Sitting of 10 April 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Greene, Darby, Clive, Sir R. Inglis, Lords Stanley, and Million, from a number of places, for, and by Messrs. Briscoe, P. Scrope, Pease, Divett, and A. White, from several places, against Church Extension.—By Lords Stanley, and Worsley, Sir F. Trench, and Mr. Fecor, from several places, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, Sir J. Y. Buller, Mr. Estcourt, Lord Ashley, and Colonel Sibthorpe, from several places, against the Clergy Reserves Bill. By Mr. Chichester, from Barnstaple, for the Re peal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Byng, from the Market Gardeners of Middlesex, against Decreasing the Duty on Foreign Fruit.—By Mr. Pease, from Liverpool, against the Opium Trade.—By Mr. P. Scrope, from Stroud, and Lord Ashley, from one other place, against the Workhouses Exemption Bill.

REPRISALS ON CHINA.
Sir R. Peelbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies, whether there was any foundation for the report which was very generally circulated, that an Order in Council had been issued for reprisals, in respect of China.
Lord John Russellsaid, there had been an Order in Council for reprisals.
Sir B. Peelbegged to ask whether it was intended to make any formal communication on the subject to Parliament?
Lord John Russellsaid, not at present.
Sir B. Peel: is it intended to issue letters of marque?
Lord John Russellwas not prepared to answer the question at that moment.

LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY.
Lord John Russellmoved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on Lord Seaton's Annuity Bill.
Mr. Humehad given notice that he should in Committee on the bill move to limit the grant of 2,000 l. a-year to the life of Lord Seaton, excluding his two successors. Since the time he had given that notice he had taken upon himself the trouble of looking into the important services which had been stated in the bill as having been performed by Lord Seaton; and he felt bound, after that search, to say that he could not discover one act of Lord Seaton's that deserved the reward proposed to be given him. His wish was, if it was consistent with the forms of the House, to refer the bill to a committee up stairs. He was prepared to show, that Lord Seaton in the situation in which he was placed, had violated the existing laws and constitution of Canada. There were no acts of Sir John Colborne's which appeared to him (Mr. Hume) to warrant such a signal mark of liberality on the part of the people of England; on the contrary, he thought there were many acts of that officer which deserved the reprobation of that House and the country. He would read one public despatch which appeared in the Parliamentary papers before the House, as u sample and pattern of the manner in which Sir John Colborne conducted the public business of the country. Greater atrocities and cruelties had never been perpetrated; and instead of going into Committee upon this bill, the House ought to call upon her Majesty's Government to prove, before a Select Committee, the important services of Sir John Colborne which called for such a mark of public gratitude. Sir John Colborne did not check, control, or punish, those who were guilty of such violent and atrocious acts, even after the cessation of the unfortunate rebellion or outbreak in a portion of Lower Canada. He would refer to one letter of Major-general Sir John Macdonald, dated
988
the 11th November, 1838, in which that officer stated, that he had dispersed the rebels, and had destroyed the houses of two notorious rebels who had been engaged in the rebellion of the preceding winter, by causing them to be burned; and that at Le Grand he had caused the House of a notorious rebel named Bell, a blacksmith who had made pikes for the rebels the preceding winter, to be destroyed; that he had made prisoners of several leaders of minor note, and had caused their houses to be destroyed. Now, Sir John Colborne had not given any order for the discontinuance of these abominable acts, nor had he brought to trial any of the persons guilty of this atrocious conduct. Sir John Colborne had stated in his despatch that the rebels had disbanded at L'Acadie and Beauharnois, and had released their prisoners; that many houses had been burned there, but only those in which arms were found for the purposes of rebellion, and that none had suffered but those engaged in actual rebellion. Now, this despatch was at direct variance with the letter of Sir John Macdonald. Both statements could not be correct, and he thought that such a discrepancy called for an inquiry on the part of the House. Either Sir John Macdonald was in error in stating that he had destroyed the houses of persons engaged in rebellion during the preceding winter, or Sir John Colborne was in error in saying that none had been damaged but of those who were then in arms—both could not be correct. On many occasions the Duke of Wellington had punished parties acting under him, for having exceeded their orders, and for having been guilty of such excesses as those to which he was then alluding. If the documents he required were furnished to the House, he thought, he would be able to show, that Sir John Colborne, so far as the interests of humanity were concerned in discharging his duties as Commander-in-chief, not only deserved no reward, but should be censured for the course he pursued. With regard to the conduct of Sir J. Colborne, a civil governor, he (Mr. Hume) believed there was no parallel to be found for it in any of the colonies of the British empire. All he asked was, that Parliament should be just, and if severity was to have been exercised in Canada, he thought it would be admitted that unnecessary rigour should not have been resorted to. Three Courts-martial had been held during the sittings of the ordinary tribunals, and at those

989
courts-martial an ordinance had been issued, having an ex post facto operation, and ordering the burning or destruction of the houses of those who had previously been engaged in rebellion, at a time when no law of Canada allowed such destruction of their property; just as though, if there happened another outbreak in Monmouth this year, the troops were to proceed to ravage the property of all those concerned in the last outbreak. What he complained of was, that Sir J. Colborne, by the orders he issued, had called upon these men to appear and answer for the offences for which her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies had declared there was a complete amnesty. Lord Durham had declared in his proclamation issued after the receipt of Lord Glenelg's despatch, that there should be a complete amnesty of all those individuals. One of them came back after the amnesty had been published, believing himself, under Lord Durham's proclamation to be safe. Now, Sir J. Colborne had ordered that individual to be seized by a body of horse and sent beyond the frontier, contrary to the declaration of her Majesty's Government. If such proceedings, so contrary to the usual stream of justice in this country had taken place, and if such atrocities had been perpetrated, which he alleged the public documents would prove, he would ask whether Sir John Colborne was a person who ought to be allowed to receive 150,000 l., or even 1,000 l. of the public money? He could further show that the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended in a most unwarranted manner. A question was referred to two of the Judges as to how far the Imperial Act of last Session altered the law, and how far Sir John Colborne had the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; and Sir John Colborne actually suspended those two judges because they ventured in the execution of their duty, to give an honest opinion in favour of the liberty of the subject. He would move next Tuesday for a copy of all the correspondence that had taken place on that subject. It was a dangerous principle which had been introduced of late years of rewarding persons for the exercise of their ordinary duties, and he thought the House ought not to sanction the irregularities of which Sir John Colborne had been guilty. He would, therefore, move by way of amendment that the bill now under consideration should be referred to a Select Committee up stairs, for the purpose of ascertaining how far the
990
conduct of Sir John Colborne was deserving of the pension proposed to be granted to him.
The Speakerdoubted whether the motion were in conformity with the rules of the House. He understood it to be to refer the bill to a Select Committee, and that they were to inquire into the conduct of Lord Seaton.
Mr. Humesaid, the motion might be divided into two parts, and perhaps he was irregular in uniting them. The first motion ought to be to refer the bill to a Committee up stairs, but he had added the subsequent part in order that no one might be mistaken as to the ulterior object which he had in view.
The Speakerput the motion that the bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord J. Russellwas very sorry the hon. Member had chosen this opportunity to renew a question which, he conceived, to have been settled by the House, and by a very great majority. The proper time to state any conduct of Lord Seaton which might induce the House not to comply with the recommendation of the majority to grant him a pension, was when that recommendation was under consideration. The hon. Gentleman had then stated his reasons, and the House by a great majority had decided against his views. And yet he now came with an irregular motion, which the Speaker would not permit him to make, and by it, and by his comments, arraigned the conduct of Lord Seaton, who if the allegations of the hon. Gentleman were to be relied upon, was not only unworthy of any mark of favour from the Crown or the country, but ought to be dismissed the military service as one who disgraced it.—[Mr. Hume: Such ought to be the case.]—No doubt the hon. Member thought so; but he took an extraordinary opportunity of declaring his view, when the House was on the point of going into committee, having decided that a pension of 2,000 l. a year should be granted, and Lord Seaton having already received a mark of favour—one of the most honourable that could be conferred—from the Crown. He should not go into the items or details of Lord Seaton's conduct; but when the hon. Member referred to the Duke of Wellington restraining the excesses of his army—and it was generally known, that no commander ever was more strict and determined in restraining all such excesses—he ought to value the authority of the Duke of Wellington, and the testimony he had borne, not

