Sitting of 17 February 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir E. Wilmot, Lord Sandon, Lord Ashley, Lord G. Somerset, General Lygon, Messrs. Broadwood, and Barneby, from a number of places, for Church Extension.—By Mr. B. Wood, from places in Yorkshire, and Mr. M. Philips, from Manchester, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and the Release of John Thorogood.—By, Messrs. Grote, Hume, and F. Kelly, from several places, for a Free Pardon to Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By the Lord Advocate, Mr. F. Maule, and Mr. Wallace, from a number of places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes without the consent of the Inhabitants.—By Mr. Corbally, from a number of places, for Corporate Reform, and an Extension of the Franchise in Ireland.—By Sir M. Wood, from Newcastle-under-Line, Mr. F. Kelly, from Chelsea, and Sergeant Jackson, from several places, for the Immediate Release of the Sherifls.—By Sir G. Strickland, and Mr. Hume, from several places, for the Immediate and Total Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Ashley, from one place, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Messrs. Ellis, and Shaw, from Newry, and Dublin, against the Importation of Flour into Ireland.—By Mr. Litton, from Dublin, against Corporate Reform in Ireland.

POST-OFFICE ACCOUNTS.
Mr. Wallacereferring to his notice of motion upon the paper for the evening, for "copies or extracts of all the information that had been furnished by the authorities of the Post-office to the right hon. Member for Harwich, &c, with the particulars of such verbal communications (if any) respecting an anticipated or probable deficiency in the Post-office revenue, as alluded to by the right hon. Member for Harwich, in the debate on the financial state of the country, on Thursday, the 13th inst," said, that he found that his notice was not strictly regular, as it had referred to what had taken place in a former debate, and as it was always his wish to avoid any irregularity where the forms of the House were concerned, he begged to withdraw his motion for the present.
Mr. Herriessaid, that in consequence of the step now taken by the hon. Gentleman in withdrawing the notice which he had given, on the ground of irregularity, he should take it as a great favour if the House would allow him to say a very few words. Every Gentleman who had read the notice which appeared on the paper for that day would form his own judgment on the propriety of that notice; upon so much or" it as related to himself he should offer no observations, but there were others concerned in the notice which appeared on the votes of the House of Commons, in behalf of whom he begged permission of the House to say a very few words. He meant, when he used these terms, to refer to the officers of the Post-office, who were designated in the notice of the hon. Gentleman as the "authorities of the Post-office," and with respect to whom it was proposed, that the names of such persons should be laid on the Table of the House for furnishing information to him. Now, as all those gentlemen had characters to uphold, it would be of great importance—
Mr. Wallace.—Sir, I rise to order, the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of an irregularity in persisting to address the House,
Mr. Herries: I am speaking upon the question of order. It is within the rules and orders of the House that any Gentleman may ask leave of the House to address it, and it is within the power of the House, if it be their pleasure, to hear him. If it be not the pleasure of the House to hear me, I shall not persist in the observations which I was about to make, but if it be their pleasure, I shall proceed. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say, that it was on the behalf of those gentlemen to whom he had referred, and on whom a reflection had been cast by implication, that he asked permission of the House to say a few words, and they should be very few. What he had to say was simply this—that with any of those persons, from Lord Lichfield and Colonel Maberly, from the very highest to the very lowest, he had held no communication, direct or indirect whatsoever. He declared, on his honour as a gentleman, that he had not received from any one of those persons any sort of communication or intimation of what was going on within the Post-office. This was the statement which he had to make, and the
318
object of his statement was to discharge what he believed to be upright, honourable, and faithful public servants from any possible stigma that might attach to them from the hon. Member's motion, and that they might not be exposed to any suspicion of want of probity in the discharge of their public duty, or of fidelity to their superiors—a suspicion which must be injurious not to them only, but to the public service, as it could not but sow distrust between them and their superiors in office.
Mr. Wallacesaid, he was exceedingly gratified by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Member was reported to have said the other evening, and he believed did say—
The Speakerrose to order, and said, he thought it his duty to interfere on this occasion, because, he was sure that if the hon. Gentleman went on, he would transgress one of the rules of the House. He should say, that when he had received notice of the hon. Gentleman's motion, he had intimated to him that it was irregular, and that he should withdraw it. He felt that if he now persevered in the observations he was making he would be acting out of order.
Mr. Wallacewould then only say, that having heard the statement of the right hon. Member, he begged to assure him and the House that he gave most entire credit to his statement, and that, not wishing to convey any impression whatever that would be disagreeable to him or the officers of the Post-office, he would withdraw his motion altogether.
Notice withdrawn.

PRIVILEGE—STOCKDALE V. HANSARD.
Lord John Russellhad another petition to present to the House from Messrs. Hansard, which he moved should be read by the clerk.
Petition read, and laid on the Table. It stated, that a further proceeding, being a fifth action, had been brought against the petitioners in the Court of Queen's Bench by John Joseph Stockdale for the publication of certain papers, in obedience to the orders of that House; and that they had been served with a writ of summons for Thursday, the 20th February next. The petitioner concluded thus:—
"That your petitioners find, on examining

319
the foregoing declaration with the declaration in the former action against your petitioners, in which the damages were assessed at 600 l, that the cause of action is identical—namely, for the publication of a libel of and concerning the plaintiff, contained in the Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons of Great Britain; and, also, in a letter addressed by the said Inspectors to Lord John Russell. That the said Reports and letter were printed by your petitioners by direction of your honourable House. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray the instructions of your honourable House in the matter of this their petition, and on the course they should pursue with respect to the said notice and writ of inquiry."
Sir E. Sugdenasked the noble Lord if it were true, that Mr. Howard the attorney of Stockdale, had brought an action against the son of the Sergeant-at-Arms?
Lord John Russellhad received no official information on the subject. If the fact was so, it would no doubt be stated in a petition to that House. His Lordship then moved the order of the day for the consideration of the petition of the Messrs. Hansard. The noble Lord said that the motion he was now about to make was in consequence of the resolution the House had already come to in reference to the present action, directing the Messrs. Hansard not to appear in the court of law, to plead to that action. In order to prevent judgment being signed against the Messrs. Hansard, it now became necessary for the House to say what other course they would think proper to take in order to maintain that privilege of publication which they had already so frequently supported. This being the only question involved in the present position of the question, it was unnecessary for him, on the present occasion, to enter into any consideration either of the power of the House to publish, or the propriety of their officers appearing in a court of law to plead to an action of this kind. The only question to be considered now was, what course the House would take to vindicate those privileges they had so often asserted, and to prevent the consequences that must otherwise result from that action—the recovery by Stockdale from Messrs Hansard of any sum of money as damages for a publication made under the authority of that House. It appeared to him that the most proper course to follow in the present case was to resolve that the action was a contempt of the House and a breach of its privileges; and that any person who should act in pursu-
320
ance of the said action would incur the displeasure of the House. He proposed to move that resolution with special reference to the officers who would have to act in prosecution of the judgment in the case—namely, the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the under-sheriffs' officers, bailiffs, clerks, and others. He would first move that those parties would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, by aiding in the said action, and then that care should be taken to inform the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and others of that resolution. In the first case the information given to the sheriffs did not come directly from the House, It had been given by a servant of the House; but it had not come directly from a resolution of the House on that particular occasion. In the present case they had an opportunity of giving a more formal notice to the sheriffs. He, therefore, thought that the proper course would be to give the sheriffs the advantage of that information, and that they should be clearly told what would be the consequences of any course taken by them in violation of the privileges of the House. He thought it necessary to do nothing more than to propose that course as if they were determined on maintaining the privilege of publication, because having resolved with respect to this action that they would not endeavour to maintain the privilege in question by pleading before the Court of Queen's Bench, it was necessary for them to interfere in order to prevent the consequences which might follow from the action against the Messrs. Hansard. He would therefore move,
"That John Joseph Stockdale, by commencing this action, in which notice had been given to the defendant to attend a writ of inquiry on the 20th February, such action being brought for acts done by a servant of that House, pursuant to the orders and resolutions of that House, made in the exercise of the privileges of Parliament, had been guilty of a contempt of the House and of a breach of its privileges; and that the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and others who should aid in the prosecution of the said action, would be guilty of a contempt of the House, and of a violation of its privileges, and subject themselves to the severe censure and displeasure of the House."
If that resolution were carried, he would then move that a copy of the said resolution be served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on the sheriffs, and that copies of the

