HC Deb 06 February 1840 vol 51 cc1314-9

The Sergeant-at Arms announced that Thomas Burton Howard was in custody.

The Speaker

ordered him to be brought to the bar.

Mr. Howard

then appeared at the bar in the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.

The Speaker

—Thomas Burton Howard, the House has been informed that on the 24th of February a writ of summons was served on the Messrs. Hansard, commanding them to enter an appearance within eight days of the receipt of the writ in the Court of Queen's Bench, in an action at the suit of John Joseph Stock-dale. They were also informed that your name was endorsed on the writ. Are you the attorney in the action?

Mr. Howard

—I am.

What is the cause of action?—A subsequent publication of a libel.

The Speaker

—Was that libel contained in a report published by the authority of this House?—It was.

Did you receive instructions from Mr. Stockdale to commence that action against the Messrs. Hansard?—I did.

Mr. Hume

—In what publication of this House was the libel contained?

Mr. Howard

—It was a report of the inspectors of prisons.

The same as before?—The same as before.

Mr. Howard was ordered to withdraw.

The short-hand writer having read over his notes of the examination,

Lord J. Russell

said, that the motion he had to make arose directly from the examination of Mr. Howard at the bar. The motion he had to propose to the House was to the following effect:— That Thomas Burton Howard, having served a writ of summons upon Messrs. Hansards, the printers of that House, for the purpose of causing them to appear to an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, which he had brought at the instance of John Joseph Stock-dale, against them for a libel which they had published in the papers printed for the House, had been guilty of a high contempt of the privileges of that House.

Mr. Hume

did not wish to offer any objections to the motion of the noble Lord, but he begged to suggest whether it would not be proper to send for Mr. Stockdale, for the purpose of asking him whether he had given the instructions to Mr. Howard.

Sir R. Inglis

did not believe that a single instance existed of a prisoner being brought up to the bar for the purpose of convicting another person and himself too. He objected to t\ie motion of the noble Lord, looking at the course which the House had pursued, when the second action was brought, namely, that of instructing the Attorney-general to appear. He stated yesterday that he did not question the right of the House to summon Mr. Howard to the bar, because it would be impossible to carry on any private bill without the House had that power; but he did deny the right of the House to exercise the power of summoning parties to their bar for the purpose of inflicting punishment upon them. They were called on to take another step, from which the House could with propriety desist. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not further involve itself, and that Mr. Howard would be discharged.

Lord J. Russell

moved that the admonition of the Speaker to Mr. Howard, on the former occasion, be read; which was accordingly done by the clerk.

Sir E. Sugden

would move as an amendment, that Mr. Howard be brought to the bar to-morrow. He did so for this rea- son, that the adjourned debate on the case of the sheriffs would come on to morrow, and the decision on their case might influence that of Mr. Howard.

The Attorney-General

said, it was not for him at all to anticipate what might be the decision of the House on the case of the sheriffs. The House might think there were circumstances in their case which should mitigate their punishment. But the House was then considering what should be done with Mr. Howard. And when it was recollected that, after the admonition of the Speaker, which had just been read, and which had been ordered, nemine contradicente, to be entered on the journals, and after the professed regret of Mr. Howard for having incurred the displeasure of that House, Mr. Howard had instantly commenced another action; he trusted the House would not hesitate to commit him at once to Newgate. That seemed to him the only course open to them for the maintainance of their privileges.

Mr. Shaw

thought the course recommended by the Attorney-general was very severe, and he agreed with his hon. Friend that the matter had better stand over until to-morrow night, which he thought would be the more consistent course. He certainly thought the House possessed the power of publishing its proceedings, but he could not concur with the resolutions which decreed that every other court which presumed to decide on such questions was guilty of a breach of privilege. He thought the House was right in its original course of giving instruction to its servant to plead to the action, and he thought the further they departed from that course the greater would be the difficulties in which they would be involved. He would go as far as any one in maintaining the just privileges of the House, but he believed they would be best maintained by not stretching them beyond their just limits. He thought the proper course would have been, to have brought a writ of error, and then, if they had failed, which he was disposed to think they would not, they could have adopted the motion of his hon. Friend respecting legislation, which would not fail of its proper effect. If all other means had been tried and had failed, then he was ready to admit the present was the only course to be pursued. He entreated the noble Lord to let the result of the debate of the following day be as- certained before he proceeded in his motion.

