HC Deb 19 July 1843 vol 70 cc1261-4
The Attorney-general

rose to move that the House do now take into consideration the communication of the Sergeant-at-Arms,', made on Tuesday evening. The ordinary course, in such a case, would be, he said, to give notice of a motion for to-morrow, but, unfortunately, the time would then have expired, within which the Sergeant at-Arms ought to have appeared; for, until he had communicated with the House, that officer had most properly abstained from taking any step whatever. The circumstances of the present case were precisely similar to those of the case before discussed, and after a great deal of debate on that case, the House had permitted the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear and plead to the action. He proposed, that the same course should now be adopted, not supposing that the House would, after the lengthened discussion and great deliberation on the former occasion, proceed in a different manner. He begged, therefore, to move— That Sir William Gosset, knight, the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House, have leave to appear and plead to the action commenced against him by Thomas George Johnson Pearce.

Mr. T. Duncombe

believed that the hon. and learned Attorney-general was following the precedent established at an early period of the present Session, in the action brought by Mr. Howard, against Sir W. Gossett. The Solicitor-general on that occasion, moved that the Sergeant-at-Arms might be permitted to appear and plead to the action; and the learned Attorney-general could not, of course, object to the same mode of opposition being now adopted which was then pursued. He only regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) and the noble Lord the Member for London, were not in their places to offer their opposition to the motion. This action only showed, as it appeared to him, the truth of what had been foretold upon a former occasion. They were then assured, that Mr. Howard's son, and Mr. Howard's clerk would both come forward with actions; this action was brought in respect of an act done three years ago, and the moment they appeared, Mr. Howard's son would bring his action; and where or how could this end? Were they for ever to go on instructing the law officers of the Crown to appear? It might be very excellent amusement for them, but the country, he thought, had paid enough already for law expenses. It might do very well for the law officers of the Crown to ask permission that a plea should be put in to the action, for they would have long briefs and large fees, and more actions would be brought in consequence of the encouragement which they gave; but the Opposition must do what they had done before—they must move that the plaintiff in this action be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House, for the purpose of acquainting him that he was violating the privileges of that House. It was said, that the Court of Queen's Bench would uphold their privileges, and that it would be sufficient to appear to the action; but, as the hon. and learned Member for Worcester had said, on the former discussion, suppose the Court of Queen's Bench did not, what were they to do then? By appearing, they were admitting that the Court of Queen's Bench could take cognizance of their privileges. That question had been tried before in Burdett v. Abbott, and there Sir Vicary Gibbs then decided, on behalf of the rest of the court, that it was sufficiently plain that the act complained of was done under the authority of that House, and, therefore, the question was disposed of. Why was it, then, that these parties brought their actions against the Sergeant-at-Arms? It was because they had seen the House wavering upon the former occasion; and because the House had then given leave to the Sergeant to appear and plead. If, on that occasion, they had brought Mr. Howard to the Bar of that House, they would never have heard of this action. But the result of their present proceeding would be, that they would have no end to such actions brought. They would never appoint a committee with power to send for persons and papers, but that some unwilling witness would be committed for refusing to produce his papers, and would then bring his action. The authority of that House was gone. There was no doubt that Mr. Pearse and Mr. Howard and his son, were proceeding with a view of insulting and wearying the House, in wanton defiance of its authority. Though he did not complain of the hon. and learned Attorney-general that on this occasion he followed the precedent of the early part of the Session, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was pursuing a dangerous and an erroneous course. He begged, therefore, to move as an amendment, that Mr. Pearse be ordered to attend at the bar of that House to-morrow.

Mr. Hume

seconded the motion. He was convinced that the House could not carry out its orders, unless they possessed some such power of committal as had been described. By the course proposed by the Attorney-general, the House was in a situation to be annoyed by any individual. After the able and unanswerable speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester it was utterly unsafe for the House to abstain from enforcing its privileges in such a case as the present. It should be recollected that they were not acting for themselves but for the country; and if they had not the power of commitment, they would often be deprived of the means of redressing the grievances of the people. The House committed a great error in the former case, and he found that all who had given the matter careful deliberation agreed in this respect.

