r Want profes- sional advice, nor ought to do so. :kir. I Ina !c..1 was :,11 :1' tO■ r, y, and he would not be lest so in Newgate than out of it : but even if ld Wert. 1.11!ChIllVd Etas giving professional advice on the piddla ease. or :Huy vim:instances rising out of it, there would, he repeated, be 11.:1,1r,ds in the pref. ssion ready to tender their aid, no matter bow strongly the i tui:2:ot its opinion on the nuttier. faulci mill tlade eireumea:;c•, s. Lc thought the commitment of this gentleman would be an uncalled for, Ont., ecssary, and unjust exercise of the power of the House. Mr. Serd cant TaLrounn said, the time had now arrived when tech- ant. qu.a.s.es 1,te lane, must give was to considera- niealities, 1 1 t lions of the highest importance. 1Vith the deepest re;:Tet he had heard her :Majesty's Attorney-General arraign the Judges for deeiding against his own opinion ; and when he saw Sir Bolton Peel, who had all his life been engaged in protecting the great institutions or the country, taking the same side, he could not bat tidal: that the question was one of the deepest interest to the country— That gnestion now was, whether time ju'.gmonts of our venerable Courts of Law should give way to the opinion of a body hurt tinting in its composition—a body much influenced by political and party feelings, and made up of nicely- balanced parties. If he were asked what course the House ought to take if as awkward a predicament as a man could be who was at variance with himself. For he well remembered, and the House no doubt remembered it too, that the honourable baronet voted for certain resolutions come to by the House in August 1839, on the action of Polack against the Messrs. Hansard; those re- solutions affirming, it would not be forgotten, "that it was a breach of the pri- vileges of the House to bring that action against its officers." The honour- able baronet supported this tyranny, oppression, and daring, as he termed it; and he was alive and merry there now. The honourable baronet not alone supported this resolution by his vote, but he supported it also by a short speech—certainly a very unusual case with him, and the only one on which he acted at all rationally. And in that speech he said, " that lie agreed with the noble lord that the House should possess all the power necessary for the due discharge of its functions; that the right of publication should be centred in it ; that it should have, in his opinion, all the powers necessary for the wel- fare of the public ; and that, therefore, be should not oppose the resolutions; which," he added, " be thought rational in themselves, and quite consistent with a proper respect for the liberty of the subject." 'With that quotation from his speech, Mr. O'Connell would bow to the honourable baronet, until his next " wheel about."

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, lie was not bound by the report of his speech : however, he would not deny it, as he saw nothing inconsistent in it.

The House divided—

For Mr. Kelly's motion to discharge the

Sheriffs 99

Against it 210

Majority Ill On Lord JOHN Rt1SSEI.T..'S motion. the House voted to commit the Sheriffs to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The numbers were—

For the motion 195 Against it 94 Majority 101

The order for Mr. France's appearance was discharged, as Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think it necessary to proceed against the Under- Sheriffs. one of the Courts of Lew decided against its privileges in one particular instance, he would say that if the asserted privilege was not inconsistent with the law of the land, there were other courts to whose judgment the question might be submitted antil it Minn hectare the Supreme Court of Appeal. Why had the Attorney-General stopped short of that ? We seemed now to be acting as if the Cute of Queen's Bench, in former days, was trying to become domi- nant over the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Chancery trying to encroach the authority of both. That, however, was not the case. The vowels of ..qtt.11 Court were well d;:fined and admitted; and if the decision of the Court of queens Bench in the case of Stockdnie against Hansard was wrong, why not entry the case to a Court of Error ? Why stop at that

particular stage, if die ject was to have the ease decided according. to the law of the land ? He would nor, after the question bad been so many days under conshloration, enter hut) det.,ils which had been discussed over and over again. !louse had i'eclaret1 its privilege, and acted on it. The question for its eon ',tit:Q.:mho,. now was, teas it to Le used in this instance ?

