empire, and it had been matter of great delight to him to see the warm attachment to their country and their countrymen which animated them in that distant land, and which added a ten-fold force to the zeal and vigour with which they performed their arduous duties. While he was on this point, let him remark that there was a disposition in that gallant service to imagine that they were not sufficiently appreciated at home; to think that the Indian service was not so highly considered in England as other services not less able, nor performed with less jeopardy, in other countries. It was extraordinary to see the interest, with what gratification, the smallest scrap, the merest line, in an English newspaper, conveying any praise on this service, was received by them, and their delight would be extreme when they came to read the vote of thanks which had been conferred on them unanimously by the House of Lords, and which he trusted would be passed as unanimously by the House of Commons, the more especially accompanied as it was by the testimony to their merits borne by the greatest general that England ever produced. At the same time that this well-merited tribute conferred the highest pleasure on the brave men who shared in the expedition, it would serve as a powerful inducement to every other man in that gallant service to expose himself to every peril and every privation when the interests of the empire required it. PRIVILEGE-STOCKDALE v. HANSARD-BILL TO MARCH 6, 1840. He promised not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but he confessed he had listened with so much pain to the expressions of his noble Friend, and of one or two other Gentlemen with whom, during the former proceedings upon this subject, he had most cordially concurred, that he was exceedingly unwilling to allow the question to go to a division without explaining, very briefly, the ground upon which he should give his vote. He had not as yet taken any part in the discussions upon this question. He would not again go over the ground which others had already trod with an ability and eloquence which he was sensible he could only feebly imitate. He would only say, in general, that he believed the House of Commons to be, by the law of the land, the sole judge of its own privileges—that he believed the privilege of publication to be by the law of the realm one of the privileges of the House-that he believed it to be a privilege essential to the due discharge of the duties of the House-that he believed the decision of the Queen's Bench, which attacked that privilege, to have been a decision founded not on law nor on reason, and that he never could give his support to any proposition that he conceived would tend to render that privilege doubtful. If the proposition now before the House were for a law to provide that henceforth this privilege should belong to the House of Commons, to such a proposition he should give the strongest opposition. * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. 52, p. 1010-1016. But such was not the proposition of his noble Friend. He could perfectly understand, that by proposing to enact that such or such should be the right and privilege of the House, a question might be raised as to whether such a right or privilege had previously existed. The declaration that it should exist hereafter might appear to carry with it the implication that it had not existed previously. But the proposition in the present case was altogether different. All that was now proposed was by a new law to provide a new remedy for enforcing an old and well-established and undoubted privilege. He would take instances from cases perfectly familiar to every one. Suppose any Gentleman should propose to bring in a law to provide that a person holding a bill of exchange for a good consideration, should be entitled to have an action against the acceptor of that bill, to recover payment. The consequence of such a proceeding would be to throw into a state of doubt the whole of the negotiable paper current throughout the kingdom. But if, on the other hand, a bill were proposed to this effect-that the means of holders of bills of exchange not being sufficient to enable them to recover payment, therefore other means should, by a new enactment, be extended to them-would any person tell him that a measure of such a nature, acknowledging the right to recover in the fullest extent, but giving to the holders of negotiable papers an additional remedy—would any one tell him that such a measure would, in the smallest degree, bring into question the previously existing right of the holders of bills of exchange to proceed against the acceptors to recover payment? In point of fact, the proposition now before the House was not to provide, by a new law, that the House should have the privilege of publication-not to affect any of the existing remedies which the House already possessed for the vindication of its privileges-but simply to superadd a new remedy. It was not even proposed to substitute the new remedy for the old ones. The bill proposed by his noble Friend left the old remedies abso lutely untouched. If, after the passing of this bill, any other person should think fit to imitate the example of Mr. Stockdale, and to set the privileges of the House at defiance, it would be as much as ever in the power of the House to send that person to prison. As he understood the bill, it did not acknowledge, did not in any way imply, that the House would not retain that power. It was founded merely upon this—that the remedies which the House now possessed, were in some respects imperfect, in some respects inconvenient. Did not every Member of the House acknowledge that fact? The noble Lord had referred to conversations which took place out of that House. Was there a single Member of the House who, when he went into the lobby, would hesitate to admit that there were some imperfections-some inconveniences in the remedies which it at present possessed for the vindication of its privileges? Was that a perfect remedy which applied only to one half of the year-which protected the privilege of the House during the sitting of Parliament, but left it wholly unguarded during the recess? Was that a perfect remedy which could only be applied by means of so large and so divided an assembly as the House of Commons ? The noble Lord had stated what he thought to be the cause why so many Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had ranged themselves against, what he conceived to be, the undoubted privilege of the House. But, whatever the cause, could there be any doubt as to its effect? Was there any doubt that there was within the walls of that House, a large body of Gentlemen who had done everything in their power to prevent the House from enforcing its privileges? What had been the loss of time upon this question? Was it not a matter of regret, that more time than had been occupied in the discussion of the most important measures-measures in which the interests of every part of the empire were deeply concernedhad this year been devoted to the discussion of a subject vexatious and troublesome in itself, important no doubt in many particulars, but singularly likely to be misconstrued and misunderstood by the people? His noble Friend said, he thought it necessary for the vindication of the privileges of the House to imprison the sheriffs; but at the same time he said he acquitted them of all moral blame. Was it not a matter of regret that the House to vindicate itself should be obliged to imprison persons guilty of no moral blame? Was that a convenient course? Let the House consider the case of the sheriff. He was not a person who sought his office-not a person who was fined for his office. He was taken and compelled to serve whether he would or not. He often made great interest to be exempted. "No matter," said the right hon. Gentleman, "you take him and compel him to serve you-you place him between two opposite forces—he receives commands and counter commands from both-he cannot obey both, and the moment he obeys one he is sent to prison for not obeying the other." Was that a state of the law desirable to be continued? Was it a state of the law in which the great body of the people were likely to acquiesce? He admitted that the House had no choice in the matter; it was compelled to imprison the sheriffs. He admitted, also, that the noble Lord the member for Lancashire had stated last night, that if the House had not imprisoned the sheriffs, the Court of Queen's Bench would have imprisoned them. But that fact, so far from being an argument against the course now proposed by his noble Friend, appeared to him to furnish a strong ground in support of it. If. a nation were forced to go to war, it was oftentimes compelled to make the innocent suffer with the guilty. If, for instance, there were a small neutral Power situated between two hostile and belligerent nations, however anxious that small power might be to preserve its neutrality, and to keep itself distinct from the quarrels of its neighbours, it would almost inevitably happen, that one or other of the two great Powers would find it necessary for the protection of its own immediate interests, or for the better prosecution of its hostilities, to |