HC Deb 18 January 1840 vol 51 cc196-227

On the order of the day being read for the further consideration of Messrs. Hansards' petition.

William Hemp was ordered to be called in.

The Speaker said

What is your name?—William Hemp.

In what capacity do you act?—As bailiff to the sheriffs of the county of Middlesex.

The Attorney General

Did you make a levy on the goods of Messrs. Hansard?—I did.

When did you enter on their premises?—I made execution on the 25th ult.

Under what authority did you make that levy?—By warrant from the sheriffs of Middlesex.

Is that warrant under the seal of the sheriffs of Middlesex?—It is the usual warrant granted by the sheriff.

Under the official seal of the sheriffs of Middlesex?—Yes.

By whom was the warrant delivered to you?—By Mr. James Burchell.

When was that warrant delivered to you?—On the 23d of November last.

When did you make the levy?—On the 25th.

Where?—At the printing premises, Tichbourne-court, Holborn.

Did you take certain goods of the Messrs. Hansard under that warrant?—I did.

When was any notice served on you?—

A day or two afterwards.

Have you got that notice?—I have not.

Or a copy of it?—No.

What did you do with that notice?—

I think I took it to the sheriffs' office.

Were you informed of any resolutions of the House of Commons?—I was.

Of what nature were they—did they not explain the privileges of the House of Commons on the case?—They did.

Did you communicate that notice to the sheriffs?—I did; not personally, but to Messrs. France and Burchell.

After that did you proceed to make a sale of those goods?—Not till the writ of "venditioni exponas" was issued.

On the 3d of December did you receive a warrant from the sheriffs?—I did.

Have you that warrant?—I have (producing it).

Is it under the seal of the sheriffs?—It is.

Under that warrant did you advertise the goods for sale?—I caused them to be so.

Were they sold?—They were.

Before the sale had you received another notice?—I had.

To the same effect?—Yes.

What did you do with that fresh notice?—I took it to the sheriffs' office, and found they had received a similar notice.

For what sum did you sell the goods?—For 695l.

What did you do with that money?—I paid 640l. or thereabouts—I have not the exact account—into the sheriffs' office.

What was the sum to be levied for?—618l. odd.

How do you make out the 640l.?—The rest was for the expenses of the writs of fieri facias and "venditioni exponas," and of the sale.

Have you anything to add by way of explanation?—In the execution of the writ I was bound to execute all the proceedings directed to me. If I have done anything to offend the House, I am sorry for it, and I humbly beg pardon of the House.

By Mr. Godson

In what place did you get the sheriff's order?—In the sheriff's office.

To whom were the goods sold?—To Mr. Wiseldon, 16, Great Russell-street Bloomsbury; I believe he is a timber merchant.

By Sir R. Inglis: Are you a sworn officer?—No, I am not.

Have you given any bond?—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

Lord J Russell

moved that William Evans and John Wheelton, Esquires, the sheriffs of the county of Middlesex, be called in.

Sir R. H. Inglis

begged pardon for intruding on the House, but he wished to observe that the noble Lord had said yesterday that the House should decide on each case separately. He therefore was anxious to ask the Attorney-general what he should do with the witness who had just left the bar? He begged that that question might be first of all decided.

Lord John Russell

thought that the evidence of the last witness made it necessary that the House should defer that question. He had received an order for the execution of this warrant—he stated from other persons, and he stated in the course of his examination, that if he had offended the House he humbly begged their pardon. He thought it very likely that it might appear, in the course of other examinations, that it would become necessary to have that person again at the bar. He did not think it would be advisable to make any motion now in the case of the person who had just been examined.

Sir E. Sugden

said, that when that course was proposed yesterday evening, he did not think it an advisable one, that the cases of the parties concerned in this matter should be disposed of separately; but the House having come to the agreement of doing so, and having already acted upon that agreement in one instance, he thought it would be adhered to in all the others. The noble lord, it seemed, was disposed to accept the apology of the person who had just been examined [No, No]. He had certainly understood so, but whether that was to be the result or not, he thought that the House should proceed to dispose of the case it had already entered upon, upon its own merits.

The Attorney General

thought this case differed materially from that of Stockdale. In respect to Stockdale, the case was perfect in itself. They had all the information which could possibly be required. They had a party accused of a certain offence, and confessing what was laid to his charge, and such being the case, it was not necessary to call any other witnesses to substantiate it. But in the present case, until the House knew on what authority the witness had acted, they would be totally at a loss to know how they ought to proceed, whether to commit him, or to let him go entirely free. He therefore thought it necessary to proceed with the examination of the sheriff's, that they might know what order they had given in this matter.

Sir E. Sugden

said, the witness has told the House that he was guilty of the offence he was charged with; he was therefore as much in a state to be punished as the other party under a charge of contempt. He merely wished that the proceedings should be regular.

Sir R. Inglis

said, that he understood that the party had delivered in the authority under which he had acted, but the substance of it had not yet been communicated to the House. Still he thought it would not be necessary to call further evidence on the point, and he concurred with his right hon. and learned Friend, that the House should adopt the course of deciding on every case on its merits. It was not necessary to call the parties by whom the order had been issued. If there was, however, any doubt on its authenticity, then the case might be difficult.

Sir C. Grey

said, that it appeared to him that there was no similarity between the two cases. Stockdale ought certainly to have been committed, but he was not confident the same would be said of the other party. The last witness stated, that if he did wrong, he was sorry for it, and he believed that if the privileges of the House did not require it, they would not be inclined to commit him. At the same time he did not think that there were sufficient grounds before the House to entitle the last witness to be discharged, until the evidence of other parties implicated had been heard. This was not an unimportant point, and he thought he could see the object of hon. Gentlemen who urged the House to adopt a course so different from that approved of by the majority of the House. If they could once get the House to say that this person, on the evidence he had just given, should be discharged, then they would be establishing this principle—that where a party, with a knowledge of the resolutions of this House, disregarded them, and, for instance, paid over moneys in his hands, contrary to the direction of the House —if he then came forward, and begged pardon of the House, the House would acquit him, and let him go free. He, for one, could not say that he was prepared to establish that principle.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

could not imagine what further facts they could require from the witness who had just left the bar of the House than those they had already got. They had the fact that he (the witness) had seized the goods of the Messrs. Hansard; they had the fact that those goods were sold; they had the fact that the witness was apprised of the resolutions of this House; they had also the fact of the money that was received by the sale of the goods; they had the warrant under which he acted; and then they had the fact that the witness begged pardon of the House if he had committed any offence against it. He therefore begged to know if that House doubted the truth of any of those facts? If they did doubt, he admitted they ought to pursue this investigation further. If it were necessary to establish other facts, the House might act as it thought proper; but he (Sergeant Jackson) respectfully suggested, that the House ought not to detain that man upon the bare possibility of his evidence being again required. Let the case of every individual concerned in this business be discussed upon its own merits. He strongly objected to hon. Gentlemen of that House imputing motives to the Members who sat at his side of the House. He begged to assure hon. Gentlemen, that his side was actuated in their motives by the principles of justice. They had no other interest than that of supporting the substantial interests of that House, and the maintenance of their just rights, privileges, and prerogatives, which could only be maintained, by rendering them consistent with the liberties of the people. He did think that, in the present instance, the House was attempting to arrogate to itself an authority which it had no right to; and, to set itself in opposition to, and above all, the concurrent and concomitant jurisdictions and constitutional authorities of the country, and so, as it were, to ride roughshod over the people of this country. Feeling deeply impressed with this view of the subject, he had been obliged, though with great regret, to separate himself from many gentlemen with whom he had been accustomed to act, and for whom he entertained the greatest respect.

