this, nor one which at the time when it was agitated, appeared more pregnant with evil consequences to the liberty of the subject on the one hand, and the just privileges of the house of commons on the other. A contest between two clashing jurisdictions of such high consideration in the country, as the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench must be deprecated by every good citizen; and a record of the occurrences which led to the unfortunate collision will, we think, be not without interest and instruction to posterity. Our intention is, to give a succinct narrative of the events as they happened, and then from the debates which ensued in parliament, exhibit the arguments and feelings of those who took opposite sides in the discussion of this momentous subject.

In the year 1835, a bill was proposed in the house of lords by the duke of Richmond, for the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. This bill passed into a law, and inspectors were appointed, who visited Newgate among other prisons, and made their report accordingly. A copy of this report was laid before a committee of the house of commons, which was afterwards embodied in the report of that committee. The house ordered that report to be printed and sold by Messrs. Hansard. And it was by them published and sold under the title of Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons of Great Britain.

In this report it was stated, that the inspectors of the gaol of Newgate found amongst other books in use by the prisoners, one published by John Joseph Stockdale, in 1827, which they said, was "a book of the most disgusting nature, VOL. LXXXII.

and the plates are obscene and indecent in the extreme."

On the 7th of November, 1836, Stockdale brought an action against Messrs. Hansard, for the sale of this report, on the ground that the allegation therein contained about the work was a libel. The defendants pleaded two pleas, first, "Not guilty;" secondly, "That the words complained of in the declaration are true."

Under the plea of not guilty, the attorney-general (Sir J. Campbell) was counsel for the defendants, and attempted to show that this report was a privileged publication, being printed, and sold by the authority of the house of commons; and that, therefore, on that ground the defendants were entitled to a verdict. Lord Denman, however, in his charge to the jury said, "I entirely disagree from the law laid down by the learned counsel for the defendants. My direction to you, subject to a question hereafter is, that the fact of the house of commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their parliamentary reports is no justification for them, or for any bookseller who publishes a parliamentary report containing a libel against any man."

The jury, however, gave a verdict for the defendants on the second issue; namely, that the allegations complained of were true.

On the 6th of February, 1837, Messrs. Hansard communicated to the house of commons, that legal proceedings had been instituted against them by Stockdale, for the publication by them of certain parliamentary papers and reports, in which he conceived himself to have been libelled.

[C]

A select committee was accord

ingly appointed by the house to examine precedents and report upon the question of its privileges in regard to the publication of reports and other matters. Among the members of this committee were the attorney-general, Mr. sergeant Wilde, sir Robert Peel, sir William Follett, lord Stanley, sir Frederick Pollock, sir George Clerk, Mr. O'Connell, and sir Robert Inglis. The committee having concluded its labours, and, with the single exception of sir Robert Inglis, having decided in favour of the privilege, which would protect any publication ordered by the house from being made the subject of an action for libel, the house of commons on the 30th of May, 1837, passed the following resolutions :

First, that the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings, as it shall deem necessary or conducive to the public interests, is an essential incident to the constitutional freedom of parliament, more especially of this house, as the representative portion of it.

"Second, that by the law and privileges of parliament, this house has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges; and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceedings, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than a parliament, is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure and to the punishment Consequent thereon."

The action, however, brought by Stockdale went on, and Messrs. Hansard were directed to plead to the declaration. They pleaded

accordingly to the effect, that the publication in question was a privileged one, on the ground that it was issued by the authority of the house of commons, and therefore could contain no libel in the legal acceptation of the term.

This plea was demurred to, as insufficient in point of law; and it was ably argued in the court of Queen's Bench, by Mr. Curwood, for the plaintiff, and the attorneygeneral for the defendants. The court gave judgment against the plea, and damages were afterwards assessed, which the house of commons directed Messrs. Hansard to pay over to the plaintiff, on the ground, that as they had submitted the plea to the consideration of the court, they ought not to refuse to pay the damages, since the judgment was against them.

On the 31st of July, 1839, Messrs. Hansard again communicated to the House that similar legal proceedings were threatened against them by Mr. Charles Shaw, an attorney, on behalf of a Mr. Polack, on account of some alleged defamatory matter contained in a report on the state of the islands of New Zealand, which had been published by order of the house of commons. This statement was immediately taken into consideration, and on the 1st of August the House passed the following resolutions:

First, that Messrs. Hansard, in printing and publishing a report and minutes of evidence on the present state of the islands of New Zealand, communicated by the house of lords to this house, on the 7th of August, 1831, acted under the orders of this house; and that to bring or assist in bringing any action against them for such

publication would be a breach of the privileges of this house.

"Second, that Messrs. Hansard be directed not to answer the letter of Charles Shaw, mentioned in their petition, and not to take any step towards defending the action with which they were threatened in the said letter."