991
only to the courage and capacity, but also to the humanity of Lord Seaton, with which no man was better acquainted. As to the suspension of the constitution in Canada, it was not Lord Seaton, but Parliament, that was answerable for that necessary measure of severity. It was not upon the administrator of the Government that censure ought to fall, if any were due. Was the hon. Member ignorant of the outrages by which that severity was rendered necessary? and was his whole sympathy to be bestowed on those who had engaged in insurrection? and had he no commiseration for those whose only crime was their loyalty, but who had been made the victims of the most licentious violence, or compelled to fly with their families into the woods to escape them? He could not agree with the hon. Member as to the conduct of the troops. He believed that the disorders were for the most part committed by persons in the fury of civil war upon those who had before been guilty of similar outrages upon them. He placed the responsibility of all these misfortunes upon those who had encouraged the insurrection—a most unjustifiable insurrection, almost without pretence, and which could lead to no good result. With regard to the punishments inflicted, he knew of no instances in which persons guilty of treason were more leniently treated than those engaged in the insurrection in Canada had been by Lord Seaton. Many owed their lives to his clemency; and many, who were sentenced to transportation, received free pardons from the man against whom the hon. Member made charges of cruelty and atrocity, but who was as distinguished for humanity as for his capacity and military skill. It was not necessary for him to undertake the defence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and other departures from the ordinary course of constitutional law. He would only observe, that Lord Durham and Mr. Poulett Thomson were as responsible for those measures as Lord Seaton and they had been approved by the general voice of Parliament as measures necessary to the suppression of a wanton and licentious war.
Mr. G. H. Vernoncomplained of the Member for Kilkenny having taken the House by surprise, and he protested against thus unexpectedly indulging in charges and aspersions upon persons of high character, who were neither present to defend themselves, nor could be adequately vindicated by others, in consequence of the want of notice of the attack.
Mr. Gillonagreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the House had been taken by surprise. He did not think it was too much to ask of the House to pause before granting so large an amount of pensions. They had not heard any statement of the services for which that large grant was to be given. At all events, there were conflicting statements, as was shown by the public documents to which his hon. Friend had referred; and he thought time should be given to contradict them, if they were erroneous. Before they voted away the public money, they should be satisfied of the truth of the statement by which the grant was made.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that although the hon. Member's right to bring on his motion without notice was unquestioned, as it was unquestionable, yet having given a notice, that notice was quite inconsistent with his present motion. The notice was to limit the pension to Lord Seaton's life the motion was to deny that he deserved any pension at all. He hoped the hon. Member would not be suffered to withdraw his motion, but that the House would record its opinion, and thus show how many, whether two, or three, or four—he trusted there would not be more—upheld the doctrines which the hon. Member propounded.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, the hon. Member had certainly taken the House by surprise, for, from the terms of the notice, he (Mr. V. Smith) had loaded himself with precedents of pensions for military services, thinking that there was no other question to be discussed; but instead of that, the Member for Kilkenny entered into details which, he well knew, no one could meet without preparation.
Mr. Ewartsaid, the inquiry proposed by his hon. Friend could not be referred incidentally to the committee, whose only business would be to prepare and finish the bill. The subject matter into which the hon. Member proposed to inquire must be considered to be part of the principle of the bill, which had been affirmed on the second reading.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it would he unparliamentary in him to impute motives to the hon. Member for the course he had pursued, but the effect of it was to enable him to indulge in a train of acrimonious invective against an officer of great merit, while he concluded with a motion which he could not regularly make, and which nobody, therefore, could regularly answer. If Lord Seaton wanted a confirmation of his high

993
character, it would be supplied by this proceeding, when the House recollected the party with which the hon. Member had connected himself in Canada, and how Lord Seaton had defeated the attempts of that party.
The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 79; Noes 8: Majority 71.

List of the AYES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Neeld, J.

Bernard, E. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bernal, R.

Palmerston, Lord

Blackstone, W. S.

Parker, J.

Broadley, H.

Pechell, Captain

Brodie, W. B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Brotherton, J.

Perceval hon, G. J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pigot, D. R.

Busfeild, W.

Redington, T. N.

Clay, W.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Curry, Serjeant

Russell, Lord J.

Darby, G.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

De Horsey, S. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Du Pre, G.

Seymour, Lord

Ewart, W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sheppard, T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Slaney, R. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, J. A.

Hawes, B.

Smith, R. V.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hodgson, R.

Steuart, R.

Hope, hon. C.

Style, Sir C.

Hoskins, K.

Sutton, hn. J.H.T.M.

Hutton, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Tufnell, H.

Irton, S.

Turner, E.

Irving, J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Vernon, G. H.

Lushington, C.

Wall, C. B.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Winnington, Sir T. E

Lygon, hn. General

Wood, G. W.

Macaulay, rt.hn. T. B

Wood, Colonel T.

M'Taggart, J.

Yates, J. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Young, J.

Monypenny, T. G.

TELLERS.

Morpeth, Lord

Gordon, R.

Murray, A.

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Warburton, H.

Duncombe, T.

Williams, W.

Pease, J.

Vigors, N. A.

TELLERS.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Wallace, R.

Gillon, R. D.

Mr. Humemoved to limit the pension to the life of Lord Seaton.
Mr. J. O'Brienthought the pension ought not to be extended to three genera
994
tions. Strong objections were made to give a gentleman aged eighty years a pension of 1,000 l. a year for his life, though he had performed civil services equal in benefit to the country to the military services of Lord Seaton, and yet now it was proposed to require this pension for three generations. He would suggest that it should be limited to the life of the next male heir.
Mr. Wallacewould support his friend the hon. Member for Kilkenny, wishing that peerages should be granted for life only.
Mr. Gillonrejoiced that his hon. Friend lad opposed this long pension. He thought was high time to begin another course, and he should certainly support his hon. Friend.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, the hon. Member for Kilkenny was not very consistent in his desire to save the public money, for he had last year supported a motion for granting 6,000 l. a year to the Duke of Sussex.
Lord J. Russellthought that, if the pension were limited to the noble Lord's life, he would be by no means sufficiently rewarded. He would not put the question merely on the merit of Lord Seaton, but upon all those services which the House thought it necessary to reward. When they recollected the hardships of military service, he thought that a pension at the close of a long career of such services for the remainder of the life of the person who performed them, was by no means commensurate, nor would it be equal to the benefits conferred on those who in other professions rendered service to the country.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that formerly it was the practice to give those pensions for ever; but a judicious alteration had been introduced in the case of Lord Combermere, by limiting it to the two next male heirs: He wished that the noble Lord had carried the principle still further. If the reward was not sufficient, he would much rather that it should be increased than saddle the public for an indefinite period.
The Committee divided on the original clause—Ayes 48; Noes 22: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

De Horsey, S. H.

Acland, T. D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Barnard, E. G.

Freshfield, J.

Broadley, H.

Gordon, R.

Clay, W.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Curry, Serjeant

Hawkes, T.

Darby, G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

995

Hobhouse, T. B.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Hodgson, R.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Hoskins, K.

Sheppard, T.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Sibthorp, Colonel

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Slaney, R. A.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Smith, R. V.

Lygon, hon. General

Somerville, Sir W. M

Maule, hon. F.

Stanley, Lord

Morpeth, Viscount

Style, Sir C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Talfourd, Serjeant

Palmerston, Viscount

Tancred, H. W.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pigot, D. R.

Wood, Colonel T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Young, J.

Polhill, F.

Redington, T. N.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Stanley, E. J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Brodie, W. B.

Rundle, J.

Brotherton, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Busfeild, W.

Turner, E.

Duncombe, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Ewart, W.

Wakley, T.

Fielden, J.

Wallace, R.

Finch, F.

Williams, W.

Gillon, W. D.

Wood, B.

Hutton, R.

Yates, J. A.

Lushington, C.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Muntz, G. F.

Hume, J.

Pease, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

House resumed.

CHINA—LETTERS OF MARQUE.
—Lord J. Russellsaid he understood that the answer he gave to a question in reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had led to some misunderstanding. The right hon. Baronet had asked if the orders in council, recently issued, authorized reprisals to be made on the Chinese. In the reply which he had given he Was understood to have said, that letters of marque, authorising privateers to take Chinese vessels, had been issued. This was a misunderstanding. The orders in council only gave power to the courts to condemn vessels detained by her Majesty's ships of war, under certain circumstances; but it gave no letters of marque to privateers. The orders in council were dated Friday last.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented, By the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Falmouth, and Lords Stafford, and Redesdale, from several places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Duke of Richmond, from one place, against the Workhouses Exemption Bill.—By the Earls of Camperdown, Rosebery, and Aberdeen, from a number of places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Winchester, from several places, for Church Extension.—By the Archbishop of
956
Canterbury, the Marquess of Salisbury, and the Bishop of Winchester, from several places, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By the Marquess of Westraeath, from Clones, against the Irish Municipal Bill.

