The Sun. — London, England, 1845-06-27 00:00:00

practise of the House should be departed from on the present I occasion; and, as to the present question, they would be only getting more and more into difficulties as they went fertherins the matter. The conflicting arguments of the Learned So - licitor-General only confirmed him in that belief, as at on time he 'defended one thing and at another time another.. He admitted all his hopes were disappointed—that a false stesh —a palpable error hsd been committed—and yet he advised them to go on in their mistake. He (Mr. Hume) thought they would be degrading themselves below any other court in the kingdom, if they submitted to the indignity of repeated defeat. The simple question was, whether the House would surrender their rights to any other tribunal, or reserve to themselves the power of defining their own privileges. The lolieitor-General had alternately speculated upon a favourable ~ and unfavourable result in their appeal to the superior House in error; and while styli uncertainty existed, the best course •t the House oould adopt was that recommended by the Right lion. Baronet opposite, and settle whatever was to be done at the present moment. It was a want of real courage not to encounter the real difficulties of the case. The House ought at once to take the course which became it. If they could have affirmed that it was a breach of privilege to levy the e money, it was no less a breach of privilege now that it ha.d been levied. He would conclude by proposing the followieig amendment, " that it is inexpedient to entrust the privileges of this House to any other tribunal than the House itself.," IF e gallery was then cleared for a division, wher e there ap peared--- For the amendment ~ 46 Against it Majority against the amendment —32 Mr. ROEBUCK. resumed on the oreginal motion, and said the question now was as to what they were to do. The speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General had sufficiently laid open the weak points of the case , _ and had showa that threats alone would be the issu e o f the whole of the warrants on which so much stress had been laid. This was evidently the long and short of what would arise from the termination of the pleading. In fact, there was no doubt that these warrants were at issue with the ordinary law of the land. One of the most eminent of the Solicitor-Generals • who had ever graced the Bench had first expressed that opinion, and when he looked at the speech of the Solicitor-General he saw that he came to the same conclusion. He did not say so. certainly, but that was the real English of his meaning. He acknowledged that this was not so openly expressed as it might have been, but still it was quite evident what the Hon. and , Learned Gentleman's meaning was at the bottom. He said that he did not wish to speak with any disrespect of the Court of Queen's Bench, but it was evident that he thought that the' law of that court was very bad law, and that if they were , asked, the greater part of the judges would say so. But • the Honourable Gentleman said, " Let us get to the Court above." Why, whit would be the result of such an applica tion? Why, that they would be exposed to greater danger • than they were before. He would advise the taking an alto gether different course. For what were they to do, supposing , the judges, or a majority of them, were to take the same vienv of the case as the Court of Queen's Bench ? They would Caen have all the judges against them. And what view did they think the people of England would take of this procee ding— with what eye would they look upon the House of Co'.nmons? With any respect or with contempt? They would some of them soon have to consider the opinions of the people. He would suggest, then, whether it would not be better to take another course, and to at once get rid of the diff i culty in which the 7 had been placed for the last ten years ? Let them say at once that they had not taken the best time to vindicate their privileges, but they were resolved to. 'vindicate them in future. Let the judgment be levied, and not in the usual way. Let the 2001, go by the board. But, then, there were three other cases, and what was to be done with them ? Why, let them on those occasions re-assert the privileges of that House. Let there determine that they would be treated with proper re spect. They could riot pursue the inferior ministers of the law before that House. Let them apprehend every person en gaged in commencing or carrying on any suit—plaintiff, attor ney, witnesses, whoever they might be, and imprison them. Let every person who eras engaged in any way in committing a breach of the privilegt of the House be brought forward and laid by the heels. Let them assert their privilege, and go the whole length of it. Let them not have any of this trusting to chances. Have no more of this shuffling, this handling of the cards in the hope that it might turn up hearts for trumps. Supposing the House were now, for some secret purpose, de termined to sit with closed doors. Supposing they were to ex clude all strangers and turn out the reporters opposite—how were they to be affected by a ;habeas corpus, supposing for the right decision it was necessary to call some eight or ten men to the bar of the House. Were they to ,be interrupted in this fulfilment of duty because of the interference of the Court of Queen's Bench ? They were sitting in secret conclave on some cue of emergency in which the country was in danger, and was the first Minister of the Crown to be told by some Hon. Gentleman that it was all a mistake, that he knew better than the Prime Minister what the state of the case was, and that he would not suffer the rights of the public to a knowledge of the debates to be kept from the public on that occasion. Let then the question be set at rest. Let them come to a resolution that their privileges sho u ld no t b e i nvaded and commit any party persisting in violating them, and maintain their privileges with all the force which they could command. (The Solicitor - General intimated some dissent.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman intimated some dissent. But supposing the writ of error were to be annulled by the Court above and the decision were to he against him ; how would he then proceed in up holding the liberties of England ? He (Mr. Roebuck) knew something of the way in which the liberties of Englishmen were protected by the Court of Queen's Pench. The whole of the judges might take the same view as the Court of Queen's ilench—where, then, would be the preservation of the liberties of the country ? The ancient Commons of England had preserved the libel ties of the country. They had stood up for the pri vileges of their House in a time of trouble and danger. They were successors of those Commons of England and it was on that floor, in that House, that the liberties of the people of England were to be preserved. The question could not now be deferred and now was the time at which it should he settled. Sir R. INGL I S quite agreed with the Hon. Member who had just sat down, that the question must now be settled, for whether now or five years hence the same difficulty would exist and the decision must at one time or other be taken. The 11 ruse must mate up its mind a' to whether the decision should remain as it had passed the Exchequer, or whether there should be an appeal to the House of Lords. But there was a course which had been neglected by which the privileges of the House might be upheld, and vet the liberties of the subject would not be interfered with, and the question was whether the extreme course which the Hon. Member had just proposed, or whether they should suffer the privileges of the House to be alto• gether neglected, or whether they should pursue a medium course by which:bothobjects might be attained. With respect to persons being called to the bar of the House, it was easy to say that such or such a person was to be apprehended and placed it, custody ; and this might be all very well during a certain portion of the year, and while the House was sitting; but what would they do when the House was not sitfPg? During which time an action might be commenced, and the decision of the legal tribunal might be come to without any epportunit) beirg given to set it aside. They might very well enter into any arrangement and Isaac the warrant on the 26th June, when the House was sitting, but it would he a very different matter when next November arrived, and a decision might be given before the House would have any opportunity of revising it. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was inclined to bring all the persons, whatever might be their class, to the bar of the House. Mr. ROEBUCK—No, I would expressly except all Peers —all who have the privilege of Parliament. Sir R. INGLIS—The Hon. Member would except all who enjoyed the privilege of Parliament, but what would they do with those who did not enjoy that privilege? What would they do with Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Wightman, and all the other judges, who though sitting in the Court of Queen's Bench, had no seat in that House ? Did they suppose that the Chief Justice of England would not order the liberation of Mr. Justice Coleridge the moment a writ of habeas corpus was sued for, and did they suppose that the legal tribunals of this country would ever submit to the dictation of the House of Commons? The unflinching inte grity of purpose of Mr. Justice Coleridge, and his simplicity of heart, would always ensure the full performance of his duty, and what position would they now be in, if they were thus to be placed le coltisien with the judges of that court? The re un had proved the wisdom of the decision at which the utinorny of the Committee had arrived. That Committee had been more fell) , attended than any Committee to which he had ever belonged. In no instance had there ever been le , s than ku Member,: present; in some instances there had been fourteen present, arid in two instances fifteen, the whole rut:rber of the Committee, had been present. He quite agreed with the Hon. Meraber for Bath, that it would be better to surer the ju:lg-meet to take its course, and then to legislate for the future. The doctrines of the Hon. and Learned .'thealher for Bath, if earried out by the House, would place absolutely in its power the rights and liberties of all parties, even to the Lord Chief Justice himself. The judeonent of the Court of Queen's Bench went on the ground that the warrant did not sufficiently express the cause of arrest, or the term of confinement, anti therefore the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was mistaken in his assumption that the pri . alleges of the House of Commons were infringed upon. He fdiliought that if forms of warrants were prepared by the law advisers of the Crown, and sanctioned by the House, such collisions as these would be, for the future, avoided. But an Hon. nonber, who was not then in his place, had said, "We (the House) are everything." He (Sir R. H. Inglis) thought they were only a part of the com monwealth, and he apprehended that the great body of their `fellow-subjects, while content to live as they had hitherto done under the government of the law, were entitled to be consi dered in their deliberations. The privileges of the House of Commons had not for many years been endangered by the en eroaohments of the other House of Parliament, and certainly not by the courts of law. He maintained, on the contrary, that the liberty of the subject was likely to be interfered with by their encroachments; and it was because he dreaded givi-g them an unlimited power, that he had all along taken the stand, firmly and consistently, that he had done in this matter. The personal liberty of the subject, he repeated, was involved in this matter, and by carrying out the principle contended for by the Hon. sad Learned Member for Bath, the lives of the lieges might be put in danger by the prerogatives of that House. It had been said that the authority of the House was supreme, and could stoop to no jurisdiction. Why, if life were lost in the carrying out of their orders, a ooroner's jury would have to investigate and adj u di ca t e on the subject. It was his intention to move one of the resolutions which he had proposed in the Committee. The Right Hon. Baronet then read the resolu tions. The fret was to the effect that if anybody had the power of issuing warrants for arrest, without the benefit of habeas corpus, the right of habeas corpus would be taken away from the people of this country. The second was, that the House had admitted the informality of the writ issued on the 4th of February, 1841, by issuing another and more legal • writ upon the 6th. The third was, that there was no collection of warrants issued by the House, to serve as precedents, and that such a co ll ect i on should be provided. The fourth recited briefly t l b e e tr ofue;edings ad op t e d b y the House in this case, since the !arch, 1841, and resolved that the House would take no further resolutions steps. H e could not think of proposing all those now, but he was not aware that in moving the fourth he neeftdxsaist ny a thing further. The SPE the words proposed _s id that the House having decided that should stead by the former amendment to be left out amended. o f the resolution, the latter could not be The motion o f Si r groun Robert I ng li s accordingly fell to the d. Mr. BSTCOURT said that if he had understood the 14 .) . .140 tAN have submitted the ol validity of the warrant to the t :3! Queen' s B enc h , he a tats it U e subject should b a dropped• he agreed w i th t h e mr t ee to the prop os iti on Sol:eitor-General that the House had mere ly ordered that th e warrant should be plead e d as a sufficient answer . . had assumed that when the judg es found the The House the House pleaded they would at once admit thr p l a. ege b o ut f the Court decided, against law and a ga i nst reason, to crush the privileges of the. House. He supported the recommenda tion of the Committee. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY thought that the House could not expect the country at large to have much regard to its privileges, when the paucity of Members now present showed that in the House itself hut little interest was felt upon the subject. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then glanced over the circumstances of the case, and the arguments that had taken • plate in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Solicitor-General was mistaken when he said that the privileges of the House • were not submitted to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. They were so submitted, and the Court dealt with the warrant of the great inquest of the nation as they would ad* that of a justice of petty sessions.—( Hear, hear.) Now if a ittlittilsit of Cho Muss of Lords had bees pleaded is /mass s4J t un =s.oalii M ss - ot s4s * . THE S UN, LONDON, FRIDAY E VENING, JUNE 27, 1845. answer to an action the Court of Queen's Bench would say at once that they were stopped.---( Hear.) He could not help deprecating the shilly-shally co urse w hi c h was recommen d e d. If he selected a lay arbitrator, and he gave a judgment con trary to the law, his next course would be to apply to a court of law, where he would be told that he ought to abide by the de cision of his own arbitrator. The report stated that if the court of error confirmed the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, it would be then for the House to determine what course they would pursue with respect to their privileges. They would only then do what they should have done in the first instance, and would create a greater degree of prejudice against them. The court' s recommended by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was the only one which they ought ' to adopt. It was true that they had made a mistake. The Right Hon Baronet ought to have said, in the first instance, that Mr. Howard has ha'd his verdict, and let him have the benefit of his 4001. 'That was the course the Hen. and Learned Member for Bath had advised, and it was the best course; for if they b ad recourse to the means advised by the Committee, they shsnild have their privileges determined in a less fevourahle wa:y. Lord I%IA HON said, that he regretted the cause that had !given rise to th * .is matter. With respect to the writ of error, as !proposed b 7 the Solicitor-General, he was of opinion that it 'was a cour se which would be in no degree a violation of the pri. snleges r:i the House. But he objected to it on the grounds of y expeti;Lencand prudence. From the gross and flagrant abuse of 'Chose privileges in former years, unpopularity gathered 'around them. Let them wait till some opportunity arose in which the constitutional powers were evidently involved. The course he would wish to press upon the consideration of the Government was the one he had suggested. And at the same time, he would earnestly recommend to her Majesty's Government to adopt a mild and considerate course. They had already had before them the case of Stockdale and Hansard, and he would entreat of the Government to bear well in mind that case in coming to a decision upon this. With those observations he would leave the case in the hands of the House, trusting that the House would be guided in its decisions by what he conceived was the right course they ought to follow, and which course had been recommended by several other Hon. Members.—( Hear. ) Mr. C. W. W. WYNN said he felt a good deal of difficulty and diffidence in addressing the House on this question, but at the same time he would be sorry to let the opportunity pass of saying a few words on this subject, after what he had heard of the situation in which the Committee bad been placed in reference to it. If he could agree with his Noble Friend who had just sat down, that this was an isolated and solitary case, and one of little or no importance, then he (Mr. Wynn) should concur with him that there were strong grounds for adopting the course he had suggested. But this case appeared to him (Mr. Wynn) to strike at the root of all privilege—(Hear, hear) — and the bulwark of the rules of the House, upon which the House alone was competent to decide.—(Hear, hear.) He would be sorry to detain the House by entering into the details of this question, but without doing so, he would say the case was one which afforded strong grounds for the prompt interference of the House. If the House adopted the course suggested, then it should take into consideration the validity of the authority of the Queen's Bench. Let him ask was there any analogy between the authority of that Court and the House ?—( Hear, hear.) He contended there was not—for he had read of in stances in which the doors of the House were locked in order that the public should not know what the House was doing— but the result was, the issue of the Speaker's warrant for the presence of a witness in a case, without stating any explanation for the summons. In fact there were many cases in which the House pursued a like stringent course; but the occasion jus tified it, and he was one of those who supported the House on one or two cf those occasions. The Court of Queen's Benoh could not summons a witness without setting forth the case in which he was summoned and all the ether particulars; but that was not necessary LA.. this House to do, and therefore no analogy could exist between them.—(Hear.) In the case cf Lord Coventry, in 1782, this question was also raised; but they had, without any question as to its authority being put, issued the Speaker's warrant for that Nobleman's presence, and he was brought up. He thought they ought to be ready to main tain their privileges by their own means, for their functions could not be carried on with advantage to the public or with credit to themselves unless they did so. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY (Bute) did not consider that this was any question as to whether they should submit to have their privileges decided by a court of law. If he felt that that were the issue he would have no hesitation in declaring that, under no circumstances, and on no pretence, would he permit the courts of law to consider, still less to decide, the privileges of that Heuse. But that was net the question which they had to consider now. The question was, what course it was de. sirable for that House to pursue. He had no hesitation in stating that it was absolutely necessary that they should have the power of ordering persons into custody, and without assigning any reason. He thought that it was absolutely ne cessary that they should assert their privileges to the utmost extent of their power. Lord J. RUSSELL did not feel that he could altogether avoid the discussion of this question, after the statement that had been made isy his Hon. Friend the Member for the Uni versity of Oxford and the Noble Lord the Member for Hert ford. Had the only question discussed been that which had been submitted by the Solicitor-General, he would have been satisfied with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's statement, clear and able as it was, and would not have troubled the House with any observations of his own. But his Noble Friend had given to the House a statement of his opinion with regard to the power and privileges of that House, which he ( Lord J. Russell) could not pass altogether unnoticed. The Noble Lord had told them of the various instances in which the power of that House had been abused, and his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford advised them to treat these matters as matters of law, and submit them in future to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, that eras totally inconsistent with the view which he (Lord J. Russell) had taken of the privileges of that House.—( Hear. ) He considered that that House had a law and custom of Par liament which it was bound to adhere to and observe. He should think that it was as preposterous for the Queen's Bench to decide on the authority and powers of that House, as for that House to decide, by an arbitrary majority, that the judges of that Court were wrong in their interpretation of a question of common law. The privileges of Parliament were as much part of the law of this country, as those which the inferior courts were instituted to administer.—( Hear, hear. ) It had been said that they must act in accordance with the law, but were they willing to set up their privileges, as Judge Coleridge required, against the laws? Ilis answer was, that their privileges were as much law as the decisions of any Court.—( Cheers.) What he therefore contended for was, that it was just as consistent for them to say to the Court of Queen's Bench that their adjudications were wig and caprice, as for that Court to say that their decision was nothing but the will and caprice of the House of Cemmons. He could not but protest against any other assumption than they were the' judges of their own privileges. —( Loud cheers.) With respect to the question of precedent, the Hon. Member far. Montgomery( 3lr. Wynn), by far the most able and competent authority in the House, had satisfactorily settled that point. The use of the power was necessary for in quiries which could not be carried on without many witnesses, and, on their refusal, compelling them to attend. But it had been said that the authority of the highest judges was against them. He was free to admit that many of our ablest judges had entertained narrow views upon the privileges of Parliament. Lord Erskine, a man of transcendant legal powers, and of un rivalled eloquence, entertained on the subject of the functions of Parliament totally inadequate views ; he had said that no impeachment could be brought against a Member, except where indictment would lie, whereas the very opposite was the estab lished law. Now, as in the cases of Lords Orford, Boling broke, and Somers, and Warren Hastings, where especially in the last instance the most extensive privileges of Govern ment were involved, how could they argue the balance of power, vested in Parliament, would endanger the liberty of the subject ?—(Loud cheer?.) The House, therefore, must come to the conclusion that they had functions higher in their nature than those which belonged to the Court of Queen's Bench.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It was a totally dif ferent question as to how the privilege should be exercised in reference to the safety of the State.—( Hear, hear.) When a judge had said that he had looked at a warrant of theirs as technically as he would that of a justice of the peace, he bad iota:ly mistaken the functions of Parliament.—( Loud cheers from all p iris of the House.) A debate had lately taken pace on the defence, of the country, and the war estabii,hment it kept up. The first Minister of the Crown had then objected to such discussions, considering their publicity unadviseble, if not dangerous. Supposing, being of that opinion, the Minis.. ter should suspect that some officer intrusted with secret in formation, would confine it to a foreign warlike Power, must the Speaker wait until he had sent for an astute la err to see whether the warrant was in exact accord ance with all the technicalities of law, and search for prece dents which the Court of Queen's Bench would be likely to admit, with all their refinement of special pleading, before he issued his warrant.