Lord John Russell

said, he thought that sufficient had been heard from the last witness to ascertain that a breach of privilege had been committed by him. But when he came to consider what degree of criminality attached to that offence, and with what degree of punishment it should be visited, he did not think that there was a sufficient number of facts before him to enable him to come to a just conclusion. This party had represented himself as having acted under the orders of others, and in so doing, not wishing to commit a breach of his own duty, nor to give offence to this House; and he had, moreover, put in the warrant under authority of which he had acted, and which he would read to the House. [The noble Lord read the warrant, which was in the usual form of such documents. On coming to the words "and by virtue of the Queen's writs to me directed," there was loud and general cheering]. At the foot of this warrant was the following caution—"before you levy upon the said defendant, beware that the parties are not privileged as ambassadors, or servants to ambassadors, or otherwise privileged or protected."

Mr. Cresswell

thought the noble Lord had removed all the difficulty in which the House was placed before. The only question then was, whose case were they discussing? He understood the noble Lord to say, they were discussing Hemp's case, with a view of dividing upon it.

Lord John Russell

No, no. "What is proposed is, that we should call in the sheriffs, and stated reasons why we should call in the sheriffs before we proceeded to adjudicate in Hemp's case.

Mr. Cresswell

that was exactly his meaning. Then he would take the liberty of asking for what purpose was Hemp called? Was he called a? a witness against the sheriffs? ["Oh! Oh."] He would take the liberty of asking the Gentleman who cried "oh," on whose case did he consider he was going to adjudicate? Was it Hemp's case, or the sheriff's? He was bound to know the name of the party on whose case he was about to adjudicate. He had imported from elsewhere certain professional prejudices, and he would not like to give a judgment before he knew whose case he was going to decide. He had understood that Hemp was to be brought there as a party, and not as a witness. Was Hemp examined as a party who might, by his evidence, prove that he had been guilty of a contempt, or was he called to prove that somebody else had? They could not have two cases on at the same time.

Sir Robert Peel

confessed, that he could not see the slightest difficulty in the case. There were two questions. First of all, the question relating to Mr. Stockdale, which was completely separated from the other. Mr. Stockdale was responsible for an act which they were to presume he had been the sole adviser of. He had instituted the action, and the House considered the execution of the action to be a breach of its privileges. They could not meet with any other person responsible for the institution of the action, and, therefore, considering it was a breach of privilege, and an admitted intentional breach of privilege, they determined to submit him to punishment. The present case raised another question, which would require mature deliberation, namely, in what way could they most effectually proceed for the vindication of their privileges. Would the most effectual mode be (and he wished not to be understood as giving any opinion upon that at present) to prevent, if they could, the payment of the damages over? He could not give an opinion on that until he had examined the different parties interested. They were not then in Hemp's case singly. He did not consider that Hemp's name had a criminal foreboding, and that the use of anything like his name was immediately to follow up his examination. But the question was, should they discharge Hemp then, or keep him for two or three hours till they were enabled to see whether they would require his evidence again? It was not to be inferred that he must necessarily be punished; but the question was, whether, in this transaction, where there were various agents employed, sheriffs and subordinate officers, and so on, they should decide on one of the cases till they had heard the whole. He thought it would be more just not to deal with Hemp's case, which he begged to say he did not consider at present in the slightest degree as a criminal case, until the whole of the evidence had been heard.

Mr. Sheriff Evans and Mr. Sheriff Wheelton were called to the bar.

The Attorney General

You are the sheriffs of the county of Middlesex?—

Mr. Sheriff Evans

We are.

Who is your under-sheriff?—Thomas France.

Does any other person act as Under Sheriff'?—Mr. Jackson is my colleague's Under-Sheriff.

Does Mr. Burchell act as under-sheriff?—I believe he does.

When did you first appear in these proceedings against Messrs. Hansard?—I do not recollect exactly, but I think it was in November.

Was there a notice served on you, Mr. Evans?—There was.

Was there a notice served on you, Mr. Wheelton?—Mr. Sheriff Wheelton?: there was.

Mr. Sheriff Evans

; I handed my notice to the under-sheriff.

Mr. Sheriff Wheelton

And I pursued the same course.

The Attorney General

Have you got a copy?—Yes: it is dated the 14th of November.

[The copy was handed in, and read by the clerk at the table.]

The Attorney General

Was there any other notice served upon you?—Mr. Evans: There was.

The Attorney General

Please to hand it in.

The notice, which was dated the 4th November, was then handed in and read.

The Attorney General

inquired if any other notices had been served upon them, and the answer was in the affirmative.

Mr. Sheriff Wheelton

then handed in copies of all the notices which had been served upon him, and they were read at length by the clerk at the table.

The documents were read by the clerk at the table, after which the examination was resumed.

In answer to questions put by the Attorney-general, the sheriffs stated that they had not given any orders to stay the execution of the writ; that they left those matters to the under-sheriffs; and that they understood they were bound to obey the orders of the Court of Queen's Bench; that they handed over the notices they had received to the under-sheriffs.

But the under-sheriffs are under your control?—Certainly.

Were Messrs. Hansards' goods sold under the authority of a writ of execution issued by the Court of Queen's Bench?—

We understood so.

You know what became of the money produced by such sale?—Personally we do not. The under sheriffs, Messrs. Burchell and France, manage those matters, and we have not the money in our own possession.

But Messrs. France and Burchell have authority to receive money on your account?—Certainly.

Then they have received the proceeds of the sale?—1 believe they have, as under-sheriffs.

And continue in possession of it?—Yes.

It has not been paid to Mr. Stockdale or to the Court of Queen's Bench?—Certainly not to Stockdale, but as to the Queen's Bench, we are not certain.

Do you not know that it still remains in the hands of Messrs. Burchell and France?—We consider so.

Mr. O'Connell

Did you ever give orders to your under-sheriffs not to attend to the resolutions or orders of this House?—Mr. Sheriff Evans: We never gave such orders; but we considered ourselves and our deputies bound to obey the orders of the Queen's Bench.