INFLUENCE OF THE PRIESTHOOD (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathpresented a petition from a place in the county of Monaghan against the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. To show the House what effect was produced by the temperance societies upon the persons in whose hands power was intended to be placed by this bill, he would read an extract from a speech delivered only a day or two ago by Mr. Maguire, a Roman Catholic priest, with reference to a bill which had lately been read a second time in another place, and to the noble Lord who had introduced the bill. It was remarkable that Mr. Maguire belonged to the diocese of the Roman Catholic prelate whose brother had, on account of that relationship, been selected by her Majesty's Government to fill a civil office. Mr. Maguire's speech was thus reported:—
"He came forward in defence of his country with his tongue and purse, and right arm, if necessary. He (Mr. Maguire) would beg leave to tell that high-born bilious sprig of the house of Derby (laughter), that he pledged himself to have 3,000,000 teetotallers before three months—that he would place himself at their head, and unfurl the flag of repeal, and not cease to agitate until they succeeded in putting Tories and Whigs out of office, and achieve the liberties of 8,000,000 people. There was one comfort, at all events, which would follow the attempt to pass the atrocious bill which they met to deprecate, namely, that it would rid them of the ignominy of having Stanley sent over to Ireland, should the Tories succeed in coming into power. The Hibernico Americanus monkey-faced Lyndhurst would never be Lord Chancellor in this country; and as for Stanley being sent among them, they might as well imagine that Castlereagh could escape from the fastness and difficulties which surrounded him, or that a certain black gentleman should go and demand the keys of the celestial region from the Prince of the Apostles, as that that noble Lord should be Secretary for Ireland. No; they would sign a round robin, and offer a reward of 100,000 l. to any individual who would take and put him into a sack, and in that position hold him by the heels at Kingstown harbour, until he begged leave to return to his native country."
This was not mere hasty language, for in a letter which Mr. Maguire had written afterwards, he merely said in explanation,
"That his threat was conditional if Lord Stanley's bill was read a third time in the House of Commons," and added "I can by

957
simultaneous meetings have 3,000,000 sober Repealers pledged in one day, and there are not six priests in Ireland who could not do the same."
He hoped that when the people of England saw that the Ministers were about to confiscate a revenue which belonged to the city of Dublin, and which might eventually he worth 100,000 l. a-year, not for any municipal purpose, hut in order to provide agitators with pocket-money, they would never sanction such a design. He asked the noble Viscount at the head of the Government to lay on the table evidence respecting the condition of the corporation of the city of Dublin. The most trifling interests in this country would not be interfered with in the absence of evidence, Why had not the Ministers dealt with the city of London as they proposed to do now with the city of Dublin? Why had they not confiscated the property of the city of London? He would tell her Majesty's Ministers the reason—because they dared not. The city of London had four representatives in the House of Commons, who, whatever their political opinions might be, knew their duty too well to suffer any such attempt to be made.
Petition laid on the table.

CANADA CLERGY RESERVES.
Lord Ellenboroughbegged to ask the noble Viscount at the head of the Government for an answer to the questions put by him (Lord Ellenborough) last night.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he had inquired into the nature of the pledge which had been given in another place, and was ready to make the same pledge to their Lordships. Unquestionably it was not intended to advise her Majesty to give her assent to the bill which had been passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada until such a period should have elapsed in addition to the 30 days as should be equal to the period occupied by the vacation. If, besides this, any longer time were required to enable the judges to give their opinion upon the questions submitted to them, he should have no hesitation in undertaking that the assent should not be given till this time also had elapsed.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the promise just given by the noble Viscount was not precisely that for which he had asked. He wished the noble Viscount would give the House a pledge that he would in no case advise the Crown to assent to the bill, if the House should express its opposition
958
to the measure by an address to the Crown, within such a period as might necessarily elapse before the sense of the House could be taken upon the subject.
Viscount Melbournedid not think he could, consistently with his duty, give any further pledge than he had already given, as he did not know under what circumstances the address might be presented, or by what arguments it might be supported, but he thought the noble Lord might safely rely on the effect which such an address must produce.
Lord Ellenboroūghsaid, that as far as he was concerned, he should be quite satisfied with what had fallen from the noble Viscount, because he felt convinced that the answer of the judges to the first of the questions submitted to them would be that the bill was invalid. If such were their opinion, the motion of the most rev. Prelate would become unnecessary, and he felt anxious that no unnecessary discussion of the question should take place, because nothing would be so likely to prevent a specific settlement of the question as a course which would commit right rev. Prelates and their Lordships to extreme opinions, which it would be impossible to carry into effect. If he might address a prayer to the most rev. Prelate on the part of the people of Canada, he would entreat the most rev. Prelate to declare to the House that he would not press on the motion of which he had given notice.
The Archbishop of Canterburyshould have been most happy to postpone his motion and to avoid the discussion to which it would give rise, if he received an assurance from the noble Viscount that after the thirty days had elapsed, the noble Viscount would consider the address of the House as having the same power which it would have if presented within the thirty days. He really did not see why the noble Viscount should feel any hesitation at acceding to this arrangement. He was quite as desirous as any of their Lordships could be to prevent any unnecessary discussion from taking place upon a matter of so much delicacy, and in which the passions and feelings of the inhabitants of Canada were so much engaged; and he felt the more surprised at the refusal of the noble Viscount, as he had not been without a hope that some amicable arrangement might have been made which would secure a provision for the Established Church in the colony, and effect such a regulation of the clergy reserves as might prevent any further dis

959
sension from taking place upon the subject. There was no desire on the part of the Church to push the claims of the Church to their full extent. The Church wished, for the sake of peace, to male any reasonable concession with regard to property, provided always that the Church was recognized as the Established Church of the colony. This was a point on which the Church had never deceived the House, and if he abandoned this just right of the Church, he should be justly reproached with a dereliction of his most sacred duties. With regard to the property of the Church, he desired that it should be so secured as not to be subject to fluctuate with the various sentiments of successive governors and the temporary ascendancies of political parties. The tenure upon which the Church property was held ought to protect it from the conflicting claims of other religious communities. If this point were satisfactorily settled, he should be ready to consent to place a considerable portion of the clergy reserves at the disposal of her Majesty's Government, but he felt assured that no such settlement could ever be made by the Legislature of the colony. In looking through the various plans and propositions which had been made and rejected or adopted in the Colonial Assembly, he discovered one point of concurrence in them all, and that was the consciousness which they exhibited on the part of the colonial Legislature of its own inability to settle the question, and of the expediency of referring the final decision to the Imperial Parliament. He knew he should be told that their Lordships had now before them a bill passed by the colonial Legislature which professed to settle the question. It was very true that such a bill had passed, but it by no means followed that it expressed the sentiments of the colonial Legislature, for the measure had been adopted at the express suggestion, not to say the dictation, of the Governor-general. It appeared that it was entirely owing to the Governor-general that this bill had pasted. He was far from thinking worse of it on that account, but the circumstance fully justified him in maintaining that the bill did not speak the plain and unbiassed sense of the colonial Legislature. Their Lordships were not in the same situation with respect to this bill as they would be in if the measure had originated in this country, for they were under the necessity of rejecting it altogether, or of adopting it with all its defects. He might be allowed also
960
to observe, that this bill involved a general question of the greatest importance to the interests of religion in all parts of the empire, and which could only be satisfactorily settled by the Imperial Parliament. His object, however, was not to arraign the bill now before their Lordships, but to state the disposition which existed on the part of the Church not to press the rights of the Church to the full extent authorized by the existing law, so far as those rights related to property only. But let not the Church be degraded from the position which it held as the Established Church in different parts of the empire, let it be at liberty to preserve its legitimate rights in peace, apart from political feeling and without molestation from the claims of other religious communities, making at the same time such concessions with respect to property as ought to be generally satisfacfactory. If he had received an assurance that the same force would have been given to an address of the House presented after the thirty days had expired, as would belong to it if presented at that moment, he meant to have submitted to the consideration of her Majesty's Government a proposition founded upon the principles which he had just stated, and if the proposition met the approval of the Government, it would have rendered his motion unnecessary on the other hand, if the proposition were rejected, and their Lordships should have been of opinion, nevertheless, that it was a proper and reasonable one, he should with greater confidence have moved the address to the Crown. He thought that the bill now before the House was in its present state most unsatisfactory, and he was certainly disappointed at not receiving the distinct assurance which he had expected from the noble Viscount; however, if the general opinion of their Lordships was that he ought to be satisfied with the declaration which the noble Viscount had made, he should not press his motion. ["No, no."] Then he had no alternative but to proceed according to the notice which he had given.
The Duke of Wellingtonbegged the House to recollect that its present position, there being only twenty-one clear days for this bill to lie on the table instead of thirty, was owing to the noble Viscount himself and his colleagues. If the rev. Prelate were to put off his motion, the House would not stand in precisely the same position as if it were brought on on Monday. However, as the most rev. Prelate was dis