—( Hear, hear.) He contended it wag for the benefit of the country that that power was accorded, and when he was told that it made the Howe of Commons the Su preme power, he replied, that with regard to the power to be used, there must be some authority in which supreme juris diction was vested. In some cases the Queen's Bench possessed that power, and in some the Court of Chancery; and the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench could be removed by address from Parliament. The right was invested for public safety. And was there no check upon it? Undoubtedly there was ; and if a tyranny were exercised, either for private individual interest or for despotic power, why, the people themselves would find the remedy and eject the tyranny from its representatives.—(Loud cheers.) The Queen exercised her power according to the constitution ; the Queen's Bench exercised its power according to the constitution, and the House of Parliament exercised its power according to the constitu tion also, with an ultimate appeal to the people of the country, who, loving the constitution, would resist any attempt to in fringe it.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Mahon) had said that the power used in the last century by universal consent would now be as universally condemned. That proved his (Lord John Russell's) proposition—that an appeal to the people would always prevent an infringement of their liberties.—(Cheers.) But if the Noble Lord (Mahon) referred to the last century, he would carry him back to the century before, where, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Judge Jeffery had laid down the most preposterous injunctions.-- ( Hear, hear.) Surely, then, if the House of Commons could be accused of having once had a tendency, or even a possibility to abuse, this objection was also attachable to the Court of Queen's Bench, but no one would say that any Member of the House of Commons was disposed to push its privileges beyond their legitimate bounds, and equally of the Queen's Bench no ene would say that any of its judges had a disposition to avail themselves of the odious powers contended for by Judge Jeffery, or other of the justices, before the revolution of 1688. But if technicalities were to be required to be nicely observed in warrants, those powers which Parliament exercised for the benefit of the country would be seriously impaired.—(Loud cheers.) He had said thus much upon the utility of the privilege generally, be cause the Honourable Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had taken the opportunity of raising the question of the privi leges of the House. As to the broad question of the extension and definition of those privileges it was easy to decide ; hut as to the particular b anch before the House, he felt much more difficulty. Mr. Justice Wightman, its his decision, had said that the warrant was not sufficient, because it said that Thomas Burton Howard was to be taken into custody, but had neglected to state how he was then to be disposed of; in fact the warrant was to be invalid, because it did not say that if the officer found this Thomas Burton Howard crossing over from Charing-cross he was to be kept there in the safe keeping of the Sergeant-at-Arms, while all the conveyahces that were passing might endanger their lives.—(Laughter and cheers ) Oh, said Mr. Justice Coleridge, if that is all the difficulty, the objection is easily overcome; the intention of the House on that score is palpable, but inasmuch as the warrant did not state the cause for which Howard was taken into custody it was insuffi cient. If the former opinion were thought narrow and trifling, how much more palpably erroneous was the latter for its extensive and enlarged requirements. If the cause were assigned, of course Mr. Justice Coleridge would assume the right its sufficiency ; therefore if Matthew Prior was suspected bey t:lckeacoconunt,rtyi,tuatti3odn,suanbvdearsiwvearroa o t f being engaged in intrigues with foreign Powers, dangerous t w he er d e y t n o a b s tay issued established for such of the a man, all these suspicions to Mr. Justice Coleridge wirehave be to decide whether it was sufficient cause upenAli::huto summon the man. Such a pro position that House could The Queen's Bench, by its limitednever and to.—( Loud cheers.) to their privileges, virtually clai me, r th n e al , row view with regard science of that House.—(Cheers.) Lord Denman, of the hl con science e dies senting from these opinions, still entertainedan,' a view almost equally OhjantiOrtable.ewe(Hear, lieu.) He had said that it was not a sufficient plea to state that the arrest was committed in accordance with the privileges of the House, and such was the effect of the judgment In Stockdale v. Hansard. He confessed from all these conflict ing opinions he felt not only alarm but insufficient evidence. If he took the case propounded by Mr. Justice Wightman he could not consent that the warrant was to be picked to pieces so as to suit the lover of technicalities and special pleading.— (Loud cheers.) If he adverted to the opinion he could not agree that every cause on which the warrant was issued was to be inserted in the instrument, and if he referred to Lord Den man's proposition that that House was not the place where its privileges where to be decided, or as to their definition, from that also he disagreed. All those opinions in clined him, nevertheless, to accede to the pro. posal for an appeal to the court of error. He had never been able to perceive that tl - ere was any ground for saying that a further sacrifice, though in a trifling degree, should be made of the privileges of the House. The question which the House had in the first instance submitted to the court of law, namely, that the act had been done in conformity with their privileges, and in pursuance of the order of the House, was a question that would be submitted to the court of error. It did not appear to him that the great and paramount question had been submitted—whether the judges ought to have been first told what were the privileges of the House, and then to have examined them with the warrant that was issued, bearing the name of the Speaker attached to the bottom. If the judges should decide in their favour, or should point out in what respect they considered the decision as to their privileges in former times had been mistaken by the House, a light would be afforded which would guide the House as regarded its future course. Ho could not but think that that course must be grounded in prudence ; if it were not so, he should not be guided but by the judgment that was given, and by the reasons which would be deduced. That the House had the great and paramount power of asserting its own privileges, he had the most intimate persuasion, but if it was meant to assert those rights by their entire authority, they must not be daunted by the public inconvenience that the subject would occasion. The House had committed an error at the beginning of the session by not assuming the exercise of those functions —by refusing to act when called on, when it had all the powers and privileges which would have enabled it to have exercised its functions safely. The declara tion of the House that they were so determined, that they held every power in the Constitution, whether the warrant was submitted to the Executive for its delivery, or to the House of Lords for concurrence, would before long have obliged the Court of Queen's Bench to have complied with their fair and just request ; but on making that demand on the first occasion, it was not possible to deny that there would be great public excitement and considerable agitation. For these reasons he thought it would be better to have further time for consideration before the House proceeded to assert its privileges in the ex treme manner suggested by the Hon. Member for Montrose ; but when the time shall have arrived, when the court of error shall have decided what the true position of the House is, with out having reference to the House of Lords, there will be abund ant material to act upon. A question had been raised that persons might be so arrested, but it was a dangerous precedent, and he trusted the House would be well advised before proceeding to such an extreme measure. If the Sergeant-at-Arms, who was an officer appointed by the Crown to do the behests of the House of Commons, was not sufficient to per form their bidding, then the House must address the Crown, fur the purpose of obtaining any armed force to secure the execution of their warrant ; and he thought it would be the duty of the Crown thus to reinforce the Sergeant-at-Arms, in order to secure the vindication of their authority. In the case of Sir Francis Burdett, who had shut himself up in his house, to resist the execution of the warrant issued against him, the military did not hesitate to assist in carrying the warrant into effect, and the judges, on delivering their opinions on the subject, pointed out in a particular manner that the soldiers had acted in the exercise of their duty. It was a lame-itable thing that the judges of the land should ques tion the authority of the House of Commons so as to oblige it to have recourse to military force in the exercise of its constitu tional rights, and on them rested the responsibility of inter fering. For his part he was in favour of moderate force. The House might be even celled. pusillanimous—it might be said their privileges were being endangered, but peaceful means, if possible, were best. But if it was necessary to resort to violent measures, he for one was ready to take them, for ultimately he would not consent to relinquish those privileges, without which their existence was to be regarded rather as an injury than as a good.—( Hear, and cheers. ) Mr. FITZROY KELLY begged to express his entire con currence with the Noble Lord who had just sat down, as to the manner in which he proposed to assert the privileges of the House. The privileges of the House ought to be respected, and their warrants by a definite resolution should be made part and parcel of the law. He conceived that a misapprehen sion existed as to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench that so many fierce and unjust attacks bad been made upon it. It was not his intention to offer any opposition to the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but he considered it was his duty to state the grounds on which he (Mr. Kelly) concurred, and also in favour of submitting the question to trial in a court of error. He would beg leave to say he felt inexpressible astonishment at what bad been stated on a former occasion by the Hon. and Learned Member for the city of Worcester. He had made a statement, which state ment was confirmed by the House, that he (Mr. Kelly) had supported the view that no inquiry should Mee place beyond the Court of Queen's Bench, and that if that Cou,t decided adversely then that the House was at once bound to submit. If that was the impression of the House he would beg leave to say that it was not his impression; and he was quite uncon scious of uttering anything to warrant such a supposition. He recollected the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government expressing an opinion in which ho was corroborated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester. to the effect that the inquiry in the Court of Queen's Bench was, whether the warrant was a properly drawn up and legal instrument, and not as to the privileges of the House. Hew it could be conceived that the Court could take any other course, appeared to him perfectly incompre hensible. He (Mr. Kelly) had maintained that view of the question on a previous occasion, and in that view he was sup ported by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester. He stated in the proposition, that in the action the real points at issue were those of law ; that it was impossible to take any other course than what had been taken, without a violation of law; and that to distinguish between that House and any other individual in the realm, was an improper and illegal course. His view then, as now, was, that there should be no difference whether the plaintiff was an officer of the House of Lords, of the House of Commons, or of the Crown. and any other in dividual in the State ; that the Court of Queen's Bench was bound to construe the law on the same principle to these parties as to the humblest mechanic in the 'and. That was the state of the law. He would now direct himself to the ques tion itself, having made this reference to what he had formerly stated on the subject. The action in the present instance had been brought against an officer of that House, and he was in structed to place a plea of justification on the record. He was desirous of referring to the facts of the case, that the House should understand the question, and be able to comprehend the true effect of the judgment the Court had given. Mr. [lnward alleged in his declaration that he had been assaulted and imprisoned by Sir William Gossett, end the defendant, in answer to the charge, put in certain resolutions of the House writhe Speaker's warrant. He justified the course he had taken in virtue of the warrant. On such a plea, there fore, the defendant stood on the validity of the warrant. It was a plea that left the question to be decided by the Court of Queen's Bench, whether the warrant was a legal instrument in point of form and substance, and accorded with the law of the land. He would not at present enter into the legal features of the question, as the House was not the proper place for the technical points of law to be discussed, but into a question of far greater importance—namely, whether the House con sidered the tender of the warrant had been legal, and also as to the course that should new be pursued. It was said the warrant set forth no cause, and it was an important point as to whether it ought to have had any attention paid to it. Should it be decided that the warrant was a good one, should the House maintain and enforce the validity of such a warrant, then he was of opinion they might as well repeal the Hab eas Corpus Act, and withdraw the whole protection of the law from her Majesty's subjects. It was, therefore, a question of the gravest importance, but as he before stated he would not at present enter into the technicalities and details of the law. He had incurred the censure of his Hon. and Learned Friend op posite (Mr. Sergeant Wilde), and also of the Noble Lord the .