321
same be served on the under-sheriffs, bailiffs, clerks, and others.
The first resolution having been put,
Sir E. Sugdensaid, he should be quite as short as the noble Lord had been upon this subject, especially after the many discussions it had already undergone. He wished only for a moment to draw the attention of the House to the consequences that might arise from this further step which they were now about to take at the suggestion of the noble Lord. The resolution now proposed would, if carried, include judges and counsel. Why, it included and named "sheriffs, under-she-riffs, agents, bailiffs, officers, clerks, and others." Amongst them, then, must be included judges, for the under-sheriff sat as a judge; therefore the resolution went to effect both the under-sheriff and the counsel who pleaded before him. The House had already had difficulties enough to contend with; and it had abstained hitherto from meddling with the judges and counsel concerned in all the measures that had taken place in connexion with this business up to the present time. The House had not as yet had courage to bring any Member of the bar before it, because they knew that it would be utterly impossible to do that without grappling with the Lord Chief Justice of England. The counsel who had pleaded in the former actions they had not called to their bar; but if they passed this resolution, they would be bound by it to punish the under-sheriff, who might sit as judge and direct the jury, and also the counsel who should plead before him. He had hoped that the majority of the House were prepared to take a different course from that which they had been pursuing. True, the decision which had been come to was the decision of the majority, but it did not follow that it was a correct decision. It was the voice of the majority; but the voice of a majority was not always the voice of reason. There had been a triumphant majority in support of the opinions which he did not hold on this question, but that majority had assumed a tone of feeling very different from that displayed by the minority. The minority was respectable in numbers, and certainly they were so in point of talent and competency to deal with this question, and they had maintained their opinion with moderation as well as firmness. But he had to complain that upon this occa-
322
sion all the courtesies of the House had been forgotten. He asked the noble Lord whether he could defend the course he took on Friday night? The noble Lord then refused to state his intentions, though repeatedly requested to do so, not that he was unprepared, but because some cavil might be made against the course he intended to pursue. The noble Lord had said, that the majority had acted with great forbearance, and with a great desire to conciliate the minority. One thing, however, was true: it had been the anxious wish of many hon. Gentlemen in the minority, to conduct their opposition without any ill-feeling. He called upon the House to pause before they took this further step, the effect of which would be to involve them in greater difficulties, by bringing them into collision with the bench and the bar, which would end in their certain defeat, unless they addressed themselves to some other power beyond that upon which they were now depending. He did, therefore, enter his protest against the resolution, and should certainly divide the House upon it, notwithstanding all that the noble Lord had said in its favour.
Sir C. Greysaid, he had witnessed from the first with great anxiety the conduct pursued by the members of the legal profession on the other side of the House, who acknowledged that they thought the House possessed the privilege of publishing their proceedings, but thwarted the only method by which they could be vindicated. That anxiety had been deepened into pain when he saw the hon. Member for Exeter, and the right hon. Member for Ripon, who were Members of the committee from which the resolutions had proceeded. [Sir E. Sugden: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, I was not a Member of that committee.] The mistake was of little importance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, then, without being a Member of that committee, who stood so high in his profession, and had filled offices of great importance, and whose opinions were so much esteemed, was acquainted with the resolutions which had emanated from that committee, and was in Parliament when they were adopted by the House; yet he now opposed all the measures which were proposed for the vindication of the privileges which those resolutions went to uphold. The course pursued by the minority on

323
this question, in the face of the past proceedings of the House, was calculated to involve the House in difficulty, and to aggravate the whole of the mischiefs which he was sure at the same time it was their wish to prevent. It had been contended by one hon. and learned Gentleman in the minority, that they might publish for the information of their constituents, that was to say the people of this country; and if the people of this country were to have the advantage of their publication, why might they not at once publish to all the world? He must say that he thought he detected a great deal of inconsistency in the conduct of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. He asked those hon. Members, who admitted that they had the privilege of publishing, how it could be maintained if they submitted it to the courts of law and they decided against them? He might have had no objection to taking his chance of a decision in the Exchequer Chamber, or in the House of Lords, to reverse the decision of the Queen's Bench, provided they could be considered as not precluded from taking any further steps in vindication of the privileges, should such a decision be adverse to them. In so submitting the matter to the judges, it would have been necessary, therefore, to reserve to themselves a power of maintaining their privileges by subsequent proceedings, should the decision of those tribunals be adverse. If they were convinced that they possessed the privilege, they would be guilty of the greatest dereliction of duty, if they took no precautionary step to enable them still to maintain it. Supposing that the House did go to the Exchequer Chamber, or the House of Lords, and their decision should be against the House, what would the minority then do? That was a question which they ought to answer, especially after the steps which had been taken. They ought not to go on blindly, without knowing whether they would support the House or not, should the decision of those tribunals be against them in resisting their, decision. If not, what would they do?, Did they mean that the House must abandon its privileges? Were they ultimately and finally to suffer any tribunal, whether it was the Exchequer Chamber, the House of Lords, or Westminster Hall, to decide against and take away a privilege which they said they possessed, and which they thought invaluable and necessary to the
324
proper discharge of their duty? He was sure that if any attempt were made to draw that House—he would not say in its corporate capacity, for it had none, but in its capacity as the aggregate House of Commons—before any tribunal at Westminster, the hon. and learned Gentlemen in the minority would repudiate such a proceeding; yet taking the officers of the House before a court, was the same in effect. He besought them before they went further, to consider how much they lowered the dignity and authority of that House, threw their proceedings into doubt, and added to the mischief that already existed.
The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 75: Majority 71.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baines, E.

Greig, D.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Beamish, F. B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bellew, R. M.

Guest, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Hall, Sir B.

Bewes, T.

Harcourt, G. G.

Blackburne, I.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Blake, M. J.

Harland, W. C.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hastie, A.

Bolling, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bowes, J.

Hector, C. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Broad wood, H.

Hinde, J. H.

Brodie, W. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Brolherton, J.

Hodges, T. L

Buller, C.

Hollond, R.

Busfeild, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Callaghan, D.

Hoskins, K.

Campbell, Sir J.

Houldsworth, T.

Clay, W.

Howard, P. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Howick, Viscount

Clive, E. B.

Hume, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Humphery, J.

Courtenay, P.

Hutton, R.

Craig, W. G.

Irving, J.

Curry, Sergeant

James, W.

Divett, E.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lambton, H.

Duff, J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Dundas, F.

Loch, J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Lockhart, A. M.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Lushington, C.

Ellis, J.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Evans, Sir De L.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Ewart, W.

Macleod, R.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Miles, W.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Morris, D.

Gaskell, J. M.

Muritz, G. F.