Mr. O'Connell

What! if they should clash with the orders and resolutions of the House of Commons?—We gave no orders to disobey the resolutions of this House.

In answer to Viscount Howick, the sheriffs said, that if they gave orders to the under-sheriffs for any particular purpose, they (the former) considered those orders would be obeyed; and that while the money was in the under-sheriffs' hands it was considered in the custody of the sheriffs themselves.

Sir R. Peel

then asked, if this had been a mere ordinary action in which the plaintiff had recovered damages in the usual way, would they have paid over the amount in the usual way, without taking steps for delay?—They would not have taken steps for delay.

Sir R. Peel

Had you a doubt as to the propriety of paying the damages to Mr. Stockdale?—Mr. Sheriff Evans: Yes, we had; and we, therefore, gave directions to our under-sheriffs to retain the money in their hands as long as they possibly could do so, consistent with the orders of the Court of Queen's Bench. We wished to retain the money until the House met.

Sir R. Peel

If you do not pay over the money to Mr. Stockdale, do you consider yourselves legally responsible to him for the amount of the verdict?—Mr. Sheriff Evans: We have received a notice from the Insolvent Debtors' Court not to pay over the money to Mr. Stockdale, but to pay it to Mr. Stockdale's assignees for the benefit of his creditors.

The notice from the Insolvent Court was put in and read.

Suppose Mr. Stockdale wanted to get the money from the hands of the sheriff, would not his remedy be by action against the sheriffs?—Yes, against the sheriffs,

By Mr Cresswell: When you received notice from the House not to proceed to execute the writ of inquiry, did you cause any application to be made to the Court of Queen's Bench to enlarge the time?—We did.

In order to prevent the necessity of proceeding and of creating delay?—Certainly.

In the case laid before the Court of Queen's Bench did you make a statement of all the matters referred to to-day, of the notices received, and of the difficulty respecting the House of Commons?—I believe every step was taken by the under-sheriff which he was bound to take, or which was considered necessary.

Were all such measures as were necessary to obtain delay taken by the ordinary proceedings of the court?—We did.

You took no step, except by order of the court?—Certainly not.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

Are you sworn to execute all the Queen's writs:—Yes.

The Attorney General

That is to say, all writs issued according to law. Has it ever happened with you to have been served with an injunction from the Court of Chancery, forbidding you to execute some particular writ that had been placed in your hands?—I believe not. I am not prepared to say, that such may not have been done; nor have I understood to the contrary.

If an injunction should have been served on you from the Court of Chancery forbidding you to execute a certain writ, would you, notwithstanding such injunction, proceed to execute that writ?

Sir Edward Sugden

objected to the question.

Sheriffs withdrew.

The Attorney General

said, that the question he wished to put was this—suppose a writ of execution to be delivered to the sheriff in the name of the Queen directing him to seize the goods of the person named in that writ, and that there came an injunction from the Court of Chancery forbidding him to execute that writ, would he (the sheriff) consider it contrary to his oath to suspend the execution of that writ?

Sir E. Sugden

said, he had taken the liberty of interposing, by calling the hon. and learned Gentleman to order, because lie thought the question an improper one. The sheriff was not a legal person from whom they could expect a satisfactory answer. It was a question of law which that House was in a condition to discuss. The sheriff knew nothing upon the subject. If he gave an incorrect answer, they would thereby only convict him of ignorance, without in the least degree settling the point. Every one was aware that an injunction from the Court of Chancery overruled proceedings at common law; but then that was by law. It was not right to convict the sheriff of an error that he might commit under certain. circumstances of which he had had no experience.

The Attorney General

would not have put the question, but for that put by the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, which was intended to create an impression on the minds of hon. Members, that all writs in the name of the Queen must by law be executed.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

had not put any question of law to the sheriffs; he had merely questioned them as to a matter of fact.

Lord J. Russell

certainly thought, that the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had introduced the words "by law" into his question, which was in accordance with his previous argument. What was done by the Court of Queen's Bench was done by law; so also was what was done by the Court of Chancery done according to law; and so also, in his mind, what was done by Parliament was done according to Parliamentary law, which he held to be as much the law of the realm as any other law.

Sir Robert Peel

observed, that if they went on arguing in this way they would never close their proceedings. The point in dispute was, whether a certain question should be put—a question which he thought perfectly correct, if the sheriff had had experience on the subject. Not having had experience, he might have said, that it was a point of great difficulty, and would consult the Attorney general upon it.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

begged to say, in explanation, that he certainly had not in- tended to ask the sheriff whether he had sworn to execute all the Queen's writs according to law, but simply as to the fact. If his question were read, that would be found to be the case.

Sheriffs recalled.

Mr. Godson

I believe no one step was taken by you in this case until you were compelled by the Court of Queen's Bench?

Mr. Sheriff Evans


Mr. F. Kelly

On entering office did you take all the oaths required by law?—Certainly.

And since then have you left to your under-sheriffs the whole management of writs?—Yes.

Lord J. Russell

The order to sell was given by your authority?—Yes.

Mr. Blewitt

You stated that you were anxious to defer the proceedings until Parliament met; was that in order that you should receive its instructions and abide by its orders?—No; for we were determined to abide by the orders of the Queen's Bench.

Mr. Jervis

You delayed in order to give the House an opportunity of investigating the question?—Yes.

Mr. T. Duncombe

If the Court of Queen's Bench should desire you to pay the money into the hands of Mr. Stock-dale, are you prepared to do it?

Viscount Howick

objected to the question, as the answer might bind the sheriffs to a future course of conduct, which he thought would be unfair.

The sheriffs withdrew.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, he should wish to know if questions were not put the day before to the unfortunate Stockdale which tended to criminate him? Was he not asked, whether he knew that he had been guilty of a breach of privilege? And when it was proposed to ask him, as Hemp had been that day asked, if he had anything to say in explanation, did not the noble Lord object, and say, that having been guilty of a breach of privilege, they would receive no explanations? Hemp said he had none to offer, but that if he had done wrong he was sorry for it. Might not Stockdale have said the same thing? When the public came to read the examinations of yesterday and those of to-day, would they not think, that the courage of the House had oosed out, and that they were now shrinking from the courts of justice? They might have a vicious man for their client, but that had nothing to do with the question. It mattered not whether Mr. Stockdale was high or low—whether he was affluent or poor—whether they had the pauperised Mr. Stockdale or anybody else for their client—it was all the same; they were bound to administer equally that justice which every Englishman was entitled to demand. He therefore said, that if he were not allowed to put that question, it would be apparent, that the House was afraid of coming in contact with the courts of law.