‘lember for the City of London, because he (Mr. Kelly ), as represented by them, argued in a court of law against the privi leges of the House. This he did not admit. The privileges of the House was not the question that was legally and consti tutionally involved in the discussion. If lie erred in that opinion, he erred along with several other Honourable and Learned Members in that House—with the late Attorney-General ( Sir Frederick Pollock), and also with the present Solicitor-General, who on a previous occasion expressed the opinion that the inquiry into the va lidity of the warrant was not opposed to the privileges of the House. He (Mr. Kelly) did not think that his giving his pro fessi , real services in the manner he had done, and on the view of the question he had stated, could at all be supposed to inter fere with his giving a fair and indeeendent opinion to the House. There was another consideration, not personal, which was worthy their attention. When an action was instituted against their officer, he was supplied with ample funds from the public; he had unlimited means at his disposal, and the Attor ney-General and Solicitor-General were instructed to conduct his defence. This being done, was it seasonable, he would ask, to take away from the constituency of that House the assistance of any member of the bar that might be •f service to his cause—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") If so, he would pray the House boldly and unhesitatingly to come forward, and say by resolution what questions Honour able Members of the bar in that House should or should not be allawed to appear in, and then he would determine what course it would be necessary for him to take. It was said the Court of Queen's Bench had attacked the privileges of the House. This he altogether denied ; it was no question of privilege at all. The only question was, whether the warrant was good. It was, in answer to this, said that Mr. Howard being summoned to appear before the House, and failing to do so, had been guilty of contempt, and that a br'each of privilege had been committed, which led to the issuing of the warrant. What the Court of Queen's Bench, on the other hand, held was, that the defendant did not appear there as the officer of the House of Commons, but merely as one of her Majesty's subjects to try the validity of a warrant he had executed, and that the privileges of the House formed no part of the case that had to be considered. An Hox. Minium—Who held those opinions? Mr. F. KELLY—Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Coleridge. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded. He must venture to observe that if this plea, instead of containing the general language which it did contain, had contained what it ought, and told the Court of Queen's Bench it is our privilege, founded upon the law of England, which you are bound to obey, and therefore we arrest the Queen's subjects, it would at least have been clear, intelligible, and positive. But the plea con tained no such allegation. Th're was no question of privilege involved in the plea. Hon. Members might say that these arguments were of a technical and frivolous character, but he begged of them to recollect that the technical rules of pleading must be observed, and that the judges were bound upon oath to interpret every plea that came before them by those very rules. If the House meant to assert its privileges by arrest upon a warrant of this kind, it ought to take care that the privileges upon which the warrant was founded were properly stated, and if they did so they might possibly find that the Queen's Bench would give a different judgment. He knew not, unless the Court of Queen's Bench was bound to hold that the House might arrest any of the Q u ee n ' s subjects, with o r without cause, how it could have done otherwise than it did, or how it couid have put a different construction on the warrant. It had been said tliat the Court of Queen's Bench had set itself up in a conflict with that House against its privileges, and that it had been always ready to administer the law in a manner least fa vourable to the liberties of the subject. He felt confident that both charges were unfounded.—( Hear, hear.) The Queen's Bench was ready to give effect to the privileges of that House, and in the course of 200 years had consistently given effect to these privilges, although commitments for contempt had been brought before them in every possible form, on the authority of that House—warrants so vague and defective that they would not have stood for a moment in other cases; and yet, he re peated, in no one case during the last two centuries, had the House or its officers been before the Court of Queen's Bench upon cases of commitment in which the Queen's l'ench had discharged the party complaining, or done otherwise than give effect to the warrants of that House.—( Hear, hear.) The question was—whether the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench should be submitted to a court of error ? Whatever might be his o.vn opinion, as one of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench had pronounced his opinion favourable to these privileges —as many Hon. Friends of his in that House, for whose opinions he entertained the highest respect, thought similarly—and as the House seemed to take so warm an interest in the subject, he would not withold his assent from considering the matter in a court of error. ( Hear, hear.) He trusted, and firmly believed that ample justice would be done by that Court. But another course had been suggested Ly his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester, to which he could not assent. He meant an appeal to force. Resorting to force, in at least doubtful cases —defending the privileges of that House by a series of imprison ments—was a precedent which he would not consent to es tablish. He would not sanction the imprisonment of attorneys, clerks, sheriffs, bailiffs, counsel, and judges, in vindicating what was called the privileges of that House. It was too large a field for present discussion to argue whether or not the House possessed those privileges; but he would call the attention of the House to what would be the natural course of such a line of action. The House would first advise its officers not to plead to the action. It depended upon itself whether or no it would vindicate its privileges, and it had resolved not to plead. Well then, he asked his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester to tell him what the consequence would be ? There was the plaintiff, perhaps some unworthy and reckless person, who brought an action against the House, lay ing his damages at perhaps 100,0001., for some imprisonment which he might or might not have deserved, and if the House had pleaded to the action they would probably show he deserved it. Well, he proceeded with the action. They committed him. He brought another action. They committed his at torney, counsel, and judges, and stopped the whole administra tion of the law, but in the meantime the action proceeded, the matter was brought tojudgment, but he waited for the proroe gation of the House until the House executed its judgment, and then he went before a jury. Would they appeal to a jury ? ( Hear, hear.) No they would not condescend to do so, they would not direct the Attorney-General to do so—the plaintiff might state what he liked—he might make out a case of pre tended grievances —he might make himself out the roost in jured person in the world, but no answer would be given. He might be supposed as one oppres s ed by a ty ra nni ca l an d powerful body and obtained, perhaps, one-half of the amount of damages he sought for, but took care not to issue an execution until after the prorogation. He would ask his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester what was to prevent the levying of the execution—(Hear, hear)—upon your goods and land, Sir, (turning to the Speaker) or the property of any other officer of the House ? At the assembling of Parliament they committed him. He went through the same process again, and obtained damages. What could they do? The truth was, when they resorted to force, their privi leges were useless, or worse than useless—mischievous, danger ous, unconstitutional ; but, above all, they never could be maintained.—( Hear, hear.) They had no weapon to fight with—no shield to cover themselves, and were in truth as pow erless under such circumstances as the most helpless subject in the realm. Therefore he prayed the House not to sanction so dangerous a course. They might find precedent to justify them, but if they valued the true interests, respect, admiration, and regard of those who sent them there, they would not enter into a contest in which they must be severely and discreditably defeated. And why should they? Was there anything in the present state of society to enforce such a line of proceeding ? In their numerous committees did they find any difficulty in procuring the attendance of witnesses, or compelling the attendance of any man, though he might be in the most remote part of the kingdom? Well, but if they prosecuted and were successful, would not the vanquished be considered as a martyr? Take care that you within the boundaries of the law—take care that you are within the prerogative of the Sovereign— take care that your record is within the privileges of the law. But if they were disposed to accede to the advice of his Hon. Friend opposite—if they were disposed to look at the position of the parties or in which the defendants were placed, to look at the powers with which they were invested—look at the posi tion in which the people was placed, and the power with which they were invested ; but they had a decision here against them in the courts of law, and they were by this means bring ing the whole of their privileges into question, and they were thus compromising the law of England by their negligence on a great point. It was certainly desirable that this action should be settled, and that the principle on which it was based should be disposed of. In this case he would not say that the privilege of the House had been placed above the law, but it was evident that the House had entered into a contest with the law, and it was of the utmost importance that this privilege should be placed, not only in accordance, with the law, but also in coincidence with the decisions of the courts of justice, so that there should be no doubt for the future of the extent of the obligation which the courts stood under to recognise the privileges of the House. Sir T. WILDE was not surprised at the determination which his Hon. and Learned Friend ( Mr. Fitzroy Kelly) had ex pressed, not to give his opinion on the main question before the House, for he stood in that position, from his connexion with the several parties in this case, which precluded him from expressing an opinion in that House. The House was now placed in a position the most remarkable, and for the first time during that period its decisions were invalidated by the adjudi cation of a court of law, and that was set aside which had hitherto always been