Goddard, A.

Nagle, Sir ft.

Gordon, R.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

O'Brien, W. S.

325

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

O'Connell, D.

Stuart, W. V.

O'Connell, J.

Stock, Dr.

O'Connell, M.

Strickland, Sir G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Strutt, E.

Ord, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Oswald, J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Paget, F.

Thornley, T.

Parker, J.

Turner, E.

Pattison, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Vivian, Major C.

Philips, Sir R.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Pigot, D. R.

Waddington, H.

Pinney, W.

Wakley, T.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Walker, R.

Protheroe, E.

Wallace, R.

Pryme, G.

Warburton, H.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Westenra, H. R.

Redington, T. N.

White, A.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Wilde, Sergeant

Roche, W.

Williams, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Williams, W. A.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Wood, B.

Sanford, E. A.

Wynn, hon. C.W.

Scholefield, J.

Wyse, T.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Yates, J. A.

Seymour, Lord

Young, J.

Sharpe, General

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Stanley, E. J.

Stanley, Lord

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Hope, H. T.

Attwood, M.

Hope, G. W.

Bagge, W.

Hotham, Lord

Baring, H. B.

Ingestre, Lord

Barrington, Lord

Ingham, R.

Blackstone, W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Boldero, H. G.

James, Sir W.

Bradshaw, J.

Jones, J.

Broadley, H.

Kemble, H.

Cole, Lord

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Cresswell, C.

Knight, H. G.

Darby, G.

Litton, E.

Dick, Q.

Lowther, J. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Lygon, General

Dowdeswell, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Duncombe, T.

Mahon, Viscount

Duncombe, W.

Neeld, Joseph

Duncombe, A.

Neeld, John

Eaton, B. J.

Packe, C. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Perceval, hon. G.

Eliot, Lord

Pigot, R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Plumptree, J. P.

Follett, Sir W.

Polhill, F.

Forester, hon. G.

Praed, W, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Pringle, A.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Richards, R.

Goring, H. D.

Rolleston, L.

Halford, H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Rushout, G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Scarlett, hon. J.

Herries, J. C.

Shaw, F.

Hodgson, F.

Sheppard, T.

Hogg, J. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Holmes, hon. W.

Smith, A.

326

Style, Sir C.

Wood, Colonel

Sugden, Sir E.

Wood, Colonel T.

Thompson, Alderman

TELLERS.

Wodehouse, E.

Law, hon. C.

Wood, Sir M.

Godson, R.

On the next resolution, that copies of the former resolutions be communicated to the sheriffs and under sheriffs of Middlesex, the clerks, officers, bailiffs, and other parties taking part in the proceedings,
Sir E. Sugdenwished to know whether it was intended under the term "other parties," to include the jury?
Lord John Russell: No.
Viscount Howickwished to remark, that although he entirely approved of the course hitherto pursued, he thought that the House should not stop here. Howard and Stockdale had been committed for an aggravated breach of the privileges of that House; and, after continued caution, persisted in acting in contempt of their privileges. He thought that these parties ought not to be allowed to go on with their repetitions of the breaches of privilege without visiting them with extraordinary punishment, and with more severity than hitherto, both as regarded the conduct of Stockdale and Howard. The House had already committed them for instituting an action against one of its servants for acts done by its orders; and as they seemed determined to persevere in their actions in contempt of its undoubted privileges, that they should be punished with increased severity, in order to show that it was not to be trifled with, and that it would not suffer parties to persist in pursuing a course which was almost calculated to bring its authority into contempt.
Sir E. Knatchbullwished to know what the noble Lord meant by extraordinary punishment.
An Hon. Member—Oh, to hang them.
Viscount Howickreplied, that these persons were now in ordinary confinement; what he meant was, that they should be placed in close custody, and that they should not allow access to them unless under restrictions.
Mr. Lawhad thought, when he heard the observations of the noble Viscount, that he was anxious to revive the peine forte et dure against them. They were no longer in the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, but had been sent by the House to the gaol of Newgate. The House had passed

327
the custody of these persons over to those who had the control of that prison. The noble Lord's appetite for punishment in this case apparently made him anxious that it should be unbounded. The noble Lord stated, that he thought that the House should visit these persons with extraordinary punishment, and with increased severity; but surely it did not become the disposition of that House to be actuated by the angry disposition that might have possessed an individual. Whatever course was pursued by the House, he trusted that it would act with the calmness becoming its dignity, instead of manifesting the angry passions of an individual, and that it would not allow those persons to be placed in a state of custody without that access to them which was allowed to a felon. If the House was disposed to stamp its proceedings with excessive harshness—if it at once wished to convince the public that their proceedings were not instituted for the protection of the ends of justice, or for the vindication of the privileges of that House, but for the purpose of exercising a tyrannical power, they could not pursue a better course than that recommended by the noble Lord.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that as he understood the noble Lord, he did not propose to inflict any such harsh punishment on these persons as had been supposed by the hon. and learned Member, but that such access should not be afforded to them as would tend to facilitate the bringing such actions as the present. He would not, however, say whether the suggestion of the noble Lord should be adopted or not, but he felt satisfied that the privileges of that House could be effectually vindicated by their proceeding with that calmness and discretion which was necessary. Was the House aware, that this was the fifth action which had been brought by Mr. Stock-dale against the servant of that House? And was it not its duty to interfere, and take care that these parties should not be allowed to proceed with actions involving continued breaches of the privileges of that House? He thought that the House could restrain the attorney from acting for Stockdale, and prevent other persons from carrying on actions in Mr. Howard's name. At present that person could employ his clerks and apprentices to act for him in these actions; and if they
328
established the principle that Howard should not act himself in these actions by imprisoning him for so doing, they should follow this up, and not allow any person to go on with them in his name. The name of the person who seemed at present principally employed in these actions was Pierce, who, he understood, was clerk to Mr. Howard, and a stop should be put to his proceedings. He regretted the necessity of acting against those who were obviously actuated by a mistaken sense of public duty, but, with respect to Stockdale and his attorney, he entertained no such feeling, and, above all, in regard to the latter, who had no public duty to perform, and without whose aid the privileges of the House would not be violated in this way. He rose to observe, with respect to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that it was obvious that he did not wish that they should proceed vindictively against those persons, but that they should adopt such restrictions as would render it more difficult for those parties to continue to violate the privileges of the House.
Sir E. Sugdenhad asked the noble Lord whether he intended to include the jurors within the words "other parties," and he understood the noble Lord to answer in the negative; but the expression was so vague and general, that it might be made to include the jury as well as any other persons. He thought that the noble Lord, from what had taken place that night, would see the inconvenience that resulted from his refusing to communicate to the opposite side the slightest information as to the course that he intended to pursue. He repeated that such comprehensive terms as "other parties" might be taken to include the jury that would be called upon to assess the damages in this case, for no Member of that side of the House had had the means of informing his judgment on the subject until within the last few minutes, as the noble Lord, on Friday, refused to communicate the course he intended to take. Under these circumstances he should feel it to be his duty to oppose this resolution, the terms of which he maintained could not be understood. He begged to congratulate the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, on his suggestion, and he should be glad to hear from him how, if it were adopted, he intended that it should be followed up. He could tell the

