§ Sir M. Woodsaid that, from the information which he had received, he understood that to-morrow morning, at eleven o'clock, the writ of inquiry which had been sued out in the fresh action of Stockdale v. Hansard would be signed and sealed by the signers and sealers, who were officers of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, therefore, the House had it in its power to interfere before the sheriffs were again involved in the proceedings, and he called upon the House to consider the hardship of their situation. Already one of them had been nearly destroyed in that House. [a laugh.] Some Gentlemen might laugh, but it was no laughing matter; and he ventured say those hon. Gentlemen would not laugh if they were in the same situation. The gentleman to whom he alluded was to day very unwell, and had gone into the country for the purpose of endeavouring to recruit his strength; he knew that though he had before been a man in the habit of taking active exercise, latterly he was not able to walk down to the water-side, as far as the indulgence of the Sergeant-at-arms would allow him. He thought the time had come when both those gentlemen ought to be liberated—but if they were not liberated, at least the House ought not to plunge them into another difficulty. The damages in this fresh action were laid, he believed, at 30,000l.—["50,000l."]—well, then, at 50,000l. To-morrow morning the writ of enquiry would be signed and sealed; that step might be stopped by that House; and if it were not so stopped, surely they would not afterwards proceed against the sheriffs? If they were immediately to pass a resolution preventing two gentlemen from signing and three from sealing the writ of enquiry, the whole proceedings would be stopped at once; and he therefore moved "that Mr. Speaker be di- 237 rected to order Wm. Prevot and Thos. chamberlayne not to sign any writ of enquiry in a cause now pending of Stockdale v. Hansard, and that John Penlow be directed not to seal any writ of inquiry in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard."
§ Sir R. Inglisquestioned how far this was a matter of privilege, so as to be entitled to precedence of motions on the paper; but independently of that, he objected to the motion, as containing an assumption of power on the part of that House, for which there was no precedent. Upon the first point he appealed to the Speaker.
§ The Speakersaid, the motion had already been made and seconded.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there could be little doubt that this was a matter of privilege; but he doubted whether the motion could be made in its present form. He doubted whether the House had the power of ordering those officers not to do a certain thing, though it had the power of declaring that the doing of it was a breach of privilege. He agreed with the worthy Alderman in thinking it desirable to stop the progress of the action before the sheriffs were again involved. He begged to remind the House that Mr. Howard, being in prison, must be carrying on the present action by his agents or clerks; and if they prosecuted him for so doing, they ought equally to prevent his managing clerk, Mr. Pearce, or any other agent of his, from acting in his name. He, however, thought it better to wait till to-morrow, and they then could act upon the further information which they might receive.
§ The Attorney-Generalsaid, the motion was of much importance, and he wished notice had been given of it—but he felt it his duty to say that in the present state of affairs it was not, in his opinion, expedient to agree to the motion—and that at all events more deliberation was necessary. He and his hon. Colleague had deliberated on the matter, and they were not then prepared to recommend that course to the House. He would not discuss the contrast between the sheriffs and the officers of the court; but it would be easy to point out many distinctions between the two, which would justify a different line of conduct towards each. For the present, however, he would content himself with moving the previous question.
§ Mr. Humesaid, they had heard that a 238 proceeding would take place to-morrow, by which the question of damages would be again submitted to a jury. To be consistent ought they not to stop every individual who took part in that proceeding? If they did not, what was the use of stopping the attorney 1—and who so important as the sealers and signers of the writ of inquiry, the officers of the Court? The House ought not to subject itself to being laughed at in consequence of its continued proceedings of this kind. Why the Attorney-general should object to a resolution now, when the proceeding was to take place to-morrow he could not understand. He had been informed that in the last case, if the order of that House had been sent directly and officially to the sheriffs, instead of their receiving it through Mr. Parkes or some other person, of whose connection with the House they knew nothing, it would have been treated in a very different manner. Now, if they acted upon their resolution, that all persons aiding and abetting in the furtherance and promotion of this action were guilty of a breach of privilege, the great difficulty would be avoided.
§ Mr. Warburtonthought that if the information of the hon. Member were correct it was perfectly unnecessary to interfere at the present stage of the proceedings, because, if it was true, that in the former action the sheriffs would have obeyed the order of the Speaker had it been directly and officially communicated, they would also obey his order in the new action and they certainly did not know whether the officers of the Court of Queen's Bench would act in conformity with the resolution of that House, upon its being communicated to them. If, therefore, the statement was correct, it appeared to him that they had better allow the matter to proceed until the sheriffs had some duty to perform; then the Speaker need only address the resolutions of the House direct to the sheriffs, those orders would be obeyed, and then the privileges of the House would be satisfied.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had stated no such thing; he referred only to what he understood would have been done in the former action.
§ Mr. John Joneshad certainly understood the hon. Member for Kilkenny to say that the sheriffs had been served in a way in which they had no right to obey the order of the House; but that if the 239 pleasure of the House was properly and officially communicated they would obey it. Now, if that were the case, the sheriffs ought at least to be indemnified against any action to which they might become liable by obeying the orders of that House.
§ Captain Bolderowished to know what objection there could be to allowing the sheriff to go at large if he gave his word of honour that he would be forthcoming at any moment, because he would still be their prisoner.
§ Mr. Kellysaid, that, according to his view of the case, no officer, attorney, counsel, or judge, could be guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House by merely discharging their duties in commencing, furthering, advocating, or deciding an action; but as the majority had decided that it was a breach of privilege to do any act in promotion of such an action as this, the motion of the hon. Alderman was entitled to more attention than it had received, because it was a direct appeal to the House to say whether they would not to-morrow morning give warning to those officers, whom to-morrow evening they might declare guilty of contempt, and consign to imprisonment, not to do that act which might subject them to such serious consequences. He now called upon the House to give those officers that intimation and warning, that they might not unwarned incur that punishment which had fallen so heavily, and he would venture to say so unjustly, on other officers who had done no more than their duty; at least he trusted that the majority of that House, if they would not accede to the motion of the hon. Alderman, and if at a future time they should be called upon to visit those other officers with punishment, would remember that they had refused to give them warning of the danger which they incurred, and would act with a greater degree of lenity, and with more justice and Jess oppression, than had been shown towards the sheriffs.—Motion negatived.