Viscount Howick

said, he did not object to the question because it tended to criminate the sheriff, but because he thought it would be unfair to ask them to pledge themselves to any future course of proceeding. He had always held, and still held, that that House had a right—very different from the practice of courts of law—to require parties to acknowledge offences which they might have committed. They had accordingly requested the sheriffs to avow, and they had avowed, that they had given authority for that which was considered a breach of the privileges of that House. To that course he offered no objection, because he thought it a perfectly correct course. But he did object not to asking the sheriffs what they had done, but to asking them what they would do under circumstances that had not yet arisen, and which they had not had time duly to consider previous to deciding what their line of conduct ought to be. No such course had been adopted with regard to Stockdale. They had not asked him any question by which they could pledge him to any future step. He would moreover state, in consequence of his hon. friend's allusion to Hemp's expression of regret, that Stockdale had been afforded ample opportunity of giving any explanation he could. Had he not openly and expressly stated that it was a question raised for the purpose of trying the privileges of that House? He certainly thought, that after his examination, and previous to his committal, it would have been very wrong to have allowed Stockdale to enter into an argument against their privileges. That would have been a course calculated to compromise the dignity of the House, and which he believed would be contrary to precedent. He did not see the slightest analogy between what occurred yesterday respecting Stockdale, and that day's examination of Hemp,

Question withdrawn.

Sir E. Sugden

first begged to know if it was intended that the House of Commons should retain possession of the several documents which had been handed in by the persons who had been summoned to the bar, or return them, as being their only authority for the acts they had committed? He was not prepared to say whether the House ought to do so or not; but if it were so intended, he was of opinion that such a step should be done openly and avowedly.

The Attorney General

was understood to say that the papers which had been handed in were for the purposes of the inquiry. He should say that when the inquiry was over they would be returned.

Mr. France

, the under-sheriff, called in.

The Speaker.

—What is your name?—Thomas France.

By the Attorney General.—Are you, Mr. France, under-sheriff for the county of Middlesex?—I am.

How long have you acted as under-sheriff?—I believe you have before filled that office? I have—twice before. I have held the office for sixteen years.

Were any notices served upon you in regard to the proceedings in the action between Stockdale and the Messrs. Hansard?—There were.

When was the first notice served upon you?—The first notice, I believe, was served on the 4th of November.

Are all the notices which were served upon you in the report?—I believe they are.

The report was handed to Mr. France, and having examined it, he said that he believed it contained all the notices.

Examination continued by the Attorney General—All the notices in the paper which you have been shown were served upon you?—I believe they were.

And at the time stated in the paper?—On the day on which they are dated, or a day or two after.

Did you communicate, in reference to these notices, with Mr. Evans, the sheriff, or his colleague?—Certainly.

Did they give you any directions on the subject?—Yes, they gave the directions usually given. I was directed to protect their interests, and to do everything according to the oath which they had sworn, and which oath I also had taken.

Were you aware of the goods of the Messrs. Hansard having been distrained upon under a writ of fieri facias?—It was so reported to me by the officer Hemp.

Were the goods sold under a writ of venditioni exponas?—I believe they were not sold under a writ of venditioni exponas, but under a bill of sale. I hope, however, that I shall be allowed to state the nature of the offices of sheriff and under-sheriff. The sheriffs appoint their under-sheriffs, and the under-sheriffs again appoint their deputies, and the last named office is at present filled by the Messrs. Burchell, through whom the under-sheriffs act. The mere official part of the duty is performed by the Messrs. Burchell, who indemnify the under-sheriffs as they indemnify the sheriffs.

You know, probably, that under the bill of sale the money was levied?—It was.

Where is the money, the proceeds of the sale?—In the hands of the Messrs. Burchell.

On behalf of the sheriffs and under their control?—Certainly, under the control of the sheriffs. The sheriffs gave directions to their under-sheriffs, who are not responsible.

Whilst you have been under-sheriff have you known an injunction from the Court of Chancery, after the writ has been issued, to stay the execution?—Certainly An injunction from the Court of Chancery stays the execution, but not the trial."

An injunction stays the execution of the writ?—Yes,

Whilst you have been under-sheriff have you known an injunction from the Court of Chancery to stay the execution after the writ has come to the office?—I have.

Upon the service of such injunction is the execution invariably stayed?—Certainly. It would be a contempt of the Court of Chancery not to stay the execution.

If the Court of Queen's Bench rules the sheriff to return the writ, is that writ not executed by reason of such injunction?—

I have never known the court to make a rule to return a writ when an injunction has been served. In fact, as the injunction is served on the plaintiff as well as on the sheriffs it would be a contempt to apply for such a rule. That is my idea.

Then, under these circumstances, when an injunction has been issued, the execution of the writ has been frustrated?—It has.

Was any application made to the Court of Queen's Bench in this case to postpone the execution of the writ of inquiry?—There was an application to the Court upon an affidavit made by me. I may be permitted to say that the cause for doing so was, that knowing the rules of this House, I considered the notice of the resolution which had been served upon me in the nature of an injunction from the Court of Chancery, and I, therefore, stated the whole circumstances in my affidavit. The application was made to the whole court, but the judges referred the matter to Mr. Justice Littledale, before whom it was argued with much learning and ingenuity by gentlemen of great ability for two days. Mr. Justice Littledale, however, refused the application, and did not grant the sheriffs protection.

He refused the application?—He did.

And the consequence was, that the writ of inquiry was executed?—Yes.

Was any other application made to a judge in chambers for delay?—Yes, two or three.

And those applications were made on the ground, that the notice of the House of Commons was in the nature of an injunction from the Court of Chancery?—I so treated it.

And you, therefore, applied for delay in the execution of the writ?—I avow it; and I may be allowed to add, that it was the greatest desire of the sheriffs, as well as of the under-sheriffs, to get rid of the matter for a time in order to allow the House an opportunity of coming to some resolution upon the subject. That was the object of the applications for delay, and the matter now stands thus:—A rule nisi has been obtained by Mr. Platt for paying over the money, which will, as it expires to-day, be made absolute, no cause shown.

The applications for delay which you have mentioned all failed?—All.

Did you think of making any special return to the writ of fieri facias?—I did not; because some eminent gentlemen at the bar were of opinion, that it was better to make the return in the usual way. The money was, therefore, levied, and is now in our possession.

And you levied without making a return to the court, that you had received a notice, that this proceeding was contrary to the rules of the House of Commons?—That arose from the circumstance of the court being already aware of the fact from the affidavit which I had filed.

Then you tell us, that a rule has been obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench to show cause why the money should not be paid to Stockdale?—Yes.

And cause has not yet been shown?—Not yet.

Then there is still an opportunity to show cause against the rule being made absolute?—Yes; and I intend to do so.

And you will have an opportunity of laying before the court any facts which may be considered as an excuse for not paying the money?—Such is my intention; but it will depend on the pleasure of the House whether I am detained here or not.