329
noble Lord, the more they persisted in their present proceedings, and the more rapidly they followed out the course which they had recently pursued, the sooner they would perceive the almost innumerable inconveniences which must infallibly follow them. The learned Member for Dublin had also recommended (hat they should pursue a course which would tend to restrain parties from bringing these actions. When he heard such recommendations, he could hardly imagine what proceedings it was intended to recommend to the House to adopt. There had been instances of the tyrannical exercise of power by Parliament before now, and it was a matter of history that in the reign of Charles 1st, a House of Commons was found, which ordered the torture to be administered in support of its privileges. The noble Lord might say, that he did not intend to recommend the infliction of torture, but he recommended solitary imprisonment, which was rather unusual; and when they engaged in a contest of this kind, they might be driven further than they intended, and he had mentioned that even torture was not without a precedent. He would beg the House to consider what they might be led to by pursuing the course they had embarked in, and neglecting the voice of reason. The noble Lord would not believe, that the great body of the people were against him in his proceedings in this matter; but, with the exception of the miserable petition from the corporation of Leicester, which was regarded as a godsend by Gentlemen opposite, and which was so loudly cheered by them, there had not been the slightest indication of public opinion in favour of it.
Mr. Inghamthought that the House should act with extreme caution in the proceedings which they adopted, lest they should find themselves involved in a contest with the legal authorities of the land before they were aware of it. With respect to the suggestion of the noble Lord for placing these persons in solitary confinement, or for increasing the severity of their imprisonment, he would beg to remind him that the regulations of gaols were framed in conformity with an act of Parliament, and, therefore, they were not directly under the control of the House, and could not be altered by it. When a party, therefore, was sent to a prison, under a warrant of the House, he was not dealt with according to the good pleasure
330
and wishes of those who sent him there, but according to the rules for the government of gaols laid down by the law of the land.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the right hon. Member for Ripon had censured him, and the majority of the House, for not listening to the voice of reason. He did not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman must excuse him for not attaching the same authority as the right hon. Gentleman did to his own opinion on this subject. When he found so many high legal and high political authorities adopt an opinion directly opposed to that of the right hon. Gentleman, and concur in the view that he took of this subject, he was induced to think that he listened to the voice of reason, and that both the reason and authority in the opposite opinion outweighed even the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. As for the want of courtesy with which he had been charged, he could not help observing, that when he recollected the attacks made on the majority, and when he thought that Gentlemen opposite were greatly disposed to impute tyrannical motives to those who wished to preserve the privileges of the House, the charge came with a bad grace from Gentlemen opposite. As for the observation which fell from his noble Friend, be could not help saying that a not very fair construction had been put upon it, but that an attempt had been made to attach a meaning to his noble Friend's words which they would not bear. He was of opinion that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that the servants or clerks of Mr. Howard, or any person employed by him to contravene the orders of the House, should be rendered liable to the displeasure of the House—would be a better mode of proceeding than that of increasing the severity of the custody of the persons already imprisoned. As so much had been said on this occasion, he thought it necessary to recal to the House what was the main object of the present proceedings. The main object was to maintain the power of publication for useful purposes. The object they had in view, and which had been contested, was that of ordering information which was useful for Parliament and for the public to be published; not for any private purpose, not to serve any private malignity, not to gra-

331
tify any bookseller or individual with gain, but to make public information which was necessary for the public, which was required to improve legislation, which was required to improve Government. This was contested; but be had an authority to quote—the authority of a person who had been often quoted against him, and which authority he found set forth in a newspaper that morning. In summing up in the case of "Beresford v. Easthope and Black," Lord Denman had delivered an opinion which was well worth the attention of the House. The noble and learned Lord had said—
"Then the only question remaining was that of damages. On that subject there was no question made at the bar, and there could not now be in any place whatever, that it was desirable that free discussion should be encouraged, and that facts in which all were interested should be fully made known to the world; but at the same time no party must attack the character of another by reports which could not be substantially proved to be true, unless such reports appeared under particular circumstances. For instance, the publication of the proceedings of this day would probably be held in all the courts to be protected, if the report was fairly given as a report of a judicial proceeding, with which it was of importance that all men should be acquainted. But nobody must insert statements of his own in newspapers without being prepared to establish their truth."
Now this was what he and the majority of that House contended for, and this, according to the newspapers, was stated by Lord Denman in the course of a case which was tried no longer ago than Saturday last. What that majority complained of in the course of these proceedings was, that the court of law took it for granted, as that majority thought most unfoundedly, that the House of Commons was engaged in publishing a series of libels for the sake of libelling, the House of Commons, having, all the time, no interest but to make public that which it was for the public interest to know; having no private enmity against any individual; having no wish to make gain or profit by the sale of the publication; and under these circumstances it was, that the majority of that House held that a court of law was not entitled to look upon such publications as other than privileged publications. Suppose the House of Commons were to assert that a judge had no light, in a court of law, to make any statement reflecting on the character of an individual; that it was not to
332
be permitted that in a public court, full of spectators, anything which could be deemed a slander, should issue from a judge on the bench. Such an assertion as this would be equally unfair and absurd. It was well known that the judges, after hearing what had been adduced before them, repeatedly in their charges made statements reflecting on the character of individuals; but this was done in the course of their judicial duty, and from no private desire to injure the individuals, or to indulge private malignity. If, then, the judges were admitted by the House of Commons to be right in what they did in this, some respect ought to be paid by the judges to that high court, which was constituted by the united Commons of the empire: and they ought not to have taken it for granted, they ought not wantonly to have believed, that it could be the object of the House of Commons to publish private libels upon any individual. He said this because the right hon. Gentleman opposite had again raised so much of the question, and it did appear that what Lord Denman had said on Saturday was very applicable to the case. But there was another remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, followed by the right hon. Gentleman near him, which called for observation. They talked of the enormities which they said had been committed in former times, the lengths to which former Parliaments had gone, the tyrannies which had been exercised against the subject by former Parliaments. He could not hear such language made use of, with regard to our ancestors, without declaring his opinion in favour of those Members generally, as to the course which they had pursued on the occasions referred to, for the contest which they sustained was in reality whether liberty of speech should be permitted. The utmost extremities had been put in force against them. Members of the House were committed to prison by James 1st. His successor came down to the House in person for the purpose of putting down freedom of speech; and in the days of Charles 2nd, the attempt was renewed; on the part of the Crown to put down liberty of speech and liberty of action in the Members of that House; it was an attempt to establish a despotism in this country, and the Speaker (Mr. Williams), and those men who acted in that House against such attempts, deserved well of posterity for the noble

