and sold them to satisfy the judgment.  Lord John Russell, as leader of the House, moved to bring to the Bar of the House all the parties concerned in the action—­the plaintiff, his attorney, the sheriffs, and the under-sheriffs.  He was opposed by nearly all the legal members of the House except the crown lawyers, Sir Edward Sugden especially warning the House that “a resolution of the House was of no avail in a court of justice;” while others taunted the House with want of courage in not proceeding against the judges themselves, rather than against their officers, which in this case the sheriffs were.

There could be no doubt of the importance of the question, since it was no less, as the Attorney-general, Sir J. Campbell, put it, than a question whether Parliament or the courts of law had the superiority; and now Sir Robert Peel, as leader of the Opposition, came to the support of Lord John Russell, declaring his opinion to be, first, that “the House possessed every privilege necessary for the proper and effectual discharge of its functions;” secondly, that “the publication of evidence which had led the House to adopt any course was frequently essential to justify that course to the nation;” and thirdly, that “to judge of the extent of their privileges, and to vindicate them by their own laws, belonged to the House alone.”  And he pressed strongly on the House that it was “the duty of the House to fight the battle to the last,” though he confessed that “it was with pain that he had come to the determination of entering into a contest with the courts of law.”  On one point the judges agreed with the House of Commons.  The House committed the sheriffs; but, when they sued out their habeas corpus, the judges decided that the return of the Sergeant-at-arms that they were committed by the House for breach of privilege was a sufficient return.  Stockdale brought fresh actions.  But meantime the case was arousing a strong excitement in the country.[257] The singular hardship of the position of the sheriffs excited general sympathy:  if they obeyed the House of Commons, which prohibited them from paying over to Stockdale the damages which they had received for him, the Court of Queen’s Bench would be bound to attach them for disobedience to its order.  If they obeyed the Queen’s Bench, the House would imprison them for breach of privilege.  And the national feeling is always in favor of the strictly defined authority of the courts of law, rather than of the somewhat indefinite claims of Parliament to interpret, and even to make, privilege.  Another consideration, probably, weighed a little with the champions of the House—­that their power of imprisonment ended with the session.  As matters went on, it was found that even the Attorney and Solicitor-general differed as to the course to be pursued; and eventually Lord John Russell consented to adopt the advice which had been given by a former Attorney-general, Sir F. Pollock, and to bring in