The rule will not be disposed of for several days perhaps?—I think not.

And if the rule does not come on for several days, will you have an opportunity of making an affidavit, and of laying before the court any facts that now exist, or which may exist, before cause is shown, and which may be considered as sufficient to induce the court to discharge the rule instead of making it absolute?

Mr. Kelly

objected to the question.

Mr. France


Mr. Kelly

said, he objected to the question of the Attorney-general, because no question ought to be put the answer to which might tend to the injury of the party. He had heard, during the course of these proceedings several objections to questions tending to entrap the person under examination into a reply which might seriously inculpate him. He was sure, that nothing was further from the intention of his Friend, the Attorney-general, but he thought his learned Friend must see, that such a question ought not to be put. It might be, that Mr. France would answer, that he would have such an opportunity as the Attorney-general had alluded to, and he might instruct his legal adviser to make an affidavit accordingly. It was, however, to be recollected, that Mr. France had stated, that the day appointed for the consideration of the rule was passed, and according to the strict practice of the court, although the rule was often departed from, no affidavit containing new matter could be made after the day first appointed for showing cause. [The Attorney-general; No.] If the Attorney-general would undertake to say, that it was the right of parties showing cause against a rule to make an affidavit containing new matter after the day appointed for the discussion of the rule had passed, he should, although he was of a contrary opinion, make no further objection to the question.

The Attorney General

felt himself called upon to defend the question. He did so because he considered it of great importance, and because, as it related only to the practice of the courts of Westminster-hall, the answer could not affect the under-sheriff personally.

Mr. Cresswell

suggested that the question was not necessary. If they disposed of this matter to-day, and if the case did not come on before the court till Wednesday, the under-sheriff would then have an opportunity, when cause was shown, of stating any facts he might consider necessary to induce the court to discharge the rule instead of making it absolute. He was certain the House would rather take the law upon the subject from the Attorney-general himself than from the party under examination, and he, therefore, trusted the question would not be pressed.

The Attorney-General

was only desirous that the House should be in possession of a fact which he considered material. The practice of the court was a mere matter of fact, and he was anxious that the House should have that fact from Mr. France, who was perfectly competent to give it, rather than from himself.

Mr. Kelly

after what had fallen from the Attorney-general, would withdraw his opposition.

Mr. France

recalled. The Attorney-general having repeated the question, he replied—If the rule is not argued for some days, an affidavit will unquestionably be made, and it will be made by myself.

By Mr. Sergeant Jackson—On entering: upon the duties of your office were you sworn to pay obedience to all the Queen's writs?—I have a copy of the oath in my pocket, which I will read to the House if I am desired to do so. The oath taken by the under-sheriffs is the same as that taken by the sheriffs; the only difference being that the word "under-sheriff" is inserted instead of the word "sheriff."

Mr. France

read the oath, which contained words to the following effect:—"I will truly return, and truly serve, all the Queen's writs, according to the best of my skill and knowledge."

Have any writs of injunction from the Court of Chancery ever come to you commanding you not to execute the Queen's writs?—Certainly.

Have you ever taken an oath to obey the resolutions of the House of Commons?—No.

By Mr. Warburton.

—Have you ever received the Queen's writs to execute against privileged persons?—Certainly.

When it comes to your knowledge that they are privileged persons, do you feel it consistent with your oath to levy execution upon them as if they were not privileged?—Certainly not.

By Lord J. Russell—What course do you then take?—We make a special return.

By Mr. Kelly.—With respect to the answer which you have just given as to the execution of writs against privileged persons, is there not a warning given to the officers of the sheriffs on the writs themselves to beware of arresting privileged persons?—It is inserted at the bottom of the warrant, according to the act of Parliament.

You have stated in answer to a question put to you by a noble Lord, that in certain cases where the question of privilege arises, you return the matter specially to the court from which the writ issues?—I do.

Is that the mode by which, in due course of law, you bring the question, whether the party is privileged or not, before the consideration of the court?—It is.

And does the court, by due course of law, adjudicate on the question so brought before it?—It does.

If it turns out that the party is not entitled to privilege, then the sheriff would be ordered to amend his return, or an action might be brought against the sheriff for a false return.

You have said that you have occasionally received injunctions from the Court of Chancery against levying on a writ of execution?—Yes; several.

And you stated that you have long been accustomed to discharge the duties of the sheriffs' office?—Yes.

How long?—25 years.

In the course of that period did on ever know or hear of the interference of the House of Commons in the execution of any writ from any court?—Never, in my life.

Is a writ of injunction a common pro cess of the Court of Chancery, and is it recognised as such by the courts of common law?—It is.

You have stated, that in this case you applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for directions. At what stage was it you made your first application?—Immediately after the lodging of the writ of inquiry in the office. The sheriff had no notice until the writ of inquiry was in the office, and as soon as possible afterwards the application was made to enlarge the time.

I understand you, then, to say, that you received the writ of inquiry, and that then you applied to the Court of Queen's Bench?—Had you received in the mean time notice on the part of Messrs. Hansard, that if you proceeded in that writ you would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons?—Yes; and one or two further notices of the resolutions of the House of Commons to that effect.

I ask you, did you bring before the Court of Queen's Bench on affidavit all the notices which you had received, and all the resolutions of the House of Commons of which you had knowledge?—I did. There was some little difficulty. The notices were signed by Parkes and Preston, as solicitors of Messrs. Hansard. In strictness they ought not to have been attended to. We did not know Parkes and Preston as solicitors on the record. We only know the attorney on the record. They were not on the record. Still I thought it only fair to this House to state to the court all that I knew on the subject.

You knew, then, that Parkes and Preston represented the Messrs. Hansard, though they did not appear on the record?—Yes.

Did you, among the other reasons which you laid before the Court, likewise bring before it the resolution of the House to this effect—that any court by assuming to itself the power to determine the question of privilege was guilty of a breach of privilege?—Yes, I did.

I understand you to say, that it was distinctly made known to the Court by affidavit that the question of privilege was raised on this occasion?—Certainly.

Have you, from the beginning to the end of this transaction in every step which you have taken in relation to the Messrs. Hansard acted otherwise than in strict obedience to the Queen's writs?—Certainly not. In common cases I should not have gone to the length of obtaining a peremptory rule to return the writ. It is not usual to do so. In this case, knowing the importance of it, we did nothing without receiving a peremptory rule. If the sheriff's had not obeyed those rules, they would have been in contempt of the. Court of Queen's Bench, and would have been punished accordingly.

Have you from the time the writ of inquiry was issued down to the present moment interposed every delay not inconsistent with the oath you have taken, and with your obedience to the Queen's writ?—Certainly.

Do you know that when the sheriff refuses to pay over the money levied by a writ of execution, he is liable to an attachment, and to be sent to prison?—Yes; unless there be a special endorsement on the writ.