333
stand they made. They might, in certain and particular instances, have gone to an extreme point in executing their authority against individuals, but the contest they maintained was a contest of liberty against slavery, and he would never admit, that the conduct of these men deserved to be stigmatised by Members of that House, as though the House was ashamed of the men who had established for the House the privilege of speaking its mind. He had thought it necessary to say thus much, because, though living in different times from those in which those men lived, though he did not apprehend any such danger from the Crown now as that threatened by the monarch he had mentioned, yet he felt that, if attempts were made in that House to depreciate the authority of the House, if Members were allowed without check, to cast a slur upon those men who had so gallantly contended for the liberties of the House in former times, and to hold cheap the authority of the House in times present, though it was impossible to say what authority might not be set up in its place—it was a question whether it might not be replaced by some supreme and arbitrary tribunal, or some oligarchy, odious and oppressive to the people; but this was certain, that such a course would in the end destroy all the value and dignity of the House of Commons, and, with these, the best security for the people.
Lord Eliotsaid, he should be the last man in that House to call in question the great national services performed by the House of Commons at the periods to which the noble Lord who last spoke had referred. He reverenced the memory of an ancestor of his own who had been concerned in those proceedings, and he trusted that he estimated them too justly not to acknowledge the benefits which they had conferred upon the cause of public liberty. But it should be recollected that in those times the judges were the mere creatures of the Crown, dependent upon the will of the sovereign, and subservient to his purposes. There did not appear to be at present the least disposition to invade the privileges of the House for any such purposes as formerly influenced their opponents. He thought that in the present times there was more danger from the usurpations of majorities of that House than from any thing which could possibly proceed from the judges.
Mr. M. Attwoodthought, that the intentions with which the present motion was brought forward ought to be clearly stated. He fully believed that the whole proceeding would prove ineffectual.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. JamesHansard called to the bar.
The Attorney-Generalsaid—Have you been served with the notes of inquiry in the fourth action?
Mr. Hansard—I have.
The Attorney-General—When?
Mr. Hansard—On Wednesday, the 12th of this month.
The Attorney-General—By whom?
Mr. Hansard—By a person whose name I have understood is Pearce, and who is stated to be a clerk of Mr. Howard.
The Attorney-General—Have you been served with a writ in the fifth action? and when, and where, and by whom?
Mr. Hansard—I have been served with a writ in the fifth action. It was served on me in our counting-house in the course of last week, by, I believe, the son of Mr. Howard. It was the same person who served me with the writ in the fourth action. He said he was the son of Mr. Howard.
Mr. Law—Do you continue to sell the publication which has been complained of as libellous?
Mr. Hansard—I have some copies of it, but it is considered to be out of print.
Mr. Law—Is it, in point of fact, out of print, or what do you wish the House to understand by saying that it is out of print? Have you been advised by any one to discontinue the sale?
Mr. Hansard—I have not been so advised. We have no copies now for sale—none besides the reserved copies.
Mr. Law—Is it always the practice to keep any number of reserved copies.
Mr. Hansard—It is the invariable practice. I had no other reason for discontinuing the sale other than the necessity of keeping reserved copies.
Mr. Hume—Is it not always the practice, when the number of copies on hand are reduced to 50, to stop the sale, and reserve those to be issued only to special orders?
Mr. Hansard—That is the practice, and it was in conformity with that that I said they were considered to be out of print.
Mr. Hansardhaving withdrawn from the bar,
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General moved, that

335
Messrs. Pearce and Howard, clerks to Mr. Stockdale's attorney, do attend at the bar to-morrow.
Mr. Lawhoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not press this motion. The House had now quite as many as they could deal with.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, if they were not to commit the clerks, by what right could they hold the employers of those clerks in custody? They had no spite to Mr. Howard—they merely wanted to prevent fresh actions. It would be in vain to confine him if they let the clerks go at large. How otherwise could they repress proceedings? Those who thus infringed the privileges of the House of Commons were represented as heroes and martyrs. He was but following up the resolution which the House had just adopted, and he had no doubt that the proceedings would be attended with better success than the hon. and learned Recorder anticipated.
Mr. Shawwould ask the learned Attorney-general whether he really believed that the course proposed would be effectual? Suppose he took every clerk of Mr. Howard, every member of his establishment, every servant of his house, did he not think there were hundreds of other attornies ready to do the duty which they were called upon by their clients to perform, and who would, therefore, take up these actions?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he might, perhaps, be allowed to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he believed that the House had any privileges or any means of vindicating them?
Mr. Shawsaid he could easily answer that question. He had before stated that it was desirable to maintain their privileges by all proper means, but not to carry their privileges beyond their proper limits. He thought they should take the opinion of a court of error on the subject, and, if necessary, procure an Act of Parliament to be passed, which he thought there would be no difficulty in obtaining, either declaratory or enactive of their privileges.
Sir E. Sugdensuggested that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge should not divide the House on this occasion, but should wait until the matter again came before the House.
Viscount Howicksaid, he should not
336
object to the course which had been proposed by his noble Friend; but as there was a new question now before the House, he begged leave to inform the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon, and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, that though they had been pleased to comment or the suggestions which he had thrown out on a previous occasion in terms of extreme severity, and to treat those suggestions as altogether unreasonable and monstrous, he was by no means inclined to accede to their judgment of that opinion, or to retract a single observation that he had advanced. He believed, that without proceeding vindictively, but soberly and calmly in the support of the privileges of that House, they ought to increase the severity of the punishment of Howard and Stockdale. Let the House remember what were the facts of this case. After full notice that they were acting in contempt of this House, and even while they were under punishment for that contempt, they still defied the House by bringing a fifth action against Messrs. Hansard. If they were to punish persons at all for a breach of their privileges, and trusted to the powers which their predecessors had left them, it was reasonable, when persons were under confinement and aggravated the contempt for which they had been committed, and proceeded openly to defy the House, that the House should also aggravate the severity of their punishment. That was the course pursued by the House in former times, and if former Parliaments had shrunk from the exercise of the powers they possessed, the present one would not be in possession of those valuable privileges which they still retained. If the doctrine of hon. Gentlemen opposite were to prevail, he said that their privileges might as well be abandoned at once. He could understand the reluctance of hon. Gentlemen in punishing the sheriffs, who acted under a sense of duty—a reluctance which he had also felt; but with respect to both Howard and Stockdale, no such motives prevented them from acting in accordance with the wishes of the House; they defied the House for the purposes of gain. He said, therefore, that no circumstances should induce the House to act leniently towards those individuals. But if the House were to act with greater severity towards them, they might still petition the House, ex-

337
press their sorrow, and, as the only desire of the House was to maintain their privileges, they would attach all the consideration to that petition which it deserved. He believed that the punishment of Stockdale and Howard might be very much increased from what it was at present, by preventing them from having any communication with other persons. It was said that the Crown might interfere with the Prisons Act; but he was of opinion that this case would not come under that act, for Stockdale and Howard were not subject to that discipline to which ordinary prisoners for misdemeanours were actually subjected. He therefore believed that that course would be most effectual for the maintenance of their privileges, and would be perfectly legal. He adhered to the opinion he had before expressed, that that was the course they ought to adopt; and he was the more inclined to that opinion, because, although he now concurred in the motion of his noble Friend, he was aware that there was a great deal of force in the opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, that even placing these persons in custody would not prevent similar actions from going on; and there was a good deal of weight in the consideration of the great multiplication of subordinate agents, whom the House might be compelled to commit; but by increasing the severity of Stockdale and Howard's punishment, by preventing persons from having intercourse with them, he thought that it could most effectually accomplish the object which the House had in view. It was from that consideration, and no feeling of compassion, because he considered that such persons were beneath the compassion of the House, that he now concurred in the motion of the noble Lord.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that this subject was now much discussed throughout the kingdom. He had lately been down in the country, and, at a public dinner at which he had been present, he, without any hesitation, proposed the health of the sheriffs with three times three; ay, and it was drunk, too, with great applause. The feeling of disgust at the conduct of the noble Lord and his party was every day increasing. He rejoiced to say this: it was working well, and he firmly believed that the steps taken in this matter by the noble Lord, and those who acted with
338
him, would be the very means of doing that which he every day hoped to see—namely, upset the Government.
Mr. Godsonwished to draw the attention of the House to the circumstance, that whilst the sheriff was in custody he had no opportunity of refusing or agreeing to the wishes of the House. He would therefore defer his motion on this subject until to-morrow, so that the Government might consider whether or not they would give the sheriff an opportunity, as a free agent, of agreeing to or refusing to act in conformity with what they directed.
Motion agreed to.

FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
Mr. Bainessaid he wished to bring under the consideration of the House a subject involving the interests and the public estimation of one of the most numerous and important orders of men in the State. And as the object that he sought to attain was a great practical reform, by the removal of a grievance which had existed in one of our principal public institutions ever since the Reformation, he ventured to claim from the House its patient attention. That object was a competent maintenance for the poor clergy, to be effected by a more equitable distribution of the revenues of the richest ecclesiastical establishment in the world, and of which they were the most efficient ministers. On several former occasions he had urged the claims of the poor clergy in that House, and asked for them that support which it was intended to afford them by Queen Anne's Bounty; but of which, as he conceived, they had hitherto been unjustly deprived. When had he last the honour to make this motion, which was for a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the propriety of abolishing the first-fruits of the clergy, and making the real tenths conducive to the more efficient augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy, he had been so fortunate as to carry his motion by a majority of two to one; and he hoped, that the arguments he had now to adduce would secure to the cause he advocated equal and ultimate success. He had then entered at some length upon the historical details of the first-fruits and tenths, but it would be sufficient now to say, as the subject was better understood, that these were ancient imposts paid by the clergy—as ancient.

339
he believed, as the formation of parishes in England—and the payments had, from the Conquest to the Restoration, been generally upon the real and true amount of the sees and benefices. At the Reformation, Henry the 8th, having determined, that the first-fruits and tenths should be paid into the public Exchequer, caused a strict valuation to be made of all the livings in England and Wales, and this valuation was recorded in the King's book, usually called the Liber Regis. He also caused an Act of Parliament to be passed (the 26th Henry the 8th), by which it was provided, that every bishop, dignitary, and beneficed clergyman should pay the whole of his first-fruits and tenths into offices appointed for the purpose; and that any person who neglected to make such payment should be considered as an intruder into his living, that he should be subject to expulsion, and that he should pay as a penalty double the amount of the sum he had withheld. In this way the payments were made till the time of Queen Anne, when her Majesty, moved by Bishop Burnett, determined to alienate the payments from the Crown, and to appropriate the produce of the taxes, fruits, and tenths to the augmentation of the livings of the poor clergy, and a charter of incorporation was granted to a dignified body of men under the designation of the "Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty." Loud and general were the eulogiums pronounced upon the Queen for this act of royal munificence. Addresses flowed in from all parts of the kingdom; but the clergy were amongst the most prominent in their expressions of gratitude. He (Mr. Baines) held in his hand a memorable address passed and presented upon that occasion; it was from the archbishop, bishops, and clergy of the province of Canterbury, assembled in Convocation on the 15th of February, 1704, and was in these terms:—
"We, the archbishop and bishops of the Church of England, together with the clergy, do most humbly beg leave to express the great and deep sense that we have of your Majesty's most tender compassion for the poor clergy of this Church, who have hardly wherewith to support themselves in the exercise of their ministry, and of your Majesty's gracious intentions, even by bestowing your own revenue to make a provision for them, in such a manner as you were pleased to declare in your Majesty's late message to the House of Commons. We cannot be thankful enough for so singular a blessing as we enjoy in a Queen who has recommended our holy religion to her subjects
340
by the great example she has set them, and particularly by such signal instances of piety and charity as not only render her the joy and delight of all true Christians of this age, but leave those effects behind them for which her Majesty will be blessed in all succeeding generations."
The province of York, emulating the example of the metropolitan see, also addressed her Majesty, and their address, which he also held in his hand, expressed in still more pointed terms their gratitude and admiration of the Queen's conduct and bounty. They said, among other things, that her Majesty had removed the great, if not the only blemish of the Reformation, by making a competent provision for the poor clergy, and they declared, that her pious and charitable example would be highly acceptable to God; that it would have its effect upon all her subjects, and especially upon the clergy. As a further proof of the high expectations that were raised by the Queen's bounty, he might mention the distinguished persons who were appointed governors of the fund. These were the whole Bench of Bishops, the Speaker of the House of Commons, her Majesty's Privy Councillors, the Lords-lieutenant of Counties in England and Wales, the deans of the several cathedral churches in England and Wales, all the judges, the chancellors and vice-chancellors of the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of London, &c, To show how deplorably those sanguine expectations were blighted, he might mention the amount of the receipts and expenditure of the fund of Queen Anne's Bounty during the year 1838, which he took from a Parliamentary paper just issued, and which exhibited the following results:—
Receipts from the bishops, dignitaries, and beneficed clergy in England and Wales, in the year 1838, late Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, and charges upon the fund during the same period. From Parliamentary papers:—

Receipts—

As First Fruits and Tenths

£13,579

Disbursements—

Paid for salaries, fees, rent of offices, and taxes.

6,346

To be divided amongst the poor clergy, amounting to from 7 to 8,000, being about twenty shillings each, if distributed to the whole number

£7,233

But the House would inquire how so fair a promise of competency for the poor clergy came to be so woefully disappointed? The answer was this—the Bounty Act contained a clause which had been perverted, so as to make the payments nominal instead of real, and to confine them to the valuation of King Henry 8th., instead of giving to the poor clergy, as to the rich clergy, the benefit of continually increasing value of sees and livings. The passage in the 2nd and 3rd of the act of Anne, cap. 11, which had defeated the just expectations of the sovereign, and consigned so large a portion of the clergy to poverty, was in the last section of that act, which was in reality only intended, as the title of the clause showed, to allow the clergy to give one bond for the payment of their first-fruits, instead of four as had hitherto been the practice. The clause ran thus:—
"And whereas four bonds for four half-yearly payments of the first fruits, as the same are rated, have been required and taken from the clergy, to their great and unnecessary burden and grievance; for remedy thereof, be it enacted, that from and after the 25th of March, 1704, one bond only shall in such case be given or required for the four-payments of the said first-fruits, which said first-fruits, as well as the tenths payable by the clergy, shall hereafter be answered and paid by them according to such rates and proportions only as the same have heretofore been usually rated and paid."
It had been contended, that the words "the same rates and proportions," only meant the same value, and that as the clergy had hitherto paid the first-fruits and tenths upon the valuation made in the reign of Henry 8th., that they were in all future times to continue to pay upon the same valuation, however much the livings might increase or decrease in value. But this supposition was directly at variance with the act of Henry 8th., which provided that fair valuations should be made from time to time to prevent those livings that increased in amount from paying too little, and those that diminished in amount from paying too much. [Hear] He (Mr. Baines) would undertake to prove, that the construction attempted to be put on the disputed words by rendering the valuation permanent and unalterable, could not be sustained. Suppose the case of a living returned in the Liber Regis at the value of 500 l. a-year, but reduced to 100 l. The account would stand thus at the end of an incumbency often years:—
342

Ten years' income at £100 a-year

£1,000

Payment for first fruits

£500

For tenths, being 50 l. a-year

450

950

Total amount for ten years' maintenance of bishop or rector, being 5l. a-year

£50

The hon. Gentleman proceeded next to show how great was the difference between the real first-fruits and tenths, and the sum actually paid into Queen Anne's Bounty Fund; and he instanced the living of Lambeth. This rectory was returned in the Liber Regis, on which the first-fruits and tenths were paid, as of the value of 32 l. a-year; the tenths being 3l. 4s. yearly, but the actual value, as returned to the Ecclesiastic Commissioners by the present rector, was 2,277 l.; and the account stood thus:—

Real amount of first-fruits

£2,277

0

Of tenths 227 X 9

2,043

0

£4,320

0

Sum paid as first-fruits £32 0 as tenths £3 4s. X 9 28 16

60

16

Difference in one living on an incumbency of ten years, to the disadvantage of the poor clergy