Mr. Warburton

observed, that the question was not whether the House was or was not to punish any individual for having committed a breach of its privileges, but whether Mr. Howard should be committed to Newgate for having been guilty of a high contempt towards that House. There could be no question that the House was the sole judge of its own privileges. This view of the subject was sanctioned by the proceedings of the Congress of the United States, and by the solemn decision of the Supreme Court of Judicature there, as would be found on reference to the 6th volume of Wheatson's Reports of Appeal Cases to the Supreme Courts. The Attorney-general of the United States had stated it to be his opinion, and the Supreme Court had upheld that opinion, that the Congress was the sole judge of its own privileges, and that these privileges did not admit of a contest in any other place. The opinion of the Attorney-general was, "that a legislative body was of necessity possessed of the power of committal, and that it was also possessed of the power of judging of its own privileges, and how far those privileges had been violated; and, also, that no other person could in any case presume to judge of them." This opinion, elicited in the case of Anderton against Dunn, was sufficient to prove, that the United States took an enlarged view of the privileges attached to Congress, and it also proved that there were not those fears entertained with respect to a democratic body amongst a republican people, which had been so broadly put forth in reference to the present case.

Mr. Goulburn

observed, that if the House of Commons could not stand upon its own authority, it could derive no asssistance from the Congress of the United States. For his part he was not of opinion that the amendment ought to be pressed, and for that reason he would vote with the noble Lord opposite. Mr. Howard had already been summoned to the bar of that House, and he had been warned that the course he had taken was opposed to the privileges of the House; nor did he think that because there was a discussion upon the same subject pending before the House, the present motion ought to be delayed for one hour. He should, therefore, vote for the proposal of the noble Lord.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 147; Noes 45:—Majority 102.

Lord J Russell

then moved, that "Mr. T. B. Howard, having been guilty of a high contempt and breach of the privileges of the House, be, for the said offence, committed to her Majesty's gaol of Newgate; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."

Mr. Jones

hoped that the sheriffs would continue to do their duty, and that in pursuance of the line they had adopted, they would let Mr. Howard out of Newgate as soon as he was sent there.

Mr. D'Israeli

wanted to know why Mr. Howard was sent to Newgate, whilst Mr. Stockdale was merely confined within the precincts of the House?

Lord J. Russell

replied, that the reason for retaining Mr. Stockdale in the custody of the Sergeant was founded on the possibility that a writ of habeas corpus might be issued, which would render it necessary for the prisoner to be brought up before the proper authorities. This, in fact, had occurred, and it was deemed expedient that the officer of the House was more competent to retain the custody of the person under the orders of Mr. Speaker, than the other ordinary functionaries were. The case of habeas having been decided in favour of the power of the House, Mr. Howard might be sent to Newgate without any inconvenience; and, so far from desiring to establish any difference between Mr. Howard and his principal, Mr. Stock-dale, he was ready to move, on the next sitting of the House, "that Mr. Stockdale be committed, on the Speaker's warrant, to Newgate."

Sir E. Sugden

expressed a wish that the proceedings, in the present case, had not been so distinctly marked by party feeling as they had been. He distinctly said party feeling—nor did he allude to the noble Lord opposite—but to the hon. Members on his side, who had cheered the noble Lord's announcement of his intention to commit Mr. Stockdale to Newgate. Let the punishment due to the offenders in this case be administered, but let not the House exult over the victims of its privileges. He hoped the subject would be renewed on the following day with becoming temper. In the mean time, he would offer a decided negative to the motion of the noble Lord.