Have you returned that you have the money ready for the court, according to the exigency of the writ?—Certainly.

In the event of the rule being made absolute, is the sheriff liable to an attachment, unless the money be paid in according to the rule?—Certainly.

The sheriffs—have they acted in this business except through you and your colleague?—Certainly not.

By Sir E, Sugden.—You say that you have known several instances in which a writ of injunction has stayed a writ of execution?—Yes.

Did you ever on such occasions know of any conflict between law and equity. No.

Do you consider the authority of a court of equity in such cases is submitted to by the courts of common law?—Yes.

And that no one would bring that question into discussion?—I certainly would not be concerned in it.

By Mr. Godson.—Supposing that this had been an ordinary case, would the money have been paid over and handed to the sheriff immediately?—Yes.

In reply to Mr. Blewitt, the witness stated, that the writ of injunction imposed no obligation on the sheriff, unless it was under seal, but that any party might place that writ under seal. The writ of injunction was a Queen's writ. He never knew an instance of a writ of injunction coming in after a writ of execution had been levied.

By Sir C. Grey.—In the oath which you have read to us, is the expression that you will execute all writs, or that you will duly return all writs?—" Truly return and duly serve" all writs.

By Sir R. Peel—The words of the oath are, "I will truly return and duly serve all the Queen's writs according to the best of my skill and knowledge." I suppose that the ordinary construction of those words is, "I will duly execute such writs?"—Yes.

In the case of a writ of venditioni exponas, you give positive orders to the officers of the sheriff to proceed to a sale?—Yes; that writ is issued in the Queen's name. It is in the name of a command. The words are, "We command you," &c.

In case of a writ of injunction issuing from the Court of Chancery, you consider yourself at liberty, in compliance with the terms of your oath, to disobey that order or command?—The writ of injunction is another command from the Queen, and therefore we feel ourselves at liberty to disobey the first.

You promise to execute all writs which come to you in the Queen's name. Do you not consider it a breach of your oath to disregard the first writ?—No; for we have another command of the Queen. That writ is a prohibition upon the first command.

Does it make reference to the previous writ in the Queen's name?—Yes, so far that all process hitherto issued is to be stayed.

Does the sheriff swear to execute all the laws and statutes of this realm?—Yes.

If it can be shown that the privilege of Parliament is part of the law of the land, would not the sheriff consider the House of Commons to stand in the situation of the Court of Chancery, and to be entitled to have the proceedings in a case like the present stayed?

The question was objected to by Sir R. Inglis, and withdrawn.

By Sir E. Sugden.—The first writ of execution you are commanded to serve; the next, that of injunction, commands you to stay the service; now, in point of fact, you really execute both; that is, you execute the one till it is stayed by the other—you execute the one till it is countermanded by a higher authority?—Yes, I consider that the Court of Chancery pos- sesses a greater authority than the courts of common law.

It is the authority of law in both cases, one practically suspending the other?—Yes.

By the Attorney General.—You say you pay the same attention to the order of a court of equity commanding the stay of all process, that you do to a writ, before any writ is made out?—Constantly; I make no distinction.

Is that order an order to the sheriff for an injunction?—Yes.

Whether it be in the Court of Exchequer, the Vice-chancellor's Court, or whether it come from the Master of the Rolls or the Lord High Chancellor?—Certainly.

Any copy of any order made by them, served on you, you pay obedience to, suspending the execution of any writ at common law?—Yes; at the same time they produce the original order.

But without any writ of injunction?—Certainly.

By Mr. Law—The six clerks consider the order as equivalent to the writ, and will make the writ out upon the order.

By Sir C. Grey.—When you receive a writ of capias, commanding the arrest of a person, what do you consider the execution of that writ?—When he's captured.

If that person is a privileged person, you do not capture him?—iCertainly not.

Do you consider when you abstain from that arrest on the ground of privilege that the writ is duly served?—Certainly not; if he is privileged he is not served at all.

In that case do you return why it is not served?—We do, if a return is called for.

By Mr. Creswell.—Have you been served with any order emanating from, or purporting to emanate from, this House, not to execute the writ in question?—No further than the printed papers, like this, which I took for granted might be originals or might not. But I treated them as original papers.

My question is, whether you were served, not with any papers by the persons acting as the Messrs. Hansard's solicitors, but with any order coming from, or purporting to come from, this House?—Certainly not.

Witness withdraws.

Lord J. Russell

said, that after hearing the evidence of the sheriffs and under sheriffs, as well as the evidence of the previous day, he did not think that it would be necessary to call Mr. Burchell to the bar, as it appeared that he had acted merely as the agent of the under-sheriff; but considering the length of the examinations, which rendered it hardly to be expected that the House could carry the whole of them in their minds, and recollecting the importance of those examinations, and also the fact that many hon. Members were absent, who were not aware of the importance of the proceedings of that day, he was not prepared to ask the House to agree to any further proceedings at present, but would state on Monday next the course which he thought it most advisable for the House, under all the circumstances, to pursue.

Sir E. Sugden

The better course would be for the noble Lord to state his intentions now.

Lord J. Russell

, if the House would permit him, would now move that the sheriffs be again called in, and asked if they wished to state any thing further. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was of opinion that in a matter of this importance, it would be more respectful to the House not to state until Monday the course which he should think it advisable to pursue, and they might adopt this course with the more safety now that they had it in evidence that it was scarcely possible the rule calling on the sheriffs to pay over the amount of damages could be made absolute for several days.

Sir E. Sugden

said, that if the noble Lord had not made up his mind as to the course which he thought it advisable to pursue, there could be no objection to acceding to his proposition for delaying his statement to Monday; but if the noble Lord had made up his mind, he thought it quite proper, that he should state at once the course which he intended to pursue, in order that Members might have time to consider its propriety.

Sir R. Inglis

hoped, that the noble Lord would have no objection to the motion which he would make—namely, that the sheriff's, under-sheriff, and bailiff, should be discharged from any further attendance on the House.

Lord J. Russell

If they are ordered to attend on Monday, that is virtually discharging them from their attendance. The motion at present before the House is, that the sheriffs be called in, and asked if they wish to state anything further. Does the hon. Baronet object to their being called in?

Sir R. Inglis

had uniformly objected to the sheriffs being called to their Bar; but us the House had decided to have the bai- liff asked if he had anything further to state, he could not, in justice to the sheriffs, object to the same course being pursued with respect to them.

Sheriffs called in.

The Speaker

I am desired by the House to acquaint you, that if you have anything to state to the House, the House will hear you.

Mr. Sheriff Evans

We certainly wish to have an opportunity of stating, that if, in the execution of our painful duty, we have incurred the displeasure of this honourable House, we deeply deplore it.