He say.- ...to reason why the House should proceed against Mr. Howard. The plaintiff himself 1mA in costo.sly. The great cause of all this dif- ficulty--great let him call him, fur he conquered them--was already in their prison. Why proceed op.:jest the attorney ? Why, lie ;effili asktd, die the: ant call before them the counsel and the Judge.: ? wits stop short bere, "Lett:!..., iiOt IV:CA 111r,11 I V1,11111 Call it as they eroulth give is t.ry Iona they might, i1i conduct of the House

on this oct.;.:eit ,vas ; he Wilhl Venture to affirm, that the lan- guage use', in the seeoln1 ems as purely despotic as any that had

ever been esse'.. in any 'I",:rt,,r or Tiirkisli. It cartel hardly be neces-

sary for call the :Li of the Ih.'use to the difference between the despoti,le ..f ,to individtt. that of a ntonerous body. The despotism of all indivi.1.,s!, might be nut ; Inc in",ght relent, and be moved by feelings

of cuenpa'.•.:1 1 but a largo ;a•!-in;; despotically would conic with all the puler- re 1:,-fit to their prir , ,':,•t in the consideration of these would leave

their iii r.a !ear's below: Let the douse bear in mind. that we were now eti example Ineamfter be fbllowed, mid with worse

..esta.t.lee,,ees :Lao at pre, The right hormarable liaroaet the 31ember for Toowerth /is I said in no very indistinct, terms, on a former evening, that we in th: pet ■..,1t day had degenerated from the wisdom and the great- ability of

our re who had shown so much ability in that place. Certainly the right itonel:rat leoveet Ids own person an exception to that de-

geltert,ey for it:id he Ikea tat the tiiHe 4:tone of our predeeet3OrS, note would Lace beer e.,A1 to with more at fee tion and delight than he : but, let him 11-1, 1L, honottralde i,aronet, ,u• fear ever cross his breast, that having

front Our ,,nee,tors, in our descent get worse? Did he Lot alit:. :lett a future coe.e,0,1.: lai,.;:tt be found to abuse the pre-

eokt,t How ,vt ,:tHi that to.) for the very worst of purposes ? Did he to,f feat. Ile,l tt tiat:L• Irould come Isifin tt Haase of COMMOIIS, acting

on celr wilt to stop at legislation? Would it not

be btt.,w, 11,0 t h,„ _'d do at first what we E•110:11d come to at last ?

oeeb..)le fore we advanced to a point from winch retreat would be ti.elo not strain the que.stion of their privileges too much; it

might cetl' ■■ustructiou. If eV,: the time should arrive when a chasm tl.e House of Cot.;nons once stood, the future speculator as /to; or it ruin would find in its history that that ruin had not been brought el. t,s, ready an altso:antinent or by to light and gentle an ex- ,:: I,: but by asserting them too siolently, and in defi.teos: of :la.: ‘• I,,;;! sen,t ni there—in del:Luce of public opinion, to thee in yet !,,ort•il--in defiance of that public in whose behalf

taw nee of every good feelit.,er of every reason-

able or thinking fo, ,!eking to punish. those who Lad committed no oflimee t.e.vard; cod ■;1' 111;n1/.

Sir R. 9: PLEI, Observed, .11 at Mr. Sergeant Tal rowel's speech would have UpprOpriAti: to ;Li earlier stage of the debate—imnie- diately ttleer his own spe,:eli hail been delivered. He was prepared to maintain, that he had sail mid done nothing ineonsietent with his Con-

servative principles. I le heft acted according to the best of his judgment, awl had cacti msly unstained front atteekine. the Judges ; bet he considered it absolutely necessary to snake a stand for the pre- servation of their privileges— Ile hod, however, never concealed from himself flint it :night be ultimately intreesil.le fly them to eneeeed. Ilad he ever de nie.! till. imperfections of their powers Did In not know, It: •! 1, not said, lied Ile not assumed, that the Court, of tliv wound Innintain the privileges of the House ? But when it Lail been proved to hint that the Courts or Law dillineel from the House in view or this ge...stion— that they would take from them this privilege, mud tee as- -t t11.211 in maintaining it--did he not know that then the powers wilt it the con -tit titian gin tla-a were imeariplete, and that they must resort It other authority ? Butt he would not refire the eserei:.0 of any power wl ich hr',eli•:ved the law and constitution gave hint ; and it would be some to him, if they were driven to resort to legislation, that he had oat c,,ttl,t-nuni,ot the exercise of other end more important privileges by shrieking to resort to or by abandoniitg the use of any power which he be- lieved the constitution and tine law had given hint.

