PRIVILEGE—STOCKDALE v. HANSARD—THE SHERIFF. (Hansard, 25 February 1840)

§ Sir M. Wood
, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose to move that Mr. Sheriff Evans should be permitted to go at large for a day, in order that the sheriffs of London might wait upon her Majesty for the purpose of ascertaining when it would be her Majesty's pleasure to receive the Address 647 of the Corporation. He had no intention to apply for the discharge of the sheriff, as all he meant to ask for was the indulgence of a single day. The corporation of London, the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, had resolved on presenting addresses to her Majesty, congratulating her upon her marriage. They never had been lax in displaying their loyalty, but on this occasion they were unable to carry their loyal intentions into effect because of the situation of their sheriffs. For the last 200 years he found that, without any exception, the course had been for the sheriffs to ascertain the royal will. He thought hon. Gentlemen should have some little regard for the sheriffs—for men who were suffering incarceration merely because they had discharged their duty. He asserted that the sheriff now in custody was suffering much, and he could only say, that that House would have deep cause for regret if they kept him much longer in confinement. With respect to addresses of condolence, the recorder usually ascertained when they were to be received, but in all other instances since 1645, this duty had been performed by the sheriffs. The question then was, would that House refuse to the corporation the trifling indulgence for which they sought? It could be no satisfaction to the sheriff to be at liberty for a single day, but he thought, if they denied what he now asked, that House would not be acting with courtesy to either the Sovereign, the corporation, or the country. The corporation did not wish, in this instance, to depart from their ancient custom; and if that House was jealous of its privileges, why should not the corporation be equally so of theirs? If that House continued the sheriffs in custody until their power was at end, what would be thought of them? Why, it would and with truth, be said, that they had tortured these gentlemen merely because they had discharged their duty. On a recent occasion, when they wished to place themselves in a proper position, he asked the noble Lord what they were to do; and what was the noble Lord's answer? Why, he said let them present a petition. They were ready to petition; in fact, they had drawn up a petition last night. ["Where is it?"] He would answer that question—it was in his pocket. They were in a situation now to conform to the feelings of that House; and he must say, that he felt extremely 648 disappointed when he received information from a high quarter that no petition would do—that, in short, nothing would do but the repayment of the money. It would seem, then, that that House was disposed to sell its privileges for 640l.; and, if so, the sheriffs should know the fact, and not be further misled. What! if they said that the sheriffs should not be liberated until they paid this money, this 640l., would not that amount to the statement which he had made? What had the sheriffs done? Had they not done all in their power to maintain the privileges of the House? He insisted that they had. They had got the judge to put off the writ of inquiry. "[No, no"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "No, no;" but he now knew their humours and fancies. He certainly had not thought that their humours and fancies were those of cruelty—that they would act like tyrants. All he asked was, that they should allow the corporation the services of the sheriffs for a single day. He did not think this was an arrangement which that House ought to refuse. If they detained the sheriffs until their power ceased, what would the country say of their conduct? And as to giving back the money, that was a thing which the sheriffs would not do. He hoped they would not give way. The hon. Baronet moved that The corporation of London having on the 12th instant resolved to present an address to her Majesty, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and his Royal Highness Prince Albert, on the marriage of her Majesty, and by the ancient custom of the city of London, the sheriffs being allowed to wait on her Majesty to receive her Majesty's commands with respect to the presentation of such address, be it resolved that Mr. Sheriff Evans be allowed to wait on her Majesty for the purpose of receiving such commands of her Majesty.

§ Lord J. Russell
said, that it was not his intention to discuss a subject on which he had spoken so frequently before. He was afraid the hon. Alderman did not understand the grounds upon which the sheriff was detained; but, at all events, as agreeing to the motion could be attended with no good effect, and as the corporation might have the duty now required to be discharged performed by another officer, he felt it to be his duty to move, by way of amendment the other orders of the day.