considered the law of Parliament. It was evident from the decisions of the Committee. that all their considerations had a view to legislation, but while he felt bound to treat their judgment with every respect, he must sa y a t th e same time that legislation on this subject was impossible. What was their legitimate power as a House of Commons? The word privilege seemed to some Honourable Mem bers to carry with it an associated meaning, as if it were a mere something fur the benefit of individual Members. But it related to the power of the House alone. That House was the corner-stone of the arch of the Constitution. They were charged with the administration of justice, let them then do justice to themselves. He much regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. H. Inglis) had delivered an opinion that the power of this House should be placed under the guardianship of a court of law. He hail on a former occasion quoted the opinion of the assembled judges as far back as the time of Henry the Sixth, when they were asked what was the extent of the authority of the House of Commons ? They replied, that it was not their province to do so. The privileges of Par liament were known only to Parliament, and therefore they declined to give an opinion on the subject. And from that time to this, all the greatest lawyers of the country had held the same opinion. In some cases, it wa: true, that the courts of law might allude to the privileges of Parliament, but it could only be done so incidentally, and not directly. What had happened in their own day? In the case of Burdett v. Abbott, which, the House would remember, arose out of a libel on the constitution of the Houses of Parliament, when Parliament excited a not very favourable impression in the public mind. Sir Francis Burdett, when committed, raised the question in the House, and it was decided, that by appearing to plead it did not in any degree compromiQe the authority of the House. The Attorney-General beguiled the House into pleading, by statreg the unanimous opinion of all the lawyers in the House to be that when the Speaker appeared to plead, the judges would not permit the case to go any further. —( Hear. ) That was the ground, and distinctly the ground, on which the Hou , e was beguiled to plead. The case came on for trial, and Mr. Hoiroyd argued that the House of Commons did not possess the power to commit for libel. The judges decided that the House had the power,. and that no cour t o f l aw cou l I examine into the privileges of the House or its manner of exercising them. Lord Ellenborough, however, in giving that judgment, volunteered a strange dietium—" That there might be a case where all law, and justice, and decency. might be set at defiance, and when the courts of law migot be obliged to interfere." It was not easy to say what the learned judge meant when he laid down that extraordinary maxim of law. The Learned Lord bad ruled that the House possessed the privilege, and that the Court:could not inquire into the exercise of it. Why, then, should he put the hypothetical and impossible case, that the House might commit an act against law, and justi ce , an d propr i ety ?—( H ear, hear.) Most certainly, if a case had arisen which that Noble and Learned Lord thought proper to consider as op posed to his notions of law, and jsstiee, end propriety, and he had taken the course which was insinuated, the House of Commons of that day would not here hesitated a moment to commit the learned judge to New gate.—( Hear, hear.) The supposition was uncalled for, and it was monstrous in itself.—(Cheers.) Wherelad the Con stitution placed the power of controlling the privileges of Par liament ?—in Parliament itself.—( Hear, hear. ) But it was said that a power so extensive was liable to abuse ; but there was that liability to abuse in all courts and bodies of "last resort." The House of Lords might, upon the hearing of an appeal, give away an estate from th e r i g h t f u l owner; b ut t h en there was this necessity in human affairs, that there must he a place of final resort, and society mast take the hazard of wheever error might be committed by that la-t ( Hear, hear.) What other body but Parliament, then, could presume to take upon itself the power of controlling Parliament —the discretion to control Parliament —in the definition of parliamentary privileges, or in the mode of exercising them. —( Hear, hear.) When the Court of Queen's Bench decided against the attempt upon the privileges of the House, Sir Francis Burdett brought a writ of error, but the House was never informed of any proceedings cons equent upon t h at wr i t . Liberty, however, was taken, without the authority of the House, to appear in the Exchequer Chamber, and afterwards, when the appeal was carried further before the House of Lords. But the House never gave any auth or ity a n d no communicati.in was ever received by the House upon the subject. 'f hat case of Burdett against Abbott was supposed to establish the authority of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Next came the case of Stockdale against Hansard, and then the sheriffs were taken into custody for contempt. The Court of Queen's Bench was applied to on behalf of the sheriffs, and the Court decided that, as it was a question of c on t em pt, t h e judges had no power to interfere. However, on that question Lord Denman threw out a dictum, which would lay the foundation for their future judg ment, whenever the Court should think proper to inquire into the right of the House to commit at all. Then came the question as to the right of the House to publish documents. One of the judges then raid that it might be advisable for Members of the House of Commons to burn their printed do cuments as soon as they read them, for they contained libels, and if read by other persons who found them in their libra ries, such Members might be subject to actions for publishing libels.—( Hear, and a laugh.) All these dicta and in sinuations were entirely opposed to ;Parliamentary law and to the Constitution.—( Hear, hear.) In the present case Howard avoided the summons of the House. The officers were told at his residence that he was expected to return soon. They waited until twelve o'clock, and as some objection was made to their remaining longer, they went away. Well, in that case the Queen's Bench took upon itself to decide what length of time the officers of the House should be allowed to occupy in the discharge of an important duty—in fact, to what extent the House might go in the execution of its own war rants.--( Hear, hear. 1 The Right Hen. the Member for Oxford raid that if the privileges of Parliament were in any imminent danger, the Habeas Corpus Act might be suspended. but what was to be done before the Habeas Corpus Act could be suspended? There must be three sealed bags handed over to a secret tribunal, upon whose report Parliament would d H e what r a , t hear.) woulda r . ) proceed. Witne sses must b e ca ll e d, and examined in secret. Bench helldedo ?—(Hear, ( a H tte e n a d r: And t h e W c i t o n u e r s t s eos of —(Hear, hear.) Why, th a t C ourt h a d no w decided that the House had no right t o sen d its officer for three hours to any man's house. What p ower h ad the C our t of Queen's Bench to know that there was suc h a th i ng as attendance at the bar at all ?—( Hear, hear.) What powermutt had that Court to know what were th e mot i ves or t h e o bjects of any proceeding in that House?—(Hear, hear.) But to act consistently—and it seemed that the Court was determined to be consistent—if ever a question arose f or the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—if ever t h e S ta t e s hould be placed inimmi nent danger, the C our t o f Queen's Benchwould the privileges o f th e C ommons , an d inquireinto te right to send for wit nesses at a ll . —( H ear , hear.) They were now told that parliam en t ary pr i v il e ge should be subject to revisal investigate i by the most inferior tribunals. They were told that the Court could dete rm i ne h ow f ar the House of Commons might go in compelling the attendance of witnesses. Now, no man more respected the courts of law than he did—no man had a greater esteem fo r L or d D enman 's high qualities than he had, and no man would more readily acquit that . Learned Judge of any intention to se e k popu l ar ity by the mode in which he ais charged his judicial duties.—( Hear, hear.) For Mr. Justice Coleridge also he h a d th e gre atest respect and friendship. But with all respect to those Learned Judges hecould not admit that Parliame n t ary proc eedings should be subject to re vision in the inferior courts. That was contrary to all that he had ever read of Constitutional law. He thought that Parlia mentary privileges w ere exerc ised in e importance that of such that they could not be questioned. The law of Parliament, as for instance in the cases of impeachment, was altogether inde pendent of the common law, and when he looked to the power of the House and the duties which it had to discharge, he Was convinced that the interest of the State required it should have what the Constitution gave it, the uncontrolled right of immediately exercising its authority. The Learned Gentleman oppo Site said that the Crown could not do this and could not do that. Why, the Crown could issue no warrant lent it should come into collision with other members of the State, and such collision would be revolution. The Right Hon. Member for Oxford had said that the House oue,ht to prepare forms, but how could it adapt forms to all the cases that might arise ?—(Hear, hear.) And whom would they consult for drawing up those forms ?—( Hear, hear.) They would find in that very decision upon the Speaker's warrant that Justice Wightman was opposed to Justice Coleridge. Justice Williams thought the warrant was good, when Chief Justice Denman pronounced it to be bad—( A laugh)—and when Justices Wightman and Coleridge agreed in thinking the warrant was bad, the Chief Justice and Judge Williams pronounced it to be good. Let them look to their condition. When ,would they awake ? They had a general doctrine asserted, and had the extent of their power under a warrant reviewed. What had they left? No power but commitment; and how would they venture to exercise it if this be law. They talked of waiting for an etnergency.—( Hear, hear.) They talked of waiting for public opinion on the mattter ; but he would tell them that it was the duty of the House to lead public opinion. —(Cheers.) They had shown that they thought those privi leges unnecessary for the public safety. Nobody could main tain 'Authority who acted the weak part that the House had acted. It was a difficult case, from which every Government would wish to shrink• Ile would like to offer his powers to give his most humble assistance in relieving the Govern ment. It was a contest which no one would like to enter into. Were they to wait till they brought the safety of the State into danger? The House had sufficient legitimate power for the present purpose, and for some reason they did not use it. The whole of this arose from the discharge of those sheriffi who levied the mosey knowing it to be an act inconsistent with the orders of the House. They ought to have held them. They were brought into this difficulty by their own conduct in not using their legi timate power. The House had really great reason to complain Nothing could be more distinctly stated by his Hon. and Learned Friend, whose absence they all so much regretted, the Attorney-General, and the Lord Chief Baron, followed by several others, all distinctly assuring the House, that by ap pearing and pleading, the House in no way committed its pri vileges. His Hon. and Learned Friend who spoke last, never theless stated that the House did thereby commit its privi leges. They were told, first, that they were taking a step on the most positive assurance that their privileges were not involved, and, when they had taken it, they were told that they had committed themselves, that it had been said that when once they pleaded they had submitted. Now, just let him suppose such a question as that of a divoree or of a nullity of marriage having been pronounced by an ecclesiastical court, would the judgment of that court be deemed sufficient before the Court of Queen's Bench, accord ing to the present arguments of his Learned Friend opposite? It certainly would not—( Hear, hear)—and yet, let him ask, was the House prepared to follow up such a course ?—( Hear. ) Were the courts of law to be or not to be under the authority of this House ?—( Hear.) if they were not, then he would say it was the first time he ever heard it ; but if they were. then he would call on the House to support its authority.