Mr. Dentiv thonelit thet Sir Robert l',2e1 was guilty of some incon- sistency in the c• nurse he was pursuing ; for on reference to a speech he deii vered oil 11w 17th of June beet:, he found Sir Robert arguing again-4 ;-:,iel.12'.lin!-;6 an inferior, a mere Ministerial officer. Sir Robert SZ'

” It 11111AI more chnsistmt with that bold anti uncomprmnising tone which :11-tH!,r, trt the .4.1e. were so fond of' assuming, it they

theitl;s1 that Ilaitch had been guilty of a breach of pia- vileffe, to dol. with the. .supf ri.a. officer ti.nn with the inferior officer, who 3:aurally looked up to i.m.crior, and -vas but an iln•trinnellt in his hauls. It wets fiat a Lad e,•:alaphf for tint llo.t,•,f of Cb111:11011. exhibit to the 11E111s- t:dal officer ; it wea, in short, Ladling him to (Ili:obey the law of the land." Sir Roemer Pt-nor. admitted that Mr. Darby heel a right to an expla- nation : and he referred to his speech to show that his remarks applied not to the casf• at tle t 'Ante under consideration (fee the ttorney-Ge- nen: had alree I, p!,..,•ted,) but to a iv t r proceeding which he foresaw must arise— With refl.:relics: to ti that v-la n another er,se occurred, he should recommend the Ito:;-,• ,■! IMO, to (Si raise its prep,r authority 111 C01111Dit• fing the persons who o ■_1,- nn le.t•at.11 of d= 160110.4 lie could not dared not touch Lord Denman, the House admitted it was right for a judge to be wrong but not for an attorney.

Mr. BERNAL urged the House to persevere in defence of their privi- leges, and they would never regret it.

Mr. PEMBERTON assured the House that they must fail of their ob- ject. What was it they proposed to do ? To commit the attorney— Did they believe even that that would prevent that attorney front prat. tising ? In the cell of the Sergeant-at-Arms he could practise as before. Clerks and agents and runners might do his work just as now ; and when he was placed as they had placed Mr. Stoekdalc, in the custody of the Sergeant- at-Arms, they would not prevent the operation of any particle of that power which' as an attorney he possessed. The only way they could do that WAS to strike him off the rolls. Did they believe they would prevail on the Courts to do that ? Then they would not prevent the prosecution of this action by im- prisoning the attorney. Did they believe they would by terror He should think on that point the declaration of a friend of his, at the very head of that profession, would be conclusive; instead of deterring, they would instigate hundreds to conic forward to undertake the cause. But could they atop at the attorney, and not go further against the counsel and Judges ? Why, the counsel were anxious to be martyrs. He knew that hundreds in the Court of Queen's Bench looked at the report ; counsel talked of the privilege, and told them publicly, in the face of the court of justice, if they were right in those resolutions he was committing is gross breach of privilege, and lie defied them to commit Itim. Why ? Because if they committed him they must commit a hundred more, and must enlarge the prison-cells of the House of Commons, They might depend on it that in committing the Sheriff they were rousing a spirit among the middle classes on this subject which, he was persuaded, they never could overcome. They were determined to attack the attorney, and shrunk from attacking the infinitely more guilty party. The attorney had done no more than be was bound to do. The first action of the plaintiff was brought as a pauper; and he had a right to have an attorney assigned to him, and the attorney so assigned could not refuse to net for him. Would they commit the attorney so assigned to him? Would they commit the counsel who, in the discharge of their professional duties when called on, had no right to refuse undertaking the plaintiff's case? He defied them to com- mit the counsel; and he believed, if a Habeas Corpus was moved for to-morrow for the Sheriffs, that Westminster Hall did not contain the man who would refuse to move for it. He believed that they would receive a petition signed by almost every member of the bar. He had .great reason to believe that the opinion of the bar on this subject was unanimous, and that not many days would elapse before they would have a petition signed by more barristers, against their assumedl privileges, than ever put their names to a petition. He knew that in the public need, in the City of London, and throughout the country, the deepest feeling of regret, at least, prevailed with respect to the course they were taking. He knew that persons in no degree connected with political men, of careless minds, contemplative linen, not the least likely to be excited, held strong opinions on this question; and if his honourable and learned friend the Memberfor Wells (Mr. Hayter) were to hear those names, he would be also of his opinion. lle never saw so much feeling ex- - cited in the Court to which he belonged. He begged the House not to disregard those opinions because they were not those of noisy dema- gogues or noisy declaimers courting martyrdom, and setting themselves up in opposition to the House of Commons. They were persons who, like himself, had just as little disposition to go into the custody of tine Sergeant- at-Arms as any man within or out of the House. But they felt unani- mously, that if the powers the House of Commons possessed were a thou- sand times stronger than they were—if the punishment the House could inflict were a thousand times mote severe, (and really they were not very formidable,) that they would ten thousand times rather incur all those terrors, and submit to all that punishment, than incur what he believed would be the scorn and universal contempt of the profession to which they belonged, and of the public, whom they were sworn, to the best of their ability, to be the advocates of in a court ofjustice, be they called on when they might.