The House again divided—Ayes 149; Noes 46:—Majority 103.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, Major Hinde, J. H.
Alston, R. Hobhouse, Sir J.'
Archbold, R. Hobhouse, T. B.
Bainbridge, E. T. Hodgson, R.
Baker, E. Hope, hon. C.
Bannerman, A. Horsman, E.
Baring, F. T. Howard, F. J.
Barnard, E. G. Howick, Lord Vis.
Beamish, F. B. Hughes, W. B.
Benett, J. Hume, J.
Berkeley, hon. H. Hutt, F.
Bernal, R. Irving, J.
Bewes, T. Jenkins, Sir R.
Blair, J. Labouchere, H.
Blennerhassett, A. Lambton, H.
Bodkin, J. Langdale, hon. C.
Boiling, W. Lascelles, W. S.
Bowes, J. Loch, J.
Broadwood, H. Lockhart, A. M.
Brodie, W. B. Lowther, J. H.
Brotherton, J. Lushington, C.
Busfeild, W. Macaulay, T. B.
Campbell, Sir J. Mackenzie, W. F.
Cantilupe, Lord Macleod, R.
Chapman, Sir M. Maule,hon. F.
Chichester, J. P. B. Milnes, R. M.
Clay, W. Morpeth, Lord
Clerk, Sir G. Morris, D.
Colquhoun, J. C. Muntz, G. F.
Compton, H. C. Murray, A.
Currie, R. Nagle, Sir R.
Dalmeny, Lord Noel, hon. C. G.
Dennistoun, J. Norreys, Sir D.
Divett, E. O'Brien, C.
Douglas, Sir C. E. O'Brien, W. S.
Duff, J. O Callaghan, C.
Dundas, F. O'Connell, D.
Du Pré, G. O'Connell, M. J.
Elliot,hon. J. E. O'Conor Don
Ellice, E. Oswald, J.
Evans, Sir De L. Palmerston, Lord
Evans, W. Parker, J.
Fielden, W. Patten, J. W.
Fenton, J. Pattison, J.
Finch, F. Peel, Sir R.
Fitzalan, Lord Pigot, D. R.
Fleetwood, Sir P. Planta, J.
Fremantle, Sir T. Power, J.
French, F. Protheroe, E.
Gillon, W. D. Redington, T. N.
Gordon, R. Reid, Sir J.R.
Gore, O. J.R. Roche, W.
Goulburn, H. Russell, Lord J.
Graham, Sir J. Rutherford, A.
Greig, D. Salwey, Colonel
Grey, Sir C. Sanford, E. A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Seale, Sir J. H.
Harcourt, G. G. Seymour, Lord
Hardinge, Sir H. Sheppard, T.
Hastie, A. Smith, G. R.
Hawes, B. Smith, R. V.
Heathcote, J. Somers, J. P.
Hill, Lord A. M. C. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Stansfield, W. R. Wallace, R.
Staunton, Sir G. Warburton, H.
Stuart, Lord J. Ward, H. G.
Stuart, W. P. White, A.
Stock, Dr Wilde, Sergeant
Strickland, Sir G. Williams, W.
Surrey, Earl of Winnington, Sir T. E.
Tufnell, H. Winnington, H. J.
Vigors, N. A. Wood, C.
Vivian, J. H. Young, J.
Vivian, Sir R. H. TELLERS.
Walker, R. Stanley, E. J.
Wall, C. B. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Alsager, Captain Lygon, Gen.
Barneby, J. Mahon, Lord
Boldero, H. G. Norreys, Lord
Broadley, H. Packe, C. W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Pakington, J. S.
Conolly, E. Pigot, R.
Darby, G. Polhill, F.
Dowdeswell, W. Praed, W. T.
Duncombe, T. Richards, R.
Duncombe, W. Rolleston, L.
Duncombe, A. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Eaton, R. J. Shaw, F.
Eliot, Lord Shirley, E. J.
Filmer, Sir E. Sturt, H. C.
Fitzroy, H. Sugden, Sir E.
Gladstone, W. E. Tennent, J. E.
Halford, H. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Hamilton, Lord C. Vere, Sir C. B.
Hogg, J. W. Walsh, Sir J.
Hope, G. W. Williams, R.
Inglis Sir R. H. Wood, Col. T.
Jackson, Serg.
Jones, J. TELLERS.
Lincoln, Earl of Kelly, F.
Litton, E. D'Israeli, B.

Speaker to issue his warrant for the committal of Mr. Howard to Newgate.

The first division was composed so almost exclusively of the same persons as the second, that it is unnecessary to repeat the names on the first division.