961
posed to put off his motion, he hoped, after what had been stated, that the most rev. Prelate would do so. He should be the last person to endeavour to prevail on then-Lordships not to agree to that postponement, as far as the House could safely; but he wished to see something of the kind proposed by the right rev. Prelate, who should take the case as much as possible into his own hands, both with regard to the great interest the Church must feel in this question, as well as the interest which the public had in seeing religion and good government established in this country. But he begged again to submit to the noble Viscount that there was a claim on his generosity, if not on his good faith, as the noble Viscount was aware that the House, in consequence of the holydays had only twenty-one days to decide that, for which it ought by law to have had thirty days. The noble Viscount should consider that circumstance, and allow the House full time for the consideration of the bill.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to do all in his power to meet the wishes of their Lordships; but only let their Lordships consider what he was asked to do. He was asked to give a legal effect to the address, which it really would not have. After the thirty days had expired, the address on this subject would be no more than an address on any other subject, and was it then for him to say, that if the House agreed to an address, he would advise the Crown to accede to it? He would say, that such a thing had never been done since the time of the long Parliament: such a proceeding would be very much like the proceedings of that period. When the noble Duke said, it was owing to him that the House had not had sufficient time to consider this subject, he was not aware of what he meant; for the act as soon as it had arrived from Canada was laid on the table; and he did not see, that the Government could have pursued any other course.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that what he meant was this—that the noble Viscount might have laid this bill on the table thirty days before the commencement of the Easter holydays, or he might have delayed it until the first day after the recess.
The Earl of Winchilseaconsidered this one of the most important subjects that had ever been brought forward in this House, and one on which more public interest
962
existed in this country than any other that ever came under their Lordships consideration. He thought there was not much inducement to trust to what might be the effect of an address after the legal time had expired, considering what had been the result of former addresses under similar circumstances. He did not know whether it were or were not according to the form of the House that the noble Viscount should withdraw this bill altogether, but if it could be done, the House would at once be relieved from its difficulty. He at the same time contended that the most rev. Prelate ought not to proceed with his motion on Monday.
The Earl of Riponwas aware of the difficulty in which the House were placed by this bill, but he thought it had been overrated by his noble Friend who had just sat down, by not considering the position in which they stood if the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown were correct, and that opinion was confirmed by the judges. The noble Viscount had stated that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was, that it was not competent for the Legislature of Upper Canada to pass the bill now on the table. If that opinion were correct, the Crown could not give its assent to the bill, and it could not become law by any process short of an Act of Parliament. If, then, the House were inclined to address the Crown on the subject, the Government could not practically give their advice to the Crown to assent to it. The noble Viscount said, that notice had been given in the other House, on the assumption that this act was not law, to bring in a bill for the purpose of making it law by an Act of Parliament. Their Lordships would, therefore, have three opportunities of considering this subject—. first, on the second reading of that bill; secondly, on going into Committee upon it; and thirdly, on the report being brought up. Under the circumstances, he did not think the noble Viscount could give a more specific answer.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that the noble Viscount would perhaps allow him to ask whether he meant to act upon the opinion which had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown? There could be nothing unconstitutional, or that could remind the noble Viscount of the proceedings of the Long Parliament, in giving an answer to that question; nor anything unprecedented in his acting on that opinion, because, in respect to this case, there was

963
an opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown in 1819, which had been acted upon as law, and assumed to be law, by the different Colonial Secretaries of State ever since.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it certainly was his intention to act on that opinion, and indeed the Government had already acted on it.
The Archbishop of Canterburywished to know whether the consideration of the bill now before the other House would involve the whole merits of the question. He felt himself bound not to withdraw the motion at this time, as it was in no way connected with party of any kind. It was a motion too, which, considering the infirmities of age which he now suffered, he never should have been induced to bring forward, but from the sacred obligation of duty. He conceived that by this bill a portion of the united church would be so far deprived of the means of subsistence as almost to amount to extinction; and how could he answer to his conscience, if he were not to request the attention of their Lordships to a measure of so much importance, and which tended to deprive many of her Majesty's subjects of spiritual consolation?
Viscount Melbournesaid, the question which had been asked by the most rev. Prelate was one of Parliamentary proceeding, and which, he apprehended, there could be no difficulty in answering. It was perfectly clear that the bill in the other House must involve the merits of the whole question.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to know, whether their Lordships were to understand, that if the bill which was brought in in another place, to supply the defect of the bill now on their Lordships' table, were not to pass, the noble Viscount would feel it his duty not to advise the Crown to withhold the Royal assent from the bill now on the table? He must say, that if that bill should receive the Royal assent in spite of that defect, though that defect might apply to only a part of the bill, it would leave the rest of the bill untouched and operative.
The Earl of Riponsaid, the apprehension of the right rev. Prelate was quite groundless, for it was not competent to the Crown to give its assent to a bill which it was not competent for the Colonial Assembly to pass, and still less so to a part of it.
The Bishop of Exeterapprehended, that there was nothing to prevent the Crown
964
from giving its assent to the bill now on the table, because, according to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, a part of it exceeded the power of the Colonial Legislature If that were so, why should the noble Viscount hesitate to say, if the defect were not amended, whether he should advise the Crown to give the Royal assent to the bill?
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it appeared that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken as to the legality of a certain part of the act now lying on the table; and that they considered the Colonial Legislature had exceeded its powers with regard to that part, and therefore that her Majesty could not give her assent so as to make that part of the bill law. That, in fact, vitiated the whole act; and, as it now stood, her Majesty, under the advice of her Ministers, could not give her assent so as to make it law. If, under these circumstances, the Church, by her representatives, came forward and said, "Let us put this act aside, and negociate on fair and liberal terms;" if she was willing to forego her rights, and concede a very liberal portion of her liberty, that ought to induce the Government to say, that this was no bill, and that they must begin de novo, and legislate the same as they would in any other case. Why could they not legislate on a great scale, and settle the question at once?
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, after what had taken place, the most rev. Prelate would have no difficulty in withdrawing his motion for Monday; because there was no doubt that this act was invalid, and that it was perfectly impossible her Majesty could give the royal assent so as to make any part of it law. He was most desirous that, in endeavouring to settle this question so as to satisfy the people of Canada, they should do nothing that would excite the feelings of the people of this country. The most inconvenient course, as he thought, that her Majesty's Government could possibly pursue was that which they now proposed to adopt; namely, the introduction of a bill. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that a bill was before the other House for effecting an union between the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. To that bill it would now be useless to offer any objection. The state of things which had led to its introduction were now so far advanced, that he feared such a measure had become necessary. Now, it was well known that in the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland, pro

965
visions were contained relating to religion; he, therefore, thought it would be most convenient that any provisions of a similar kind which might be necessary with regard to Canada should be incorporated in the act of union. He entertained no doubt that such an arrangement would be satisfactory to all reasonable members of the Church of England, and would be more satisfactory than any other to the inhabitants of both the Canadas. He hoped, then, that her Majesty's Ministers would reconsider their plan, and give to the suggestion of the most rev. Prelate the attention to which it was deservedly entitled. He further hoped that the provisions of the act of union would be well and carefully considered, for he fully believed that upon it depended the peace of Canada and the connexion of that colony with Great Britain.
The Earl of Falmouthshould be perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the noble Viscount opposite, provided that he felt certain that his understanding of it were correct. He wished to know, whether or not the noble Viscount was to be understood as stating that he proposed to give a pledge that he should place the House after the holydays in the same situation, with respect to the Clergy Reserves Sale Bill, as if the thirty days had not expired during the recess.—[Viscount Melbourne was understood to say, Certainly not.]—Then if that was not the understanding, he feared that before the end of that period, some circumstances might arise, which would probably place their Lordships in a very awkward position with reference to this bill.
The Archbishop of Canterburythought, it would be very satisfactory if the noble Lord on the Woolsack would state his view, as to whether the Crown could assent to a bill, in the enactment of which the Colonial Legislature had gone beyond the limits of that power, which they might be considered legally and properly to possess.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there could be no doubt that if they had in any particular exceeded their authority, the consent of the Crown could not be given to the bill.
The Bishop of Exeterobserved, that if the judges, in reply to questions put to them, declared that the Colonial Legislature had gone beyond their powers, then was he to understand that neither to the whole, nor to any part, could the assent of the Crown be granted?
The Lord Chancellor, that the royal assent could neither be given to the whole, nor any part of the bill, if the judges gave
966
it as their opinion, that the Legislature had exceeded their authority.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it now being understood, that if the judges decided against the authority of the Colonial Legislature, the bill could not receive the royal assent, in withdrawing the motion, then, its supporters evidently receded from a certain ground of safety, giving thereby the best possible pledge of the amicable disposition by which they were actuated.
The Marquess of Lawsdowneobserved, that the most rev. and right rev. Prelates in thus consenting to withdraw the motion, best consulted the interests of the Established Church. With respect to the main, question, of course the Government would be considered as leaving it open to future consideration.
The motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury it was understood, was not to be brought forward.