Mr. PIGOT and Sir CHARLES GREY supported the motion; and Ser- geant JACKSON spoke on the other side.

On a division, the motion was carried—

For it 210

Against it 92

Majority 718 Mr. Howard was called in. He admitted that he had acted as Stock- dale's attorney, and expressed regret that he had incurred the displea- sure of the House.

Lord Join; RUSSELL thought, as Mr. Howard said lie was sorry for what he had done, the House ought to proceed no further, but order his discharge. He could not sit down without expressing how deeply the House was indebted to Sir Robert Peel for his very able assistance in this matter— He did not refer so much to the greet eloquence and ability which he had brought to bear on the subject—though of both he could not speak too highly— as to the fact of his viewing it as a question totally separated from party feel- ings. If, unfortunately, the right honourable gentleman had taken a different course—if he had made it a party question, and that all who voted at one side should be considered of one party, and all who voted on the other side should be looked upon as of another—there could be no doubt that the privi- leges of that House would have been placed in great peril ; and he could not have advised the House to put itself into that position which it had done, and lie could not have pressed those motions which the House had now happily affirmed. But he felt that he had been enabled to take that course by the as- sistance which he had received, not alone from the party supporting Govern- ment, but by so many of that party who were altogether opposed to it. Those Members, then, who valued those privileges which had now been asserted, would long bear in mind and be thankful for the support given by Sir Robert Peel on this occasion.

Lord John moved that Mr. Howard be discharged.

Lord Homo( and Mr. EWART were of opinion that Mr. Howard ought not to be let off without punishment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL considered the attorney, who ought to have ad- vised his client better, as one of the most guilty parties ; but justice should be tempered whh mercy, and he suggested, That Mr. Howard be recalled, and that Mr. Speaker be instructed to inform him that he had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House ; but that having shown a desire to submit himself to the consideration of the House, they did not wish to proceed to extremity. This course would place on record their conviction that the attorney was the responsible party. Re thought that this course would be most consistent with the moderation and mercy which he wished to see observed by the House upon all occasions.

After sonic further discussion, this suggestion was adopted. Mr. Howard was culled in, reprimanded by the SPEAKER in the usual form, and discharged. Ur. BLACKSTONE moved that Mr. Stockdale be called in, repri- manded, and discharged. Lord Jong RUSSELL moved that the other Orders of the Day be read; and Mr. BLACKSTONE withdrew his motion.

THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.

On Monday, Lord Chancellor COTTENHAM read to the House of Lords the Royal answer to their Address.

On the same day, in the House of Commons, the SPEAKER read her Majesty's answer to the Address of the Commons.