£4,259

4

This was by no means a singular nor an exaggerated case: such instances were extremely numerous, as he should show in the observations that he should have the honour to address to the House. He should not, however, rely upon his own opinion in a matter of this consequence, but refer to high legal authority. Lord Chancellor Eldon, though he was not in favour of the higher orders of the clergy paying the first fruits and tenths to the full amount, admitted, in his speech upon this subject in the House of Lords, that the words "according to such rates and proportions only as the same have heretofore usually been rated and paid," referred not to the value of the livings remaining the same, but to the rates and proportions to be paid on the whole value. That was the whole question. If the words did not imply an unaltered value, they did not bear out the construction that on a former debate in that House had been put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, or by the late Solicitor-general. But he (Mr. Baines) should proceed to show by high legal authority, as well as upon the

343
principles of justice and common sense, that there was no legal impediment in the way of the first-fruits and tenths being paid upon the real value, and he might mention an act of Parliament passed in the first year of the reign of George 1st., c. 10, which enacted and required the bishops, who were the acting and the real governors of Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, to make are-valuation of the ecclesiastical livings in England and Wales, on their improved value, for the benefit of the poor clergy. Why that object had not been carried into effect, he would not pretend to say—but he would proceed to quote the legal authorities to which he had referred, to show that these ancient imposts ought to have been paid, and ought now to be paid, on their full value. He should first quote the authority of the late Mr. Agar, one of her Majesty's counsel.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that this was a subject of too much importance to be discussed in so thin a House, and he moved that the House be counted.—House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Frivilous Suits Bill Amendment; Rated Inhabitants; Transfer of Aids.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Radnor, from a number of places, for the Release of John Thorogood, and for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquess of Bute, and the Earls of Errol, and Aberdeen, from a number of places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes without the consent of the Parishioners.—By the Duke of Sutherland, from several places in Staffordshire, against Church Rates.

TAKING of KHELAT.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, there had been laid on the table certain despatches, which were printed on the 21st of January, relative to the War in Affghanistan, and the noble Viscount had moved a vote of thanks to the officers alluded to in those despatches. Since that vote had passed other despatches had been received from Major-general Willshire, containing an account of a most brilliant exploit—the capture of Khelat by storm. No doubt if those despatches had been received with the others, they also would have been laid on the table, and the noble Viscount would have included the officers in that vote of thanks. He would, therefore, suggest to the noble Viscount, whether he would not now lay on the table the further despatches, and also move the thanks of the House to Major-general Willshire and the officers under his command. He would also mention another part of the subject. When the war took place in Ava, the thanks of the

309
House were voted, not only to the General-in-chief, but also to the Brigadier-general by name; that precedent had not been followed upon this occasion, and he would suggest whether the precedent of the war in Ava should not be followed upon this occasion, and whether they should not bestow upon the General-in-chief, and the Brigadier-general, by name, as well as the officers, the highest possible honour that could be conferred upon them, the vote of that House.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to lay the fresh despatches on the table, and to amend the vote so as to include the officers engaged in the capture of Khelat.

SOCIALISM.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to ask the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government whether, in July last be had received a letter from the rev. Andrew Irvine, of St. Margaret's Leicester, to the effect which he should now beg leave to read. The right rev. Prelate then read the letter as follows:—
"St. Margaret's, Leicester, Feb. 11, 1840.
"My Lord,—In July last I took the liberty of informing Lord Melbourne that the Socialists were making efforts to extend themselves in Liecester, and had advertised for a larger school-room, not a little encouraged by the countenance of the Prime Minister, in introducing Mr. Owen to the Queen.
"As an instance of the evil effects of their proceedings, I stated to his Lordship, that a youth of fifteen years of age, a teacher in my Sunday School, was in a public office with another clerk, about nineteen years old, who was a lecturer in the Socialists' Institution, whither he took him more than once to hear some blasphemous addresses. He then gave him a paper containing many Scripture texts, chiefly denouncing God's judgments against the Canaanites, and added this injunction, 'Read these texts, and consider them carefully, and if, after that, you deny that God Almighty is a regular beast, you are a beast yourself, and have no understanding.'
"After making this statement, and expressing my regret at Mr. Owen's introduction to the Queen, I offered to communicate any other circumstances that might arise connected with the subject. His Lordship simply directed his secretary to acknowledge the receipt of my letter, and from that day to this there has been no further communication.
"The population of my parish exceeding 30,000 souls, there is large scope in it for the Socialists, who, I fear, are doing much mischief. They have Sunday meetings for lectures, &c, and dances, not of the most decent kind on the Sunday evenings. It is impossible, there-
310
fore, for me to feel indifferent about their proceedings.
I have the honour to be, my Lord,
Your obedient servant,
A. IRVINE.'
"To the right rev. the Bishop of Exeter."
Now he the (Bishop of Exeter) should like to know from the noble Viscount whether he had received the letter?
Viscount Melbourne: I did receive the letter.
The Bishop of Exeter: Did the noble Viscount take any steps in consequence of that letter?
Viscount Melbourne: No.
The Bishop of Exeter: Did the noble Viscount consider that any steps were or were not necessary to be taken?
Viscount Melbournesaid, this would lead to an argument on the whole subject, which he was very unwilling to enter into; but certainly, in his opinion, it was not necessary to answer the communication. Indeed, he very much questioned the prudence of the course which this House had adopted with respect to this question.
The Earl of Aberdeenasked, whether the noble Viscount objected to receiving this communication? The noble Marquess, the Secretary for the Home Department, had complained, that a clergyman, instead of imparting information to him, had given it to others.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he did not object to this communication. On the contrary, he was obliged to the rev. Gentleman for his communication; but he had not answered it because he was desirous of avoiding a controversy on the subject. He was afraid, however, that the right rev. Prelate would frustrate his object.
The Bishop of Exeterwould beg leave, in presenting a petition, to make some few observations on the remarks which had just fallen from the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government had assented, after a long debate, to an address which recognized the necessity of a full inquiry being gone into with respect to the evils of Socialism. The noble Viscount, however, declared to-night, that, in his opinion, the House acted unwisely in taking that step. He sincerely wished that the noble Viscount bad had the manliness, on the night when that motion was made, to state that the course adopted was imprudent, if he thought so. Looking to the high station in which the noble Vis-