§ Mr. Freshfield
said, that the noble Lord had accused his hon. Friend, the Member for the city of London, of not understand- 649 ing the grounds for the treatment of the sheriffs by the House. He also laboured under the same disadvantage, so far as the question of privilege was illustrated by the treatment of the sheriffs. The hon. Gentleman continued for some time to address the House, but the interruptions were so incessant, that it was not possible to make out the bearing of his observations. The hon. Member was understood to comment on the inconsistency of which the House was guilty, in saying that it had committed the sheriffs for a breach of privilege, and in avowing that it would liberate them on payment back to Mr. Hansard of the 640l. of his money, which they had seized instead of his person.

§ Mr. Godson
rose to oppose the motion, and entered his protest against the unusual course which the noble Lord was pursuing in adjourning the House without postponing the notices on the paper. The noble Lord was attempting to get rid of his motion for the immediate discharge of his motion for the immediate discharge of the sheriffs. The sheriffs had now been five weeks that very day in custody. The House said that that was not punishment enough for them. ["Question."] They were attempting to teach the Court of Queen's Bench law through the imprisonment of the sheriffs. Was that in keeping with the dignity of the House? It might be that the House was justified in its present proceeding by ancient privilege; but if the privilege were ancient, it was as barbarous as it was ancient. ["Question,"] ["Divide."] The hon. and learned Member adverted, amid considerable interruptions, to the various steps which the sheriffs had taken from the middle of November till the day on which the House met, to prevent themselves from being compelled to levy execution on the goods of Mr. Hansard, in contravention of the resolutions of the House; and contended so far as could be ascertained, that they had done their duty both to the House and the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded, by moving that the sheriff be forthwith discharged.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Morpeth, Visc.
Aglionby, Major	Muntz, G. F.
Archbold, R.	Murray, A.
Baines, E.	O'Brien, W. S.
Bannerman, A.	O'Connell, D.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	O'Connell, J.
Barry, G. S.	O'Connell, M. J.
Bellew, R. M.	O'Connell, M.
Bernal, R.	Oswald, J.
Bewes, T.	Palmerston, Visc.
Blake, M. J.	Parker, J.
Blake, W. J.	Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Bridgman, H.	Philips, M.
Briscoe, J. I.	Pigot, D. R.
Brocklehurst, J.	Protheroe, E.
Buller, E.	Pryme, G.
Campbell, Sir J.	Redington, T. N.
Clay, W.	Russell, Lord J.
Craig, W. G.	Rutherford, rt. hn. A.
Curry, Sergeant	Salwey, Col.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Scholefield, J.
Evans, W.	Seymour, Lord
Ewart, W.	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Finch, F.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Fitzpatrick, J. W.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Stuart, W. V.
Gisborne, T.	Strutt, E.
Gordon, R.	Tancred, W. H.
Hastie, A.	Thornely, T.
Hawes, B.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.	Tufnell, H.
	Vigors, N. A.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Wallace, R.
Hodges, T. L.	Warburton, H.
Horsman, E.	Ward, H. G.
Howard, P. H.	Wilbraham, G.
Hume, J.	Williams, W.
Hurst, R. H.	Wood, G. W.
Lambton, H.	Wood, B.
Langdale, hon. C.
Lynch, A. H.	TELLERS.
Melgund, Visc.	Stanley, E. J.
Milnes, R. M.	Maule, hon. F.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Lowther, J. H.
Bailey, J. jun.	Mahon, Visc.
Bolling, W.	Maunsell, T. P.
Broadley, H.	Norreys, Lord
Bruges, W. H. L.	Perceval, Col.
Buck, L. W.	Plumptre, J. P.
Darby, G.	Pread, W. T.
Duke, Sir J.	Pringle, A.
Duncombe, T.	Rolleston, L.
Duncombe, hon. W.	Round, C. G.
Farnham, E. B.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Fielden, J.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Godson, R.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Greene, T.	Sibthorp, Col.
Grimsditch, T.	Talfourd, Sergeant
Hamilton, Lord C.	Verner, Colonel
Henniker, Lord	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Hope, G. W.	Wodehouse, E.
Ingestrie, Visc.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	TELLERS.
Lowther, Sergeant	Wood, Sir M.
Jackson, J. H.	Freshfield, J. W.