—(Cries of " Hear ' hear.") He had now before him au authority which he would read from, and which he believed the House would bow to; it was one of a re sent date, and one which fully concurrred in his views. (Here the Hon. Member read the extract, and then proceeded to say he conceived it fully corroborated his view of the constitutional law on this question.) The case was now the same, the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman were correct, only they had done a little more wrong. But if they had done a little more wrong they should not hesitate to remedy it. Were they prepared to aaagnify an evil which they had carried to a certain extent— much beyond its due proportions, and if so how would they proceed? A wise course should be adopted. Would they refer it to a court of error ? In such a court they could not possibly gain any advantage, but must lose a great deal. Would they again put it to the Court of Queen's Bench, to which they had stated they did mean to put it, or to o.e court of error? They made a mistake then—but they were acting wrong by design now.--( Hear, hear.) The judge presumed to decide whether the House had jurisdiction in the matter or not. Would they make the matter worse by putting the question again to them ? Was there any reason in asking the judges a question which they (the House of Com mons) said they were not competent to answer? Suppose they affirmed the judgment. His Hon. Friend seemed to doubt that they would do so. Then let them consider what was to be done—do not let them act blindly. We should take no step which they could not prosecute with advantage to the public. Suppose the judgment were affirmed. 'I hey would recognise the authority of the judges by putting the question to them. But if they did not refer it to the Queen's Bench, would they go to the House of Lords, which history showed had occasionally interfered to stop any excess of privilege claimed by the House of Commons, In the case of Skinner, who brought an action against the East India Company for 1,0001., Sir John Holt, who was his counsel, was ordered to attend, and he did not attend. The result was, that the House of Lords set up an irresponsible jurisdiction over the subject. The House of Commons interfered and prevented it. Was that House to become subordinate to the House of Lords ? (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons was open to control, and might be dissolved and new Members elected by the people, but the House of Lords was no new body, not brought together by any new diversity of opinion, but were hereditary, and exhibited, session after sesaion, the same union of party and of principles. The lion. and Leerned Gentleman opposite had said he did not think the Gent of Queen's Bench would discharge upon a warrant of the House of Lot ds. Perhaps not at present, but let the Court of Queen's Bench go on a little further, and they would not stop at discharging upon warrants of the House of Commons. When the two Houses of Parliament separated, the two Houses retained certain functions; and, for instance the House of Lords retained the judicial functions of Parliament. In theory the House of Commons was present in the House of Lords during the exercise of its judicial functions, and this fact led him to the conclusion that it was an absurdity to think of appealing to the Lords in this case. Well, then, sup pose in the court of error the judgment was reversed, what would they gain by it ? Why they would be establishing a precedent of a most mischievous character. They would have the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench reversed, and there would stand upon record the fact that they had consented to enter a court of law to establish one of their privileges. But the decision of the court of error might reverse the judgment without declaring the Court of Queen's Bench to be in the wrong. The court of error might sa ' y that the warrant wa s good, though it h a d b een a magistrates warrant, and if the judgment were reversed he could not help strongly surmising that it would be upon that ground. Well, the judgment might be reversed, but he was quite certain it would not be done without some of the judges of the court of error agreeing in the course of reesening adopted by some of the judges of the Court of Queen's Beech. He would, however, venture to assert what he had often dune before, that if they went to the Exchequer Chamber they would only come back with a regret that they had ever been here. hut they were about to adept this coarse as a preli minary step to remedying a mischief they had already com• mitted by legislation, and he would ask leave to say a word or tte% upon what belonged to the tequestion of legislation. Suppose the House were net-rescued, it . would stand as a judgment for the future guidance of the Court : but supposing the judgment were reversed, the case would, no doubt, he carried to the House of Lord-, who had the power of deciding the validity or equity of a decision of a court of error. Well. the Lords might decide against them, and then, without any father appeal, where would their privilege be?—(Hear, hear.) What would be done then ? Would they pass a declaratory Act of what their powers and privileges were ? Well, but they had undefined pte.vers. How then could they explain them?—(Hear, hear.) Well, it was evident they would ultimately have to make some stand for their privileges, and why could nut the stand be made now ? But a declaratory Act would only weaken the privileges of Parliament, for at present they rested upon prescription, and if they explained them by statute a court of law would have power to decide upon Ahern, because it was the right of a court of law to construe Acts of Parliament. He warned them not to tike any step founded on the prospect of future legislation. He lamented the course which that House wastaking, for if they proceeded with it, that would be the last Parliament which would occupy its proper station in the country. He lamented that the Right Hon. Baronet had taken the course which he had pursued ; but, above all, he la, mented that the name of Russell should be cramected with it, He implored the House to consider the course they were taking, and he trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet would review the whole matter, and not persevere in a course so detrimental to the public, and so derogatory to the dignity and character of Parliament.—( The Hon. and Learned Gentleman sat down amidst loud cheers.) Sir R. PEEL said that in the course of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's speech he had given the House a solemn exhortation that they should not adopt any step of their own inherent authority for the vindication of their own privileges, unless they first carefully considered all the bearings of this case. He (Sir R. Peel) agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, because he thought it of the utmost importance if that House did take a step of its own authority, and to vindi cate its own privileges, that every other course should be taken before they called on the House to vindicate its privileges by its own authority. He looked to the constitution of that House, and he saw a popular assembly divided on that question. Men of high authority were disposed to support the authority of the courts of law, and he saw the probability that a proposal to act upon their own authority would be met with great opposition. He looked back to the course which the House had actually pursued, and he saw the Noble Lord who had been responsible for the conduct of affairs prepared to vindicate the privileges of the House in which he (Sir Robert Peel) assisted the Noble Lord. He had seen the committal of the sheriffs, and had witnessed the sympathy that was evinced upon their release, and all this confirmed him in the conclusion that it was most important that their resolution to support their own privileges should be almost an unanimous one. He believed that there was yet one other course which they might pursue, without abandoning their privileges. It had been perfectly open to them, within the last three weeks, to come to the resolution of vindicating their privileges upon their own authority. They had held the doctrine that they should defend the Sergeant at-Arms, because they wished the Court of Queen's Bench to be made acquainted with the fact of the privileges of that House having been violated. He was surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should have been one who voted for the adjournment of that debate until a day after the day upon which the Sergeant -at-Arms would be called upon to pay the amount of the verdict against him. Was it not then competent to the House to have stated that to dispute their authority was a breach of their privileges? Was it not then competent to have passed a vote refusing to pay damages? Whereas, as he ( Sir R. Peel) had warned them, if they adjourned, the jury would have time to find a verdict, and the House be obliged to pay. If, however, they had, as he advised, without delay, passed the resolution, it would have been conveyed to the judges, and they would have known that the bare entertaining the question, much more the reception of the verdict, would make them guilty of a breach of privi lege.—( Hear, hear.) But wh a t h a d b een t h e result ? The House refused to accept his warning. Among those who re sisted it was his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite (Sir T. Wilde). The jury returned their verdict, it was received, and the money had since been paid. Let them not, however, for that act commit their officer for breach of privilege. Let them be consistent, and commit the Treasury, who had paid the damages.—(Laughter.) That would he far more just than to visit with punishment their subordinate instrument ; or to push the question to its legitimate extent, would the Learned Gentleman opposite advise the committal of the judges who infringed the privileges of Parliament ? The Honourable Member had referred to the resolutions of 1837, moved by the Attorney-General of the day, Lord Campbell, than whom a more determined supporter of their privileges could not be found, and the Noble Lord (J. Russell) had ex pressed opinions in which he heartily concurred. Influenced by the same mo ives, he could never advise the House to enter upon a course of such a decided nature as recommended by many, until he saw unanimity, or, at least, a vast majority in the House seconding the step. It had been said that that House ought to influence public opinion, but if a powerful minority opposing backed the feeling but too palpable in the country, the experiment would be most dangerous. It would not do, by a majority of eight or ten, for the Govern ment to undertake the summary vindication of the privileges of Parliament, and the House and country together must unani mously come to a determination cordially to support the course. There must be no levees attending sheriffs, no sympathy with the infringers of their privileges—there must be a feeling, both in and out of the House, in favour of the rights of the Common' of England,—(He ar , h ear .) I t Ind been recommended that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench should be left unquestioned, but the reason assigned for that course was - the-very strongest - argument not to leave - it in that unsatisfactory state. The Learned Member ( Sir T. Wilde) said that Mr. Justice Wightman had delivered one opinion which Judge Coleridge had destroyed, and that Lord Denman had, in his time, destroyed that of Judge Coleridge. Could a more powerful reason be given for appealing t.o a final tribunal, or for anticipating the reversal of such conflicting opinions ? And, surely, by asking if the Court below were right in entertaining the question of validity, if the warrant was no re cognition of the judge's authority, where was the greater con cession in putting the question than in allowing the discussion of their plea? He agreed with the Noble Lord the Member for London, as well as with the concurrent sentiments of the Learned Member (Sir T. Wilde), who had last addressed the House, that as to upholding and vindicating their privileges, it was essential to the proper administration of Parliament. He would contend that the House of Commons, even without a warrant, was competent to arrest any individual and bring him before the bar of the House. He thought it was a power necessarily inherent in them, and to question that power was to doubt the privileges, without which their power of rendering service to their country would be altogether destroyed. The judges on all former occasions had distinctly declared that this power existed. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was very different from the opinions of judges expressed years ago. His Hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge had said that no court of law for the last 150 years had questioned the right of the House of Commons to commit for contempt. He (Sir R. Peel) was not sufficiently satisfied with that conces sion. It did not extend far enough. He thought to limit the right of the House to commit only for contempt was not sufficient. He contended that the House had power to commit in all cases and under every pos , ible circumstance. It had been said that if the House of Commons had this universal power to commit it would destroy Magna Charts, and would be con trary to the law of the land. That declaration, however, had been set aside by judicial authorities. In the case of the " King v. Paley," the judges had laid down doctrines which were per fectly consistent with the opinions he had expressed. He was not endeavouring to set the authority of the House against the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench, but only to question their authority as regarded their interference with the warrants issued by the House. In the case to which he had alluded Justice Gould had said, if the commitment hod been made by any inferior court it would be competent for the Court of Queen's Bench to set it aside, but as the commitment had been issued by the Commons, which was not amenable to any law, it could not be interfered with. Was there ever a more ex press declaration that the House of Commons was above the law? Justice Powell had said that no 'man ought to be taken into custody but by the law of the land. But lex terra was not confined to the common law, but, in effect, did not include the lox Parliantenta. The House - of Commons have committed parties not under the common but by Parliamentary law, and the application to the Court was dismissid, on the ground that it was not competent for it to in terfere in matters over which they had no jurisdiction. He would now refer to the opinion of a more eminent judge than he had yet quoted. He alluded to the late eminent Lord Tenter den, who was one of the most learned judges that ever presided in the Court of Queen's Bench. In the case of " Burdett v. Abbott," which went by writ of error from that Court to the House of Lords, Lord Tenterden ruled that it was competent to this House to commit for breach of their privileges. It would appear, at first sight, that Lord Tenderden meant to apply . the power of Parliament to convict only so far as its privileges were concerned. There were many cases in which that Court had refused to interfere with the commitments pro moted by the House. In the case of the " King v. Patio" it had been distinctly laid down that the Court of Westminster Hall could not judge of the legality of the decisions of the House of Commons in cases of committals for contempt. Lord Tenterden had fur ther distinctly laid down this broad principle, that the courts of law could not judge of the privileges of the Parliament, and also that they could not discharge from eostempt a person committed by that tribunal. Mr. Justicv-Blackstone had stated that the little forms of execution or precision in the modeof execution was required in carrying out the intentions of the House of Commons. It was the duty of all parties- to attend to the instructions of the House without any such pro visions to which he had referred. Lookirig at the decision of the courts, it was clear, both according to the law and reason of things, that the privileges of the House should be maintained. Then privileges were net given them that they should possess any particular advantages to them selves, but rather to protect the public interests. The step proposed to be taken by his Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir F. Thessiger) he thought was the best course to adopt at present. They then could take the case into a court of error, and by that means acquire the opinion of the highest judicial authority.—( Loud cheers.) ShoMd that be opposed to them, they could then give their best con sideration as to the steps most prudent to be taken. In the present stage, however, he woulld advise nothing further than an appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench to a court of error. Speaking of the judgment of Mr. Justice Wightman, he did not' mean that it should be tried on any technical grounds, but that the whole scope and reasons of the judg ment should be tested fairly before the. highest tribunal. To leave the question without notice, as ad vised by an Hon. Member in the course of the debate, would be a dangerous policy, to which he could not assent. He relied, on the grounds he had stated, that the judgment should command the revision of the highest legal authorities in the realm— ( Hear, hear)—so as to satisfy the House and the public that nothing had. been left undone, but that every course had been tried before considering any ulterior mea mre.—(Hear, hear. 1 He would not at present anticipate the course he would advise the House to pursue, in case the decision of the judges was confirmed. He considered he was not making concession in doing so.—(Cheers.) , With respect to what had already been done in this case, he did not see that the present Parliament was more faulty than its predecessors. In the case of " Burdett v. Abbott" the House had advised to plead. In 1837, in another case which ',then transpired, the House consented also to plead. That was in a previous Parlia ment to the present, and he believed the then Attarney- General tendered that advice to the House. The same occurred in 1840, in the case of Howe. -d v. Gossett," that one result of which now occupied the House. Lord Campbel , , then Mr. Campbell, advised the House to plead in 1840, and on him the responsibility of the present proceedings rested. The course then advised he ( Sir R. Peel) had doubts of, and he still thought the course taken had not be, n a correct one. With regard to the proceedings of the House, no man felt more strongly than he did that they were in agreement with the law and the constitution of the country ; but, at the.same time, be must say the instru ments by which tho=e, privileges were attempted to be enforced were very defective.—( Cheers.) If they once began to commit parties they must make up their minds to have an abundant su;ply. Under all the circumstances his feelings were, that there was no other way to vindicate the House, and command the support and respect of the country, but by the line of proceeding he had recommended.—( Hear, hear.) Their powers were very weak. There was nothing to prevent actions being proceeded with during the recess, their power in that case was most limited and impracticable. They committed the sheriffs, but they did not prevent the payment of the damages.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") So it would probab'y be again. If they committed more officers others would be found ready to levy the damages, arid unless the pub- . lie mind be convinced that there was no alterna tive, but, as a last resource, they had asserted their privilege by imprisonment, there would be no use in their doing so. The House had no resource but imprison ment. They had no power of fining, and they had on.y im prisoned subordinates. It was impossible to deny that public sympathy was in favour of these men— ( Hear, hear)—and it would be so again under similar circumstances. It was better, he thought, to adopt even this last resource than to relinquish its privileges ; but he ad vised them to defer doing so until they had ex hausted every other remedy. With all due respect to the Court of Queen's Bench, he must say that he thought their decision was inconsistent with reason, as it had been in consistent with the previous decisions of the same court on former occasions. He repeated he was prepared to exhaust any other measure to which , they could resort, without any compromise- of the authority or dignity of die House, before he appealed to those last and extreme measures which might be necessary for the vindication of their privileges, bat a necessity which might be averted by giving time for the further consideration of this important question. —( Cheers. ) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion B2 Against it Majurity for the motion The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. PARLIAMEZv TAIL Y DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the house of Commons.) THURSDAY, JUNE 26. PR IN TE I) PAPERS. Second Report of Committee further considered: Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a Writ of Error be brought upon the Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, pronounced in the case of Howard v. Gossett":—Ainemlinent proposed, to leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " it is inexpedient to entrust the maintenance of the Privilege of this House to any other authority than that of this House itself," instead thereon—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The house divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 78. Acland, Sir T. Escott, Bickham Masterman, John Adderley, C. 13. Varnharn, L. B. Midway, 11. St. John Astell, William Fuller, A. E. Mitchell, T. A. Baillie, 11. J. Gardner,J. D. ' Newry, Viscount Baring, F. T. Gladstone, Captain Packe, C. W. Baring, W. B. Gordon, Captain Palmer, George Barnard, E. G. - Goulbunt, 11. Palmerston, Viscount Barneby, John Graham, Sir J. Patten, J. W. Bernal, Ralph Grey. Sir George Peel, Sir R. Bodkin, W. IL Hamilton, W. J. Pringle. Alexander Brownrigg, J. S. Henley, J. W. Basilic gh, W. Bruce, Lord E. Herbert, Sidney Rice, E. It. Banbury, Thomas Hope, Charles Russell, Lord J. Clerk, Sir G. Hope, G. W. Smith, T. B. c. (live, Viscount Howard, C. W. Somerset, Lord Z. Connolly, Colonel Ingestre, Viscount Spooner, Iliemal Cartels, H. B. 1::glis, Sir 1L li. Thesiger, Sir F. Darner, Colonel James, Sir W. C. Trench, Sir F. W. Darby, George Jerrnyn, Eqrl Vernon, G. 11. Dickinson, F. 11. Kelly, Fitzroy Walsh, Sir J. B. Douglas, Sir H. Lawson, Andrew Wonky, James S. Douglas, Sir C. Lct'roy, Anthony Wo;:tlcy, John S. Duncombe, A. Liddell, H. T. WriA•litsom W. B. Dundas, David Lincoln, Earl Wynn, C. W. W. East, James B. Lygon, General TELLERS. Egerton, W. T. Mackinnon, W. J. Cardwell, Edward Ellice, 111.11 on. E. Mahon, Viscount Baring, Henry MINORITY—NOES, 46. Acton, Colonel Gibson, T. M. Phuluidge, Captain Aldam, William Granger, T. C. Rawdon, Colonel Archbold, Robert Grogan, Edward Roebuck, J. A, Bailie, Walter Heathcoat, John Stansfield, W. it. C. Bowes, John Hill, Lord M. Strutt, Edward Broadwood, 11. Mangles, P. D. Trelawny, J. S. Brotherton, Joseph Marjorlbanks, S. Villi3rs, Charles Brciwne, W. Marshall, William Wakley, Thomas 13urr,I1, Sir C. Marsland, Henry Warburton, H. 13usFeild, William 31thies, R. M. Wawn, J. T. Clements, Viscount Morris, David Wilde, Sir T. Colebrooke, Sir T. Murphy, F. S. Williams, T. I'. Craig, W.,G. Murray, Alcxan(cr Dennistoun, John Neeld, Joseph; Duncan, George O'Brien, A. S. Easthope, Sir J. o,dc, S. C. Forman, T. S. Pattison, James TELLERS. Hume, Joseph Taucred, H. W. THE NELSON LETTERS.—The third' volume of " The Dispatches and Letters " of the heroic Nelson, eilited by Sir Harris Nicolas, far exceeds its predecessors in the in teresting nature of its contents. There is a passage in the life of this great man which has hitherto been regarded as extremely injurious to his reputation. We allude to the execution of Caraccioli. The present volume of this national work brings before the reader unquestionable evidence that in this un happy aff sir the character of Nelson is free from reproach. A vast mass of invaluable correspondence and other important documents, illustrative of all his proceedings on the coast of Sicily, creates the conviction that no blame can attach to the British Admiral, and such materials enable the editor to vindi cate the character of his hero from the aspersions which igno rance and prejudice have cast upon it. As the period passed over in this volume includes the Battle of the Nile, the capitu lation of the Castles of Elovo and Nuevo, and the expulsion of the French from the do.ninions of the King of the two Sicilies, with an account of all the rewards and dignities Nelson re. zeived from his own and other Governments, some idea may he formed of its historical value and interest. The Right Rev. Dr. Walsh had an interview with Lord Stanley yesterday, at the Colonial-office. PA ItLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. THURSDAY, JUNE 26. The following Bills were read a third time, and passed Cork and Bandon Railway. 1 Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan , and Liserpo° Railway, and Bury Extension). West London Railway The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were agr eed to:— Hull and Selby Railway (Bridlington Branch). Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Brancl3). Kendal and Windermere Railway. Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway. Midland Railways (Nottingham to Lincoln). Midland Railways (Syston to Peterborough). Ely and Huntingdon Railway. Lynn and Ely Railway. d Manchester and Leeds Railway (Burnley Bran ch an ham and Heywood Branches Extensi3n). Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway. Standing Orders Committee,—Resolutions reported 1. " That, in the case of the Edinburgh and Sort bell Railway (No. 2) Bill, amendment on report, the amenchuq.. is of such a nature as not to be adopted by the House wittl out the re commLment of the Bill." POI II t -2. " That, in the case of the Armagh, Coleraine , and rush Railway petition, for leave to present a petition fu r Bill, the Fe,sional Order ought not to be dispensed with. . .3. " That, in the case of the, St. Helen Bill, clause and amendments on third reading, the said clau s. d by and amendments are of such a nature as may be adopte the lions, if they shall think ht. ' 0 1. " That, in the case of the Giosson Gas Bill, clauses 's Improvemen, third reading, the clauses A., 8., C., ai;cl D., may be adopt 4 by the House if they shall think fit, but that clause E. ought not to be ado iced by the House at that stag e." pro?. 5. " That, T in the case of the Runcorn and Preston Rway and Doks Bill, lause on report, the said claues_ of ail such a nature as not to c be adopted by the House with°t al, re-commitment of the Bill." Repi,rt to lie OR the table. NO LICES GIVEN AT THE ..----_ Scittio , 17: , , - —... ....challd JiLiction I' . 1 • - Third reading, 51°n" .tit lira) ,-- daY, Julie 30. (''''cl- t' eadimict PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. ~ .t., aiou a and WoriiiDgtori Railway, r Moil Jay, Julie 30. [ADVEItTISEMEN T. ] LONDON AND 31,17.4WIIESTEg DIRE.2T INI)E1'1-,,NDE`.._:T RAILWAY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE. ~_4 Sir,—The attention of the promoters of this line vras eall' t . o an advertisement in the Morning Chronicle two or days agn, accusing them of publishing the names there under written against their wishes and authority. write t he It was thought at first scarcely worth while to wri the answer, under the circumstances, but siraelf, t° with e djlw i 3 l e names, and not waste the resources of the "'r an ' In ales controversy. . ks, however, afterthe withdrawal of the na pat r , o e ns , from the list of those who are, or pretended to be, the of Mr. Remington's line, the advertisement has been rera„dedr Ore it becomes a duty to the friends of the line to show what circumstances the names came on the list. klie nonce, to Mr. Remington's line being brought under Puo" - "i etn en in the autumn of last year a great nurnber of gent direct i were waited upon with a declaration in favour ef a d dara ne of railway to .Manchester ; d th e '- in an ns tion was • of persaond thit signed by a great number London M . , anchester, and various parts of England, re the u Prior document is now in existence. At the time of signatud d 0 projected line was explained to them, and many a tte ' e t b a d the then Committee-room and investigated the surveys tha to Mr. R . been made to Leicester . well-wishers wasp üblisnea ~.. .. t b Mr. columns of the London - line, ; ver , "" d and in Several local Pa. emAinfeteernw,asrdsthat list, Remington's name as engineer, and setting out the 1 _ and lie hi detail, without enial, comment, or contradietea !thi, th L u n did not occur to they romoters of the line no, v t o rable a few months the same persons who had expressed a fa ' selves, opinion, and recorded it, would have thought fi` as .atr,:oni_secttbe the thee . 3 _ ~ had or have been induced by others, to deny the authoritY tn"/ but d h eliberately given. The scheme was not then give? „ u I P I A the y a resolution of the Committee merely.suspendeot %went names of the gentlemen, including those in the advert" - tinued as (some of whom were on the Committee ), we therewas their patrons to the same undertaking, for which own is this authority,an answer or not? - comm ittee - Further—if these gentlemenbut • names, not t! , had sent to the Core room, and re nes' d q te the withdrawal of their i ted ti re ' it y r 's uld mittee-men, but as mere patrons of the proJec „ t i 0 h i s co- ~..,.e have been cheerfully and readily done, and „t" o ld cot P.' have been the honest and manly one ; but it vi rtit•enae ot served the purposes of the t - who caused the 3Ve ealth and to be inserted. We know there r ' till enough. of w 0 ro. is 9 _ 032 . the p respectability left to ensure an honest under ' 4 bationof the ' A word to the Lond.,n and Man-hester Direct t he ad- Many gentlemen whose name ' are published tu o be ivertised list, have said, if their s own words are i t w i t hout i h eved, • that their names have been adverti,eu ~„ waS oa for the support of Mr obtainedteir conser.t, many supposing that their authc.).ral? a nd „d c'thet s ' iers without any authority whatever. We, a 1 other' had were a I , waie t..at every stratagem, per PS alit 7:-.' 4 0 1 % 5 for been used in London and Manchester, to o btain us itt• some project yet to be explained, and that circumsturt?esits.. dated Alessrs. Wilson and Cobbett, the solicitors ot 311' t ; „ 0. mington's line, at Manchester, to advertise Renaington's 1: u As a sample, out of many, one specimen inaY sut l° ' t oolv name of the honourable writer is omitted, as we have not , bat time to apply for hissanction to the public use of his nallte,reiat a we may remark that, in his public. a , w ell 8.5 his "rna3ciPe° and manufacturing capacity, he is 'DUO of the most eta a public ca t7h, "London, June 20,115 t of "My dear Sir—lt was never contemplated by m` Art i c ular name would be advertised in connexon with an y P r; scheme for a railway between London and Alancheste tot s o & m signature was given merely to ex rtes opart h o se more e' line th:in now exists was wanted, and ~bea bi idea that the of signatures would have been puha, Mr. Ashurst in connexion with any particular project. " I remain, yours faithfully. " To R. H. Wilson, Esq., Manchester."Lofid°,lll One word more. When the adve.tisement of the seti and Manchester Direct Railway appeared, Ales:rrs. Li fro Roger, of Bedford, called at the office, of Messrs. Sum% the Co., in Chancery- lane, and ihquired of soine PO': 0 ° office why Mr. Remington's line was to he o ppose tb e answer was, that Mr. Remington's line had been 0 """ i 5 co°' London and Birmingham Railway. As some of the part:, 0 1.1 netted With the London and Manchester Direct Bar ,010 1 connected with Mr. Remington's line last year ; 60 ,107 months, and in spite of all remonstrance, all e ntre e p rer e o every appeal, refused to bring it out in time for, t n, b uch 3 oe session of Parliament, so that it was delayed t" e t Was o° ¢ answer from such a quarter may be signisc,ant of sch2,olt be then ; and of the course to be followed now. 130 the r—fere I it may, Mr. Remington's line shall be brought _ b i e t , sod public honestly , and with all the power we can givf. o port• is for them to judge whether or not it be worthy 0 " , We are, Sir, your obedient servants, ~,g/NSOL‘' STEPHEN & Hu JOHN OWENS. Commitiee Room, 29, Moorgate-street , June 26, 1845. men of the preseui'da;:— ---,......•••••••• ......‘',...- -!-", 0 N EE. SPORT ING iNTEuLi a TATTERSALL'S—YEsTsavAI r • 0000wcoOD STAKES' i OI 6 15 to 1 agst Mr. Ramsbottoin's PineapPle ' 1 ta loa 17 to 1 agat Mr. A. W. Hill's Libel -40 to large amount. 20 to 1 agat Mr. Wesley's Nottingham had 3-l ist. 20 to 1 agst Lord Stradbroke's Barding-se- 20 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen Mab , d aun t 20 to 1 agst Lord 6. Bentinck's John 0 20 to-1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning 25 .. to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Vates 25 to 1 agst Mr. Jonson's Milden .., 1 1 ( 0 ) t t o o 1 1 o agst gst L Libel iuol and ana Alilto Lightning—tdilo- tak en ken • 3to 1 agst Mr. .i s ugh elf -- 0 fr e a I G r O v o i r FOaD CU .: 1 _.—tab .e gO 6 Billeg 1 , ror a 5 to 1 agat Mr. Hill's Ironraaster--backea .. sum at 6 and 7 to 1. ST. LEGER. 411011 600 to 100 agst Mr. Gully's Weatherbit---, I() to 1 agst Mr. St. Paul's Mentor ei l eg 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Old England , no verni t 20 to 1 agst Mr. Watis's The B3rOn--take ta l‘ca Th 2 e o a t t o ten l d a a g n s e t ew Mr. a slar:voi:,'saCc:iit:ae ü b g e h t t t in l: 3l3 g er a -- 25 to 1 agst Colonel Anson's Nedger--oke ke n 1 , 40 to 1 agst Mr. Mangle's Comical Boy tolerably--t 3 brisk I yo BIBURY CLUB) RACES.--Tfrni,,,sl. for , 3 a ed The Cup Stakes of 10 sus. each, with 100 an" e r ' s an d "" r e old 9st 71b, 4 yrs lOst 121 b, 5 yrs Ilst tilh, 6 Y boi. , or b ) 31 llst 101 b ; 3 yrs old, that never won abl Ef s 11b , „ A ol., ceived 1001. for running second, allowed 41b, yrs for 1,-- 121 b, 6 yrs and aged 181 b. The winner to be l ''' • 1 s ton e) &c. (11 Subs.) A A stn 2 Ll)rd G. Bentinck's John o' Gaunt, aged (Ln r ; ' 3 y rs ,- "' 3 Sir S. Spry's fby Sir Hercule% out of Tagh° n " ... •"'• 4 The t A o n l do o v n er Mr. Wormald's Millepede, aged .................... •'',..ree Stakes John o' Mr. Clifton's Pedlar, aged aged ........ ••*" ....... e'r, by ' ile• lengths. ell' l ' as°' , (20 Subs.) gr. 133 Y 1eY . 1 . Giantess, 3 yrs, 9st 121 b ••• ( ........ 3 Lord Mlidstone's Arcanus, 6 yrs, I lit 51b • .•••" .. .. ..: .. "; 0 1. Mr. Rolt's Hamp'on, 6 yrs, lOst 51b ............ .',, ;11 - r° c r9r o G f a s u s n o t :s wh each, o. .......... . 5 inO s ad e d - - t' The following also started :—Lord G. lientine'aerer, b /jlr. my- Hat, 4 yrs, lIA 31b—N1r. 13nyd's Co; 1 00 121,br o il'i 104 121b—Mr. Clifton's Robin flood, yrs:,.. l gr. ri e 9l‘• Pearce's Th.. Scavenger, 5 yrs, 10st 911)-- 11 ' • ~ ,st of me, Venat, ix, 5 yrs, lOst—Mr. J. Day's g, by' ' la ' P t P o ' f 3141 4 Y rg ' 4 yrs, 9st I2ib—Col. Peel's fby lane, ou t Forest Deer, 4 t 13 1 e 1 " a i f g .' 3 yrs, 9,t 1215—and Mr. W. Sadler 's New fist, lOst 101 b. II °un d " ll3l. Bening— A 2 r t e , a ) i l m a s g , agst Giantess, 3 ag t , o t I age A ... 4 Giantess won easy b h f a leng th : f a 51 111° ' rfli ( ? 's The S' ,, , -urry Plate ©( 501. Three quarte.rf.. Boy! otter Mr. King's Adele colt, 3 yrs lOst 12th, and ` eye ral 1 ` Conqueror, 6 yrs, 1 Ist, ran ' a dead bent. `oootlo Plate t ree parts o our ne so .r, started. The race was not finished when STOCKBRIDGE RACES--1'14e,66 subs-) 05e( wa lked mr. wr T e h o e Produce Stakes of 501. each. (.:. f d' Witticism ................ i ."'",,,litur g c . BEATING TEE MAIL —An lowa ----,, in ac ial c oe. Conqueror. ledges the receipt of congressional documents . an an ° I the mail," in consequence of a flock of wolves bear chasing the post-rider across the praries• :11 0°r ,:f 2 0a the*)` 2 3 3, l d. t )311?2:118. Wfeld' 6StifirreP tttblibe: ia . ( o ly n o t f h t e he Rev. W. B. Otter, of s aes , On the s lit the 1 , icarage, daougnhttietre. . Ins,., at Bygrove Cottage, 1-ert°ll' lady S.2l.4tahUrienlsletee:iEnsxq.,nrotfnallaaueeg,hoteurtn. ber w art:e t, , lanu wife of Char! P Charles o_rnore, Esq., of a daughter' clibsopy On the 24th inst., at Greenhitbe, 31rs. fienrY Edward r• gellisb,ol Dresden, of a soil. On tli,! 35th inst., • Chester firs. —• . square, • a daughter. 24th inst., in Woburn-place, Russell -square, 1111. „ e go - . , es t Oa the 24th inst., at Torquay, Devonshire, tq,ool?b_k. N. 13urrows, of Great Yarmouth, Norfollc,tookano „ de r daughter of the late J. Broadley, Esq., of S uth 1l la' DIED. 'cic , On the 24th inst., at 3lalling, Kent, Frleldreersiteiltirrz.scf.oso On the 24th inst., at Maryland Point, Mary Ann Rumball, widow of the late T. nonba J. 501L,..90,• f6(l* On the 25th inst., at .New-grovo, Dfile-end' 10 01 YOT- 11 '' l of l L wion P r inted and Pubished b y BITIRDOffi 112, Strane, Pr , .. - iter, At The Sus oat , ' lri Strand. in the Precinct of the SaveYl Bltdclieses, Friday, Juno 27, 1345. of the teqtili t ransi ton-m the of Asl hest q the L 'svishe Of Lin the ea " honor Fror. Loco' Shire, forth the D ( , shire l east b • Lead 1 Or It is 1 janlel land C , ZIOWN ,It will C l / 4 8 (t 1 Wales, circuit( by Der On tl ' Dosed ,With th 4elthea The • treat. The i tarda is comp l ad fro] blrley :lac ant 'awns Iteari; • ~r a w Ina ra or 1 . 1 a gre Orieal wee j, ti es and In the A 0 or Or the The Lei( Tho Bw Jo int So fate-strE 'Mock( APPHc "lawn, I'ventripa E es ~v tb:HY in 2stb. ~R] k oi ?d i z n t .i en s . , 44 ) Lud It it 7 thf kr a Devon'., L /k7 rt o ttk, L• (1 4t rd d, *1111 :11 ° 1 th '4 4 4 l ßha goiletZl 14 kIti , r2i ~N'ottce dk , te 4 ,4refe r i hew der to tw ti es 4 03 :erthi t 14:th es rs WI ..„ q RI A V T T A NI A Ii T A A SI A J. Jot Ttu t-- ;~. t;, ~,.;.