Sheriffs withdraw.

Sir R. Inglis

moved, that the sheriffs, under-sheriff, and bailiff be discharged from further attendance on the House,

Lord J. Russell

moved as an amendment, that they be ordered to attend on Monday next.

Sir E. Sugden

rose to ask his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, to withdraw his motion; and then, if the noble Lord opposite withdrew his amendment, the matter might proceed regularly. The time had not arrived at which the House could properly decide, whether the sheriffs should be discharged or not. He wanted, above all things, to know what the noble Lord who conducted this investigation proposed to do. He understood the noble Lord to say, that he had not yet made up his mind, and would not state his motion until Monday next. The motion of his hon. Friend, therefore, appeared to be premature.

Mr. Law

said, that he would certainly support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, unless the noble Lord stated the course which he would be prepared to propose to the House on Monday next. The rapidity with which the House was invited to come to a determination on the previous examination of Mr. Stockdale—the omission of the form of calling that person into the House, for the purpose of asking him whether he had anything to state by way of explanation—afforded a most painful contrast to their proceedings with regard to those highly respectable individuals the sheriffs. Unless the noble Lord was prepared to state the course which he meant to pursue on Monday, he thought it was the duty of the House to relieve from all farther anxiety those gentlemen, who had, in their examination, conducted themselves with such perfect candour, and who had shown, that if they had in the course of their duty done anything which called for animadversion, it arose from a too great facility in treating as an order of the House, matter that was not formally submitted to their attention under the authority of the House, and who, if in their anxiety to stand well with, and respect the authority of the House, they had over, stepped their duty at all, did so in condescension to the supposed wishes of the House. The only observation made by those honourable and distinguished individuals, when called to the bar to know whether they had any explanation to offer, was to assure the House that what they had done, was in the discharge of a painful duty, and that they deeply deplored, if in the execution of that duty, they had been so unhappy as to fall under the displeasure of the House He thought, that the House ought to signify to those gentlemen, that as far as they were concerned, they were absolved from all criminal animadversion; and that they were now at liberty to consider themselves acquitted by the House. He thought, that the noble Lord ought to be prepared to state at this moment the course which he meant to pursue. He could not but allude in the most complimentary terms to the conduct and demeanour of the gentlemen who had just left the bar of the House—a demeanour which fully invited the prompt dismissal which he had the honour to propose. He, therefore, must sustain to the extent of his humble vote, and support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, unless the noble Lord gave that information to which he conceived, that the House was entitled.

Sir R. Peel

said, that in this case also there appeared to him to be two questions which were perfectly distinct. One was the personal conduct of the sheriffs, the other was the inevitable bearing of that conduct upon the privileges of the House of Commons. If he were to decide the question upon its personal merits with reference to the sheriffs' demeanour and conduct, he should say at once, judging from what he had just seen and heard, that he could not conceive conduct more honourable. Their evidence was the evidence of men determined to tell the truth, recognising the difficulties of their position, seeing that there were conflicting authorities, and being unwilling to offer offence to either side, but anxious to take that course which upon the whole would be most consistent with justice. Was there any man in that House who did not see the peculiar difficulties of their position? Therefore he said, that when the sheriffs left the House they would leave it at least with the consolation that there was but one unanimous feeling of the difficulties of their situation; and, what was more important, one unanimous impression, that as far as the House could judge of the difficulties of their position, they had comported themselves as honourable men. That was the answer he should make to that part of his hon. and learned Friend's speech which referred to the conduct of the sheriffs; and if he thought it was any indignity to them to ask them to be in attendance on Monday, he should be exceedingly sorry to be a party to it. He did not consider it of the least importance, and he was perfectly sure the sheriffs themselves would not conceive it any discredit or imputation of misconduct. But the noble Lord was asked to tell at once, and on the instant, the course he intended to pursue. Supposing he did so, what would be the conclusion? The noble Lord had called witnesses to appear at the bar for the purpose of hearing their evidence, and if he now mentioned the course he should take, it would at once be said that his course had been ready prepared and determined upon before he heard the evidence. Having heard that evidence for the space of three hours, would it not be the prudent course—as they understood that no process would issue from the Court of Queen's Bench, and that they would be in the same position on Monday as they were now—and the course also most in conformity with the ordinary proceedings of the House, that they should reserve to themselves the opportunity of maturely considering during twenty-four or forty-eight hours the bearings of the question? His hon. and learned Friend said the House ought to make up for the rapidity of their judgment last night by the rapidity of their decision in the present case. Certainly in machinery there were some beautiful systems of compensation, by which the contraction of one part and the expansion of another maintained equilibrium, but he confessed he thought it would be an odd species of compensation to compensate for supposed imprudent rapidity in dealing with the ease of Stockdale by pressing the same excess of rapidity in deciding on the case of the sheriffs. Supposing they had decided rapidly in the case of Stockdale, he should rather think that ought to be a beacon and a warning to them against repeating the impropriety; but he could not admit the assumption of his hon. and learned Friend. In the case of Stockdale they had an instant and candid acknowledgment of the offence,—the letter in which he avowed that he intended to try the question with the Messrs. Hansard, though he knew that the House would consider it a breach of privilege. It would no doubt have been a more regular method of proceeding, to have had the original letter produced to the House, and proved to be his handwriting, and if they had done so, without extorting any admission of the fact from him, they would have had at once complete proof that he had been guilty of a breach of privilege, and that he intended it. The case of Stockdale therefore was entirely different from that of the sheriffs. Considering the importance of this case, he thought they might be chargeable with precipitation, if instantly, after hearing evidence for three hours, they proceeded to determine on the rights of the sheriffs, and therefore he must give his support to the amendment of the noble Lord.

Sir T. Acland

thought it a bad rule to be slow to show mercy, and speedy to punish.

Sir R. Inglis

said that judges must necessarily decide, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, on the evidence they had heard a few moments before. If the argument of his right hon. Friend were worth so much, as it appeared to hon. Gentlemen opposite to he, for there had been more cheering from their side of the House than from his own, he should say that it would apply to deprive the judges of the power of deciding on any case without forty-eight hours' deliberation. He held, that having decided, rightly or wrongly, the case of Stockdale without taking one hour to consider it, they were bound to exercise mercy with as little deliberation as they had executed what his hon. and learned Friend, the Recorder of London, had styled the vengeance of the House. There were four classes of persons involved in this action—the person who brought the action, the judge who tried it, the jury who pronounced the verdict, the sheriffs who executed it. He had told the noble Lord, in the first instance, that he should bring to the bar of the House either the judge or the jury. The noble Lord had brought the sheriffs, who had merely been the ministerial officers, and he had without mercy condemned the person who brought the action. He called on the House to declare, by their vote that day, whether there were in the evidence they had heard any reason why mercy should not be shown to the sheriffs. Let the House recollect, that the sheriffs were at that moment inculpated in the same general charge as Stock-dale himself. On the same day the Speaker had issued his warrant for the appearance of a certain number of persons. They had condemned one, and committed him to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. If it were alleged that the sheriffs had committed any offence, for which they deserved to be consigned to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, then he could understand the refusal to set them now at liberty. But if in the judgment of all who heard him they had been guilty of no offence against the House, he called on hon. Members to support the motion he had made. He could not, consistently with the principles he had professed, withdraw it, and therefore he must press it to a division.