WAR WITH CHINA.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that a rumour was now prevalent, respecting the accuracy of which he wished to put a question to the noble Viscount. It was said, that letters of marque and reprisal had issued against China. He wished to know if that report were well founded, and, if so, whether it was intended to bring down any message from the Crown to Parliament on the subject?
Viscount Melbournereplied, that the rumour to which the noble Earl referred was not well founded. Her Majesty's Government intended to demand reparation for the injury done to the property of British subjects. If that reparation were not obtained, then it was intended to proceed gainst the trade of the Chinese. For that purpose, it would be necessary to institute courts to authorize the sale of such vessels and cargoes as might be seized. If reparation were made, of course no letters of marque would issue.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose to remind the noble Viscount, that he had omitted to slate whether or not there was to be a message from the Crown.
Viscount Melbournesaid, there would not be any message.
Lord Colchester(as we understood) stated, that he had been informed of the departure of a large steamer from Portsmouth having letters of marque on board.
Viscount Melbournereplied, that she belonged to the East India Company, and was going out to India.
Subject dropped.

BILL TO AUTHORISE PUBLICATION.
The Earl of Shaftesburybrought up the report on the Printed Papers' Bill.
Lord Denmansaid, that this bill had been brought up from the House of Commons to remedy a very pressing inconvenience, namely, the unreasonable multiplication of actions of a frivolous nature. He confessed that he could not add any thing to the very able argument which had yesterday been delivered at the bar of their Lordships' House. All that he now wished to do was, to submit to the consideration of the House some amendments calculated, as he believed, more fully and completely to effect the objects which the promoters of the measure had in view. To the early part of the clause for putting a stop to the actions now pending, he did not mean to object. This subject being under discussion, it was quite a matter of course that the House of Commons should consider the most convenient course, to prevent the consequences of actions which might be brought in future, and, therefore they declared, that it was "essential to the due and effectual exercise and discharge of the functions and duties of Parliament, and to the promotion of wise legislation, that no obstructions or impediments should exist to the publication of such of the reports, papers, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament, as such House of Parliament may deem fit or necessary to be published; and, whereas, obstructions or impediments to such publication have arisen and hereafter may arise, by means of civil or criminal proceedings being taken against persons employed by, or acting under, the authority of the Houses of Parliament, by reason and for remedy whereof, it is expedient that more speedy protection should be afforded to all persons acting under the authority aforesaid, and that all such proceedings, civil or criminal, should summarily be put an end to in the manner mentioned." The bill still left it doubtful whether the law, as declared by the Court of Queen's Bench, was, in the judgment of the House of Commons, correct; and, therefore, it was necessary to supply a new law to remedy the defect that existed. The learned counsel who addressed their Lordships' at the bar on the previous night, took a contrary view of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, from that which was expressed by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, when he introduced the bill to the attention of their Lordships, for his noble and learned
968
Friend went upon the assumption that the decision was correct. If he were disposed to go into that matter, he should think that the argument of the learned counsel at the bar, was more in accordance with the nature of the bill itself, than what took place when the bill was introduced. He thought it unworthy of their Lordships and of himself, to go into an inquiry concerning the motives in which the bill originated. The question was this, was there a case for an act of Parliament at all, and if there was, did this act contain a reasonable and proper remedy for the inconvenience complained of? A great ferment had arisen upon this subject, and considerable embarrassment was felt, which was likely to last for some time, and his only object was to put a stop to that state of things. But when he came to look at the means by which that object was sought to be carried into effect, he must own that he saw much to complain of in every point of view, for it certainly did introduce a mode of paralyzing the proceedings of a court of justice through the medium of a communication between other parties, to which, he believed their Lordships would agree with him, they ought not to be exposed. If the courts had done anything wrong, and if their Lordships were sitting as a legislative body to pronounce on the validity of a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to declare their opinion that the decision of that court was wrong and should therefore be set aside, there would be some ground for introducing these clauses. But he could not think that their Lordships would feel themselves authorized to take that view of the matter; and he, for one, was not at all disposed to submit to the proposition that the Court of Queen's Bench should be reduced to an absolute nullity by a communication between the officers of the House of Commons and the court It appeared to him, that instead of that being the course, the only proper proceeding would be, that the court itself should be informed of that which had been done by the Houses of Parliament, and that the court should receive credit for doing its duty and enforcing the law, and instantly seeing that, since this law for giving publicity to proceedings of such a nature was passed, that the publications were properly made under the authority and power of the act. He should, therefore, take the liberty to propose that instead of a certificate in every particular case on the part of the Speaker, or of the Parliament, to certify that something was done

969
and published by his or their authority, the publications themselves should bear on the face of them the authority by which they were issued, just as an Act of Parliament printed by the King's printer appears authorized on the face of it; so that it would be known as the publication of the authorized printer of the House of Commons, being signed by the Speaker, or any other authority properly appointed. He apprehended that would be the proper mode to relieve the case of a great deal of the difficulty which at present encumbered it. Then, again, it was required that the particular thing complained of should be certified as published by the authority of the House of Commons. But that might be a garbled abstract, for there was a great difference between a part and the whole, and a part might be set out and published for malicious purposes. That required correction. Supposing that the plan were adopted of having a affidavit to confirm the authority of the publication what protection was there against forgery? The court would have no means of judging of the authenticity, and the party sued for a libel might put in an affidavit that the certificate of the authority for the publication was the certificate of the proper officer, while on the other hand, the other party might produce a counter-affidavit. The court would then be called upon to determine, on the one side or the other, which party was right. But, according to the bill as it now stood, on the mere production of the certificate and an affidavit verifying the certificate, the court was to put an end to all further proceedings. Again, there was no provision made on behalf of the plaintiff in any action; so that the case might proceed upon a process which had become illegal by some proceeding of an inferior officer here, and an inferior officer there, of which the court might be kept in ignorance. It was true that by the second clause the plaintiff was to have forty-eight hours' notice of the delivery of the certificate; but if that were not done, no penalty or consequence would follow, and the defendant might go on without giving notice to the suffering plaintiff. The question of the service of the notice might be raised, and each party put in conflicting evidence: and who was to decide but the court itself? It was clear that the bill itself would be of little or no avail unless the courts of law were to see it, if passed into an act, properly carried into effect. Indeed he could
970
hardly think that the House of Common contemplated having an Act of Parliament' and yet would oust the courts of law from carrying it into effect. He thought it would be better for the House of Commons to keep the matter of privilege in their own hands, and to say, "We do not want an Act of Parliament at all; we will send for individuals whenever we think they have violated our privileges, and deal with them ourselves." If the courts of justice were not to be trusted because they might be suspected of prejudice, it would be better for the Commons to keep to that course. But there were modes of evading this measure. An action brought for libel was declared to be null and void by the bill; but suppose it went on—suppose the party proceeded with his action, notwithstanding anything which had taken place in his absence—would it he superseded? The meaning was, that the action should be considered as good for nothing. But who was to consider of that? Who was to form a judgment upon that? The courts of justice, undoubtedly Therefore, if they had a law, they must give power to the courts to enforce it. It appeared to him also, that when any authenticated report was published, and a copy was made, the copy should be entitled to the same protection as the original. In fact, original reports were seldom read by the public until they were copied into the newspapers, and it was chiefly by the circulation of the newspapers that they obtained publicity. It struck him, therefore, that their Lordships would be really giving effect to the bill by saying that copies of authenticated reports published in newspapers should be protected equally with the original reports. It often happened that the whole report in its original form was extremely uninteresting to the public, and therefore it was found desirable to extract the most interesting passages; and if that were done, his suggestion was, that it should be a matter on which no summary proceeding should take place, because it would be one for grave inquiry. If it could be shown that the extracts had been made for the purpose of injuring an individual, the sufferer ought to be protected and redressed. But he should propose that when the jury should find in such cases that the extracts were made and published without malice, the verdict should be for the defendant. In the case of authenticated reports and copies of authenticated reports, he proposed that the party bringing his action should not recover