There was little difference in the wording of the two documents. To the Commons the answer was in these terms- " I receive with very great satisfaction your loyal and affectionate Address upon an occasion so deeply affecting the happiness of my future life.

as I thank you for your support and concurrence in my resolution ; and I am much gratified by the opinion which you have expre.ssed of the Prince, and which I ant confident he will justify.

I thank you for your assurance that you will concur in the measures which may be necessary to provide for such an establishment as may be suit- able to the rank of the Prince and the dignity of the Crown.

" I shall anxiously endeavour to make my reign conducive to the happiness of all classes of my people."

Some conversation occurred in the Commons relative to the time and manner of proceeding with the Address to the Palace. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL complained that the Conservative Members had no nctice given to them, and therefore staid away, when they would have been most anxious to have testified loyalty by attendance. Mr. WAKLEY could not discover one Conservative Member, out of a hundred who ivent with the Speaker. Mr. BRADSHAW said he was there—but not to remove any groundless imputation. Mr. BLACKSTONE was also present, and was ashamed to see the brother of a Cabinet Minister in the Queen's presence dressed in " a cut-away green coat with brass buttons," al- though the Court was in mourning for the Queen's aunt! Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that as regarded the presentation of the Address, the precedent of the last reign had been followed; though he admitted that it would have been more convenient if a more public notice had been given of the time of going to the Palace.

PRINCE ALBERT'S NATURALIZATION,

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the following bill, intituled "An Act for Exhibiting a Bill in this present Parliament for Naturalizing. his Serene Highness Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha," was passed through all its stages, the Standing Orders having been sus- pended— " Whereas it bath pleased her Malesty most graciously to declare her intention to ally herself in manage with the Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and GOV,a ; and whereas a more grateful proof of the esteem and affection OS tin-, kingdom eanuM be given to his Serene flightless than by an Act of Naturalization to nu=t Le him capable of enjoying those rights and liberties which are 'it rayed in this rebut ; and whereas by an Act made in the several' year of the reign of king Jamesl. every person is required to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper within one month before any bill for naturalizatiou be exhibited. Mill also to take the oaths of Supremaey slid Allegiance in the Parliament House belbre his or her bill he twice read; and whereas by MI AM passed in the first year of the reign of King George I. it was enacted, that no person shall be naturalised unless, iu the bill exhibited for that purpose, a proper clause, ur particular words, be inserted to declare that such person shall not thereby be enabled to be of the Privy Council or a Member of either I louse of Parliament, or to take nny office or place of trust either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tene- ments, or bereditaments front the Crown, to himself or any pers. n in trust for him, and that no bill should thenceforth be received in either House of Parliament unless such clause or words be first inserted or contained therein; and whereas by nu Act passed in the sixth year of the reign or King George IV., atter reciting the said Act of the seventh of King James I., it was enacted, that from and after the passing of the Act it should not thenceforth he necessary fur any person who is to he naturalized to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as directed by the said re,ited Act ; " Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Ma■esty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal anti Commons; in this present Par I lament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that a Bill for the Naturalization el his Serene Highness the Prince Albert of Saxe Cuburg and Gotha, without the clause ur particular words directed by the said recited Act or the first year of the reign of King George 1. to be inserted, and without Ids taking the oaths hv the first-recited Act re- quired, shall and ma) be exhibited aud brought into lids Parliament, and twice read ; the said recited Acts, or any oilier law, statute, matter, or thing whatsoever to the cm- tmry, notwithstanding."

On Tuesday, this bill was taken to the Commons, and read a first and second time. On Wednesday, it was "committed," read a third time, and passed.

STATE OF THE FINANCES.

The Earl of RIPON, on Thursday, called the attention of the Lords to the revenue and expenditure of the country— It appeared from papers laid on the table of the House last year, that the excess of expenditure over income in the year ending the 5th of April 1838 was 1,420,00W. ; and in the year ending in April 1830, 40t),000/., being on the whole about 1,900,01)01.; and, according to estimates laid before Parliament last year, the expenditure would exceed the income of the Government in the year about to end in April 900,000/. Since then additional expenses had been incurred, which had not been calculated upon, and for the year ending the 5th of April next the surplus expenditure would he found to have increased not less than one million; so that for three successive years there was a clear, avowed, and unmitigated excess of expenditure over income; and he thought he should be able to show that there were no grounds for supposing they would be able to extricate themselves from that perilous system.