Upon this Mr. Polack communicated to the house, that the proceedings had been commenced without his sanction; and that he had no intention of taking any legal steps against Messrs. Hansard, in consequence of their publication of the report in question.

The matter thus seemed to be set at rest; but on the 26th of August, Stockdale commenced a third action against Messrs. Hansard, for again publishing the same libel, (the sale of each copy of the report containing the alleged libel, being in contemplation of law a fresh publication of it.) The process in this action issued out of the court of Queen's Bench; and the subsequent proceedings were carried on by Howard, as attorney for Stockdale. Messrs. Hansard, on the 27th of August, addressed a letter to the speaker, informing him of the action which had been commenced; and they received personally from him instructions to conform strictly to the resolutions which had been previously agreed to by the house.

In consequence of this intimation, and acting under legal advice, Messrs. Hansard determined not to appear and plead to the action commenced against them by Stockdale; but they served him with formal notice of the resolutions of the house of commons, of the 30th of May, 1837, and the 1st of August, 1839. Not deterred, how

ever, by the tenor of these, Stockdale on the 26th of October, filed a declaration in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at 50,000l.; and on the 1st of November, 1839, interlocutory judgment was signed for want of a plea.

Messrs. Hansard again caused notices against proceeding with the said action, together with copies of the above-quoted resolutions to be served upon Stockdale and his attorney, who nevertheless proceeded with his action; and on the 2nd of November, served Messrs. Hansard with a notice that a writ of inquiry of damages would be executed before the sheriff of Middlesex on the ensuing 12th day of November.

It may be as well to mention here, that the two sheriffs of London constitute only one sheriff of Middlesex. On this occasion, that office was filled by William Evans, esq. and John Wheelton, esq., and they were served with similar notices by Messrs. Hansard, calling their attention to the resolutions of the house, and warning them against proceeding in Stockdale's action.

In consequence of this, the sheriffs on the 8th of November, made an application supported by an affidavit to the court of Queen'sbench, praying that the court would enlarge the return of the said writ of inquiry, until the meeting of the house of commons in the ensuing session. This application was directed to be made in the bail court, and having been there heard on the following day by Mr. Justice Littledale, he refused to make any order.

The writ of inquiry was accordingly executed on the 12th of November, when the sheriffs' jury 6001. assessed the damages at

Stockdale then applied to the court of Queen's-bench for a rule to compel the sheriff to return the writ of inquiry, which was ordered accordingly. And on the 23rd of November, a writ of fieri facias was issued and lodged with the sheriff, who thereupon entered upon and took possession of the printing-office, premises, and stock in trade, of Messrs. Hansard.

Having been ruled to return this writ, the sheriff made his return into the court of Queen'sbench on the 29th of November, stating "that they had caused to be seized divers goods and chattels of the defendants (Messrs. Hansard) which remained in their hands for want of buyers." Thereupon Stockdale issued a writ of venditioni exponas directing the sheriff to proceed to a sale of the goods and effects of Messrs. Hansard, and thus enable the plaintiff to recover the fruits of his judgment. The sheriff of Middlesex (Messrs. Evans and Wheelton, the two sheriffs of London, as we before mentioned) was thus placed in a painful dilemma. On the one hand were the resolutions of the house of commons breathing summary vengeance upon all who should be guilty of such a glaring contempt as that of mulcting their printer in damages for publishing defamatory matter according to their order on the other was the well-known writ issuing from the court of Queen's-bench, which, if neglected, would infallibly be followed by an attachment. The sheriffs had thus the pleasant alternative of two prisons-either Newgate on the committal of the speaker of the house of commons, or the Marshalsea by virtue of an attachment from the Queen'sbench.

They accordingly applied to a judge at chambers (Mr. Justice Littledale) to have the return of the writ of venditioni exponas enlarged-and this was granted until the 19th day of December. The sale was accordingly fixed to take place on the 17th of December; but as was stated in our last volume, the amount of damages was paid into the sheriffs' office the night previous, so that there was no public sale.

*

It appears from the petition of Messrs. Hansard, subsequently presented to the house of commons, that on the 16th of December, a Mr. Winsland, builder, purchased of the sheriff, goods belonging to Messrs. Hansard, to the amount of 695l., and thus the sheriff was enabled to satisfy the judgment obtained by Stockdale. He did not, however, pay it over, but retained it in his hands; and on the 11th of January of this present year, Stockdale caused an application to be made to the court of Queen's-bench for a rule to compel the sheriff to pay over to him the amount of damages and costs in the action. The court thereupon granted a rule, calling upon the sheriff to show cause on the 17th day of January following, why he should not pay over the money in his hands to Stockdale. Parlia ment, however, met on the 16th day of January, and on that day Lord John Russell rose, and presented a petition from Messrs. Hansard, which went into a detail of the facts connected with the action which had been commenced against them-and prayed for such relief under the circumstances as to the house should seem meet.

Lord John Russell then said,