971
costs, because he ought to know that such an act had been passed.
The Lord Chancellorapprehended that this was a subject, above all others, upon which their Lordships would be most anxious to agree with the other House of Parliament, at least without any material alteration. Of course they would not give their assent to anything that was not worthy of it. But the object of this bill was to put an end to the unfortunate contest between the other House and the Court of Queen's Bench, and therefore, it was a bill upon which they should be disposed to look favourably, and in which they should make no alterations but such as were unavoidable; because, after what had happened, any important alterations might be received as being of doubtful interpretation. The amendments of his noble and learned Friend would, if adopted, lead to consequences which he would regret. He would call their Lordships' attention to one part of the alterations proposed in the first section of the bill. They were aware that this contest had arisen from an action brought by an individual named Stockdale, upon which he recovered 100 l. damages, after a defence; he then brought a second action upon the same alleged libel, which action was not defended, and he recovered 600 l. damages; he then brought a third action on the same publication, which was the action now pending. The third action Was that with which the bill professed to deal. That action was brought after repeated warnings from the House of Commons that they considered, if he proceeded to bring that action, he would act in violation of their privileges. Their Lordships were aware that two persons besides Stockdale—namely, his attorney and the clerk to his attorney, were now in custody for acting contrary to the expressed orders of the House of Commons. The object of this bill was to stay such actions in future, and to prevent such contests being carried on. That being so, it was scarcely possible that the House of Commons would Consent to the amendments of his noble and learned Friend. The House of Commons was jealous above all things of any interference with its privileges. But the effect of the amendment of his noble and learned Friend would be, that the officer of the House of Commons, acting under the obedience and orders of the House, could not be relieved from an action brought against him without applying to a court of law, which was exactly what the House of
972
Commons most deprecated. His noble and learned Friend proposed that costs in such actions should be disposed of upon such terms as the court should think just and reasonable. But look at the present case. What hardship had Mr. Stockdale suffered? He had thought proper, after recovering 700 l., to bring a third action. Was he a party who ought to have costs? Parties had been permitted to receive costs because they had taken advantage of the law as it stood. The act relating to horse-racing, which their Lordships had recently passed, was an illustration of that point. But in this case the party had commenced proceedings in violation of the orders of the House, to which orders it was the object of the bill to give effect. It would astonish those acquainted with the practice of courts of equity to hear the rule laid down, that where a party had acted in defiance of an injunction, he should have any claim for costs. To be sure his noble and learned Friend would say that the House of Commons had no right to issue an injunction. But that was the very question, and their Lordships were called on to put an end to that question, and to prevent the inconveniences arising out of the dispute upon it. So far from a party in such a case as he had mentioned being entitled to costs, he would be sent to the Fleet, and never suffered to depart until he had paid the costs himself. He trusted that their Lordships would see, that the amendments would defeat the object of the bill, and, if passed, compel the House of Commons to resort to means for the vindication of their privileges, and therefore, he hoped that they would not allow the bill to be altered.
Lord Wynfordconsidered that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was mistaken in the views which he entertained upon the effect of this bill as to costs. He should have liked the bill better if it had given costs to the plaintiffs. When actions were brought against the clergy for non-residence, they had been all stopped, but upon payment of costs to the plaintiffs. In the bill also relating to joint-stock banks he had himself introduced a clause, which their Lordships had agreed to, providing that costs should be paid to the plaintiffs as between attorney and client. He should therefore, have liked the bill better if it had contained a provision to that effect. He must say that he entirely disagreed from what his noble and learned Friend said about the propriety of bringing actions. In the great case of "Ashby v. White,"

973
that House came to a solemn determination and that determination had never been reversed, and therefore it was still the law of Parliament, that no man was guilty of a contempt of either House of Parliament for any action brought for an injury received by him from any act done by any officer of the House. He could not help thinking that no party could be committed for contempt by bringing an action against an officer of the House of Commons. Again, in the great case of "Burdett v. Abbott," the House of Commons, who were then very sensitive about their privileges, as they had been ever since, vindicated their privileges in a manly and constitutional way, and never thought of committing Sir F. Burdett for a contempt in bringing an action against the Speaker. The House of Commons had no privilege which was not recognized by the law of the land, as declared by some court of justice. The court must inquire whether the privilege was a reasonable one, and that was a duty which the judges owed to the country, which considered them the greatest patriots for performing it as it had been performed by his noble and learned Friend opposite, and his learned brethren of the Court of Queen's Bench.
Lord Abingerhad originally thought, that it would be the safest course for him, situated as he was, to abstain from saying anything upon the merits of the general question of privilege, so long as there was a possibility of the question being brought before a court of error, of which he was a member, and he still adhered to that opinion. With respect to this bill, it was a bill of peace, and he thought it would be wise for his noble and learned Friend to accept it. He should confine himself now to the mere question of the amendment. He had been unable to study his noble and learned Friend's amendment, but it struck him that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was right in opposing the proposition that such costs should be given as a judge should deem just and reasonable, and he owned he thought that it was not desirable that the House of Commons should be exposed to the humiliation of going before a judge or officer of the court in order to get the proceedings stayed on terms discretionary with the judge to impose as to costs. He thought it better that some clause should be introduced by which the action should be stayed altogether. If the bill were drawn so as to make the action now pending a nullity, there would be no
974
reason for the introduction of a provision for staying the action, and allowing a judge to award costs at his discretion. Then if it applied to any action prospectively, it would be a humiliation to the House of Commons to be called upon to receive the opinion of any officer or judge as to costs. Then as to the mode of proceeding. The most useful method would be to adopt the machinery which his noble and learned Friend had suggested. He would have proposed a single clause, which would be to this effect:—In all actions or prosecutions for any libel when it was made to appear that the publication complained of had been made by order of either House of Parliament, the defendant should be at liberty to stay the whole proceedings, and the certificate of the Speaker should be evidence of the fact. It would then be imperative on the court to stay the proceedings.
Lord Denmanthought, that it would be perceived that his difficulty was occasioned by mixing up the plaintiff's in the pending action and in other actions. He thought, that Mr. Stockdale should under no circumstances whatever receive costs, but he was not sure that actions might not have been brought by other parties. He would not, however, admit the principle contended for by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that Mr. Stockdale was bound not to proceed after he had received notice from the House of Commons. He would not permit it to be supposed that any one of the Queen's subjects was to be restrained by an order from the House of Commons, or from the House of Lords, not to proceed with an action brought to enforce a right acknowledged by the law. He did not acquiesce in any such proposition, which rather controverted the notion which seemed to prevail the other day, that the bill assumed the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench to be correct. With regard to Stockdale's costs, if they could be separated from the costs of other parties, he should have no objection to this course.
The Lord Chancellorremarked that, there was no chance of there being any other actions than that of Stockdale. The defendant therefore, ought to be allowed in the bill to stay the proceedings against him on the production of the Speaker's certificate. What the bill now proposed was, that the defendant—namely, the officer of the House—should bring the certificate of the Speaker, that the paper containing the alleged libel was a paper printed

975
by order of the House, and upon that the action was to be stayed. As to what his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice had said about the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, there could be nothing in the bill which affected that judgment, and, therefore, he did not think it was necessary to take the bill back to the House of Commons for the purpose of making the proposed amendment.
Lord Langdalesaid, that in the consideration of the question now before the House, it was necessary to bear constantly in mind what the object of the bill was, and what were the means by which that object could be effected. The object was to put an end to those proceedings, which by lessening public confidence in the courts of justice, had so justly created alarm throughout the country. No one could regret more than he did the proceedings which had taken place, and he must take the liberty of saying that some of the doctrines which had been propounded and maintained during the controversy by persons entitled to great consideration, appears to him to be extremely dangerous, and to be inconsistent with the principles and practice of a free and lawful constitution of government. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Baron, that this was not a proper time to give an opinion upon the general question which had been agitated, but he must be allowed to state, that under all the circumstances which had occurred, considering that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was pronounced upon deliberation after a long and very learned and able argument, that all the judges had been unanimous, and that a writ of error might have been, but was not, brought by those who conceived themselves to be aggrieved—it did appear to him that there was at least a strong presumption that the judgement was right; and it was to him a principal inducement to vote for the bill, that it proceeded on an assumption that the judgement might be right. In that respect he entirely concurred with the noble Duke. In looking to the means by which the object in view might be attained, he conceived that it was necessary that the bill should be founded on a just principle—that its provisions should be sufficient to secure the object intended to be obtained, and that it should be acceptable to the House of Commons, but he did not consider it to be necessary that such a bill should be a perfect measure, or should provide for all the
976
contingencies which ought to be contemplated on the occasion of making such a law. The circumstances were such at this particular time, that for the sake of attaining the immediate object, and of showing a considerate and conciliating spirit towards the House of Commons, it appeared to him that it was expedient to consent to a law less perfect than might be contrived; and to trust that hereafter, when the present excitement had passed away, and mens' minds were more free from passion, the House of Commons would concur with the House of Lords in the preparation of a better law. He confessed that there were many things in the bill of which he could not approve, and there were some important omissions; but as the bill appeared to him to be founded on a justifiable principle—as the enactments seemed sufficient to answer the immediate purpose intended—and as the Commons had passed it, he was induced to give his support to it. He should even wish to pass it as it was, adding only a common clause providing for its being repealed or altered during the present Session, and he thought that after it had passed, another bill should be introduced for the purpose of making the law upon the subject as clear and perfect as might be.
Lord Denmansaid, that if personal grounds alone were concerned, he would offer no objection to the clause which went to stop the actions already brought. But, as the bill now stood, he must offer to it his most strenuous opposition. He thought, that to stop the action which had been brought by Mr. Howard, not for a publication by order of the House, but for an excess of authority in the officers of the sergeant-at-arms, for remaining in the house beyond the time which they had a right to stay, and conducting themselves, in other respects, in an objectionable way, would be a proceeding of the most gross injustice, and the worst example. Considering it to be his duty to use every means in his power to prevent the first clause from passing in its present shape, the noble and learned Lord read a clause, which he proposed to insert in the beginning of the bill, to the effect that "all actions against printers and publishers for libels contained in publications printed by order of the House of Commons shall be, and the same are, hereby stayed."
The Earl of Winchilseafelt deeply indebted to the noble and learned Lord for the stand he had made for vindicating the character of the Court of Queen's Bench,