311
count was placed, and considering that he had agreed to that motion, he conceived that it was his duty to carry its object fully into effect. The noble Viscount ought, in his opinion, to have felt bound to use his utmost endeavours to render that resolution of their Lordships efficient. He thought that it was very wrong for a Minister of the Crown, on one night, to concur in such a motion, and afterwards to come down and say, that the House, in his opinion, had done a very foolish thing in adopting that proposition. He was astonished that the noble Viscount had not felt it to be his duty to take immediate steps on the receipt of that letter; because, let him remind the noble Viscount, that a great part of the case to which it related rested on the noble Viscount's own act, an act which he had himself admitted to be at least an indiscretion. It appeared, however, that that indiscretion was followed by evils of the worst kind—by encouragement of doctrines which could not be entertained by any of her Majesty's subjects without tending to the destruction of society. It was clear that the society was rapidly increasing in this particular neighbourhood, for it would appear by the following advertisement, which was inserted in the Leicester Journal, of July last, that they wished to establish a large school:—
"Social Institution.—Wanted to rent a large house, in a central situation, with a warehouse or premises attached, suitable for a school."
What doctrines were to be taught in such a school? That might be inferred from the instance adduced by the rev. Gentleman whose letter he had read, who stated a case which came within his own notice, where one of those Socialist lecturers attempted to induce a young man to pursue a course of the most hideous blasphemy and profanation. If the noble Viscount had supposed that the rev. gentleman was deceived in his information, would it not have been natural and proper for him to inquire of the magistrates of the place whether these evils existed—whether they were spreading or not? If he had done so, he could assure the noble Viscount the magistrates would have answered that they did exist—that they were spreading,—that they had attracted the attention of the magistrates, and that the magistrates were eager that some
312
course should be taken to check them and to put them down. The rev. gentleman, having been rejected by the noble Viscount—his communication having been disregarded, took another course. He applied to the office at which the lecturer of the Socialists, who had attempted to corrupt his Sunday-school teacher, was employed as a clerk, and the rev. gentleman stated the result of his application in a letter which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had received from him that day. The rev. Gentleman said,—
" It will be satisfactory to your Lordship to learn that the clerk in the railroad office, who tried to corrupt my Sunday-school teacher, was, in consequence of my representations, immediately examined by the Board of Directors, and, as he avowed a resolute adherence to his principles, even declaring himself so utterly irresponsible for his conduct, that he should feel justified in robbing them, if he thought fit to do so, and that the law which would punish him was a bad law—he was dismissed from his situation."
However lightly the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess might consider these matters, it was, in his opinion, very important that they should be laid before the Government, and that the Government should take due notice of them. The noble Marquis, the Secretary for the Colonies, had, on a former occasion, stated that he thought the clergyman at that time alluded to had not acted properly in not giving information to him, and thus affording him an opportunity of discharging his duty, as he would have done if a proper representation had been made to him. He regretted that the noble Viscount did not appear to be actuated by the same feelings, for information was imparted to him, but he would not act on it. He did not doubt the sincerity of the noble Marquess in his determination to assert the law with effect; and, trusting that the noble Marquess would follow up the conduct he had promised, he would be content to present his petition, without further remarks, which was from Mile-end, praying the House to take steps for putting down Socialism.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad said, when the letter was read the other day, stating that an officer of the Government had been present at a place where he heard blasphemy, that it would have been better, that it would have been more natural, and more according to his duty, if the clergyman was aware of a servant of the

313
Government holding and countenancing such opinions, had at once communicated them to him, and not have given what he confessed was his imperfect recollection of the facts six months afterwards. He would not have risen even to make that remark, had it not been to read to the House an extract from a letter he had received from the mayor of Leicester, which would prevent the ill effects from an exaggeration of facts which he must say were highly coloured. He had received the letter from the mayor of Leicester that morning, and it stated, that the number enrolled in the society of the Socialists, and subscribing money to the funds, did not exceed fifty in the whole town; there were, in addition, some two hundred candidates for admission, who were placed for some three or four months in a state of probation. There was only one place of meeting in the town, and that was in a room thirty feet square. During the past year meetings had been frequently held, which were attended out of curiosity by many persons. These meetings had attracted the attention of the magistrates, who had called upon the superintendent of police to attend them; he had attended, and had reported that everything was so orderly, that they were not likely to interfere with the public peace. How far the real security of the public peace of the town had been sufficiently attended to, would appear from the facts, but the House had a right to know the numbers enrolled in the society, and that the attention of the magistrates had been called to the subject.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that from the information he had received, the number of members did not exceed 300 or 400, but there were hangers on, and "The population of my parish" said the clergyman, exceeding 30,000 souls, there is a large scope in it for the Socialists, who I fear are doing much mischief; they have Sunday meetings for lectures; and dances, not of the most decent kind, on Sunday evenings." There were many drinking copiously of the deleterious draught—meaning these blasphemous lectures—every Sunday, and yet it was said, that there were no instructions given to the police beyond an order to check illegal outward acts. Whilst he had pointed out that, in the end, these doctrines must lead to breaches of the peace, and to the disruption of society, yet he
314
had expressly said, that, as yet there had been no violation of the peace; but there must be violation of the law with which scarcely any outrage or any violence could deserve to be mentioned in the same breath; and if there were not illegal acts, there were violations of the law, for the law of England was not so worthless, that it was not able to punish such blasphemy. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Viscount would tell that worshipful functionary, the mayor of Leicester, that he was bound to enforce the law by which blasphemy and immoral conduct was to be put down. Although the numbers enrolled might be but a few hundreds, yet if they exerted themselves they might in a large town produce very great effects. He had been told, that out of the sect of Unitarians there were no more than 300 or 400 in Leicester, and that out of that number the corporation was principally formed. He was told also, "The Socialists are about the same in number as the Unitarians, who have supplied mayors to the corporation ever since the passing of the Municipal Act." He did not mention this fact to interfere in any manner with the Unitarians of Leicester, or to cast any imputations on the mayors, but to show that 300 or 400 acting together, and working hard, might produce great effects.
Petition laid on the table.

INLAND WAREHOUSING—AFRICAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN TRADE.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that when on a former evening he had asked the noble Viscount opposite, whether he had any objection to produce any communication from the Board of Trade or Treasury, or from any fiscal board, on the subject of the probable effect on the revenue of the proposed inland warehousing system, the noble Viscount answered, that such communications were unusual. Now, to show that they were not at all unusual, he held in his hand a communication of the 26th or August last, relative to certain sugars then in bond, in which the opinion of the Board of Customs was directly addressed to the Board of Trade. He would take that opportunity of giving notice, that on Monday next he should bring under the consideration of the House the disadvantages under which the British trade on the coast of Africa laboured at this moment. He had frequently called their

315
Lordships' attention to this subject, and its importance, he conceived, justified him in bringing it forward again. With respect to the state of our trade in South America, he begged leave to read an extract of a letter from Buenos Ayres, which, as it came from a most intelligent quarter, was well worthy of attention. The writer said,
"There are 218 cargoes all ready for shipment to British ports, and the property of British subjects. They were all brought down for shipment in the natural belief that we had a Government at home that would succour and protect us, and put an end to this iniquitous blockade. These cargoes are daily perishing under our eyes, and will ultimately become worthless."
The writer then emphatically said, "I wish Lord Palmerston were here!" This was a state of things for which last Session the noble Viscount opposite gave hopes that some remedy would be provided, but for which this Session he told their Lordships, that there was no remedy at all; and, moreover, that it was a slate of things with respect to which he saw no prospect of a speedy alteration. Now, he would say, that it was a principle of the law of England, that there was no wrong without its corresponding remedy; and such also, he contended, was the principle of the law of nations. If the noble Viscount would descend from that lofty sphere which he so proudly occupied, and would deign to communicate with such persons as merchants and traders, and ask them what they thought of the protection afforded to their interests, and the general interests of the country, by the present Government, he would hear one, universal cry of censure and condemnation—he would find one wide-spread, general, unalloyed opinion, that at no former period were the vital interests of the country so frequently and so shamefully assailed. Why was this? It was because the Administration of which the noble Viscount was the head, was not respected abroad. And why was it not respected abroad? Because it was not feared. And why was it not feared? The answer to that query was to be found in the statements relative to our naval force which were recently made by a noble Lord, and also in the extraordinary estimate of what "constitutes," or rather, he would say, of what "does not constitute," the character of naval and military men,
316
as it was explained by the noble Viscount on the occasion to which he had alluded.

COSTS AND DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.
Lord Denman Lord Denman laid on the table a bill, the object of which was to provide, that in all actions of libel or slander, where damages under 40 s. were awarded, such damages should not carry costs beyond the amount of the verdict. The noble and learned Lord observed, that this was a regulation of considerable importance, inasmuch as actions for small libels were constantly occurring, which were only introduced for the sake of the costs.
Bill read a first time.