He hoped he did not undervalue their resources--

But it' it could be shown that this excess of expenditure, this habitual in- curring of debt in a time of peace, year after year, arose from a deficiency in our revenue, his apprehensions would be lessened, because that deficiency might be caused by transient circumstances. When a revenue was collected from such a vast scale as we were obliged to raise it front, it must he liable to the influence of a thousand circumstances, and we could never rely on an abso- lutely certain amount in any given year. But it was not the revenue which had Wien off, for it appeared the revenue was no less than 1,000,000/. more than in 1836; which satisfactory circumstance showed this evil had not arisen from the resources of the country being worked out. He admitted that ; anll therefore it seemed somewhat paradoxical for him to say that lie feared it was a more alarming stite of things on that account: and he should tell them why. If the present deficiency- had not arisen from any thIling off in the revenue of the country, it must have arisen front an increase in the expenditure.

The additional expenditure was caused in part by increase of the public debt. Instead of imposing new taxes, money had been borrowed to meet deficiency of income, and it had become necessary to fund Ex- chequer Bills. Then there was the enormous operation by which slavery was abolished. But this was not all. The expenditure of the current year exceeded that of 1830 by 3, !00,000/.; and the increase was owing in great measure to augmentations of the Navy, Army, and Ord- nonce. lie saw no prospect of reducing this expenditure. The inter- nal state of the country did not warrant that expectation. Ireland was said to be tranquil ; but then that tranquillity, it was said, depended upon the continuance in office of the present Administration. He thought the present Ministry would go on ; but for the tranquillity which rested upon the circumstance whether her Majesty should of should not exercise her prerogative in a particular way, he would nor give a snap of his finger. There had been a considerable augmentation of the constabulary force in Ireland, though the uumber of regular troops had been diminished. He saw no prospect of dispensing with a large army in Canada for some time to come. It appeared from- the President's Message to Congress, that a fresh boundary question had been raised; and he could not think it prudent under all the circum- stances to reduce ,the military force in Canada. The increase of the Russian and French navies rendered additional expenditure in the English naval department necessary. The unintelligible state of affairs in China was cause of much anxiety. Nobody could tell how long an interruption of trade with that country would last. To say nothing of opium, the revenue from tea alone was three millions and a half per annum ; and if the interruption of trade continued, the revenue must suffer. The alteration in the system of the Post-office was calculated to excite apprehension. Time had not been allowed to form an opinion on the probability of the change succeeding, but he considered it an ill- tinted experiment. Parliament had pledged itself to make good any deficiency which might arise from the reduction of postage charges ; but with respect to the large deficiency of three millions in the general revenue of the country no such pledge had been given—no pledge had been given to make up the losses which must accrue from this vicious system of borrowing money year after year, in time of peace, for the current expenditure of the country. He had thought it right to call attention to these circumstances. He hoped the subject would attract discussion. Of course it could not be expected of him to offer any remedy. Indeed, he supposed he should hardly be listened to were he to offer any suggestion. He concluded by moving for statements of the net income of the country for the last five years, of the amount of Funded and Unfunded Debt, and a copy of the Post-office Minute issued by the Treasury in September last.

Lord MELBOURNE expressed his entire concurrence in Lord Ripon's general views, and statement of the position of affairs abroad and at home. He agreed that it was not satisfactory to have a clear admitted deficiency of revenue ; but at the same time he could not entirely con- cur in Lord Ripon's opinion that there ought always to be a surplus. When the deficiency was small, he would trust to the natural resources of the country for recovery, rather than burden the country with extra- ordinary exactions to make up that deficiency. He had strong hopes that tranquillity would be maintained in Ireland. He saw no possibility of reducing the military force in Canada. He could not enter into any explanation of the affairs of China. A large diminution of revenue had always been expected from the change in the Post-office system, which the Government had adopted bond fide. He had full reliance on the resources and energy of the country to over come all difficulties.

The papers moved for by Lord Ripon were ordered.