977
He cordially supported the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, and his only wish was, that they had gone further.
The Lord Chancellorthought it would meet the object the noble and learned Lord had in view, if the first clause, as to the printing, was left as it now stood, and the provision proposed by the noble Lord should be inserted in the second clause. He alluded to the producing to the court the certificate of the Speaker of either House of Parliament, that the paper had been printed under his authority. That would relieve all objections, and preserve the machinery of the first clause.
Lord Denmanagreed, and withdrew his amendment.
Lord Wynfordproposed an amendment to prevent the sale of papers by the House of Commons.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the bill had been sent up from the House of Commons to put an end to the differences, which every one regretted, as to the existence of the privileges of the House; and the amendment of his noble and learned Friend, confining the benefits to those parties who did not sell, would in effect be to confine those benefits to the House of Lords alone, unless on this condition, that the House of Commons would rescind one of its resolutions. For himself, he had doubts about the propriety of a sale of the Parliamentary papers; but if he were asked to give his reason for those doubts, he confessed that he would scarcely be able to furnish any; certain, however, it was, that if he were one of the public, he would feel satisfied with the sale; and it was more convenient for the public that they should be able to purchase a paper for a small price rather than have to ask the favour of a copy from some Member of Parliament, for some persons might not know a member, and others might not like to be under any obligation. Besides, the evil was in the publication, not in the sale; and he was somewhat surprised at the course taken by his noble and learned Friend to limit the benefits to papers not sold, if he wished to restrict the publication; for the effect of the sale had been to lessen the number of papers that were actually put into circulation. When, however, they were about to give themselves this privilege of publication that did not already exist, they ought to take measures to prevent any abuse of their privilege. This they might do without consulting and without interfering with the House of Commons, What had they done with respect
978
to the regulations of their private committees? They had been told that abuses existed in the committees of private bills, not so much in that House as in the House of Commons. What did they do? They appointed a committee, and they adopted regulations that entirely prevented any abuses in their own House. The House of Commons saw this, and the House of Commons followed their example. Let them act now in the same manner with respect to this measure; let them adopt restrictions that were right, and they would be followed, without any dictation on their part, by the House of Commons. He would pass this measure as nearly as possible in the state in which it was sent up by the House of Commons; but yet let them, when they gave themselves all the protection of this bill, prevent to the utmost of their power all abuses; and, especially, they ought not to do that which was offensive to the House of Commons, and which would be the more offensive because it would relate to a money vote, asking them to rescind one of their resolutions. He trusted, then, that their Lordships would not acquiesce in the amendment of his noble and learned Friend; for if so, it would be better to reject the bill altogether, and to leave untouched the collision between the House of Commons and the Courts of Law, than to add to it a collision between that House and the House of Commons.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished their Lordships would judge for themselves, and adopt either the recommendation which he would propose, or the proposition which had first been made by the noble Lord. He thought that if their Lordships followed the advice of the noble Lord, they would commit a great error. What he would propose was, that they should give protection as well to the House of Commons as to that House, and place them on precisely the same grounds, by giving indemnity to all persons printing and publishing any thing ordered by either House. But in this bill there was something else that was proposed, and which the noble Lord had passed by. It had been proposed, that protection should be given not only to papers printed by order of either of the Houses of Parliament, but to papers that, having been so printed, were sold; and that was the very point which was the origin of all the mischief. In 1835, a new practice had been introduced into the House of Commons (for he called it a new practice, although anciently it might have existed,)

979
and it was this new practice of sale that had been the cause of the mischief. It was avowed, in a report of the House of Commons, that no measures had been taken to prevent the sale, and that no measures could be taken to prevent the inconvenience. A grave case had been stated lately: it was lout two days ago that complaint had been made of the publication of a petition reflecting on a magistrate of the county of Herts; and if papers were to be sold, who could prevent such complaints, however desirable such a prevention might be. When such inconveniences as these were brought before them, they should do all that they could to apply a remedy. It was their duty to make the bill as perfect as possible, and he thought they should not permit the other House of Parliament to have authority to make sale of libels against her Majesty's subjects, and to become, in fact, the only authorized libellers in the country. This resolution of the sale of their publications has caused all the evil, and they should not pass the bill without insisting on introducing a clause to prevent the mischief. Their Lordships might decide as to them seemed best, but he thought that the House should adopt some measures for preventing the House of Commons from becoming the only authorised libellers in the country.
The Earl of Wicklowadmitted, that the evil would not have arisen, but from the resolution of the House to sanction the sale of their publications, and that being the cause of the evil, its removal might be effected by preventing the sale, particularly as the sale was under a late order of the House of Commons in 1835. Being in the country at the time of the discussion of this question in the other House, and being removed from the scene of agitation, it had appeared to him, as it did to every individual with whom he had conversed, that the proceedings of the House were unjustifiable and tyrannical to individuals; but when he read the papers communicated to this House by the other House of Parliament, he confessed, that as to the remedy proposed by his noble Friend below, he had come to a different conclusion. It was evident that the impression, that the practice of the sale of papers was of recent date, was not founded in fact. It appeared that the practice of sale had been since and before the Revolution. It, therefore, became matter of consideration, whether the evil was not one of recent date. He was disposed to think, that the loss to the public would be infinitely greater by adopting the proposal of
980
the noble and learned Lord, than it would be by leaving the circumstances as they at present existed. It had been truly observed by his noble Friend below him, that the publication of those papers had diminished since the existence of the sale. It was clear, therefore, that whatever evil resulted from the publication, which was admitted to be right, could not be much increased by the practice of the sale. There was, it appeared from the reports, seven descriptions of papers which the House of Commons had been in the habit of selling. The votes had been sold since 1688; the petitions to the House had been sold; but was no evil likely to result from their publication? There was also the publication of bills. No evil could result from that. There was also the publication of communications from the Crown. There was no publication from which evil could result, with the sole exception of the publication of minutes of evidence taken before select committees. If such proceedings as they were now anxious to guard against were to be prevented, it could solely be done by prohibiting the sale of that species of paper; but it was impossible to frame any bill so as to prevent the sale of the papers, whilst the sale continued of every other paper published by order of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, seeing the impossibility of making the distinction, and the conviction on his mind being that the sale was not so much the cause of the evil as the publication, which their Lordships required as a privilege, he thought that to admit the amendment of his noble friend, would be prejudicial to the public in the first place, and in the next, fatal to the bill. It gave him great satisfaction to find, that the House of Commons had descended from the high ground on which it stood, so as to adopt this bill, and send it to their Lordships. He was anxious to see the bill passed. He could not give his consent to a proposition which he knew would defeat its object. It was, therefore, with dissatisfaction that he heard the noble Duke say, he wished their Lordships to judge for themselves, and adopt the course which he recommended, or that which was recommended by his noble Friend below. He thought it right to state this, as he was sure the wish of the noble Duke would have some effect on those who were in the habit of voting with him.
Lord Monteaglewas rather surprised at the distinction taken by the noble Duke. He was inclined to adhere to the opinion,