Sir R. Peel

observed that the whole question had been so fully discussed when the former cases were under the consideration of the House, that he thought it unnecessary to renew the discussion. It should be recollected that the mere commitment of the individual would not stop the proceedings, for in the mean time the action would go on, and all the consequences would ensue, which occasioned them so much consideration. If the action proceeded the jury might give a verdict, damages would be awarded, and the sheriff proceeding to levy, you would have all the difficulties to contend with which occurred in the case of Hansard from the conflicting authorities of the House of Commons and a court of law. The sheriff was placed in a situation of the greatest difficulty, but the result would probably be that he would consider himself bound to obey the orders of the court of which he was the officer. It was possible that the committal of the individual might induce him to withdraw his action, but the House should remember that the period of committal expired at the end of the Session. In the mean time, the action went on to its termination, and then all the officers of justice were put in conflict with that House. In the case of Howard v. the Sergeant-at-arms, when the plea was put in, the case did not proceed further, and no effect came of the action, and he presumed that it would be the same in the present case. He believed that both with respect to the former and the present action, there was a very strong feeling in favour of letting the Sergeant-at-arms defend the action. In the case of Hansard, where the action went on to judgment and execution, the House was obliged to legislate on the subject, and if the party was committed, and the action was allowed to proceed in this case, they would probably again have to commit the sheriff, and it would become again necessary to resort to legislation. He thought that the course which the House of Commons was now called upon to take was the wisest that could be adopted, for the result of the action of Howard showed that there were great difficulties in establishing a case against the officers of the House of Commons. Under all these circumstances he hoped that the House would adhere to the decision to which they came at the early part of the Session.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question: Ayes 105; Noes 44; Majority 61.

List of the AYES.
Ackers, J. Beckett, W.
Acland, Sir T. D. Blackstone, W. S.
Acton, Col. Blake, M. J.
Adare, Visct. Boldero, H. G.
Allix, J. P. Borthwick, P,
Antrobus, E. Broadley, H.
Arkwright, G. Broadwood,
Astell, W. Buck, L. W.
Bailey, J. Buckley, E.
Bateson, R. Bunbury, T.
Burroughes, H. N. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Chapman, B. Lockhart, W.
Clive, Visct. Lowther, J. H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Collett, W. R. Mackenzie, W. F.
Denison, E. B. Mackinnon, W. A.
Disraeli, B. McGeachy, F. A.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Mahon, Visct.
Duncombe, hon. A. Manners, Lord C. S.
Duncombe, hon. O. Manners, Lord J.
East, J. B. Marton, G.
Egerton, W. T. Manes It. M.
Eliot, Lord Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Escott, B. Northland, Visct.
Fellowes, E. Owen, Sir J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Pakington, J. S.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. Palmer, It.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Peel, rt. hon. Sir It.
Flower, Sir J. Peel, J.
Forman, T. S. Pennant, hon. Col.
Fuller, A: E. Pollington, Visct.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Pollock, Sir F.
Gladstone, Capt. Richards, R.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Gore, W. O. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C,
Goulburn, rt. hon. H Smythe, hon. G.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Spry, Sir S. T.
Greene, T. Stanley, Lord
Hamilton, G. A. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Tennent, J. E.
Hayes, Sir E. Trollope, Sir J.
Hodgson, F. Trotter, J.
Hodgson, R. Vane, Lord H.
Hope, G. W. Vesey, hon. T.
Ingestrie, Visct. Wilbraham, hn.
Irving, J. Wodehouse, E.
Jermyn, Earl Wood, Col. T.
Johnstone, Sir J. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Jones, Capt. Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W
Kelly, F. It. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Kerrison, Sir E. Young, J.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E TELLERS.
Law, hon. C. E. Fremantle, Sir T,
Lefroy, A. Pringle, J.
List of the NOES.
Aldam, W. Matheson, J.
Barnard, E. G. Mitcalfe, H.
Berkeley, hon. C. Morris, D.
Blewitt, R. J. Napier, Sir C.
Bowes, J. O'Brien, W. S.
Bowring, Dr. O'Connell, M. J.
Brotherton, J. O'Conor, Don
Clements, Visct. Plumridge, Capt.
Clive, E. B. Ponsonby, hon. C.
Colborne, hn. W. N, R Pryse, P.
Duff, J. Ross, D. It.
Ewart, W. Thornely, T.
Forster, M. Towneley, J.
French, F. Trelawny, J. S.
Gibson, T. M. Turner, E.
Hall, Sir B. Wakley, T.
Hastie, A. Wallace, R.
Hindley, C. Wawn, J. T.
Howard, hon. H. Williams, W.
Hutt, W. Wilshere, W.
Mc'Taggart Sir J, Wood, B.
Worsley, Lord TELLERS
Wrightson, W. B. Hume, J.
Duncombe, T.

Main question agreed to.