Sir J. Owen

could not conceive how any Member who had voted in the minority on the previous day against the committal of Stockdale could oppose the motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford for the discharge of the sheriffs. Everything he heard fortified him in the conviction that the steps which the House was taking on this matter were illegal and tyrannical.

Mr. Ingham

felt, that on the present occasion, he should not be justified in voting for the motion of the hon. Baronet, though he had voted for the discharge of Stockdale. He understood the specific ground on which delay was asked was to afford all present an opportunity of maturely considering the evidence given at the bar by the sheriffs. The two cases were entirely different, and he did not think himself at all pledged by his vote in the case of Stock-dale, right as he thought it was, to come to a similar vote in the case of the sheriffs. He asked the hon. Baronet if it would not be more honourable to those gentlemen that they should be discharged after mature deliberation, instead of by a premature vote?

The House divided on Sir Robert Inglis's motion:—Ayes 64; Noes 166; Majority 102.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Baring, hon. W. B.
Acland, T. D. Barrington, Viscount
A'Court, Captain Bateson.Sir R.
Ashley, Lord Bentinck, Lord G.
Attwood, W. Blackstone, W. S.
Bagge, W. Blandford,Marquessof
Boldero, H. G. Kelly, F.
Broadley, H. Kemble, H.
Bruce, Lord E. Knatchbull, rt. hon. SirE.
Buck, L. W.
Christopher, R. A. Lincoln, Earl of
Conolly, E. Liddell, hon. H.T.
Copeland, Alderman Lowther, J. H.
Corry, hon. H. Mackenzie, T.
Cresswell, C. Mahon, Viscount
Darby G. Maxwell, hon. S. R.
Duncombe, T. Packe, C. W.
Duncombe, hon. A. Pakington, J. S.
East, J. B. Pattison, J.
Eliot, Lord Perceval, hon. G. J.
Feilden, W. Plumptre, J. P.
Filmer, Sir E. Praed, W. T.
Fleming, J. Pringle, A.
Gladstone, W. E. Richards, R.
Godson, R. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Gordon, hon. Capt. Sibthorp, Colonel
Grimsditch, T. Stormont, Viscount
Hamilton, C. J.B. Vere, Sir C. B.
Hamilton, Lord C. Vivian, J. E.
Hodgson, F. Wood, Sir M.
Hope, G. W. Wood, Colonel, T.
Irton, S. TELLERS.
Jackson, Serjeant Inglis, Sir R. H.
Jones, J. Law, hon. C. E.
List of the NOES.
Abercromby,hon.G. R. Curry, Sergeant
Aglionby, H. A. Dennistoun, J.
Ainsworth, P. Divett, E.
Alston, R. Donkin. Sir R. S.
Archbold, R. Dundas, C. W, D.
Bailey, J. Dundas, F.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Barry, G. S. Dundas, Sir R.
Beamish, F. B. Easthope, J.
Berkeley, hon. C. Edwards, Sir J.
Bernal, R. Eliot, hon. J. E.
Bewes, T. Ellice, E.
Blake, M. J. Ellis, J.
Blake, W. J. Euston, Earl of
Blennerhassett, A Evans, Sir De L,
Blewitt, R. J. Evans, G.
Bodkin, J. J. Ewart, W.
Bolling, W. Finch, F.
Bridgeman, H. Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Briscoe, J. I. Fort, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Freemantle, Sir T.
Brodie, W.B. French, F.
Brotherton, J. Gisborne, T.
Browne, R. D. Gordon, R.
Bruges, W. H. L. Gore, O. J. R.
Busfield, W. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Butler, hon. Col. Greene, T.
Callaghan, D. Greg, R. H.
Campbell, Sir J. Greig, D.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Chetwynd, Major Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.
Clay, W. Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Clements, Viscount Hawes, B.
Clerk, Sir G. Hawkins, J. H.
Collins, W. Hayter, W. G.
Craig, W. G. Heathcoat, J.
Currie, R. Hector, C. J.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Rice, E. R.
Hinde, J. H. Roche, E. B.
Hindley, C. Roche, W.
Hobhouse, T. B. Rundle, J.
Hodges, T. L. Russell, Lord J.
Hodgson, R. Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Hope, hon, C. Salwey, Colonel
Hoskins, K. Sanford, E. A.
Howard, F. J. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Howard, P. H. Scholefield, J.
Howick Viscount Scrope, G. P.
Hughes, W. B. Seymour, Lord
Hume, J. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hutton, R. Slaney, R. A,
Ingham, R. Somerset, Lord G,
Langdale, hon. C. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Lemon, Sir C. Speirs, A.
Lister, E. C. Stanley, Lord
Loch, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lockhart, A. M. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Mackenzie, W. F. Steuart, R.
Marshall, W. Stuart, W. V.
Mildmay, P. St, J. Stock, Dr.
Milnes, R. M. Strutt, E.
Morpeth Viscount Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Morris D. Teignmouth, Lord
Nicholl, J. Thornely, T.
Norreys, Sir D, J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
O'Brien, C. Turner, W.
O'Brien, W. S. Vigors, N. A.
O'Callaghan, hon. C Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H.
O'Connell, D. Waddington, H. S.
O'Connell, M. J. Wakley, T.
O'Connell, M. Walker, R.
O'Conor, Don Warburton, H.
Oswald, J. White, A.
Paget, F. Williams, W.
Parker, J. Wilshere, W.
Parker, R. T. Winnington, H. J.
Patten, J. W. Wood, G. W.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Worsley, Lord
Pendarves, E. W. W. Wrightson, W. B.
Pigot, D. R. Wyse, T.
Power, J. Young, J.
Price, Sir R.
Pryme, G. TELLERS.
Rae, rt. hon. Sir W. Maule, hon. F.
Redington, T. N. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Paired off.
Bowes, J. Knox, hon. T.

Amendment agreed to. Sheriffs to attend on Monday: Privilege case to be then considered.

Sir E. Knatchbull

wished to know whether the presence of Mr. Burchell on Monday could not be dispensed with, as his attendance caused much public inconvenience?

Lord J. Russell

said, he did not mean to require his attendance.

On the motion of the noble Lord, it was ordered that Thomas France and William Hemp do attend the House on Monday. Examination taken at the bar of the House to be printed and delivered with the votes.