981
that if a question of libel arose, the question of libel was the only question, and that the question of sale was immaterial. It would be indifferent to him if he were the object of a libel, whether it was gratuitously distributed or sold. In all the principal points, quoad justice quoad impartiality, the present system was infinitely better than that proposed. When it was said that the practice of selling these papers was a novel practice, noble Lords were quite mistaken. The argument of the noble Duke was, that the resolution of the House of Commons in 1835, introduced a new practice, and that this new practice was the cause of all the mischief. Every thing proved that that sale of papers by the House of Commons was not a casual circumstance, but one which had been resolved on after due deliberation. He was opposed to this amendment, because he held it to be matter of principle, that one House should not interfere with the internal arrangements of the other. On the propriety of that arragement he might be permitted to speak as a witness. Their Lordships were doubtless aware that the fee-fund of that House was not equal to its expenditure. The deficiency was made up by a vote of the House of Commons. Some injudicious inquirers, as he thought, had asked for the particulars of that expenditure before they agreed to the vote in question. He had regularly refused to grant an account of those particulars, on the ground that their Lordships ought to enjoy full and entire liberty to conduct their business in the mode which pleased them best. Acting on the same principle, he maintained that their Lordships ought not to pass this bill, with a condition that the House of Commons should abandon its present practice, which had been adopted with the full sanction of two such eminent speakers as Lord Colchester and Lord Canterbury, and that too on the mere suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, that a libel disseminated gratuitously was perfectly innocent, but that a libel sold was open to objection and animadversion. Could any man believe that, if this amendment were carried, it would not be fatal to this bill in the other House of Parliament? Let their Lordships reject this bill, if they deemed it injurious to the interests of the public; but if their object was peace, and if they were anxious to restore a calm between the other House of Parliament and the courts of justice, let them restore it effectually, and let them not mar their efforts by introducing into the measure,
982
an amendment which must be fatal to its chance of success.
Viscount Melbournefelt it to be his duty to say a few words upon this subject. The noble Lord who had just sat down had said, that this bill was a measure of peace, and in that sentiment he believed that the whole House concurred, and he could not therefore but strongly impress upon the noble Lord opposite the consideration of the question, whether he would persist in endeavouring to introduce into it that which must infallibly have the effect of throwing out the bill. It was said that the whole of the existing evil was produced by the sale of the papers of the House of Commons. He would not enter into a history of the question, or whether the sale was a course which it was wise to persist in or not, but he could not see why it was said, that the mischief had arisen from that, or why Mr. Stockdale could not as well have brought his action if the papers had not been sold. He could not see that any very strong case of abuse had been made out. A great susceptibility and a wonderful degree of sensitiveness had been exhibited, as to the rights of the subject, and really, from the steps which had been taken, one would have supposed that there was nothing in the nature of abuse or defamation going on in the country. It was agreed on all hands, that it was right that this bill should pass, and, in reality, the only question for consideration was, whether this amendment should be agreed to. The effect of that would he to censure the House of Commons, and seeing that that House was determined not to alter its order or give up the right of sale, they proposed to say, "You shall not have the benefit of this measure, and your officers shall not be protected by it." It was impossible that they could offer a greater insult to the House of Commons than that which was proposed, more especially when, by adopting this amendment, they would impose a limit to their proceedings, in the shape of a penalty, if they did not accept the measure as it was sent to them. The main consideration, which, in his opinion, ought to weigh with them was, the desire to put an end to the unfortunate collision of authorities which had occurred, and which could only tend to weaken both, but he thought that they would destroy the great end and object of this measure by the introduction of the amendment proposed.
Lord Colchestersaid, that agreeing with the noble and learned Lord who had pro-

983
posed this amendment, that the House of Commons should not have the power of sale and publication, he should vote in favour of his motion, in case of the House going to a division.
Lord Ashburtonconsidered that the amendment would, if carried, insure the rejection of the bill by the House of Commons, and, as it was introduced as a bill of peace, he could not help recommending that that amendment should be withdrawn. He agreed, however, with the noble and learned Lord, that the sale was a great inconvenience resulting from the publication of these Parliamentary papers. He wanted to know what inconvenience would result from making individuals liable in courts of justice for libels inserted in their petitions to, or in their evidence given before, the two Houses of Parliament, particularly if those individuals were enabled to plead and prove the truth of their allegations. He thought, that leaving the bill in its present state, they would leave the whole subject in a state of great insecurity.
Lord Langdalesaid, that the propriety of freely printing and publishing Parliamentary papers had been placed on various grounds, such as public instruction, the duty of explaining to the country the facts and reasons on which legislation proceeded, and so on; but in his opinion it rested on the duty of obtaining the fullest possible information for the purpose of legislation. All the information which belongs to any subject can only be had by publishing the imperfect information which is already possessed; by such publication those who know more and better are induced to correct errors, and supply deficiencies, and the knowledge upon which legislation ought to proceed has thus a chance at least of being increased to the utmost, and publication being necessary, and the subjects being such as sometimes may seriously affect the character of individuals, it becomes a very important duty to avoid the insertion of injurious and improper matter in the papers. Nobody suspected either House of Parliament of desiring to avail themselves of their great powers to circulate libels and disseminate calumnies. Neither was it a question whether either House might print, publish, and sell, for any body may print, publish, and sell; but the question is, what is to be done when something injurious to individuals happens to be contained in a paper printed and published by either House; for notwithstanding the utmost precaution that
984
could be used, it would occasionally happen that falsehoods injurious to individuals would escape attention and be published, and considering this to be an accident which occurs in a proceeding necessary for the public service, he owned it appeared to him that the servant who had published the paper in the discharge of his duty, and pursuant to the order of the House, ought not to be in any way answerable for the injury done. But he could not think that the injury ought to go without redress, or that it would be inconsistent with the dignity of either House of Parliament to permit it to be tried in a legal way, whether any statement made in a printed paper was false and injurious, and if it proved to be so, to make compensation for the damage done. However, this bill had no such provision, and he did not wish to expose it to hazard by making any proposition to that effect on this occasion. The observations made by the noble Lord who preceded him (Lord Ashburton) had induced him to make these remarks, which he admitted had nothing to do with the clause proposed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Wynford) who desired to exclude from protection all such Parliamentary papers as should be sold. It was said, that the sale was the root of the evil, but he thought there was a great mistake in that. Some persons had undoubtedly a great repugnance to the sale, thinking that there was something mean and sordid in it; but when evil arose, it was from the publication, and not from the sale. No one had yet held that the right of any party to complain of a paper printed and published was at all affected by a sale of the same paper. His noble Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, in his judgement took care to say that the sale did not affect the question, and he (Lord Langdale) prayed of their Lordships to consider that in all probability the extent of publication had not been increased by the sale of the House of Commons papers, and that the sale had at least a tendency to secure an impartial publication, but above all that the sale is expressly ordered by the House of Commons. This clause if introduced into the bill, would be in substance a censure of that order of the House of Commons, and a declaration that unless they (the Commons) rescind an order which they have shown a strong disposition to maintain, this House will not concur with them in the bill. What could be more likely to lead to a collision between the two Houses? a result which every one.

985
would deplore. He hoped therefore that the clause would be rejected.
The Marquess of Butedid not know on what grounds the bill before the House could be called a "Bill of Peace." The noble and learned Lord, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, had said, that no powers on earth should make him agree to the bill, unless the succeeding clause to that which they were then discussing was rejected; yet that clause was as adverse to the sale of papers by the House of Commons as the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Where, then, was the consistency of rejecting the motion of the one and agreeing to that of the other? What proof was that of the peaceful character of" the hill? He was most anxious for peace between the courts of law and the Legislature, but he could not help thinking that the collision which the measure was introduced to remedy was not highly creditable to the character of the House of Commons. That House had let the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench become law by pleading to its jurisdiction in the first instance; but when the decision was adverse to its claims, it turned short round and declared war against that court. In fact, the House of Commons had, in this transaction, gone out of its way to find ground for a collision with the courts of law, and whatever evil arose out of it was of its own seeking. He (the Marquess of Bute) wished for a bill that would ensure peace, not alone between the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench, but between that branch of the Legislature and the country at large; and this he would venture to say, that if their Lordships adopted the motion of his noble and learned Friend, the House of Commons would not again refuse the bill, even though it were amended. If it should, it would know very little of the feelings of the country—of the feelings of its constituents—of the feelings of those it purported to represent.
Lord Denmanwas very sorry that any expression of his should be so construed as to lead to the rejection of the bill before their Lordships; a circumstance which he wholly deprecated. If, however, the motion of the noble and learned Lord was agreed to, such would be the case; for the House of Lords could never think of sending the measure so amended back to the House of Commons. Therefore, he trusted, that it would not be pressed, or if pressed, that it would not be agreed to. It was ne-
986
cessary that the power of publication should exist—it was necessary, also, that the abuse of that power should be prevented as much as possible; but it was idle to attribute the evil to the publication of Parliamentary papers; it was the publication of the debates next morning that produced the evil, if evil there was—and that there were no means of avoiding. It was a fallacy to say that the sale of papers by the House of Commons was a new proceeding; it had existed for a very long period; and it was not correct to term the resolutions of 1835 the root of the present evil. The only use made of the circumstance of the sale by him (Lord Denman) in his argument was, that it made the circulation indiscriminate which had formerly been limited and confined. In point of law, the sale made no difference in the state of the case, but in point of law it made all the difference. If, as it is clear, the practice of sale has existed in the House of Commons for nearly two centuries, then it would be an insult to it to attempt its suppression now. The adoption of the motion of the noble and learned Lord would bear that construction, and be attended with results inconvenient and not foreseen by him, in the highest degree, as it would inevitably involve the rejection of the measure.
Lord Wyndford's amendment withdrawn.
Several amendments were agreed to, and the report was received.